My response posted at the Forbes site: With the palladium deuterium system there is good evidence that cold fusion is, in fact, fusion. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does.
No one has looked for nuclear products in the nickel systems yet. (This is a very expensive and difficult experiment.) There is no doubt that cold fusion is a nuclear effect. In addition to helium, it produces tritium, neutrons and x-rays. A chemical effect is ruled out because: there is no chemical fuel in the cell; no chemical changes are observed; and with many cells, a device weighing a few grams has produced as much energy as thousands of grams of the most potent chemical fuel. Researchers at Amoco concluded: “The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. . . .” http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf I disagree with David Goodstein. Most researchers in this field have been mainstream academic scientists. Many of them have been distinguished leaders such as the late P. K. Iyengar, chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, and Martin Fleischmann, Fellow of the Royal Society. The leading opponents, such as Robert Park, are not experts in relevant fields such as nuclear energy, electrochemistry or calorimetry. - Jed
