How does your reaction differ from nuclear decay?
There seems to be some confusion in precisely what you are looking for. If the isotope in question does not decay naturally, the wait can be very long :-) For instance, many common foods contain potassium, which is slightly radioactive - so you can measure the decay rate in say - bananas - with a good GM detector. The rate of decay can be increased in some cases. There are reports of a billion fold increase in some isotopes. (see Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b- decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 1996 or the Barker patents. Curiously - potassium is also a catalyst for the Ni-H reaction, but the radioactive isotope is not to blame. or is it? To add to the confusion, some "experts" believe that the proton decays, eventually - which essentially means everything decays. From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe I'm not after a theory that is true or not but a fact. E.g. a receipt like Arrange atoms A1,A2,... acorfing to .... >From known principles a good approximation of the system is H(...) Then when we calculate the probabilities of nuclear reaction we get P(system) >> P(single atom) So, I'm after a mathematical proof or indication from first principles, that you can induce a nuclear reaction this way. A meta theory would then be that LENR might take advantage of this mathematical principle, and a theory would mean more specific how this can happen! Hope that it's a bit clearer now. /Stefan On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: I cannot judge whether any of the theory is "substantial proof." I can say there is no theory that is generally accepted by most theoreticians in the field. No one outside the field knows anything about the theories. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There is copious experimental proof that it is a nuclear effect, especially the heat produced per gram of material, and the tritium. It is yet to be explained theoretically, to the satisfaction of most people. Generally speaking, in science a theory is not "proof" of anything. Theories explain that which experiments prove.
