At the end of last year, a few observers were amazed to see Lewis Larsen turn even crankier than ever with transmutation claims. Or else, to his supporters - more prescient than ever.
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-lenr-transmutation -as-source-of-key-scarce-elements-dec-13-2013 Yet today, there seems to be more reason to suspect that something could be going-on with low energy transmutation in some types of LENR - which goes all the way back to 1989 ... but no, it is not back to Pons & Fleishmann - instead back to David Hudson. Hudson filed a patent that year 1989 - for Orbital Rearranged Monatomic Elements, including nickel as one of them and palladium as another. He did not mention LENR as a possible application for ORME and AFAIK - even Larsen has not gone that far, since he is suggesting an effect and not the cause. Later in the nineties, while LENR was being taken somewhat seriously, at first, Hudson's work degenerated into magic elixirs, gold scams and new age mumbo-jumbo. Too bad, since the two discoveries could be joined at the hip and help to explain each other. It seems now, with the benefit of hindsight, that Hudson knew almost nothing scientifically about what he was seeing and ORME can now be identified as a special kind of exciton. Hudson was more rancher than physicist, and it shows. Then this appeared on Rossi's site two years ago: Q: The catalyst that you guard so well - is it a catalyst in the chemical sense? That is - changes in rate of a chemical reaction due to the participation of a substance called a catalyst. A: No, we call it a catalyst, but it is not a chemical catalyst. AR. Rossi's answer made little sense at the time, but more in the context of recent events, to the extent that orbital rearrangement, high spin, energy gain and occasional transmutation are found in the same experiment - and the possibility that high spin states are both cause and effect. Are high spin states a "catalyst for nuclear transmutation" ? ORME have never been documented as monatomic, despite the name. They are below "nano" geometrically, in the sense that we are looking at perhaps 1-15 atoms (an FCC crystal). A unique resonance that puts these few atoms into a high spin state and keeps them from agglomerating. They seem most likely to be identical to metallic excitons, but they were discovered before semiconductor excitons. In the past, Hudson seemed to be too far out on the far fringe to actually study as a science, but maybe some of the pieces to the LENR puzzle do relate. The case for Kervran's biological transmutation is much stronger than Hudson's - but if one of them is true then both are likely to be true. If there were to be a rock-solid result that comes up anytime soon, say - showing the disappearance of oxygen from an LENR experiment, or even a water-splitting experiment - it would make sense to look for the appearance of sulfur as the effect, and Hudson-excitons as the cause. (Hudson-excitons are ORMEs, but were probably never monatomic, so that description was an error from the start). Did anyone really ingest the "magic elixir" version? ... LOL, the predecessor to NZT-48
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
