Replies

Can't be that. It's NOT a chemical reaction. The energy output is too high, and new ions aren't produced. New elements are produced. It's proton exchange. Unless a LOT of people are willing to lose their credibility from lying, it's fusion. They all know what happened to Pons and Fleishmann. It ruined them. The simplified reaction is Ni58 + p → Cu59

Reading through that mess, I saw no mention of the identities of any of the chemicals involved. The closest it came was to mention some kind of "mud" that apparently is prone to very exothermic reactions if exposed to air. As I see it, that highly reactive "mud" is sufficient to account for any rise in temperature occurring during that experiment. The energy output of chemical reactions can be incredibly high... explosives are a good example. I know that the "mud" cannot be nickel; to my knowledge, nickel does not react strongly upon contact with air.

The reaction ⁵⁸Ni + p → ⁵⁹Cu is a little unlikely; the Coulomb forces required to shove that proton into the nucleus are so high that, as I saw one physicist explain it, that much energy does not exist in the entire universe. If you want to transmute nickel to copper, I think the approach would be to shove a neutron into the nucleus, and wait for a beta decay. It would be quite a wait; the half-life of ⁵⁹Ni is 75,000 years, and the decay product (from a positive beta emission) is ⁵⁹Co, not copper.

Reading through that mess, I saw no mention of the identities of any of the chemicals involved. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ No offense intended, but you obviously haven't investigated this "new science" since you don't even know that very basic aspect. All the cold fusion/LENR/E-Cat systems are starting with powdered Nickel and Hydrogen and reporting some transmutation into Copper. Until you know more about it, you might want to consider refraining from saying what it is or is not. You obviously know a good bit about physics, so I think you'll find it worthwhile. ;)) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The reaction 58Ni + p → 59Cu is a little unlikely; the Coulomb forces required to shove that proton into the nucleus are so high that, as I saw one physicist explain it, that much energy does not exist in the entire universe. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Of course it violates the *known* properties of the Coulomb barrier. There are some other explanations as well, such as "widom-larsen." . Since no one knows yet, I can't tell you which it is, but as far as your physicist's "energy in the known universe" comment, someone should tell that to all the hot fusion scientists out there, because they could save a lot of money by NOT building billion dollar tokamaks. lol . . . . It happens in every star, so it clearly can happen. The question is, "at what minimum energy level." I'll say it's something like the discovery of super-conducting, it takes time to figure out what's happening, and then more time to put it to use. Pons/Fleishmann got the ball rolling. . Here's a few sites to look at if you want to learn more. This first link will take you to a video with Professor Brian Josephson , Nobel Prize winning and professor of physics at Cambridge University. That should get anybody's curiosity up. Imo, this is the real deal and will turn out to be as important as the use and development of fire, oil, or fission. . . . http://coldfusion3.com/blog/cold-fusion-and-universities-the-time-has-come/ . . . . This site has pretty good reporting on all things cold fusion. . . . http://www.e-catworld.com/ this guy has a grudge with Rossi, but some good stuff. . . . http://blog.newenergytimes.com/ . . . . And here's a link about a meeting at CERN. http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/cern-planning-lenr- colloquium-and-webcast/ All the best.