Can't and won't. I read widely and don't keep track of what particular facts I saw where. I read for my own benefit and edification, not to track URL's to win (or even further) arguments. In general, what I recall is that some groups are claiming to have detected spikes of neutrons during earthquakes. I believe the term "piezonuclear" is associated with the work. Which, of course, the physicists who put theory ahead of experiment say cannot possibly happen. There is a separate hypothesis that isotopic abundances for elements in the earth's interior don't precisely match those in solar space, and the researcher is saying that cold fusion might explain those isotopic differences.
"Only peer-reviewed references in established reputable physics journals, please."
Since, as I recall, this work was in geology, it is quite unlikely to be posted in an "established physics journal". There are other fields of science besides physics that are just as legit. And less hobbled by the erroneous notion that "if theory forbids it, it cannot exist".
"I won't consider "papers" posted on an online "physics journal" that was created for the purpose of publishing stuff that couldn't possibly be published in a real scientific journal."
Frankly, Scarlett, I could give a flying damn what you will or won't "accept". But I guess that is what keeps you from reading Beaudette's book and following up on the papers referenced therein.
Yep, I figured as much. The thing about legitimate science is that I don't have to have a list of esoteric websites to "prove" my point. Real scientific evidence is documented so widely and repetitively that a simple Google search will return any number of hits. My problem is never in digging up corroborating references; it's in choosing a reference which is accurate yet explains the material in language that a layperson can understand. If you can't find a single legitimate reference from a reputable source to support the claims of cold fusion (LENR, or whatever you want to call it), that's pretty telling.
You can't hide your inability to provide any references to naturally occurring cold fusion with vague remarks about neutrons and earthquakes. Neutrons result from nuclear decay, which is not cold fusion. Apparently, a few groups are trying to determine if fluxes in the natural neutron flow are predictive of earthquakes. I wish them luck; so far, no one has succeeded at finding a method of predicting earthquakes. Also, it is unclear why you would mention isotopic abundances. As I recall reading, the one time Rossi actually allowed any isotopic analysis of claimed cold fusion reaction products, the "products" turned out to have the identical isotopic profile as mined nickel and copper--and the isotopes one would have expected were not found. Now Rossi refuses to allow isotope analysis.
Since, as I recall, this work was in geology, it is quite unlikely to be posted in an "established physics journal". There are other fields of science besides physics that are just as legit. And less hobbled by the erroneous notion that "if theory forbids it, it cannot exist".
*All* hard sciences are physically based. No exceptions. It doesn't matter whether the science is nuclear physics, astronomy, biology, geology, genetics, or whatever. Physical laws are universal and immutable.
Here’s one
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Kirkinskiifusionreac.pdf
And a couple of references:
N. Hawkins, “Possible Natural Cold Fusion in the Atmosphere,” Fusion
Technology, 19, 2112 (July 1991).
N. Hawkins et al., “Investigations of Mechanisms and Occurrence of
Meteorologically Triggered Cold Fusion at the Chinese Academy of
Sciences,” Proc. Conf. Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Deuterium/Solid
Systems Provo, Utah, October 22-24, 199