Replies

"At China Lake, Dr. Miles and his collaborators showed that a correlation exists between the rate of the excess enthalpy generation and the quantity of helium in the gas stream. Such a correlation is the direct evidence of the nuclear origin of the Fleischmann-Pons effect."

IMHO, this is about the most meaningful statement of the entire quoted forward. Not much is expressed, but some value exists in showing a correlation.

I studied the topic a bit around 1988-91 on the side. The assertions made and basis for assertions were a bit tenuous from a rigorous scientific viewpoint.

BTW you make my point. Some of these folk have backgrounds in Solid state physics, hot fusion. Now review the chemistry assertions based upon priniples from electrochemistry in aqueous solutions, then QED. The assertions being made regarding Cold Fusion touch upon measurables in different domains which don't necessarily mean the conclusions being drawn in one branch of science are as well identified in another branch.

We're dabbling with solid state, transitory states, liquid and gaseous and maybe even some plasma states. Additionally, we grate upon measurable which have meaning in one system of state variables, are shown to translate by braoder principles to other states based upon Invariants or dimensionless expressions, but the 'Cold Fusion' assertions go to the core of these foundations. They assert excess energy exists, when the measurable identity or function or process might be better isolated. The induced consequence that excess energy is being generated due to fusion might be very premature. I haven't seen a rigorous discussion of it and that includes reviewing every technical paper I could lay my hands on at Oak Ridge, Rice, Univ of Chicago, CIT, Berkeley, and that junior university out in Palo Alto (hehehehe, I really kill me sometimes ;^)... granted I wasn't tooled up to find all papers on the topic nor am I in 'that community'.

"..Apart from some fragmentary investigations, primarily related to the study of the self-discharge of batteries, there exists no well defined set of studies in the field of the electrochemical calorimetry. ..."

Here's a good example/indicator of the research quality. Some history of science and philosophy is required here. To some extent, the comment indicates the wrong question is being asked. The purposes of most electrochemical investigations related to earlier foundational research in the electron, or more precisely 'charge'. Language and the etymology of the measurable quantities is very important.

I also had the same findings when I researched the field back in the mid 80s, but considered it was simply due to my lack of knowledge. I still take the view that many of the same functions or functionals associated with Cold Fusion are a bit convoluted and that rather than believing no research has been performed, I tend to believe the research exists but just poorly expressed and buried or imaged into different multivariate domains.

Self-discharge of batteries is a simple case, because one can either address the solid state, nicely ordered and simplified identifiable materials,....or electrochemical batteries in a wet bath,...assuming media with again homogenous properties or properties describable and identifiable with a very limited number of variables.

Much solid state theory associates surfaces with an energy value. Electrochemical energies with ionic, charge transport. Calorimetry with temperature change and kinetic energy leaving the remnant in enthalpy or entropy, but the domain of Cold Fusion can complicate multivariate processes between these states, where the terms used to measure and quantify the systems are originally defined by these basic processes and assunmptions.

It's funny. A lot of comments are made here in jest or half baked seriousness. When one rigorously studies these things, I've had some weird encounters which are probably more phenomenal than the damned phenomena being studied. Considering that's the same domain as the Philly Experiment, it does make you wonder sometimes,...or at least is tempting.

So here's one for ya,..for those who read these threads and comment on science and supposed revolutions in science or maybe even CTs regarding concealed information and Sci-Fi ranging to the occult.

What do you think about parallel worlds/universes?

Say you're in the real world lab. Observe something static which is by chance, extraordinary, make notes about it because it surprise you. Then a bit later, you re-encounter the same environment and measurable situation only to discover that what you had previously expected actually exists, but the change of state from your last observation to this recent one is so inexplicable that a parallel universe would make more sense. You discount the situation thinking your memory failed you and obviously the previous condition didnt exist, but then per chance discover your notes of measurements previously taken confirming the initial paradox you believed existed.

Anybody run across this type of phenomenon. Sortof like a Truman Show movie scenerio. Or possibly gives credance to philosophers like Berekely's "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" query,...a gnostic impression. Appeals to a possibility that some things can be thought into physical existence. Any physicists bump into this sort of paradox?