I tend to agree with Occam. Definitely something unexplained happening here, but what is it? Quantitative Data proves theorems, and these experiments are an open system with Oxygen and Hydrogen being electrolytically released.
Q1. If this is a Deuterium reaction then why does it "require" Lithium Hydroxide"?
Q2. If this is a Deuterium reaction the why does it "require" alkaline (low Deuterium concentration)conditions?
Q3. pure Palladium is not used for Hydrogen purification (passing Hydrogen through a metal membrane for Weather Balloons or Gas Chromatographs, et al) because it undergoes a phase change above Pd(1):H(1.7). Helium is immobile in Pd lattice. Pd
A1. Reaction is Deuterium + Lithium-6 + 2x Helium-4.
A2. Electroplating e.g. Copper on Stainless Steel will inject Hydrogen and Alkali Metal ions into the Stainless Steel lattice. In aqueous solution, lower the hydrogen conc (pKa) and higher voltage/ current density favors plate out of alkali metals.
A3. Palladium, as soft as Gold, is also alloyed with Silver, which does not affect Hydrogen transport. Defects can cause more than one proton to share an interstitial location. Electrode analysis and geometry needs to be included. For steady state: diffusion rates of Li and He needs to be documented.
The person/ scientist who did the NEUTRON instrumentation is a long time nuclear particle physicist Dr. Larry Forsely.
He is not a chemist, too bad for you. He took some time to assemble the correct neutron instrumentation, startling a few years back with merely particle track plastic for collision recording of the neutrons traversing the plastic as neutron event recorder. FWIW Dr. Pam Mosier Boss is a superb electrochemist.
It appears BOTH the Navy team described here and Rossi in Italy have reproducible rates, even Pons and Fleischman had the physics but at too low rates to convince assholes, and excess heat is not a prerequisite for proving cold fusion, nuclear reaction / radiation or transmutation is proof, some at high rates, some like P&F in the earliest discovery a very low rate.
And yes the theory has not caught up with the experiment, and some who are vocally opposed are either ignorant, conflicted by either research money or prestige career issues.
Future of physics and science marches onwards, and yes with teams here the name of the physicist who did the neutron instrumentation you are clueless about but he has been working with the navy team in san Diego for over ?6 years, with a tiny budget.
What we really need is a clean, dense, always available source of energy. There is a possible source that needs to be investigated, but it threatened very powerful people.
It is a bit dense but people should Google the document mitcfreport.pdf and read at least part of it. Then call your representative and congress critters asking for a full inquire on the material in that document. The fraud in '89 was not on the part of Pons and Fleischmann.
If you are interested in what drives the reaction there is a paper / Hypothesis that has been reviewed by multidisciplinary groups at MIT labs, Amherst, kilpatrick townsend and several other Ph.D's. LISTEN to the power point at
http://www.brillouinenergy.com/BE25Tec.PPS at least once before reading
Yep, that's right, it's all a vast grand conspiracy to supress new forms of energy. After all, those guys selling perpetual motion machines have been saying it for years as well so it MUST be true. Right....... :P
"Other scientists were unable to duplicate the 1989 results, thereby discrediting the work."
Jct: And when you think of humanity crucified by high oil prices for the past 2 decades, one can only be shocked by the depths of financial depravity in these people and their incompetent or lying scientists for depriving the world of a cheap source of energy. At least the names of the perpetrators can be engraved on the tombstones.
Jct: Japan Telephone announced a couple of decades ago that they had replicated the Pons-Fleishman experiments 5 times with 100% success. That I never heard about it again went a long way to convince me that cold fusion was suppressed so they could gouge us on oil, another reason I never worried about running out of oil.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.