Until recently - a few years actually, I was rather hesitant and having a small interest to follow the developments in LENR - CANR field.
Probably that was the result of impulse that I got being at UCLA in 90s. In the second half of 90s (seems in 1996) when the mass media did few reports on the LENR - CANR and CETI (Patterson) experiments I was approached some of hot fusion connected colleagues at UCLA with questions on LENR and what I think on that. Of coarse, in terms of my heavy involvement and preaching of HSP-VAT applicability to almost everything in physics (and science).
Hearing of my favorite remarks on LENR then I had been clear warned that this area should be better remained out of my interest, studies and writings? Seeing so straight the "no interest" suggestions and still had been having hopes for the better HSP-VAT acceptance by people of MAE department and UCLA as a whole, after a while consideration I did drop my studies of this field. That was still the time of "proves" in the my direct fields involvement with the HSP-VAT at that time - Fluid Mechanics, Thermal Physics, Solid State and Elasticity, Environment Engineering, etc.
But not really now. I was and am really believer in LENR - mostly because of achievements of HSP-VAT in many disciplines obviously communicated to phenomena of LENR. And I have been observing many features of LENR that are truly of Multiscale, Hierarchical and "Multibody" as Dr. M.Fleischmann was talking, nature. I spoke on that in many parts of this website -
"The Local, Non-Local, and Scaled Metrics, Physical Fields, and Their Mathematical Formulation"
"Atomic Scale Description of Matter with VAT"
"Sonofusion - What's Up? Thermonuclear:"
etc., etc.
How else would you like to name a field that has been attempting and making the phenomena visible that combined and really interpreted in a way the results, the output of 0 (Z) scale (conventional (10^(-3) - 10^(-1))m) which can be utilized elsewhere and at the same time using the 10^(-15)m and less scales to perform that said output energy release?
The "Cold fusion" or LENR - CANR field is nothing less than really the multiscale phenomena which brought together effects spanning throughout 5-7 large scales from the particle physics and nuclear physics issues on hands up and down in the media - Top-Down ↓↑ Bottom-Up divergent processes.
In the 90s I was even amazed by the plain (no merit) statements of people involved who actually spoke each on the subject of his/her better understanding and knowledge, not merely doing an attempt to explain or admit - that no way, we really don't know the basics and don't understand - But that's it!
Nobody easily admits - that we are in a childhood of understanding the atomic and sub-atomic physics. We are no experts, no way so far.
Among many websites related, exploring or riding on the wave we might mention just few as:
"Infinite Energy. The Magazine"
"Cold Fusion Controversy; 293) Jed Rothwell comments on some accusations"
"COLD FUSION AND NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE GUIDE *"
"Pure Energy Systems (PES Network, Inc.) "
We might willing to mention in the introduction the thorough investigation of events of the DoE 2004 report; the reporting preparation and delivery by CF workers as well as by DoE panelists by Correas - "The Correa Solution to the 'Cold Fusion' Enigma:"
For example, they wrote -
"Why the disbelief? Because the experimental work has not produced reliable, sustained power excess results. Because most results are erratic. Because the CF researchers themselves do not know how the exact processes involved. But isn't the phenomenon of anomalous heat production in table-top electrolytic systems real? "
"Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented."
Why is this so? One is never told. But we know why it is so. This is the unspoken that goes to the core of the scientific problem plaguing the field. The cold-fusioneers have taken the unexplained behaviour of deuterides in metal lattices, along with a postulated single-step magical reaction, to be the sine qua non of the Pons-Fleischmann (PF) effect, without realizing the complex reactions underlying the effect, or knowing how to systematically extract heat from them."
More on the same they said:
"Obviously, then, both sides are wrong, because the question is substantially more complex than either side makes it out to be. What we are saying is this: through reactions that, in essence, are proton-mediated, one can selectively produce 4He ash, and do so precisely in a way which is accompanied by the evolution of heat. " There is no magical single-step transition,
as was proposed by the Group of Five. One must not only select for a complex multi-step reaction but also for the preferred branches of each step. Engineering for such an outcome becomes possible only when the basic research has been completed and an adequate analytical model is found, if once the process has been properly understood."
"The nut has been hard to crack not only because of its complex nature, but also because of the prevalent contention within CF research circles that endless blind manipulations of the CF 'gadget', in the hope of a serendipitous breakthrough, should take precedence over rigorous analytical understanding and systematic experimentation. "
We will be adding to this in our sub-sections procedures. That is the sad picture of quality of studies in CF.
Remoteness of studies from the few important issues that was said in the DoE 2004 report on CF -
While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review."
"Reviewers identified two areas where additional research could address specific issues. One is the investigation of the properties of deuterated metals including possible effects of alloying and dislocations. These studies should take advantage of the modern tools for material characterization. A second area of investigation is the use of state-of-the-art apparatus and techniques to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils."
Why this new CF alchemy community (alchemy so far, as long as they don't want to study the detailed picture, look only into the simplistic definitions of the energy transport and in the heat transfer coefficient definition and formulae ??) can not establish a pathwork to experimental set-ups. Every lab, researcher has peculiar features installed into the experimental devise, rig. And because no one sees as an important thing that many things for Multiscale experiment should be addressed separately for each scale. Who knows what the scale to consider and what is it really?
Did anyone thought hard regarding the critical issue - Why there is no theory of CF phenomena?
Does it take some connection to experimental effort showing that there is no appropriate theory for this kind of things?
Why these experimental demonstrations are not followed, or designed with some sort of theory?
Yes, of coarse, any worker says that he/she has a theory in mind, but what is it?
Of conventional 20th century physics that they reject themselves - in secrecy might be.
Because they all stick to old paradigms of established conventional physics and chemistry as we know them. These tools are not suited for CF science, not at all.
That's one of the reasons - why there is still no decent theory for CF, in multiple cases experiments.
To write here such a statement, I had been following many texts, publications on
the CF/LENR theoretical effort. And found, sorry, those are of the conventional
Homogeneous One Scale physics and chemistry, where the multi-body writings does not
really mean the Multi-body Two Scale at least description of phenomena.
That is as is, and that kind of theory is not going to reveal or explain the
non-local Nuclear, Sub-Nuclear, Atomic, Mesoscale, and Continuum Mechanics scales
final measurements and reasons for phenomena.
Even if it is not nuclear as some arguing, the phenomena deserve the hard look in for reasons and explanation.
So, that is a heavy argument by CF critics - "give us some fitting explanation, a theoretical point of view."
10-07-2011 Now this question is not straightly relevant - anyway the E-Cat by A.A.Rossi is the "Nuclear" Catalytic Reactor that works, produces the energy, notwithstanding that there is NO THEORY at all, no pleasant theory, but hypotheses all over.
By Dr. Fleischmann's calculation - the demonstration device would be worth of $300 trillion?!
Meaning, this is the golden rush!
The content of the subsections at left is all about the needed components of successful experimental mostly (and theoretical) preparation for the demonstration CF/LENR device. Of coarse, we are talking only on the Multiscaled, Hierarchical description of the subject matter as involving few phases, multiphysics processes, not of only nuclear and particle engineering, not a Standard Quantum Mechanics, not the verbal proclamation of nuclear to atomic scale "coupling" (what is this?), and of the nuclear few molecular involved reactions content, etc.
Will be uploading into this and neighboring sub-sections some texts and data released for public domain for education and for advertisement.