American Chemical Society Journal Article: LENR Seen as Possible Explanation for Anomalous Heat

I would like to thank Curbina for bringing attention to a paper that I had not yet studied that seems to have some important findings connected with LENR.

The title of the paper is “Oscillatory behavior and anomalous heat evolution in recombination of H2 and O2 on Pd-based catalysts” written by a Polish team lead by Erwin Lalik, and has just been accepted for publication in the journal Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research published by the American Chemical Society.

In this study, researchers look at passive autocatalytic recombination (PAR) processes used in the nuclear industry where hydrogen and oxygen are recombined using palladium as a catalyst as a safety measure to avoid hydrogen explosions. Full text of the article can be downloaded after free registration with the ACS.

From the introduction of the article:

But there are hints that the system may behave in a less than predictable manner. In fact, the reaction is known to have rather intricate kinetics. It is capable of attaining multiple steady states, a trait it shares with other Pd-catalyzed reactions. The notoriously evasive hysteretic phenomena, in other words multiple steady states in the metallic Pd catalysis, may not be featured often in literature, but are a frequent subject of conversations among scientists working in the field.

The metal-catalyzed reaction is also capable of reaching oscillatory regime(s). The oscillatory kinetics in the hydrogen oxidation have been reported on palladium platinum and nickel, i.e., on the metals that are also known for dissociative sorption of H2. Although oscillatory oxidation of H2 on Pd is not studied very often, metallic Pd is by no means a stranger in oscillatory catalysis. In fact, oscillatory oxidations of CO on metallic Pd or Pt are classic systems widely studied for their nonlinear dynamics, also leading to the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2007.

During this study, there was consistent measurement of anomalous heat. Here’s an excerpt from the abstract:

Mathematical chaos in the rate of heat evolution has been confirmed. In the outburst of quasiperiodic oscillations of large amplitude, the instances of differential heats as high as 700 kJ/mol H2 have been detected, exceeding the heat of water formation (242 kJ/mol H2) by a factor of nearly three. Another occurrence of anomalously high thermal effects has been measured in calorimetric oxygen titration using 0.09 μmol pulses of O2 injected onto hydrogen- or deuterium-saturated catalysts, including 2%Pd/Al2O3, 5%Pd/Al2O3 and 2%PdAu/Al2O3. Repeatedly, the saturation/oxidation cycles showed the heat evolutions in certain individual O2 pulses as high as 1100 kJ/mol O2, i.e., 550 kJ/mol H2, again twice as much as the heat of water formation.

The authors are not sure what is causing this anomalous heat, but they seriously consider that it might be an LENR phenomenon. Here’s some of what the authors write on that subject:

There is currently no satisfactory explanation for the abnormally high thermal effects in the H2 + O2 recombination reported here, but it may be suggested that the hydrogen-related anomalous heat evolutions may be falling into the same category with the low energy nuclear reaction phenomena (LENR). In view of the fact, that the PARs are intended to be used in nuclear reactors as crucial safety devises, a possibility of uncontrollable heat evolutions caused by these very devices themselves calls for a special consideration.

4.3. A danger of LENR occurrence. It is usual to view the low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) as a revolutionary new energy source, but they may also be viewed as posing a danger, threatening a sudden emission of large thermal energy, in case of their unexpected occurrence. Here by the LENR we understand the phenomena of extraordinary high thermal effects first reported by Fleischmann and Pons. It should be stressed that LENR seems to be related to the
formation of atomic hydrogen (or deuterium) species. The actual nuclear character of the phenomena has never been conclusively confirmed however. Nevertheless, it seems to be well established now, that abnormally high heat evolutions do occasionally accompany the interactions in which the atomic hydrogen is involved. In our discussion here, we also consider the concept of the hydrino formation, which technically is not considered a LENR phenomenon, but it seems to fall into the same category of processes producing enormously high thermal effects, too large to be of chemical origin, at the presence of atomic hydrogen.

[. . .]

The LENR may be a promising energy source for the future, only provided they are understood and controllable. Anticipating availability of the technology, recently a report has been published by NASA describing novel constructions of flying vehicles specifically designed to be powered by LENR based engines. This is in spite of still unknown nature of the LENR phenomena, which the report admits is largely ill understood. In view of this ignorance, it seems prudent to concede that there may also exist a hazard of unexpected LENR occurrence in the
industrial processes involving metals like Pd and the atomic hydrogen, potentially releasing uncontrollable amounts of energy. Here the PAR technology seems to be a case in point. In fact, the possibility for certain accidents, that actually had happened in a nuclear plant, to be put down to a LENR or hydrino related explosion has been pointed out hypothetically. In view of a recent development of the technology of modular nuclear reactors, the threat of using PARs may be even aggravated by the fact that the modular reactors lack the large confinement and
shielding of the traditional large constructions.

Here’s a nice summation by Curbina here at ECW of why this paper could be significant in terms of LENR:

This paper is certainly interesting because:

a) proves anomalous heat.
b) involves a system where Pd and H are present and interacting when the excess heat is measured.
c) it does not come from an author already involved in LENR, and
d) it mentions and quotes LENR as a possible explanation.

Other interesting facts about the paper are that it starts from an observation that is well established in the nuclear industry and that is also considered a hazard and possible source of danger.

This means that the importance of the fact grants further research. This, IMHO, opens a window for mainstream publication of LENR research under the PARs anomaly umbrella.

It’s certainly interesting to see serious consideration of the possibility of LENR as an explanation of the measured phenomenon — and a positive reference to Fleischmann and Pons even!

David Nygren at LENR-Forum has been in touch with Erwin Lakik who has said that he will respond to questions about the study posted on this thread.

  • GreenWin

    fp, you should’ve ended your rant here. Apparently you stewed for five hours before compulsion incited your last semantic gasp. A frustrated authoritarian is not a policeman. Nor do facts require the services of a “police” department. Thanks for an amusing dialog! 🙂

  • GreenWin

    fp, thanks for your thoughts. We disagree. I hold people responsible for their actions – especially those who are ignorant of complicity deleterious to humanity. Steven Koonin is the poster boy for said ignorance.

    Koonin hung Drs. Pons and Fleischmann in APS’s kangaroo court . He failed to lead at CalTech. He then sold out American research to his masters at British Petroleum, did nothing at DOE, and now, rails against climate change under cover of NYU. A fickle and fraudulent fool. Koonin’s “career” assures my conclusion: He is a misanthropic scourge upon all of humanity.

    Thank you for the opportunity.

  • http://www.thinktankreport.com/ Phillip Power

    Well, I’ve just read through this:

    http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science/

    This is weapons-grade skepticism but it does, at least, show why mainstream science still has little time for the Bigfoot issue. Notice that they also dismiss cold fusion:

    “Science by press release is an unprofessional form and often is a bust upon peer review. (The classic example is cold fusion.)”.

    – Which is simply false. As we know, there are now hundreds of peer-reviewed papers about “cold fusion”, or at least anomalous heat, including the very paper we are commenting on right here!. So that’s what we are up against.

  • GreenWin

    Sorry fp. I’m pleased to blame Deepwater on Koonin as he was incapable of diverting BP from drilling the U.S. gulf with equipment that failed disastrously. That strategy cost Americans thousands of jobs, and polluted the Gulf of Mexico to the tune of some $100B in environmental losses.

    Further, Koonin’s BP “compensation” package is the subject of a skewering investigation by the Washington Times. Obama/Steven Chu’s hiring of Koonin underlines the Administration’s unconscionable duplicity re “global warming.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/27/ex-bp-official-received-payouts-perks/?page=all

    Beyond that Koonin’s BP “research” into alternative and renewable energy remains locked away under BP secrecy – despite BP’s CEO promise to unlock its research. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/24/bp-renewable-energy-archive-still-closed-despite-promise-to-open-to-public

    IMO it’s fair to say Steven Koonin has been a misanthropic scourge upon all of humanity. He should be banished from public life for good.

    • fact police

      GreenWin wrote:

      Sorry fp. I’m pleased to blame Deepwater on Koonin as he was incapable of diverting BP from drilling the U.S. gulf with equipment that failed disastrously.

      That’s true, but you were also incapable of diverting BP from building Deepwater, but that doesn’t mean it’s your fault. Neither you nor him even worked at BP when that drilling was done. And when he was there, it was not his role to get involved in questions of drilling. You’re mad at him, and that’s understandable. But you should keep some perspective.

      Further, Koonin’s BP “compensation” package is the subject of a skewering investigation by the Washington Times.

      It doesn’t sound skewering to me. He was well paid, but it’s not illegal or unethical to be well paid, and all his pay came before he left BP, and before the accident, except for pre-arranged assistance with his taxes. The ties to BP meant he was recused from the handling of the disaster.

      I see nothing particularly nefarious in any of that, but in any case, it certainly doesn’t make him responsible for the deepwater disaster.

      Obama/Steven Chu’s hiring of Koonin underlines the Administration’s unconscionable duplicity re “global warming.”

      How? And what does that have to do with Koonin’s responsibility for the deepwater disaster, which is what I was addressing?

      Beyond that Koonin’s BP “research” into alternative and renewable energy remains locked away under BP secrecy – despite BP’s CEO promise to unlock its research.

      Same question. You’re only hinting at reasons Koonin may have been paid to much, and that maybe his research was not worth his compensation. But my objection was to blaming him for the deepwater disaster, and you’ve said nothing to support that claim.

      IMO it’s fair to say Steven Koonin has been a misanthropic scourge upon all of humanity. He should be banished from public life for good.

      Again, whether that’s true or not, it doesn’t make it fair to blame the deepwater disaster on him, since deepwater was built before he joined BP, and the accident happened after he left.

      Are you sure it’s not just the case that blaming horrific things on him makes it easier to dismiss his objections to cold fusion?

      • GreenWin

        fp, I’m pleased support my conclusion with facts re BP’s ex-Chief
        Scientist Steven Koonin. That conclusion is: “IMO it’s fair to say
        Steven Koonin has been a misanthropic scourge upon all of humanity.”

        Koonin continued to receive payouts, perks & compensation from BP years after his “departure” in 2007. The Washington Times article makes clear BP paid to prepare Koonin’s tax returns well after the Deepwater disaster (April, 2010.) This is fact and reason he was banned from negotiating an end to the oil spill while serving as DOE’s
        “Undersecretary Science.”

        But let’s keep perspective in evaluating Koonin’s work as BP’s Chief Scientist focused on long rang tech and alternatives.

        “BP has made a commitment to go big in energy biosciences. I doubt this would have happened without Steve Koonin,” said Prof. Ernie
        Moniz before his appointment as Energy Secretary, DOE.

        FEB 1, 2007 “The oil giant BP announced that it had chosen UC
        Berkeley, in partnership with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to lead the largest academic-industrial research alliance in U.S. history.

        For a mere $50 million a year, an oil company worth $250 billion would buy a chunk of America’s premier public research institutions, all but turning them into its own profit-making subsidiary.

        This is shameful. The core mission of Berkeley is education, open knowledge exchange and objective research, not making money or furthering the interests of a private firm. “ Los Angeles Times, Jennifer Washburn http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-washburn24mar24-story.html

        Unhappily as the Guardian points out Koonin’s “bioscience research” remains under BP lock and key. I remain pleased to blame Deepwater on Koonin, along with his sellout of American academia to puppeteer British Petroleum. 🙂

  • http://www.thinktankreport.com/ Phillip Power

    For me the key part of this is the Scientific American article:

    http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html

    But, let’s be honest: all the points it makes, given the context of the time, are entirely reasonable! It is only from our 105 year vantage point, with 20-20 hindsight that we feel entitled to to be smug!

    • https://pissedthefuckoff.wordpress.com/ Mark

      Gee, thanks for reading my “childish” blog! However, you and I must be on a different wavelength, because I strongly disagree that the article was “reasonable.” I think that it was UNreasonable to just assume that someone else would have written about the Wrights at that point. I think that the reasonable things to do would be either 1) shut his mouth or 2) go take a look at the Wrights flying, which others had done, at that point. His attitude reminds me of that pseudoskeptic – I think his name was Stefan Pomp – who was invited to be a part of an E-Cat test, declined, and then bashed the E-Cat after the test was over. The dude that wrote that article was the same way. He didn’t bother to go see the Wrights, probably because he thought he already knew that they couldn’t possibly be the real deal, and then bashed the Wrights.

      • http://www.thinktankreport.com/ Phillip Power

        OK, but the others who has seen the Wright’s flying had apparently not written about it and no local reporters had beat a path to the Wrights door (or come down the chimney!) and neither had the Wrights published anything themselves. With today’s hindsight, we know that the Wrights were maintaining as much secrecy as they could, so as to protect their patents, which included ailerons.

        So that largely explains the Sciam author’s skepticism and reluctance to spend time and money pursuing that particular story. But yes, the similarities to the Rossi story are almost uncanny.

        But, as a Kiwi, I feel obliged to throw one more story into the ring which, to this day, many Americans are still not aware of – that the Wright Brothers were beaten by, nine months, to powered flight by Richard Pearse, a New Zealand farmer!

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse

        Granted, he could not completely control his plane – it had no ailerons – but most of the other elements were there. Notice that he, too, met with a combination of apathy and skepticism. The world didn’t beat a path to his door and, for many years not to the Wright’s door either. Again, Rossi take note!

  • GreenWin

    “…just a bunch of childish rants.” Sounds a lot like consensus science Mark.

  • GreenWin

    The ACS was once host of the P&F team (1989 ACS Meeting) where Stan Pons received deserved celebration. But then the world’s most self-absorbed scientist Steven Koonin of CalTech spoke to the American Physical Society:

    “Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of “the
    incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann.” The audience of
    [APS] scientists sat in stunned silence for a moment before bursting into
    applause.”
    http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

    Koonin, former Chief Scientist at British Petroleum, is now besmirching the reputation of New York University. If the NYU Board of Trustees wishes to avoid a Deepwater disaster they will summarily dismiss this pompous excuse for a “scientist.”

  • Omega Z

    In discussing LENR as a dangerous occurrence, Keep in mind this is in context of happening within a conventional Nuclear plant.
    I find this Obvious, and Concerning, Requiring international scrutiny & research of the phenomena. There is now justification for Government funded research of LENR.

    As a stand alone technology, LENR falls within acceptable risk that can be easily mitigated for Industrial use. Knowledge & data obtained from Industrial use will provide the information necessary to manufacture safe products for use as home heating systems.

  • Alain Samoun

    Wonder if that happened in Fukushima?

  • Chris, Italy

    A quite interesting development!

  • Curbina

    The fact that this paper stems from research on a perceived nuclear
    industry hazzard, even if it has nothing to do with the nature of LENR , but just that it can happen spontaneously, in the mind
    of the general public, and specially with the aid of tendentious writers, could transform in “LENR is dangerous”. We have to be aware of that.

  • Herb Gillis

    If this reaction poses a safety concern for existing nuclear power facilities then perhaps the NRC (in US) can be forced, via citizen litigation, to sponsor more research in this area?
    Same opportunity may exist in other countries.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Right, and the introduction of the danger of LENR, could be the start of government regulation, and we all know who writes government regulations.

    • radvar

      Xi Jinping?

    • Omega Z

      Bernie

      Everyone seems of the opinion that LENR being new has no regulation. The truth is everything about LENR is already covered by 1 regulation or another. Nothing new needs written. Only applied.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        While I agree, if you take a heavily regulated country like France which has a HUGE number of people working in in the nuclear industry, then they much don’t want to adopt LENR. In fact they stopped their LENR research for this very reason (why fund a industry that will destroy your industry!!).

        However the smart thing would be for the nuclear industry to simply regulate LENR and not allow consumers to own such devices. This would thus save their nuclear industry (you retro-fit excising nuclear plants with LENR – you save HUGE dollars due to not need re-processing waste fuel).

        The nuclear industry really cannot adopt LENR without shooting themselves in the foot – since near anyone could build such systems. However, if the nuclear industry lobbies the government, then they can adopt LENR and save their industry. I don’t think we see this occurring in all countries, but counties with heavy investments in existing nuclear may well see this as the only way to save their industry, and may well succeed at regulating LENR.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • http://www.thinktankreport.com/ Phillip Power

          I’m all for a glass-half-full approach here. The nuclear fission industry could gradually morph into a LENR industry by doing rolling retro-fits, starting on its oldest reactors. It could keep roughly the same number of people employed and even take on more staff in the form of scientists and engineers who could perform on-going research on large-scale LENR, in situ.

          All except those who want the immediate banning of all conventional reactors should see this as a good, real-world, compromise. Yes, the “Fission Folk” might try to write the “LENR Martyrs” like F&P, McKubre and Rossi out of the history books but it would then be up to us “Loyal LENR Lurkers” to prevent that.

          • GreenWin

            Phil – there will be no retro-fits of outdated reactors. The fission and hot fusion industries are dead. They killed themselves with arrogance and bad science. Students of nuclear fission will go jobless, or pay off their $300k loans flipping burgers.

            LENR is portable and accessible enough to launch the energy appliance industry. That industry requires R&D, product design, manufacture, installation, and maintenance sectors. This is an industry that will rival the cell phone. But will create more JOBS.

        • Omega Z

          No one is going to retro-fit a Nuke plant.
          To begin with the Fuel rod containment chamber & boiler are radioactive and the turbines are not designed for efficiency, but for safe operation. Who wants to invest huge sums of money in a 28% efficient system.

          Also, I doubt Coal plants will be retro-fitted. Most are worn out already exceeding Life-cycle & scheduled for decommissioning & scape as soon as newer systems are available to replace them.

          I also question whether N-gas plants will be retro-fitted. LENR works much differently then a Gas or coal burner. LENR will likely be a crossbreed of Nuclear & fossil plant technology or something quite different from both.

          An important aspect of LENR is that it changes all of the logistics that apply to nuke or fossil fuel energy generation. It’s not a radioactive system thus no need for large centralized grid due to safety factors. Fossil plants need pipelines or rails for fuel transport(Plus storage) that also leads to large centralized grid system. Both also need large water reservoirs.

          LENR can be located at point of distribution. Being smaller in scale, it becomes very economical to use cooling towers with minimal water resources. And rather then dissipating all that heat, it can be commercialized for local business use.

          Waste heat has many uses, but usually isn’t utilized. There is no way to economically transfer that heat to a business many miles away. Being local with a small foot print, it wouldn’t be that hard for say a greenhouse operation to be right next to the power plant. A greenhouse operation that just happens to sell its product locally. The greenhouse gets cheap energy & the power plant spreads it’s cost making it cheaper for all concerned.

          50 or 100 Megawatt plants are much less complex & can be built to a standard almost like a mass production product. They would spread more quickly & a transition would be much faster. You would still have a grid system, but it would be a shadow of the current grid system and far fewer substations. All will reduce the costs of electricity.

          • http://www.thinktankreport.com/ Phillip Power

            Thanks for this comprehensive reply. Yes, LENR generation stations designed from scratch and dotted around the landscape, close to commercial or residential consumers will become the norm in the long term.

            In my own country, New Zealand, we have no existing nuclear fission stations to worry about and could proceed more or less directly to the above scenario. Of course, we also have a strong hydro-station infrastructure as well as a re-emerging geothermal industry, as well as base load gas fired stations. So, in relative terms, we are “sitting pretty” and, to digress a little, we could exploit that abundant electricity to become a world leader in electric vehicle use.

            But, in the US, UK, France, Russia, China and many other countries, there are large numbers of nuclear power stations which are not going away, anytime soon. The turbines may be inefficient but, given the cheap and virtually limitless heat available from (large scale) LENR, that is surely not a problem.

            The existing stations occupy land and are connected to already-built grids, so they might as well be converted and start to supply electricity while walled-off parts on them slowly become less radioactive. Such a move would allow the fission industry to save face and redeem itself in the eyes of the public. Encouraging them in this course may be wiser than continuing the in-your-face confrontation that the Greens and other strong anti-nuclear protesters almost seem to enjoy.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        If someone wants to slow down or eliminate LENR the easiest way is by making specific anti LENR regulations. Lobbyists owned and operated by big money will write those regulations.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Many articles are stating, Industrial Heat owns all of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology. I am
    starting to question this statement. Dr. Rossi’s recent answers to questions pertaining to IP would indicate to me he still has control over how the E-Cat will be introduced.

  • Sanjeev
    • Axil Axil

      Did this reference contained in that thread hold any meaning for you as the underlieing causation for HHO?

      http://www.free-energy-info.com/MorayKing.pdf

      • http://www.thinktankreport.com/ Phillip Power

        I watched the video. I live about 10 miles from Albany, Auckland, where it was filmed in 2008. The crew were from TV3, a highly regarded public television channel here in New Zealand. Likewise, I am convinced that the independent mechanic and the Chemistry professor (who both agreed that they could not explain it in terms of their respective fields) were the genuine article.

        However, despite a pretty long search today, 7 years later, I can find no online trace of Steve Ryan nor his then company, BiosFuel, other than a series of broken links and a mega rant from someone claiming to be a former girlfriend.

        Ryan does get a mention, along with Stanley Meyer and others on this page:

        http://henrymakow.com/2013/11/Illuminati-Suppress-Water-Powered-Cars.html

        – which I’ll leave ECW readers to make their own minds up about.

        • Axil Axil

          I would have looked at the gas tank for fraud. It could have a hidden subcompartment that fed gas into the carbertor. I would look at the gases comming out of the tail pipe, it should be steam. Also run a test where the motor runs out of fuel and check to see if water still can be drawn from the tank. There was not enough fraud debunking done on this video to suit me.

          • http://www.thinktankreport.com/ Phillip Power

            Good points. I think it was James Randi who said that all investigation teams like this should include an undercover magician, typically posing as just another video or sound assistant.

  • Mats002

    Erwin at LENR-Forum: “… It seems, therefore, possible, that that a clandestine LENR process may occur in our system. It is hidden behind the H2 dissociation. What we measure calorimetrically may be the heat of water formation from atomic hydrogen species, but the very production of the H-species may be taking energy from compact hydrogen species of a kind postulated by various authors, like hydrino (R. Mills), hydrex (X. Dufour) or tresino (F. Mayer and J. Reitz). Needless to say, this is only a hypothesis currently, and much work is still necessary for it to be verified.”
    Open-minded science, Great work!

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m old enough to remember this historic ACS meeting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSyh-bUZtDM
    If this presentation to the world went nowhere, this paper won’t change anything. http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/magazine-covers-may-8-1989.jpg
    The only thing that matters is Rossi’s megawatt plant.

    • GreenWin

      Ah yes. And then the hot fusion brain trust at MIT convinced the sheeple of science LENR was impossible.

      A day of reckoning is in order for MIT, CalTech and Steven Koonin. Koonin, former Chief Scientist at British Petroleum (sponsor of Deepwater disaster) – now at NYU’s Center for Urban Science.

      If NYU is to remain a respected university – Steven Koonin should be summarily dismissed and banished from academia.

  • Daniel Maris

    This is probably the most significant article on this site since the beginning of the year.

    It’s truly remarkable to observe the scientists’ insouciance about the phenomena they are describing – as though everybody in the business knows about them – and the likelihood that LENR is involved.

    I find this very encouraging – suggesting that there will soon be a breakthrough in how to control the phenomenon and produce useful energy.

  • georgehants

    Once again Wonderful to see genuine scientific thinking in action, open-minded and unbiased investigation, very rare.
    Somebosy’s head will probably roll and we will hear no more from these people.

  • Freethinker

    Is the paper available elsewhere? I am unable to download the paper. It is free to anyone, but it is impossible to register as a user on the site.

  • GordonDocherty

    Clearly, for the safety of all, the passive autocatalytic recombination (PAR) processes used in the nuclear industry where hydrogen and oxygen are recombined using palladium as a catalyst as a safety measure to avoid hydrogen explosions need to be rigorously researched by laboratories around the world.

    In other words, hydrogen saturated metal lattices subject to variances in environmental conditions (including combinations of electromagnetic, phononic, heat and pressure) definitely need to be tested, as does the effect of impurities in the metal catalyst and the effects of different grain sizes.

    After all, failure to rigorously research these processes has the potential to put lives at risk, a clear issue of health and safety.

    Lithium batteries likewise need the same sort of research effort.

    It would appear that some sort of previously unforeseen nanoscale reactions may be producing anomalous heat at relatively low energy levels.

  • Alain Samoun

    Not to mention that the American Chemical Society has accepted the paper. Not too surprising to me as chemists are more open to new experiments and new explanations of them. Contrary to physicists,especially nuclear physicists. Yes I’m a chemist 😉