• Hmm, and where is the announced breakthrough?

    Instead there are few papers of experiments which all resulted in COP < 1…

    Little bit disappointing, isn't it?

    • Job001

      Mathematics show it to be infinitely likely thus a necessity. The game is no longer highly IMPROBABLE “brute force” rape but rather highly PROBABLE subtle seduction. The seduction game can be varied infinitely and of course is a necessity. 😉

      • Mathematics also shows that the side length of a square could also be negative (e.g. the square root of 4 is 2 AND -2).

        But this is not usable in our real world.

        Only because math say it’s theoretically possible, this doesn’t meant that it is practically usable.

        • Job001

          Well, of course it is, when we go to a third dimension, both positive and negative values are valid.
          The Airbus proof is valid, meaning the splinter group biased physics claim of LENR impossibility is false. This has nothing to do with “state of the art” practicability, of course, research and engineering are still required.

    • Gerrit

      We can say that the interest in LENR has significantly increased over the last years. I think the start of SKINR in 2012 was the turning point.

      So far, I haven’t seen a breakthrough yet and I don’t know if the Airbus conference papers will bring a change.

      But we are moving in the right direction and the real breakthrough might be just around the corner.

  • artefact

    From Geneste:
    “…In that sense, the traditional point of view of orthodox physicists saying that cold fusion is not possible has no foundations. They generally give the burden of proof to cold fusionists, which is normal to be able to show that what we try works. However, we reverted the burden of proof of the non-existence of cold fusion to orthodox physicists. Indeed, since our assumptions are more than reasonable for building our mathematical model, they need to show that this model does not fit reality. Showing that is potentially easy, since it only requires one counter-example… To be found…! ”