RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[JonesBeene]

Thanks. 

In addition to the cold trap technique which Russ George mentioned and offered 
to help with - there is this:

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1143286

“Separation of helium and deuterium peaks with a quadrupole mass spectrometer 
by using the second stability zone in the Mathieu diagram”


From: Jed Rothwell

JonesBeene wrote:
Good point. Jed knows the details of the  mass spec Mizuno had available,  
which was damaged in the earthquake. IIRC it was being repaired when the paper 
was written and its  present status has not been reported. Perhaps he will 
comment on this.
ULVAC quadrupole mass spectrometer: model YTP-50M.
Built in precision meter, ULVAC, GCMT G-Tran ISG-1

I do not know if this has the umph to measure helium. It is working. The SEM is 
still busted and will take $20,000 or $30,000 to fix.

Surely Mizuno was looking for helium before his lab was destroyed - so it is 
expected that  he knows how  to resolve the small mass difference.
I do not know if he did this or not.

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

The polariton is a plasmonic based quasiparticle that loves to socialize.
They are the quintessential party animal. If any polaritons are produced
inside a LENR reactor, they will automatically find each other and begin an
entangled get together.

This predisposition to produce a global condensate over the entire extent
of the reactors surface structure is where all the EMF power comes from.
This concentration of EMF power is known as super-radiance.

super-radiance

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


In quantum optics, superradiance is a phenomenon that occurs when a group
of N emitters, such as excited atoms, interact with a common light field.
If the wavelength of the light is much greater than the separation of the
emitters, then the emitters interact with the light in a collective and
coherent fashion. This causes the group to emit light as a high intensity
pulse (with rate ∝ N2). This is a surprising result, drastically different
from the expected exponential decay (with rate ∝ N) of a group of
independent atoms (see spontaneous emission). Superradiance has since been
demonstrated in a wide variety of physical and chemical systems, such as
quantum dot arrays and J-aggregates. The effect has recently been used to
produce a superradiant laser.

If we can pump EMF into a sub-straight such as a Mizuno micro mesh that are
optimized to  form plasmons and their bosonic progeny: polaritons, that
sub-straight will sooner or later give rise to an EMF event horizon. A
global polariton condensate will develop on the surface of the mesh that
will generate a LENR active superradiant EMF event horizon.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:10 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> One of the reasons why superconductivity and LENR are so tightly connected
> is that it would be near impossible to gather and then subsequently
> maintain enough EMF power to produce an effective EMF event horizon.
> Dispersion of optical power would soon destroy the meta-stable
> concentration of EMF power upon which the LENR reaction depends. This is
> where ultra-dense matter comes into the LENR picture. This state of matter
> produces the state of superconductivity in the particles that make this
> special type of matter. LENR takes to this special highly supportive
> electromagnetic environment like bacteria take to a soup of supportive
> nutrients in a petri dish.
>
> The LENR reaction can form in a non-superconductive situation, but it
> needs far more input energy pumping to maintain the density of sufficient
> polaritons that can sustain the associated development of an EMF event
> horizon. This weaken gathering of polariton density is where gammas and
> sundry nuclear reactive byproduct will manifest.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:44 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The production of gammas and radioactive isotopes is like the production
>> of smoke in a weak fire that is just getting started. Once a fire gets
>> going with a vengeance and the combustion process has firmly set in, the
>> fire burns hottest with no smoke production.
>>
>> All the LENR old guard looked for the production of LENR smoke to prove
>> to the outsiders that LENR was actually occurring. But once the LENR
>> reaction set in strongly, there would be no LENR smoke to be had. The
>> desire of the LENR old guard for the LENR reaction to prove its existence
>> through the production of LENR smoke is counterproductive.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:21 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21a1/9da6b2ac3da851177d2f4e93be88f73a330b.pdf
>>>
>>> Low Energy Nuclear Reactions resulting as picometer interactions with
>>> similarity to K-shell electron capture
>>>
>>> H. Hora, G.H. Miley have come up with a theory that explains how
>>> transmuted elements will form based on the quarks nature of matter. This is
>>> applicable to what the mechanism of matter formation must have been when
>>> elements first formed during the earliest  times just after the big bang.
>>> The way matter forms now inside the LENR reaction at the EMF event horizon
>>> is the same as it had occurred just after the big bang.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:51 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 Twin Paradox in General Relativity

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjHLboK2M1g

 From the perspective of the people in the world outside of the EMF
 event horizon, the speed that things are happening on or inside that
 horizon is ultra-fast. But at that  horizon, the speed that things are
 happening is occurring at a normal speed.

 This difference in the perspective of time is why we see no nuclear
 activity going on at or inside the EMF horizon.  These nuclear reactions
 happen instantaneously from our perspective even if the radioactive isotope
 takes billions of years to stabilize.

 On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:16 PM Axil 

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

One of the reasons why superconductivity and LENR are so tightly connected
is that it would be near impossible to gather and then subsequently
maintain enough EMF power to produce an effective EMF event horizon.
Dispersion of optical power would soon destroy the meta-stable
concentration of EMF power upon which the LENR reaction depends. This is
where ultra-dense matter comes into the LENR picture. This state of matter
produces the state of superconductivity in the particles that make this
special type of matter. LENR takes to this special highly supportive
electromagnetic environment like bacteria take to a soup of supportive
nutrients in a petri dish.

The LENR reaction can form in a non-superconductive situation, but it needs
far more input energy pumping to maintain the density of sufficient
polaritons that can sustain the associated development of an EMF event
horizon. This weaken gathering of polariton density is where gammas and
sundry nuclear reactive byproduct will manifest.



On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:44 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> The production of gammas and radioactive isotopes is like the production
> of smoke in a weak fire that is just getting started. Once a fire gets
> going with a vengeance and the combustion process has firmly set in, the
> fire burns hottest with no smoke production.
>
> All the LENR old guard looked for the production of LENR smoke to prove to
> the outsiders that LENR was actually occurring. But once the LENR reaction
> set in strongly, there would be no LENR smoke to be had. The desire of the
> LENR old guard for the LENR reaction to prove its existence through the
> production of LENR smoke is counterproductive.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:21 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>>
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21a1/9da6b2ac3da851177d2f4e93be88f73a330b.pdf
>>
>> Low Energy Nuclear Reactions resulting as picometer interactions with
>> similarity to K-shell electron capture
>>
>> H. Hora, G.H. Miley have come up with a theory that explains how
>> transmuted elements will form based on the quarks nature of matter. This is
>> applicable to what the mechanism of matter formation must have been when
>> elements first formed during the earliest  times just after the big bang.
>> The way matter forms now inside the LENR reaction at the EMF event horizon
>> is the same as it had occurred just after the big bang.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:51 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Twin Paradox in General Relativity
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjHLboK2M1g
>>>
>>> From the perspective of the people in the world outside of the EMF event
>>> horizon, the speed that things are happening on or inside that horizon is
>>> ultra-fast. But at that  horizon, the speed that things are happening is
>>> occurring at a normal speed.
>>>
>>> This difference in the perspective of time is why we see no nuclear
>>> activity going on at or inside the EMF horizon.  These nuclear reactions
>>> happen instantaneously from our perspective even if the radioactive isotope
>>> takes billions of years to stabilize.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:16 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>
 There is no telling what elements will be transformed by the LENR
 reaction. When the LENR active agent get hold of palladium and deuterium,
 silver might be formed rather than just helium. The mesh should be examined
 in a SEM scan to see if there is some non palladium elements present on the
 nickel mesh.

 On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:03 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 
>
>
>
>- In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part
>> that 106 of the 3-He part.
>
>
>
> Jürg
>
>
>
> If Mizuno is producing helium then it should show up very distinctly
> when he looks for it- since the total gas inventory is so low and the 
> power
> is so high that the ratio of He:D after along run will leave no doubt. As
> of now – that evidence is lacking.
>
>
>
> It is too bad that we do not have more information now – as this
> experiment is uniquely positioned to see it and if fount then it makes a
> huge difference in what to expect from future devices. I’m on record as
> predicting there will be none, well … only incidental Helium – possibly
> unmeasurable.
>
>
>
> Mizuno clearly states nickel is the host reactant – not the tiny
> amount of palladium.
>
>
>
> Where is the reliable evidence for helium being produced from
> nickel/deuterium?
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

The production of gammas and radioactive isotopes is like the production of
smoke in a weak fire that is just getting started. Once a fire gets going
with a vengeance and the combustion process has firmly set in, the fire
burns hottest with no smoke production.

All the LENR old guard looked for the production of LENR smoke to prove to
the outsiders that LENR was actually occurring. But once the LENR reaction
set in strongly, there would be no LENR smoke to be had. The desire of the
LENR old guard for the LENR reaction to prove its existence through the
production of LENR smoke is counterproductive.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 6:21 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21a1/9da6b2ac3da851177d2f4e93be88f73a330b.pdf
>
> Low Energy Nuclear Reactions resulting as picometer interactions with
> similarity to K-shell electron capture
>
> H. Hora, G.H. Miley have come up with a theory that explains how
> transmuted elements will form based on the quarks nature of matter. This is
> applicable to what the mechanism of matter formation must have been when
> elements first formed during the earliest  times just after the big bang.
> The way matter forms now inside the LENR reaction at the EMF event horizon
> is the same as it had occurred just after the big bang.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:51 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Twin Paradox in General Relativity
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjHLboK2M1g
>>
>> From the perspective of the people in the world outside of the EMF event
>> horizon, the speed that things are happening on or inside that horizon is
>> ultra-fast. But at that  horizon, the speed that things are happening is
>> occurring at a normal speed.
>>
>> This difference in the perspective of time is why we see no nuclear
>> activity going on at or inside the EMF horizon.  These nuclear reactions
>> happen instantaneously from our perspective even if the radioactive isotope
>> takes billions of years to stabilize.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:16 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> There is no telling what elements will be transformed by the LENR
>>> reaction. When the LENR active agent get hold of palladium and deuterium,
>>> silver might be formed rather than just helium. The mesh should be examined
>>> in a SEM scan to see if there is some non palladium elements present on the
>>> nickel mesh.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:03 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>>>
 *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 



- In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part
> that 106 of the 3-He part.



 Jürg



 If Mizuno is producing helium then it should show up very distinctly
 when he looks for it- since the total gas inventory is so low and the power
 is so high that the ratio of He:D after along run will leave no doubt. As
 of now – that evidence is lacking.



 It is too bad that we do not have more information now – as this
 experiment is uniquely positioned to see it and if fount then it makes a
 huge difference in what to expect from future devices. I’m on record as
 predicting there will be none, well … only incidental Helium – possibly
 unmeasurable.



 Mizuno clearly states nickel is the host reactant – not the tiny amount
 of palladium.



 Where is the reliable evidence for helium being produced from
 nickel/deuterium?



 Jones







>>>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21a1/9da6b2ac3da851177d2f4e93be88f73a330b.pdf

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions resulting as picometer interactions with
similarity to K-shell electron capture

H. Hora, G.H. Miley have come up with a theory that explains how transmuted
elements will form based on the quarks nature of matter. This is applicable
to what the mechanism of matter formation must have been when elements
first formed during the earliest  times just after the big bang. The way
matter forms now inside the LENR reaction at the EMF event horizon is the
same as it had occurred just after the big bang.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:51 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> Twin Paradox in General Relativity
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjHLboK2M1g
>
> From the perspective of the people in the world outside of the EMF event
> horizon, the speed that things are happening on or inside that horizon is
> ultra-fast. But at that  horizon, the speed that things are happening is
> occurring at a normal speed.
>
> This difference in the perspective of time is why we see no nuclear
> activity going on at or inside the EMF horizon.  These nuclear reactions
> happen instantaneously from our perspective even if the radioactive isotope
> takes billions of years to stabilize.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:16 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> There is no telling what elements will be transformed by the LENR
>> reaction. When the LENR active agent get hold of palladium and deuterium,
>> silver might be formed rather than just helium. The mesh should be examined
>> in a SEM scan to see if there is some non palladium elements present on the
>> nickel mesh.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:03 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>>
>>> *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>- In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part >
>>>that 106 of the 3-He part.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jürg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If Mizuno is producing helium then it should show up very distinctly
>>> when he looks for it- since the total gas inventory is so low and the power
>>> is so high that the ratio of He:D after along run will leave no doubt. As
>>> of now – that evidence is lacking.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is too bad that we do not have more information now – as this
>>> experiment is uniquely positioned to see it and if fount then it makes a
>>> huge difference in what to expect from future devices. I’m on record as
>>> predicting there will be none, well … only incidental Helium – possibly
>>> unmeasurable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mizuno clearly states nickel is the host reactant – not the tiny amount
>>> of palladium.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where is the reliable evidence for helium being produced from
>>> nickel/deuterium?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jones
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

Twin Paradox in General Relativity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjHLboK2M1g

>From the perspective of the people in the world outside of the EMF event
horizon, the speed that things are happening on or inside that horizon is
ultra-fast. But at that  horizon, the speed that things are happening is
occurring at a normal speed.

This difference in the perspective of time is why we see no nuclear
activity going on at or inside the EMF horizon.  These nuclear reactions
happen instantaneously from our perspective even if the radioactive isotope
takes billions of years to stabilize.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:16 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> There is no telling what elements will be transformed by the LENR
> reaction. When the LENR active agent get hold of palladium and deuterium,
> silver might be formed rather than just helium. The mesh should be examined
> in a SEM scan to see if there is some non palladium elements present on the
> nickel mesh.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:03 PM JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>> *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 
>>
>>
>>
>>- In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part >
>>that 106 of the 3-He part.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jürg
>>
>>
>>
>> If Mizuno is producing helium then it should show up very distinctly when
>> he looks for it- since the total gas inventory is so low and the power is
>> so high that the ratio of He:D after along run will leave no doubt. As of
>> now – that evidence is lacking.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is too bad that we do not have more information now – as this
>> experiment is uniquely positioned to see it and if fount then it makes a
>> huge difference in what to expect from future devices. I’m on record as
>> predicting there will be none, well … only incidental Helium – possibly
>> unmeasurable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mizuno clearly states nickel is the host reactant – not the tiny amount
>> of palladium.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is the reliable evidence for helium being produced from
>> nickel/deuterium?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

There is no telling what elements will be transformed by the LENR reaction.
When the LENR active agent get hold of palladium and deuterium, silver
might be formed rather than just helium. The mesh should be examined in a
SEM scan to see if there is some non palladium elements present on the
nickel mesh.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:03 PM JonesBeene  wrote:

> *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach 
>
>
>
>- In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part >
>that 106 of the 3-He part.
>
>
>
> Jürg
>
>
>
> If Mizuno is producing helium then it should show up very distinctly when
> he looks for it- since the total gas inventory is so low and the power is
> so high that the ratio of He:D after along run will leave no doubt. As of
> now – that evidence is lacking.
>
>
>
> It is too bad that we do not have more information now – as this
> experiment is uniquely positioned to see it and if fount then it makes a
> huge difference in what to expect from future devices. I’m on record as
> predicting there will be none, well … only incidental Helium – possibly
> unmeasurable.
>
>
>
> Mizuno clearly states nickel is the host reactant – not the tiny amount of
> palladium.
>
>
>
> Where is the reliable evidence for helium being produced from
> nickel/deuterium?
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[JonesBeene]

From: Jürg Wyttenbach

➢ In the Mizuno case we certainly will see 4-He with a 4-He a part > that 106 
of the 3-He part.

Jürg

If Mizuno is producing helium then it should show up very distinctly when he 
looks for it- since the total gas inventory is so low and the power is so high 
that the ratio of He:D after along run will leave no doubt. As of now – that 
evidence is lacking.

It is too bad that we do not have more information now – as this experiment is 
uniquely positioned to see it and if fount then it makes a huge difference in 
what to expect from future devices. I’m on record as predicting there will be 
none, well … only incidental Helium – possibly unmeasurable. 

Mizuno clearly states nickel is the host reactant – not the tiny amount of 
palladium. 

Where is the reliable evidence for helium being produced from nickel/deuterium?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Axil Axil]

Jed is exactly spot on in that crack formation through high deuterium
loading amplifies nanoplasmonic effects in the reactive substrate. But as
Mizuno has shown, the key to a sucessful reaction is low deuterium loading.
This is a oxymoron that has befuddled LENR theory for decades. Ir was
indicated on rare occasions when an LENR experiment lost pressure and there
was a spice in the generation of excess power as a result.

It is my belief that an active LENR reaction does not produce or more
rightly said reveal power production until the reaction has terminated. Low
deuterium loading makes this flickering of the LENR reaction possible
whereas high deuterium loading hides power production from reality.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:28 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>>
>
>> The problem with any analysis being touted as the basis for future
>> devices -  is pinpointing the full and correct understanding of the
>> operating principle. Unfortunately, the operating principle of this device
>> is not well-described by Ed Storms. It would be a big mistake to apply
>> Storms’ insight on palladium electrolysis to such an extremely different
>> device.
>>
>
> I do not know about Ed's theory, but what I think may be true is that the
> shape of the surface (morphology) plays a key role. The nano-cracks play a
> key role. With this device, the Pd expands with loading at a different rate
> than Ni does. Since they are bound together, this forces open nano-cracks.
> Which is where Ed thinks the reaction occurs. Even if he is wrong about the
> precise mechanism or the events in the cracks, this might be true. Similar
> nano-cracks might explain cold fusion in other implementations, and what
> look like very different systems.
>
> I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all systems. It
> is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that fission is
> the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite different.
>
>
> Storms theory was derived from electrolysis experiments at (generally) low
>> power input and output and using (generally) lithium based electrolyte and
>> notably the most reliable  level of  thermal gain is in the range of watts
>> per gram of palladium.
>
>
> Some of those experiments produced 100 W or more with a high gain and 16
> W/cm^2. See:
>
> https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:

>

> The problem with any analysis being touted as the basis for future devices
> -  is pinpointing the full and correct understanding of the operating
> principle. Unfortunately, the operating principle of this device is not
> well-described by Ed Storms. It would be a big mistake to apply Storms’
> insight on palladium electrolysis to such an extremely different device.
>

I do not know about Ed's theory, but what I think may be true is that the
shape of the surface (morphology) plays a key role. The nano-cracks play a
key role. With this device, the Pd expands with loading at a different rate
than Ni does. Since they are bound together, this forces open nano-cracks.
Which is where Ed thinks the reaction occurs. Even if he is wrong about the
precise mechanism or the events in the cracks, this might be true. Similar
nano-cracks might explain cold fusion in other implementations, and what
look like very different systems.

I assume there is one fundamental cause of cold fusion in all systems. It
is the same thing in all cases. This is similar to saying that fission is
the same in reactors and bombs, although it looks and acts quite different.


Storms theory was derived from electrolysis experiments at (generally) low
> power input and output and using (generally) lithium based electrolyte and
> notably the most reliable  level of  thermal gain is in the range of watts
> per gram of palladium.


Some of those experiments produced 100 W or more with a high gain and 16
W/cm^2. See:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

RE: [Vo]:If Mizuno is correct, this design is likely to be theprecursor to all future devices

[JonesBeene]

The problem with any analysis being touted as the basis for future devices -  
is pinpointing the full and correct understanding of the operating principle. 
Unfortunately, the operating principle of this device is not well-described by 
Ed Storms. It would be a big mistake to apply Storms’ insight on palladium 
electrolysis to such an extremely different device. In fact that suggestion can 
be described as counter-productive.

Storms theory was derived from electrolysis experiments at (generally) low 
power input and output and using (generally) lithium based electrolyte and 
notably the most reliable  level of  thermal gain is in the range of watts per 
gram of palladium. 

Storms finds that - by far (and we should emphasize “by far”) -  the optimal 
energy for nuclear reactions in electrolysis is well under 10 watts and the 
drop off is extremely steep thereafter. This fits with the low powered 
experiments of many others and also a basis in QM. See Storms and Scanlan / 
Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 4 (2011) 17–31 FIG 1.

The details of Mizuno’s breakthrough  are far from electrolysis - devoid of any 
indication of nuclear fusion even at the kilowatt level. Importantly, high 
loading of hydrogen is to be avoided instead of being absolutely required. That 
detail is most telling.

Morevoer, the thermal output is 100,000 times higher in terms of watts per gram 
of palladium – indicating that nickel is the active reactant and palladium 
serves mainly as a spillover catalyst and not a reactant for gain. 

Nickel - for the past 30 years  is simply not associated with nuclear fusion at 
all, but is associated very closely with excess heat and EUV or soft x-rays – 
and  in some of the best experiments to have shown up in Fusion the premiere 
journal. 

The nature of the reaction involving very low inventory of hydrogen and low 
loading -  and Mizuno’s own recent writings point more to a dense hydrogen 
modality as framed by Holmlid, Piantelli, Hora, Miley, Winterberg, Mills, 
Meulenberg  etc. etc.  instead of and with limited relationship to cold fusion. 

This of course means that the underlying gain is NOT fusion but still  
“nuclear” (derived from nuclear mass) so LENR is the correct descriptor.

The nucleus is  intimately coupled energetically to electrons and the binding 
energy of the nucleus can be shared and thermalized into heat at an impressive 
level (as Mizuno has hopefully demonstrated). The gain comes from the strong 
force via QCD. Any fusion seen will be incidental and insufficient to explain 
kilowatts of excess heat.

IMHO - the lure and lore of “cold fusion” per se will probably take another hit 
when it is found that the Mizuno breakthrough is not fusion at all -  but at 
the same time, it  is indeed nuclear.

Jones