From: Eric Walker * The end result is that the only workable approach is to completely separate the two– deuterium-based from protium-based, as being fundamentally different. And why not?
One question I've been mulling over is whether the hydrogen and deuterium simply catalyze the induced decay of something else, and whether deuterium just does a better job of this. In this case they would not be consumed in any reaction in any quantity. Eric, Imagine that the single common denominator of any gainful reaction involving hydrogen and/or deuterium involves the prior formation of a denser allotrope of either isotope. It does not matter if the formation stage is exothermic or endothermic, since what happens latter is of greater importance. The dense form of either hydrogen isotope would then catalyze the decay of an atom like lithium or potassium via a glancing approach to the nucleus, not close enough for fusion but disruptive. Many successful cold fusion experiments have used lithium electrolyte. Lithium would undergo accelerated decay to helium – thus fooling the experimenter into believing the helium came from fusion, instead of accelerated decay… despite the lack of gamma. This assumes that accelerated decay has a much higher cross-section than fusion (a very defensible proposition). And to complete the scenario – this reaction with lithium could be happening in addition to the accelerated decay of deuterium. Thus in the end, we would have no fusion, no gamma, but we would find helium in rough proportion to the excess heat seen in the reaction, if the deuterium decay predominates.
