AlainCo

 

Thank You for Your opinion. You are right- I don 't explain the reaction, I explain the possibility of Coulomb barrier overcoming only (like Gamov for quantum tunneling). Besides, I attempt to estimate the amount of "one dimentional" ossilations among general 3- dimentional. Thus 1-dimentional estimation is credible.

The possibility of energy accumulation allowing Coulom barrier overcoming is a key question. This possibility would however produce classic "hot fusion" outcome. There are some experimental results with mild energy bombardment that seems to support that possibility, with usual results like neutrons and tritium proportionate to the reaction.

Maybe would a similar approach, exploiting QM theoretical competence, would be able to explain mild radiation outcome. There is a need for such effort.

LENR is caught in a complex catch22. The absence of a theoretical framework make some prefer to deny the experimental results, whoever obtain them, whatever they are, whatever is the sigma and the cross checking. On the other side, it attract easy "new physics" claims, whose supporters ignore all dissenting data in LENR and outside LENR. Finally the few who consider the data, and base their reflection like you on established QM in the unexplored material science landscape, focus first on the first miracle of LENR, the low energy ignition, keeping the low energy outcome miracle to later. This is the key point to make things advance. My vision is that any tentative to explains LENR should start from the latest miracle : low energy outcome. This position is not much shared.

On you 1D approach, it is clearly one of the key direction, and as I understand in established physics the 1D QM have already delivered counter-intuitive results. Nanotubes experiments may have already produced interesting results?

2D (graphène is one example, HTSC too) is more explored, and already delivered surprises.

My position, I admit, is mostly at the epistemological level, highlighting where research may be fruitful, given it's apparent structure emerging from data, and what are the locks.

The exploitation of 1-dimentionality is interesting, but I cannot comment more.

I'm worried that it seems that you focus only on the initiation of the reaction, and not the biggest point in LENR observation, the mild average energy of outcome.

The most important miracle in LENr reactions is not that a nuclear reaction is initiated from low average energy, but that once a huge energy per He4 produced (see this P-R review http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf ), the outcome seldom contains MeV energy events (gamma, charged particle), not even proportionate neutrons.

For me this is the key, and the key to the incredulity about reality of the numerous and varied experimental results (I consider that only PdD results are sound and enough replicated to be hard to deny).

The only credible proposal from my point of view, is the one of Edmund Storms, who propose not a full theory, but a bounding of possible theories , of possible mechanism, and the embryo of a proposed mechanism (hydroton).

you can find few article and books there

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258148116_Efforts_to_explain_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

Hydroton is not far from your ideas, as it is a 1-D structure.

The work of Vladimir Dubinko on discrete breather, is interesting too, but again the key to explain is the absence of huge energy events.

the work of ENEA, confirmed by NRL and SKINR, is clearly confirming the importance of cristallographic state, caused by impurities and treatments (manufacturing, loading-unloading), in LENR rate of success in PdD experiments.

If your theory

- does not explains why there is no MeV gamma or charged particle braking

- does not explains why metallurgy is key

It have few chance to be true or useful.

It seems anyway, from what i understand that you are going in a fruitful direction, of collective phenomenons in 1-D structures. The theory of Edmund Storms looks experimentally well founded, and have good chances to be correct about the metallurgy, but there is a need of a quantum mechanism.

Edmund Storms ideas is that LENR is a kind of "slow fusion", where keV quantum are accumulated or dissipated in a collective phenomenon not unlike superconduction. There is a great need of QM expertise on that point, in strong connection with the experimental database.

There is a mass or fallacies an erroneous arguments that I know well as they are spread like virus...

If Rossi had a working device he would be rich

 

... well any industrialis developping a complex technology, know that the problem is seedling money.

Another problem that LENR-Cities founders master well with their painful experiments on other innovation, is that when an innovation is disruptive, it is very hard to find markets, and operators, because markets don't yet exist, and existing market are destroyed bevor the new are created. Philippe Siberzahn in french explain it well in his book "L'effectuation"... His blog is fantatic but in french.

By the way after long time battling with his own money, Rossi is now rich, and CSO of Industrial Heat which is funded above 10Mn$... Brillouin is funded

Don't imagine that it is easy to sell Wright plane, E-cat, abortion pill, ...

Another argument is based on insufficient incompetence in electricity... people who know enough of electricity to know that RMS is different from average-abs or peak to peak... Wattmeter like PCE830 are computed dedicated to signal treatment who simply integrate the instantaneous power through currents and voltage at the speed of many thousands samples per seconds.

And please don't say that energy is smuggled at 100kHz at 2kWn because any engineer can see the interferences in any instruments, and worst of all any fraudsters would never allow a scientist to be alon with a device smuggling this power though the hijacked main power... that is not scientific, nor even commonsense.

The only hypothesis is a general conspiracy, which is more something for a planet conspiracy forum than for a scientific forum, not even a criminal forum because it is too big to be a crime.

Another common fallacy based agains on insufficient incompetence in energy technology is people not being aware that most energy source requires external energy to be started, and most of the time maintained. You can ask to fukushima if their powerplant coul be let off the grid easily.

For scientific people I find also it is dramatically sad to see above college people who ignore what is a subcritical reactor.

Of course if the COP is enough (above 6-10) one day, after huge engineering work with tuning of the control-command, cooling, turbine dynamics, it may be possible to return sone electricity produced to feed the reactor... Again this is understating the engineering complexity.

about the lack of reliability of F&P, it was far better that 1%, and even replicators like McKubre were above 10% of their cells active.

The key parameter, once you removed the triggering condition understood during the few initial years

is metallurgy and ENEA have done a huge work to understand some key crystallography condition

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1

they claim success above 60% when the crystallographical state is controlled.

the initial failures in the first month and years, which triggered the justified skepticism , then the definitive groupthink caused by insults and irreversible definitive claims, have been mostly explained

DJ cravens explain it here

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf

Today Edmund storms give a good manual to trigger, and a key phase is material sorting, with success around half.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEwhatcondit.pdf

for anyone with technology culture it is not at all uncommon. People today seems to have forgotten how unreliable were early technologies, like transistors

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue25/transistors.html

what is shocking me is that many arguments used in the name of science, are hugely unscientific.

there is theory challenging experiments.

Business and technology problems justifying to deny science.

there is circular reasoning justifying to forbid publication, while claiming that it cannot be true because there is no publication... beside ignoring there are publications .

finally I agree that E-Cat is the solution to convince, not despite but because it is not a scientific experiment but a big tea kettle...

The test is of much lesser quality than the work of McKubre, Miles, and even recent Mizuno corrected calorimetry that Jed Rothwell recently reviewed, but it is convincing for businessmen.

I hope the second version of Lugano test will contain more data to eliminate some hypothesis, and will ruleout the COP=1. anyway the precision will always be questionable because of lack of high temperature calibration.

I would need more knowledge in the algorithm used by IR cam to estimate temperature for an assumed emissivity. if someone can help on that point.

Today McKubre report he was invited in Norway to participate a panel, because Norway prepare to hedge their economy agains LENr revolution... They are not sure, but they want to hedge. that is rational.

It is more clear today why Brillouin joined Steven Chu in Statoil.

 

 

Those links take me to the top level of the journal, featuring the current issue, and not to individual papers.

the link seems broken

I found

Takahashi/Toyota replication

dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.52.107301

of iwamura

dx.doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.41.4642

anyway as some reporte here, this thread started with the 2013 E-cat test.

The first version of the paper about the Lugano E-cat test of 2014 is published by Swedish DoE/EPRI equivalent, Ellforsk:

http://elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/

Some would have noticed that even if Arxiv publish anything withut real review except formal, it was blocked...

Those who says there is no psychiatry in that affair should consider that evidence.

Brian Josephson leaked the discussion about 2013 test by Arxiv moderators who were desperately searching for excuse to reject the paper finding none. This time they win.

anyway review is in process, an open process.

There is among the critics many conspiracy theories, with Seagle (Start with a bang) calling for fraud and appealing to theory to say it cannot be else... If you feel that barflag and me are emotional, better not read his blog. Anyway his blog is a good moment to remind that usning theory to prove that an experimental result is necessarily a fraud because theory disagree (and not because there is evidence of fraud, a different point) is not scientific. This is a common fallacy in LENR story, well shown by famous Huizenga quote

 

 

"Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."

a reference in circular reasoning.

There was an interesting critique about the possibility of artifact cause by internal light troubling the IR cam.

It can be safely ruled out with both theory and experimental argument. First the bandwith used by the IR cam match 7.5um-13um is in a zone where alumina is opaque. second the IR image don't show the visible lights patterns that one can see on the protographs.

Some other call for not even sub college student errors in powermeter installation... Better to ignore that on a scientific forum.

The most challengin s is by Mickael McKubre of SRI who

1- is not familiar with thermography calorimetry and prefer contact calorimetry

2- seriously challenge the quality of the test by noticing the calibration (cf http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html) was not done at full temperature, and thus that the emissivity is only estimated from tables and low temperature (450c) calibration.

Emissivity according to the table evolve from 0.7 down to 0.4. to explain the result it shoud go down to 0.1 to cause the illusion of 3.6 COP.

another critic is a bit recursive, as usual. It seems from the data availble that the apparent resistance of the load is reduced by a factor of more than 3 from 450C to 1400C. Negative temperature coffericien more heating cold, at this value, are not common.

The CSO of Industrial Heat have answered that it is proprietary doped metal alloy based on inconel.

Some people assume it is impossible and prefer to call for a conspiracy of errors, that in fact don't even match the data in detail (the power step, the exact values, difference between the two wattmeter), and don't match simply common sens of game theory (you don't let a scam toy be tested out of your presence, hoping some cautious scientists make a sequance of 2 student errors and that artifacts cillude to hide your error)... I hope people here will stay rational.

One should notice that there is two independent challenge on the report.

The one that follows McKubre, is the challenge on precision. It was not the main goal of the testers who just wanted to prove it worked, and precision it probably weaker than expected because of the protocol, mainly the insufficient calibration.

I expect some improvement, by usage of the power step analysis, where the 1250C run can be used as a kind of relative calibration.

The second challenge on the report could be on the reality of LENR. this is the elephant in the living room (in english maybe you say 10ton gorilla in the kitchen).

Not even the conspiracy theories on two inverted clamps and triac switch that conspirate with calorimetric errors to cause a COP that evole from 3.2 to 3.6 can be compatible with COP=1.

The excursion with apparent 1250C to 1400C, adding 700W, by just adding 100Win over 800W in, excludes COP=1 ...

maybe anyway is it too early to discuss about those artifacts claims, as the testers prepare answer to many questions, using the log of the two installed wattmeters

Scientifically the only interesting question is if COP=1 is possible, given the results.

One big question I could ask is how the kind of IR cam used react to errors if effective emissivity ?

If the IR cam assume emissivity is 0.4 and temperature is 1400C, implying emission of 3.2kW

and that it is very different, what is the emissivity required, and the real temperature, implying emission of less than 900W, to fool the IR cam, ?

a second question is about negative temperature coefficient.

Is there known dopped metal alloys with such a 3x resistivity over 2x temperature excusion?

I have seen report of such excusions with smaller temperature, in Pd-Ag alloys.

Beside that there are clear reports of TypeII superconduction. Paolo Tripodi is a reference researcher in that domain, despite some problem to publish the concluding remark.

Here is a starting document to find references

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SC-LENR.pdf

but best papers are from Tripodi as far as I have heard.

In short some hydride material show Type II HTSC transition in condition common to LENR.

A common reference is

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037596010000654X

Celani reported also resistivity changes...

This question raise another warning on interpreting Lugano test : that the heating coils are probably LENR devices, probably what Rossi named the "mouse". this raise also a warning on the interpretation of the isotopic analysis which are probably not representative of the whole system.

Analysis of theory, or of impossibility only from the isotopic analysis is more than risky.

Sorry to get back to the subject, but I tried to follow the direction of critics. We are not there to kill the 10ton gorilla in the kitchen. That is the stiff Job of Bill Gates .

I agree that maybe we should start to talk on individual paper and, yes, ignore those who says there is none.

Let us start by this paper by Iwamura 5Mitsubishi Heavy Industry)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/41/4642/

replicated by Takahaski (Toyota/Technova)

http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/52/107301/

those two works are serious, but focus on triggering transmutations.

many question arise. It is clearly not an artifact as the CaO vs MgO layer seems a key parameter.

One big surprise that have been well cauight by Edmund Storms in proposing his Hydroton theory is that the transmutation

- seems to match an even number of deuterons, 1/2 or 3 pairs. Very intriguing.

- taht it seems to avoid radioactive results.

If you gather evidences from the literature( see The science of LENR for a synthesis or this student guide) , there seem to be evidence of this phenomenon to avoid radioactive results, but not always. Some fusion-fission seems probable, beside fusion/absorption.

Beside what seems as anecdotal transmutation there is no doubt that (thus radioactive) tritium is produced in F&P style cells (Bockris, Srinivasan, LANL) at 10e-6 expected from hot fusion heat, as much as He4 (seemingly commensurate to heat, see Bush&Miles )...

the big question is what is happening. There is no doubt it is very different from hot fusion, that radioactive results and energetic rays are "avoided" when heat is produced, even if few "hot fusion" seems to happen at 10e-6/10e-12 rate, as the few but observed neutrons are example of.

Recently the Lugano test (See from Elforsk http://elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/) raised an outlier result that is shocking even for old LENR researchers.

It seems massive (99%+) shift toward Ni62 happen in Ni powder, as some big shift toward Li6...

some question if it is transmutation or simply isotopic selection, the survivor syndrom (Ni62 could be the only non reactive).

Question is also whether this reaction is the main exothermal reaction, or as it seems an anecdotal reaction, or simply an enrichment artifact.

to answer those question, Edmund storms propose a mechanism, the Hydroton.

Before even the mechanism he propose an approach which is not very popular among LENr researchers because it is heavily criticizing competing theories as not respecting "common laws" of physics (heisenberg/entropy, free neutrons thermalization, statistics,CoM) and chemistry (Gibbs energy), and some rule of thumbs (conservation of miracle).

He wrote a book on that, but most of his ideas are in that ICCF18 poster:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf

I appreciate the conservative approach bounding what the good theory have to be and not to be, but the hydroton is clearly only a proposal.

the key of his idea is that because of some chemical/physical stress, crack apears in which metallic chain of atomic hydrogen gather, forming a quantum insulated object of big size, able like an atom to have many energy levels, and thus to concentrate and dissipate energy though excitation levels.

His key idea is expressed in this appendice

the key idea is that this big quantum object is able to slowly convert quantum of strong force potential energy into photons energy, by quantum in the keV, not MeV range.

Beside this proposed conversion mechanism, which remind me the way blackhole dissipate gravitational energy through gamma burst, In the book he give an interpretation of Iwamura results.

He propose that contaminating target elements get lost in the middle of an hydroton chain, and that this nucleus fuse with a few pairs of hydrogen. This prevent production of gamma as momentum is null, but this required huge intrication of hydrogens atoms as three-body and more reaction are practically impossible else.

the mystery that there is a preference for stable results may came from that quantum mechanisme that maybe does not allow radioactive results for question of symmetries or for excitation energy required... or because it can transmutate unstable elements very quickly.

Srinivasna in BARC have observed one strange phenomemnon, that tritium was not only clearly produced, but also consumed at some period...

Some reports proposed that LENR can transmute radioactive elements, and this led to some straneg patents, by MHI or Spawar. More question than answer.

This is much criticized by LENR scientists who prefers others direction, like BEC (Takahashi TSC, Hagelstein or Kim ). debate is hot.

Also Lugano test, launch more question than it answers.

First is question on Iwamura thin film transmutation in hydrogen permeation. It is replicated but the results seems very sensible to implementation details.

Second is about theories. Hydroton theory launch two question in general physics, far from the controversy.

Is there some know mechanism that allows relatively slow conversion of one nuclear potential energy to photons, or similar conversion violating the energy scale ? I took the non quantum example of gravitation to gamma conversion, but we are far from that here.

The second is about the way cracks can create a deep energy pit for molecules. Ed Storms theory is based on the idea that there are many free electrons abandoned by hydrogen in the hydride, which can cover the side of "cracks" and shield the proposed hydroton chain from chemistry context. Can it create quantum insulated objects, some kind of Schrodinger kittens ?

Is there known chemistry environments (graphene? zeolithes ? nanotubes ?... NB there is possible observation of LENR in all of those... to be confirmed) which can create insulated environment where Schrodinger kitten can play alone and show their quantum nature, like showing surprising energy levels.

@imatfaal

Ok for less psychology, but I would simply ask that claims of frauds and bad peer review, as much as lack of evidence, be avoided as it is no less scientific.

As long as people will continue to ignore available evidence, to ignore peer reviewed literature with non rational argument, I will be forced to state it is not scientific.

there are evidence, scientific and business, we can discuss of it.

we can start with that old cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf

I am also still waiting for reviewed critic of F&P and McKubre calorimetry, as much as Spawar CR39 results, iwamura/Takahasi transmutation experiments, Miles/Bush DeNinno He4/Heat correlations.

and if someone say it is not in Nature and Science, I will have to slip to epistemology argumentation. this is the key in that domain. Even if the phenomenon is hard to trigger, scientific evidence are simple; only problem is acceptance.

I don't knwo where you see any insult.

I say that you did not read the litterature and you did not even read my links where are 153 peer reviewed science.

you clearly depende a position based on no data, and I can forgive you as it is very common.

I insult nobody as groupthink a a very common disease that jhave been identified in academic communities since centuries... as in the story of Germs theory, started with oliver Gordon de Aberdeen, continuing by killing Semmelweiss despite his fantastic statistical work, and finishing with the very commercial behavior of an unrespectful chemist, Pasteur.

Please as i said, don't give statement until you are seriously documented on the subject.

That is a rule of scientific method.

Anyway there is no crime in that, as 99% of the community do the same.

I agree that the reaction of barfflag is emotional, but I also know the cause which is a clear cognitive pathology, a groupthink , that is visible even in your wise answer.

It is a good thing that this thread is not dumped as it is frequent. It is marginalized however.

Where I could get emotional, is when I hear "we need good evidence".

It seems this position is purely based on ignoring the mass of evidence available. This capacity to ignore facts, using source innuendo, recursive reasoning (any who support a positive position is assumed part of a conspiracy or delusion), blind inverted popper arguments (prove first, after we bring proofs), is well described in skeptic literature, in epistemology reference book (Kuhn, Feyerabend), in psychiatry and social dynamic litterature (Roland Beanbou on Groupthink).

My only advice is that anyone who did not read

"Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette

and

"The science of LENR" by Edmund storms,

and can bring a critical paper proving experimental artifact that is not refuted

do stop saying

1- that there is no evidence of cold fusion

2- that cold fusion claims where debunked

which are both false if you document yourself. (start there for PR papers http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6and read beaudette to understant that the only 4 written critical attack are debunked)

What is happening today is simply the underground breaking of the Berlin wall. There is more industrial moves underground, and i participate to some of them modestly.

From the literature on science groupthink, as experience with germs theory, superconduction, quasicristals, planes, I expect that academic circles will surrender to reality only a few years after sales.

About Bill gates, it is fascinating to see people claim that it was on hot fusion as it is a public fact that Violante is a long time LENR supporter, the coordinator of ENEA LENR research, and that he organized conferences on that subject.

This is a great warning about caution we should have with media.

Note that beside that Steven Chu (ext secreatary of energy) have been proudly visiting Statoil with Brillouin Corp boss :

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/11/godes-of-brillouin-with-former-us-energy-secretary-chu/

after Brillouin boss visited the ex Finish green minister

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/04/robert-godes-of-brillouin-energy-visits-finnish-government-officials-and-statoil-in-norway/

after Elforsk boss supported E-cat test in a press release, and an interview

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/691-CEO-Elforsk-Magnus-Olofsson

I urge you also to follow LENR-Cities which have more to show that what you can see today

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/19-LENR-Cities-Report-about-the-Kick-off-meeting-in-Neuchatel/

the good news is that it seems the businessmen have understood that academic circles and media cannot be convinced and start to ignore them.

This is among the dozen of epistemology fiasco of the 20th century. The post-mortem analysis will be fruitful for epistemology and media/information theory, I hope. Thanks to internet to enforce the "ex-ante free speech" that Roland Benabou demand in his Groupthink papers.

NB: some may say that this is not a discussion on psychiatry, sociology, epistemology, but clearly this is the core of the problem, and not seeing it is part of the pathology. Understanding innovative science without cognitive science is impossible.

LENR patent , as David French frequently said, have the bad habits to talk of theory, and NASA followed that awful habit.

The worst is that it can ruin their patent if the W/L theory is rejected, even if their process works.

To patent a bicycle you don't give detail on the theory... and hopefully because it seems that bicycle theory was wrong for a long period...

This kind of article is strange, showing there is a cognitive dual equilibrium as Benabou explain.

This article propose really something fringy (Doug Wells propose similar fringy designs for NASA/NARI) , because using nano particle as a moving fuel is far from ready... Anyway it is their job to think at N+4 (as NASA said in Boeing/NASA report on SUGAR plane, where LENR is just considered as an option)...

I rather see the first prototypes based on a Toyota Prius style of Hybrid group, like what LENR Cars (ILENRS12 presentation, ICCF18 presentation) is preparing (just project inception currently... waiting for E-cat test I imagine).

I feel that the Airbus E-fan can be a good platform.

Airbus E-trust (a gas turbine hybrid electric) can also be the second step.

You will have to add high performance microturbines, able to work at the current reactor temperature... probably 600-800C.

Steam ranking or ORC rankin are natural option on the ground, but maybe some open Brayton design will allow better power density.

I would like to have the opinion of experienced micro- turbine engineers, about the best design, the expected power density, the expected price ratio... both for weight-challenged vehicle (planes, cars, drone) and for less challenging system like CHP, more sensible about price...

For rankine turbine I have gathered some price and weight.It make kW rankine turbine above 2000$/kW, while ate 100MW it is down 500$/kW... innovative microturbine propose density above 1kW/kg...

NASA Boeing SUGAR report established a technology requirement for LENR-Hybrid airliner at 660Wmech/kg for the turbine (and 1600Wheat/kg for the LENr reactor, with 225Wh/kg for the batteries)... It seems accessible with effort from today's R&D in process.

another group in NASA propose an electric aircraft without superconductors... another platform...

It is fascinating, but very premature (except for aircraft manufacturer who have to prepare).

Today the main question about the soon to came Third-party independent test in Sweden, is whether the reactor is usable for industrial heat production.

Second phase will be MW CHP and power plant... then why not home boilers and CHP... then more demanding applications like cars, trains, boats... and finally plane, rocket, drones... at best mainstream in 20 years, and probably 30, except in some niche market like drone or skydiving.

@swantont

for a paper on WL theory I would advise the latest of Srivastava . Like you I am not impressed.

I join Edmund Storm on the point that the nuclear active environment cannot be the surface as it is too much under the influence of complex chemistry. The NAE have to be protected from external influence so multi-body system grow enough to concentrate and spilt energy between MeV and KeV scale.

The idea of electron capture is interesting, and basing the solution in collective effect that allow 780keV to be concentrated locally is a key idea. But the detail don't seems to support that idea.

You also seems to look for experimental papers. I have cited few, and more than that cited review and summaries that contain many citation.

• Status of Cold Fusion by Edmund Storms is a reference paper
• Tally of cold fusion papers is just interesting to have a comprehensive list of peer reviewed papers on excess heat and others phenomenon
• the tritium panel of ICCF18 is sure a good start for understanding tritium results. those slides are presenting results.
• For transmutation the JJAP papers of Iwamura and Toyota contains evidence of transmutations. they have measured some regularities in the transmutation showing that nucleons are swallowed in pairs.
• There is few paper on Helium detection, based mostly on Miles and Bush cooperation, and then on ENEA Dennino report 41.
• one can safely confirm from the whole spectrum of results that few neutron and energetic gamma are produced, bellow a million less than the heat. This is according to Ed Storms the nail in the coffin of W/L, and for all neutron based theories (Kozima). The ultra-low momentum neutron don't convince me as impossible to detect by thermal neutron detectors.

Widom Larsen in a way were good in popularizing in a family of LENR theories :

• based on classic quantum physics
• they abandoned the p-p fusion as impossible that way.
• they used electron capture process
• thus requiring some collective effect inside a lattice
• as experiments show they involved surface of the hydride

There are competing theories like :

• Kim-Zubarev based on BEC
• Edmund Storms, based on metallic hydrogen quantum 1D clusters, the hydroton

None is finished and confirmed, by lack of budget, of instruments and shortage of new talents.

If real scientists were sensible to the many critics claiming it is not sure, they would simply work hard to close the debate with either good experiments proving artifacts, or with experimental papers...

In a way it have happened (Celani started like Navy NRL labs to work as skeptics) and there is many experimental papers, no serious refutation, but not much budget to find a theory.

Moreover many people in that domain have finally decided that the best direction was industrial application, and they are right. You can find for example Miley, Piantelli, McKubre, Iwamura, Takahashi, Hagelstein/Swartz... they do real research, but try to launch business of it, more or less naively.

So I agree there is much work to do to gather current experimental and theory papers, filters the best one (especially the theories - some are even more funny than Morrison critics) , and start to build an opinion on the theory (BTW: never read a theory to have an opinion on the reality of LENR).

Ed Storms like McKubre have done that. I think Edmund storm is preparing a new book with his results. His previous book might be valuable. Of course beginners should appreciate his student book.

LENR science is in deep need of new talents in physics.

Today as a wet or dry chemistry experiment is is more and more mastered, and ENEA seems not far to have closed the cause of the hard reproducibility of early experiments. Isotopic analysis is done also.

However there is not enough creative talents working on the theoretical question to raise new experimental challenge.

Your question to be able to see a Widom-Larsen ULN, the proton patch, the heavy electrons, are the one that are required to validate a theory, far ahead trying to produce kW reliably.

it is funny that a zombie critic against lenr is that there is still no tea kettle (if melting a reactor is not better than making tea, you can just consider the LENR tea balls of DJ Craven at NIWeek2013 warming tea for the guest), while in fact most research is in that direction today. We rather need basic physics research, unapplicable, like the one done in hunting Higgs boson, supersymmetry, or dark matter.

As I repeat the WL that barfbag theory proposed is no validated, and just is a base for more research.

however I notice the very classic reaction which can be translated as "I am so sure you are wrong that I will not even look into the telescope". By looking yu will find many resulst about transmutation.

The mains transmutation observed, measured in detail is He4 production in PdD cells, measured many times by Bush in double blind with Miles, and confirmed late by ENEA Deninno Report 41. This repor by the way was a great moment of Kuhnian epistemology, because the paper was dumped by nature because there was no room... without reading of course. and rejected by >40 journals for pathetic reasons like that nothing could be warmer than 100C inside water (making underwater soldering thus impossible).

If you have read the documents about tritium, you would also have seen the autoradiography of cold fusion electrodes.

The Iwamura (Mitsubishi), replicated by Toyota (published both in peer-reviewed JJAP) shows also transmutation...

I absolutely understand that WL theory look strange, especially if you did not read the theory papers (Srivastava have made a synthesis presented at CERN in march 2012 ). Having read the theory, and the various critics, I'm no more convinced...

anyway it is not a reason to challenge the reality of the peer-reviewed papers, while to oppose them you have books of Huizenga, Taubes, Parks, Morrison full of pathetic incompetence, huge prejudices against opponents and gigantic fallacies...

Reading the vof.se forum, I see it is a very common argument, based on myth.

for example mainstream myth says that the failed test at caltech/MIT/Harwell were more famous and competent than F&P or others replicators. It is the exact opposite. Fleischman was a very famous and recognised electrochemist, like Bockris. The replicators like Lewis were not only unexceptional, but clearly insufficiently competent in calorimetry. Moreover by incompetence or prejudices MIT experiment triggered the feeling of fraud and misconduct in the mind of the internal MIT editor who have processed the MIT papers. The most horrific was that instead of correcting errors, the peer review process was used to prevent the correction of those at least errors.

Now to oppose those public facts you have only rumors, feeling, which are simply propagated from the pathetic books of Huizenga, Taubes, Parks, and Morrison who at best are neither exceptionally competent nor influential.

The only written critics are refuted, showing not only the quality of the work of F&P, but the unacceptable incompetence and bias of their authors. At least most (not Morrison) were not enough dishonest to support their claims. but the Urban Myth was settled.

As I say, please find a paper that detail the errors, so it can be peer-reviewed and challenged. At least Shanahan did that with his CCH, was refuted, but it was a fair game.

It is absolutely fascinating to see that scientist can sincerely (I don't doubt they are sincere and very standard) refuse to accept peer-reviewed papers, while they don't have the least unreviewed paper to oppose, but just wikipedia, hearsay, and some rumors based on bad books.

Beaudette have studied this situation and propose a list of characteristics for the pretended skeptic of cold fusion :

 

In general, skeptics display the following habits.

1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.
2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.
4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.
5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.
7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable

I don't want to aggress anybod as I know it is a consequence of a collective delusion, but i hope that at leas some people will independently realize that there is something irrational is that denial.

I could accept that someone say "it is not sure, let us investigate and check" (that is the cautious approach of the Swedish researchers for E-cat test, which unlike cold fusion is not enough validated).

But being sure of something, without the least evidence, not the least physical law broken (none is broken, not COE, 2ndLoTD, not even momentum, charge) is...fascinating.

More fascinating is to see people believing without evidence accuse people having data to be deluded, and admitting they refuse to read the presented data.

It is not a specific case as I observed the same behavior on vof.se, futura-science.fr, fusionnefredda.it... It is a rule, replicated (not peer reviewed ).

This is why I say that in a way Cold Fusion is first of all a cognitive problem.

As long as people will pretend to be sure cold fusion is an artifact, without the least evidence, will refuse to read the least paper honestly, will refuse to introduce the least 1% doubt in their conviction, there will be no science in the room.

As I explained before it is shocking, but well explained. maybe we should move part of the discussion inside the cognitive science section, because debate on the theory or the applications, is not possible without a minimum of agreement of what is an evidence...

For me it is enough replication by competent people, checked/reviewed by competent people with no credible critic that remain...

Ok,

I just note that the key problem is first that instead of discussing of evidence, and trying to match the theory with the observation, on one side many people deny the evidences, and other discuss on the theory.

1. I propose that first we state the evidences as evident, or at least as a base for work...
2. afterward I think the the result is that we will realize we have not enough data to build a complete theory and that more research is required.
3. We can then at best consider what are the key characteristics of the theory, assuming things are simple. and then state what is missing.

My point with kuhn is just the prediction that we will not agree on 1, and that it is irreducible.

if one want absolutely to move to theoretical question, instead of discussing of neutrinos or heavy electrons in WL theory details, let us more generally question.

If the reaction have to be aneutronic or not?

If it is involving collective behaviors able to concentrate and spread energy quanta up to few MeV...

Since neutrons are observed below 10^-6 the quantity expected, I imagine that even very slow neutrons will be thermalized and detected. Since very few ate detected, One can conclude there is no neutron produced on the main branch

For dozen of MeV energy, and observing a spectrum below 500KeV (have to check the literature, like Narita2003 ) it seems that a quantum system with hundreds of states able to absorb dozens of MeV and reemit hundreds of X-rays/soft gamma...

This is not my reasoning, but the one of Edmund storms in his embryo of theory, as far as I understand.

Now, I thing that if we can judge that the system involve collective behavors, aneutronic reaction, theory is premature.

Storms judge that presence of tritium is very important to test his theory. i suspect that he say that because he knows that tritium is observed, and BARC even observed that tritium was produced, then consumed (which is even more impossible). I share his feeling that it is a key to LENR understanding.

ICCF18 in University of missouri featured a panel discussion on tritium and another on neutrons and radiation detection (the conference is partially on YouTube, like this part of the tritium panel).

Interested people should consult recent presentations at ICCF18, then the video matching the slides.

For tritium Srinivasan, a pioneer of tritium detection in BARC made a presentation, but there are much more articles (should follow citations). Tritium is very interesting since it is easily detected (for experts), and that contamination (for experts) is seldom possible at the dose observed. Even Huizenga admitted that and conclude there was an international conspiracy, so powerful that there was no evidence of it, despite repeated inquiries.

From what I have quickly read it seems that gamma spectrum during the reaction is not well established. depending on the paper it can go up to 1MeV, but sometime is below 250keV, and part of the spectum is more about radioisotopes than the reaction...

Interested people should ask not only experts, but also competent scientists having a comprehensive vision of the domain.

Biberian, Storms, McKubre for different reason (JCMNS, NaturWissenschaften, SRI) seems to have such a comprehensive vision. Jed Rothwell (of lenr-canr.org) is less expert, but have probably an even more comprehensive vision because he have read nearly all papers, published or not, copyrighted or not, and discussed with nearly everybody even in japan. He cannot check all in detail, but sure he can find a wide range of article on required subjects.

I'm conscious that it is too early to talk of theory, but I share like nearly all people here the feeling that it is fascinating.

We should at least start the theory from the various phenomena observed or not observed, with bottom-up and inductive method, from required characteristics of the solution to proposed hypothesis.

Provided we agree on point1.

You are right the definition is important. Mine is quite restrictive, and focus on F&P effect and the one that seems related, no others.

I follow the definition of Edmund Storms of what is cold fusion as he synthetise in "Status of Cold Fusion(2010)" review published in naturWissenschaften.

 

The unique process is proposed to involve a reaction between deuterons, resulting in 4He and small amounts of occasional tritium and neutrons without significant harmful radiation. In addition, reactions can apparently occur between deuterons or protons and various target elements to produce changes in elemental and isotopic compositions, which is called transmutation. All of these reactions are thought to occur on or near to the surface of certain special materials containing hydrogen isotopes. In contrast to hotfusion, the process requires very little energy beyond that supplied by the normal environment, although some benefit results from additional energy being applied in various forms.

The process has been initiated using several different methods. Initially, F-P used special palladium as the cathode in an electrolytic cell containing D2O+LiOD. Similar results have been reported using low-voltage gas discharge in D2, low-voltage plasma generated in D2O, bubble collapse on various metals in D2O using ultrasound, and exposure of various special materials to deuterium gas at modest pressure. Even various single-cell organisms have been reported to produce nuclear products when grown in D2O as well as in H2O, but in the latter case with less evidence supporting the claims.

Basically, it is nuclear reaction inside hydride, involving much less neutron and gamma emission than in hot fusion.

This exclude muon-catalyzed fusion, fractofusion, accelerator fusion with keV energy.

This include F&P experiment of Pd-D electrolysis producing He4, tritium, and however few neutrons and gamma (millions times less than hot-fusion). It include also variations of the metal and hydrogen isotope like Ni-H, and some similar less replicated results (W-H, Ti-D, NiCu-D) with some producing more radiation, and some more heat. It include variation on the process, with plasma electrolysis (Mizuno), gas permeation (Fralick,Iwamura, Celani, Piantelli, Rossi), and various shapes like bulk, membrane, hollow cathode with black palladium (Arata), treated wires (Celani), powders (Miley, Pianteli, rossi), thin films (Iwamura&Toyota replicating). i includes variation on the "excitation" from usual electrolysis, current, plasma, magnetic field, laser, heat shock, heat...

Basically I will say that it is all named LENR that is assumed not to be possible (thus not funded by DoE IDEA) but which have produced according to the experimenter the most important quantity of fusion energy, else the H-bomb.

Even the sun have less energy density than PdD electrolysis (not a real challenge since sun energy density is low compared to a fission reactor - E-cat claim is about same as fission).

The problem that F&P effect as some call raises into physic is that it produce more heat than anything can do without the "required" radiation. the reaction you cite are not intense enough to compare, and are not controlled.

Ed Storms propose it is p-e-p aneutronic fusion in a collective behavior context able to deliver required energy to the reacting nucleons and then able to absorb the produced energy before it is dissipated by smaller quanta. Why not but we need more evidence. However this give a research program.

Note that if nuclear physics is useful to find the theory, to accept the reality of cold fusion what is needed is mostly knowledge in calorimetry, in chemistry, and why not in logic.

Saying it is impossible will not change the evidences that it is real.

Saying that if often fails, cannot change the evidence that it sometimes works.

Cold fusion is not a physics experiment, but a chemistry experiment.

It is however a material science (physicist) nightmare to explain.

@barfbag

I undesrtand your enthusiasm, but we are not talking of a technical question, as if there was a clear reality.

The work of Thomas Kuhn, and even of Feyerabend (a troll that raise true questions), show that if there is a reality, this reality is most of the time not accessible to the scientist mind, who is human.

If you live in the paradigm, the groupthink, that state that cold fusion have been debunked, that any evidence is an error or a fraud, and that there is no need of any evidence of artifact or fraud, because cold fusion supporters have to provide evidence (which they do, but since no evidence deserve to be read, there is no evidence), there is no other possibility than be 100% (not 99% as it would requires investigation) sure any LENR claimant is a fraud, and that reading any data is absolutely useless.

This is the current APS/Wikipedia position. No data is meaningfull, except the 3 failed experiments, the few books avoiding any result after 1989.

If like me you were doing something else in 1989 and discovered the domain in 1993, while many new serious positive papers were available, the denial of cold fusion is as stupid as people denying general relativity when using a GPS.

This image is the metaphor of the paradigm change, and the problem of impossibility to see the evidences when you are locked into your paradigm.

What allows one image to win over the others, after simple conservatism, is if one of the paradigm is fruitful.

Cold fusion until recently have mostly brought insults, defunding, ridicule, broken careers, new unsolved questions, so practically it is not fruitful. People like ENEA (The italian DoE, like Elforsk, or CEA, or BARC, all having reproduced LENR) with SRI and NAVY NRL have improved, made more reliable, and understood the unreliability sources in F&P experiments, but there is still no theory, thus no hope to give advantage in the academic world.

The other way to make that paradigm where cold fusion is real is to make it practical, like a tea kettle. Most lab experiments done in wet context are useless because the temperature don't allow efficient production of electricity. The breakthrough came from an initial idea of Fralick89 in NASA GRC (see their work), replicated by Uni Tsinghua, Biberian and Nasa GRC 2008, of gas permeation. People like Miley and Piantelli tested not only powder in hot hydrogen atmosphere, but Nickel-Hydrogen reaction... It was hard to accept even by LENR scientist who were stuck to Palladium-Deuterium in wet cell paradigm.

As you can see, the paradigm shift is recursive, and there is nobody more tolerant in a paradigm battle. Unless you have materialistic advantage, the incommensurability of paradigm is evident. This incommensurability is consequence of self realizing beliefs in system where peer-opinion dominate reality (see stupidity based organisations).

Many people here, as Beaudette have explained simply never read the least data, or with a so biased way that their competence (Jed Rothwell describe well how it is impossible that competent people support the books of Morrison or Taubes) were distorted. The usage of negative experiments as refutation of a phenomenon is so clearly a fallacy (the absurdity of that argument is well described by McKubre or Kowalski) that it is evident there is a cognitive problem.

As Rossi have well said "In Mercatu Veritas", meaning that when people will make more money with the cold fusion paradigm than with the Wikipedia consensus, the incommensurability will disappear, symmetry will be broken, and the Schrodinger cat of epistemology will get out of his box, dead or alive.

This process have been observed about Wright Brothers fable, the X-ray hoax, the quasi-scientists Nobel, and even the HTSC footnotes (which is very instructive for LENR, as both are material science).

Now I understand that with slight information, huge bias, and massive character assassination on the media, the technology of Cherokee fund, invented by Rossi, tested by Swedish DoE/EPRI Elforsk, and in process of transfer to China, make people uncertain... It is rational.

What is not rational is to be sure that it is a scam while many data shows it is simply a working device on a proven science.

About people who say you can transfer energy from a room full of physicist toward a metalic cylinder without them having the capacity to detect the fraud, I think you should make a patent of it.

Microwave should burn the physicist who played around alone with the reactor, IR too, magnetic field required would cause havoc in the rooms, the phones and the instruments. Tweking the power supply with DC or HF would be detected by accident or with a 5$ voltmeter...

This is typically the fable of Stephen pomp, that Bo Hoistad bashed with some talent (in italian, and translated). I have found better argument on 9/11 truther conspiracy site. Even fraud theory need evidence, at least a coherent physical theory. Moreover there is a gap between finding a remote possibility of fraud, and being sure of it.

As I say here, the problem is not the evidence, it is the incapacity for most minds to change of paradigm. It led naturally to Mutual Assured Delusion, and Roland Benabou explain that groupthink is growing as a member of a group will suffer from the delusion of his colleagues. In a way, peer-pressure/peer-review/committees, as Alvesson and many scientists (Nobelized or retired) explain, increase the problem rather than correct it. The current situation when attack are more and more desperate are caused and not slowed by the growing evidences (you see that in religious radicalism when religion fade away). Benabou clearly explain why it happen from his tiny model. The groupthink try to protect it's group from admitting the expected huge losses.

So what to do? If you are sure that Cold Fusion is a fraud, I can do nothing to convince as all data will be ignored or deformed... wait for the factory visit in few years.

If you are curious skeptic, suspecting cold fusion to be an error, you are doomed like ex-skeptic Gerischer, like Essen and Küllander (of Swedish Skeptic Society), to be a believer if you simply read the book of Charles Beaudette (a WMD against bad consensus), and then follow your skeptic instinct and investigate, check, cross check, like what Beaudette did...

Is it a duck or a rabbit... we have two hemisphere to be able to switch between the two incommensurable paradigms, but academic world is a winner takes all.

Don't be afraid, the end is near and history will be rewritten by the losers as Taleb and Kuhn explain. Cold fusion will be discovered in 2015 at MIT, with first replications at Caltech and Harwell. Wikipedia already prepare the change.

 

Investigation would require free access to ecat or other such device..

 

Reading somebody articles about them, is not enough.

Real scientist (I mean not people who think that if they don't understand it does not exist) can prove heat is produced in a black box without needing to open a box. This is applied science.

now there is no doubt the problem is not scientific but bad will.

anyway from the rumors, the box have been opened.

Note that there is no doubt that cold fusion is real not only because of the calorimetry, the isotopic analysis, the lack of any non-humoristic critic, but also even if it is useless because it have been done in white box and replicated from scratch.

Incapacity of some people like, S Pomp, to admit blackbox test is fascinating. But I think it is an epiphenomenon of the general initial groupthink around collective delusion against cold fusion.

Just a question, does Japanese have inspected the inside of the A-Bomb before it vitrify Hiroshima, to be sure it was real ?

I a way the rough calorimetry, and the rough geometry, allowed the witness to judge it was not a normal chemical bomb.

I am not sure that people here understand the absurdity for an engineer point of view of someone denying calorimetry done outside because he cannot open a box... By the way note that the box was open, but no chemical analysis was done, just visual inspection showing there was no pink unicorn hidden inside to explain the anomalous heat.

In a way if it was a pink unicorn inside, producing more heat than any chemical process, I will have no problem in making it industrial. Who cares on the theory if the heat is there. back to the facts.

This critic of WL by saying screening gamma so efficiently is solid.
This is also the position of Edmund Storms who judge that given the experimental data showing that neutron and gamma are below one million less than expected from hot fusion ration, no mechanism can be perfect enough to shield.

Even slow neutrons can be detected as part of them are thermalized by interaction with the hot lattice.

So No neutron are produced in the main reaction, and the excess energy is transmitted to a quantum object that allow mild energy emission (X-rays, e-UV) instead of energetic gamma. Mossbauer effect (judged impossible before observed) as he said is inspiring, but not applicable because of the different energy scale.

One reason Storms oppose WL is also that it is an improbable of disconnected phenomenons, and Edmund Storms talks of "Conservation of Miracle", as the Occam idea that if improbable things can happen (if evidence ask it), unless really forced by evidences you can assume two improbable unrelated situation don't happen.

anyway, talking of theory is a bad idea until we have a scientific community that stop living in groupThink (See Roland Benabou model of Grouopthink through Mutual Assured Delusion) believing all is refuted despite total absence of any scientific evidence to support their claim.

please forget theory.

I really advise people to read the book Excess Heat of Charles Beaudette, which refocus the debate on calorimetry. Theory is premature. First is to sole the epidemiological/psychiatric/sociological problem that Thomas Kuhn have well described, showing that anomalies are denied until there is a theory.

The subject is very sensible those days, and E-cat report is not far from publication.

To all people who thinks that Cold fusion is not replicated, is debunked, is an artifact, I will simply answer with the scientific method, the good old one :

1. hundred of experiment have been done (one can see that in 1990, >90 groups had reported excess heat, tritium, particles... of course with various level of publication)
2. hundreds of papers (153 of them are counted here )have been published in peer-reviewed magazine, and many in journals specialized in electrochemistry (Journal of electroanalythical chemistry) or in experimental physics (Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. Tho thos who says that it is not in nature, I advise them to read the recent scandat of peer review in those tabloid. Cold Fusion is a chemistry experiments based on calorimetry.
3. Four (yes 4=2+2) written critics were written until 2001 (Read page 5 and the rest in Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette) , by Lewis, Hansen, Morrison, Wilson. A fifth was published by Shanahan recently (but one should notice that the consensus was established mostly on the 4 initial refuted claims).
   • Lewis blamed F&P of being as incompetent in stirring the cell as he was, which was false.
   • Hansen blamed F&P to be as incompetent as him in managing recombination, which was not only reduced but measured.
   • Morrisson critics were more comic than serious (read that article about Titanic and cold fusion myth, of that debate with F&p), and flee like a kitten when his incompetence was exposed.
   • Wilson was the only competent critic, who started by dismissing Hansen and Lewis critics (Morrison is not even wrong). He then introduced correction that F&P introduced in their results. Anyway despite his claims, he could not explain many high energy events, thus confirming and not refuting the Excess Heat of F&P cell.
   • Later, Kirk Shanahan introduced his continuous constant change, never observed in calorimetry which is an old validated science, that was rejected for publication, ans refuted strongly in detail in that article. This refutation is very interesting as it details the great professionalism of what the consensus describe as loose researchers... Factullaty a hundred time less loose than the deified critics.

that is all...

Cold fusion is real, end of the story.

Even Hein,z Gerisher who was one of the top electrochemist of his time at Max Planck Institute, and have rejected cold fusion during the first years, have finally admitted there was many evidence, in 1992.

Any other argument based on theory, on negative results is pure anti science as it is well described in that wikipedia erased page.

This article by Mickael McKubre of SRI, details well the results, but also the handful of pathological critics against cold fusion,

 

With recent publicity outside the CMNS field it has become increasingly important to clarify in non-specialist terms what is known and what is understood in the general field of so called Low Energy or Lattice Enhanced Nuclear Reactions (LENR). It is also crucial and timely to expose and elaborate what objections or reservations exist with regard to these new understandings. In essence we are concerned with the answers to the following three questions: What do we think we know? Why do we think we know it? Why do doubts still exist in the broader scientific community?

 

In this Foreword to the Proceedings of ICCF15 I lean heavily on the experimental work performed at SRI, and by and with its close collaborators (ENEA Frascati, Energetics and MIT) with a view to define experiment-based non-traditional understandings of new physical effects in metal deuterides.

anyway for a scientific forum , the question should be :

• "it it real" : YES
• "how it works" : DON'T KNOW.

The conclusion should be : INVESTIGATE! (you can maybe say my evidence, 153 papers, are not absolutely, but please admit it requires investigation, or give up you scientist or even your human being diploma)

The rest is more an economics and sociology question .

• What will be the impact of a division of energy cost by an order of magnitude,
• of the 6 month-1year of investment need to transition the planetary energy mix to 100% LENR.
• The impact of huge capital losses in all competing energies,
• of public credibility losses
  • of academic science,
  • of green policies,
• the impact on climate policies becoming useless/solved,
• the way the incumbent operators will try to capture that economic rent to protect their existing rent....

This is a question for an economic forum, and a politics/sociology forum.