Edmund Storms at NPA-19 video: What is Cold Fusion and Why Should You Care?

The 19th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference held in Albuquerque, New Mexico featured Dr. Edmund Storms as the John Chappell Lecturer.

Details of the conference can be found through links here.

Dr. Storms presented What is Cold Fusion and Why Should You Care? based on a paper by the same name authored by Edmund Storms and Brian Scanlan.

We present here an annotated version with additional images for your viewing pleasure.

The first part is a historical perspective. The middle part surveys the experimental evidence confirming excess heat and nuclear products. The last part offers an idea of what might be occurring to start the reaction.

Related Links

Storms and Scanlan: What is Cold Fusion and Why Should You Care? by Ruby Carat March 11, 2012

An Explanation of Low-energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) by Edmund Storms [.pdf]
Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 9 (2012) 1–22 © 2012 ISCMNS. All rights reserved.

14 Replies to “Edmund Storms at NPA-19 video: What is Cold Fusion and Why Should You Care?”

  1. Just because those fools conflated hot fusion with “cold fusion” (i.e. LENR), they came to the conclusion that because “cold fusion” didn’t show evidence like that of hot fusion, it wasn’t a real phenomena. The members of the ERAB (you know, the committee formed by President Bush Sr to disprove cold fusion) will live in infamy. By the way, this is a great video – thank you for pointing it out. Love the shout out Dr Storms gave to Ruby C. – congratulations Ruby!

    1. Damn. Looking at it now, I coulda added so much more…. Best I could do in a week.

      1. Everything before and since the wheel; was once deeemd impossible by our elite brain trust, Somehow miraculous inventions have managed to be made manifest in spite of the then supposed prevailing wisdom wardens..Academics in large part are a Self Important Lot; given over to delusions of Self Importance and infaibility.These self apponted guardians of all knowledge and truth about practically everything generally have few close friends other than those within thier own cloistered fold.If a tree in the forest was to fall on the only Nuclear Physics heavyweight in the universe; would that doom the rest humankind on this planet to quantum oblivion?To be terrified of being incorrect in the eyes of your peers smacks of improper potty training orunconfessed cowardice.GET OVER IT, and try encoraging the creative people who see things from differing angles paralax is a woderous thing. Jon Dee

  2. Ruby, I AM watching the Storms video tonight and tomorrow… if I AM not telling you how wonderful you are lately… then let me tell you that I AM certainly going to do so more often… I AM really liking what I have heard so far… if only there is some way in which I AM able to help you just you let me know… and I AM going to do all within my power to move you along as best I AM able… 🙂

    1. Also, if you found Melvin Miles’ reports of huliem to be well-supported and unambiguous then why on earth do you question McKubre’s? McKubre, Gozzi and others found the same product in the same ratio to the heat as Miles did, using similar methods and instruments. Why do you think one was right and the others wrong?

  3. To LENR sceptics,

    Look at the Piantelli US published patent application for the use of negative huydrogen ions (H-)
    as the real mediator in the nuclear transmutation reaction transforming nickel into copper.
    Negative hydrogen ions are obtained from alkali metal hydrides such as potassium hydride heated above 400° C. From VDB.

  4. Hi Ruby: Nice work!
    At the 30:40 mark in your video, Dr Storms mentions that there is a delay before tritium is seen. I was just wondering if a buildup of the unnatural isotope Pd(109) is needed before tritium is seen. Perhaps it is formed by the following consecutive exothermic reactions:

    Pd(108) + H(2) > Pd(109) + H(1) 3.9288 MeV

    Pd(109) + H(2) > Pd(108) + H(3) 0.1039 MeV

    H(2) is deuterium and H(3) is tritium.

    1. P.S.
      It also works with the natural isotope Pd(110) and the unnatural isotope Pd(111).

      Pd(110) + H(2) > Pd(111) + H(1) 3.5258 MeV

      Pd(111) + H(2) > Pd(110) + H(3) 0.5069 MeV

    2. In electrochemical cells there is a delay before the heat effect and products show up. I wouldn’t be surprised if the delay in seeing the products is due to the time it takes for a palladium sample to develop the cracks that will result from the high loading of hydrogen into the matrix. It is the intersticies that seem to be critical as they provide a “home” for the process to occur. Palladium is just a metal that allows large quantities of hydrogen to infiltrate. If the intersticies were artifically created in other metals and the hydrogen could be packed in those other metals might provide a host for the phenomena. The problem is to determine the size and shape of the defects needed to produce results and then to build up a surface that contains a plethora of such sites.

      1. Yeah Zedshort. It seems like the cracks are needed but the lack of deadly neutrons and the absence of 24 MeV gamma rays has always lead me to believe that there must be an Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction between the palladium and deuterium taking place. The creation of silver(109) in the active cathodes is also an indication that the following reaction is taking place:

        Pd(108) + D > Pd(109) + H(1)

        Pd(109) > Ag(109) + e

        And if memory serves me (and that’s a big if) in the early 1990s someone found the 88 keV gamma ray that accompanies the Pd to Ag beta decay in a F&P type cell.

    3. You wrote: Helium is a nuclear procdut and it has been measured repeatedly and rigorously in LENR. Well, if helium is the procdut, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium.Mainstream cold fusion researchers disagree with your definition of fusion being a well-known phenomena with very specific characteristics. When they say fusion, they mean deutrons fusing together to form helium. If anyone is redefining the term, you are.In any case, you are arguing about semantics or the meaning of words. Such arguments have no bearing on the actual scientific claims. Whether you call the phenomenon cold fusion, LENR, the FP effect or some other name, it is what it is, it does what it does, and what this does is bring together deuterons to form helium.Also you are incorrect about McKubre. You misunderstood his papers. He made no unscientific changes.

    4. Do we really want to solve the egreny problem of this era gentlemen?thats the real question .Its obvious and self-proved that there are specific organizations and monstrous mechanisms that make enormous profit by this tragedy,the egreny starvation of the planet.Behind egreny lies a party of trillions $ ,universities,organizations,scientists,corporations, researchers and finally masses of consumers are involved in this drama.Do we really want the free egreny? Or we will stuck for ever in the definitions and the claims of who discovered what 1st and so on .?This question is very important while converging on the era of the egreny solution,the debate is here and now ,the science is here ,we have the tools but do we have power to move a step forward ?

Comments are closed.