A New Understanding of Cold Fusion

Abstract

A brief description of selected information presently known about the fusion process called cold fusion is provided and used to support a general description of how the process is proposed to work. The nuclear process results from an unusual chemical condition in which a structure forms that can cause nuclear fusion when isotopes of hydrogen are present. This fusion process has two important features. It may be a source of clean, inexhaustible, and inexpensive energy. In addition, it has revealed a new kind of nuclear process. Although this proposed mechanism could not yet be described in mathematical detail, its major features can be identified and used as a guide for future studies.

Full text

PREPRINT 6/1/23
1
A New Understanding of Cold Fusion
Edmund Storms
Kiva Labs, Santa Fe, NM
storms2@ix.netcom.com
Keywords: cold fusion, LENR, CMNS, fusion, clean energy, theory
Abstract: A brief description of selected information presently known about the fusion
process called cold fusion is provided and used to support a general description of how
the process is proposed to work. The nuclear process results from an unusual chemical
condition in which a structure forms that can cause nuclear fusion when isotopes of
hydrogen are present. This fusion process has two important features. It may be a source
of clean, inexhaustible, and inexpensive energy. In addition, it has revealed a new kind
of nuclear process. Although this proposed mechanism could not yet be described in
mathematical detail, its major features can be identified and used as a guide for future
studies.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Thirty-three years ago, Profs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons (F-P)
(University of Utah) announced a discovery that confounded the scientific community[1].
This discovery involved the ability to cause a fusion reaction between nuclei of
deuterium in ordinary palladium metal when it was reacted with D2O in an electrolyte
cell at room temperature. When applied, this process would be expected to provide a
safe, pollution-free, and inexpensive source of energy having a great benefit to society.
Before addressing the unique nature of this discovery, we must first deal with the
widely believed myth that the effect is not real and results from faulty measurements.
Many scientists found good reasons to reject their claims. As everyone knows,
such a fusion reaction is impossible because the energy required to overcome the
Coulomb barrier is not present and the nuclei in ordinary material are normally too far
apart to interact. Even if such a reaction were to occur, the reaction products produced by
the conventional hot-fusion mechanism[2] would be expected. The expected neutrons
were sought but not found. Furthermore, most people could not replicate the claimed heat
production. These issues combined with political considerations in the USA caused a
myth to be created that lives even today. Huizenga[3] gives the scientific reasons for the
rejection and Krivit[4] describes how the rejection was accomplished.
Although the nuclear process is a challenge to produce for reasons now
understood, when it occurs the behavior is obvious and unambiguous. The absence of
significant neutron emission is now known to be characteristic of cold fusion, with the
occasional detected neutron emission being caused by a different reaction. Several
reaction products related to the fusion reaction and the occasional transmutation reactions
have been identified by many independent studies.[5] Heat energy is the main nuclear
product, with the amount being much greater than from any plausible chemical reaction.
A skeptic might reasonably reject a single measurement or a collection of
measurements after the common error has been identified, but a consistent collection of
behaviors made by many independent studies, as is the case here, is the kind of
fundamental evidence on which all scientific ideas are judged. Various treatments are

PREPRINT 6/1/23
2
now known to affect the process in ways that eliminate error or any prosaic process as the
reason for the behavior. Indeed, all of the requirements demanded by the skeptics and by
general science have been met. The challenge now is to discover how the process works,
which is the goal of this paper. The goal includes suggestions as to how the proposed
explanation can be tested. An explanation is made more complex because many
additional nuclear reactions have been produced in various materials using a variety of
treatments. Because nuclear reactions besides fusion can occur, the original name of cold
fusion has been changed to “low energy nuclear reaction” (LENR) or sometimes
“condensed matter nuclear science” (CMNS). Nevertheless, this paper focuses only on
the claims made by F-P that involve the production of significant energy when PdD and
other similar compounds are exposed to deuterium, which is here identified as “cold
fusion”. In addition, because this paper is not a review, only a few examples of the
reported behavior are cited to give the reader access to a source of important details.
Copies of the ICCF conference papers, papers published in JCMNS, and many of
the papers cited here can be found at www.LENR-CANR.org.
2.0 OVERALL BEHAVIOR
The process can be viewed as the consequence of four separate stages, with each
best understood as a separate event. The first two stages involve the rules normally
applied to chemical behavior and the last two involve the rules that apply to nuclear
processes. These stages are discussed in more detail in Section 4. But first, the general
features of each stage need to be understood.
2.1 Chemical issues
The D atoms in a chemical system are normally too widely separated to allow
nuclear interaction. This separation is controlled by the electron structure to which the
rules governing crystal formation apply. The nuclei and electrons need to acquire an
entirely different relationship for fusion to occur but without violating the rules that apply
to all chemical systems.
The materials, in which cold fusion occurs such as PdD, consist of a face-
centered-cubic (fcc) crystal structure in which the atoms are arranged in a regular array.
A different array cannot form within this structure because this arrangement of electrons
and nuclei has the lowest energy of any other. Therefore, for the D to achieve a condition
required for fusion, the process has to function outside of the lattice structure where the
chemical environment is different. In other words, the structure cannot form within
vacancies in the lattice structure. Otherwise, these vacancies would no longer be
vacancies and the structure would no longer be fcc if these sites were occupied by atoms,
other than by an occasional transient. In addition, for this new structure to form, the D in
the resulting structure must be more chemically stable compared to where it is located
within the lattice structure. Otherwise, the D would not leave its positions in the normal
lattice structure and move to form this new structure with the required loss of Gibbs
energy. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2.3.
The fusion process has to be an unexpected consequence of this chemical process
because the possibility of a nuclear reaction cannot be anticipated by a chemical system
any more than TNT can form with the anticipation of it being an explosive. Chemical
reactions respond only to local conditions and not to what might be possible in the future.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
3
Consequently, we need to start our understanding by examining the conditions that can be
created in a material by a normal chemical process, with the nuclear reaction being a
novel and unexpected consequence.
Because the fusion process requires the formation of unique sites located outside
of the normal lattice structure and because these sites are rarely formed, the total number
of such sites and how often each can fusion would determine the amount of power, not
the rate of the nuclear reaction itself. Although the fusion reaction would require some
time, its rate would be far faster than the assembly process.
2.2 Nuclear issues
Fusion requires the nuclear energy states of two deuterons to interact such that a
new energy state is created as a stable nuclear product. This interaction requires the
Coulomb barrier to be altered to allow the nuclei to get close enough for this energy
sharing to take place. Two processes can achieve this goal. These are applied energy and
electron screening. Because applied energy is normally not available when cold fusion
occurs, an explanation must focus on electron screening. Although electron screening is
found to lower the barrier when ion bombardment is used to trigger the hot fusion
mechanism, the amount is trivial compared to the screening required to cause cold
fusion.[6] When cold fusion occurs, a much greater magnitude of screening operates to
produce the observed reaction rate. The challenge is to explain how this new process
might work because the mechanism is not the same as the one operating during hot
fusion. This difference is explained in Section 4.2.2.
After fusion has occurred, the resulting nuclear energy must be dissipated while
momentum is conserved, which requires the emission of two or more nuclear products.
In the case of cold fusion, only one nuclear product has been identified as the source of
all the measured energy, which is 4He. This creates a problem because a single nuclear
product cannot dissipate nuclear energy while conserving momentum. A second emitted
particle is required, which has not been detected. A solution to this problem is suggested
in Section 4.2.3.
The nuclear process can take place in many materials, not just in PdD as was
initially discovered. Also, many methods are now known to initiate the process, not just
electrolysis as was used initially to react Pd with D. Furthermore, both deuterium (D) and
ordinary hydrogen (H) will produce similar amounts of nuclear power. These behaviors
demonstrate the existence of a universal behavior that is not caused by error or by a
prosaic process limited to a particular environment or treatment.
Finally, the released nuclear energy has to be dissipated, but without producing
energetic radiation that is not detected outside of the apparatus. Neutron emission is rare
and seems to be produced by secondary reactions. Nevertheless, some radiation and
several nuclear products are detected[7, 8] when an effective search is made within the
apparatus. This radiation holds the key to understanding the complexity of the process
and is discussed in Sections 3.9 and 3.10.
A few of the many proposed models have been described and evaluated by the
author in a book.[9] This paper will not repeat this critique. Instead, another explanation
is added to the growing list. In this case, the model is based only on the observed
behavior and a few justifiable assumptions, without any effort being made to apply
mathematics or quantum mechanics. Instead, the patterns of behavior are identified and a

PREPRINT 6/1/23
4
logical relationship between them is suggested. This approach is used to reveal how the
nuclear process could be amplified and provides many ways to test the model by using
predicted behaviors. A path is suggested to understand the process in greater detail so
that future studies can be done using a more effective design.
In summary, cold fusion appears to involve a series of chemical processes that
accidentally result in a nuclear reaction when isotopes of hydrogen are present. When the
suggested explanation is evaluated, it’s worth considering that these unique chemical
conditions may be common but have been overlooked in the past because they did not
result in an observed nuclear event, and hence would be identified as normal chemical
behavior.
3.0 DISCUSSION
Two questions are answered here before an explanation is proposed. These are:
(1)which behaviors are important as support for an explanation, and (2)which
assumptions are necessary and how are they justified? Because this paper is not a review,
all of the published information will not be evaluated. Instead, only the important
behaviors are described along with their significance to an explanation. As you will see,
each of these behaviors fits together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to create a picture
of the process, although one that is still incomplete. When viewed in combination, the
selected behaviors provide overwhelming evidence for the reality of LENR and reveal
which pieces of the puzzle are missing. The important pieces involve energy production,
the production of nuclear products, and the emission of energetic radiation, all with a
logical relationship to each other, as described below. The implications of these behaviors
are discussed in a later section. But first, each important behavior is discussed.
3.1 Energy Production
Energy production greater than any plausible chemical source is the frequently
observed characteristic of cold fusion. The energy is measured as power expressed as
watts using calorimeters of various designs. The initial rejection was based on there
being proposed errors in such heat measurements. Elimination of the suggested sources
of error has largely been accomplished by using better calorimeters. An example of the
response to this criticism is provided by the exchange between Shanahan[10, 11] and
various authors[12, 13]. In every case, the suggested errors were either eliminated in
future studies or shown not to be important. Additional examples of the errors and how
they were corrected are described in my book.[5]
The amount of power can be increased by increasing the temperature, by the
application of laser radiation, and by causing an electron current to pass through the
material. The D/Pd ratio also affects power production under certain conditions. Perhaps
in the future, other treatments will be found important.
Power can be produced when an active material of various types is exposed to
electrolytic current, to low-energy plasma generated in a gas or liquid, and by exposure to
D2 or H2 gas.
Figure 1[14] compares the number of successful efforts to make energy with the
amount of power produced.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
5
FIGURE 1. Histogram showing the number of reported values for the measured power
produced by similar samples containing PdD. Values are taken from Table 2, “The
Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”[5] published in 2007.
Notice that the number of reported values decreases as the amount of measured
power increases. Even though this figure compares only a very small fraction of the total
number of successful reports now available, the behavior reveals important information
about the nature of the mechanism. The shape of the histogram suggests a probability
function could be used to describe the ability to produce the conditions required to
support the fusion process. Said another way, the shape suggests no success is the most
probable event with a small amount of power being much more probable than a larger
amount. Thus, chance enters the picture by determining how frequently the unique
condition required for fusion to happen will form in a particular sample. The challenge is
to increase the probability of forming the required condition, thereby increasing the
amount of nuclear power. Effective methods have been gradually discovered and
applied, as I have summarized.[15]
3.2 Effect of temperature,
The effect of temperature is important because the low temperatures known to
cause LENR cannot directly affect a nuclear reaction. Instead, the temperature must
affect a chemical process that limits the rate of the nuclear reaction. This realization has
encouraged a search for this limiting process.
Most early studies were made at temperatures near 20° C even though F-P
observed that power could be increased by increasing the temperature.[16, 17] They
called this the “positive feedback effect”, which, unfortunately, distracted from how the
temperature actually affects the process. Over the years, other people[18] measured at
various temperatures and found that, indeed, the amount of power increases with
temperature. Storms[19], using a very accurate calorimeter, measured over a wide range
of temperatures and found that the temperature has the same effect when the
measurement is made in the electrolytic cell or D
2 gas, as shown in Fig. 2. Other
measurements by Storms and other people[18] show that this temperature effect
continues at temperatures at least as high as 500° C.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
6
FIGURE 2. Excess power is a function of temperature when a sample of PdD is heated
in the electrolytic cell or when it is heated in D2 gas. Production of power at the higher
temperatures continued even after the current to the sample is stopped in the electrolytic
cell. No detectable power was found at the lowest temperature.
In chemistry, the slope of log power vs 1/T is identified as the activation energy
for a process that limits the amount of power. This value represents the amount of energy
required to overcome an energy barrier. In this case, the activation energy for heat
production appears to be related to the ability of the D or H to access the nuclear active
sites by chemical diffusion,[19] both during the initial formation of the assembly and
when the hydrogen nuclei are replaced after they have been converted to the nuclear
product. This process requires the D or H nuclei to diffuse from their normal locations in
the chemical structure to form in an assembly where the nuclear process can take place. I
showed that the activation energy for LENR is similar to the activation energy for the
diffusion of D in PdD, suggesting that the diffusion of D controls the fusion rate under
certain conditions.[19, 20] An example of this behavior is shown in Fig. 3 where the
activation energy for the process occurring in an electrolytic cell is shown to be
independent of the amount of power being produced. The activation energy and the
amount of power are also independent of the D/Pd ratio, which is consistent with the data
shown in Fig. 2 when the electrolytic current was stopped to allow D to leave.
Access of nuclei to the active site also can be increased by having a flux of D
atoms pass through the nuclear active region, as demonstrated by McKubre et al.[21]
Temperature and/or the surrounding D activity, including the gas pressure, can be used to
modify the flux.
Based on years of experience, samples that produce no excess energy at a low
temperature will frequently produce energy when heated. This experience suggests that
cold fusion is easier to produce than the past measurements at room temperature would
suggest.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
050 100 150 200 250
(12/19/20)P#21
0.1 A current
no current
In D2 gas
EXCESS POWER, W
TEMPERATURE, °C
1.7 g Pd powder

PREPRINT 6/1/23
7
FIGURE 3. Comparison between the behaviors of different samples of solid and pressed
powdered Pd when heated in an electrolytic cell. The designations A, B, C, and D apply
to independent measurements. The lines drawn through each measurement are parallel,
showing that each has the same activation energy.[19, 22]. The study labeled “D” fell in
the transition temperature region between two different values for the activation energy.
Storms(1994)[23]
3.3 Effect of D/Pd ratio
A change in the D/Pd ratio has many effects, only two of which are noted here as
being important. The bond energy between the D or H atoms decreases as the D(H)/Pd
ratio is increased.[24] This makes the D or H more energetically available to form
another structure outside of the crystal, such as the structure required to support the
fusion process. In addition, the crystal expands as D or H is added. This expansion can
cause gaps to form around embedded particles, as is described in a later section. This
process might cause the power to increase, as reported by McKubre et al. [25] (Fig. 4)
and by Kamimura et al.[26]. However, a large D/Pd ratio is not always required to cause
the production of power, as described by Storms[7] and shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Why
some samples are sensitive to the D/Pd ratio and some are not is an important question
answered in a later section.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
8
FIGURE 4. Effect of D/Pd ratio on power production when an active batch of Pd wire
was reacted in an electrolytic cell near 20° C. McKubre et al. [25]
3.4 Effect of the laser
The application of laser radiation to a material can have many effects, including
causing an increase in the local temperature, making electrons more available, and
stimulating phonon energy states[27]. Letts and Cravens[28] found that when PdD was
coated with Au, extra energy would result when it was exposed to 669 nm laser radiation.
Storms[29] demonstrated that laser radiation does not initiate the nuclear process but,
instead, increases the reaction rate for a process already underway. This work also
demonstrated that the Au coating was not necessary to produce excess energy.
Later, Letts et al.[30] applied two lasers having variable frequencies. Several beat
frequencies were produced that they claimed increased the amount of power. This result
has been used by Hagelstein[31] as support for his phonon model. On the other hand, this
study failed to see the single-frequency effect reported earlier. In addition, the replication
of this work by Guffey et al.[32] failed to produce the claimed effect. Other people have
applied lasers with various frequencies that were able to amplify the amount of power
without the need to apply a special frequency, an example of which is reported by Tian et
al.[33]. Consequently, the role of a special frequency, as claimed by Hagelstein and Letts,
is still unknown.[27, 34]
Laser radiation is found to produce antistokes[35] and Maser[36] radiation. This
radiation could be the result of changes in the chemical structure produced by the fusion
reaction or be emitted directly from the nuclear process itself. Nevertheless, this
behavior is consistent with the apparent coherent nature of the fusion process.
Clearly, the laser can stimulate the nuclear process but why this happens is still
unknown.
3.5 Effect of Applied Current
Increased current applied to the electrolytic cell is known to increase the amount
of power[5, 37], presumably because it increases the availability of D to the fusion
reaction while also increasing the temperature. However, studies using the direct reaction
between PdD and D2 gas reveal that when a current is caused to pass through the PdD
structure more power would result. This behavior was explained as being caused by

PREPRINT 6/1/23
9
electromigration with D+ being concentrated at the negative electrode, thereby increasing
the local fusion rate at this location.
Tanzella et al.[38] and the patent by Godes[39] describe the use of pulsed current
with a very fast rise time to stimulate the heat-producing process in a complex solid
structure. The pulsed current was proposed to cause free neutron formation followed by
the formation of 4H.
Celani et al.[40] applied pulsed current to the electrolytic cell to cause the excess
power to increase. They later [41] used DC to heat Constantan wires bent into complex
shapes. Additional excess power was produced when a pulsed current was added. The
method was justified by an explanation too complex to discuss here.
Encouraged by these studies and the model described here, I applied a steady DC
to solid PdD heated in D2 gas. Figure 5 shows how the Pd was cut to allow the current to
access most of the material. The sample was placed in a cell containing D2 gas at about
0.5 atm and heated as shown in Fig. 6. The small amount of power added by the current
was subtracted from the power being produced by the sample. This power is too small to
change the temperature. In each case, the temperature was changed by heating the cell by
using a surrounding resistance wire.
It’s important to note that the effect of applied current is large, it is independent of
temperature, and the effect of applied temperature is independent of the current. In other
words, the effect of these two variables results from two different and independent
processes with applied current having the greater effect.
A current reversal after the study caused no change in excess power. This
behavior suggests the concentration change caused by electromigration did not have a
significant effect on excess power. This preliminary study needs to be repeated to
determine the effects of a magnetic field, pulsed DC or AC, and current density. The
reason why current has a major effect on power is explained in a later section.
FIGURE 5. Sample of Pd coated with electrodeposited Pd and cut to allow the passage
of a current through the metal. The cross-section through which the current passes is
about 1 mm x 3 mm. The Pd weighs 2.5 g. (To be published)

PREPRINT 6/1/23
10
FIGURE 6. Effect of a steady DC passing through PdD at various temperatures in D2
gas. The amount of applied current is shown in units of ampere(A). The values for “no
current” were obtained first followed by the values designated as “applied current”.
3.6 Helium production
Helium was expected and found as a fusion product. But unlike the helium made
by high-energy fusion (hot fusion), the helium nucleus produced by cold fusion remains
intact. This creates a problem because the nuclear reaction has no obvious way to
conserve momentum when the nuclear energy is dissipated. Why the energy released by
fusion is not sufficient to destabilize the He nucleus, as it does when hot fusion occurs, is
an important question that is discussed in a later section.
The fusion of two D results in 2.6x1011 He/watt-sec.[9, 14, 42] When the amount
of measured energy is compared to the amount of measured helium and plotted as the
He/watt-sec ratio, Figure 7 results. This histogram compares sixteen separate
measurements obtained from four independent studies of the helium found in the gas that
is generated in an electrolytic cell using a PdD cathode. Unfortunately, the helium
trapped in the cathode was not measured. Therefore, the ratio is expected to be smaller
than the true value. Even so, a pattern of values is obtained that is consistent with an
error function, as would result from the expected random errors in each measurement.
Because the amounts of energy and helium are obtained from independent measurements,
the good agreement indicates that both energy and helium came from a common source
rather than from an accidental combination of random errors in the separate
measurements of energy and helium.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
11
FIGURE 7. Histogram of 16 measurements by four independent studies showing the
amount of helium divided by the amount of energy produced by electrochemical cells
containing D2O. A Gaussian error function is fit to the distribution of values. The ratio
based on the mass change for the fusion reaction D+D=4He is shown.[42] The value
obtained by McKubre et al. resulted from a sample of charcoal on which a small amount
of Pd was deposited. This sample was heated in D2 gas near 243°C.
Unlike the measurements compared in Figure 8, McKubre et al.[43] measured the
helium produced by a sample of charcoal containing small particles of Pd when it is
heated in D2 gas. The amount of generated power was measured using two different kinds
of calorimeter: gradient and differential. The amount of helium was measured using a
mass spectrometer. An air leak being the source of helium is eliminated because the
amount of helium eventually exceeded the concentration in the air. The resulting
relationship between energy and helium is shown in Fig. 8 as the amounts of helium and
energy increased over time. Good agreement with other measurements is shown when
the average He/watt-sec ratio (Gradient) of 2.0±0.8x1011 is compared to the values shown
in Fig. 7. As expected, this comparison shows that less He was retained by the smaller
amount of Pd present as small particles compared to the amount retained when larger
pieces of palladium were used. The helium retained in the sample could be flushed out
under a vacuum by repeatedly reacting the sample with D2.
In summary, the He/energy ratios produced during electrolysis near 20° C are
consistent with an error function typical of independent measurements. As you can see,
nearly the same He/energy ratio results when particles of Pd react directly with D2 gas at
high temperatures and when solid Pd reacts with D+ in an electrolytic cell near room
temperature.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
12
FIGURE 8. Energy and helium were made by a special batch of coconut charcoal to
which 5% Pd was applied as fine particles and heated near 243°C in D2 gas while energy
and helium were measured as reported by McKubre et al.
3.7 Tritium production
Tritium is a minor nuclear product that is detected on rare occasions when certain
conditions are present. Nevertheless, its occasional presence demonstrates that an
unusual nuclear process can take place in a “conventional” material. Unlike the tritium
that results from high-energy fusion (hot fusion), this tritium is not accompanied by an
equal number of neutrons. Instead, the T/n ratio favors tritium, as shown in Fig. 9.
Whether the wide range in values results from error or because another variable is
operating is important to determine. This question is discussed in a later section.
FIGURE 9. Histogram of published measurements of the log tritium/neutron ratio. The
measured log T/n resulting from hot fusion is also plotted. The values are from Table 6,
“The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction”.[5]

PREPRINT 6/1/23
13
3.8 Radiation emission
Radiation dissipates energy from most nuclear events. Although frequently
sought, radiation is seldom detected outside the apparatus when LENR occurs. This
apparent absence of energetic radiation has caused much confusion and speculation about
how nuclear energy is dissipated and how momentum is conserved. However, closer
examination has shown that radiation is, indeed, emitted but with too little energy to
easily escape the apparatus. In addition, this radiation has some very unusual
characteristics, as described below.
3.9 Ion emission
People naturally assumed the observed helium gas (Fig. 6) was emitted with most
of the nuclear energy, in the manner of normal alpha emission. Karabut et al.[44]
measured the ion spectrum produced by gas discharge in D2. A silicon barrier detector
(SBD) was used to determine the ion energy and the presence of energetic ions was
confirmed using CR-39. The energy spectrum consisted of many separate peaks with
nearly equal separation, the intensity of which decreased as the energy increased. Most
of the energy was in the range between 1 MeV and 6 MeV. This radiation continued
after the gas discharge was turned off, revealing a sustained fusion process. Therefore,
the apparent emission was not the result of electrical “noise” produced by the discharge.
They assumed this radiation resulted from alpha emission because 4He was detected in
the Pd cathode after the study. Some tritium was also detected in the gas along with a
small neutron flux during the discharge. In addition, they[45] measured photon radiation
having laser-like behavior (Fig. 13) with energy suggesting the emission of both gamma-
rays and X-rays. Some of this radiation resulted from radioactive decay occurring over
many hours. All of these measurements were made while excess energy was being
recorded. Unfortunately, these measurements do not allow a comparison with other
measurements such as shown in Figs. 6 and 8. Nevertheless, the behavior is not typical of
a “normal” nuclear process.
Eight years later, Storms and Scanlan[46] also measured the ion spectrum (Fig.
10) produced by gas discharge while also using a silicon barrier detector. Inserted
absorbers were used to reveal the true nature of the ions and to demonstrate that they
were not the result of “noise” created by the electric discharge. Electronic noise would
not be changed by the insertion of an absorber. Instead, the absorber produced a
reproducible change in the measured energy of each peak that was then used to identify
the element being emitted, as described below.
FIGURE 10. A typical spectrum is produced during gas discharge when either H2 or D2
is used. The bin number was calibrated using the energetic alpha emitted from Po210 .
Confidence in this measurement and the one reported by Karabut et al.[44] is

PREPRINT 6/1/23
14
justified by the good agreement between the energy of the radiation and the
characteristics of the spectrum.
The measurements reported by Storms and Scanlan[46] have six major features.
1. The energy was emitted in equally separated peaks as shown in Fig. 11.
2. The number of ions in each peak decreased as the amount of energy increased, as
shown in Fig. 12.
3. The spectrum is unchanged when either H2 or D2 is used.
4. The energy change that occurred when absorbers are inserted demonstrates the
ions are an isotope of hydrogen, not helium, and the peaks are not the result of
electrical “noise”.
5. The ion energy is too large to have resulted from a chemical process.
6. Only a fraction of the energy released from a fusion reaction is contained in this
radiation.
FIGURE 11. The relationship between the sequence in the spectrum and the ion energy
when the first peak is given a value of 1.
FIGURE 12. The relationship between log intensity and ion energy. The intensity is
given as a relative value.
`The measured energy of an emitted ion is determined by how much material the
ion had to pass through to reach the detector. Ions made deeper than a few microns from
the surface would not be detected. Also, if the ions were coming from many sources
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0123456
y = -0.061101 + 0.4172x R= 0.9999
ION ENERGY, MEV
NUMBER IN SEQUENCE
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
00.5 11.5 22.5
LOG HEIGHT = 2.0786 - 0.68631(ENERGY) R= 0.9859
LOG INTENSITY
ION ENERGY, MEV

PREPRINT 6/1/23
15
located at different depths, the spectrum would be smeared with each peak having a wide
range in values. Instead, the well-defined peaks indicate the measured ions are coming
from a single source located very near the surface. The similar width of each peak would
result from a small but similar amount of scattering being experienced by each ion. Of
course, other sites might be producing ions but these would be located too deep for the
ions to reach the detector.
When the energy is plotted as a function of the sequence (Fig. 11), the straight
line extrapolates to zero at point #0. This indicates that very little energy is removed
during the exit from the emitter and that the peak labeled #1 represents the lowest energy
in a sequence being generated by the fusion process. Why each peak has the same energy
difference of 0.417 MeV from its neighbor is still a mystery. It’s perhaps worth noting
that the mass of a stationary electron has an energy equivalent of 0.511 MeV. If the
kinetic energy of the 4H were the result of the conversion of the electron mass into
energy, the value would be expected to be less than the true amount of energy, as is the
case, because some would have been lost as the hydrogen ion passed through the material
on its way to the surface. The mystery is increased because the ion energy has no clear
relationship to the 23.8 MeV that was generated when the ion formed. An explanation is
suggested in the next section.
When the relative intensity is plotted as a function of energy (Fig. 12), an
exponential relationship is revealed. This suggests the probability of forming an ion
having the measured energy decreases as its energy increases. Although this behavior is
yet to be explained, it reveals, once again, the unique complexity of this nuclear process.
The very similar behavior of H2 and D2 is an important surprise. This suggests
that the same nuclear product can result from both reactants. This behavior does not
eliminate other nuclear products from being produced at the same time that would not
have been detected because their energy would not fall within the range of the SBD. An
explanation is explored in a later section.
Storms and Scanlan[46] determined the nature of the ions by determining the
change in energy produced when various absorbers were inserted. The change in energy
was compared to that described in the NIST tables (NSRDS-NBS29) to identify the
element being emitted. The emissions were shown to be consistent with the ions of a
hydrogen isotope, not helium! However, at the time the work was done, the emission of
4H, which is consistent with the observed behavior, was not considered. The role of this
nuclear product is explored in a later section.
When D fuses, 23.8 MeV of energy is released that must be dissipated while
momentum is conserved. The emitted nuclear product has only a fraction of this energy.
Where is the missing energy? Also, a single nuclear product prevents the conservation of
momentum. Where is the radiation that carries the remainder of the momentum? Why is
the energy dissipated as many discreet energies? These questions add to the growing list
an explanation must answer. None of the published theories presently account for this
behavior.
3.10 Photon emission
Karabut et al.[35] used photographic film to record highly focused beams of
photons being emitted from the cathode. The pattern of behavior was similar to when
either 0.5 mm of aluminum or 2 mm of lead were placed between the cathode and the

PREPRINT 6/1/23
16
photographic plate, an example of which is shown in Fig. 13. Apparently, photons having
a wide range in energy are emitted as tightly focused beams in random directions with
different intensities. Szpak et al.[47] also used photographic film to detect photon
radiation that appeared to be emitted from a single well-defined source, but in this case
when an electrolytic cell is used. Once again, a similar unusual behavior is seen when
cold fusion is produced using two different methods by independent studies.
Because people would not expect to see highly focused beams to result from a
nuclear process, methods able to detect focused radiation have not been used by most
previous studies when photon radiation was detected, thereby missing this unusual
behavior.
This behavior suggests a resonance process operates during the emission of
photons that causes tightly focused beams to be emitted with a range of energy. The
emission of ions and electrons would also be expected to have the same directionally with
a similar spectrum of energies. This behavior has the potential to reveal the mechanism
that releases nuclear energy.
FIGURE 13. Spots are produced on photographic film by photons that passed through
0.5 mm of aluminum. A similar pattern is produced when 2 mm of Pb is used.
3.11 Electron emission
Electrons are normally emitted as decay products when a neutron changes into a
proton within the nucleus. This process is called beta emission. Tritium is a beta emitter.
Recently, Gordon and Whitehouse (G-W)[48] measured a strong electron current
being emitted from a deposit of Pd exposed to D2 and from a deposit of Fe[49] when it
was exposed to H2. This emission is not the result of beta emission because it does not
have a half-life. Instead, a steady current of energetic electrons is emitted from a material
known to produce LENR. This measurement might provide the final missing piece of the
puzzle and open the door to a new understanding of how the nuclear energy is dissipated
and how momentum is conserved when LENR occurs, as described below.
To test whether the electron emission is related to the excess power produced by
LENR or not, I studied the relationship between electron emission and heat production
using an active material and a calorimeter described in a previous paper.[19] The piece of
Pd was activated by applying a layer of Pd using the codeposition method[50], in the

PREPRINT 6/1/23
17
manner as used by G-W. This material was placed in D2 gas with another electrode made
of Pt, which was used to collect the electron emission. This collector-sample assembly is
shown in Figure 14. This assembly is sealed inside a quartz cell that can be heated using
resistance wire wrapped around its outside. The current is measured as a voltage created
across a resistor having a value of 0.1 Mohm.
FIGURE 14. Photograph of the sample-collector assembly.
The material was heated in D2 gas over a temperature range, as shown in Fig. 15.
Excess power and electron current are both increased by increased temperature. This
suggests both have a causal relationship with each other.
FIGURE 15. Excess power and emitted electron current are measured as a function of
temperature when co-deposited Pd is heated in D2 gas. The electron emitter is held at 0 V
with respect to the collector. The arrows indicate the sequence of the measurements. The
excess power was measured before the current was measured. The current was then
measured when the temperature was increased and then decreased. The temperature is
measured inside the cell but not at the sample.
0
2 x 10-9
4 x 10-9
6 x 10-9
8 x 10-9
1 x 10-8
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
(12/28/22)PdCl2+D2
CURRENT, A
EXCESS POWER, W
CURRENT, A
EXCESS POWER, W
TEMPERATURE, °C
Temperature held
for 110 min at
each value.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
18
Electrons can escape from the sample only when the fusion reaction takes place
very near its surface while heat energy is measured regardless of where it is produced. As
a result, two different chemical environments and perhaps different temperatures would
influence these behaviors in different ways. In addition, some current could result when
ions are created in the D2 gas, either by the emitted electrons or various chemical
reactions. Such current is proposed to result from these additional sources when the
temperature is increased above 350° C. The current measured at temperatures below
350° C is proposed to result from only the nuclear process.
An effort was made to determine the energy distribution of the emitted current.
The measurement was made by first applying 100 V between the sample and a collector
held at 298° C, with the sample having a negative potential with respect to the collector.
This potential would encourage all emitted electrons regardless of their energy to leave
the surface and be collected as a current. Any ions in the gas would add to this current.
The lack of a change in current as the voltage is decreased and approaches zero indicates
that gas ionization is not a source of significant current because the ion current would
decrees as the voltage approached zero. This decrease is not seen. When the voltage is
made positive relative to the emitter, electrons would be returned to the emitter when the
applied potential is equal to or greater than the electron energy.
The reduction in the emitted current (Fig. 16) as the voltage is made more positive
relative to the emitter reveals that the electrons have a range of energy, most of which lies
below 100 V. However, this energy may not be the true energy of the electrons being
emitted from the nuclear process itself because the collected electrons might have
traveled through enough material to cause a reduction in their energy by an unknown
amount. Later measurements show that the energy of the emitted electrons can, on
occasion, exceed 100 V. This amount of energy cannot result from a conventional
source, so we once again have a question to answer.
Figure 17 shows how the current changes with time as the voltage increases.
After each voltage is applied, the current changes at a rate that decreases as the voltage
increases, except at 100 V. Just as soon as 100 V is applied causing a significant fraction
of the current to be returned to the emitting surface, the amount of emitted current rapidly
increases. Perhaps the emitted current that is caused to return to the surface stimulates an
increase in the production of current. This behavior reveals another unexpected clue that
is discussed in a later section.
Based on the measured power, the total number of fusion events is 3.9x1010/sec.
The number of electrons that manage to escape is 6.2x1011/sec, which is the lower limit
to the total number of electrons being released from the nuclear event. If these electrons
resulted from the fusion process, why are so many more emitted compared to the number
of fusion events? An answer is provided below.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
19
FIGURE 16. Electron current and the excess power at a temperature of 298° C when
the voltage between the emitter and collector is changed. The potential is shown relative
to the emitter.
FIGURE 17. Effect of time on the voltage measured across a series resistor when the
voltage across the cell is changed as shown in Fig. 16.
4.0 PROPOSED MECHANISM
The pieces of the puzzle have been identified in the previous sections, so now is
the time to see how they fit together. But first, a few assumptions have to be made. An
assumption is a belief that cannot be proven but must be accepted on faith for a theory to
move forward. The assumptions can be demonstrated to be plausible only after the
proposed theory is found to be correct. If an assumption were wrong, all conclusions
based on the assumption would also be wrong. Success depends on an assumption being
applied only when necessary and the reasons why an assumption is used need to be
clearly stated.
4.1 Assumptions
The assumptions used here are tabulated below.
1. The Laws of Thermodynamics, phase theory, the rules governing crystal
formation, as well as all chemical understanding, apply to LENR. Reason: LENR
takes place in a chemical environment to which these rules apply.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0
2 10-8
4 10-8
6 10-8
8 10-8
1 10-7
1.2 10-7
-100 -50 050 100
(12/17/22)PdCl2-A, P, V
EXCESS POWER.W CURRENT, A
EXCESS POWER, W
ELECTRON CURRENT, A
APPLIED VOLT
(potential relatve to electron emitter)
298°C
0.005
0.01
0.015
050 100 150 200 250
(12/17/22)ap V-Rad
RADIATION
TIME, min
+100 V
90 V
80 V
70 V
60 V
50 V
40 V
30 V
20 V
0 V

PREPRINT 6/1/23
20
2. The conservation of momentum, the rules governing Quantum Mechanics, and the
conventional understanding of nuclear physics apply to LENR. Reason: LENR is
a variation of conventional nuclear behavior.
3. The same universal mechanism and required conditions apply to all isotopes of
hydrogen. The different isotopes of hydrogen produce different nuclear products
by the same mechanism. Reason: All hydrogen isotopes have very similar
chemical properties that control the assembly process.
4. The same universal mechanisms operate during LENR regardless of the material
being used as the host or its treatment. Reason: Nature typically has a single
mechanism for causing the various phenomena.
4.2 Stages
As noted previously, four separate events take place in sequence, consisting of
chemical reactions followed by nuclear reactions. Each needs to be understood as an
isolated mechanism as well as to their relationship with each other.
The presence of H or a mixture of D+H will cause different nuclear products that
result from the same mechanism as operates during D+D fusion(Assumption #3). This
process also can result in secondary nuclear reactions that might produce radiation and
various decay products that can be mistaken to result directly from the fusion reaction
itself. These secondary nuclear reactions are not discussed here.
4.2.1 Nuclear-active-environment (NAE)
LENR is proposed to involve a new kind of electron structure in which a nuclear
process can take place without applied energy. The environment in which this assembly
can form is rare. Nevertheless, the nuclear process will not happen unless this
environment is available.
The unique location in which the nuclear reaction takes place is called the nuclear
active environment (NAE). The number of such locations in a material determines the
maximum amount of nuclear power that can be produced because the amount of NAE
determines the maximum number of fusion sites. Because most Pd does not contain any
NAE, most Pd will not support LENR, as has been frequently demonstrated. The
challenge is to identify the NAE and then find ways to create more of it in order to
increase the amount nuclear energy.
Every location in PdD has been suggested by someone as the NAE, including the
crystal structure itself, the D or Pd atom vacancies, various kinds of defects in the atom
arrangement, and grain boundaries. The surface of small particles and small physical gaps
are also proposed as possible sites. The correct identification of the NAE is critical to
being able to create the required (H) environment on purpose, to understand how LENR
works, and to eventually create a practical energy source. Therefore, a critical evaluation
of the suggested sites is required.
When evaluating the suitability of a site, it’s important to realize that simply
having two D(H) occupy the site at the same time is not sufficient for fusion to occur. In
addition to the presence of D(H) nuclei, a very unusual and complex structure involving
electrons must form. When formed, this structure must not conflict with the chemical
conditions present at the site. Therefore, the site where fusion can occur has to have
chemical characteristics that would not create this conflict. Sites within the lattice

PREPRINT 6/1/23
21
structure, such as vacancies, defects, or tetrahedral locations would violate this
requirement because they are created by the rules governing the formation of the fcc
structure. The formation of another structure would conflict with these rules. Other
considerations also apply.
The tetrahedral site fails because each of these sites has the same chemical
properties, hence are chemically identical to all other tetrahedral sites. If the NAS could
form in one site, it would form in all the other sites with equal probability, thereby
making the fusion process very common for all samples of PdD, which is not the case.
Vacancy occupation fails for the same reason. Two kinds of vacancies exist in
PdD(H). The first kind forms where atoms are missing in the D(H) sublattice, which
results in the observed wide range of D(H)/Pd ratios as a variable number of vacancies
are randomly filled by D+ or H+ ions. Each site contains only one D(H) with more than
a single occupancy being caused only by the chance motion of the D(H) as a result of
normal self-diffusion. If this chance occupancy resulted in LENR, the effect would be
expected to be much more common and to occur in every sample of Pd regardless of its
treatment.
Vacancies seldom occur in the Pd sublattice and are rarely formed under the
conditions used to cause LENR. These vacancies are eliminated as the NAE because if
the atom arrangement required for fusion to occur were chemically stable in a vacancy,
the vacancy would not be a vacancy. Instead, all of the same vacancies would contain
this stable structure as part of the normal atom arrangement, which would create a
different atom arrangement without vacancies. In addition, the NAE would be very
common and be located throughout the entire lattice structure, which is not the case. In
addition, the claim by Staker[51-53] that vacancy tubes are present in PdD as the NAE is
very weak because the claim by Fukai[54] on which this idea is based could not be
replicated.[55] Because these tubes would have the same chemical properties as a Pd
atom vacancy, their occupancy would suffer the same limitation.
This leaves cracks or gaps that are formed as the accidental result of stress relief.
These gaps would contain a wide range of chemical conditions unlike those in the crystal
structure. Because gaps are always present in material while LENR rarely occurs, the
required conditions must rarely form in the gaps. This behavior suggests the gap must
have a critical width and/or a critical chemical property that is seldom present. Only
when this rare condition is present in a gap would a chemically stable assembly of
hydrogen nuclei and electrons form at these locations.
Experience reveals that the conditions required to form NAE can be present in Pd
at the time it is manufactured. This condition is even maintained throughout the material
regardless of its subsequent treatment.[22, 56] As a result, when a piece of Pd is found to
support LENR, all parts of the batch from which it came are also found to be active. The
opposite is also true. Dead samples are found to result from batches in which all samples
are dead. Also, very pure Pd is found not to support LENR. Certain impurities appear to
be important. This overall behavior greatly limits the nature of the NAE when Pd is used.
Other active materials, of which many are known, would be expected to have different
characteristics. The challenge is to find the universal characteristic that can be created in
all materials. I have addressed this problem in a paper soon to be published.[7]

PREPRINT 6/1/23
22
4.2.2 Nuclear-active-structure (NAS)
The actual arrangement of atoms and electrons that experience fusion is called the
NAS. The NAS forms at special locations in the NAE. Each NAS assembles in the NAE,
fuses, explodes, and then reforms, as shown by the video provided by Szpak et al. [57].
This video shows heat being produced as isolated small hot spots that wink off and on.
The measured power results from the sum of the energy being made by this chaotic and
random process operating at a relatively small number of isolated locations in an active
material. The greater the number of NAS in the NAE, the more power could be produced.
For fusion to occur, the hydrogen nuclei in the NAS must achieve a separation
small enough to allow their nuclear energy states to interact. People have focused on the
behavior of hot fusion as a path to explain cold fusion. This is a false path for the
following reasons.
In the case of hot fusion, the Coulomb barrier is overcome by the kinetic energy
of the nuclei, usually in plasma. When the hot fusion reaction is instead caused to take
place in a material by bombarding the material with ions having kinetic energy, the
electrons present in the material can add to the very small rate of the hot fusion reaction,
especially at low kinetic energy, as shown in Fig. 18.[58, 59] In this case, the electrons
near the site of the random encounter can slightly reduce the magnitude of the barrier.
Consequently, their effect is large but not enough to fully compensate for the loss
of reaction rate caused by the reduction in kinetic energy. At best, this behavior shows
that electron screening of the hot fusion mechanism is possible in a chemical structure.
This kind of screening does not apply to the cold fusion process during which the applied
kinetic energy is essentially zero and the resulting helium nucleus does not fragment. If it
did, all materials should be able to cause cold fusion.
FIGURE 18. D+ bombardment of Ti with kinetic energy to produce the plotted rate of
hot fusion relative to when a kinetic energy of 2.45 KeV [60] is applied. A calculated
value for the screening potential (Ue) is shown. The bare cross-section is obtained when
fusion occurs in plasma. The absolute fusion rate at this energy is near the detection
limit, to which electron screening adds very little to the very small fusion rate.
In the case of cold fusion, the electrons must first concentrate near the hydrogen
nuclei in sufficient numbers and in a structure that can reduce the Coulomb field enough

PREPRINT 6/1/23
23
for the nuclei to share their nuclear energy states. Now we have a problem because
electrons are not known to concentrate this way. When electrons concentrate to form
chemical compounds or crystals, the electron structure keeps the nuclei far apart. For
LENR to occur, the electrons need to force the nuclei closer together. This requires a
new kind of electron interaction. This realization is one of the important consequences
resulting from this discovery.
4.2.3 Nuclear Products
Based on the data summarized in Fig. 7, 4He is the main nuclear product from
which the energy results. Storms and Scanlan[7] showed that helium is not emitted
directly from the nuclear event. Instead, an isotope of hydrogen is emitted. Nevertheless,
4He gas accumulates in the environment as nuclear energy is produced. How can these
two facts be reconciled?
The only hydrogen isotope with the potential to decay into 4He is 4H. However,
this isotope is known to rapidly decay by neutron emission when it has been formed at
high energy.[61] In fact, the decay is so rapid, some doubt has been expressed whether
the 4H has been created at all. Meulenberg and Sinha[62] (M+S) suggest, based on
theory, that 4H can decay into 4He. This idea is accepted here but the formation of 4H is
proposed to occur by a mechanism different from the one M+S proposed.
How might 4H be produced instead of 4He? This question needs to be combined
with another question. How can tritium be produced by the same mechanism to satisfy
Assumption #3?
As noted in the previous description, an accumulation of electrons in the NAS is
required to reduce the Coulomb barrier. After the electrons have been assembled around
the hydrogen nuclei, they would have to interact with each other and with the nuclear
energy states of the hydrogen nuclei. Let’s assume that during this process, one of these
electrons is captured in the nuclear product to form 4H, as described by the first reaction
listed in Table 1. Godes[63] has suggested the formation of this nuclear product but by a
mechanism involving the direct formation of a neutron. Although a neutron is formed by
the mechanism suggested here, this formation takes place in the nuclear product, which
supplies the required energy and avoids having to supply the energy of 0.78 MeV needed
to form a neutron directly from p+ and e- in free space. The question is, “Can this
mechanism produce all of the other known nuclear products?”
The other reactions, listed in Table 1, are obtained by applying Assumptions #3
and #4. In this way, the formation of tritium is explained by the fusion between H+ and
D+ along with a captured electron. A similar reaction between two H+ would result in a
deuteron. These proposed reactions could be tested.
The use of only H would result in an increasing amount of tritium (3H) as the D
accumulates in the material and fuses with H. As the D concentration further increases,
the D+D reaction would produce 4H and its decay product 4He. The energy produced by
this complex collection of reactions would be less than that produced by pure D+e+D, yet
would still be significant.
The few neutrons produced when tritium is present result from fusion between the
tritium and deuterium nuclei. The wide range in T/n values (Figure 9) would be caused
by variations in the D and T concentrations during the various studies. A careful study of

PREPRINT 6/1/23
24
the T/n ratio while the concentrations of T and D are measured would reveal the true
source of neutron emission.
In summary, the overall process converts one hydrogen isotope into another one
as the result of fusion involving electron screening and electron capture.
TABLE 1
Proposed reactants, nuclear products, and energy for each reaction produced by cold
fusion[9]
(D+e+D) = 4H = 4He + e (fast decay) + ν 23.8 MeV
(H+e+D) = 3H = 3He + e (slow decay) + ν 4.9 MeV
(H+e+H) = 2H (stable) 1.9 MeV
(T+e+D) = 4H + n = 4He + e (fast) + ν <19 MeV
(T+e+H) = 4H = 4He + e (fast decay) + ν <21 MeV
Two more questions need answers. How is the momentum conserved without a
second nuclear product being emitted and where is the missing energy? The proposed
answer is that the assembled electrons, which would interact with the nuclear energy
states as they fused, would acquire some of the resulting nuclear energy and dissipate it
with momentum as an emitted electron current. This kind of energy dissipation is unique
to the cold fusion mechanism. This description has several implications that can be used
to support and explore this proposed mechanism.
Because the formation of the NAS requires both nuclei and electrons to assemble
at the same location, the rates at which each can arrive at the NAS would determine the
amount of power. This process would take time and be sensitive to those variables that
increase the availability of nuclei and electrons to the site. The availability of the nuclei
is determined mainly by temperature and access to the source of D+ ions, as has been
described previously[20]. We now turn to the effect of electron availability.
Electrons in a metallic conductor, such as PdD, have two different levels of
availability. The electrons that bond the atoms together in the crystal structure are tightly
bound and unavailable. In contrast, the conduction electrons are free to move and to be
captured by the NAS. Application of a voltage that causes the conduction electrons to
move would increase the probability of such an electron reaching a NAS where it might
be captured. This expected effect is shown in Fig. 6 where several different currents are
applied at different temperatures. The temperature has very little influence on the effect
of current. In contrast, an increase in the current has an increasingly larger effect on the
reaction rate, as would be expected if a large number of electrons had to be supplied to
the NAS.
A magnetic field would be expected to increase the effect of the current because
the path length of the electrons would be increased as they rotated around the magnetic
lines of force, thereby increasing the probability of encountering a NAS.
This current would also cause D or H ions in the material to concentrate near the
negative polarity as a result of electromigration, identified frequently as the Coehn
Effect,[64] thereby further increasing the ability of nuclei at this location.
Both Godes[38] and Celani et al.[41] have applied a current to successfully
increase the rate of power production, but for different reasons.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
25
4.2.4 Predictions
The collection of behaviors allows several testable predictions to be made. These
predictions can be used as a means to verify the explanation and as a guide for future
studies.
1. Use of D that does not contain H will not produce tritium.
2. Use of H that does not contain initial D will eventually produce tritium at an
increasing rate as the amount of D increases as a result of a fusion reaction. The
neutron flux will also increase as the amount of tritium and deuterium increases.
3. The use of either D or H will produce nuclear energy with H producing less
power than D when the same number of NAS is present.
4. The use of either D or H will produce the emission of 4H and the formation of
4He, its decay product by fast beta emission.
5. An electron current when passed through the NAE will increase the fusion rate.
6. A flux of hydrogen isotopes passed through the NAE will increase the fusion rate.
7. The NAE can be constructed using nano-machining of a conducive metal to
which is applied a suitable source of deuterium, an electric current, and increased
temperature.
8. All of the radiation consisting of photons, ions, and electrons is emitted as tightly
focused beams in random directions with a complex spectrum of energies.
9. Most of the nuclear energy appears in a large number of emitted electrons each of
which has only a small fraction of the total and with a coherent relationship to the
other electrons.
5.0 DISCUSSION OF THE NUCLEAR PROCESS
Because the conditions required to cause LENR are unique to nuclear physics, the
process has been very difficult to accept and understand. The first step toward this
understanding has now been taken. Enough evidence has now been acquired to show that
LENR is real and not a mistake. The next step requires this evidence be assembled into a
useful description of how the process works. The final step is to use this understanding to
repeat the critical measurements and to test the suggested predictions. Only then would a
mathematical description be possible. The promised benefit of this clean energy can only
be realized after the required NAE and the nuclear mechanism are correctly understood
and can be caused with reliability. Cold fusion requires the solution of several difficult
problems. These can be best identified by starting with the behavior of what is called
“Hot Fusion”.
This process involves having two deuterons collide with enough kinetic energy to
rapidly overcome the Coulomb barrier. As a consequence, the resulting helium nucleus
briefly contains at least 23.8 MeV of excess energy. Because this amount of energy is
too large for the helium nucleus[65] to support, it fragments into two particles by two
different paths. This event also allows the momentum to be conserved when the two
particles are emitted in opposite directions. Both reactions have equal probability,
resulting in the T/n ratio being near unity regardless of how much kinetic energy has been
applied.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
26
In contrast, Cold Fusion produces a nuclear product that does not fragment even
though it would contain about the same amount of energy as would result from hot
fusion. What prevents the resulting nucleus from fragmenting in this case?
The second question involves being able to overcome the Coulomb barrier
without having to apply kinetic energy. As described in previous sections, this is
proposed to involve an assembly of electrons. This assumption allows the above question
to be answered in several different ways.
The need to assemble many electrons explains why an electron current passing
through the material will cause the amount of power to increase. This current would
deliver electrons to the active sites more rapidly. Because this delivery process is
relatively slow, the rate of assembly would limit the rate at which fusion could occur at
each site. After sufficient electrons have been assembled to initiate fusion, what happens
next? This question is proposed to have two answers. The fusion process can be
imagined to be slow or fast. The slow process is discussed first.
Suppose the electrons gradually assemble, thereby causing the D nuclei to
gradually interact. Next, assume this gradual interaction gradually releases some mass-
energy as the nuclei get increasingly closer and begin to share their energy states. Those
electrons that have interacted with the nuclear energy states to a sufficient extent are then
emitted from the assembly, thereby dissipating a small part of the mass-energy. Further
nuclear interaction would stop until the lost electrons had been replaced. Replacement
would allow the nuclei energy states to further interact with a release of additional energy
as additional electrons are emitted. This loss and gain process would result in a gradual
but steady emission and acquisition of electrons, with each of the emitted electrons
leaving with a small fraction of the final mass-energy. As a result, when the final nuclear
product had formed, it would contain too little mass-energy to cause fragmentation.
During this process, the assembly would act like neither D nor He. Instead, the assembly
would briefly be a new kind of matter having a large negative charge and unusual
magnetic properties. Has a suitable structure been suggested and observed? As described
by Shoulders[66], the structure he discovered would have the required characteristics,
except it did not experience fusion when he made it; perhaps because it did not contain a
hydrogen isotope. He called this an EVO. Fox[67] and Jin[68] explored the idea in
greater detail. Rambaut[69] describes this electron structure as a magnetic monopole.
Hubler[70] provides a different explanation for the same behavior. Ball lightning has a
similar characteristic but on a larger scale.[71-74] Because this structure, in its several
forms, has been made and studied using electric discharge, its ability to form in a
chemical environment must be assumed.
In contrast to this relatively “slow” process, the assembly could “explode” after
enough electrons have slowly assembled to cause nuclear interaction, thereby causing all
of the electrons and the fusion product to be scattered in certain directions while
momentum is conserved. Once again, each electron would carry only a small fraction of
the total nuclear energy.
The challenge is to determine which of these mechanisms occurs because both are
consistent with present observations.
Regardless of which of these mechanisms apply, hot fusion can be said to
represent fast fusion and cold fusion can be described as slow fusion. This slow fusion
process would be unique and not previously observed because all previous nuclear

PREPRINT 6/1/23
27
interactions have involved the application of kinetic energy, which would force the
nuclear energy to be quickly released as energetic nuclear products or more slowly as
radioactive decay by a different mechanism. Radioactive decay seldom results from cold
fusion because all the energy has been released by electron emission, except when 4H and
3H form. These exceptions result because when the process converts one hydrogen
isotope into another, these two isotopes happen to be radioactive.
Nevertheless, the final nuclear product is found to contain some kinetic energy,
the value of which is shown in Fig. 10. Why this energy has values that have a fixed
difference is still unknown and needs to be explained.
Although the energy loss is gradual, it would be fast by human standards and
limited by how fast electrons could be returned to the fusion site from the surrounding
conduction band to replace the steady loss by the first mechanism or how fast the D or H
could be replaced after the “explosion” if the second mechanism were operating. The
resulting nuclear process might have a half-life that determines the rate at which the
nuclear events occur.
After the 4H had formed, it would decay by the normal emission of a very
energetic election (beta decay) with a short half-life. The predicted presence of this
energetic electron needs to be sought.
6.0 SUMMARY
Normally, the chemical energy states do not interact DIRECTLY with the nuclear
energy states. This means that a condition not present in a normal chemical structure has
to be created somewhere in the chemical structure before fusion can occur. This unique
structure is proposed to form only in physical gaps having a critical size in the nanometer
range as the result of many different treatments and in many different kinds of materials.
This structure is proposed to consist of two or more hydrogen nuclei and many electrons.
The creation process is consistent with the rules that apply to chemical processes because,
initially, the process does not anticipate nuclear interaction.
To cause fusion, this structure must allow at least two D to get close enough for
their nuclear energy states to interact. The electrons that cause this reduction in separation
would interact with the nuclear energy states. As a result, as fusion happens, some of
these electrons would have access to the mass-energy and be able to dissipate this energy
as kinetic energy and momentum. Briefly stated the electron structure that allows fusion
to happen provides the means for the nuclear energy to be dissipated while momentum is
conserved. Whether this emission of electrons is a sustained or sudden process has yet to
be determined.
This kind of electron structure might form in many materials but be ignored
because nothing unusual happens. The sites would be made visible only when an isotope
of hydrogen is made available and the resulting nuclear power is great enough to be
detected. In other words, this process might have always occurred at a rate too low for it
to be detected until F-P made such a search important. A description based on a similar
assembly of atoms and electrons has been suggested by Goncharov and Kirkinskii[75]
The nuclear process is proposed to convert one hydrogen isotope to another. The
initial formation of 4H from D-e-D fusion produces 4He by rapid beta decay. Tritium
formed from D-e-H fusion produces 3He by slow beta decay. A few neutrons are made
when the tritium fuses with 2H. The same mechanism applies equally to all isotopes of

PREPRINT 6/1/23
28
hydrogen with only the nuclear product being affected by the isotope being caused to
fuse.
Fusion of deuterium nuclei would create 23.8 Mev/event. The release of this
energy would send all of the components, including the electrons, in different directions.
This process allows the momentum resulting in the energy release to be conserved. So,
instead of the energy being released from the nuclear product, as is the case when hot
fusion occurs, the energy and momentum are released from the entire assembly of
components that are involved in lowering the Coulomb barrier. This process represents a
new kind of nuclear interaction that can only take place within a chemical environment.
While this idea may be considered implausible, the explanation is consistent with many
observations. In addition, the predicted behavior can be used to test the consistency of
the model.
Cold fusion is not just a clean source of energy. It also reveals the existence of a
new kind of atom-electron interaction on par with the interaction that causes crystals to
form. However, this structure can cause a nuclear reaction when hydrogen isotopes are
present. Consequently, this event makes the structure visible enough for people to take
notice. The implications of such a structure being possible are huge. This is on par with
the discovery of radioactivity in 1896. This discovery required all the understanding of
nuclear behavior accepted at that time to be rewritten. We are now at a similar time of
transition in scientific understanding.
What is stopping this potential source of clean energy from being used on a large
scale? After all, a huge and expensive structure is not required, unlike hot fusion.
Instead, LENR needs only a special condition located within an ordinary material, such
as palladium or several other materials, to be properly stimulated. The required
conditions might also be made in large amounts with reproducible behavior using nano-
machining. The discovery of how to make LENR useful has been slow only because the
effort has been trivial compared to the difficulty. Nevertheless, this problem is being
slowly solved. Hopefully, this paper will accelerate the effort.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work would not have been possible without the financial support and
encouragement provided by Brian Scanlan. Bruce Steinetz and Larry Forsley also
provide important encouragement. My wife, Carol, supported my efforts by being patient
and loving. Many of the cited papers can be found at www.LENR.org, thanks to the
efforts of Jed Rothwell.
REFERENCES
Uncategorized References
[1] M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. Hawkins, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of
deuterium, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989) 301-8 and errata in Vol. 263, 187-8.
[2] D. Clery, ITER's $12 billion gamble, Science 214 (2006) 238.
[3] J.R. Huizenga, Cold fusion: The scientific fiasco of the century, second ed., Oxford
University Press, New York, 1993.
[4] S.B. Krivit, Fusion Fiasco, Explorations in Nuclear Research, Vol. 2-The behind-the-
scenes story of the 1989-1990 fusion fiasco, Pacific Oaks Press, San Rafael, CA, 2016.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
29
[5] E.K. Storms, The science of low energy nuclear reaction, World Scientific, Singapore,
2007.
[6] E.N. Tsyganov, V.M. Golovatyuk, S.P. Lobastov, M.D. Bavizhev, S.B. Dabagov,
Registration of energy discharge in D + D =4He* reaction in conducting crystals
(simulation of experiment), Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. B 309 (2013) 95-104.
[7] E.K. Storms, The Nature of Cold Fusion (Cold Fusion Made Simple), Solid State
Energy Summit, ICCF24, www.LENR.org, Mountain View, CA, 2022.
[8] E.K. Storms, B. Scanlan, Radiation produced by glow discharge in deuterium, in: J.
Rothwell, P. Mobberley (Eds), 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen /
Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007., http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/index.htm. The
International Society for Condensed Matter Science, Catania, Sicily, 2007, pp. 297-305.
[9] E.K. Storms, The explanation of low energy nuclear reaction, Infinite Energy Press,
Concord, NH, 2014.
[10] K.L. Shanahan, Comments on ‘Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes
Prepared by Co-Deposition’, Thermochim. Acta 428 (2005) 207-12.
[11] K. Shanahan, Reply to “Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain
anomalous heat generated by cold fusion”, E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006,
Thermochim. Acta 441 (2006) 210-4.
[12] E.K. Storms, Comment on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous
heat generated by cold fusion, Thermochim. Acta 441 (2006) 207-9.
[13] J. Marwan, M.C. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P.L. Hagelstein, M. Miles, M.R. Swartz,
E.K. Storms, Y. Iwamura, P.A. Mosier-Boss, L. Forsley, A new look at low-energy
nuclear reaction (LENR) research: A response to Shanahan, J. Environ. Monit. (2010).
[14] E.K. Storms, The status of cold fusion (2010), Naturwissenschaften 97 (2010) 861.
[15] E.K. Storms, The Material Science Aspects of Low Energy Fusion, in: t.b. published
(Ed), 2023.
[16] S. Pons, M. Fleischmann, Heat after death, Trans. Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 87-95.
[17] S. Pons, M. Fleischmann, Etalonnage du systeme Pd-D2O: effets de protocole et
feed-back positif. ["Calibration of the Pd-D2O system: protocol and positive feed-back
effects"], J. Chim. Phys. 93 (1996) 711 (in French).
[18] Z.M. Dong, C.L. Liang , X.Z. Li, S.X. Zheng, Temperature Dependence of Excess
Power in Both Electrolysis and Gas-loading Experiments, J. Cond. Matter. Nucl. Sci. 29
(2019) 85-94.
[19] E. Storms, Anomalous Energy Produced by PdD, J. Cond. Matter. Nucl. Sci. 20
(2016) 81-99.
[20] E. Storms, The Nature of the D+D Fusion Reaction in Palladium and Nickel,
JCMNS 36 (2022) 377-94.
[21] M.C.H. McKubre, F.L. Tanzella, Flux Effects in Metal Hydrogen Loading:
Enhanced Mass Transfer, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015) 1-10.
[22] E.K. Storms, Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type
electrolytic cell using palladium sheet, Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 230.
[23] E.K. Storms, Some characteristics of heat production using the "cold fusion" effect,
Trans. Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 96.
[24] E. Storms, The Enthalpy of Formation of PdH as a Function of H/Pd Atom Ratio, J.
Cond. Matter. Nucl. Sci. 29 (2019) 275-85.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
30
[25] M.C.H. McKubre, S. Crouch-Baker, A.M. Riley, S.I. Smedley, F.L. Tanzella,
Excess power observations in electrochemical studies of the D/Pd system; the influence
of loading, in: H. Ikegami (Ed) Third International Conference on Cold Fusion,
"Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Published by: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan,
Held at: Nagoya Japan, 1992, pp. 5.
[26] H. Kamimura, T. Senjuh, S. Miyashita, N. Asami, Excess heat in fuel cell type cells
from pure Pd cathodes annealed at high temperatures, in: M. Okamoto (Ed) Sixth
International Conference on Cold Fusion,Progress in New Hydrogen Energy, New
Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Tokyo, Japan, Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan, 1996, pp. 45.
[27] P.L. Hagelstein, D. Letts, D. Cravens, Terahertz difference frequency response of
PdD in two-laser experiments, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 3 (2010) 59-76.
[28] D. Letts, D. Cravens, Laser stimulation of deuterated palladium, Infinite Energy 9
(2003) 10.
[29] E.K. Storms, Use of a very sensitive Seebeck calorimeter to study the Pons-
Fleischmann and Letts effects, in: P.L. Hagelstein, S.R. Chubb (Eds), Tenth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, World Scientific Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, 2003, pp.
183-97.
[30] D. Letts, D. Cravens, P.L. Hagelstein, Thermal changes in palladium deuteride
induced by laser beat frequencies, in: J. Marwan, S.B. Krivit (Eds), ACS Symposium
Series 998, Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, American Chemical Society,
Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 337.
[31] D. Letts, P.L. Hagelstein, Simulation of optical phonons in deuterated palladium, in:
D.L. Nagel, M.E. Melich (Eds), 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science, Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 333-7.
[32] M.J. Guffey, Y. Tang, P.J. King, Attempted Replication of Excess Heat in the Letts
Dual-laser Experiment, JCMNS 20 (2016) 1-28.
[33] J. Tian, L.H. Jin, B.J. Shen, Z.K. Weng, X. Lu, Excess heat triggering by 532 nm
laser in a D/Pd gas loading system, in: D.L. Nagel, M.E. Melich (Eds), ICCF-14
International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, www.LENR.org,
Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 328-32.
[34] P.L. Hagelstein, D. Letts, Analysis of some experimental data from the two-laser
experiment, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 3 (2010) 77-92.
[35] M.R. Swartz, P.L. Hagelstein, Increased PdD anti-Stokes Peaks are Correlated with
Excess Heat Mode, JCMNS 24 (2017) 130-45.
[36] M. Swartz, Active LANR Systems Emit a 327.37 MHz Maser Line, J. Cond. Mater.
Nucl. Sci. 33 (2020) 81-110.
[37] E.K. Storms, Some characteristics of heat production using the "cold fusion" effect,
in: T.O. Passell (Ed) Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Electric Power
Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Lahaina, Maui, 1993, pp. 4.
[38] F. Tanzella, R. George, R.E. Godes, Nanosecond Pulse Stimulation in the Ni–H2
System, J. Cond. Matter. Nucl. Sci. 29 (2019) 202-10.
[39] R. Godes, Quantum Fusion Hypothesis, ICCF-14, Washington, DC., 2008.
[40] F. Celani, A. Spallone, P. Tripodi, A. Nuvoli, A. Petrocchi, D. Di Gioacchino, M.
Boutet, P. Marini, V. Di Stefano, High power µs pulsed electrolysis for large deuterium
loading in Pd plates, Trans. Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 127.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
31
[41] F. Celani, A. Spallone, C. Lorenzetti, E. Purchi, S. Fiorilla, S. Cupellini, M.
Nakamura, P. Cerreoni, R. Burri, P. Boccanera, Marano, G. Vassallo, G. Gamberale,
Electromagnetic Excitation of Coaxially-Coiled Constantan Wires by High-Power, High-
Voltage, Microsecond Pulses, JCMNS 36 (2022) 408-35.
[42] E. Storms, The Present Status of Cold Fusion and its Expected Influence on Science
and Technology Innovative Energy Policies 4 (2015).
[43] P.L. Hagelstein, M.C. McKubre, D.J. Nagel, T. Chubb, R. Hekman, New physical
effects in metal deuterides. Report of the review on low energy nuclear reactions, in
"Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", DoE, Office of Sci., Washington, DC,
2004, in: J.-P. Biberian (Ed) 11th International Conference on Cold Fusion, World
Scientific Co., Marseilles, France, 2004, pp. 23.
[44] A.B. Karabut, Y.R. Kucherov, I.B. Savvatimova, Nuclear product ratio for glow
discharge in deuterium, Phys. Lett. A 170 (1992) 265-72.
[45] A.B. Karabut, E.A. Karabut, Research into spectra of X-ray emission from solid
cathode medium during and after high current glow discharge operation, in: D.L. Nagel,
M.E. Melich (Eds), 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,
www.LENR-CANR.org, Washington DC, 2008, pp. 362-7.
[46] E.K. Storms, B. Scanlan, Detection of radiation from LENR, in: D.L. Nagel, M.E.
Melich (Eds), 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,
www.LENR.org, Washington, DC, 2008, pp. 263-87.
[47] S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, J.J. Smith, On the behavior of Pd deposited in the
presence of evolving deuterium, J. Electroanal. Chem. 302 (1991) 255.
[48] F.E. Gordon, H.J. Whitehouse, Lattice Energy Converter, JCMNS 35 (2022) 30-48.
[49] F.E. Gordon, H.J. Whitehouse, Lattice Energy Converter II: Iron Hydrogen Host
Material, JCMNS 36 (2022) 1-24.
[50] S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, J.J. Smith, Deuterium uptake during Pd-D
codeposition, J. Electroanal. Chem. 379 (1994) 121.
[51] M. McKubre, M.R. Staker, On the role of Super Abundant Vacancies (SAV’s) in
hydrogen loading and production of the Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect, 13th
International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals, Italy, 2018.
[52] M.R. Staker, Estimating volume fractions of superabundant vacancy phases and their
potential roles in low energy nuclear reactions and high conductivity in the palladium –
isotopic hydrogen system, Mater. Sci. and Eng. B 259 (2020) 114600.
[53] M.R. Staker, A model and simulation of lattice vibrations in a superabundant
vacancy phase of palladium–deuterium, Modeling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 28 (2020)
0650066.
[54] Y. Fukai, Formation of superabundant vacancies in metal hydrides at high
temperatures, J. Alloys and Compounds 231 (1995) 35-40.
[55] Z.M. Geballe, M. Somayazulu, N. Armanet, A.J. Mishra, M. Ahart, R.J. Hemley,
High-pressure synthesis and thermodynamic stability of PdH1±ε up to 8 GPa, Phys. Rev.
B 103 (2021) 024515.
[56] M.C. McKubre, Excess power observations in electrochemical studies of the D/Pd
system; the operating parameter space, in: V. Violante, F. Sarto (Eds), 15th International
Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, ENEA, Italy, Rome, Italy, 2009, pp.
5-10.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
32
[57] S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, J. Dea, F. Gordon, Polarized D+/Pd-D2O system: hot
spots and "mini-explosions", in: P.L. Hagelstein, S.R. Chubb (Eds), Tenth International
Conference on Cold Fusion, World Scientific Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, 2003, pp.
13.
[58] V. Pines, M. Pines, A. Chait, B.M. Steinetz, L.P. Forsley, R.C. Hendricks, T.L.
Benyo, G.C. Fralick, B. Baramsai, P.B. Ugorowski, M.D. Becks, R.E. Martin, N. Penney,
C.E. Sandifer II, Nuclear fusion reactions in deuterated metals, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020)
044609.
[59] T. Tanaka, S. Himeno, A possible enhancement mechanism, in: X.Z. Li (Ed) The 9th
International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Tsinghua
Univ. Press, Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China, 2002, pp. 349.
[60] A.G. Lipson, A.S. Roussetski, A.B. Karabut, G.H. Miley, Strong enhancement of
DD-reaction accompanied by X-ray generation in a pulsed low voltage high-current
deuterium glow discharge with a titanuim cathode, in: P.L. Hagelstein, S.R. Chubb (Eds),
Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, World Scientific Publishing Co.,
Cambridge, MA, 2003, pp. 635-56.
[61] Y.B. Gurov, S.V. Lapushkin, B. Chernyshev, V.G. Sandukovsky, Spectroscopy of
superheavy hydrogen isotopes 4H and 5H, Eur. Phys. J. A24 (2005) 231-6.
[62] A. Meulenberg Jr., A. Sinha, Deep-obit-electron radiation emission in decay from
4H*# to 4He, ICCF-17, Daejeon, Korea, 2013.
[63] R.E. Godes, The quantum fusion hypothesis, Infinite Energy 14 (2008) 15-23.
[64] A. Coehn, Nachweis Von Protonen in Metallen, Z. Elektrochem. 35 (1929) 676.
[65] C.C. Raju, Energy Levels of Helium Nucleus, J. Modern Phys. 4 (2013) 459-62.
[66] K. Shoulders, S. Shoulders, Observations on the Role of Charge Clusters in Nuclear
Cluster Reactions, J. New Energy 1 (1996) 111-21.
[67] H. Fox, S.X. Jin, Low-energy nuclear reactions and high-density charge clusters, J.
New Energy 3 (1998) 56.
[68] S.-X. Jin, H. Fox, Characteristics of high-density charge clusters: A theoretical
model, J. New Energy 1 (1996) 5-20.
[69] M. Rambaut, Electrons clusters and magnetic monopoles, in: J.-P. Biberian (Ed)
11th International Conference on Cold Fusion, World Scientific Co., Marseilles, France,
2004, pp. 798-805.
[70] G.K. Hubler, A Possible Heuristic Explanation of Exotic Vacuum Objects (EVO’s,
Charge Clusters), JCMNS 36 (2022) 30-7.
[71] E. Lewis, The ball lightning state In cold fusion, in: P.L. Hagelstein, S.R. Chubb
(Eds), Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, World Scientific Publishing Co.,
Cambridge, MA, 2003, pp. 973-81.
[72] E.H. Lewis, Evidence of microscopic ball lightning in cold fusion experiments, in:
J.-P. Biberian (Ed) 11th International Conference on Cold Fusion, World Scientific Co.,
Marseilles, France, 2004, pp. 304.
[73] E.H. Lewis, Evidence of ball lightning -- A survey of some recent
experimental papers describing microscopic objects
associated with transmutation phenomena, in: J. Rothwell (Ed) ICCF-14 International
Conference on Condensed Matter
Nuclear Science, www.LENR.org, Washington, DC, 2008.

PREPRINT 6/1/23
33
[74] E.H. Lewis, Tracks of ball lightning in apparatus?, J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci. 2
(2009) 13.
[75] A.I. Goncharov, V.A. Kirkinskii, Research Article Formation of Hydrogen
Miniatoms in the Medium of Free Electrons–the Key to the Mechanism of Low-energy
Nuclear Reactions, JCMNS 36 (2022) 203-9.