“Anyone who understands Chemistry, and Celestial Mechanics,
understands that space travel is forever impossible.”

“Uranium: A heavy metal whose only use is to impart a purple glaze to cheap pottery.”

and a few years later: ” Congressmen, I assure you that the uranium bomb cannot
possibly work, and I speak as an expert on High Explosives.”

and a few years later: “You can think about Nuclear Fusion all you want, but if
you publish anything about it, we will lock you up and throw away the key.”

That last was out of fear born of ignorance, and an abundance of caution; They
thought there might be an easy way to make a hydrogen bomb.

I sure hope they stay wrong.

Subject: RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:29:47 -0700
From: pam.boss@navy.mil
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
CC: m_bernstein@acs.org; hestenes@asu.edu; canmarrai@gmail.com
Dear Wladimir,
Like many, we have very few funds and resources. But we will consider your suggestions and see what we can do as time and money permits.
Regards,
Pam

RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background‏
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:35:59 PM
To: PAMELA MOSIER-BOSS (pam.boss@navy.mil)
Bcc: JOHNATHAN CHAN (coldfusion111@gmail.com); jnaudin509@aol.com
Hi, Pamela
Be careful, and take cary.
If all the deuteriuns of the Pd lattice alligned in the same direction get resonance and have fusion at the same time, perhaps it can occur a small explosion in your electrolytic cell.
Also, I recomend you to put a loadstone externally in the cell (like in the Letts-Cravens experiment), in order to help to keep a lot of deuteriuns alligned toward the same direction (that of the external magnetic field applied)
Good luck
WLAD

See the article in Peswiki:
How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment

However cold fusion is theoretically impossible because Quantum Mechanics does not consider the zitterbewegung (zbw) as a helical trajectory of the electron (the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation of the electron, but the quantum physicists did not interpret the zbw as a helical trajectory).

By interpreting the zitterbewegung from a new viewpoint, by considering it as a helical trajectory of the electron, cold fusion becomes theoreticall possible, as Guglinski has shown to Mitch Andre Garcia, along a discussion in the topic “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION”, which can be seen in the link:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007 ».

So the chemists are now getting knowledge that cold fusion is theoretically possible thanks to the adoption of the new interpretation for the zitterbewegung, and they are undertaking the performance of cold fusion experiments, because it seems that they dont trust in the viewpoint of the physicists.

Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.

The new duel chemists vs physicists has ideological origin. The physicits keep their loyalty to Quantum Mechanics, because they dont accept to change their interpretation on the zitterbewegung, since such a changing requires a very deep modification in the foundations of Modern Physics (the zbw cannot be considered as a helical trajetory in Quantum Field Theory, which is the successor of Quantum Mechanics).

Unlike, the chemists keep their loyalty to the scientific method, according to which any experiment cannot be neglected only because it defies the principles of a theory, as happens now in this duel between Quantum Mechanics and cold fusion.

Such new participation of chemists is healthy to science’s develolpment. Because as the physicists have some dogmas which they consider unsourmantable (as for instance their interpretation of the zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory), the development of cold fusion requires scientists free of dogmas of Physics, as the chemists.

In few words, we have to consider the following situation:

1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory…

2- … but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy…

3- … then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)…

4- … instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).

Further down below there are titles and URLs to our seven theoretical publications on LENRs, beginning with our peer-reviewed EPJC publication in March 2006. There are also links to six ‘plain English’ articles on LENRs that were published by I-SiS, as well as a public online MS-PowerPoint presentation that provides a concise high level historical and technical overview of LENRs as seen through the ‘lens’ of our theoretical work.

The Institute of Science in Society (I-SiS) is a nonprofit ‘green’ environmental organization headquartered in London, UK (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php ). Over the years, I-SiS has made notable contributions to efforts that aim to curtail the spread of genetically modified crops in Europe. Until recently, I-SiS (like Greenpeace) has also steadfastly opposed expanded use of nuclear (fission) power. However, after investigating LENRs in 2007, I-SiS changed its policy position on nuclear power. In fact, I-SiS now encourages commercial development and deployment of nuclear technology in the form of weak interaction LENRs (as opposed to strong interaction fission or fusion processes) as a truly ‘green,’ carbon-free nuclear energy technology.

In our theory, surmounting a high Coulomb barrier is a non-issue. As shown in our papers, LENRs in condensed matter systems do not involve any kind of Coulomb barrier-penetrating fusion, i.e., deuterium-deuterium, D-T, hot, “cold,” warm, or otherwise. Furthermore, LENRs did not begin with Pons & Fleischmann in 1989 — we have uncovered evidence in published peer-reviewed literature that heretofore unexplained, anomalous LENR-related phenomena have been seen episodically in certain types of experiments for at least 100 years.

None of our work includes the assumption of any new microscopic physics. What is novel about our new theoretical approach to LENRs is that, for the first time, we extend many-body collective effects to existing electroweak theory within the overall framework of the Standard Model. In a total of seven technical publications, we have developed a foundational theory of LENRs that weaves together all of the previously disparate threads of varied experimental evidence into a coherent whole. We have done so using rigorous, established, well-accepted physics.

In our view, the Widom-Larsen theory can explain all of the good experimental data in LENRs. Pons & Fleischmann were correct about excess heat being a real physical effect, albeit poorly reproducible because they were completely wrong on the underlying mechanism and had no appreciation whatsoever of crucial nanoscale device fabrication issues that are in the process of being solved by our company today. However, P&F were dead wrong about it being strong interaction, Coulomb barrier-penetrating D-D fusion that was producing the observed ‘excess’ heat. Unbeknownst to anyone back in 1989 and many people today, P&F’s experimental results were actually the result of condensed matter collective effects and weak interactions.

Posted February 14, 2009 (24 slides):
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llchigh-level-historical-and-technical-overview-of-lenrsfeb-14-2009

#1. November 13, 2008
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions for Green Energy -
How weak interactions can provide sustainable nuclear energy and revolutionize the energy industry
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LENRGE.php

#2. December 4, 2008
Widom-Larsen Theory Explains Low Energy Nuclear Reactions &Why They Are Safe and Green -
All down to collective effects and weak interactions
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Widom-Larsen.php

#3. December 10, 2008
Portable and Distributed Power Generation from LENRs -
Power output of LENR-based systems could be scaled up to address many different commercial applications
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/PortableDistributedPowerFromLENRs.php

#4. December 11, 2008
LENRs for Nuclear Waste Disposal -
How weak interactions can transform radioactive isotopes into more benign elements
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LENR_Nuclear_Waste_Disposal.php

#5. January 26, 2009
Safe, Less Costly Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning and More
How weak interaction LENRs can take us out of the nuclear safety and economic black hole
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/safeNuclearDecommissioning.php

#6. January 27, 2009
LENRs Replacing Coal for Distributed Democratized Power
Low energy nuclear reactions have the potential to provide distributed power generation with zero carbon emission and cheaper than coal
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LENRsReplacingCoal.php

******************* URLs to Technical Publications *************************

1. “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces”, Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107 (2006 – arXiv in May 2005)
http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

2. “Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces” (Sept 2005) Widom and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0509/0509269v1.pdf

3. “Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells” (Feb 2006) Widom and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0602/0602472v1.pdf

4. “Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces” (Sep 2007) Widom and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0608/0608059v2.pdf

5. “Energetic Electrons and Nuclear Transmutations in Exploding Wires” (Sept 2007) Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.1222v1.pdf

6. “High Energy Particles in the Solar Corona” (April 2008) Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.2647v1.pdf

7. “Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” (Oct 2008) Srivastava, Widom, and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.0159v1.pdf

“They said it couldn’t be done – what they meant was: they couldn’t do it!”

Another great monument to the bankruptcy of “consensus science” has been created thanks to Pamela Mosier-Boss and her people at SpaWar. Hopefully Pons and Fleischmann did, as was rumored, patent their process despite the derision that was directed at their (what apparently has now been proved to be) breakthrough . Being proved right is nice, being proved right and getting really rich in the bargain is even better.