interested

I am always quite sceptical about "nuclear processes" with "apparent no radiaton" or no "radioactive waste".

In my view, commonly, this combination hints to another source of the excess energy than nuclear source.

Maybe there is a way to trigger the release of nuclear energy at low energies (NB: also classical nuclear fission is triggered with low energy neutrons...), but then why should the release of high energy happen only in low energy quanta? That would be a coincidence of two processes both challenging current understanding.

I don't say that nuclear processes at low energy would not leave any redioactive waste and high energetical radiation. It can be anticipated that the amount and the activity of the nuclear waste is much lower than the waste of common nuclear power plants. Also the hot fusion of deuterium nuclei to helium nuclei released γ-radiation if we master it. But radiation can be shielded quite easy.

Neutrons are the most dangerous radioactivity resp. particles. We would have similar problems with nuclear waste through the use of neutron triggered processes at least. This is not a desirable solution.

Erik Strub: Do you really see another source of the excess energy than 'cold' nuclear processes? All the known processes of LENR are triggered by 'naked' protons resp. deuterons. I see many possibilities besides Rossi, Fleischmann et al. But we have to leave our imperfect theories on particles and nuclei.Thesis The Justification of a realistic Picture of Particles and At...

For me, the most convincing argument that the source of excess energy is nuclear, would be the observation of any typical signature of nuclear processes - neutrons, gammas, changed isotopic ratios etc.

Anything else seems improbable to me.

Erik Strub: I agree absolute. Otto Hahn has proven the nuclear fission by detection of barium as on of the fission products.

But was there ever such a meticulous and complete analysis of one of the processes? The mainstrem schience reject the possibility of nuclear processes at low temperature. It prevents every new approach in physics.

Otto Hahn had a very talented chemist at his side, as well as a strong relationship with Lise Meitner and Max Frisch who were immediately able to understand where the unexpected twist in the liquid drop model might be that could fit nuclear fission into existing explanation schemes.

Whenever I read about Fleischman or Rossi or ... I wonder why they do not put much effort into nuclear (radiation) measurements. Radiometry can be very simple and any direct signature for nuclear processes besides heat development would a) give the needed evidence and b) a point for nuclear scientist to start thinking.

You can not challenge a scientific field without establishing a link somehow.

Was Otto Hahn not a very talented analyst in chemistry by oneself? The understanding of the underlying nuclear processes was the matter of Lise Meitner.

Atomic nuclei are spatial grids of light mesons in the most symmetrical arrangement in each case. The nuclear fission results from transformation of the grid into another typ of grid after neutron capture by impossibility. Cold fusion is possible by transformation into a more stable nucleus afte capture of a mass particle.

The 'liquid drop model' is an empirical model. Nuclear fragmentations showing the actual structures of atomic nuclei. If nuclei decay normal than they emitt only stable parts. I am amazed that the great theoreticians were unable to understand the puzzle of particles and put it together without additional components.