The following post was submitted as a comment on this thread.
So we have a nuclear level energy release but little or no radiation. Rossi obviously isn’t sure what is going on and thinks it might be antimatter. Mills on the other hand believes due to the lack of radiation that it must be chemical Hydrino based.
But then we have Leif Holmlid that is not speculating but has repeaded, peer-reviewed and published results proving the formation of H(0) ultra dense hydrogen. If the formation of H(0) is followed by breakage of the bond, using for example a low energy laser, this results in a split of the proton and delivers mesons and energy. This has been proven with direct measure of muons that can either cause regular muon cold fusion or decay directly to electrons. In the process the proton mass is mostly lost with the applicable energy release and as the mesons are charged and fast moving, the energy can be harvested directly to electricity. Sounds familiar?
Where Holmlid triggers the H(0) process on a flat and observable 2D surface, Rossi and Mills are burried in a 3D material providing no direct line of sigth on the process happening.
So, if Holmlid’s results are accurate, the Holmlid decay of the proton would explain the large energy release without radiation in both the Rossi and Mills experiments.
Then why are we not regarding this as the primary explanation for LENR and why are we not focusing on repeating Holmlid for further proof? It would sound strange if the three processes are totally unrelated.