Is it 1st of April in states yet?

OK. I've read the paper. They do mention a higher number of triple tracks. There are some graphs of tracks distributions in the supplementary materials for the paper, but the whole thing reads as the authors were not bothered to investigate further. There are some triple tracks, but judging by the pictures included there is plenty of single tracks as well. They do perform an analysis of density vs depth of tracks and others, but skip the most important one which is: what percentage of triple tracks compared to singles there is and does it fit their assumption. Assuming some neutron flux and knowing the density distribution of carbon in this plastic they've used as a detector it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a proportion of triple tracks that should form(a proportion of neutrons striking a carbon atom head on). If their measured proportion is any different something else is going on and not fusion.

Are they seriously basing all their conclusions on the presence of one neutron track? One during three weeks? I think someone needs to do an experiment with few of those cells, some with normal water to compare the results before everyone jumps to the conclusion it is fusion.

I for one welcome a new cheap source of parts for my robotics hobby projects. What do you people care if sixpack Joe will have to spend 50 bucks on an ink cartridge. He in no way is stopping you from buing a laser printer, but his _contribution_ will make it possible for printer manufacturers to sell printers even cheaper than now. Below 10$ maybe? There is plenty of stuff you can reuse from the ink jet printer. Like: position encoders, toothed belts, electric engines, gears, a precision ground rod etc. All subsidised from the idiot tax.