Saturday, June 9, 2012


It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question.
(Eugene Ionesco)

The really best questions even don’t need answers; they are valuable per se. (Yves Henri Prum)


Our colleague, leading LENR scientist and author, Dr. Edmund Storms has just written a paper about LENR theory. It will be published in the Journal of Condensed Materials Nuclear Science’ Its abstract is here and I am sure the full text will be on the Web very soon.
An explanation of low energy nuclear reactions (cold fusion)
Edmund Storms
KivaLabs. Santa Fe, NM
A plausible nuclear-active-environment in which LENR occurs is identified by ruling out various possibilities and by identifying an environment that is common to all successful methods. When this environment is combined with a plausible mechanism, many testable predictions result. These insights and proposals are offered to help clarify understanding of LENR and to suggest future studies. The common environment in which LENR occurs is proposed to be cracks of a critical size, followed by a resonance process that dissipates energy by X-ray emission based on a laser-like process.  The LENR behavior has the potential to test the Standard Model of nuclear interaction
Many ideas from the paper are developments of those from Dr. Storms’s great LENR guide that I have reviewed here:
In order to avoid interference with the many questions expected regarding particular aspects and details of the new theory, I have asked for the permission of the author to put here some questions I consider relevant.

First question- the Management of Triumph question: in case this theory is 100% real and “true” and a complete success, what are the consequences?

Is this theory first class i.e. predictive (II- prohibitive, III- explicative)? How has it to be developed in order to eradicate low reproducibility, increase intensity and prolong the release of heat energy? How can it be used for scale-up of the systems and which systems are the best.

Second question- in which extent is this theory a TRANS-THEORY?

(Explanation: I think LENR is a very complex combination of more phenomena and it needs more theories working together in harmony- as has, say photosynthesis or nitrogen fixation.
See please what I and other colleagues more knowledgeable than me have said some 7 years ago
By the way, when will this Survey be repeated?

Also please look to this excerpt of my 2006 paper:
“From the understanding/theoretical point of view, it seems to be a fatal error to attempt to explain a multiphase, multistep, multilevel aggregate of phenomena by a single theory -- without considering adequately where they take place, how and what they are, etc.”

The perfect example of such a trans-theory is described in Piantelli’s Pontignano Poster 2010.
It also is my pleasure to quote again Defkalion’s bright definition of their process- as they understand it: “a dynamic system of  the multistage set of reactions.”

It seems a good theory has to be really trans-theory because the barrier of Mr. Charles_Augustin de Coulomb is only one of the many barriers we have to pass in order to accomplish an industrial LENR process.
My impression is that the new theory is on the best way to become a transtheory. The genesis of NAE has to be thoroughly understood

Third question- what do you consider to be the proofs of the apparent universality of the New Theory?

As I have told more times, Nature has no problems, only solutions. Occam’s Razor is only one of them and sometimes it gets in conflict with the basic principle of maximum interestingness of the world. By the way, in LENR we are victims and scapegoats of this powerful principle. Hyper-complexity has put us repeatedly on the ropes. Therefore it is possible but not certain that the same theory is valid for the Pd-D electrochemical cell- with his rather modest performances. Nature does not like advices or consultants.  She does what she wishes.
Piantelli has developed his own theory- that is a trans-theory and it is very self-consistent locally and it applies –as it was verified experimentally to all the transition metals. It is about nanostructures and not voids.
Palladium and nickel have quite different behaviors in contact with hydrogen isotopes and, physically speaking hydrogen and deuterium are more like stepbrothers. The electronic structure of palladium is more closed than nickel; deuterium is poison for the Ni-H process of Piantelli. Many colleagues bet on a D + D process for the palladium cell, H + H looks improbable.
I think only experiment will answer to this disturbing question.

Fourth Question: how does the New Theory explain the serious problems of controllability in LENR land?

Actually despite the smart methods, tricks, many experiments, classic (let’s say pre-Rossi LENR) despite many doubts) is apparently unable come out from the trap of smallish, unsure and volatile results.  How can the New Theory explain or even justify this situation? Can we hope that serious improvements based on this theory? I accept this is an issue that needs much work. My friends know well that I ma intellectually married to my poisoning hypothesis. I am able to convince one colleague per year that I am right. 

Fifth question- how does the New Theory explain LENR+ i.e. the two orders of magnitude enhancement of energy production in the E-cats and the Hyperions? 

What is the significant even huge difference between Rossi’s process and LENR? kWatts vs. tens of Watts? Can the New Theory give some indication, idea whatever? Rossi has told from the start the process is very different from any LENR, including Piantelli’s and he cannot learn anything from classic LENR. The spectacular enhancement shows that he probably is right in this case.
Apparently LENR+ possesses an extra dimension, feature, a new degree of freedom- it is an other, new game. To use a tautology, an unexpected surprise.
Defkalion was speaking about working temperatures of + 650 C starting a couple of months ago, Rossi, Rossi started to mention 600 C more recently and says he is obtaining now a stable work regime at this temperature. Such high temperatures exclude nanostructures formed a priori- they are rapidly destroyed. Do not forget that according the available information, both Rossi and Defkalion are working with micrometric not nanometric nickel powder, however the surface is prepared using some proprietary methods. It also seems that for LENR+ some residual air traces are tolerable and no deep degassing cleaning of the nickel surfaces a la Piantelli’s patent WO 2010/058288 is compulsory.
In essence it is probably about a very dynamic generation of a great population of NAE. Highly active NAEs.  


  1. For those who have not read Ed's paper, NAE stands for Nuclear Active Environment.


  2. Question #1: The consequences of my theory being correct are two fold. First, the ability to replicate LENR at robust levels will improve. Once the required cracks can be manufactured on demand, the energy could be made on any scale, from that required to power a computer to a space craft. Second, the phenomenon can be applied to solving the solar defect of neutrinos. This will cause a new understanding of the Standard model. But right now, we can only hope.

    Question #2: The model will be a "trans-theory" only to the extent that it is acknowledged as plausible and worth exploring. This acceptance is not assured at this time. As for whether one or many theories are required depends on how many ways Nature has to cause LENR. I assume only one basic method is possible. Therefore, only one theory is needed, i.e. the correct one. We will have to wait until the proper tests are made to determine which theory is correct. My model shows exactly which tests need to be done.

    Question #3: I base my model on hundreds of observations that show several very robust patterns of behavior. These behaviors include both the presence and absence of expected behavior. I rely on using a large number of combinations of behaviors, all of which are consistent with the logic of the model. In addition, the model can be applied to both deuterium and hydrogen systems using any method for causing LENR. Of course, less support for the idea exists in the hydrogen system, which makes it the ideal system to use as a test of the predictions.

    Question #4: Control is a problem that the model addresses. I assume the rules controlling chemical behavior apply to the process that proceeds the nuclear reaction, regardless how the nuclear reaction operates. Once the preconditions are understood, the controlling variables can be identified and used in the same manner they would be used to control a chemical processes. In other words, chemistry determines the rate of the nuclear reaction. Once the required conditions are formed, the nuclear process occurs very rapidly and without any additional effort. This is similar to how energy is made in a gas furnace. The rate of energy production is determined by how fast the fuel is applied, in this case D+, and the subsequent flame does its thing without any additional effort or control.

    Question #5: Rossi has succeeded in increasing energy production by finding a way to create many active cracks in the fine nickel powder. Presumably the powder has just the right size to support exactly the correct size crack. As a result, the concentration of NAE is higher than Piantelli was able to achieve in solid nickel. The secret of the process involves the method and/or the material that needs to be added to Ni to cause the cracks to form.

  3. We all know that cracks in Pd/D can cause very minor hot fusion effects by so called fracto-fusion. What is the evidence that anomalous heat is also caused by cracks?

    Piantelli creates highly crystaline nickel by epitaxial deposition at a critical temperature. It is unlikely that such nickel contains significant cracks and yet it seems to produce anomalous effects.

    We suspect that the anomalous heat producing phenomena are superficial because 4He evolution is correlated in time with ecess power. But cracks do not only form on the surface, in fact the vast majority are likely to be internal. It is very unlikely that the crack is the site of significant nuclear reactions.

    No explanation is given which explains why a crack could possibly enhance nuclear reactions.

    1. Dear Anonymous,

      My guess is that this is your family name and you have many cousins- why do you not use an other name e.g. your own or a pseudonym?
      Anyway, I have just mentioned fractofusion (one of the first explanations for CF back in time when everybody wanted neutrons)see Carpinteri. You can discuss your anti-crack idea directly with Ed Storms.
      I think that "crack or crack- not this is the question, but NAE or not NAE?!" This is as divisive as surface vs bulkin our community.

  4. Part1

    In the quantum world of the crack, one concept that needs a place at the table is Luttinger liquids.

    This concept has recently been established as a fundamental paradigm vital to our understanding of the properties of one-dimensional quantum systems, which has only recently led to a number of theoretical breakthroughs in understanding how electrons behave in the one-dimensional world.

    To expand the explanation, in our everyday real life experience, we live in a three-dimensional world.

    Phenomena in a world of the crack with only one spatial dimension may appear an esoteric subject, and for a long time it was perceived as such. But today, this is changing as our knowledge of matter’s inner atomic structure has evolved. It appears that in many real-life materials a chain-like pattern of overlapping atomic orbitals leaves electrons belonging on these orbitals with only one dimension where they can freely travel.

    With the nano-patterned microchips and nano-wires heading into consumer electronics, the question “how do electrons behave in one dimension?” is no longer a theoretical playground but something that a curious mind might ask when thinking of how his or her computer works. One-dimensional problems being mathematically simpler, a number of exact solutions describing “model” one-dimensional systems were known to theorists for years.

    Only recently has the conformal field theory of the constrained dimensional movement of the electron been consolidated and experimentally verified.

    Our past knowledge has now been put together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and predicts remarkable universal critical behavior for one-dimensional systems.

    The world of one dimension is full of surprises that we can readily appreciate if we can use our imaginations

    The geometry of one dimension has its special rules and is more restrictive than we would imagine.

    In the one dimensional world, two objects cannot move past one another unless they can penetrate each other; the one on the right will always remain on the right, and the one on the left will always be on the left. Hence, a clear distinction between the two fundamental types of particles, those obeying Bose and Fermi statistics, disappears in the one-dimensional world.

    See part 2 in next post

  5. Part 2

    Indeed, the difference between bosons and fermions comes into play in quantum mechanics when two particles swap places. This has no effect for the system of bosons but changes the sign
    of the wave function for fermions. If particles never swap places, the system’s descriptions in terms of Bose and Fermi elementary excitations are equally legitimate, the choice being just a matter of convenience as the non-interacting fermions are equivalent to strongly interacting bosons and vice versa.

    The one dimensional quantum field theory theorists have developed a new technique known as “bosonisation” which provides a unified description of the one-dimensional world of the electron.

    When cracks develop on the surface of metals, we enter the world of one dimensional electron flow were bosonisation and Luttinger liquid theory apply.

    Furthermore, Fermi-liquid accurately predicts the properties of “usual”, three-dimensional metals, but fails dramatically in one dimension. In the volume in and immediate around the crack, we must use the new concept of a Luttinger liquid to understand the way electrons behave.

    A Luttinger liquid theory predicts universal properties for the great variety of one dimensional systems, including the electronic states of carbon nanotubes and nanowires, conducting properties of conjugated polymers and fluid behavior of Bose liquids confined within one dimensional nano-capillaries.

    The simplest and best studied example of the Luttinger liquid is a chain of quantum spins ½ where the energy depends on the misalignment of the nearest neighbors.

    The detection of superconductive behavior in and around cracks by Miley might be understood as a consequence of the “bosonisation” of electrons due to the one dimensional electron flow were electrons become ballistic and can ignore impurities that would usually restrict electron flow in three dimensions.

    I believe that this appearance of superconductive behavior of electron flow is an important clue to the one dimensional nature of electron behavior in and around the crack that Ed Storms is addressing.

    1. It seems something fundamental to me. Who is the specialist
      who could develop and apply this idea for the Ni-H system?