Wednesday, November 11, 2015



Amicus Plato — amicus Aristoteles — magis amica veritas. (Plato is my friend —Aristotle is my friend — but my greatest friend is truth.) (Isaac Newton)



a) Historical landmarks =reviews of LENR theories;

There have been three landmarks for reviews of LENR theories. They are:
1.  In 1994, Chechin and three colleagues reviewed many theories. Many of those theories are no longer being developed.

2.  In 2008, Rodney Johnson and Michael Melich reviewed all of the characteristics of the 22 theoretical papers given at ICCF-14,  Their tabular summary is on page 476 of the proceedings at 

3. Last year, Ed Storms did a summary of theories in his second book. It is good however focused on PdD, much less on NiH. Theories not comprising explicitly the very special loci he calls Nuclear Active Environmemt (NAE) were sentenced to 

Ed Storms is admirably fighting and experimenting for his ideas, is performing self-funded experiments. He is a concerned responsible LENR scientific researcher. The most recent proof 
is his publication:


The well known LENR behaviors include:

1. LENR is initiated only with great difficulty. Many materials have been subjected to a wide range of conditions without LENR being produced.

2. Once a material is “activated” the LENR effect is robust and sustained with a possible rate in excess of 10^11 events/sec.

3. Helium, tritium, and a variety of transmutation products are formed.

4. Each of these nuclear products are found produced in the surface region when the location can be determined.

5. Helium production is the source of most observed heat energy.

6. Very little energetic radiation is detected outside the apparatus.

7. Because LENR takes place in a chemical structure surround by normal atoms, the mechanism causing the nuclear reaction must be consistent with this environment.

Normally, any mechanism able to initiate a nuclear reaction will also cause significant chemical changes in the surrounding material. Such changes are not observed when LENR occurs.

1. The behavior identified as #1 implies that a rare and novel condition must form in the material in order for the LENR process to occur. I call this region the nuclear active environment (NAE). This region is not present in most materials and can not be easily created.

This characteristic eliminates vacancies of any type, dislocations of any kind, impurities of any kind, and large cracks because each of these features is normally present in common materials.

2. The characteristics listed in #2 show that the NAE is stable once formed and can be present in significant concentration. The NAE is not the result of a minor impurity or an occasional flaw in the material.

3. Helium and tritium formation can be attributed to reactions between isotopes of hydrogen but transmutation is difficult to explain. The explanation of transmutation must account for two types, one that adds helium to a nucleus without fragmentation and another type that results in fragmentation of the target after hydrogen is added.

4. The nuclear products are found associated only with the surface region. Consequently, the NAE is not expected to form in the bulk material.

5. Most of the heat energy results from He4 formation when deuterium is used. An effective theory must explain how helium is formed while producing the amount of energy expected to result from D+D fusion.

6. The huge mass-energy released by a nuclear reaction must be communicated to the surrounding material as heat energy. This process must not destroy the NAE or create significant energetic radiation. Consequently, a narrow range is placed on the rate at which energy is released and the type of the energy release process.

7. Creation of the NAE and the nuclear process must be compatible with the chemical conditions known to be associated with the material in which LENR takes place.

Are there additions or clarifications?

Can these requirements be used to eliminate the bad theories?

Why I disagree in great part with the above list and I regret this- but consider please the Motto!

My alternative differs as approach, extent,  logic, vision, LENRview from Ed's. It is about problem solving vs problem description, complexity vs simplicity, diversity vs.
unicity, dynamism vs a more static understanding...
Ed has already answered to the implicit questions generated by the above list and what has resulted is his  nano-cracks as NAE, hydrotons as performing nuclear reactions- popular theory that I am unable to accept because I have considered from start (1992) that active sitesare more elaborate structures. We both agree that LENR starts as materials science before being nuclear physics- however I am convinced nanostructures- in dynamic form play the decisive role not empty tiny holes or fissures. Let's start with:

1. LENR is initiated only with great difficulty being caused only by a novel and rare condition- NAE. It is not probable that cracks ar e and why should they be novel?
I think the problem is ab ovo formulated incorrectly. It is not about a scientific fatality but about a technological challenge. It is not about scientific descriptive realism but about engineering-based technological optimism and controlled change-improvement. The real secret is not why LENR in its native circumstances works so badly but where and how it could be made to work in such way that it becomes a technological promise. The thousands of experimental results so well described in Ed's books demonstrate that as long as LENR remains the prisoner of the cool,  dirty, wet PdD- nothing really valuable could happen, neither for theory, nor for practice.
Radical changes as moving the battle field are necessary, LENR research cannot continue to be passive. 

2. The problem is intensification, major increase of heat density. It is good that if not desactivated the NAE have functional persistence. But the target is continous formation of NAE thus adding the extra dimension of speed/time to the process.

3-Ed thinks in terms of PdD mainly, high temperature transition metal- hydrogen LENR includes many other reactions and nuclear interaction, nucleosynthesis, compact objects as postulated by Nagel, collective transformations as described by Urutskoev etc. it is a very rich nuclear and not nuclear world. To be explored. 
Let's speak again in 2037 when LENR+ will be 26 years old as is LENR now.

4. I agree, active nan-ostructures are formed at the very surface.

5. OK, but how could NiH produce also Helium?

6) As regarding heat transfer I think nano-plasmonics (ignored by too many of our colleagues) is the clue.

7) In my opinion- NAE-genesis is a matter of nanotechnology not only chemistry.

(to be continued- this is just a first sketch of an alternative LENR ideology.


1) Rossi’s ‘Dream’ — Following the Automotive Industry Model

2) The Brillouin Event on the official Russian website:

3)US Patent granted for US Navy for excess enthalpy upon pressurization of nanosized metals with deuterium

4) A Reddit discussion:

US Navy claims excess heat with LENR / Cold Fusion patent?

5) The Peak Oil Crisis: The Next ‘Keystone’ Debate

Un E-Cat X presto disponibile per le nostre case?

6) From 22 Passi it deserves a good Google Translate Andrea Idini risponde:

7) LENR-Cities - disrupt your own company before LENR-Cities disrupts it for you:


White House Strikes a Blow for Advanced Nuclear Reactors
The Department of Energy will help startups navigate the testing and licensing process—but some nuclear entrepreneurs doubt it will be enough:

LENR not considered

Two of my faithful and helpful friends have informed EGO OUT about this really very interesting paper & story:
New derivation of pi links quantum physics and pure mat
Thanks to Doug Marker and Ron Kita!

THIS has seemingly nothing to do with LENR but something very similar HAPPENS in the field:
the fragmentation and concentration of the world -


  1. It is oftentimes irresistible to ignore experimental results that do not fit into the framework of our theories.

    The miracle Lugano ash particle is so unbelievable, there is a natural assumption all of us will make: this particle must have been salted. We will also assume that the buildup of lithium and nickel isotopic changes on and in the ash happened at a relatively constant rate over a long period of time. But what may have happened is a one time explosive reaction where lithium and nickel interacted in a singular and monolithic event involving billions of atoms. Rossi is not the only example of this LENR behavior. Such an event was seen in Holmlid's experiment where billions of fusion reactions instantly produced huge numbers of neutral particle reaction products. The way Holmlid laid out his experiment leaves no doubt.

    Just by chance, the analysts of the isotopic change in the Lugano ash content picked up this one in a million 100 micron nickel particle as the object of their examination.

    The nickel screen(defined in his patent) inside the alumina tube kept this big particle from entering the central regions of the reactor tube. There was just a few of these oversized particles produced by the fuel preparation process. Most of the smaller nickel particles made it through the mesh and entered the central region.

    When the ash was removed, 99.8 % of the ash was held in place by the mesh inside the reactor tube by the wire mesh. Only the biggest ash particles came out of the reactor tube during the ash dump.

    To make a valid comparison, the Lugano testers selected a large fuel particle from the fuel held back after the fuel loading process.

    That fuel particle was isotopically normal.

    This one ash particle was so unusual that it is near impossible for it to be fabricated by someone who wanted to salt the ash sample.

    The salter would have had to remove the 100 micron fuel particle and replace it with the Ni62 and Li6 coated ash particle. When the fuel was loaded, the fuel was divided into parts where some fuel was reserved for latter isotopic analysis and another part was loaded into the reactor. The devil is in the details when the method of scam is considered.

    We must try to understand how a massive burst LENR reaction involving billions of atoms can occur in a single event. And how a single isotope can result from many(many to one) different precursors that fed into this singular clustered reaction.

  2. It is nice to know there are people who are thinking straight in this strange world.

    Not you, Peter.

  3. From Ed's list:
    "5. Most of the heat energy results from He4 formation when deuterium is used. An effective theory must explain how helium is formed while producing the amount of energy expected to result from D+D fusion."

    Peter's comment:
    "5. OK, but how could NiH produce also Helium?"

    It wouldn't. The list is a list of known phenomena, not of everything claimed anywhere. I have seen no evidence that NiH produces any helium at all. Ed thinks it produces deuterium, and then there could be some small reaction level from that, producing helium, maybe, but it would be tiny

    Peter, there is something you studiously ignore. There is very little good data on NiH. What we have with NiH are some commercial claims, with almost all the data being unconfirmed. Ed's list is about what has been confirmed, he is attempting to describe known phenomena for cold fusion theory to address. He does attempt to explain NiH reactions. However, his list is not covering every reported phenomenon.

    The difficulty of creating NAE shows that ordinary material doesn't work. Something has to change, the material must be conditioned in some way, at least with wet PdD, about which the most is known.

    Your comment is: "LENR is initiated only with great difficulty being caused only by a novel and rare condition- NAE. It is not probable that cracks are and why should they be novel?"

    Cracks come in sizes. This list does not propose cracks, you are jumping ahead to the application to Ed's own theory. He proposes "nanocracks," which are cracks so small that I somewhat question whether or not the term "crack" is even appropriate. They are linear regions of stressed palladium where there is an widening of the gap such that his hydroton structure can form.

    The proposal that NAE involves cracks is quite possible, in my view, but there may be other ways to form a working NAE. Don't attempt to apply Ed's criteria to experimental work not covered by it.

    1. Co-disposition works 100% of the time in palladium systems and it is not crack based. Co-disposition does produce nanoparticles which seems to be pervasive in LENR reactions.

  4. The SAFIRE project (Stellar Atmospheric Function In Regulation Experiment) is exploring the “electric sun” hypothesis. Recently Montgomery Childs reported that SAFIRE Project is finding nuclear products and massive energy spikes with a device designed to simulate the electric sun.

    Like many experiments, Safire may have recreated a long dead LENR mechanism based on plasma condensation.

    Safire has discovered a layer of dark mode hydrogen that accumulates near the outer surface of the hydrogen plasma ball in the SAFIRE experiment. This layer absorbs energy until it reaches a limit where it erupts. The input power is only 1800 watts of DC power and the power produced during an eruption is between 2,000,000 to a maximum of 10,000,000 watts. There is also signs of a material with a nucleon count of 3 being produced in the experiment.

    A theory that could explain the development of the dark layer is the “Dark mode” polariton soliton theory. The polariton “Black Hole” absorbs energy until it reaches a limit whereupon it explodes in a bosenova. This is a behavior that is also seen in the experiments of Holmlid, defkalion and even Rossi among other LENR experiments.

    This theory can be verified by the appearance of K-mesons and its decay products such as muons and electrons. A particle detector that follows Holmlid’s design might work well in the Safire experiment it show that a tachyon based nuclear process is happening in SAFIRE.

    There have been reports that solar flares produce changes in nuclear decay rates here on earth.

    This may be do to the separation of positive and negative vacuum energy between the interior of the sun and its surroundings.

    A experimental suggestion for the Safire experiment is to check nuclear decay rates before, during, and after a 10 megawatt outbursts to see if the vacuum is being distorted by the cause of the outburst.

    This SAFIRE experiment looks a lot like the plasmatron, an overunity power device produced in the 1980’s using hydrogen based plasma.

    Experimenters in overunity could duplicate the SAFIRE and/or the plasmatron experiment and test for emissions of sub-atomic particles.

    1. Interesting observation.
      If not crack, the hydroton may be "built-in", palladium built around the hydroton.

      another possibility is that it is not hydroton, but a fractal structure.
      Maybe 2.xD (fractal foam like structure), or 1.xD (tree like structure?).

      my intuition , from the difficulties of physicist to find good model, is that LENR is not 3D, and if not even 1D/2D, it can explain the problems of theory.

      geometry is the key. less QM, more geometry.
      CoM conservation lead to symmetry constraints.
      fractal and sub-3D structures create badly known phenomenons.

      no idea where it is, but LENR is where we don't have much experience.