Low energy nanoscale reactions (see forum's subtitle)? Wot's that?? 
According to The Free Dictionary, nanoscale means
QuoteRelating to or occurring on a scale of nanometers, especially relating to items that typically measure between 0.1 and 100 nanometers long.
and so is applicable to chemical reactions, but not to reactions involving strong nuclear forces or weak interactions. The word is quite inappropriate in the context of this forum — unless you think it's all chemistry.
It was @David Nygren's idea. He thought that "nuclear" seems to have a bad reputation and lots of prejudices (nuclear = radioactive radiation = danger, causes cancer etc...) and would scare people away.
And because there seems to be strong indications that nanoscale structures at/in the fuel are very important for LENRs, it seemed to make sense to call it "nanoscale".
But we can change it, if there are good arguments 
I will continue to use the term 'nuclear', because even if nuclear energy in certain contexts evokes negative associations, so is the term 'nuclear' linguistically always associated with an to humans unbelievable energy density and explosive power and that fits in my view much better as the term 'nanoscale' which makes the whole issue to a little gray mouse. And additional from a purely scientific point of view, I find the term 'nuclear' more correct because I think the energy from LENR arises from a not yet understood process around the Coulomb barrier and there we are then in quantum mechanics, in the realm of physical theory describing the matter, a phenomena of atomic physics, solid state physics and 'nuclear' and particle physics.
Dear Brian, "Nanoscale" has been introduced by LENR-Cities end 2014 and used during our first event at Oxford in January 2015. We have 10 known scientists including Allan Widom, Yogi Srivastava, Luca Gamberale, John Swain, Paolo Tripodi, Antonio Spallone and some others to talk about LENR. Intuition was that not only nanostructure was changing observable properties of the matter but also had active effects on sub-nanostructures.. kind of meso organization of the matter. This view is consistant with the facts that interactions can be analyzed at different levels such as nuclear with Allan up to QED with Luca. All theories are partially true nanostructured materials have active properties and nuclear is an effect. Low Energy has about energy required to observe these effects..So, a new field of science, not a phenomenom... Meso properties are based on nanoscale organization. This is our understanding. Then why nanoscale used for lenr-forum. Because lenr-forum people are lenr-cities people are friends
"Nanoscale" is perfectly adequate for the time being.
This may change when you identify a mechanism with indisputable nuclear reactions.
I have been discussing this with David in fact. It may be that nanoscale structures are relevant but that doesn't make the reactions nanoscale. What would be logical, if you think that way, would be to follow Mitchell Swartz's lead (as per his Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions or CANR) and call them nanoscale assisted reactions.
I don't have personal preference as to that nomenclature. However, it seems quite likely that some components of CF / LENR / CANR are NOT at the nanoscale-- e.g. impressed magnetic, impressed electrostatic and possibly phonon-mediated effects can all be quite macroscopic. And, other contributing parameters may be more like "femtoscale", since nuclear events are often in the fermi-- i.e. femtometer or lower size regime.
As long as the nomenclature is doing little or no harm, leave it alone. I often write "CF / LENR" so as to be more inclusive and so as to not constrain possible future mechanistic explanations. Two "outsider" phenomena seem to me to beg inclusion: Mills' hydrino mechanism and the Lipinski's WIPO patent application. To my knowledge, both of those are clearly claimed by their originators to NOT fit the CF/LENR category.
CF, LENR, CANR (or any other name) produce more energy than the chemical potentials can possibly release. They also produce new nuclei, X, gamma, Extreme Ultraviolet, and possibly a strange neutral radiation.
If we do not want to invent a new force field, or say that these reactions CREATE energy, we have to admit that what they release comes form the nucleus.
Apart from dark-energy and dark-matter, energy seems to be mostly concentrated in nuclei, and stars liberate progressively part of that energy, allowing the existence of civilizations like our own.
LENR seems to be the door to a chemically controlled way to access the nuclear potential, and a way to avoid/destroy unstable nuclei. A sort of "good nuclear".
Therefore I would suggest not to be afraid to use "nuclear" in the subtitle of this forum.
LEUR... Low Energy Unclear Reactions?
Both cheminal and nuclear. While something is not named it does not exist.
New-cooler
LEUR... Low Energy Unclear Reactions?
LOLs Andrea gave me another idea when he referred to the nucleus aspect of nuclear." Low Energy Nucleus Reaction". Anti-nuclear activists will be scratching their heads trying to figure out what that means, and LENR will stay true to it's effect.
I think of "cold fusion" and "LENR" as placeholders. They've got theoretical assumptions built into them, but they're recognizable, and there's common agreement on what the acronym means, if not about what it means for the various experimental effects that are seen. I see no problem in continuing to use both of these terms as currently understood until we know more, provided people don't read too much into them.
"LANR" and "CANR" impress me as being futile attempts to obtain a more accurate acronym, and "low energy nanoscale reactions" strikes me as being an attempt to please people who won't be pleased with such a change. It has the further disadvantage of confusing people who are new to the field about what 99 percent of those who use the term "LENR" mean.
"LENR," where "N" means "nuclear," has the distinct advantage of a large number of experiments in which the anomaly does indeed seem to be nuclear.
Depends if you are talking about the cause or the effect.
BTW when we have chosen LENanoscaleR for our first event at Oxford, we had the following rational:
1- LENR "nanoscale" is the class of reactions (cause) and some effects are Nuclear. Nanoscale is not about the size...
2 - recognition of pionners. Same reference.
3- increasing knowledge of interactions nanostructure/atom and each day there're new discoveries...
4 - the wide spectrum of applications in all domains of nanostructured materials.
Why it is important? a new field of science or some phenomenoms. Making technology or making product in early stage (lenr-cities is a startup). 3 years ago we have chosen: this is a new science... and technology will evolve very fast...
And not explicitly mentioned...
5 - nano is currently a hot topic, so funding is easier to get if you can pin something onto "nano"-something.
Low energy nanoscale reactions (see forum's subtitle)? Wot's that??
According to The Free Dictionary, nanoscale meansand so is applicable to chemical reactions, but not to reactions involving strong nuclear forces or weak interactions. The word is quite inappropriate in the context of this forum — unless you think it's all chemistry.
It is chemisty. There are certain chemical combinations and crystal structures that mimic the strong nuclear force and therefore can interfere with it, This is what is causing the generation of Kaons in Holmild's experiments as his catalysts are producing a particular type of EMF that decays protons and neutrons into mesons.
"Nanoscale" is perfectly adequate for the time being.
This may change when you identify a mechanism with indisputable nuclear reactions.
Holmlid has done this already by producing mesons using chemistry or Cravens using magnet dust.
Axil, Interesting...
Paradigmnoia. You are right. We had also considered that Nanoscience is in its enfancy and its potential is huge Thanks.
