@ smartypants
that is not that simple, because there are so many aspects that it is not easy breaking it down to a simple understandable level without leaving the path of objectivity and nearly scientifically correct presentation.
As good resources for beginners I would recommend:
https://animpossibleinvention.com/ (see post area at the bottom)
http://www.scoop.it/u/alain-coetmeur
https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/hashtag/lenr (use top and live options)
http://rossilivecat.com/ (compilation of comments of the 'official' Blog of Andrea Rossi's http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/)
... and last but not least:
https://www.google.com/search?q=LENR&num=50&source=lnms&tbm=nws
Greets
Felix
What has your being 5 foot 8 got to do with explaining things?
I think he means 5 or 8 years old 
Mr Smartypants -
Depending on who you ask, the answer might be different, but here is my answer:
The current status: LENR type of anomalies seems to be rather well explored and established. The academics who has been working in this field has foremost focused on research using Palladium and Deuterium. Since a few years there has been a lot of focus on Nickel and Hydrogen instead. These new materials are much cheaper, abundant, as well is said to allow for a producing more energy.
The trial: There is a conflict of money, possible also IP, in regards to Andrea Rossi's E-cat technology. Andrea Rossi claims there is a contractual agreement that would require a licensee(I.H)to pay him a certain amount of money based on recent test. The licensee refutes this information, but have not told us why, yet.
Theories: There is plenty of theories. Too many in fact. People are guessing and filling in the blanks, but also it is believed that LENR is not one reaction, but a whole new field of reactions, so one theory might not necessarily be able to explain or account for all observations, yet. Also, as you know, just because one theory might explain one certain behaviour or observation, does not necessarily mean it is a correct theory.
Do any reactors work: The answer is subjective to who you ask, and who you are asking and why you are asking. But there is plenty of reports over the year from companies, garage researchers, military organisations and institute observing and claiming anomalous heat production, evidence of nuclear reactions etc Toyota and Mitsubishi are examples of companies that have put out positive reports. Really one would have to define a "working reactor", if you mean reactors capable of producing useful amounts of energy you have a few players such as Jet Energy, Brillouin Energy and Leonardo Corporations. Most amateur teams struggle with such a simple thing as to produce an replicable anomaly, such as elevated background radiation or low temp heat. Among reputable institutes you have NASA, ENEA etc.
Some people say they have something while it seems they dont, some people say they have nothing although it seems they do, some people say nothing and just get on with their research. There are also companies such as Brighlight Technology who seems to be doing something that could be very similar, they for example have went through well over 80 million dollars in funding by now.
At the end of the day - it comes down to belief for most people. You must believe in the scientists, in their reports, and you have to believe your own eyes and question if someone is trying to fool you or possible you yourself is trying to fool yourself. Give it some time, do your research and let me know what you decided to believe.
I recommend the webpage www.coldfusionvideos.com as a source of information of pro-lenr material. It could be a good place to start, from there you will find lots of links to various projects and papers. You could maybe start with the documentaries to get the basics.
Stay tuned.
Maybe 5.
Just as a position , you can read my perception of LENR state
Stay tuned? For other two or five years?
Take into account that they always repeat the same things and promises for over thirty years.
This is why LENR has so many followers.
It seems that fusion reactors are always 30 years away, whereas LENR is alway around 12 months away.
So that's got to be better, right?
Have followers (not many compared with larger scientific community that doesn't believe) not change the Physics laws, it can be useful for baseball matches.
"LENR is around 12 months away" it's OK as new fairytale good for believers' dreams, to perpetuate a myth.
@hunter If you are of the opinion that LENR is a myth, why are you posting here? What do you think you are adding to the forum exactly?
@hunter If you are of the opinion that LENR is a myth, why are you posting here? What do you think you are adding to the forum exactly?
Fighting against something that "does not exist" reveals that something should exist, indeed
Nobody that does not believe in astrology posts anything in an astrology forum 
QuoteNobody that does not believe in astrology posts anything in an astrology forum
Perhaps critics would not post in forums limited to instructing in performing astrology or the finer points of doing horoscopes. But they might post in a science forum discussing whether astrology works. They might also post in an astrology forum if there were scientists attending to that forum who made claims that astrology was a scientific discipline and the results of those posts was news releases in main line sources. Many high tech and energy schemes rise to that level and that is why skeptics respond. Same if someone widely and publicly proposed large investments in astrology and tried to find investors.
It would be possible to restrict this forum to discussions of methods of LENR only and strictly. That might not be much fun. An example of a very restricted forum about Rossi's version of LENR is e-catworld.com and the quality of posts there is nowhere near what it is here, IMHO of course.
I am not talking about the restriction of discussion- that is a digression of your own. I am merely curious as to why somebody who doesn't think any LENR is real should bother to post here- without adding anything by way of a technical or scientific nature to the debates.
I already answered to this kind of your trivial question (nobody should care why I'm posting here).
I'm here mainly to defend the real Science, highlighting contradictions, unfounded claims and false promises about what I see/read on CF/LENR.
Believers would like CF to be considered like a science but larger scientific community is quite clear about (i.e.from IPP Max-Planck Institute):
"Since media reports in 1989 caused great excitement about two US electrochemists at the University of Utah, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed that they had succeeded in doing this, the subject of “cold fusion” has been a long runner. After the initial hype, however, scientific interest has cooled down. But in films, novels, and internet forums the subject keeps cropping up. And also the one or other research group still treats diverse versions of cold fusion. However, reports of success hitherto have never been verified by independent third parties."
Rossi's long time soap and his supporters are the best confirm of the above.
I'm here mainly to defend the real Science, highlighting contradictions, unfounded claims and false promises about what I see/read on CF/LENR.
@hunter : If you do this with a 20 year old top down enforced statements, then you are nothing more than a troll.
How can you explain that e.g. CERN (=real Science) is "proclamating" a resonance to be the Higgs just because it is 5 sigma above background? The resonance they currently discuss has absolutely no match with any model. I call this irrational science of lost souls running in a very dark tunnel.
PS: The actual resonance (CERN fake Higgs) has a very simple, non STM explanation, that gives the exact energy...
