LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)

    Quote from alexhesnen

    You've nailed it! This is a difference between what I see going on in academic science in general and what goes on here.


    The most sciency part of science is saying that some claim or theory seems to be wrong. But I see little appetite for this sort of activity here. The LENR community thus opens itself to charges that it practices a pseudoscience.


    Can anyone here point to a fundamental LENR theory or claim from the past 30 years that the community now sees as wrong? (I exclude the unmasking of charlatans like Rossi)

    Opinions would be divided on this topic. The problem is that there is no (satisfying) theory that explain the phenomenon (LENR), yet. This goes to the heart of the whole issue. Mainstream sees the phenomenon as problematic, because their models do not really allow for Low energy input, high energy output, essentially chemical energy in, nuclear out.
    This community, I think more, or less sees it the other way around, We see much evidence (observations) that point to the fact the current models must be wrong. Hence the search for a more and better explaining theory is on.
    Does one believe the observations or the theoretical models, that is what it comes down to, so...... Time will tell which way was the correct one.

    Quote from Edo

    This community, I think more, or less sees it the other way around, We see much evidence (observations) that point to the fact the current models must be wrong.

    Maybe wrong, maybe just incomplete. I think some people feel that a conventional model will explain it, but it has not been found yet. I think Hagelstein and others would say their theories do not violate any known laws of physics.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I think Hagelstein and others would say their theories


    Quote from alexhesnen

    Can anyone here point to a fundamental LENR theory


    Alex

    There is no fundamental theory discussed at large by "the community".

    The'community' of LENR is a fiction.

    Currently leading researchers...like Iwamura, Mizuno;Takahashi,Celani, Storms, and the newer clean HME

    is a very disparate group..

    Luckily it is so disparate that there is little groupthink

    unlike the CERN centred group of particle physicists..


    How the 20 Mevs packets or so of fusion energy delta in deuterium/1-H going to helium

    appears as heat( <0,05 Ev packet) level without neutrons, and only weak gamma footprint(sometimes)

    cannot be understood via the conventional group think collision physics.

    There is no fundamental theory which explains this apart from one that is not widely known

    and at a formative stage.


    There is Takahashi's decades old TSC..theory,but it is not discussed as far as I now within the very small Japanese LENR group..of which he is an elder statesman.

    In addition it does not address the 20MEv >>>>.0.05 EV matter

    Perhaps some have communicated privately to Takahashi senpai

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akito-Takahashi-2

    He has a hard time proving it either right or wrong with his current set of results which

    are mainly picking up just excess heat information... not much gamma..

    Maybe you have an opinion on TSC?

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Storms's NAE site is not a fundamental theory...it is a pragmatic chemistry type explanation.

    Hagelsteins phonon theory explains a bit how kev gamma level packages can appear as lower energy phonons// Maybe it is half right but the 20Mev transition?down to Kev packet level is unexplained..

    Off the top of my head..sorry

    Quote from alexhesnen

    Can anyone here point to a fundamental LENR theory or claim from the past 30 years that the community now sees as wrong? (I exclude the unmasking of charlatans like Rossi)

    One example might be the NASA group's embrace and then distancing themselves from Widom-Larsen. I don't know that there's a homogenous 'community'.

    Quote from alexhesnen

    The most sciency part of science is saying that some claim or theory seems to be wrong. But I see little appetite for this sort of activity here. The LENR community thus opens itself to charges that it practices a pseudoscience.

    My sentiments also. There have been a few here over the years who tried to start a weeding out process with the hope that in the end there would be a "best theory standing", that the field could focus on.


    But that required the theorists study each others theory, accept criticism of their own work, be flexible and willing to accept and incorporate a better idea...in other words the expected, and normal peer review give and take. Not much interest though. The latest was Collis who tried and he did not get anywhere.


    Maybe because it takes so much time and effort to develop these theories, and the authors have invested so much into them, they just do not want to risk hearing they may be wrong? All that work, and in an instant...poof. All for naught. If so, I can identify with them.


    Maybe someone will come along and successfully take on the project. They will have to be a good leader though. Preferably someone with experience herding cats.

    Quote from alexhesnen

    You've nailed it! This is a difference between what I see going on in academic science in general and what goes on here.


    The most sciency part of science is saying that some claim or theory seems to be wrong. But I see little appetite for this sort of activity here. The LENR community thus opens itself to charges that it practices a pseudoscience.


    Can anyone here point to a fundamental LENR theory or claim from the past 30 years that the community now sees as wrong? (I exclude the unmasking of charlatans like Rossi)

    The belief in the LENR community that fusion is the source of energy production is wrong.


    Rossi does what he has to do to get funding but based on his latest theory paper, Rossi's basic "how and why" of LENR is correct in general. Rossi might be wrong on the details of his theory, but correct in the basic principles. Although distasteful but not illegal, Rossi does what he needs to do to get funding for his R&D and this funding has paid off; his currently running demo is light years ahead of what anybody else has done. R. Mills extracts far more money from investor milking than does Rossi, yet Mills is not disparaged as much as Rossi is.


    Energy production in LENR is electrical; this is why Rossi can produce electrical current directly from the reaction without ANY production of heat. Yet the LENR community does not take notice of this absolute contradiction of their own fallacious beliefs.


    The way LENR stands today is pseudoscience. There are boatloads of experimental evidence that contradicts these erroneous and unshakeable beliefs. Yet this evidence makes no impact. Its business as usual year after year, decade after decade. Is this tragic situation irrevocably hopeless; it may well be.

    "but based on his latest theory paper, Rossi's basic "how and why" of LENR is correct in general."

    LOL😆


    "his currently running demo is light years ahead of what anybody else has done"

    😪 stop, you're killing me.


    "The way LENR stands today is pseudoscience", says Axil?

    😆 LMAO

    Quote from Shane D.

    The latest was Collis who tried

    The ISCMNS is a kind of a community... loosely..

    Collis 2018//14 2018/03/14

    https://www.coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-William-Collis-Cold-Fusion-Now-006.mp3


    " excess heat focus is ignoring the science"

    "no consensus about what nuclear reactions going on"

    "most models so far contravene conventional physics understanding;"

    "no measurement of Hydrogen consumed";


    Seems to be a lot of work to do... most of the minimal funding so far goes to building reactors and

    calorimetry..to demonstrate xs heat.


    Recent research appears to measure the hydrogen consumed... Mastromatteo 2022..

    Takahashi/Iwamura continuing..


    Some gamma measurement George,.Wyttenbach 2018(2022)

    This is , yes, the point that disturb me so much.. For example if LENR should need temperature variation this point could hide the truth path ?

    In this way, the Mizuno recent process doesn't reassure me very well ? For example Iwamura plays seemingly with a delta T.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    most of the minimal funding so far goes to building reactors and

    calorimetry..to demonstrate xs heat.

    Quote from Cydonia

    For example Iwamura plays seemingly with a delta T.

    Even for Iwamura

    the heatburst evidence is called " Circumstantial NuclearEvidence"

    based on the heat per H being >> than chemical energy


    maybe something lost in translation????..

    (there was no nuclear info..)


    If Nickel nucleus

    is involved the most likely gamma is 67 kev, Ni61

    according to Wyttenbach

    but the 67 Kev gamma is difficult to measure.,,

    some experimental expertise is necessary,,


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359023495_Latest_Progress_in_Research_on_AHE_and_Circumstantial_NuclearEvidence_by_Interaction_of_Nano-Metal_and_HD-Gas

    Quote from Cydonia

    This is , yes, the point that disturb me so much.. For example if LENR should need temperature variation this point could hide the truth path ?

    In this way, the Mizuno recent process doesn't reassure me very well ? For example Iwamura plays seemingly with a delta T.

    What requires a heat input is the difussion of the H through the metals, even if you add pressure, at room temp the difussion is too slow.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    Like 1

    What do hot fusion, cold fusion, and ecats have in common?

    Quote from Curbina

    What requires a heat input is the difussion of the H through the metals, even if you add pressure, at room temp the difussion is too slow.

    That is an interesting statement

    I note that for a Nickel alloy the Activation energy for

    interstitial dislocations etc is 0.17 ev..


    "Evaluation of hydrogen diffusion and trapping in nickel Alloy 625..."


    which equates to 1972K (Boltzman)


    but even at 600K there should still be some hydrogens with 0.17eV


    I think the point of the lowering of the T( that stimulates heatbursts )is that

    the interruption or slowing of the flow somehow tangles up the flowing H's

    so they "interact'in a close nuclear way..

    with each other? with a metal atom?


    airy fairy speculation is cheap

    the experimentation is not..

    but its much cheaper

    than hot fusion

    by a few billion $...and less dangerous

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    What do hot fusion, cold fusion, and ecats have in common?

    cats? hot cool and e?

    i rather believe in a nuclear spallation gererating very low neutrons which next playing with nickel maintly by beta decay.

    No fusion involved in this way.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    The'community' of LENR is a fiction.

    Currently leading researchers...like Iwamura, Mizuno;Takahashi,Celani, Storms, and the newer clean HME

    is a very disparate group..

    "Disparate" is putting it politely. I believe you mean a herd of cats.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Storms's NAE site is not a fundamental theory...it is a pragmatic chemistry type explanation.

    It is a model, not a theory. I think Ed would agree with me.


    There is also something loosely called "engineering physics," where you measure something, quantify it, but you have no deep explanation for it. I would put McKubre's equation in this category. Ed's model is not like this. An excellent historic example of engineering physics are the Wright brothers notebooks. They used a lot of conventional physics such as center of mass equations, but they also used a large database of wind tunnel data, which they graphed. As shown in this NASA page:


    Wright 1901 Wind Tunnel Results


    They measured lift and drag. They knew perfectly well how to incorporate lift in the engineering equations. They did this to design a wing large enough and an engine powerful enough to fly. They knew how long and how wide the wings should be. Their data from tests with different wing chambers showed them the best shape for the airspeed they expected to reach. Most important, the data showed how to make an effective propeller. Here's the point though. What they did not know was the detailed physics describing how a flow of air over a chambered wing produces lift. As Couch wrote:


    "Engineering was the key. The Wright brothers functioned as engineers, not scientists. Science, the drive to understand the ultimate principles at work in the universe, had little to do with the invention of the airplane. A scientist would have asked the most basic questions. How does the wing of a bird generate lift? What are the physical laws that explain the phenomena of flight?


    The answers to those questions were not available to Wilbur and Orville Wright, or to anyone else at the turn of the century. Airplanes would be flying for a full quarter century before physicists and mathematicians could explain why wings worked."


    They did not need to know this, and they never spent time doing things they did not need to do. Focusing on the essentials and ignoring the unimportant was an important aspect of their genius. Cold fusion researchers should learn from their example. Keep it simple.


    I hesitate to bring this up, but a recent assertion by THH illustrates how not to do things. How to complicate things for no reason. There is often tiny but measurable quantities of tritium in as-received heavy water. This is caused by the separation used to extract heavy water from ordinary water. Tritium is also heavy, so it is also concentrated. THH asserted that the physics of this separation is complex -- which is true. He said this complexity makes it difficult to establish a baseline of tritium -- which is nonsense. You don't have to know anything about how the separation and concentration works. You just measure the tritium in the as-received heavy water. Trying to estimate how much tritium there is based on first-principle physics is a waste of time. Just measure it!

    Quote from alexhesnen

    You've nailed it! This is a difference between what I see going on in academic science in general and what goes on here.

    And in my opinion, there is no difference between academic science and the local community. Neither there nor here has yet been born such a theory that would explain all physical phenomena. As for the theoretical justification of the LENR phenomenon, I would strongly recommend turning to the generalized Schrodinger equation


    ietHℏ∂ψ(x,t)∕∂t = -ℏ2∇2ψ(x,t)∕2m + V(x,t)ψ(x,t)


    where H is the Hubble constant.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.