LENR FAQ (for Newcomers)

  • THHuxleynew  THHuxley

    PineSci CMNS energy technologies Theory

    Presented at ICCF-24

    Peer-reviewed paper is referenced

    Phys Review C

    External Content youtu.be
    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.



    The 11:43 Mark in Lawrence Forsley's ICCF-24 Presentation



    What might happen?

    Itinerant Ferromagnetism

    https://www.semanticscholar.org › S...

    Strained Layer Ferromagnetism in Transition Metals and its Impact Upon Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - Semantic Scholar

    Our results suggest that most of the transition metals can exhibit ferromagnetic ordering if the lattice is placed in sufficiently high tensile stress.

    Conventional Fusion in an Unconventional Place - #Lawrence P. Forsley1, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss1


    [5] L. F. DeChiaro, L. P. Forsley, and P.A. Mosier-Boss, “Strained layer ferromagnetism in transition metals and its impact upon low energy nuclear ...

    Strain-tunable ferromagnetism and chiral spin textures in two-dimensional Janus chromium dichalcogenides

    by Q Cui · 2020 · Cited by 33 — Using first-principles calculations and micromagnetic simulations, we systematically investigate the magnetic properties of two-dimensional ..


  • AT Mark 8:30 in the ICCF-24 Forsley


    BuckyBall Cold Fusion Lattice Confinement Fusion Solid-State Atomic and Fusion Energy


    The Engineering and Technology History Wiki is a MediaWiki-based website dedicated to the history of technology. It started operating in 2015. It consists of articles, first-hand accounts, oral histories, landmarks and milestones.

  • off topic yet related study


    Using first-principles calculations and micromagnetic simulations, we systematically investigate the magnetic properties of two-dimensional Janus chromium dichalcogenides (








    , Se) under strain. We find that the CrSTe monolayer has high Curie temperature (



    ) of 295 K and an out-of-plane magnetic anisotropy. The CrSeTe monolayer has large Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) which can host chiral Néel domain wall (DW), and under an external magnetic field, the skyrmion states can be induced. As tensile strain increases, ferromagnetic exchange coupling and perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of Janus




    monolayers both increase significantly, and the magnitude of DMI is reduced, which results in the giant ferromagnetism enhancement. Interestingly, for CrSeTe monolayer, distinct spin textures from chiral DW to uniform ferromagnetic states are induced under tensile strain. Moreover, the diameter and density of skyrmions in CrSeTe can be tuned by the amplitude of external magnetic field and strain. These findings highlight that the Janus




    monolayers as good candidates for spintronic nanodevices.

  • off topic yet related study

    Honestly, the intent of this thread is a bit vague to me. Seems straight forward at first blush, but I could interpret some responses as an indirect attempt at providing answers to the authors questions, or not. So I will wait until Rob comes back on with more specifics about what he considers "off topic" before I move anymore posts.

  • Meanwhile

    Fact or Fiction Skeptics study contemporary Cold Fusion

    The NASA LCF PineSci Theory

    Google Scholar shows it has been cited by 18 other works.

    Google Scholar

    Most are relevant. This one I'll share. I just scooped it and have a lot to study now. Enjoy.

    This field is fast changing.

    Fusion Science and Technology

    Volume 78, 2022 - Issue 4, 119

    Views 0

    CrossRef citations to date 1


    Technical Papers

    A Preliminary Proposal for a Hybrid Lattice Confinement Fusion–Fission Reactor for Mobile Nuclear Power Plants

    Luciano Ondir Freire &Delvonei Alves de Andrade

    Pages 259-274 | Received 21 May 2021, Accepted 27 Oct 2021, Published online: 01 Mar 2022

    Download citation



    Scientists detected 2.45-MeV neutrons and in smaller yields 4- and 5-MeV neutrons in deuterated metals under a 2.9-MeV electron beam. Such discovery could allow the use of deuterated metals at temperatures below their melting point to provide nuclear fusion reactions. Such reactions could provide fast neutrons and energy in the form of heat. This work analyzed the results of some experiments to infer the neutron multiplication rate in such environments. It also considered the possible roles that such phenomena could play in a commercial nuclear power reactor under economic and compactness constraints. It seems the best way to promote nuclear fusion is the irradiation of deuterated metals by fast neutrons. This work presents the concept of a hybrid fusion–fission reactor using fissile or fertile fuel to generate heat and fast neutrons along deuterated metals providing excess neutrons (reactivity boost). Additionally, deuterated metals also may have a role in neutron moderation requiring less volume than other moderators (water or graphite). Such a reactor, given its reactivity boost, may burn radioactive residuals (transmutation) at affordable costs while generating power. Alternatively, this hybrid fusion–fission concept could also breed fissile fuel from fertile isotopes using natural uranium as seed.

  • Now

    Another citing paper of particular interest to Skeptics.

    Small scale production of gold with tungsten like heavy and cheap metals via cold nuclear fusion associated with safe and secured hydration



    Honorary Faculty, I-SERVE, Survey no-42, Hitech City, Hyderabad-84, Telangana, India


    Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India

    Available online 16 February 2022, Version of Record 20 April 2022

    Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Third International Conference on Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering.

    Small scale production of gold with tungsten like heavy and cheap metals via cold nuclear fusion associated with safe and secured hydration
    In our previous and recent publications related with Cold nuclear fusion experiments and theory, we have made an attempt to explain the mystery of ori…


    In our previous and recent publications related with Cold nuclear fusion experiments and theory, we have made an attempt to explain the mystery of origin of energy liberation mechanism in cold nuclear fusion. In this paper, by applying and slightly modifying the cold nuclear experimental procedures, we try to explore the possibility of understanding and producing Gold with Tungsten like heavy and cheap metals via ‘safe and secured’ Hydration mechanism having fast and repeatable cycles in small quantities. Thus, we are providing an experimental procedure for understanding the scope of cold nuclear fusion in a metallurgical perceptive. Really, if ‘cold nuclear fusion’ is having any notable significance in current science and technology, as it seems to be endowed with nuclear isotopic changes, apart from energy liberation mechanisms, it can be studied and validated in this way also. It needs further study with respect to modern metallurgical methods having 3000 deg. C and recent ‘ambient temperature lattice confinement’ technique developed by NASA. Considering the green and clean innovative applications of cold nuclear fusion, as suggested and advised by the Google team and NASA, we appeal the science community to look into the issues of cold nuclear fusion in a positive approach.

  • Another citing paper lends insight into the fact that related arts of science are paying attention to what our branch of Condensed Matter Physics studies.

    Nano Tech for instance

    Research paper

    Published: 31 December 2021

    Synthesis and NMR cryoporometry of LaF3 nanoparticles with closed pores filled by D2O

    Ekaterina Kondratyeva, Egor Alakshin, Alexander Bogaychuk, Alexander Klochkov, Vyacheslav Kuzmin, Kajum Safiullin, Airat Kiiamov, Myakzyum Salakhov & Murat Tagirov

    Journal of Nanoparticle Research volume 24, Article number: 6 (2022) Cite this article https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11051-021-05347-6


    The series of LaF3 nanoparticles with closed pores filled with water H2O and heavy water D2O are synthesized by the hydrothermal treatment in autoclave at 140 °C, 160 °C, and 180 °C for 24 h. The samples are characterized by X-ray powder diffraction (XRD), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) cryoporometry techniques. According to particle size distribution, the mean diameter of synthesized particles ranges from 31 to 45 nm. The pore sizes for H2O and D2O inside nanoparticles are determined by NMR cryoporometry and TEM methods. The method for the synthesis of nanoparticles with closed pores filled with heavy water is proposed.

  • PineSci CMNS energy technologies Theory

    Presented at ICCF-24

    Peer-reviewed paper is referenced

    Phys Review C

    Re Phys Review C - forgive me for not wanting to wade through youtube (which I view as PR unless accompanied by an accessible linked paper) - and you have not given me enough keywords to search of it in databases. It would help those of us pushed for time, and be a common courtesy, to give a bit more detail on citations.

    EDIT (following refs from the other paper - as one does) I found it quite by chance. Not everyone would have that patience). Linked below.

    Re the lattice confinement paper (direct link):

    This is the bit of LENR (if it is LENR, which is debatable) that I am less skeptic about. The issue is whether the fusion generated from irradiating deuteron-packed lattices can be large enough in comparison to the initiation energy. The possibility of further optimisation (and more efficient gamma sources) make this of real interest.

    Under more efficient gamma sources we have radioactive material: so it you think about the standard radioactive thermal power sources you can imagine this would act as a booster - providing higher power output for given mass. That is a big deal for NASA of course.

    [and re Papp engine on this thread - was not me who started it! Posting weird stuff about Papp's scams on this site should at least be answered with a link to the relevant thread here]

    From the link above:

    2. Assumption 2: The experiment of Ref. 1 is reproducible, meaning that significant amounts of fusion reactions occur in deuterated metals under gamma or neutron radiation.

    3. Assumption 3: Deuterated metals allow fusion neutron multiplication in the second generation or third generation of neutrons with higher energies.2

    4.Assumption 4: A compact reactor needs to be a thermal neutron reactor.

    And, what you need to evaluate the experimental stuff - the Phys Rev C paper. That is paywalled, for those without access this open preprint looks similar.

    d-D nuclear fusion events were observed in an electron-screened, deuterated metal lattice by reacting cold deuterons with hot deuterons (d*) produced by elastically scattered neutrons originating from bremsstrahlung photodissociation (where “d” and “D” denote 2H). Exposure of deuterated materials (ErD3 and TiD2) to photon energies in the range of 2.5 to 2.9 MeV resulted in photodissociation neutrons that were below 400 keV and also the 2.45-MeV neutrons, consistent with 2H(d, n)3He fusion. Additionally, neutron energies of approximately 4 and 5 MeV for TiD2 and ErD3 were measured, consistent with either boosted neutrons from kinetically heated deuterons or Oppenheimer-*This paper was published by American Physical Society (APS) asPhys. Rev. C 101, 044610 (20 April 2020), and can be found athttps://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044610.Phillips stripping reactions in the highly screened environment. Neutron spectroscopy was conducted using calibrated lead-shielded liquid (EJ-309) and plastic (stilbene) scintillator detectors. The data support the theoretical analysis in a companion paper, predicting fusion reactions and subsequent reactions in the highly screened environment.

    You see why many here would not call this LENR - the energies here are 2.5MeV photons - and (implication) 400keV neutrons that provoke the reactions.

    And here is the precise fusion mechanism:

    Hot neutrons originate from photodisintegration of deuterons

    bombarded by photons above the 2.226 MeV level. The hot

    neutrons scatter and efficiently deliver nearly one-half of their

    energy to a deuteron (n, d). The hot deuteron is then able to be

    scattered at a large angle with a nearby cold deuteron in a highly

    screened environment, leading to efficient nuclear tunneling

    and fusion (D + d n + 3He). Maintaining one of the two

    fusing nuclei as a cold ion screened by electrons provides for

    highly efficient large-angle scattering and subsequent tunneling

    probabilities. This fusion cycle is performed at high fuel density

    inside a metal lattice to enable subsequent reactions with the

    host metal nuclei and other secondary processes. It is noted that

    the efficient scattering process described in this strongly

    screened environment is fundamentally different than other

    fusion processes (e.g., magnetic confinement, tokamak) in

    which all of the fuel nuclei are hot and reside in a weakly

    screened environment. Such an environment is dominated by

    small-angle, nonproductive elastic Coulomb scattering with

    less efficient tunneling probability.

    Note also

    Calculations in the companion paper indicate

    that neither electrons nor photons alone impart sufficient

    deuteron kinetic energy to initiate measurable d-D reactions.

    Nowhere is there a direct calculation of the output vs input energy from these experiments. They cannot do this accurately, but do examine detector effiiciency so I would have thought could have estimated this if they had wanted to. So you can be it is low.

    Thus as a practical method this still has a way to go - but it has possibilities - and would be very useful.

    Finally - how does this stuff relate to the ICCF24 stuff and LENR?

    Well - the fusion initiated here is NORMAL fusion - with normal high-energy products. Note that is how they can detect it.

    LENR has always had two challenges: Coulomb barrier - and some way to make nuclear reactions that never (or almost never) generate high energy products.

    The Coulomb barrier problem has many theoretical solutions - of which this is one.

    The lack of high energy products problem is much less tractable. Solutions require reactions in which the quarks inside are coherent with the input and output wave functions, so that tunnelling can occur through the nuclear reaction. That seems fundamentally difficult to me - but I live in hope.

    This work does not address - nor has it any intention of addressing - the high energy product issue.


  • If you ask: why should Pd-D be different from Pd-H? That is the wrong question.

    Instead: why could Pd-D be different from Pd-H?

    D and H have very different thermal resistance

    This cannot affect measurements taken outside the cell, with flow or Seebeck calorimeters, or isoperbolic cells with the heat measured outside the cell wall. I am sure you know that, and I am sure you know the effect has been measured at high signal to noise ratios with these calorimeters many times. So you are not being serious here.

    You are pretending there is a problem which you know damn well have been ruled out. All the other problems you list have also been ruled out. Anyone who has read the papers knows this. Why you make these absurd statements I cannot say. Most skeptics do it to sow doubt and make ignorant people think the effect does not exist. Is that your goal? Or are you so stupid you actually believe what you write?

    I do not think I should respond to your nonsense again. I should not feed the troll. You will just post more nonsense.

  • The Coulomb barrier problem has many theoretical solutions - of which this is one.

    Could you expand on the topic in more detail?

    In my opinion, the most optimal solution is to reduce the Coulomb barrier of the paired interaction of plasma nuclei (by reducing the kinetic energy of paired collisions) using the potential energy of the collective interaction of nuclei. For the theoretical justification of this approach, it is sufficient to consider the case of three nuclei lying on the line.

  • THHuxleynew

    Most skeptics do it to sow doubt and make ignorant people think the effect does not exist. Is that your goal?

    Thanks Rob This thread has been a learning experience.

    I would have preferred to have Vladimir Pines present his theoretical works at ICCF-24.

    My deepest apologies extended to esteemed Vladimir Pines.


    I just learned of the loss of your wife and scientific partner, Dr. Marianna Pines. Thank you for all you have brought us while sharing such a meaningful life together. My prayers go out to all who share your grief.

    Gregory Byron Goble

  • In my opinion, the most optimal solution is to reduce the Coulomb barrier

    Stationary charge produces no Coulomb barrier only potential repulsion. But in neutral H-H the magnetic force can take over as soon as spin align parallel. H*-H* is the first step to fusion. Easy to produce.

    In a plasma you need a strong gradient e.g. a layer barrier with a local B field that virtually goes to "infinite" = the local static field of e/p.

    Unluckily Mills never understood this. The Russians needed two minutes for grasping.

  • This thread has caused me to take look at the issue of FAQs. Based on my experience I think they tend to straight jacket the science. The FAQs become embedded in concrete and immovable even if wrong. I spent several years in a windpower site studying the operation of backyard windmills. A number of 'FAQs' were wrong, such as the Betz Limit being correct and air foils being necessary for proper harvest of the power of the wind. No way could that be straightened out.