The perpetual “is LENR even real” argument thread.

    I copied this post here because this paper brought to our attention by AlainCo may well be the most recent replication of Pd D electrolysis with clear excess heat, and was performed by a team at Missouri University that went to great lenghts to control sources of error. They provide a a COP estimation for the energy in to energy out for the entire duration of the most succesfull experiment and is 2.6. They report also the failed ones, which goes a long way to show that their methodology was clear to show if an experiment was succesful or not, which is a great point in favor of this publication.

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

    Thanks 1 Like 2
    Quote from Shane D.

    SKINR shut down years ago. Not sure why the paper was published now?

    I think, but I’m not sure, is one of the ICCF 23 papers, this is a preprint but is going to be published in the IJCMNS so it should be from ICCF 23 proceedings. Anyway I posted it here for the discussion value from the “skeptic” point of view.

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

    Thanks 1
    Quote from JedRothwell

    I do not know why, but it irks me. When this paper came out my first thought was, "why didn't you tell us before!?!"

    If I had to hazzard a guess, most probably back them someone didn't like the positive results at all, asked them not to be published, and by virtue of some NDA that expired, just now the authors had the freedom to release the results.

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

    Quote from Curbina

    If I had to hazzard a guess, most probably back them someone didn't like the positive results at all, asked them not to be published, and by virtue of some NDA that expired, just now the authors had the freedom to release the results.

    Possibly so. At one of the ICCF's a few years back, Dennis Peace did report positive results though. Forgot which one. I think it was Dewey who said they (SKINR) disbanded due internal squabbles.

    Better late than never.

    Also, from the introduction:

    Quote

    Here we report for the first time the use of Pd nanoparticles in the electrolysis method of exploring the AHE that resulted in the appearance of the AHE with higher probability than for bulk Pd cathodes based upon SKINR data from over 1000 runs on Pd foils that seldom produced excess heat

    Quote from Shane D.

    At one of the ICCF's a few years back, Dennis Peace did report positive results though.

    He sure did. Plus he told me that he, personally, acquired the SKINR lab equipment. It is sitting in his garage, not far from the campus. He told me he hopes to restart experiments. At the time, he could not do that because of personal problems which I hope have been resolved. Also, he would probably need an assistant, who would have to be paid. I told him that I would try to assist raising money for an assistant. I have not heard back from him.


    He is a good egg, as we used to say in the U.S.A.

    So I used one of those endless flights to start a list of the names used by various scientists/researchers to refer to the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (formerly CF) phenomenon. Because, as a non-specialized journalist, I always thought a key problem for anyone trying to cover LENR/CF/Whatever you call it/ was the name of the phenomenon. I did appreciate the name had to change along with discoveries/trials & tribulations, but IMHO, it has created a fog for the "general media," especially when scientists in their papers use abbreviations.


    I do look forward to the day when there will be unanimity on the name of the phenomenon. It sure would help coverage.


    Just a thought.



    Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE)


    CLEAN HME


    Condensed Matter Nuclear Physics


    Condensed matter nuclear science


    Hydrogen Metal Energy – HME


    Lattice Assisted Nuclear Fusion


    Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions - LANR


    Lattice energy conversion


    Lattice confinement fusion


    Lattice enabled nuclear reactions


    Lattice energy converter – LEC


    Lattice energy conversion


    Least Action Nuclear Process (LANP)


    Least Action Nuclear Process


    Low energy nuclear reactions


    Low Energy Nuclear Fusion


    LENR


    LENR/AHE (anomalous heat effect MHE : Nano-metal hydrogen energy)


    Nuclear transmutations


    Anomalies in hydrogen loaded metals


    Plasmoid fusion


    Plasmon energy


    Hydrogen plasmon


    Quantum hydrogen energy

    Thanks, Nice list. Hard, if not impossible, to get a patent through by calling the underlying process CF...hence the creative work arounds. Same goes with research paper submissions, etc. Seems to work, as more of the science seems to be making it through mainstream filters, so at this point why mess with success?


    One day I think, the field will rally around the best description...LENR, once it becomes accepted as a reality.

    Quote from Cholstc

    I did appreciate the name had to change along with discoveries/trials & tribulations, but IMHO, it has created a fog for the "general media," especially when scientists in their papers use abbreviations.

    Some people say these names are euphemisms. They say researchers coin new names to escape from the opprobrium associated with "cold fusion." I have read that in the mass media. I do not think so. Researchers doing cold fusion don't care about the opprobrium. If they cared, they wouldn't do the research. I think they coin new terms for two reasons:


    1. They think the name should more closely reflect the nature of the phenomenon. Scientists often coin new terms for this reason. For example, they now call "tidal waves" tsunami, because those waves have nothing to do with tides. However, there are many other terms that are inaccurate or strange, such as "solid state disk" which is not disk shaped at all.


    2. Some researchers think they understand the nature of cold fusion, and they want to put their own explanation into the name. They want others to use the name they designate, to recognize their contribution. This is egotistical.


    People tend to come up with a variety of different names for new technology. After a while, they settle on one word or another. For example, "the world wide web" and "the Internet." Or: "horseless carriages," "automobiles," "cars," "motor vehicle," "motorcar." Many neologisms reflect what the machine is not, rather than what it is. They contrast the old and the new. "Solid state disk," "horseless carriage," "carbonless copy paper" and "smokeless tobacco" are examples.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    1. They think the name should more closely reflect the nature of the phenomenon.

    Often these new names reflect academic disputes. For example, several of these names say that the reaction occurs in the lattice:


    Lattice Assisted Nuclear Fusion

    Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions - LANR

    Lattice energy conversion

    Lattice confinement fusion

    Lattice enabled nuclear reactions

    Lattice energy converter – LEC

    Lattice energy conversion


    Ed Storms thinks the effect does not occur in the lattice. He would say these names are technically inaccurate. Other researchers strongly disagree with him. They might advocate one of these names as a way to assert they are right.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    They say researchers coin new names to escape from the opprobrium associated with "cold fusion." I have read that in the mass media. I do not think so. Researchers doing cold fusion don't care about the opprobrium. If they cared, they wouldn't do the research.

    Not to be a pedant, but in the case of Iwamura at least, this isn’t true. He has point blank said that QHE is a marketing term, because people don’t like ‘cold fusion’.

    The only improvement I can imagine to Anomalous Heat Effect, which is essentially saying "there is more heat than one would expect, but I don't claim to know why," would be Anomalous Heat Measurement, meaning "my instruments appear to be recording more heat than one would expect, but I don't claim to know why."

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.