How can we add 'Glamour' to LENR Research ? (ED Storms)

  • A recent email from Ed Storms caught my eye, it was part of a group discussion about the need for LENR to attract more attention, and thus more cash. How might this be achieved, and would it be useful to try? Ed would be interested on our ideas (as would Anthropocene I think)

    Ed Asked

    How would you propose to make LENR more glamorous? This is already one of the most important modern discoveries showing an amazing relationship between chemistry and nuclear physics. It's the only source of energy on which the survival of modern civilisation can rely. It's the only source of energy that could make every county independent of the oil-gas cartel. The potential glamour is already huge. Something besides glamour seems to be missing.

    Actually, the self-interest by the political structure to make this energy available is lacking. The academics have no self-interest to admit they have been wrong about how a chemical structure can interact with the nucleus. The people involved in the huge hot fusion program and all the users of gas and oil do not want the competition. The people in the field itself are not interested in working together to solve the mystery.

    So, where is this glamour to come from? Who is willing to carry the torch? Who is willing to step forward and say publicly without ambiguity that LENR is real and important? Are you? If so, I suggest a letter be sent to the editor of the NY Times signed by well-known industrialists and scientists stating that LENR is real, is important, and needs government support before it's too late. You might mention this situation is much like the need to make an atom bomb before Germany mastered the skill. After all, if another country mastered LENR, giving them the ability to make all the energy they needed without cost or limit, how would that affect the economy of the USA?

    We are no longer in a game between the ignorant skeptics and a few dreamers. The stakes are huge. We need to take charge of making LENR understood and accepted by the general public. This can only be done through the media while using bold statements. What do you think of this idea?


  • I believe the Nobel Prize is often considered a bit of glamour, and I expect it is on offer to the first person or group able to (1) produce multiple copies of a device which generates substantially more heat or electricity than a chemical explanation can provide; (2) transport copies of this device to multiple universities for inspection and verification.

    I hear, for example, that Brillouin now has a COP of about 3, and Clean Planet is in an alliance with a boiler manufacturer. So both should be able to satisfy both requirements (1) and (2) above. Instant glamour.

    I suppose it is barely possible that the great universities of the world are all populated solely by enemies of humanity, people who would not be interested in accelerating the adoption of devices based on a phenomena that promises pollution free energy. Similarly, it is possible that the world's governments have all colluded to suppress such a device so that the fossil fuel companies can continue to prosper. It seems to me more likely that no one has yet presented evidence that can be unambiguously verified by independent observers. That, of course, could just be my insufficient attention paid.

  • At this year's ICCF24, Peter Diamandis proposed an LENR X-Prize. We do not know yet if he will follow through, but if he does, IMO, with a $100 million reward, LENR could become very attractive. Even sexy/glamourous..who knows? But no doubt, and you better tell Storms this, some will still claim we dressed it (LENR) up as:

    Fletcher's Castoria: Lipstick on a Pig

  • I'll try an offset position.

    Say minority report.

    What if the perspective to motivate researchers was to use new instruments.

    What I've observed since long is that most researchers don't consider old data, only recent... the problem in LENR is that budgets have decreased, and thus quality of evidences, performances of instruments, experience of new experimenters, too.

    Research is not only a goal, an achievement, today it is a career, a job, a lifestyle, and working quietly with a THz spectrometer, a confocal microscope, a nanostructure printer, can make a researcher happy for a decade.

    And before that, just having a budget is motivating.

    What is motivating in dark matter or fusion research ? the success, or just budget and a lifelong career with beautiful instruments ?

    Not sure, it will please the most passionate researcher here, but most researchers are probably less passionate, maybe just kids loving new toys.

    The Preschool Laboratory: Young Children Think Like Scientists

    (don't shoot the pianist)

  • I think the problem -as seen by Anthropocene Institute is that the glamour in large amounts that they so generously provided at ICCF-24 vanished like smoke when the conference closed. Despite the rappers, and the brilliant TV Chef stage show, the presentation of the hefty Toyoda gold medal to Ed Storms and more the MSM pretty much ignored it all, even though there were a fair few journalists present (I met a few) . Perhaps their editors declined to publish, who knows?

    LENR can offer little in comparison to hot fusion by way of spectacle, people do like to look at pictures of glamorous equipment. How does this, for example....


    Compare with this?

    In the glamour stakes not at all.

  • I think if we agree that what is missing is positive mainstream coverage, Anthropocene Institute could call in some favors with some mainstream media (the New York Times perhaps?) and get a two page central very positive coverage of the ICCF presentations with a sleak sounding title like “LENR: Is not Pseudoscience Anymore” (Paraphrasing the usual “Is not a game anymore”).

    I think something on those lines could start the motions, but, is it really feasible?

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

  • Quoting Ed Storms:

    I suggest a letter be sent to the editor of the NY Times signed by well-known industrialists and scientists stating that LENR is real, is important, and needs government support before it's too late.

    Good idea. I have been urging people to do this for many years. I asked Brian Josephson to do this. Not sure if he did. Unfortunately, we don't have many famous people, and the Times is likely to ignore a letter even if it is signed by the ones we have. Perhaps the Washington Post or some British newspapers would publish it.

    I think this would help. I do not think it would have a huge impact. Mainstream newspapers are nowhere near as influential as they were in the 20th century. They are drowned out by the cacophony of the internet. That cacophony is both a help and a hindrance to cold fusion. Were it not for the internet, I think cold fusion would be largely forgotten by now. At I have played a role in keeping it alive, but of course most of the credit goes to the scientists who gave me the papers and permission to upload them. The internet has disseminated knowledge and kept the field alive. Surely, 4.5 million papers being downloaded must have helped. But the internet is also a hindrance because it drowns out the facts with the nonsense in the Scientific American and Wikipedia. Google often finds these sources first, and people look no further.

    If you do not know what to say in this letter, I would be happy to draft something. I think I know how to explain this to the public. From time to time, I have posted messages in the New York Times article talk section. Years ago, they were summarily rejected. Later they were allowed, but always met with a chorus of "skeptical" objections; i.e., cold fusion is fraud and lunacy. Lately the skeptics have not responded, and there have even been one or two likes. This is mainly because I can now cite NASA, the Army and the Navy, as I do in the News Section:


    This is the kind of thing the letter should say. I think it should be bland. It should avoid controversy or accusations. Here is an example of a message the Times allowed:

    At a physics conference last month, DoE's DARPA, the U.S. Army and Navy, and the EU all announced work in progress and additional funding for a much better source of energy: cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect). You can see their slides and links to their projects here:



    Home | ICCF-24 Silicon Valley

    The largest industrial boiler company in Japan announced a product in 2025, in cooperation with a Japanese government funded project.

    Cold fusion is closer to realization than most people realize. It is far cheaper and more practical than plasma fusion, and it has produced thousands of times more energy (although less instantaneous power). If the remaining technical problems can be fixed it will be at least 20 times cheaper than wind, solar, fission or any other source of energy.

  • I’m going to give this a shot. I’m trying to look at this as a journalist who spent more than 30 years in mainstream media. (Don't mind all the negative stuff at the beginning. I offer more afterwards.)

    First why would mainstream media look at LENR, in spite of its stunning promise?

    First, is it LENR or is it Cold Fusion, or one of the myriads of names referring to the LENR phenomenon and used apparently randomly by scientists/bloggers to refer to LENR. All those names create confusion. As I’ve mentioned once on this blog (and which was not supposed to get translated as “Poor thing, she was overworked in her old job”) most mainstream journalists nowadays are NOT scientifically trained, have a limited amount of time to focus on stories, limited amount of space per story, and usually can only cover basic ideas such as: “These people say it works – But those opponents say it’s voodoo science. There may be a product in some years." End of story.

    So first, why refer to LENR as LANR, LEC, LANP, LCF, MHE, etc, etc… You want LENR to be taken seriously, settle on ONE name.

    Also, is there a LENR theory a majority of researchers now agree on? If no, is that because scientists are nitpicking or are there valid objections to the theory(ies) advanced so far? Could they be reconciled for the sake of media coverage? Could the LENR community offer at least one fairly accepted theory of LENR to the mainstream press?

    As one of my old editors used to tell me very bluntly: “Keep it simple, stupid.”

    If and when you decide to use/refer only to LENR, remember it’s NOT fusion, so if you keep mentioning “LENR, formerly Cold Fusion,” your are creating con-fusion. (Especially with all the plasma fusion stuff being also mentioned in the media).

    Even if you’ve got a scientifically trained journalist focused on LENR, what can you offer: that the phenomenon works and has been repeated? Fine. Do you have a product? Maybe? “Maybe” is NOT news. Rossi is credible to you, he’s not yet credible to mainstream media. Where is his product? Why does he need a million orders to maybe be produce a machine some day?

    Does Brillouin have a product? Clean Planet will have a product in a few years? Let us know when their product goes on the market, editors will say.

    Someone suggested getting a piece done on ICCF-24 and trying the New York Times. The time to get that done was before ICCF-24, so coverage would take place during the conference, not months later. By now, ICCF-24 is “old news.” It would have to be a magazine/feature piece and what would be the conclusion of that piece: that after some 33 years, LENR still does not have a theory on which there is a consensus (Widom-Larsen not being accepted everywhere, unless I’m wrong), and a product is still years away.

    But if you’d still like trying the New York Times, I would also try National Public Radio (NPR) - very open-minded.

    So, what might Carl Page do: What might work might be a presentation of LENR at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., with advertisements in the Washington Post/NYT explaining LENR shortly before. If LENR is going to be part of the MIT Energy Conference this coming April, that MIT event could serve as a "peg" for journalists to cover a LENR press conference at the NPC in Washington, D.C. That would be fresh news.

    Don’t do a presentation at the NPC on a Friday, since large chunks of weekend papers are put together days ahead and your press conference might get buried in 3 paragraphs on page 6 of a Saturday/Sunday paper no one will read because it’s the weekend and the kids have a soccer game. By the time more space would free up for Monday stories, your press conference might be “old news”. Check when the Washington Post or New York Times put together their Science sections to bed. Then calculate the day your press conference might take place to give it a shot in those sections. Contact the editors of those sections, offer them something “special” if they agree to send someone, to help differentiate their stories from their rivals’ stories. Otherwise, they'll shrug and tell you they'll use the AP story (if the AP scientist goes). Maybe the lure can be a one-on-one interview after/before the press conference. I would not ignore C-SPAN (they need to fill hours of time, can provide long, awesome, detailed coverage), AFP, AP, Reuters, DW, FT, and the Japanese Press (because of Clean Planet).

    The National Press Club is where pols/scientists such as Fauci, etc. still go when they desperately need to focus the press. They go to the press, so the press does not even have to go to them. The reason being that the NPC building still contains the offices of many media from all around the world. Those journalists only have to go upstairs, so if they’re pressed for time – well, it’s only upstairs. Easy does it.

    It's also the place where journalists are used to going and the wiring is all set up for audio/TV.

    Second, you would need some Big Guns to attend so the editors don’t say: “We don’t have time for voodoo science, there is Ukraine/Xi/an earthquake/inflation, etc.” Can Carl Page bring Al Gore or Greta Thunberg (for Europe) or Wang Wenbiao of Elion Resources Group in China, or Malala Yousafzai (for the Muslim world/women/Europe), etc.... You need to make this "attractive," meaning more than a bunch of aging, white-hair scientists. (For the record, I'm 66 & white hair).

    Could you also have someone from NASA or ARPA or DOE, someone with a high enough rank so as to show that YES, the US government does believe in LENR which is NOT voodoo science. Because the second you mention "Cold Fusion," the minds of thousands of journalists will close, as they will only remember the negative from the Pons/Fleishmann debacle and unlike us, they have not spent the past 33 years following LENR.

    Anyway, those are just some thoughts. I shall now keep my peace.

  • Good points to take into consideration. I might add my 2 pence, that this is where Rossi may have hurt us. He did get quite a bit of media play for a few years, and those journalists who were brave enough to cover him and CF got burned. One from Forbes I believe was fired for his coverage.

    Ironically though, IMO Rossi did reignite the field which led to Google, US Navy/Army, HERMES/CleanHME and others forming to investigate, and which are now showing strong signs of success.

    So I guess we could say that Rossi giveth to the science, and he taketh. And we have been getting some coverage nonetheless, so all is not lost in the PR department. Not much (literally none for ICCF24), and mainly low risk stories about the US government programs. But with what we saw presented at ICCF24, they will eventually have to start noticing at some point.

  • At I have played a role in keeping it alive, but of course most of the credit goes to the scientists who gave me the papers and permission to upload them. The internet has disseminated knowledge and kept the field alive. Surely, 4.5 million papers being downloaded must have helped. But the internet is also a hindrance because it drowns out the facts with the nonsense in the Scientific American and Wikipedia. Google often finds these sources first, and people look no further.

    No doubt you have played an instrumental role in keeping the science alive, as have the old guard who stood by their beliefs while being subjected to withering attack. It would have been understandable had you all just said enough of this, pack up your bags and go home, enjoy retirement...but you didn't.

    Not to brag...yes, guess I am, but LF also started playing an increasingly important role keeping the fire lit in the past few years or so. Few realize the reach we now have into the community. It has been an amazing process to watch from the inside. With each new addition to the staff, we go deeper still, and get ever more involved with just about every aspect of the field. Of course, we are only as strong as our membership, so we can all share in our success.

  • @ jed Rothwell - Actually I thought a newspaper to approach with proper caution and the right signatories was this one...

    The UK Financial Times - the pink one. Clive Cookson -the science editor is a closet supporter of cold fusion, who has visited my lab. He did say that if there was more 'critical mass' he could get a proper CF piece into the paper.. And as papers go, the FT is very influential. A round robin letter with Brian Josephson Huw Price (who knows Clive) and more might just give him the ammunition he needs.

    Clive Cookson | Financial Times

  • Yes, we need the energy source (Glamour). But with respect to political self-interest:

    No, there is no certainty that any company currently claiming an energy device is actually truthful enough that they will share a commercial device within the next two years.

    We are not working as one because loud voices among us are pulling us in different directions. Neither members of forum nor some political structure has power to see what is really true as individuals.

    However, as members with voting rights we could vote on presentations to make LENR understood and accepted. We could set-up an internal conference of those who are willing to step forward and make a public presentation. We could limit the internal noise by making the comments to presentations and the presentations/voting in separate threads. If we have enough interested members and develop several iterations of presentations, then over time, we could take charge of LENR.

  • there were a fair few journalists present (I met a few) . Perhaps their editors declined to publish, who knows?

    Maybe if the theories that describe the LENR reaction conformed to and were consistent with science principles, then the onus of pseudoscience might someday be removed from what you may desire to be reported.