Yet Another LENR Theory

1st Official Post

    Hi Everyone,
    In my free time I developed the bases of a LENR theory that I think could explain most of the strange experimental features. No fancy new physics.
    I propose that the LENR are electron-mediated ternuclear reactions. The attractive potential is the one of Dallacasa and Cooks (described the nuclear physics book that Rossi keeps suggesting ...).
    The Nuclear Active Environment comes from the movement of the metal vacancies.
    The reactions do not produce free neutrons, apart from extreme conditions, and there is no need for a special energy fractionation mechanism.


    Here is the simple site where I put it, divided in a page with my guesses before the ITPR, and another with the updates after the ITPR:
    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/


    I would really like to have your comments about my theory.


    Regards


    Andrea Calaon

    • Official Post

    your theory seems sharing some agreement with ed storms, with pep like fusion...
    you disagree with crack as NAE, and prefer vacancies...


    it seems to respect Ed Storms conditions of no new physics...


    I did not have time to analyse it deeply, but if that theory respect common sense ad Storms propose, why not.


    I need to study more about magnetism, because it seems the key...

    yes Alain, the reactions of Storms are "necessary" (as he well understood after excluding everything else) and therefore correct. But there is no "laser in the crack" effect.
    The large electron can actually capture two small nuclei, one of which must be a p/d/t, inside its Zitterbewegung orbit, and guide the two nuclei to fusion distances. Then the electron comes and ... bang.
    I am in contact with Prof. Dallacasa, author in 1983 of the potential I am using. He knows my theory. And he told me he had thought about a coupling between electron and proton a long time ago (I think independently from LENR), but never really push forward the idea.
    The idea of Dallacasa that Cook published in his book is actually strong: the nuclear force has nothing to do with the strong force, and is purely a magnetic coupling (electromagnetism). This is why the range in LENR can be extended to picometric scales by the electron. And this is why fractionation is "automatic". Hagelstein spent so much time on it ...
    No free neutrons, only bound ones: this is the key to absence of nuclear garbage.


    So far I had about 650 visits on my web page since the 2nd of October, but you are the first to comment.
    Thanks.
    Now I need to sleep.
    See you tomorrow.
    Andrea

    Science works in such a way, that you will now go on testing with some phenomena, your new theory predicts. If experiment does not agree, you theory is a bust.


    If no predictions can be made, it is not a theory.

    Thank you for your comment Pathoskeptic. It is not a contribution, but I appreciate your interest.
    Anyhow I think I know how science works ... hehehe, but thanks for remembering it to everyone, it is never inappropriate.
    If you read the two documents in the web site I linked, you will find that the "theory" I propose produces a series of falsifiable statements. Not all are critical for the theory. Unfortunately I am not a LENR experimentalist (neither an "official theorist" actually ...), so I have no means to test those statements.


    For your convenience I will name a few of these falsifiable statements.


    Stimulation/Interference from kHz Photons
    The theory I propose predicts that some electromagnetic frequencies in the kHz range should be able to stimulate/interfere in the coupling between the electron and the p/d/t. In particular the frequency of 1836 [Hz], equal to the p/e mass ratio, should influence the p-e coupling. Is Rossi pumping in this range with its impulses?


    Neutron Emission Stimulation
    A quite stringent test for the proposed reactions is the stimulation of neutron production via gamma rays.

    3a: d+e+d ->H4+ neutrino + (max) 6.82 MeV
    non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
    3b: d+e+d+141[keV] ->H4 + neutrino +(max) > 0.00 MeV
    excited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
    4a: t+e+p ->H4 + neutrino + (max) 2.79 MeV
    non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
    4b: t+e+p+4.17[MeV]->H4 + neutrino + (max) > 0.00 MeV very unlikely
    exited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV


    In fact the equation 3b says that if the NAE is irradiated with photon just above 141 [keV] the production of neutrons should be activated. Reaction 4b suggests another higher energy: 4.17 [MeV]. If my estimation of the mass of the beta decaying H4 is wrong these frequencies should be changed accordingly.


    Tritium Elimination
    The d-e attraction should be less intense than the t-e attraction. Together with reaction 4, this means that any tritium added to an hydrogen loaded charge should gradually be consumed by the LENR. The E-Cat and the Hot-Cat in fact seem not to accumulate tritium, despite hydrogen loading (see Edmund Storms’ comments …).


    Vacancy Movement Stimulation
    Stimulating the charge with photons that enhance the movement of vacancies could possibly raise the reaction rate.


    Ni64 is the Source of Copper 65
    The experimental results say that Ni64 is depleted by the LENR. I therefore gather that Ni64 has a magnetic moment (quadrupole or higher) that allows it to react and become Ni65. Ni65 then decays beta to Cu65 (with a half-life of 2.517 [h]):


    16: Ni64+e+p ->Ni65+neutrino+ (max) 5.15 [MeV]
    Ni65 ->Cu65 + e- + antineutrino + (max) 2.138[Mev]


    I think this is the origin of the isotope shift described in the Rossi-Focardi paper “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. In that report the natural isotope ratio between Cu63 and Cu65, equal to 2.24, was found to have shifted to 1.16 in the ashes. I suggest that that shift was due to the addition of Cu65, in an amount exactly equal to the Ni64 that reacted.


    Decay of Ni69
    Ni69 is radioactive, with a half-life of 76,000 years, and decays almost exclusively via electron capture. The branching to positron emission is only 0,000037%. Therefore if this isotope remains in the charge only as traces it will not cause significant gamma radiation (for a 0.55 [g] Ni charge …). A problem remains in the fact the that the X ray emissions (in the range of a few [keV]) that follow the electron capture should have been measured.


    Lithium Isotopic Shift
    The LENR I propose for Lithium, differently from what happens for Nickel, lead to an enrichment in Li6 only because the two become He4 at different rates. This means that the total amount of Li should decrease together with the Li7/Li6 ratio.




    Unfortunately I think that even if all the predictions agreed with the experiments, Andrea Rossi would not declare it, since he and Industrial Heat need to keep the technology and the corresponding theory as secret as possible.

    Best Regards


    Andrea Calaon

    It has been a long time since my last post on my theory.
    Here is the link:


    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/


    In the meantime I have changed it significantly.
    Now the beta-decaying H4 is no more needed, while three neutral pseudo-particle appeared.
    There is never a Coulomb barrier to be overcome and the fractionation remains allowed through the emission of photons during the acceleration of the involved particles.
    The formation of the neutral pseudo-particles is a set of “First Stage” reactions that require the very special conditions Edmund Storms calls Nuclear Active Environment, while the neutral pseudo-particles can react with other nuclei without any special need in the “Second Stage” reactions.
    The Second Stage reactions take place at practically no excess kinetic energy, so that only the most stable and least energetic nuclei can form.
    I analysed the results of the Hot-Cat test through the theory, as well as the experiments of Iwamura and Mizuno.
    I hope some reader will be so kind to put her/his comment/critic/suggestion in the blog section.

    • Official Post

    Best would be to contact a theorician like Yogi Srivastava, Hegelstein,...
    or someon who surveyed the domain like Edmund Storms, Michael McKubre,...


    I see few interesting points.
    Ins tead of crack, for you the NAE is a moving vacancy, whose population and speed increase with heat.
    This may explain that very hot nickel is active ?


    I don't understand what is an hydronion.
    I's formula is the one of an atom, of the hydrino, but it's behavior is the one of a dog chasing it's tail ? is it ?
    and the reaction happens when another dog enter the dance ?


    I see a link with that paper
    http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf
    But it is far above my competence...


    could you explain in a simplified way why there is no gamma produced ?


    can you answer to the key constraints that Edmund Storms described in his book and papers ?
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf
    before he propose his theory.


    in a simplified way, how is the NAE...
    moving vacancies... why moving...


    If In understand the Zitterbewegung is a strange effect emerging from QM equations, probably causing electron spin, that supperpose to things we understand better... can you say more...

    Dear Alain,
    Thank you for the interesting questions, you are a skilled moderator.


    I think that if this theory makes any sense sooner or later it will be "found" by theoreticians, and developed properly.


    The reasons why I suggest that the NAE is an opening vacancy are many:

    • The temperature dependence as you mentioned,
    • The need of a deuteron/hydrogen flux for the development of excess heat,
    • The need for annealing after rolling of Palladium, which cancels dislocations that would prevent vacancies movement,
    • The fact that only during a moving vacancy you can have a very small volume with lower charge density,
    • The fact that the reacting metals are those that can develop super-abundant vacancies if loaded with hydrogen, ...
    • etc.


    Hydronions are hydrogen nuclei trapped inside the circular trajectory of the electron (Zitterbewegung). They can only move along the circular (helical) track made by the circular movement of the point charge of the electron. When the hydrogen nucleus rotates at around 2 [kHz] there is a force that keeps it along the track. The electron point charge crosses the hydrogen nucleus 1020 times per second so it is not a dog chasing its tail. It is the hydrogen that sees a practically continuous attraction towards the circular track. Due to the mass ratio between hydrogen and electron is actually the electron ZB that sort of rotates around the hydrogen, but this is not essential.


    The first paper you linked in your comment is a very interesting one by David Hestenes, the professor that has spent most of his professional life trying to explain to our civilization that we are missing the power of THE algebra of multidimensional spaces: Geometric Algebra. We keep using only vector spaces because we have only the sum defined on multidimensional entities, while the algebra has a product as well … Is sound simple, and actually it is, the incredible part is that students are not even introduced to Geometric Algebra. Hestenes, using the Algebra explained what complex numbers, quaternions, spinors, really are, why some linear operators have complex conjugate eigenvalues, what is the correct way of making multidimensinal calculus, … and many more things. Unfortunately his teaching is still confined in limited circles. For understanding clearly and intuitively the meaning of the complex formalism of quantum mechanics and of the Dirac equation (Shroedinger and Pauli as well) Geometric Algebra is essential. And the lack of this tool has slowed down the comprehension of Quantum Mechanics, by separating mathematical formalism from geometrical intuition.


    Gamma rays are actually produced in LENR, but are generally soft gammas. There are however no daughter particles with high kinetic energies that, while being slowed down generate showers of intense gammas. Thanks to the mediation of the electron the nuclear reactions happen with very low excess kinetic energy. The magnetic attractive force manifests at distances much larger that the common nuclear range, so that part of the energy is radiated in not-so-energetic photons before the attraction between the nucleons takes place. Neutrons are generally absent because the reactions that produce them need the contribution of gamma radiation.



    The conditions of Edmund Storms:

    ASSUMPTION #1     - CF cannot occur in a “normal” material but requires formation of a unique condition called a nuclear-active-environment (NAE)
    In a normal material there is no highly abundant interstitial hydrogen, and even when there is, normally there is no sufficient movement of vacancies because grains are full of dislocations piled near to the grain boundaries that tend to clean up vacancies.


    ASSUMPTION #2 - The heat energy and nuclear products are produced by the same basic process operating in the same NAE.
    The heat comes from the acceleration of the charges that end in a nuclear reaction with almost to excess kinetic energy.


    ASSUMPTION #3 - Cold fusion is not hot fusion.
    The energies of hot fusion can not be reached by a solid state material.


    ASSUMPTION #4 – The explanation must apply to each method for producing cold fusion and the resulting behaviour.
    I could not apply my theory to all processes where cold fusion has reportedly being found, however the few I applied the theory to seem to be explainable.


    ASSUMPTION #5 – No Law of Nature is violated.
    The electron Zitterbewegug and the magnetic attraction of Dallacasa and Cook are violating any law of nature?


    The Zitterbewegung is not an effect, is the ESSENCE of the electron. The electron exists because of the ZB, or, in other words, the electron IS the ZB. Here the talk could take a VERY long path. I will try to synthesize.


    Since the so called Copenhagen Interpretation of QM prevailed, it became nonsensical/forbidden to think that the strange properties of particles are emerging from an “inner” structure they possess. Instead they should be considered as funny structureless entities with mass, spin and intrinsic magnetic moment, that’s it. Even thinking about the trajectory of a particle became inappropriate. All what remained were probabilities to find some properties given the experiments. So, the concept of a Zitterbewegung was sort of “forgotten”. But the equation of Dirac is quite clear about the reality of the ZB.


    The non locality (EPR incompleteness, delayed choice, Aharonov–Bohm) and the interpretation of spin made particles almost unthinkable and logically unacceptable. Richard Feynman (it seems) used to say “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics”. Particle-wave duality, collapse of the wave-function, contextuality ...


    The equation describing the electron that Paul Dirac found in 1928, which is still the best description of the electron today (and which suggested the existence of the positron), describes a point charge that can not stay still, but that exists only in a very agitated and localized state of motion. This motion is a tremendously rapid circular rotation orthogonal to what we interpret as the the particle speed, but with no photon emissions. The rotation “must” have a fixed radius.


    There is however a problem. The equation is built on the formalism of 4x4 complex matrices: quite COMPLEX indeed! Hestenes (the author of the article you linked) showed however that all that complexity is due to the lack of an explicit algebra in the formulation. If you use the correct algebra, the equation appears much simpler and loses many of its miseries. The variable of the equation is actually the orientation of the plane where the ZB takes place along the electron trajectory. And part of the essence of the electron appears. The electron hence gets a sort of inner structure and the particle seem to have a definite trajectory ...


    Hidden variable theories, with a pilot wave, are very linked to the ZB. I will write only the essence.
    J. S. Bell “showed” that HV theories have really only two shortcomings:

    • they must be non-local,
    • the must be contextual.


    My contribution:
    Non-locality is due to the fact that particles (like the point charge of the electron with its ZB) "travel" always at the speed of light. Aharonov–Bohm and delayed choice experiments show that particles are timeless. They know the future and depend on what happened in the whole universe in the past. The notion of time we have is an illusion.


    Contextuality, the nastiest of the shortcomings of HV theories, depends actually only on the formalism of spin. If this formalism, as Hestenes showed, is wrong, contextuality disappears. And Hidden Variable, after having been neglected for many years, should be put back as the best description of the “quantum world”.


    I know this last part of this comment is not easy at all. A complete explanation of my thoughts would require many pages.

    I keep thinking of Jennison rotating wave-mechanical phase-locked cavities.
    :)


    Part 1:
    On the fundamental properties of matter


    By R.C. JENNISON


    Electronics Laboratories, The University of Kent in Canterbury, England.


    Sixty years ago de Broglie conceived the idea of ascribing wave properties to particulate matter. His original concepts were soon absorbed into the somewhat different treatment by Schrodinger which evolved into the wave mechanics that is used to compute orbitals and other problems concerned with the probability of finding particles in a particular physical situation. Wave mechanics has told us little about the particles themselves although de Broglie has always maintained that his original treatment held the key to the fundamental structure of matter itself. Very recent work, stemming originally from research into the problem of how the units of length and time are preserved in the proper frame despite the effects of acceleration, has shown that the principles of phase-locked cavities may be combined with de Broglie's wave treatment to provide a unique description of a spinning particle. Various modes of the trapped wave system are available and the properties of rest mass, inertia (independent of Mach's Principle) and quantisation all appear simply as a result of the phaselocking and feedback process that is intrinsic to phase-locked particles. The sharp bounding of the spinning wave-mechanical packet has interesting relativistic properties which may indicate why the action of quantum phenomena are concentrated into particular space-time events and are not diluted over large regions of the Universe. This approach to the understanding of fundamental matter is radically different to the philosophy of highly energetic collisions where the exotic products of the collisional energy demonstrate the patterns available from ever increasing energies. It may do more to elucidate the fundamental properties of matter upon which the quantum hypothesis, Newton's laws and the concepts of charge, angular momentum, mass, length and time are based.


    The enigmatic duality of particles and waves has influenced the development of science for hundreds of years. As with so many aspects in the history of science it has been influenced by the timing of discoveries and by the stature of the researchers. There is an old conundrum which poses the hypothetical question of what would have happened if Michelson and Morley had performed their experiment at the time of Copernicus - surely there was proof that Galileo's teachings were unscientific heresy! The nature of light has also swung between extremes of interpretation. Newton claimed that it was corpuscular, despite his experiments with prisms, and then Young demonstrated the interference from a double slit which appeared to show that it was waves. If the photo-electric effect had been discovered at about that time, Young would have been disgraced and all the development of wave theory in the nineteenth century would have taken a back place. Then in 1905 Einstein showed that light interacted with matter as if it were quantised according to the relation E = h. It is often said that Einstein invented the photon but I do not believe this to be true. He proved, quite correctly, that the interaction was quantised; he did not unequivocally state that the light itself was particulate. Despite his unique contributions to the quantum theory Einstein was highly suspicious of its interpretation and campaigned against it for the remainder of his life.


    The story turned full circle when, in 1925, Louis de Broglie showed that matter could be treated as waves. His remarkable discovery coincided with the birth of quantum mechanics dominated by the presence of Max Born in Germany and Niels Bohr in Copenhagen and so de Broglie's ideas were quickly absorbed into the somewhat different structure of wave mechanics developed by Schrodinger. This was much more compatible with the matrix mechanics of quantum theory but differed in considerable detail from the ideas of de Broglie. Wave mechanics became essentially a probability computation and did nothing to elucidate the nature of matter itself. For many decades scientists have been trying to solve the internal structure of the fundamental particles by colliding matter at ever increasing energies and studying the products of the collisional energy. But if de Broglie's original ideas were correct then there ought to be much cheaper and more effective ways of solving the mystery.

    Quite an interesting theory Andrea!
    Your hydrino like particles are intriguing! Dellacasa's theory that the a magnetic force holds the atom together (instead of the strong force) is completely new for me. Whether or not your theory is solid I cannot say (I am not a physicist), but it may be easy to test. At the end you warn for these hydronions. These particles should be highly nuclear reactive, so if they fly around the Ecat or LENR device you must be able to detect anomalous heat or nuclear change in matter around this as well, wouldn't you?
    Further, if the energy calculations do not comply with the isotopic changes, maybe the energy calculations for this type of process are wrong. LENR may not follow the strong force route, but a more subtle LENR route?
    Did you send your theory to Andrea Rossi?

    @Gerard McEk
    Thank you for your appreciation of my theory. I am answering only now because I had missed your comment.
    Hydronions are neutral nuclei that can trigger soft nuclear reactions. I suggested Dr. Iwamura to shoot protons at a few eV against a ZrO2 target, and measure any emitted EUV. Moreover Iwamura should increase the amount of B10 in his multilayer and see if the amount of gamma at 1,445 and 1,745 keV will also increase proportionally.
    LENR can only follow the known routes, because the nuclei cannot be changed. The differences are that the energy is not emitted as kinetic energy, but as gammas, and only stable nuclei are produced at the end.


    Andrea Rossi knows about the existence of my theory, through our exchanges on the JONP and by emails, and through Norman Cook, with whom I often exchange comments.
    I don't think Rossi agrees with my theory.

    Physics is a tough master. Where in poetry something that sounds good will be good, in physics a viable theory needs to fit all available evidence and make predictions which are different from standard.


    Or, in some cases, a viable theory is physically identical to standard, but simpler, see below...


    Quote

    There is however a problem. The equation is built on the formalism of 4x4 complex matrices: quite COMPLEX indeed! Hestenes (the author of the article you linked) showed however that all that complexity is due to the lack of an explicit algebra in the formulation. If you use the correct algebra, the equation appears much simpler and loses many of its miseries. The variable of the equation is actually the orientation of the plane where the ZB takes place along the electron trajectory. And part of the essence of the electron appears. The electron hence gets a sort of inner structure and the particle seem to have a definite trajectory ...Hidden variable theories, with a pilot wave, are very linked to the ZB. I will write only the essence.J. S. Bell “showed” that HV theories have really only two shortcomings:they must be non-local,
    the must be contextual.


    I've got nothing against HV theories of QM. They exist. The ones I've seen do not predict new physics. And, thus far, they do not "smell" better than the simple but counter-intuitive math we have. Copenhagen interpretation is an old idea - think of it as a pragmatic hack that works but no-one likes it. Now we have Everett's Many Worlds Theory, or Cramer's Transactional Interpretation (and variants thereof). Both more satisfactory and illuminating than Copenhagen. Neither predicting new physics, because every physical consequence is identical.


    Quote

    My contribution:Non-locality is due to the fact that particles (like the point charge of the electron with its ZB) "travel" always at the speed of light.


    Particles traveling along null cones does not generate non-locality, because that is a correlation across spacelike separations.


    Quote

    Aharonov–Bohm and delayed choice experiments show that particles are timeless. They know the future and depend on what happened in the whole universe in the past.


    That is partly true, if you define "particle" in the correct way, because as Cramer has pointed out QM Copenhagen collapse can be seen in terms of timelike transaction between particles. But particles are not sentient so it would be helpful to express this proposition more precisely in terms of causality. There is a long and interesting literature of statements about causality, modifications to it, and what effects those have for QM. I'd recommended anyone interested in this fascinating area to read it. here is one fairly recent review:
    http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo…10/n4/full/nphys2930.html


    Quote

    The notion of time we have is an illusion.Contextuality, the nastiest of the shortcomings of HV theories, depends actually only on the formalism of spin.


    That is an interesting statement which I'm almost certain is untrue. The reason is that the contextual issues that beset HV theories are precisely experimental. You can do real experiment which clearly shows the effect. Therefore any theoretical change (like a change of formalism) which has no physical effect cannot change the problem.

    Quote


    If this formalism, as Hestenes showed, is wrong, contextuality disappears.


    With respect, and I know people who know David's work on geometrical algebra (GA) quite well, and have backed it in the literature, "wrong" is the wrong word. GA is provably identical to standard formulations of spacetime calculus, just much neater and therefore mathematically more powerful. As such, reworking physics using GA has many advantages and is a worthy program. It offers real mathematical insight. Maybe, having done that, the new formalism will allow new physical insights into different or deeper theories - the most obvious one being Quantum Gravity. But GA itself does not alter physics and therefore does not alter contextuality in HM theories. I'd be very happy to be shown wrong in this, perhaps I am, but it would require a much more detailed description of what was proposed and in what circumstances it generated different physical predictions.


    Quote


    And Hidden Variable, after having been neglected for many years, should be put back as the best description of the “quantum world”.I know this last part of this comment is not easy at all. A complete explanation of my thoughts would require many pages.


    You are absolutely right, it would be great to flesh out your preliminary ideas and see how they fit the experimental facts when expressed precisely. If they can be expressed precisely. And if that expression passes initial sanity checks and show that it can describe known QM experimental results in a new way. Mostly the papers in this area tend to spend about 30 pages showing that some new view of causality obeys a basic set of self-consistency axioms...


    Having done that, I'm not sure why you think it would lead to new physics? There could be some indication of that which you could explain - but I've not seen that here since QM interpretations don't change physics and GA does not change physics?

    Nuclear energy is work done by the strong nuclear force.


    The range of the strong nuclear force is extremely low, so low that it is limited to the interior of atomic nucleuses.


    Therefore no nuclear energy can be released gradually from approaching nucleuses as is proposed in the hydronion theory.

    Quote from Andrea Calaon

    Andrea Rossi knows about the existence of my theory, through our exchanges on the JONP and by emails, and through Norman Cook, with whom I often exchange comments.
    I don't think Rossi agrees with my theory.



    It seems Rossi doesn't agree to any theory while working on his own (?)... there are many experimental results around the globe that proof there is something happening that doesn't fit (yet) to any proven concept. It is simply so bad to waste valuable time by waiting for a mass roll out (whenever this will happen) of "LENR products" for industrial and home use, just to proof that this "Rossi effect" is real. Despite the huge lack of acceptance in today's scientific community I am convinced there are other ways to speed this up and develop or find a theory that rocksolid explains what we have seen so far. Just give access to a reactor or let independent 3rd party researchers watch a running plant, or...or... If all his "saying" is true, and he is close to a manufacturing, than he anyway is lightyears ahead of any follower or competitor and there is absolutely no concern to allow access to groundbreaking research and results. He will be awarded anyway after all, but should make sure that this then will happen at a time he can still enjoy.... So bad that his ego and habit prevents the world from benefiting from the new light asap...

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Nuclear energy is work done by the strong nuclear force.


    The range of the strong nuclear force is extremely low, so low that it is limited to the interior of atomic nucleuses.


    Therefore no nuclear energy can be released gradually from approaching nucleuses as is proposed in the hydronion theory.



    "Therefore".... is that supposed to be some sort of syllogism?


    Better get, and keep, your logic and logical fallacies in mind. We're not fooled quite so easily.

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.