New Poll: What Should the 'Effect' be Called?

I have just put up a new poll on a topic that is already being discussed here — what should the ‘effect’ that causes excess heat be called? There are a few names being used at the moment, and new ones being proposed.

Please feel free to explain your preference in the comments section below. Some other questions to discuss are: does it really matter what the name is? Should there be a uniform name used when we discuss the ‘effect’? Will the chosen name affect the way the topic is dealt with in the media, by regulators, public perception?

Also, if you think none of the names suggested are satisfactory — propose a new one!

  • captain

    ROSSI effect. or even ROSSI/FOCARDI effect.

    As a sign of due tribute, gratitude to the scientist that first put on the market an operating device.

    Nuclear or non nuclear? It doesn’t matter, but IT WORKS VERY WELL and that’s important.

    • Or call the reactors “Rossi-reactors” and the effect solid state fusion or cold fusion. I have seen the “Rossi-Focardi effect” being used somewhere, but not yet “Rossi effect” as far as I recall.

    • captain

      Oviously I’ve voted ‘other’ since Rossi himself has declared in past months that various could be its origin.
      And lately he said also to have better understood what happens inside E-Cat.

      It’s a stunning result that has even impressed his inventor.

      • Filip47

        Let’s hope it’s not becoming the PANDORA-effect.

    • David

      Ahhhhh, you’re faster than me!
      “Rossi effect” would be very appropriate, especially if he finally tells us his theory.

  • I voted for Other, since I would prefer solid state fusion. The Japanese seem to be using it.

    LENR is not good because being an acronym it’s basically untranslatable.

    Quantum fusion would sound cool, but only after someone has found a commonly accepted explanation which has strongly to do with QM. To use it now would be too suggestive I think.

    Cold fusion is not a particularly bad term either, but in the longer run for application-oriented ordinary people, to continue calling something 1000-1200 C “cold” doesn’t sound natural.

    • Omega Z


      Your Right. For many people calling it cold at those temperatures seems contradictory.

      As for Quantum fusion, It does sound cool & Cures made a statement about Quantum, but I didn’t ??? Google translate cause comprehension problems.

      Cold Fusion is an in your Eye statement, But at this time may be problematic in getting it to market.

      Have to think about this. Nuclear should probably be avoided. Mind Sets.

      • georgehants

        The things the public follow most closely are things with simple catchy names such as “big bang” “black holes” etc.
        Science will try to bury Cold Fusion behind some crazy complicated misnomer.
        The contradiction of Cold Fusion I think adds to its appeal.

      • I suggest NEWFUSION or NUFUSION. Its new and we dont know yet how it works.

        • Robert Dunnagan

          If a hydrogen ion accepts a nucleon into its nucleus under temperatures that, when compared with hot fusion, are relatively cold, what is wrong with original term coined by Fleischmann and Pons? Why not honor the scientists who discovered the phenomenon by using their term?

          • As long as we do not know what it is, Anomalous Heat Effect is the most accurate description because it tells us just what we know – that heat is produced. Once we know how exactly it is done, call it whatever comes from the theory

          • clovis

            Martinus, hi.
            You are correct, AHE not very sexy, smile,I like LENR but again you are right, about it being an unknown effect, i hope it gets a name worthy of it’s contribution to humanity. hot cat,is good, i like new fire, but it still seems as though it
            should have a more monumental name like the g_d particle–smile

    • LENR not only is hard to pronounce (‘eleonor’ should be a better name), but contain Nuclear. It is the good technical term, and I love it, but it is not good for public. Nuclear mean fear in our society.
      LANR and CANR are a like and less popular… it is a battle of scientist from the time Cold Fusion have to hide… a bit like “colored people” or “visually challenged”…

      Some friend who is professional innovator told me that “Cold Fusion” is the best, because it is Cold, thus not dangerous…

      Fear is the worst danger, and lobbies will use FUD and scaremongering to scare the people… thus LENR, LANR should be forgotten except in science.

      Cold Fusion have many reason to be the best name:
      Cold is not dangerous, it does not explode, does not burn… (only engineers know it can go to 1000C)
      Fusion is sexy, inclusive, friendly… (Only scientist knwo it can explode)
      Colf Fusion is well know brand, established by F&P, Times magazine, MIT, Science… today it mean fraud, but when it will work on your tabletop, it will mean REBELLION AGAINST THE ELITE… not very honest, but good in marketing.
      so Cold fusion is : famous, safe, sexy, inclusive, rebel : GOOD

      Quantum reactor is good for Geek, and other start-trek fans… For geek, Quantum is sexy (like “Teletransporter Scotty!”), and Reactor is “macho” (like a jet), but for my mum it is black magic with too many wires and pipes…

      Fleischman&Pons effect, is just a strange complex brand… moreover effect mean you don’t know what it is… FPE is an acronym, thus meaning less… at least it is not nuclear, not anything in fact…
      the No-name… the no-brand… the no-meaning…
      not bad, not good…

      Anomalous Heat Effect is more anonymous than FPE… but for the layman anomalous, is abnormal, thus evil, unknown, dangerous… heat is of, and effect does add to the indeterminacy…
      AHE is hard to pronounce, and is an acronym…
      so like FPE, but even more a no-name, a no-brand, but a negative uncertain no-name. an anomalous name…
      more bad than good…

      I just think of two alternatives.

      the first is to forget about the technical name, to use a brand, a registered name, like E-cat, Hyperion…

      the second is Nickel-hydrogen energy, NiH Reactor,Nichenergy (!!!), Nichereactor . Absolutely not scientific (should be NiH LENR)

      but COLD FUSION is far THE BEST !

      Safe, inclusive, sexy, rebel, famous…

      and for scientists or geek, LENR, descriptive…

  • georgehants

    It should I think be left to the True scientific pioneers of Cold Fusion to decide.
    The certainty is that no establishment or main-line science deniers should have any say whatsoever.
    These people will soon be telling the public how wonderful science is for discovering such a miracle.
    Until every scientific institution and journal prominently apologises to P&F and begins a full public independent inquiry into the incompetent failure of tax funded science, these people must be openly ignored and laughed at.

    • Sun-in-a-box

    • Andrew Macleod

      Are you saying we should find the oppressors, shove them too the ground and then point and laugh? I like it!

      • georgehants

        Ha, Andrew not exactly what I had in mind.
        Time for the Dogma hugging establishment and journals to change from abusing and laughing at any True scientist who moves beyond the excepted teachings and start laughing at any “opinion experts” who deny advancement following good theory Evidence or even just hard work.
        Time for scientists like P&F to be admired and deniers to be put down as they should be.

  • andreiko

    F.P.R POWER.

  • Rob

    LEET = Lattice Enabled Energy Technology
    (don’t mention the word Nuclear)

    • Barry II

      After admin cancel 10 my posts, it is better doing NO posts here

  • Sergio

    I think people here are confused. Rossi did not discover LENR, he may have simply been the one who first managed to make it useful, which is almost as important as discovering it, considering how long it took to make it useful.
    The effect should for now be known as anomalous heat effect, as first written by F&P, but the real name will be decided by those who most accurately describe the theory, and probably win the NPrize for it.

  • Sandy

    Fleischmann-Pons Effect
    Flei-Po Fusion

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The “all hat and no cattle” people have the pretentious names. So whatever it’s called, I hope it will be a simple name.

    • Ron

      I think it would be best to have something catchy yet relevant. I do like Cold Fusion for all the reasons Petrol outlined but I would also suggest calling it the Rossi Nucleation effect. I think his work, which unlike Pons, actually produced workable results and makes him deserving of it.

    • Alan DeAngelis


  • Jacob

    This is “St.Peter Phenomena”.
    St.Peter predicted 2000 year , “The time comes when the elements decompose”.

    • Roger Bird

      Buddha said that everything that is composed will decompose. He said that 600 years before St. Peter.

  • Chris

    Oh hell call it a tomato.

    Let’s at least avoid some bad choices:

    -It wasn’t discovered by Rossi, it wasn’t discovered by Focardi.

    -There’s no doubt quantum physics will be necessary to explain it but, wow, you can say the same about so many things –including anything nuclear.

  • Barry II

    as some analogy to “Maxwell Demon” so

    “Rossi Demon”

    • Jacob

      That is good name, I was suggesting “Heat Demon” but the name “Rossi Demon” is more convenient.

      • daniel maris

        I would personally prefer something with “capture” or similar in the title and which doesn’t summon up images of nuclear fission reactors in the minds of the public. For example:

        Net Energy Capture NEC
        Net Energy System NES
        Energy Particle Capture EPC

        This may be one of those instances where the name of the first big proprietary product gets lodged in people’s minds – like Hoover or Google.

        Hmmm…thinks…maybe it should have oo in it…. Zoogle Energy

  • barty

    Advanced Fleischmann Pons Effect – AFPE
    Advanced Fleischmann Pons Reaction – AFPR

    • “Advanced” is VERY GOOD… like the + of LENR+ (invention of P Gluck, talking of the powerful controlled LENR).
      Advanced, mean it works better, more strongly, is more controlable, less dangerous, more efficient, more, more, better, better…

      Reaction is much better that effect… it mean that you know what you do… a reaction, like chemical…

      however Fleischman&Pons, is not the best brand… maybe we should find a more scientific term to dedicate to those scientist…

      I would like

      Advanced Cold Fusion Reaction
      Advanced Cold Fusion Reactor
      Advanced Cold Fusion Boiler
      Advanced Cold Fusion Furnace
      Advanced Cold Fusion Power

      hey, my love, can you check the ACF please… it is a bit fresh this night…

      so Advanced Cold Fusion Reaction(alias NiH LENR+)
      is :
      – safe
      – sexi
      – inclusive
      – famous
      – modern
      – controllable
      – determined
      – more more more (safety, power, control, determined)

      I love that.

      • barty

        Yeah that sounds good, but “Cold Fusion” is also a negative burdened term, because the disaster 1989.

        What’s with:
        Advanced Quantum Mechanic Reaction
        Advanced Nickle Hydrogen Reaction

        Something what sounds realy new, whereof no one heared before, with no link to the declined “Cold Fusion”.

      • barty

        Or in addition to Bob Greenyer’s idea, something like
        Advanced Nano Fire – ANF
        Advanced Quantum Fire – AQF

        • freethinker

          I would go for something relating to lattice, as it appear to be tightly coupled to such structures. Also it appears to be hinged on distortions in tje lattice structure or by manipulating it with phonons or related quanta. So:
          Lattice Distortion Induced Nuclear Energy, LDINE.

          • Shhh – we need to lose the ‘N’ word….

          • freethinker

            what if we say nucleonic or just remove it all togerher 🙂 LDIE

          • Ivan Cevallos

            Latice Cracks effect, this will suit storms

          • Ivan Cevallos

            Most scientists, like Storms, Mckubre, Celani, etc talk about the effect being caused by defects in the environment, like Celani Wire and its nano sponge like structures in the surface of the wire.
            Now Rossi uses nano powder and a catalyst. Are this completely different effects. (in fissures the effect could be produced by resonance) in Power is just the big area? each grain has more provability of cracks?.
            I will love Rossi does a real demo like heating a Olympic size swimming pool, or just heat tanks of water, his twilight demos and reports are killing me.

          • CALL IT.
            Low-Energy Elemental Reaction Systems
            I think it will work….

      • Dan judd

        To me this reaction is akin to “Getting something from Nothing”. This is the definition of Creation. Seeing as the most significant part of this saga started in Greece I thought a Greek God or Goddess would do for the name of the reaction.The Goddess of creation is THESIS.

        The THESIS reation sound cool to me!

        I think we should also have the “Storm Reactor” after Dr Edmund Storms. I think his explanation of the effect is still the best.

        • Dan judd

          THESIS is good on a few levels.

          She first occurs alongside the Hydros (the primordial waters) and is also sometimes refered to as the “great Nurse” – mother of all.

          Can’t think of better description for the potential of this reaction.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            “Shazam!” effect


            “Proof of the Pudding”

        • daniel maris

          It’s not something for nothing.

        • Marc Stone

          Actually, if you must go Greek, I suggest Prometheus or Prometheus 2.0

          Thesis would make more sense with LENT.

          Cold Fusion is fine. That is what the media is going to call it anyways.

          As for new names…I liked “the new fire”

        • andreiko


        • GreenWin

          Dan, while your instinct is a good one – it is not “something from Nothing” as Daniel points out. We do know there is energy in abundance everywhere. The fact we have yet to identify the energy source in LENR does not mean it comes from nothing.

          • The effect is technologicaly similar to chemical hydrogenation, so NUCLEAR HYDROGENATION is fit parallel. Instead of molecule, a nucleus is hydrogenated, even with similar catalyst, and with probably identical first step(s): adsorption, chemisorption, dissociation etc. In essence, hydrogen nucleus is added to something else (H, D, He, Ni etc.). The name will suggest that chemical and nuclear reactions are obviously closer than we thought (and more in line with alchemists’ phylosophy).

  • Don J

    The public will adopt the name that brings the whole idea to mind regardless of its accuracy; cold fusion. Its got teeth. Marketing wise it instantly reaches deep into the mind and takes advantage of preexisting attitude that it is energy of the future. Joe public is a long way from understanding what lenr or the other terms mean. “The effect” should be the F&P effect when discribing how it it works. No one would argue that they are owed that recognition. When the mainstream news on this subject breaks, the term cold fusion would be the safe bet.

  • Barry II

    I our country is some new synthetic word “frikulin” as synthesis of
    Free & Cool & In

    So if energy will be virtually free and “cool” so “FreeCool”

  • Zvibenyosef

    I agree with others who say Pons Fleischmann effect. It would be one small way to recognize their sacrifice for the good of humanity.

  • GreenWin

    BTW, anyone notice the latest from Jet? “[The] answer is the development of quantum optical electronic components using lattice assisted nuclear reactions [LANR]. These have the ability to generate unlimited amounts of energy from water. It’s cheap and clean — without any environmentally destructive products.”

  • Cliff Bradley

    I think that if fusion of atoms actually is taking place, that it should be called “cold fusion” popularly and a more explicit scientific term once the theory is completely understood. So, I opt for two terms on for the masses and one for the scientists.

  • georgehants

    From the New York Times
    Published: September 3, 2012
    The Royal Society
    A Redoubt of Learning Holds Firm
    “Yet doubt of a more genteel sort lingers even among members. A current society fellow, an evolutionary biologist of fine repute who asked not to be quoted by name, says he greatly enjoys the conversation at the society’s dinners (he fortifies himself for the rounds of wine and port by drinking a quart of milk beforehand). But ask if the organization has much effect on the intellectual battles that roil his discipline, and he shakes his head.
    “I can’t say that the society is a great presence in my field,” he says. “It’s a challenge: How do you muck your way through and remain relevant?”
    At the beginning, the question facing society fellows was more elemental: How to challenge a worldview in place for thousands of years?”

  • georgehants

    Hydrotron Hydrotron ‏@Hydrotron_lab
    After a few weeks of rest we went back more stronger than ever!

  • Lemuel

    If he can ‘prove’ it….’Rossi’s Law’ (or Catalysm/Catalystic heat)

  • CFL (Cold Fusion Like): to respect the historical
    context of this excess of heat.

    • Since we are converting matter to energy and heat, let’s just call it “Evaporation”, something we already know and love.


      • richbo

        Fleischmann Effect

  • Morgan

    Cold Fusion to honor Fleischmann and Pons.

  • Jay

    Fleischmann-Pons effect which rightfully credits the two researchers that introduced the world to the phenomenon.

  • Tassyfrog

    How about CBBR ( coulomb barrier breaching reaction )

  • Omega Z

    A different take

    Call this field of Research- COLD FUSION-the P&F Effect.

    georgehants post- “Science will try to bury Cold Fusion behind some crazy complicated misnomer.”

    Got me to thinking. Mainstream Science will do exactly that. They will do everything they can to distance it from P&F work. To cover-up the Fact that they squashed this research & the careers of these 2 men 23+ years ago.

    This needs to be in your face shame on you! They shouldn’t be allowed to hide from this disgrace. They didn’t just say it doesn’t appear feasible or doesn’t work. This was a full scale onslaught of P&F and their work. A total cover up for their own personal gains. The Name shall remind People of Mainstream Science Shame!

    We, The People Must Never Forget!!!

    • Tassyfrog

      I agree with you that P&F were badly treated by the scientific community, but they jumped the gun when publishing results that could not be reproduced consistently by colleagues or peers. They could have continued researching until they achieved this and then published.
      We may have saved decades in the development of this technology.
      I release it is not as simple as this as “the system may have forced them to do this to try and get the prestige and funding by being first in the field”
      food for thought….

      • NJT

        Tassyfrog, their work was immediately replicated, successfully, by NASA and MIT. NASA hid the result and MIT Lied about it – shameful indeed!

        • Tassyfrog

          Didn’t know that, but not surprised. This sort of thing gives credence to the “new world order” conspiracy theory with those behind the scene controlling the flow of technology according to their agenda

    • Ivan Cevallos

      “F&P Anomalous heat effect”.
      Yes physicist discredited to retain funds. They even cover up successful replications, But the science of this heat is no yet understood, so for the time being this name should help to minimize conflict and interest the less closed minded scientists.
      Later when a theory is successfully proven the name could change to Anything, at the end of the day if is fusion will be called “Cold fusion”.
      But at the moment to be truthful is just an “Anomalous heat effect”.
      Some as Rossi even try to say is diff than F&P effect and that F&P only inspired their work. time will tell.
      Try to get the road with the least resistance. and the phenomena will gain general attention.

      • evleer

        What about calling it the FLAME (Forbidden Lattice Assisted anoMalous Energy) effect?

        ‘Forbidden’ because we all know what happened to F&P and efforts to research the effect up until this very day. I think it’s a nice touch to remind those, responsible for the suppression, in this subtle manner. After all, it’s shameful how they have misused their position to hold back progress.

        Also notice the metaphorical meaning: the flame of hope, holding the promise to ignite.. well, no need to elaborate on that.

        • MikkaMakka

          I like the concept behind the name!

    • Ivan Cevallos

      In the future a unit of this energy defined some how will be called Fleishmans.

      • Phil Lang

        Id like to call it the “QuarterMuffin” effect. Don’t know why.

  • Jacob

    “Rossi’s Demon”

  • Jim Johnson

    “Cold Fusion”

    It wasn’t F&P’s name (see below), however it will be forever linked to them, as it should be. Someone else pointed out on this blog that the semantic sense of the two words is quite, controlled power. That will appeal to the marketing people. The press will choose Cold Fusion *because* of the controversy. Any hold-back scientists can eat raw muons, for all their opinion will matter.

    Wikipedia, “Cold Fusion”:

    In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 out-of-pocket.[23] The grant proposal was turned over for peer review, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University.[23] Jones had worked for some time on muon-catalyzed fusion, a known method of inducing nuclear fusion without high temperatures, and had written an article on the topic entitled “Cold nuclear fusion” that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in Utah to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable “excess energy”, in the sense that it could not be explained by chemical reactions alone.[22] They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to patent protection. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.[23] To avoid future problems, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, though their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.[24]

  • CALL IT.
    Low-Energy Elemental Reaction Systems

    • CALL IT.
      Low-Energy Elemental Reaction Systems

  • KeySmash

    CERN – Controlled Electron Capture Reaction – GO Brillouin~!!!

  • Levi Strauss

    I’d say “COLD FUSION” is as good as any name because the anomaly has not been properly diagnosed as yet. Besides, just like a lot of other phenomenon, one of these days, the relevant society will decide to honor one of their own , the name will change and it will become the “peafob unit” or something else that Hurtz the tongue. ‘;-)

  • I agree with others who have said that ‘cold fusion’ will most likely be the popular name, while a new formal term will be needed to describe all varieties of ‘CF’ and CF-like reactions – the new science occupying a space between chemistry and nuclear physics.

    I like ‘nucleonic’ (also suggested by Freethinker earlier). It’s already occasionally used to mean ‘in connection with nuclear (fission)’ but deserves a rebirth, as in ‘nucleonic energy’ or ‘nucleonics’ for the field of study.

  • jeffsmathers

    Debunkers Energy Paradigm Failure

    • Kevin O

      Hydrogen Adsorption Low Temperature Lattice Assisted Pons Fleischmann Heat Effect Reactor

      He who lafphs lasts, laughs loudest

      • Tony


  • G. E. Start

    Coulomb Field Conversion