Rossi: Let’s Switch from LENR to QUAR

We’ve been discussing the appropriate name for ‘the reaction’ for some time now, and a recent thread here suggested the need for taking the world ‘Nuclear’ out of any label that is used as it could have negative connotations to many people who are wary about nuclear energy mainly because safety reasons. If this technology starts to make news, there could be some headwinds to fight from nuclear energy opponents who could raise concerns about the safety of ‘new nuclear’ energy.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics DT Travchenko asked:

Dr Rossi:
What do you think about the proposal of Mr Estri to change the definition “LENR” into “QUAR” ( Quantum Reactions)?
Warm Regards,
DT

Andrea Rossi responded:

DTravchenko:
Yes, I think is a very good idea, also to take off from LENR the pressure of the “N” letter. Semanthics sometimes count. I will try from now to spell QUAR instead of LENR, and this will be a contribution of the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Therefore: the next Authors are gently invited to use the definition QUAR instead of LENR. Let’s see what happens.
Thank you for your comment,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

There have been lots of names proposed, and so far the ones that have really stuck have been ‘cold fusion’ and LENR. I would have expected them to stay at the head of the pack, but if Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat are leading the way in this field and he starts to use this term, it might catch on — especially if he can get Industrial Heat to start using the term in its publicity materials (assuming they will at some point establish a public presence)

A ‘Quantum Reaction’ is rather a harmless label in my opinion, and I think it sounds sufficiently futuristic and exotic to be applied to a new form of energy. The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s web site is called quantumheat.org, which is similar to this proposed label. Rossi seems to be satisfied that the source of the E-Cat’s energy is generated at the quantum level, so the QUAR label could be an accurate one, too.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I don’t know, that name sounds a little QUAR to me.
    A very QUAR choice indeed.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I don’t know, that name sounds a little QUAR to me. If Rossi wants to refer to it as quantum, he should just call it quantum. This is a very QUAR choice indeed.

    Here are some alternative acronyms which might also be candidates for quarantine, supply your own words.
    BIZAR
    WERD
    FRKY
    OD
    STRNG

    I don’t think the acronym is has appropriate connotations in the English language, it is a little to close to queer.
    ____________________________________________________
    queer
    kwi(ə)r
    adjective
    1.
    strange; odd.
    “she had a queer feeling that they were being watched”
    synonyms: odd, strange, unusual, funny, peculiar, curious, bizarre, weird, uncanny, freakish, eerie, unnatural
    antonyms: normal
    dated
    slightly ill.
    ____________________________________________________

    quare (kwɛə)

    — adj
    1. remarkable or strange: a quare fellow
    2. great or good: you’re in a quare mess

    [probably variant of queer ]
    ____________________________________________________

  • Show us a working reactor that produces cheap, non-polluting power and you can all it what you want. For my money I prefer Cold Fusion to honor the old CF pioneers and to remind scientist that curiosity is at the heart of good science.

    • Frank Acland

      Approvd

  • mcloki

    Cool QUAR

  • mcloki

    Cool QUAR

  • ecatworld

    Approvd

  • Rob Lewis

    Meh. We’ve got quantum dots, quantum computers, quantum fields. I don’t have an alternative suggestion but this seems too vague and even a bit presumptuous, since apparently nobody actually knows what (if anything) is going on.

    No offense to Rossi, but he may not be the ideal person to make this determination.

  • Rob Lewis

    Meh. We’ve got quantum dots, quantum computers, quantum fields. I don’t have an alternative suggestion but this seems too vague and even a bit presumptuous, since apparently nobody actually knows what (if anything) is going on.

    No offense to Rossi, but he may not be the ideal person to make this determination.

  • Jim Anderson

    I think another name is a good idea. Low energy nuclear reactions also implies that the energy you get is at a low level which is not true and allows the uninformed to believe the energy that comes from the process is not significant.

  • Buck

    QUAR = QUantum Anomaly Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Anomalous Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Amassed Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Aggregation Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Accumulation Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Accretion Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Agglomeration Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Additive Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum hArmonic Reaction
    QUAR = QUantum Andrea rossi Reaction

    It works for me.

  • fact police

    It’s silly. Chemical reactions (including ordinary combustion) are quantum reactions too.

  • Fortyniner

    ‘Quantum’ is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) as ‘A discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents’ – a specific meaning that may or may not be relevant to the reactions we have been referring to as CF and LENR (unless of course Rossi knows better).

    However, until some more is understood about the mechanisms concerned, the terms LENR and ‘cold fusion’ may also turn out to be inappropriate (who knows, the energy may come from some entirely unexpected source, or even from ‘hydrino’ formation).

    Maybe each device should just be referred to by it’s inventor’s name for the time being – i.e., the Rossi Thermal Reactor or similar in this case. I’m sure that the man himself wouldn’t object.

    • GreenWin

      Leaving aside a certain PM, many Brits exhibit a magnetic personality to this very day.

      • Fibb

        QR is better imo than QUAR. i dont want to say “quar” or Q U A R

      • Fortyniner

        The species is not yet entirely extinct in Yankland, either!

  • ‘Quantum’ is defined (Oxford English Dictionary) as ‘A discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents’ – a specific meaning that may or may not be relevant to the reactions we have been referring to as CF and LENR (unless of course Rossi knows better).

    However, until some more is understood about the mechanisms concerned, the terms LENR and ‘cold fusion’ may also turn out to be inappropriate (who knows, the energy may come from some entirely suspected source, or even from ‘hydrino’ formation).

    Maybe each device should just be referred to by it’s inventor’s name for the time being – i.e., the Rossi Thermal Reactor or just the Rossi Reactor in this case. I’m sure that the man himself wouldn’t object.

    On edit: As Rob Lewis says below, the term quantum is already overused, and in any case appears to be attached to every ‘new age’ product out there, in much the same way that Victorian advertisers beat the word ‘magnetic’ to death in their enthusiasm for the new and shiny.

    • GreenWin

      Leaving aside a certain PM, many Brits exhibit a magnetic personality to this very day.

      • The species is not yet entirely extinct in Yankland, either.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Quietly Underneath Academia’s Radar

    Then we can call it Cold Fusion.

    • Alan DeAngelis
    • SFOC

      Scientific Fiasco Of the Century

      • or rather
        AAAFOC
        American Advanced Academic Fiasco Of the Century

        or better
        ILFOCU

        Ivy League Fiasco Of the Century Unleashed

        about fiasco, did you know that Gary Taubes is now making conference on science ethic… in biology…

        please dear US citizen, try to toast those academic parasites with smear campaign when things will be unavoidable.

        • Alan DeAngelis
          • it seems to have much success. like… no I won’t dare…

            to understand how nasty and incompetent was that guy, read

            that article of Jed on titanic & CF myths:

            http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

            Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity. He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, “say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.”

            This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot.
            Taubes wrote his book using the same methods employed by sensation-mongering reporters in 1912: he pieced together second-hand rumors and made wild guesses about a subject he does not understand. He described his methods in the introduction, footnotes, and appendices. The book is based upon interviews and telephone conversations with 257 people, listed in an appendix. He spoke with seventeen people who actually performed experiments. Four of the seventeen are implacable enemies of cold fusion, including the authors of the three famous “negative” experiments. Most of the remaining 240 are critics like Frank Close and William Happer, who deplore cold fusion, and have staked their reputations on its demise.

            They have attacked it in the mass media, the ERAB report, and in books. Although more than a thousand peer-reviewed papers were published by the time Taubes wrote the book, he did not reference a single one of them in the footnotes. His descriptions of the experiments are wildly at variance with the facts, in major and minor details, so it seems unlikely that he read a paper. Describing an experiment is an exacting task, even when you understand electricity, you read the paper, visit the lab, and ask the experimenter to review your description. When a scientifically illiterate person tries to imagine how an experiment works based on allegations made by people who despise the research, indescribable confusion and distortion result. Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.

            *

            you can also have few data on him and others variant of dumb and dumber in Excess Heat http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

            the most nasty comment was from Ed Storms on Taubes and Huizenga

            “By 1993, Gary Taubes had published his very negative and occasionally inaccurate book “Bad Science, the Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion” and John Huizenga published the first edition of “Cold Fusion, The Scientific Fiasco of the Century.” The debate was shifting strongly in favor of a skeptical attitude in the press, with most articles following the lead provided by these two authors. A myth was now firmly in place and rejection of the field was assured. Researchers in the field who were claiming positive results experienced growing hostility and active censorship by their superiors. As Taubes made clear to me, he did not know and did not care if cold fusion were real or not. He only wanted an interesting story that would make him enough money to do what he really wanted to do, which was to write plays for Broadway. As a result, the book made no effort to be fair or even accurate in many important ways—it was designed to sell. On the other hand, Huizenga, as a competent scientist and teacher, is certain that the view of nature he had mastered and taught to his students is correct. He was not about to change his mind, especially while so many questions remain unanswered. The basic characteristics of these two authors provide a good example of why facts about cold fusion were and continue to be distorted. Self-interest and arrogant ego continue to influence how the field is being presented to the public….

            Beaudette books have similar commentes on taube’s book :

            http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=349

            “Taubes’s Book

            Taubes assumed the establishment attitude that there was no such thing as excess heat. This assumption leads to the conclusion that each report of a successful experiment must be the result of either incompetence or fraud. His writing necessarily produced a classic muckraking investigation. Taubes displays this attitude most clearly by referring to the lack of neutrons commensurate with the heat as an admission on the part of Fleischmann and Pons.

            Taubes had published an article prior to the appearance of his book asserting that scientific fraud had been committed in a cold fusion research laboratory at Texas A&M University at College Station, Texas.

            Taubes wrote an article about this for Science. In it, the suggestion was advanced that the tritium in Bockris’s laboratory was coming not from incidental contamination or electrolytic enrichment from the heavy water, as his critics claimed, but from the deliberate addition of tritium from a laboratory supply of tritiated water, in other words, fraud.

            The story is developed further in his book. A finger is pointed at Nigel Packham, a graduate student who was responsible for supervising the cells in question. The only evidence offered was that the tritium generation events seemed to be timed coincident with contract funding renewal intervals. The school conducted an inquiry and exonerated everyone involved. Certainly, the school’s inquiry was superficial, but then Taubes offers us no substantial evidence either. So the matter was a tempest in a teapot but with much collateral destruction.

            Fleischmann demonstrated with a drop of red dye how well the contents of his flask was mixed by the bubbling action. Taubes comments on that demonstration as follows. “The demonstration was impressive; however, it was bogus . . . The temperature gradient in the flasks simply had nothing to do with what could be called the red dye gradient.” The video demonstration of how the dye quickly mixed was much more persuasive for the critics. One of them realized that the outside of the liquid was well insulated by the vacuum of the Dewar flask to allow the rapid mixing to eliminate temperature gradients.

            Taubes’s argument on this matter led to another question: the responsibilities of the experimentalist and the skeptic. He said at one point, “It was no longer a scientist’s responsibility to defend his research but the scientific community’s task to defend its criticism. Cold fusion existed until proven otherwise.” Not at all. Defense of the research would come from replication of its results in at least one independent laboratory within the first six months.

            This review of Taubes’s book completes our presentation of what the skeptics had to say during the first six years. In all, they were successful. Their outspoken and oblique comments maintained the field of cold fusion studies in an intellectual ghetto.

            This man is toxic. we should judge him in ICC.

            His book should be reprinted fro free, and given to all students, to show what is unethical writing and bad science.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            The Orwellian memory hole regurgitates!

  • Christopher Calder

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with LENR. Once you explain to people that this technology is non-radioactive and inherently nontoxic, they won’t care what you call it. The problem now is not that people are afraid of LENR. The problem is they don’t think that it actually works. They think that it is a scam. All we need to do is prove that it works and the name won’t matter. LENR is more honest and understandable than QUAR.

  • I don’t think there is anything wrong with LENR. Once you explain to people that this technology is non-radioactive and inherently nontoxic, they won’t care what you call it. The problem now is not that people are afraid of LENR. The problem is they don’t think that it actually works. They think that it is a scam. All we need to do is prove that it works and the name won’t matter. LENR is more honest and understandable than QUAR.

  • peter gluck

    More interpretations possible, it si difficult to judge what Rossi says (I have explained the reasons for this difficulty here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/an-uptodated-swot-analysis-of-e-cat-for.html
    As regarding the QUAR issue-
    most positive interpretation- Rossi knows from the results the reports of the
    professors what the reactions in the e-Cats are and it is about something much greater
    than LENR, not entirely nuclear etc
    most negative interpretation QUAR is just a word in search of meanings

    Peter

  • peter gluck

    More interpretations possible, it si difficult to judge what Rossi says (I have explained the reasons for this difficulty here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/an-uptodated-swot-analysis-of-e-cat-for.html
    As regarding the QUAR issue-
    most positive interpretation- Rossi knows from the results the reports of the
    professors what the reactions in the e-Cats are and it is about something much greater
    than LENR, not entirely nuclear etc
    most negative interpretation QUAR is just a word in search of meanings

    Peter

    • Guru

      Dear Peter,

      last few years I have hypothesis, that no Rossi and now even no third party team professors know “what the reactions in the E-Cats are”. These reactions are simply out of logic and out of all knowing laws, impossible to explain.

      Nevertheless it is great progress, that after few years of crowd ranting about need of more moderate label then “nuclear”, even maestro comply with this.

  • Manuel Cruz

    The kharmic justice would be to call it cold fusion or LERN, so that the politicians, lobbies and societies that have badmouthed and sabotaged nuclear research for many decades are the last ones to benefit from them, if at all. A society that doesn’t like the word nuclear shouldn’t be tricked to use it, anyways.

    Even if calling the technology QUAR is correct from a marketing viewpoint, I think in that case it would be better to keep calling the invention “E-Cat” and the underlying reaction “Rossi effect” because these are words that have been used in the last years and already point to articles about it.

    I personally will keep using the previous terms as they are easier to pronounce.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah Manuel, and the thing is that it would be dangerous if the shielding came off. We put big signs saying “Flammable” where we store gasoline. I don’t think it’s analogues to the change of NMR to MIR because NMR is completely safe. I think LENR is still a good name because the public has to have some idea of what’s happening in the reactor. They have to have some respect for the device. Haven’t we dumbed down the people enough?

    • I agree with kharmic justice. I propose 3 names.

      the popular name, today a jobe, is Cold Fusion, and should be kept to remind to the population what the academic have done.

      LENR is a technical name that have acquired some notoriety. it is a good brand, except that it is hard to pronounce. like x-ray, mri, people will learn…

      E-cat may became the popular name for the machines, like Velcro, Frigidaire, PC,

      for me it is bad to try a rebranding.
      we have good notoriety with Cold Fusion, LENR, E-cat, in various circles and contexts, let’s use it.

  • Manuel Cruz

    The kharmic justice would be to call it cold fusion or LERN, so that the politicians, lobbies and societies that have badmouthed and sabotaged nuclear research for many decades are the last ones to benefit from them, if at all. A society that doesn’t like the word nuclear shouldn’t be tricked to use it, anyways.

    Even if calling the technology QUAR is correct from a marketing viewpoint, I think in that case it would be better to keep calling the invention “E-Cat” and the underlying reaction “Rossi effect” because these are words that have been used in the last years and already point to articles about it.

    I personally will keep using the previous terms as they are easier to pronounce.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah Manuel, and the thing is that it would be dangerous if the shielding came off. We put big signs saying “Flammable” where we store gasoline. I don’t think it’s analogues to the change of NMR to MIR because NMR is completely safe. I think LENR is still a good name because the public has to have some idea of what’s happening in the reactor. They have to have some respect for the device. Haven’t we dumbed down the people enough?

      • bachcole

        But we are not even positive if it is nuclear or not. It almost certainly involves quantum tunneling.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          But I don’t think there’s enough hydrogen in the reactor for it to be a chemical reaction (like the mechanism BLP proposed).

    • I agree with kharmic justice. I propose 3 names.

      the popular name, today a jobe, is Cold Fusion, and should be kept to remind to the population what the academic have done.

      LENR is a technical name that have acquired some notoriety. it is a good brand, except that it is hard to pronounce. like x-ray, mri, people will learn…

      E-cat may became the popular name for the machines, like Velcro, Frigidaire, PC,

      for me it is bad to try a rebranding.
      we have good notoriety with Cold Fusion, LENR, E-cat, in various circles and contexts, let’s use it.

    • clovis ray

      I totally agree,the QUAR just does not fall of the tongue very well, i will still stick with E or hot cat, for the device, and Rossi Effect for the anomaly.

  • nickec

    QUAR = quantum assisted reaction.

  • I’ve been an advocate for the “Quantum” label for a long time. It’s a Quantum Reaction not a Nuclear one. Quantum Energy and Quantum Reaction – terminologies that are more succinct and appropiate.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    If someone says that there is a nuclear reaction taking place in the E-Cat, we’ll just call them a “conspiracy theorist”. That always works. (and the APS would like that).

  • Alan DeAngelis

    If someone says that there is a nuclear reaction taking place in the E-Cat, we’ll just call them a “conspiracy theorist”. That always works. (and the APS would like that).

  • RogerKnights

    I suggest QUANR (or QUANRE), because it’s more pronounceable, more self-explanatory, and less “odd” sounding.

    PS–Or maybe QRAC. It’s very pronounceable; Q suggests quantum and RAC suggests reaction.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Q.E.D. would be much better.
    __________________________________________________________________________
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

    “Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, originating from the Greek analogous hóper édei deîxai (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι), meaning “which had to be demonstrated”. The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of amathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out—has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.”
    __________________________________________________________________________

    And no I was not referring to Quantum Electro Dynamics or Quantum Erectile Dysfunction.

    • GreenWin

      QED. Amazing what can happen at the nano-scale. A very interesting suggestion, Ophelia. Although we have yet to confirm the completion of proof. In a couple CF theories we are seeing the importance of an “open” system affirming fluctuations in the virtual vacuum. The free energy folks call it Zero Point. When we build a boundary portal from a “closed” system to an “open” one, e.g. as appears in the <50nm crystal lattices — we create a relativistic differential between virtual (open) and manifest (closed) systems. It is the transition of matter between these differences in space-time, that yields most open system effects.

      I like cold fusion. But IHOT is a thought. It's Hot Out There.

      • Ophelia Rump

        It is in keeping with Rossi’s philosophy.
        The device is the proof. Here it is Q.E.D.
        It does not matter what it is, the proof simply is that “it is”.

    • bachcole

      I used to put “Q.E.D.W” at the end of my solved Analytical Trigonometry problems when I was going to college. My teacher was a very humorless sort of person. One day he asked me what it meant. “Quite Elementary, Dr. Watson”. He didn’t think that it was cute or funny. He thought that I was a slacker, even thought I got an ‘A’ on the final. (:->)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    This is what the hot fusion people have been trying to do for 60 years!
    We should be calling it leNUCLEARr!

    I can see it’s time for that pep talk again.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x156uvg_patton-s-opening-speech-to-the-troops-george-c-scott_shortfilms

  • Alan DeAngelis

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    This is what the hot fusion people have been trying to do for 60 years!
    We should be calling it leNUCLEARr!

    I can see it’s time for that pep talk again.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x156uvg_patton-s-opening-speech-to-the-troops-george-c-scott_shortfilms

    • bachcole

      <> I do like Patton’s attitude when it comes to skeptopaths.

      • mike

        lol. Skeptopaths? That is so perfect.

        • RogerKnights

          I agree. I also like my neologism, “scoftics.”

          • bachcole

            I like that too.

          • RogerKnights

            Spread it around!

  • bachcole

    The only problem I see with QUAR is the there are probably several other reactions, perhaps, than just the Rossi effect.

    • mike

      One man knows what is happening in his generator. Mills. hydrino theory, It really doesn’t matter if rossi’s generator works. He can’t explain the process yet. Mills went the route from theory to device. I mean, if mills is right, we need nothing else because he has the theory to explain it.

      • Omega Z

        “He can’t explain the process yet.”

        More like he just Wont explain the process at this time.
        Rossi/IH have placed a 1Mw pilot plant into operation, so this would be a major indication that they have a reasonable understanding of the process.

        Ultimately, the mainstream Scientists will have a major say as to if any of these players have it precisely defined. This will likely take years.

        From your post, you appear to greatly underestimate Rossi’s intellect. Add to that, all his trial & error which can greatly enhance ones understanding of a theory & improve it. Theory alone proves nothing until it’s put to test.

        Rossi has also had the benefit of working with Focardi as well as others yet unnamed. Even if Rossi has short comings, It is not Rossi alone. It is a Group Effort.

        I’ll add this. Tho I favor Rossi, I want many players to succeed in this technology. First is for competition. Without competition, Greed can & Likely will rule. For another, we do not know which technology will be best suited for different uses. It’s also wise to have a variety of technologies. It prevents any 1 entity or Nation to gain a strangle hold over others.

  • Curbina

    If even for just a marketing issue, I am cool with the new acronym proposed, is catchy and easy to pronounce, I just would point out that it can be easily used to construct dismissive mockery as “QUAckeRy” which I’m sure I’m not the first to have think of it. However, As Cold Fusion is already too negatively loaded, and LENR has the “N” word, I think we should all embrace QUAR and let it develop from now on.

  • bachcole

    Perhaps Frank could start poll to see what people like. Frank-ly, I am not that crazy about QUAR.

  • Ronzonni

    I know I may be in the minority but it seems to me that it would not hurt to wait until a product is on the market or a customer is revealed or a mainstream organization does an official positive test and the press publishes it. Then, naming becomes relevant. For the moment, I am not sure it matters what the process is called. LENR seems just fine and general enough. Why muddy the waters?

    • Ophelia Rump

      I agree with you. Let their marketing people sort it out later.

      They have to research the meaning in every language to make sure it does not mean smoking hole in the ground in Latvian or some other dreadful thing.

    • Omega Z

      Maybe the reason for a label change is due to the fact that it “IS” about to go public. So it is now relevant.

  • Ronzonni

    I know I may be in the minority but it seems to me that it would not hurt to wait until a product is on the market or a customer is revealed or a mainstream organization does an official positive test and the press publishes it. Then, naming becomes relevant. For the moment, I am not sure it matters what the process is called. LENR seems just fine and general enough. Why muddy the waters?

    • Ophelia Rump

      I agree with you. Let their marketing people sort it out later.

      They have to research the meaning in every language to make sure it does not mean smoking hole in the ground in Latvian or some other dreadful thing.

      • bachcole

        It will be too late by then. In fact, I believe that it is already too late to change it.

    • Omega Z

      Maybe the reason for a label change is due to the fact that it “IS” about to go public. So it is now relevant.

  • Fibb

    QR is better imo than QUAR. i dont want to say “quar” or Q U A R

    • bachcole

      Quantum Reaction, QR. This is better than QUAR. (:->)

  • Asterix

    QUAR (not to be confused with German “quer” (crosswise, askance, diagonally), presupposes that the effect is quantum and is understood to be quantum in nature. Note that the good folks at quantumheat have yet to demonstrate the Celani effect conclusively.

  • Asterix

    QUAR (not to be confused with German “quer” (crosswise, askance, diagonally), presupposes that the effect is quantum and is understood to be quantum in nature. Note that the good folks at quantumheat have yet to demonstrate the Celani effect conclusively.

  • Fibb

    QR is better imo than QUAR. i dont want to say “quar” or Q U A R.

  • Chris I

    I don’t think it’s a good idea at all. Any kind of fission, fusion, radioctive decay or other transmutation is very essentially quantum physics. It’s as if folks wanting a new name for Granny Smith apples suggested calling the variety Apple. Actually, it’s even worse, as if they suggested Fruit.

  • Chris, Italy

    I don’t think it’s a good idea at all. Any kind of fission, fusion, radioctive decay or other transmutation is very essentially quantum physics. It’s as if folks wanting a new name for Granny Smith apples suggested calling the variety Apple. Actually, it’s even worse, as if they suggested Fruit.

    P. S. …and it’s rather amusing that Rossi talks about the need to avoid the N-word on his very own Journal Of N-word Physics…

    • bachcole

      I love clarity of thought. You get a gold star tonight, Chris I.

  • Gary W. Scott

    “Soft Fusion” A friend of mine proposed the term “Soft Fusion”. I was explaining the theory proposed by Edmund Storms of the long term vibration coupling of the spinning hydrogen atoms as they fuse together in nano-sized surface cracks of nickel . Its opposite of Hot or “Hard Fusion” that requires brute force kinetic energy to slam nuclei together.

    • quite good. It remember the comment…
      cold fusion is seduction instead of rape.

      if you hear Ed vision it looks more like a hippy concert, group fusion.

    • MLTC

      I like the term soft fusion. I hadn’t heard of it until now.

  • Gary W. Scott

    “Soft Fusion” A friend of mine proposed the term “Soft Fusion”. I was explaining the theory proposed by Edmund Storms of the long term vibration coupling of the spinning hydrogen atoms as they fuse together in nano-sized surface cracks of nickel . Its opposite of Hot or “Hard Fusion” that requires brute force kinetic energy to slam nuclei together.

    • quite good. It remember the comment…
      cold fusion is seduction instead of rape.

      if you hear Ed vision it looks more like a hippy concert, group fusion.

    • MLTC

      I like the term soft fusion. I hadn’t heard of it until now.

    • bachcole

      Nice!

  • JonathanD

    CFIT (Cold Fusion Inspired Technology) This
    name would pay homage to the history of the efforts and encompass most if not
    all of the efforts. Companies will come up with their own names for various
    systems.

    • Barry8

      I like it.

  • JonathanD

    CFIT (Cold Fusion Inspired Technology) This
    name would pay homage to the history of the efforts and encompass most if not
    all of the efforts. Companies will come up with their own names for various
    systems.

    • I like it.

      • Sau

        Bad choice
        CFIT in aviation means
        Controlled flight into terrain

        • Omega Z

          Controlled flight into terrain

          Layman definition. “Crash”

  • fritz194

    I agree but think this proposal comes too late.
    lets see…..

  • fritz194

    I agree but think this proposal comes too late.
    lets see…..

  • Verify Truth Still Exist

    Everything in nature is quantum reactions. I would suggest instead to rename it into what it really is and be more precise then as now, less.

  • Andrew

    The name doesn’t matter. Spin doctors will spin. First thing they will reference when trying to detract are cold fusion and LENR. Cold fusion is already been proven bogus and the nuclear aspect of LENR. Calling it by another name won’t change a thing.

  • David

    So what the heck does QUAR stand for?

    • MLTC

      Quality Unsurpassed Andrea Rossi? 😛

  • Andrew

    The name doesn’t matter. Spin doctors will spin. First thing they will reference when trying to detract are cold fusion and LENR. Cold fusion is already been proven bogus and the nuclear aspect of LENR. Calling it by another name won’t change a thing.

    • bachcole

      I agree. This is why I like “cold fusion”. I want it to be as embarrassing and shocking to the skeptopaths as possible. I have an agenda; cause a revolution in thought such that philosophically nimble thinking will be appreciated and people will learn to think for themselves and stop worshiping the authority figures.

      • Andrew

        I agree. The mainstream can call it fluffy white bunny reactions and I will forever call it cold fusion.

  • mike

    One man knows what is happening in his generator. Mills. hydrino theory, It really doesn’t matter if rossi’s generator works. He can’t explain the process yet. Mills went the route from theory to device. I mean, if mills is right, we need nothing else because he has the theory to explain it.

    • Omega Z

      “He can’t explain the process yet.”

      More like he just Wont explain the process at this time.
      Rossi/IH have placed a 1Mw pilot plant into operation, so this would be a major indication that they have a reasonable understanding of the process.

      Ultimately, the mainstream Scientists will have a major say as to if any of these players have it precisely defined. This will likely take years.

      From your post, you appear to greatly underestimate Rossi’s intellect. Add to that, all his trial & error which can greatly enhance ones understanding of a theory & improve it. Theory alone proves nothing until it’s put to test.

      Rossi has also had the benefit of working with Focardi as well as others yet unnamed. Even if Rossi has short comings, It is not Rossi alone. It is a Group Effort.

      I’ll add this. Tho I favor Rossi, I want many players to succeed in this technology. First is for competition. Without competition, Greed can & Likely will rule. For another, we do not know which technology will be best suited for different uses. It’s also wise to have a variety of technologies. It prevents any 1 entity or Nation to gain a strangle hold over others.

  • mike

    lol. Skeptopaths? That is so perfect.

  • mike

    OMG, I don’t velieve it. I am on an lenr forum and I don’t see the usual we are all uneducated dupes comments or they are frauds comments. This LENR is really happening. The thing is you really can’t give it a proper name as we are guesing. lol Might as well name it quantum something as they’ve been guessing for 70 some odd years now. hehe

  • mike

    OMG, I don’t velieve it. I am on an lenr forum and I don’t see the usual we are all uneducated dupes comments or they are frauds comments. This LENR is really happening. The thing is you really can’t give it a proper name as we are guesing. lol Might as well name it quantum something as they’ve been guessing for 70 some odd years now. hehe

  • QUAR – Im not convinced
    I think ill stay with Cold Fusion a bit longer

  • QUAR – Im not convinced
    I think ill stay with Cold Fusion a bit longer

  • MLTC

    Quality Unsurpassed Andrea Rossi? 😛

  • MLTC

    What should I now do with my LENR tattoo? 😛

  • Alan DeAngelis

    But I don’t think there’s enough hydrogen in the reactor for it to be a chemical reaction (like the mechanism BLP proposed).

  • Sandy

    Exothermic Reactions in Lattice Discontinuities; ERLaD (pronounced: air lad)

    This name does not include the “N” word and it does not make an assertion about the kind of reaction that is taking place, only that the reaction has been observed to be “exothermic”.

    • Curbina

      That one is very nice, but it still assumes that the lattice has something to do.

  • Sandy

    Exothermic Reactions in Lattice Discontinuities; ERLaD (pronounced: air lad)

    This name does not include the “N” word and it does not make an assertion about the kind of reaction that is taking place, only that the reaction has been observed to be “exothermic”.

    • Curbina

      That one is very nice, but it still assumes that the lattice has something to do.

  • MMK

    Quantum term is based on man’s observations, perhaps due to our low resolution instruments and senses, things in the tiny world have been perceived as dots. Hell knows they maynot be dots at all in the future and they will call these something else.

  • Facepalm

    “Frank Acland
    August 10th, 2014 at 2:36 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    Interesting discussion about a label for your energy source. I would
    suggest that just as LENR is an acronym for Low Energy Nuclear
    Reactions, it would be better to use QR for Quantum Reactions (easier to
    say, too!)

    Also, I think if you want any label to stick you, and Industrial
    Heat, would need to make a coordinated effort to use it in official
    communications. Even then, the media will probably be the ones who will
    determine the common name for this reaction.

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland”

    “Andrea Rossi
    August 10th, 2014 at 2:42 PM
    Frank Acland:

    You are right.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.”

    Okay, QR from now on.

    • hempenearth

      National Instruments would be on board with “Quantum Reactions” given that Dr James Truchard suggested it back in 2012.
      Also, for property managers, it is easier to sell “a quantum reactor” in the plant room than “a nuclear reactor”.

  • RogerKnights

    “Low Energy Fusion” blends or mashes Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Cold Fusion, so it builds on the past, which is something in its favor.

  • Barry8

    To disassociate from the term Cold Fusion takes a knife to the 20 year history and to the CF veterans who have carried the torch and were often ridiculed. I like what Rossi is doing but he has not been a team player. Mitchell Swartz invited him to MIT and Rossi refused. I think Rossi would also admit he has benefited from the Cold Fusion/ LENR collective. Calling it something new makes it sound like a new technology. Besides, on his Ecat web-site ecat.com, it says “Ecat, Cold Fusion Revoulution”.

  • To disassociate from the term Cold Fusion takes a knife to the 20 year history and to the CF veterans who have carried the torch and were often ridiculed. I like what Rossi is doing but he has not been a team player. Mitchell Swartz invited him to MIT and Rossi refused. I think Rossi would also admit he has benefited from the Cold Fusion/ LENR collective. Calling it something new makes it sound like a new technology. Besides, on his Ecat web-site ecat.com, it says “Ecat, Cold Fusion Revoulution”.

  • Andy Kumar

    We need to honor the inventor. How about Rossi Effect Heater.

  • Broncobet

    Remember the movie “The Saint?” The central premise was some one stealing Cold Fusion, what a rich irony if it turns out to work and the movie was more correct than middle of the road scientific thought? Three cheers for Cold Fusion.

  • Broncobet

    Frank I don’t know if this would work but… I have stated a few times that financial markets ie oil,coal,and natural gas futures would be a good predictor of when those in the know thought cold fusion would become disruptive. Couldn’t you make some extra cash by having an advise column, or little blurb running once every few days from some one from the futures market who would pay you because with the exposure, some readers of these blogs may want to make a few bets on energy prices? Personally I haven’t looked (I have no money to bet) but I’m sure financial markets act like LENR was never created however every thing is subject to change.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Warm fusion

  • Obvious

    Just call it a heater. That’s what is and does.

    • Fortyniner

      ‘Catalytic heater’ or ‘nickel-hydrogen catalytic heater’ might be boring enough to carry the system under the radar. I guess the style of a new name would depend on whether IH’s strategy will be to make a splash or to gradually introduce CF into the energy mix with minimum fuss and attention.

  • Obvious

    Just call it a heater. That’s what is and does.

    • ‘Catalytic heater’ or ‘nickel-hydrogen catalytic heater’ might be boring enough to carry the system under the radar. I guess the style of a new name would depend on whether IH’s strategy will be to make a splash or to gradually introduce CF into the energy mix through the back door, with minimum fuss and attention.

  • jousterusa

    Quantum Reactor” sounds great, but I agree it undercuts the legacy of two great men, Pons & Fleischmann. Do we really need to do that? The benefit of the name cold fusion is that many millions of people have heard of it, and millions have watched the “60 Minutes” segment and realize it is in resurgence. Perhaps the two terms do not have to be mutually exclusive, since the technology is not. One issue wth QR: Quantum physicists still deny the possibility of this technology actually producing anomalous heat in a useful fashion.

    • Omega Z

      Quantum Reaction, Not Reactor, tho the later could apply to the E-cat reactor core if this should be an accurate description of the Rossi Effect.

      This brings up the subject as to Rossi actually accepting this acronym over LENR. This is a change from his past responses to change. Could it be that he sees this as more accurate due to his understanding of the Rossi Effect. I’d also note he seems to apply this to LENR in General. Not just the E-cat. According to his latest post on the subject.

      Like most, I like the CF designation for the same reason others likely do. A finger in the Eye of those who unfairly attacked & brutalized Pons & Fleischmann. This can still be done by connecting dots. Just requires more effort.

  • Scotty

    DILR = Dilithium reactor

  • Gerard McEk

    The real process that causes heat is probably transmutation. That is why I would call it Transmutation Reactor or TRAR. If I were the inventor I would call it so. On the other hand I sympathise with those who want to whitness Pons and Fleischmann and want to continue with Cold Fusion. As said elsewhere, it is a well known name and it would really give the extremely conservative academic world something to ponder about for the rest of their CF denying life.

  • Gerard McEk

    The real process that causes heat is probably transmutation. That is why I would call it Transmutation Reactor or TRAR. If I were the inventor I would call it so. On the other hand I sympathise with those who want to whitness Pons and Fleischmann and want to continue with Cold Fusion. As said elsewhere, it is a well known name and it would really give the extremely conservative academic world something to ponder about for the rest of their CF denying life.

  • wpj

    Very sensible!

    This is the reason why hospitals now use MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) rather than NMRI (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging). The “N” word was very off-putting to patients even tough it was referring to the nucleus of the water molecules (well, specifically the hydrogens).

    We chemists still analyse the structure of molecules using NMR which allows us to see the hydrogens and how they are connected.

  • Gerrit

    My proposal is to switch from “report not published” to “report published” and from “no plant in operation” to “plant in operation”. We’ll sort out the naming after that.

    • yes!

      and I bet old will became popular when it will be officially working.

  • Gerrit

    My proposal is to switch from “report not published” to “report published” and from “no plant in operation” to “plant in operation”. We’ll sort out the naming after that.

    • yes!

      and I bet old will became popular when it will be officially working.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I just don’t get it.
    If the hot fusion gang came up with this, the word NUCLEAR would be on the front page of the New York Times. I think this approach is totally wrong. Instead of hiding the fact that it’s nuclear, make it its selling point. A completely SAFE form of nuclear energy has been discovered!

  • Barry8

    I doubt the word “nuclear” is going to hamper LENR from going viral once a product comes to market.

    • Omega Z

      In Rossi’s latest post, It appears he has taken to the new acronym. Maybe he considers it to be a more accurate description of what is happening.

      “We are talking of QUAR, or LENR in generic sense, not just for the E-Cat, anyway.”

  • I doubt the word “nuclear” is going to hamper LENR from going viral once a product comes to market.

    • Omega Z

      In Rossi’s latest post, It appears he has taken to the new acronym. Maybe he considers it to be a more accurate description of what is happening.

      “We are talking of QUAR, or LENR in generic sense, not just for the E-Cat, anyway.”

  • Gordon Docherty

    Thinking / praying about this one for a while. How about:

    a VERSATILE system?

    And what, exactly, does VERSATILE stand for. Well, it’s a very exact description of what makes these systems work :

    Virtual-particle Energy-transfer Resonance within a Supersaturated-metal-hydride forming an Active Tesseract Ionic Lattice Environment

    (Virtual-particle = Quasi-particle, but, aside from QP-DOLL, it’s hard to do anything with QP!)

    and also emphasizes one of these systems’ critical success factors:

    Versatility

    It’s a friendly, familiar word that speaks of safety, thrift, flexibility. Marketing would love it…

    Please suggest to A.R.

  • Gordon Docherty

    Thinking / praying about this one for a while. How about:

    a VERSATILE system?

    And what, exactly, does VERSATILE stand for. Well, it’s a very exact description of what makes these systems work :

    Virtual-particle Energy-transfer Resonance within a Supersaturated-metal-hydride forming an Active Tesseract Ionic Lattice Environment

    (Virtual-particle = Quasi-particle, but, aside from QP-DOLL, it’s hard to do anything with QP!)

    and also emphasizes one of these systems’ critical success factors:

    Versatility

    It’s a friendly, familiar word that speaks of safety, thrift, flexibility. Marketing would love it…

    Please suggest to A.R.

  • Omega Z

    Controlled flight into terrain

    Layman definition. “Crash”

  • Ted-X

    Perhaps… FPER…
    Fleishman-Pons-Effect Reactor
    * Gives tribute to Fleishman and Pons
    * Does not go into the details of the effect (the details and the theory is still not clear)
    * Is brief

  • Ted-X

    Perhaps… FPER…
    Fleishman-Pons-Effect Reactor
    * Gives tribute to Fleishman and Pons
    * Does not go into the details of the effect (the details and the theory is still not clear)
    * Is brief

  • Lets call it classical physics.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    LENR = LowEnergiNnocuousReaction

  • Christopher Calder

    I don’t think this is going anywhere. If you want to call it Quantum Reactions, you should abbreviate it as just QR. Thus an automobile running on Quantum Reaction power could be described as having a *QR* drive. That sounds a billion times better than the ridiculous and awkward “QUAR.” LENR is just fine, however.

  • I don’t think this is going anywhere. If you want to call it Quantum Reactions, you should abbreviate it as just QR. Thus an automobile running on Quantum Reaction power could be described as having a *QR* drive. That sounds a billion times better than the ridiculous and awkward “QUAR.” LENR is just fine, however.

  • IMO the nuclear word should be kept because 1. This is a serious technology and it could have its dangerous side. 2. People have been taught that only nuclear can provide serious energy production (with some changes to that due to wind power, etc). 3. Everyone is used to the term LENR, it will just confuse everyone changing it. 4. Feel like I’m missing the joke or punchline, or something :p … plus I think the acronym is a non-sequitur.

  • gautea

    What this really is = global rescue unit = GRU

  • gautea

    What this really is = global rescue unit = GRU

    • bachcole

      Nice!

  • RogerKnights

    Quarky Energy Device

    (Quirky is a good word, since its mechanism is a mystery. Quarks might be involved, for all we know.)
    (Abbreviates to QED, as suggested recently on another thread).

  • Kevin O

    Lattice Assisted Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect Reactor
    LAFPHER
    He who laughs last, laughs loudest

    • Kevin O

      A previous incarnation of this was

      High Output Anomalous Heat Pons Fleischmann Low Energy Nuclear Effect in Solid State

      HOAHPFLENESS

    • Ted-X

      Just shorten it to Fleishman-Pons-Effect-Reactor, which abbreviates to FPER.
      It would be easier to remember, gives tribute to Fleishman and Pons andtakes into account that the main effect may not be nuclear, as Rossi stated (quite likely zero-point energy emerging in nano-cavities due to Casimir forces).

  • Kevin O

    Lattice Assisted Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect Reactor
    LAFPHER
    He who laughs last, laughs loudest

    • Kevin O

      A previous incarnation of this was

      High Output Anomalous Heat Pons Fleischmann Low Energy Nuclear Effect in Solid State

      HOAHPFLENESS

      • bachcole

        Would that mean “hopefulness”? I am not sure.

    • bachcole

      That was pretty funny, Kevin O. I think that that made my 5 minutes after I read it. (:->)

    • Ted-X

      Just shorten it to Fleishman-Pons-Effect-Reactor, which abbreviates to FPER.
      It would be easier to remember, gives tribute to Fleishman and Pons andtakes into account that the main effect may not be nuclear, as Rossi stated (quite likely zero-point energy emerging in nano-cavities due to Casimir forces).

  • Hydrogen Fuel Cell or Hydrogen Power Cell is good names

  • Hydrogen Fuel Cell or Hydrogen Power Cell is good names

  • one idea if Ed Storms have a good theory :

    Hydroton reactor
    Hydroton energy
    Hydroton effect
    plug your Hydro’ jack

    if not Cold Fusion, LENR, the name can go from the theory

  • one idea if Ed Storms have a good theory :

    Hydroton reactor
    Hydroton energy
    Hydroton effect
    plug your Hydro’ jack

    if not Cold Fusion, LENR, the name can go from the theory

  • Hope4Dbest

    Embarrassed, Frank?

    • Veblin

      How do you figure you punked anyone. I posted a couple of months ago that you were someone trolling from ECN, though I was not sure who. My reply to you was up for about 8 hours before Frank deleted it. I guess Frank thought it was too negative about you to be left up, but I am sorry you missed it.
      Frank knew.

      So you will no longer be Pierre Ordinaire with Greenwin Says comments?
      No more Hope4Dbest and your other names.
      Hector McNuget?

      • Hope4Dbest

        Oh, so your prophecy was deleted? And you cannot show it to us?

        Don’t worry, hindsight is 20/20. And considering the IQ of this site, a lot of people are going to believe you.

        Veblin. I’ve been here for months and I don’t recall your name. But enjoy your 15 minutes of fame before Frank deletes all of this.

        Let me guess: you have a magnetic motor too.

  • There is an article by Konstantin Balakiryan on PESN.com that examines the possible reasons for Rossi’s need to change the name.
    http://pesn.com/2014/08/27/9602532_SHT–Andrea-Rossi_Drops_out_of_the_LENR-Race/
    In Dr. Balakiryan’s opinion the processes in <> hydrogen reactor from Solar Hydrogen Trends fit better the name designations LENR and Cold Fusion.