LENR-Cities Announces Conference at Oxford University, January 10-11

On the LENR-Cities website is the announcement of a conference titled “Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions & Applications” which will be held at Magdalene College, Oxford University, UK on January 10-11, 2015.

The purpose of the conference is described by LENR-Cities as follows:

During this Event, the main topic of discussion will be key technologies about Energy and beyond energy, including nuclear waste remediation, transmutations, superconductivity and some other technologies.

In order to develop and industrialize these technologies, strategies shall be discussed that are required to build a business ecosystem based on mutual self-interests between scientists, industrialists, financiers and other stakeholders.

Preliminary speakers are listed as:

Michel Vandenberghe — Founder of LENR-Cities
Yogi Srivastara — Professor Emeritus of Physics, Indiana University
Angelo Ovido — CEO, Kresenn, Ltd.
Didier Pelluet — LENR-Cities
Paolo Tripodi
Allan Widom — Professor of Physics, Northeastern University
Airbus Group
John Swain — Professor of Physics, Northeastern University
Luca Gamberale — CEO, LD-Brane srls

It looks like it could be an interesting event with some familiar names listed here, and some new ones. The presence of Airbus group is in and of itself significant, and it will be interesting to hear from them.

We also see here that LENR-Cities is adopting a new meaning of LENR — Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions, which is perhaps a more user-friendly label. Maybe it will stick.

  • bachcole

    I predict that this year there won’t be a whole heck of a lot of attendees. Next year there will be more. In five years, they won’t have enough room; some people will be turned away.

    • bitplayer

      Another game!

      My guess: 200+, or standing room only, depending on the size of the venue.

  • pg

    Renaming leNr with Nanoscale is a smart marketing move, even if misleading.

    • Oceans2014

      it was always remain ColdFusion.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes, we wouldn’t what the pabulum puking public to get upset by calling it what it really is (an amazingly beautiful NUCLEAR reaction).

      But why stop there? Low could be associated with depression so instead of low we could have Limp. Energy? People might find that intimidating. Instead of energy we could have Edentate. Reaction? That’s really scary. Instead of reaction we could have Rattle.
      So we’ll call it a


      • GreenWin

        Making it difficult to procreate.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Microsoft did pretty well.

        • Robyn Wyrick

          I’m a Cold Fusion person myself. If the energy density is sufficient, and the isotopic transmutation is real, then I think it’s a kind of fusion. However, my all means, it sounds nuclear. The idea of removing the Nuclear part from the term is poppycock. My $0.02.


    • pangoo

      If it is better for gaining public/investor attention and makes it more acceptable to the bloated academia, it’s great. It wouldn’t matter if it was called Super Hot Induced Thermal reactions. The most important part is getting funding for serious research. Airbus’ involvement is great. The name calling will look after itself.

      Although your right that it’s misleading in one way because (correct me if I’m wrong) the reactions actually take place on the picoscale. Or the particles involved are on that scale anyway.
      LEPR would make people stay away though …. I’d say. 😀

      • timycelyn

        Super Hot Induced Thermal?

        I would suggest that would be very appropriate as a collective term describing the COP>1 sucesses of the ’50 year bow wave’ hot fusion industry. It works on a number of levels….. 😉

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yes, this is what the hot fusion people have been trying to do for 60 years! We should be calling it leNUCLEARr!
          If they were this wimpy at Oxford in the 1940s they’d speaking German
          today. I can see it’s time for that pep talk again for the newcomers.


        • pangoo

          Haha! Thats true. 😀
          My point was that your actual goal is not to get people to be interested in the name of the reactions but to get them looking at the reaction itself.

          In hot fusion they have all the names, theories and techniques of how it should work as an energy source, but it can’t be controlled. It doesn’t work.

          There is now ample evidence with cold fusion that it produces excess energy and in some cases usable energy, even though the reactions are not understood. It works!

          Once the interest is there and people see the real potential for a new powerful energy source, the money will flow. Better equipment and more researchers lead to an increase in the quality/frequency and different approaches of experiment. With more information about the reactions theorists can get a better grasp of the whats going on.

          The recognition for the discovery/early development and Fleischmann & Pons will come, whatever the reactions are eventually called.

          Their holding a conference in Oxford University and have Airbus interested. Go LENR-Cities!

          • Daniel Maris

            Airbus is a big company with a big reputation to protect. You would presume they have done some research themselves, enough to convince themselves that this is a potentially important energy source. It’s not a given, but it seems likely.

      • US_Citizen71

        How about Surplus Unknown Particle Reaction or SUPR for short.

  • artefact

    Great development.
    Looking forward to hear what Airbus has to say.

  • georgehants

    Is this good news, should one of us send an E-mail to establishment science to tell them that their persecution of P&F and many other good scientists, leading to a 25 year delay and the potential loss of many lives was in error, because we can be sure they will keep hiding the guilty as long as possible.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes and in this talk it would be nice to see a reference to the person who first mentioned an electron capture mechanism:
      “Sir: The detection of helium-4 by the University of Utah group in cold fusion experiments would seem to confirm that fusion reactions have definitely occurred. However, there remains the question of mechanism. I would like to suggest the following electron tunneling reaction in an electrostatic field, which is a version of

      the p+ + e- n nuclear reaction nuclear reaction:

      np+ + e- > nn
      diffusion of nn to hit np+

      nn + np+ > [n3p+] > e- + [n2p2++ = 4He++]

      This would essentially be a catalytic fusion process, which would have the advantage that the neutral nn particle could circumvent the electrostatic barrier to np+ + np+
      fusion. Any nn escaping fusion would likely degenerate back to np+ + e-.

      Also, the presence of Le-7 + nn could lead to Be-9 and B-11 production by similar processes. It will be interesting to learn if the electrodes are stable enough for long-term fusion of whether the electrodes need to be frequently recycled by baking or refinement. I do not know if this process can be scaled up to practical large-scale energy production, but cold fusion may just be the answer the world needs for its greenhouse effect, energy shortages, and environmental pollution problems.”

      -Larry A. Hull

      New Sharon,

      May 15, 1989 C& EN, page 3 (F&P made their announcement on March
      23, 1989)

    • Lou Pagnucco

      Since this is conference is at Oxford, perhaps the Oxford researchers who recently submitted a patent application related to sonofusion should be also invited to present.
      See the lenr-forum posting:

      • georgehants

        Lou, I wonder if their “discovery will be denied and debunked for 25 years?
        Will their patent be blocked?
        What are these Oxford researchers doing to bring Cold Fusion to public knowledge?

        • Lou Pagnucco

          As far as I know, the researchers are wisely keeping a low profile.
          I assume that they have a well equipped lab that gave them results at least good enough to submit the patent application. However, having seen how Fleischmann, Pons, Schwinger were pilloried, they may be justified in avoiding publicity until the time is more opportune.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Melting does not stop the reaction, it continues.
        Otherwise it could never melt through ceramic and then the metal housing.
        I do not think they can control the molten reaction which is to say it is a runaway.
        Were it contained, who knows?.

        • Obvious

          Rossi has said that IH testing has destroyed many reactors on purpose, for knowledge about failure modes.

        • in fact this raise question on another phenomenon, that russ george presented, the 1985 F&P melting of a cell up to making a hole in the table and in the concrete below.

          no episode of that violence was since observed.

          Some concluded like you that it was impossible because the metallic matrix would have vaporozed or melted…
          same for the 1400C+ in E-cat and the ceramic molten.

          you hypothesis that reaction continue as liquid metal is rational but challenging.

          for the melting of the destroyed reactor plus the F&P hole in the table, I have another hypothesis. that the reaction get so fact at one moment that the mattrix accumulate in few nanoseconds, or femtoseconds enough heat to melt and vaporise, but so fast that it does not yet melt until enough heat is produced.
          It looks like the adiabatic calorimetry. heating so fact that no heat can escape until a long time…

          your hypothesis is interesting because it could explain why E-cat was so hot that plain nickel should be liquid…
          I prefer to consider it was a heat resistant alloy, or an oxyde of nickel…

  • timycelyn

    I find the fact that Airbus are already listed as speakers interesting.

    This would suggest to me they have been doing quite a bit of thinking already in the area, if they are in a position to attend and formally speak, rather than just listen. The recently signed Letter of Intent must have quite a bit of underpinning on both sides…..

    • BroKeeper

      If Airbus is you can be sure GE has been active in LENR research/application in both its Energy and Aviation divisions.

      • Boeing have a modest but real curiosity and support of LENR.
        enough to put in in SUGAR report and file “LENR” as energy source in their patents…

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I wasn’t planning on going here but this insipid language has pressed all my buttons. Sugarcoating it is the worst thing we could do. It is nuclear and the public must learn to have some respect for it. Initially lay out the worst case scenario or else the public will think they’ve been hoodwinked if something goes wrong in the future. Palladium and nickel should be safe (the reaction stops when the lattice melts) but F&P’s 1cc palladium cell did melt concrete.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah pangoo and I think Patton was becoming aware of how the world really functions and that was creating problems for the powers that be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEVOIO4TbZs

  • Anon2012_2014

    “LENR devices will not support unlimited nuclear chain reactions that cause catastrophic explosions because too many reactions will melt the nickel powder and stop the reactions.”

    This is a not properly tested hypothesis. It might be false. I find these statements that LENR is Safe Because very annoying as they are more like a religious belief system, i.e. they are safe because we want to believe they are safe. Lots of neutrons that maybe causing transmutations and lithium/deuterium fuel makes me question this hypothesis and search for better answers than “LENR is safe because nickel melts”. Storms suggests that the “Rossi Zone” (on a temperature/energy produced chart) is simply the zone of economically useful and controllable reactions. What if Storms’ model is correct and the device ends out far to the upper right of the “Rossi Zone”. How fast does the reaction stop when the nickel powder melts??

  • timycelyn

    Mulling over part of the purpose statement above:

    “In order to develop and industrialize these technologies, strategies shall be discussed that are required to build a business ecosystem based on mutual self-interests between scientists, industrialists, financiers and other stakeholders.”

    Is this euphemistic – speak for discussing how capital and potential user industries can come together to provide effective support and protection for scientists who wish to pursue key work in the area of LENR? To provide a shield from peer pressure and funding?

    This would allow more progress to be made in a timely way, without waiting for the mainstream to go through whatever convulsions, backtracking, and do or die fights (eg ITER) that will inevitably occur in the realignment when it happens. Bypassing a corrupt system…

  • Curbina

    Interesting to see Airbus and Gamberale as possible speakers.

  • timycelyn

    Michel, thanks very much for this confirmation.

    It is a very good idea and hopefully will be of material assistance in ramping up the amount of independent, quality research done in the field.

    We don’t really have the time to wait for the whole thing to slowly and messily turn around though the treacle of vested interests and scepticism, and initiatives like this could save years.

    My best wishes with it!


    • timycelyn

      Arrgh! Tried to delete it (comment was in the wrong place) and it converted me to Guest instead.

      Disqus: 1
      Tim: 0


  • timycelyn

    Michel, thanks very much for this confirmation.

    It is a very good idea and hopefully will be of material assistance in ramping up the amount of independent, quality research done in the field.

    We don’t really have the time to wait for the whole thing to slowly and messily turn around though the treacle of vested interests and scepticism, and initiatives like this could save years.

    I wish it every success!