Is Avoiding ‘Nuclear’ in LENR Necessary or a Semantic Trick?

This topic has been discussed for quite a long time, but has come up again on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, and I thought it might be interesting to raise it here. If (as I believe) LENR is getting more attention around the world, and if (as I hope) it becomes recognized as a valid and useful phenomonon, what it is called will become more important.

Many people have advocated for a new label to be applied to LENR, because of the use of ‘nuclear’ in the acronym, and nuclear of course has a connotation of danger and fear for so many.

On the Journal of Nuclear Physics, a reader made the following suggestion to Andrea Rossi:

The “nuclear” word as part of the name associates the Rossi effect with all of the negative history of the nuclear bomb, nuclear radiation, nuclear power plants, etc. This immediately triggers a negative reaction to the E-CAT as a new product entry as just another “nuclear” device.

As a suggestion the E-CAT product line can still be defined without the use of the word “nuclear”. One suggestion would be to promote “Energy from Cold Atomic Transmutation” or E-CAT as the proper acronym.

Rossi at first replied, “Thanks for the semantic opinion. To be taken in consideration”, but later added a new response:

Andrea Rossi
January 16th, 2015 at 6:48 AM
Hugh DeVries:
Rethinking: my opinion is that we have not to disguise the technological bases, but we have to be sincere and explain. Then it will be the intrinsic safety of the operation to consolidate the diffusion of the product. I trust the intelligence of people, we do not need to make fancy names to hidden anything. The issue is too important to be reduced to a semantic trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

There have been a number of suggestions for less-threatening names and labels for ‘the effect’, but it seems that LENR is the label that has stuck, and is most commonly used discussion among followers of the topic. I think Rossi’s point here is an interesting one, and I think a valid argument. It may be harmful to the cause to try and avoid the use of ‘nuclear’, if critics turn around and accuse proponents of being deceptive about what the phenomenon actually is (although there’s still no real consensus for the actual physics involved).

Anyway, I think it’s an interesting and important issue. I am still happy to use the term LENR here as it’s the common label, even though I’m still not sure what it means! If it can be demonstrated to be ‘intrinsically safe’, a LENR device in time might prove to be considered as harmless and non-controversial as microwave ovens which do produce radiation, but are designed in such a way as to make it highly unlikely that harmful radiation will escape the ovens when in use.

  • mcloki

    At the end of the day it won’t matter. The engines and heating units will have a brand name that gets marketed. Nobody is afraid of internal combustion engine vehicle when it’s branded BWM.

    • psi2u2

      I agree, but the discussion has great value anyway, and can help inform those in the position to be branding as we move forward.

  • mcloki

    At the end of the day it won’t matter. The engines and heating units will have a brand name that gets marketed. Nobody is afraid of internal combustion engine vehicle when it’s branded BWM.

    • psi2u2

      I agree, but the discussion has great value anyway, and can help inform those in the position to be branding as we move forward.

  • Billy Jackson

    A cat is still a cat regardless of its breed.

  • Billy Jackson

    A cat is still a cat regardless of its breed. Hiding or avoiding discussing what something is does not change its nature. If people are not intellectual enough to understand the difference between LENR and hot fusion then the onus of ignorance is on them.

  • Manuel Cruz

    The people afraid of nuclear power don’t deserve nuclear power.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      I am terrified of fission, more so of human beings and their intentional or inadvertent mistakes in trying to manage it.

  • Manuel Cruz

    The people afraid of nuclear power don’t deserve nuclear power.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      I am terrified of fission, more so of human beings and their intentional or inadvertent mistakes in trying to manage it.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    My feeling is that “fusion” sounds cleaner and safer to most people than “nuclear”. At least in Finland it’s probably so. Also for that reason “cold fusion” is not a bad term: “cold” means that it’s low-cost to make, “fusion” means that it’s clean. Of course I’m talking about mental images, not physics.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    My feeling is that “fusion” sounds cleaner and safer to most people than “nuclear”. At least in Finland it’s probably so. Also for that reason “cold fusion” is not a bad term: “cold” means that it’s low-cost to make, “fusion” means that it’s clean. Of course I’m talking about mental images, not physics.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Trying to hide the „N“ feature completely could turn out to be counterproductive. Those who see the new technology as a threat to their interests would certainly not hesitate to accentuate this aspect in an inappropriate manner, with the objective to unsettle potential customers.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Trying to hide the „N“ feature completely could turn out to be counterproductive. Those who see the new technology as a threat to their interests would certainly not hesitate to accentuate this aspect in an inappropriate manner, with the objective to unsettle potential customers.

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not believe that the introdction of a nuclear device which has been proven to not produce any harmful radiation or waste, would have an acceptance difficulty. Obviously you will always find people that are affraight for someting ‘nuclear’ or ‘atomic’, but I guess that will change when they see what good it does for humanity and environment and for their own wallet. The name of the process should best fit the process. I like the inclusion of transmutation, because I believe that this is what mainly happens.

    • BroKeeper

      Although most of the public will not know what transmutation means. Perhaps they may think they will turn into zombies if too close or give birth to them.

  • Gerard McEk

    I do not believe that the introdction of a nuclear device which has been proven to not produce any harmful radiation or waste, would have an acceptance difficulty. Obviously you will always find people that are affraight for someting ‘nuclear’ or ‘atomic’, but I guess that will change when they see what good it does for humanity and environment and for their own wallet. The name of the process should best fit the process. I like the inclusion of transmutation, because I believe that this is what mainly happens.

    • Brokeeper

      Although most of the public will not know what transmutation means. Perhaps they may think they will turn into zombies if too close or give birth to them. 🙂

  • Ron Kita

    In the early days of the MRI …the word nuclear was avoided. Too many of the scientific illiterate were afraid. A sad comment on education.
    Respectfully,
    Ron Kita, Chiralex

    • Omega Z

      Ron, I doubt those people will disrupt their reality TV programs long enough to even notice. A Sad comment on society today.

  • Ron Kita

    In the early days of the MRI …the word nuclear was avoided. Too many of the scientific illiterate were afraid. A sad comment on education.
    Respectfully,
    Ron Kita, Chiralex

    • Omega Z

      Ron, I doubt those people will disrupt their reality TV programs long enough to even notice. A Sad comment on society today.

  • bachcole

    There will be those who will be strongly repelled by their own anxiety because of the word “nuclear” or any new technological development. But these people are rarely in the position to make public policy decisions. But I guarantee that these people will not be buying home units and will not support public policy decisions that promote LENR. Some of them will in fact think that it is all a big conspiracy to harm them or destroy human beings.

    On the other hand, unlike MRIs, skeptopaths are going to notice that we changed the name and they will rub our noses in it continually. I say just stick with the current name and “damn the torpedoes”.

    • Billy Jackson

      i agree with that. trying to avoid something because someone else is uncomfortable with verbiage is simply going to lead to bigger problems down the road. face it strait up and tell it like it is. That is my way of dealing with this stuff, i am not bothered by people who fear the truth.

  • Observer

    If we had a clean slate, I would suggest “Lattice Enhanced Isotopic Reactions”.

    • Gerard McEk

      Or LET (Lattice Enhanced Transmutation)? LET it beee.. LET it beee, oh, LET it beeeeee

  • Observer

    If we had a clean slate, I would suggest “Lattice Enhanced Isotopic Reactions”.

    • Gerard McEk

      Or LET (Lattice Enhanced Transmutation)? LET it beee.. LET it beee, oh, LET it beeeeee

      • bachcole

        I like it, and I will LET it be. But if I start telling my friends about LET or Lattice Enhanced Transmutation they will think that I have lost interest in LENR and then they will never believe a word that I say. (:->)

  • That which we call a Rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. (act 2 scene 2 R&J)
    That which we call a an E-cat will heat as sweet, if called other than what it is.

    • psi2u2

      However, it would be worth recognizing that the play in which these lines occur does NOT confirm their completeness or accuracy.

      This is an idealistic statement from a fifteen year old girl in love with a man society has named as her enemy.

      Depending on how one interprets the play, it can easily be argued that Juliet is wrong, and that, in fact, EVERYTHING depends on a name.

      Just sayin’….great quote from the immortal e.o. himself, but the moral is more complex than the quote alone suggests.

      • T’was but a pearl cast forth to settle where it will.
        For wrong or right we need this fire to warm this life.
        For persecution of it proponent’s, is folly most profound.
        But light is yet to shed its way to yon window of perceptive will.
        ( just being a prat I know……. But fun and I do live in Warwickshire)

  • That which we call a Rose, by any other name would smell as sweet. (act 2 scene 2 R&J)
    That which we call a an E-cat will heat as sweet, if called other than what it is.

    • psi2u2

      However, it would be worth recognizing that the play in which these lines occur does NOT confirm their completeness or accuracy.

      This is an idealistic statement from a fifteen year old girl in love with a man society has named as her enemy.

      Depending on how one interprets the play, it can easily be argued that Juliet is wrong, and that, in fact, EVERYTHING depends on a name.

      Just sayin’….great quote from the immortal e.o. himself, but the moral is more complex than the quote alone suggests.

      • T’was but a pearl cast forth to settle where it will.
        For wrong or right we need this fire to warm this life.
        For persecution of it proponent’s, is folly most profound.
        But light is yet to shed its way to yon window of perceptive will.
        ( just being a prat I know……. But fun and I do live in Warwickshire)

  • Nigel Appleton

    I think it might be wise at this moment to refrain from specifying nuclear processes, in the e-cat at least.
    The main evidence for “nuclear” seems to consist of the observation in the Lugano test that the relative abundances of Ni and Li isotopes had changed, when “fuel” and “ash” were analysed and compared.

    It isn’t clear to me that this apparent change was not the result of differential partitioning of isotopes between the “ash” and whatever might be plated on to, or adsorbed to, the inner surfaces of the reactor. Something similar seems to account for the reported changes in relative abundances of mercury isotopes in used low-energy fluorescence bulbs

    I do accept, though, that chemistry and thermodynamics as we currently understand them do not account for any excess heat observed.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Chemistry and thermodynamics as we understand them also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment discovered in the ash sample. It’s a nuclear process.

      • bachcole

        Perhaps there is another choice besides chemical or nuclear. I have absolutely no idea what it might be, but we know that it isn’t chemical, and there are a whole bunch of people with a lot of prestige and money who say that it is not nuclear. Perhaps there is something about the atom that we missed and this so-called cold fusion is the first indication that there is something else going on with the atom that we have not seen yet.

        • Gerard McEk

          Transmutation?

      • fact police

        Nuclear physics as we understand it also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment claimed. But sleight of hand can.

        • Omega Z

          “Nuclear physics as we understand it also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment claimed.”
          Your Opinion. “But sleight of hand can.”
          OR Fact.
          “Nuclear physics as we understand it” is far from complete.
          On any given day, it is possible that we may discover something that could make nearly everything we think we know totally wrong.

          Humanity has an EGO problem. I’m sure if we should survive another 2000 years, they will look back on this era as the primitive barbaric period. Much as those who consider themselves enlightened today look back at those 2000 years in our past.

          I Wonder, Do you believe all the others who have observed isotopic shift are also of sleight of hand or is it just Rossi you don’t like.

          • fact police

            “Nuclear physics as we understand it also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment claimed.”

            Your Opinion.

            It’s as valid a statement as the statement that “chemistry and thermodynamics as we understand them also cannot explain…”

            I suppose I could have stated that no explanation based on nuclear physics as currently understood has been offered.

            “Nuclear physics as we understand it” is far from complete.

            Of course. So is chemistry and thermodynamics. Nobel prizes are still awarded in chemistry and physics, so there are obviously still things to learn about both.

            That’s why the qualifier “as we understand” was used.

            I was simply arguing that if you exclude chemical explanations because you can’t think of one, then by that standard, you should also exclude nuclear explanations.

            Of course, neither can be absolutely excluded, and all we can do is apply our best judgement. By far, the most plausible explanation, in the judgement of many, is sleight of hand. In that case, an explanation can be thought of.

            I Wonder, Do you believe all the others who have observed isotopic shift are also of sleight of hand or is it just Rossi you don’t like.

            Actually, I didn’t express likes and dislikes. Only that our current understanding does not provide nuclear or chemical explanations, but it does provide a sleight of hand explanation.

            But if you must know, none of the other claims of transmutation are in the same ballpark as Rossi’s nearly complete conversion. The ones I’ve looked at do not exclude contamination or misinterpretation as an explanation.

      • Nigel Appleton

        With respect, since so little ash was recovered, and since the reactor tube was not scraped out, that it is a nuclear process simply cannot be asserted. The “missing ” isotopes from the ash may have simply been stuck/fused to the alumina – as indeed may the elements (Fe and so on) that were seen in the fuel in Lugano but not the ash.

        • Robert Ellefson

          I suspect that you are limiting the facts you used to draw that conclusion to the information you described – sample size and possible sampling bias. However, I have spent many hours pouring over the ash analysis from multiple perspectives, and I can confidently assert that there are no known processes which can produce the nickel-dominant ash grain seen in the report. Check out the combination of morphology, which would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to create using prosaic methods, along with the isotope ratio present in that grain. Although the mass spectrometry result accuracy limitations (as casually cited in the report for the TOF-SIMS vs. ICP-AES results at least) do not permit a definitive conclusion on this topic, it appears to me that there is sufficient evidence to state that an isotope enrichment gradient exists between the surface layers and the bulk of the ash grains. I don’t think that is explainable even by the most sophisticated fraud conceivable when you consider the highly complex morphology of the nickel ash in combination with this isotope gradient. If you ignore the isotope gradient and morphology altogether, then one still must explain how every nickel isotope except Ni62 managed to become “stuck/fused” to the reactor walls, given that it started as natural nickel isotopes and was only subjected to a month of heat and simple EMF stimulation while inside the reactor. Can you provide any meaningful suggestions as to how this enrichment could have taken place without nuclear processes?

          • Nigel Appleton

            No, I cannot. I should simply like to be sure that it did not happen. And I shouldperhaps make it clear that I don’t suspect fraud, and that I DO accept that excess heat has been produced. But I was trained not to assert that which is not thoroughly supported by the evidence; and to keep an open mind until the evidence for or against is all in.

  • Nigel Appleton

    I think it might be wise at this moment to refrain from specifying nuclear processes, in the e-cat at least.
    The main evidence for “nuclear” seems to consist of the observation in the Lugano test that the relative abundances of Ni and Li isotopes had changed, when “fuel” and “ash” were analysed and compared.

    It isn’t clear to me that this apparent change was not the result of differential partitioning of isotopes between the “ash” and whatever might be plated on to, or adsorbed to, the inner surfaces of the reactor. Something similar seems to account for the reported changes in relative abundances of mercury isotopes in used low-energy fluorescence bulbs

    I do accept, though, that chemistry and thermodynamics as we currently understand them do not account for any excess heat observed.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Chemistry and thermodynamics as we understand them also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment discovered in the ash sample. It’s a nuclear process.

      • bachcole

        Perhaps there is another choice besides chemical or nuclear. I have absolutely no idea what it might be, but we know that it isn’t chemical, and there are a whole bunch of people with a lot of prestige and money who say that it is not nuclear. Perhaps there is something about the atom that we missed and this so-called cold fusion is the first indication that there is something else going on with the atom that we have not seen yet.

        • Gerard McEk

          Transmutation?

      • fact police

        Nuclear physics as we understand it also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment claimed. But sleight of hand can.

        • Omega Z

          “Nuclear physics as we understand it also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment claimed.”
          Your Opinion. “But sleight of hand can.”
          OR Fact.
          “Nuclear physics as we understand it” is far from complete.
          On any given day, it is possible that we may discover something that could make nearly everything we think we know totally wrong.

          Humanity has an EGO problem. I’m sure if we should survive another 2000 years, they will look back on this era as the primitive barbaric period. Much as those who consider themselves enlightened today look back at those 2000 years in our past.

          I Wonder, Do you believe all the others who have observed isotopic shift are also of sleight of hand or is it just Rossi you don’t like.

          • fact police

            “Nuclear physics as we understand it also cannot explain the extent of isotopic enrichment claimed.”

            Your Opinion.

            It’s as valid a statement as the statement that “chemistry and thermodynamics as we understand them also cannot explain…”

            I suppose I could have stated that no explanation based on nuclear physics as currently understood has been offered.

            “Nuclear physics as we understand it” is far from complete.

            Of course. So is chemistry and thermodynamics. Nobel prizes are still awarded in chemistry and physics, so there are obviously still things to learn about both.

            That’s why the qualifier “as we understand” was used.

            I was simply arguing that if you exclude chemical explanations because you can’t think of one, then by that standard, you should also exclude nuclear explanations.

            Of course, neither can be absolutely excluded, and all we can do is apply our best judgement. By far, the most plausible explanation, in the judgement of many, is sleight of hand. In that case, an explanation can be thought of.

            I Wonder, Do you believe all the others who have observed isotopic shift are also of sleight of hand or is it just Rossi you don’t like.

            Actually, I didn’t express likes and dislikes. Only that our current understanding does not provide nuclear or chemical explanations, but it does provide a sleight of hand explanation.

            But if you must know, none of the other claims of transmutation are in the same ballpark as Rossi’s nearly complete conversion. The ones I’ve looked at do not exclude contamination or misinterpretation as an explanation.

        • bachcole

          Nuclear physics as we understand it cannot explain why numerous investigators have found gamma rays coming from lightning. That in itself, all by it’s little ol’ self, should cause any brave and thinking person to toss the Standard Model. The Standard Model, for me, is in the category of “It just ain’t so.”.

      • Nigel Appleton

        With respect, since so little ash was recovered, and since the reactor tube was not scraped out, that it is a nuclear process simply cannot be asserted. The “missing ” isotopes from the ash may have simply been stuck/fused to the alumina – as indeed may the elements (Fe and so on) that were seen in the fuel in Lugano but not the ash.

        • Robert Ellefson

          I suspect that you are limiting the facts you used to draw that conclusion to the information you described – sample size and possible sampling bias. However, I have spent many hours pouring over the ash analysis from multiple perspectives, and I can confidently assert that there are no known processes which can produce the nickel-dominant ash grain seen in the report. Check out the combination of morphology, which would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to create using prosaic methods, along with the isotope ratio present in that grain. Although the mass spectrometry result accuracy limitations (as casually cited in the report for the TOF-SIMS vs. ICP-AES results at least) do not permit a definitive conclusion on this topic, it appears to me that there is sufficient evidence to state that an isotope enrichment gradient exists between the surface layers and the bulk of the ash grains. I don’t think that is explainable even by the most sophisticated fraud conceivable when you consider the highly complex morphology of the nickel ash in combination with this isotope gradient. If you ignore the isotope gradient and morphology altogether, then one still must explain how every nickel isotope except Ni62 managed to become “stuck/fused” to the reactor walls, given that it started as natural nickel isotopes and was only subjected to a month of heat and simple EMF stimulation while inside the reactor. Can you provide any meaningful suggestions as to how this enrichment could have taken place without nuclear processes?

          • Nigel Appleton

            No, I cannot. I should simply like to be sure that it did not happen. And I shouldperhaps make it clear that I don’t suspect fraud, and that I DO accept that excess heat has been produced. But I was trained not to assert that which is not thoroughly supported by the evidence; and to keep an open mind until the evidence for or against is all in.

        • bachcole

          Since you said “With respect”, I won’t jump all over you for being a heretic. (:->)

          I agree with you. The ash has to be check numerous times under very tight conditions and scrutiny. The anomalous heat merely excludes the possibility that it is chemical. It does prove that it is nuclear. Like I said elsewhere, we may be dealing with something that is neither chemical or nuclear.

  • fritz194

    Nuclear in common sense deals with pretty unstable isotopes, contamination and whatever.
    The roots of nuclear physics incorporate the usage of a geiger counter.
    Because there are quite stable isotopes involved – and even nuclear scientists complain that there is pretty no gamma nor deuterium detectable – I don´t see any reason that it is a “nuclear” technology.
    The word “nuclear” misleads in common sense as it misleads in the applied physics. So I think its legitimate to open up an entire new category in science – equidistant to nuclear, condensed matter and chemistry. LENR / LANR/CANR … are too technical – or too hypothetical as long as the theory is not understood nor accepted. Its a clean technolgy with energy density comparable to nuclear power range.
    I think there will be a better understanding/wording once the theory is well understood.
    If the effect involves multiple cascaded or combined isotopic shifts –

    “Transisotopic Effect”

    – could be a good name for these entire group of reactions.
    Such a name should try to cover the common elements of all these observed anomalous heat effects.

    • bachcole

      I like your thinking, but “effect” doesn’t have a lot of punch.

    • Gerard McEk

      Maybe TransmuIsotopic Physics or TIP? (It can cause also transmutations)

  • fritz194

    Nuclear in common sense deals with pretty unstable isotopes, contamination and whatever.
    The roots of nuclear physics incorporate the usage of a geiger counter.
    Because there are quite stable isotopes involved – and even nuclear scientists complain that there is pretty no gamma nor deuterium detectable – I don´t see any reason that it is a “nuclear” technology.
    The word “nuclear” misleads in common sense as it misleads in the applied physics. So I think its legitimate to open up an entire new category in science – equidistant to nuclear, condensed matter and chemistry. LENR / LANR/CANR … are too technical – or too hypothetical as long as the theory is not understood nor accepted. Its a clean technolgy with energy density comparable to nuclear power range.
    I think there will be a better understanding/wording once the theory is well understood.
    If the effect involves multiple cascaded or combined isotopic shifts –

    “Transisotopic Effect”

    – could be a good name for these entire group of reactions.
    Such a name should try to cover the common elements of all these observed anomalous heat effects.

    • bachcole

      I like your thinking, but “effect” doesn’t have a lot of punch.

    • Gerard McEk

      Maybe TransmuIsotopic Physics or TIP? (It can cause also transmutations)

  • Billy Jackson

    i agree with that. trying to avoid something because someone else is uncomfortable with verbiage is simply going to lead to bigger problems down the road. face it strait up and tell it like it is. That is my way of dealing with this stuff, i am not bothered by people who fear the truth.

  • SG

    Language and perception are important. Technical and other well-educated folks are quite comfortable with the term “nuclear.” But most of the general population is not. We must always be willing to identify with and place ourselves in the shoes of others, particularly if it leads to economic and humanitarian benefits. The business and marketing folks involved with the Nuclear MRI were brilliant to exclude Nuclear from its name before taking it to the masses. We should do the same. My personal preferences are “quantum fusion” or “quantum reactions” as they sound futuristic and relatively safe, and align with the leading theories of operation. Cold fusion is also easier on the public’s ears. LENR works well in scientific and technical circles–lets keep it there.

    • Gerard McEk

      Or maybe Quantem Transmutation (QT)?

      • SG

        QT is better than “nuclear,” but “Quantum Transmutation” seems like too much of a mouth-full. Cold fusion or quantum fusion seem better, or simply “fusion.” I just watched an episode on the science channel about how future spacecraft will be powered by “fusion.” They did not specify hot or cold, and we know NASA is interested in both. This seems to suggest that there is already a push from some quarters to get the term “fusion” into the public consciousness.

        • psi2u2

          You are right about the mouth-full, but “transmutation” also has an aura of magic about it that is very appealing. And it may well turn out that the transmutation effects are as significant or more significant than the EH effects. For me those considerations make up for the downside of the extra syllables. But they are both excellent choices.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It seems to me that if any of this turned out to be a quantum effect then that should be substituted for nuclear. Otherwise the level at which the process occurs is what it is. I don’t think they should hide the nuclear but I see no reason that it should be prominent either, We call gasoline gas, not petroleum distillate fuel products, or PDFP.

    • Gerard McEk

      So it could be Quantum Transmutation (QT)?

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        QT sounds great… Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions is being used by some in the press, too.
        Personally, I like the ‘Nuclear’ in LENR, and ‘Cold Fusion’ because it seems to…avenge F&P.
        Like Coca Cola: stick to the brand, the logo and the colours.

        • psi2u2

          QF is good also, but could be objected to on technical grounds if the dominant reactions are not really fusion.

      • psi2u2

        Everyone in this discussion is making good points, but I have to say I really like QT. This has a lot of semantic dynamism in it and no negative connotations.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It seems to me that if any of this turned out to be a quantum effect then that should be substituted for nuclear. Otherwise the level at which the process occurs is what it is. I don’t think they should hide the nuclear but I see no reason that it should be prominent either, We call gasoline gas, not petroleum distillate fuel products, or PDFP.

    • Gerard McEk

      So it could be Quantum Transmutation (QT)?

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        QT sounds great… Maybe Quantum Fusion?
        Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions is being used by some in the press, too.
        Personally, I like the ‘Nuclear’ in LENR, and ‘Cold Fusion’ because it seems to…avenge F&P.
        Like Coca Cola: stick to the brand, the logo and the colours.

        • psi2u2

          QF is good also, but could be objected to on technical grounds if the dominant reactions are not really fusion.

      • psi2u2

        Everyone in this discussion is making good points, but I have to say I really like QT. This has a lot of semantic dynamism in it and no negative connotations. It is short, simple, but packed with positive implications.

  • bkrharold

    The public have a right to be cynical of the nuclear industry. After the accident at 3 mile island, and the most recent disaster at Fukishima, people are understandably scared. I believe that most reasonable people will be able to distinguish LENR from conventional nuclear energy, regardless of the name we use.
    After “cold fusion” was dropped, several different names have been used, “LANR” Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions, “CANR” Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions, and of course the current favorite “LENR”. There is no doubt, the name is important, since it shapes public perception. The question is are we so frightened of the skeptics, we need to hide behind complicated names? There is no commonly accepted scientific explanation for the anomalous heat phenomenon. In that absence LENR is as good as anything else that we might come up with. Changing the name now, makes us look weak, as if we have something to hide. I say stick with LENR.

  • bkrharold

    The public have a right to be cynical of the nuclear industry. After the accident at 3 mile island, and the most recent disaster at Fukishima, people are understandably scared. Unlike conventional nuclear, LENR does not produce any dangerous radiation. I believe that most reasonable people will be able to distinguish LENR from conventional nuclear energy, regardless of the name we use.
    After “cold fusion” was dropped, several different names have been used, “LANR” Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions, “CANR” Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions, and of course the current favorite “LENR”. There is no doubt, the name is important, since it shapes public perception. The question is are we so frightened of the skeptics, we need to hide behind complicated names? There is no commonly accepted scientific explanation for the anomalous heat phenomenon. In that absence LENR is as good as anything else that we might come up with. Changing the name now, makes us look weak, as if we have something to hide. I say stick with LENR.

  • Frederic

    We should come back to the word Cold Fusion.
    It is simple and not technical.
    LENR is technical and N is bad for many.
    The only “problem” with cold fusion is some don’t think it works. When everybody on this planet know that it works (before end 2015), they will stop laughing.
    I suppose the only reason “cold fusion” has been dropped and LENR favoured is because of this.
    As we now all know here that cold fusion works, let’s come back to this term with no shame.

    • Gerard McEk

      The issue is that it is probably not fusion. It looks more like that atoms are being changed by (slow) Neutrons causing Isotopic change, as you probably know. These atoms than can become unstable and transmute to a different stable atom. It all happens in a metal lattice, so technically speaking I would call it Lattice Induced Isotopic Transmutations LIIT. But I agree that the non technical society should continue to call it CF, its ‘known’ already (although I would wish that it was “very well known” by now).

      • mcloki

        It’s probably going to get stuck with the name Cold fusion since it will be compare to “hot fusion” especially when the billions in research are used as a comparison.

        Horseless Carriage was in vogue for a long time.

      • Ged

        I stand by the fact that if protons are involved, it must be fusion, even if they take a minor role to start the domino train of energy reactions (e.g. Like what light is for photosynthesis). Infact, that is what would slow the fusion energy release rate down to make it cold fusion–if the initial hydrogen fusion event is buffered by neutron shuttling to stable isotope sinks.

        That cold fusion pathway would also imply that once the transmutable isotope pool is exhausted, the reaction may not simply stop, but instead melt down when the rate of fusion energy to heat conversion is vastly increased by lack of isotope shifting buffer; which would result in overheating and death of the reaction matrix that is allowing the proton fusions.

        This is in line with the evidence we see. A testable prediction of this cold fusion process is that consumption of all hydrogen ( like turning off the lights on a plant) would cause the reaction to peeter out and cease, and no reaction could occur without hydrogen there to start. Addutionally, deuterium and tritium would then be expected to have different reaction products, especially at the I notional starting fusion event, and different reaction speeds (and probably some different end products).

        • Gerard McEk

          Well, I like the neutron tunneling approach, where hydrogen steals a (few) neutrons from the metal atoms in the lattice due to its oscillations in the NAE and becomes deuterium, tritium and with another neutron it transmutes to helium. I am not a physisist, but to me that feels a way how it could work. So no fusion may be needed.

          • Ged

            Hmm, that’s true, you make a good point. If that is the mechanism, it would indeed not be fusion in the classical sense. How to test though? Could look for signs of tritium, but it is an extremely weak beta emitter (mm to cm of travel through air, can’t even get through skin), so it’d be very hard to pick up. It would potentially be a smoking gun in favor if that hypothesis, as the fusion hypothesis should not produce any tritium I would think.

          • Gerard McEk

            Ged, tritium has been found many times in LENR/CF processes. Also Fleischmann and Pons found it in their tests. If you want to detect tritium in an Hot-cat, than a more complex test set-up than used in Lugano is required.

    • Fortyniner

      I agree. I will be much harder to sneer when the first commercial CF devices are available for inspection, and I suspect that the media might go with ‘cold fusion’ anyway, as other terms would be totally unfamiliar and in fact meaningless to the public.

      The term ‘LENR’ is a potential hostage to fortune and I see no point in making such a gift to those who might want to ring fence the technology for their own purposes. I for one will try to avoid its use from now on.

  • Frederic

    We should come back to the word Cold Fusion.
    It is simple and not technical.
    LENR is technical and N is bad for many.
    The only “problem” with cold fusion is some don’t think it works. When everybody on this planet know that it works (before end 2015), they will stop laughing.
    I suppose the only reason “cold fusion” has been dropped and LENR favoured is because of this.
    As we now all know here that cold fusion works, let’s come back to this term with no shame.

    • Gerard McEk

      The issue is that it is probably not fusion. It looks more like that atoms are being changed by (slow) Neutrons causing Isotopic change, as you probably know. These atoms than can become unstable and transmute to a different stable atom. It all happens in a metal lattice, so technically speaking I would call it Lattice Induced Isotopic Transmutations LIIT. But I agree that the non technical society should continue to call it CF, its ‘known’ already (although I would wish that it was “very well known” by now).

      • mcloki

        It’s probably going to get stuck with the name Cold fusion since it will be compare to “hot fusion” especially when the billions in research are used as a comparison.

        Horseless Carriage was in vogue for a long time.

      • Ged

        I stand by the fact that if protons are involved, it must be fusion, even if they take a minor role to start the domino train of energy reactions (e.g. Like what light is for photosynthesis). Infact, that is what would slow the fusion energy release rate down to make it cold fusion–if the initial hydrogen fusion event is buffered by neutron shuttling to stable isotope sinks.

        That cold fusion pathway would also imply that once the transmutable isotope pool is exhausted, the reaction may not simply stop, but instead melt down when the rate of fusion energy to heat conversion is vastly increased by lack of isotope shifting buffer; which would result in overheating and death of the reaction matrix that is allowing the proton fusions.

        This is in line with the evidence we see. A testable prediction of this cold fusion process is that consumption of all hydrogen ( like turning off the lights on a plant) would cause the reaction to peeter out and cease, and no reaction could occur without hydrogen there to start. Additionally, deuterium and tritium would then be expected to have different reaction products, especially at the initial starting fusion event, and different reaction speeds (and probably some different end products).

        • Gerard McEk

          Well, I like the neutron tunneling approach, where hydrogen steals a (few) neutrons from the metal atoms in the lattice due to its oscillations in the NAE and becomes deuterium, tritium and with another neutron it transmutes to helium. I am not a physisist, but to me that feels a way how it could work. So no fusion may be needed.

          • Ged

            Hmm, that’s true, you make a good point. If that is the mechanism, it would indeed not be fusion in the classical sense. How to test though? Could look for signs of tritium, but it is an extremely weak beta emitter (mm to cm of travel through air, can’t even get through skin), so it’d be very hard to pick up. It would potentially be a smoking gun in favor if that hypothesis, as the fusion hypothesis should not produce any tritium I would think.

          • Gerard McEk

            Ged, tritium has been found many times in LENR/CF processes. Also Fleischmann and Pons found it in their tests. If you want to detect tritium in an Hot-cat, than a more complex test set-up than used in Lugano is required.

      • bachcole

        You didn’t see Lattice Induced Transmutations, LIT, as in the past tense of light. “Isotopic” would be assumed from the word “Transmutations”.

        OK, that’s it. That is the one that we are going to use.

        Te he. I doubt if language changes because people consciously decide that it is going to change.

        • Gerard McEk

          I agree with you Bachcole., That’s why I was just a bit playing with the words. BTW, LIIT sounded to me like ‘ly it’.

    • I agree. I will be much harder to sneer when the first commercial CF devices are available for inspection, and I suspect that the media might go with ‘cold fusion’ anyway, as other terms would be totally unfamiliar – and in fact meaningless – to the public.

      The term ‘LENR’ is a potential hostage to fortune and I see no point in making such a gift to those who might want to attempt to ring fence the technology for their own purposes. I for one will try to avoid its use from now on.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    By the strictest of definitions it is a necessary semantic trick. If we lived in a world filled with people that evaluated all technology purely on its merits the trick would not be necessary but as with all things in this world a bit of salesmanship is needed. Not because we are trying to sell someone a bad bill of goods but because the nuclear fission industry in the early days did a poor job of keeping nuclear from being synonymous with disaster. So if you want to keep the nuclear as part of the publicly known name, then you need to engage in a reduction campaign the likes of that never seen before. Or you can minimize the use of the term nuclear to only where necessary.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    By the strictest of definitions it is a necessary semantic trick. If we lived in a world filled with people that evaluated all technology purely on its merits the trick would not be necessary but as with all things in this world a bit of salesmanship is needed. Not because we are trying to sell someone a bad bill of goods but because the nuclear fission industry in the early days did a poor job of keeping nuclear from being synonymous with disaster. So if you want to keep the nuclear as part of the publicly known name, then you need to engage in a reduction campaign the likes of that never seen before. Or you can minimize the use of the term nuclear to only where necessary.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    How about „Green Nuclear Power“? Most people would not think that something “green” could be harmful. Scientists could keep using “LENR”, or whatever they prefer.

    • Gerard McEk

      Although from our technical point of view we would call it a ‘green’ type of energy, I am sure you will find no or very little ‘Environmentalists’ or Greens who would call this ‘green’. For one or another reason they seem not interested in this. I have tried several times and found no interest. These people are non technical and everything technical is wrong. You can tell them it is Clean Heat, but don’t tell them where it comes from.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Maybe this take is a little unfair on the greens…
        There are “technical greens”, perhaps maybe many writing on this forum, too. Labelling or generalizing can boomerang.

        • Gerard McEk

          I hope I get a reply from the real Greens (the third group of US_Citizen1), but I doubt this very much.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            Is being concerned about the environment http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/rate-of-environmental-degradation-puts-life-on-earth-at-risk-say-scientists considered ‘being green’? If yes, count me “green”.

          • Gerard McEk

            You are GREEN! I do not know if LENR can solve all the issues in the article, but at least quite a few. It is a technical solution, but that is the only thing we people can do. The only other possibility is to voluntary reduce the number of people on Earth drastically, but I have no idea how to do that.
            So tell your GREEN brothers and sisters, friends and media that LENR may be a solution in addition with a non-capitalistic economy. Let us stop exploiting world reserves and try to reduce our environmental footprint. Give all people on Earth an equal piece of the cake, if they work to that new green goal for a future of humanity on earth.

          • psi2u2

            Count me in that too. John Muir lives. He would love LENR. He would look to a future when Hetch-Hetchy could flow to the sea.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            I think you are correct: either fewer people live on earth, or those people (and companies) living on earth should behave conscientiously with resources, respecting the regeneration phases of the environment.
            Is this collective behaviour possible?
            Artificial intelligence might help humanity preventing the destruction of what is left, or accelerate the process.
            Hence we hope that Mars might be colonized soon. Westward, ho!

            If we only looked at water, the same molecule that allows LENR, and its quantum coherence in bioenergetics (publications on this subject by the same scientists who worked on the famous 4He produced in cold fusion: G. Preparata, E. Del Giudice, A. De Ninno http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/442/1/012031).
            Probably there is a meaning in hugging our trees.

          • Axil Axil

            See

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

            Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

            January 14 at 4:04pm

            “Oh, and he confirmed a few times that all transition metals show the effect, but Nickel is easier (relatively for an extremely complex phenomenon) and cheaper.”

            You must memorize all that is said about LENR from all sources, or do you have a life of your own?:-)

      • US_Citizen71

        In my experience and opinion ‘Greens’ tend to fall into one of three different major groups. The first being corporatists/capitalists that see the green movement as an easy niche to make money from. They are generally indifferent to the environment and the only green they care about is the pile of cash they can make from others in the movement. Al Gore fits into this category to me as his true motivation seemed to be only in carrying on from where Enron left off otherwise he would have been into reducing his own footprint instead of just trying to compensate for it with his own product. The second group tends to fall under the term luddites and tend to get more worked up by technology then they do about pollution or the environment. The third group and likely the largest contingent truly care about the environment but tend to be the least visible and vocal.

        A new technology like LENR that isn’t quite ready for the mass market wouldn’t excite the first two groups as there is no easy money in it and it is new technology and progress after all so the luddites just can’t get behind it.

        • Gerard McEk

          I hope I get a reply from the real Greens (the third group), but I doubt this very much.

          • psi2u2

            “They” are already starting to pick up on it. 😉

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I’m not talking about enviromentalists, but about the ordinary citizens. Regarding environmentalism, it may be true that it has become an ideology in many societies.
        But we should consider that without the civil initiatives of the last decades on environmental protection we would live today in a totally polluted world. The current situation in China’s cities would be the standard case, at least.

    • Fortyniner

      According to UK prime minister Cameron, nuclear fission is ‘green’ and as such is eligible for massive taxpayer subsidies, just like wind and solar. Obviously the concept of a cradle to grave audit is beyond him.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    How about „Green Nuclear Power“? Most people would not think that something “green” could be harmful. Scientists could keep using “LENR”, or whatever they prefer.

    • Gerard McEk

      Although from our technical point of view we would call it a ‘green’ type of energy, I am sure you will find no or very little ‘Environmentalists’ or Greens who would call this ‘green’. For one or another reason they seem not interested in this. I have tried several times and found no interest. These people are non technical and everything technical is wrong. You can tell them it is Clean Heat, but don’t tell them where it comes from.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Maybe this take is a little unfair on the greens…
        There are “technical greens”, perhaps maybe many writing on this forum, too. Labelling or generalizing can boomerang.

        • Gerard McEk

          I hope I get a reply from the real Greens (the third group of US_Citizen1), but I doubt this very much.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            Is being concerned about the environment http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/rate-of-environmental-degradation-puts-life-on-earth-at-risk-say-scientists considered ‘being green’? If yes, count me “green”.

          • Gerard McEk

            You are GREEN! I do not know if LENR can solve all the issues in the article, but at least quite a few. It is a technical solution, but that is the only thing we people can do. The only other possibility is to voluntary reduce the number of people on Earth drastically, but I have no idea how to do that.
            So tell your GREEN brothers and sisters, friends and media that LENR may be a solution in addition with a non-capitalistic economy. Let us stop exploiting world reserves and try to reduce our environmental footprint. Give all people on Earth an equal piece of the cake, if they work to that new green goal for a future of humanity on earth.

          • psi2u2

            Count me in that too. John Muir lives. He would love LENR. He would look to a future when Hetch-Hetchy could flow to the sea.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            I think you are correct: either fewer people live on earth, or those people (and companies) living on earth should behave conscientiously with resources, respecting the regeneration phases of the environment.
            Is this collective behaviour possible?
            Artificial intelligence might help humanity preventing the destruction of what is left, or accelerate the process.
            Hence we hope that Mars might be colonized soon. Westward, ho!

            If we only looked at water, the same molecule that allows LENR, and its quantum coherence in bioenergetics (publications on this subject by the same scientists who worked on the famous 4He produced in cold fusion: G. Preparata, E. Del Giudice, A. De Ninno http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/442/1/012031).
            Probably there is a meaning in hugging our trees. Let’s ‘oscillate’ coherently!
            http://www.waterjournal.org/uploads/vol5/supplement/DelGiudice.pdf

        • bachcole

          I am a critical thinking green and will be until the day that I die.

          • Gerard McEk

            I count myself to those critical thinking greens as well, so we are equally minded Bachcole!

      • US_Citizen71

        In my experience and opinion ‘Greens’ tend to fall into one of three different major groups. The first being corporatists/capitalists that see the green movement as an easy niche to make money from. They are generally indifferent to the environment and the only green they care about is the pile of cash they can make from others in the movement. Al Gore fits into this category to me as his true motivation seemed to be only in carrying on from where Enron left off otherwise he would have been into reducing his own footprint instead of just trying to compensate for it with his own product. The second group tends to fall under the term luddites and tend to get more worked up by technology then they do about pollution or the environment. The third group and likely the largest contingent truly care about the environment but tend to be the least visible and vocal.

        A new technology like LENR that isn’t quite ready for the mass market wouldn’t excite the first two groups as there is no easy money in it and it is new technology and progress after all so the luddites just can’t get behind it.

        • Gerard McEk

          I hope I get a reply from the real Greens (the third group), but I doubt this very much.

          • psi2u2

            “They” are already starting to pick up on it. 😉

        • bachcole

          The Luddites will go absolutely ballistic over LENR, especially the health oriented luddites.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I’m not talking about enviromentalists, but about the ordinary citizens. Regarding environmentalism, it may be true that it has become an ideology in many societies.
        But we should consider that without the civil initiatives of the last decades on environmental protection we would live today in a totally polluted world. The current situation in China’s cities would be the standard case, at least.

    • According to UK prime minister Cameron, nuclear fission is ‘green’ and as such is eligible for massive taxpayer subsidies, just like wind and solar. Obviously the concept of a cradle to grave audit is beyond him.

  • bachcole

    What we are seeing is not merely a new technology. Cellphones are a technology. What is most difficult for so many people to wrap their minds around is that this is a new or unrecognised phenomena, an unrecognised event or thing in nature. So naming it can’t just be a marketing ploy. It is very likely but unproven that it has been happening here and there, like in lightning, since the beginning of time. What has changed is that we are beginning to recognize it and am starting to harness it. Every time that people say “new technology” I get bothered. 3D printing is a new technology, but there is absolutely nothing about it that is mysterious. Cold fusion is mysterious. It is a physical phenomena that is newly recognized. Whether we can harness it with our technology is what we are trying to do.

    • psi2u2

      Exactly.

  • Gerard McEk

    Or maybe Quantem Transmutation (QT)?

  • bachcole

    We already get a little flack from skeptopaths about LENR, LANR, etc. If we try to change it again it will merely add fuel to their sick fire.

  • Jack T.

    Let’s say you’re a lawyer in Washington. You get a check for $1,000,000 for legal fees for dealing with the LENR issue because of the N word. Wait! They renamed it to ECAT. Aw shucks! There goes your check.

    This article should really be renamed to “Just how stupid are the lawyers and consulting companies in Washington? Do you think we can fool them?” They are not stupid. You can call the technology tame pussy cat all you want and the government will still shut it down. Lawyers and consultants will still need to be hired to prepare the paperwork to get Uncle Sam’s blessing.

    It doesn’t take a rocket science genius to figure out that IH is not an R&D or manufacturing shop. They are a government lawyer and lobbying firm.

    • mcloki

      LENR doesn’t need Uncle Sam’s blessing. The ramification of this tech make it a Strategic asset for the country that controls the R&D and manufacture of future prototypes. Stifling it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
      Think about it this way. Unlimited or very long duration loiter capability in a strategic drone fleet is a National security issue. That alone makes it imperative to be out in front of other nations looking to exploit LENR capabilities. Imagine Putin with that capability and his willingness to sell that tech to anyone. Frightening.

  • Obvious

    Call it an Intrinsic Thermal Energy Reaction (ITER) then it will look to the masses like billion$ were well spent. Two semantic victories with one stone.

    • Gerard McEk

      Then I would call it Isotopic Transmutation Energy Reaction, if you do not mind, but your approach is brilliant.

      • Obvious

        Works for me. Then one could apply for a dozen or so million dollars for some miscellaneous ITER-related work….

        • Omega Z

          You need to add some zero’s if you want them to take you seriously. In fact, If it doesn’t have a “B” in the amount, they likely think you’re a fraud & have nothing to do with ITER research.

          • greggoble

            I’m hacking in and re-routing the checks to quantum heat dot org as we speak… ya-hoo ain’t satire fun for a change? giddy up now…

  • Obvious

    Call it an Intrinsic Thermal Energy Reaction (ITER) then it will look to the masses like billion$ were well spent. Two semantic victories with one stone.

    • Gerard McEk

      Then I would call it Isotopic Transmutation Energy Reaction, if you do not mind, but your approach is brilliant.

      • Obvious

        Works for me. Then one could apply for a dozen or so million dollars for some miscellaneous ITER-related work….

        • Omega Z

          You need to add some zero’s if you want them to take you seriously. In fact, If it doesn’t have a “B” in the amount, they likely think you’re a fraud & have nothing to do with ITER research.

          • greggoble

            I’m hacking in and re-routing the checks to quantum heat dot org as we speak… ya-hoo ain’t satire fun for a change? giddy up now…

    • bachcole

      Funny!

  • David Dow

    Personally I still prefer the term Cold Fusion, even if it’s not technically correct, always have.

  • mcloki

    LENR doesn’t need Uncle Sam’s blessing. The ramification of this tech make it a Strategic asset for the country that controls the R&D and manufacture of future prototypes. Stifling it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    Think about it this way. Unlimited or very long duration loiter capability in a strategic drone fleet is a National security issue. That alone makes it imperative to be out in front of other nations looking to exploit LENR capabilities. Imagine Putin with that capability and his willingness to sell that tech to anyone. Frightening.

  • mcloki

    Zero Emissive Radiation Output Low Energy Nuclear Reaction ZEROLENR

  • mcloki

    Zero Emissive Radiation Output Low Energy Nuclear Reaction ZEROLENR

  • Gerrit

    [OT] Robert V. Duncan creates Center for Emerging Energy Sciences (CEES) at Texas Tech University (TTU). Both CEES and SKINR seek to understand the origins of the Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE) in certain metals that are loaded with hydrogen isotopes.

    http://www.depts.ttu.edu/vpr/office/staff/robert_v_duncan.php

    • Gerrit

      Center for Emerging Energy Sciences (CEES), Office of the Vice President for Research; establish a center which will initially bridge physics and chemistry in the scientific exploration for the origin of the Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE). Once the origin of the AHE is established, this center’s effort will shift toward energy engineering, with engagement with mechanical and electrical engineering. This highly focused effort will involve close collaborations with ENEA (Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Atomica), the National Energy and Environment Laboratory of Italy, and with a contract to a scientist who will soon retire from Stanford Research International (SRI) in Palo Alto, CA.

      December 2014 meeting http://www.texastech.edu/board-of-regents/december-2014-meeting/agenda-book.pdf

      • Ged

        Huh, so they are expanding. That says something. I had forgotten about the UM LENR center; haven’t personally heard news from them, but setting up another such center at a different institution is news by implication.

      • Omega Z

        “and with a contract to a scientist who will soon retire from Stanford Research International (SRI) in Palo Alto, CA.”

        I can’t possibly Imagine who this SRI Scientist could be .

        Michael McKubre works at SRI. Maybe someone should contact him. See if he knows who this is. 🙂

        Pay Attention People-
        Just because you don’t hear much blabbering about LENR in the U.S. does not mean that they are not paying attention.

    • Axil Axil

      Hydrogen loading of transition metals is not a absolute requirement for initiation of the LENR reaction.

    • greggoble

      A number of recent patents are for LENR Electric, which is not a heat effect. LENR Electric provides a method to capture electrons from the reaction and produces an electric current without a heat /electricity conversion. Calling it AHE is limiting and leaves that part of the equation out. By the by, if asked what is the cause of the AHE one would be obliged to answer honestly, “please don’t be afraid… please don’t run away… no need to hide… shhh don’t shout it out, please… it’s some type of little understood nuclear reaction… ” OH NO!!! AAAGHH!!

  • Gerrit

    [OT] Robert V. Duncan creates Center for Emerging Energy Sciences (CEES) at Texas Tech University (TTU). Both CEES and SKINR seek to understand the origins of the Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE) in certain metals that are loaded with hydrogen isotopes.

    http://www.depts.ttu.edu/vpr/office/staff/robert_v_duncan.php

    • Gerrit

      Center for Emerging Energy Sciences (CEES), Office of the Vice President for Research; establish a center which will initially bridge physics and chemistry in the scientific exploration for the origin of the Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE). Once the origin of the AHE is established, this center’s effort will shift toward energy engineering, with engagement with mechanical and electrical engineering. This highly focused effort will involve close collaborations with ENEA (Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Atomica), the National Energy and Environment Laboratory of Italy, and with a contract to a scientist who will soon retire from Stanford Research International (SRI) in Palo Alto, CA.

      December 2014 meeting http://www.texastech.edu/board-of-regents/december-2014-meeting/agenda-book.pdf

      • Robert Ellefson

        Deleted comment. (It was made redundant by moderation queue bias, once again.)

        • fact police

          McKubre’s name has not appeared on the SRI web page (except by reference) in many years. The latest I found in the wayback archives was from the year 2000.

          • Omega Z

            Just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean it’s not there. There are numerous reasons that certain data can’t be found up to & including that it may have been removed. Either in reality or just hidden from search engines.

            However, if you Google “Mckubre Brillouin”, you’ll find tons of evidence including DARPA research funding through SRI-Mckubre on Brillouin’s LENR device in just the last couple years.

          • fact police

            Right. I know. But in all those cases, the most likely source of the attribution is McKubre, not SRI.

            Still, I agree, he’s almost certainly at SRI, which presumably means they have some reason not to list him or the “Energy Research Center” that he directs (or hide them from search engines). I wonder what the reason might be.

          • Omega Z

            Preparing to rewrite history perhaps.

          • Owen Geiger

            Is it possible to find out where his paycheck comes from?

      • Ged

        Huh, so they are expanding. That says something. I had forgotten about the MU LENR center; haven’t personally heard news from them, but setting up another such center at a different institution is news by implication.

      • Omega Z

        “and with a contract to a scientist who will soon retire from Stanford Research International (SRI) in Palo Alto, CA.”

        I can’t possibly Imagine who this SRI Scientist could be .

        Michael McKubre works at SRI. Maybe someone should contact him. See if he knows who this is. 🙂

        Pay Attention People-
        Just because you don’t hear much blabbering about LENR in the U.S. does not mean that they are not paying attention.

    • Axil Axil

      Hydrogen loading of transition metals is not a absolute requirement for initiation of the LENR reaction.

      • Eyedoc

        How do you figure that ? Every reaction I’ve heard of so far involves Pd or Ni.(and H)…..am I missing something ??

        • Axil Axil

          See

          https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

          January 14 at 4:04pm

          “Oh, and he confirmed a few times that all transition metals show the effect, but Nickel is easier (relatively for an extremely complex phenomenon) and cheaper.”

          You must memorize all that is said about LENR from all sources, or do you have a life of your own?:-)

    • greggoble

      A number of recent patents are for LENR Electric, which is not a heat effect. LENR Electric provides a method to capture electrons from the reaction and produces an electric current without a heat /electricity conversion. LENR Propulsive is also on the horizon. Calling it only AHE is limiting and leaves these out of the equation.

      By the by, if asked what is the cause of the AHE one would be obliged to answer honestly, please don’t be afraid… please don’t run away… no need to hide… shhh don’t shout it out, please… it’s some type of little understood nuclear reaction…
      OH NO!!! AAAGHH!! KEEP IT AWAY!!!

      Be honest with yourself here, this article’s question proposes that the public is actually that stupid, I think that’s sort of dumb.

      Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great article. It’s just a mistake to think the public is as stupid as the dumbest person. I never aim for the lowest common denominator except when doing math.

      I posit that three types of LENR devices will be developed from this nuclear reaction.

      LENR Thermal – Providing heat; where heat is the predominant energy needed. Electricity can be produced from the waste heat.

      LENR Electric – Providing electricity; where electricity is the predominant energy needed. The LENR Electric device requires cooling; waste heat can provide some thermal energy for heating or cooling through solid state conversion processes.

      LENR Propulsive – Providing thrust; where high velocity particles are needed as a means of propulsion for aerospace applications. This embodiment can also provide some heat and electricity while in operation.

      Cheap, Versatile, and Clean Nuclear Dense Energy, a sweet-n-neat nuclear reaction.

      Sounds better already, right? It’s all in the delivery.

      People will embrace this cause of the benefits, i.e. people aren’t that dense.

      Contemporary LENR Technology Patents – Popularly Known as Cold Fusion Energy
      http://gbgoble.kinja.com/contemporary-lenr-patents-popularly-known-as-cold-fus-1644173145

  • Omega Z

    Just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean it’s not there. There are numerous reasons that certain data can’t be found up to & including that it may have been removed. Either in reality or just hidden from search engines.

    However, if you Google “Mckubre Brillouin”, you’ll find tons of evidence including DARPA research funding through SRI-Mckubre on Brillouin’s LENR device in just the last couple years.

  • bachcole

    I like Texas Tech University’s Board of Regents idea of AHE (Anomalous Heat Effect), which is pronounced “A HA”, as in this is about to be a very big surprise for the human race.

  • Omega Z

    If an Isotopic Shift is a Nuclear Reaction, It is a Nuclear Reaction.
    Call it what it is. LENR-Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

    I think it’s about time to rebel against the politically correct crap.
    Call it what it is. “Politically Correct Sheet”<- avoiding censors 🙂

  • Omega Z

    If an Isotopic Shift is a Nuclear Reaction, It is a Nuclear Reaction.
    Call it what it is. LENR-Low Energy Nuclear Reaction

    I think it’s about time to rebel against the politically correct crap.
    Call it what it is. “Politically Correct Sheet”<- avoiding censors 🙂

    • bachcole

      That would have not avoided my censor, although rather than call him a censor I call him my editor, or Frank, which ever is appropriate. (:->)

      • Omega Z

        I was referring to the automated bot.

        • bachcole

          (:->) I am able to review what gets tossed and what stays by clicking on my handle in any Disqus blog, so I have a good idea what Frank wants with regard to posts. Although I am always pro-LENR, I do see that there are skeptics here at e-catworld.com. So being a disbeliever will not get one banned. I think that skeptopaths get banned, whether they are malicious or not.

          My review of my comments shows me that Frank is intolerant of malicious intent or emotions. That is it. I have not noticed whether he tosses bad words since I sort of self-censor my own bad words. But, it seems to me that it is rare that a bad word is not accompanied by malicious intent.

  • Omega Z

    Preparing to rewrite history perhaps.

  • Gerard McEk

    I agree with you Bachcole., That’s why I was just a bit playing with the words. BTW, LIIT sounded to me like ‘ly it’.

  • John

    I’m researcher in the field and on my linkedin and talking to the people I always call it LEN-R. I changed already to LEN-R (low (EN)ergy reaction) and no one will make me use the “N” word ever again… I see people faces and eyes popping with the N word, this is not good, we are living terrorism times and the “N” word believe-me is really bad…

  • Chris, Italy

    I see no whatsoever justification for avoiding the word.

  • Chris, Italy

    I see no whatsoever justification for avoiding the word.

  • mike

    Well, until it is fully understood, it would be better to use the term “low energy nano reactions”. 1. it may not be nuclear. 2, nano is more general and would apply either way.

  • Andrew

    There is also nuclear medicine….. I don’t believe that atomic rings better in the ears anyways. The effect will always be called Cold Fusion as far as in concerned.

  • Andrew

    There is also nuclear medicine….. I don’t believe that atomic rings better in the ears anyways. The effect will always be called Cold Fusion as far as in concerned.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m for calling it what it is (nuclear) but someone once said (I’ve forgotten who) that “Language has been warped to the point where it can no longer be used.” So, it probable won’t matter what it’s called.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m for calling it what it is (nuclear) but someone once said (I’ve forgotten who) that “Language has been warped to the point where it can no longer be used.” So, it probable won’t matter what it’s called.

  • Omega Z

    I was referring to the automated bot.

  • Owen Geiger

    Is it possible to find out where his paycheck comes from?

  • MasterBlaster7

    It doesn’t matter. Once MSM really picks up on it…they are going to call it LENR, with the nuclear part, just to stir the pot. So, this entire post is retro-moot.

    Let me give you an example. Seal Team 6….or 6 was founded by Richard Marcinko back in the early 80s. Now, the navy hated Marcinko. They tried to stamp all his influence out of Team 6. For over a decade the navy changed the name to DevGuRu…if I’m spelling that right. They wanted to avoid attention. Now, after DevGuRu got Binladen…..all of a sudden….with the MSM explosion of information…..it was back to 6 or Seal Team 6….because its sexier.

    So, final point. If the Navy cant submarine a name….neither can you. LENR is forever blazened in the internet blogosphere.

  • MasterBlaster7

    It doesn’t matter. Once MSM really picks up on it…they are going to call it LENR, with the nuclear part, just to stir the pot. So, this entire post is retro-moot.

    Let me give you an example. Seal Team 6….or 6 was founded by Richard Marcinko back in the early 80s. Now, the navy hated Marcinko. They tried to stamp all his influence out of Team 6. For over a decade the navy changed the name to DevGru..if I’m spelling that right. They wanted to avoid attention. Now, after DevGru got Binladen…..all of a sudden….with the MSM explosion of information…..it was back to 6 or Seal Team 6….because its sexier.

    So, final point. If the Navy cant submarine a name….neither can you. LENR is forever blazened in the internet blogosphere.

    • bachcole

      I agree.

  • psi2u2

    Exactly.

  • psi2u2

    You are right about the mouth-full, but “transmutation” also has an aura of magic about it that is very appealing. And it may well turn out that the transmutation effects are as significant or more significant than the EH effects. For me those considerations make up for the downside of the extra syllables. But they are both excellent choices.

  • Gerard McEk

    I count myself to those critical thinking greens as well, so we are equally minded Bachcole!

  • Zephir

    E-Cat is not inherently safe, but its avoiding wouldn’t be safe for human civilization as well

    http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/nuclear/fusion/cold/ecat_neutrons.avi

  • greggoble

    The Navy, NASA, Mitsubishi, etc, etc, etc. use LENR and Cold Fusion, our vote will not change this. By the way, it is touted by all as ‘nuclear dense’ energy (without the radiation). Others rejoice that it can, through nuclear processes, transmute nuclear waste to benign elements while delivering high process steam to the turbines, ending the U238 nuclear fuel cycle. Why avoid the fact that this is new nuclear, more intelligent nuclear, and that LENR is clearly (hands down) a better nuclear energy technology?

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    “This result opens new perspectives in the investigation of important natural phenomena such as lightning. A lightning blot emerges from clouds, which are ensembles of droplets of water suspended in air; nothing else. In spite of this simplicity, huge amounts of energy and electric charge are carried by the lightning. Since we have proved that a water CD [Coherent Domain] can easily release electrons and can store huge amounts of energy, we are faced by the appealing possibility that we could learn something about the dynamics of lightning by using the QFT [Quantum Field Theory] approach.” p. 575, http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2073-4441%2F2%2F3%2F566%2Fpdf&ei=FmO7VPeZOJT5ao-xguAE&usg=AFQjCNHz523Ttc9XAu7pSqUHyGjDACU50Q&bvm=bv.83829542,d.d2s

    http://geesinkresearch.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/a-quantum-model-about-coherence-to-study-non-ionizing-radiation-geesinkresearch-may-2014.pdf

  • GreenWin

    Avoiding the word “nuclear” is only necessary to assuage the fear of “consensus science” which has plunged its head into sand at the sight of a technology it cannot understand.

  • GreenWin

    Avoiding the word “nuclear” is only necessary to assuage the fear of “consensus science” which has plunged its head into sand at the sight of a technology it cannot understand.