Lugano Team Working on Replication, CERN Scientists looking at LENR (Vessy’s Blog)

In an article on her blog on the E-Cat: The New Fire website site, Vessela Nikolova states that she has received confirmation from a first hand source (other than Mats Lewan) that the team who conducted the Lugano E-Cat test continues to investigate LENR at Uppsala University in Sweden, and their work includes some kind of replication effort.

She also states that some physicists working at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Switzerland) are involved in the study of ‘some aspects related to LENR’, but they prefer to work in silence. She also states that the work of Alexander Parkhomov and the MFMP in the area of E-Cat Replication efforts represent only the ‘tip of the iceberg’, and that some interesting revelations will be forthcoming.

Replication efforts that have been announced, and not reported on so far, include Brian Ahern, Jean-Paul Biberian, Bob Higgins and The Open Power Association, and I know there are more. One of the hosts of Bob Greenyer at his presentation in Moscow last month mentioned that he estimated that there were about 100 efforts underway in Russia to replicate Parkhomov.

It will be interesting to see more data reported from some of these efforts. If Parkhomov’s results can be duplicated in one or more of these attempts, and the results of testing publicly reported, I think it would be extremely significant and would encourage even more replication efforts.



  • Nigel Appleton

    Speaking of replication, what’s become of MFMP efforts?

    • Mr. Moho

      Bound to restart soon with Bob Higgins’ efforts.

  • Gerrit

    SKINR mentioned in their Current Science paper: “Perform perturbed angular correlation hyperfine magnetic field measurements during heat production at CERN (in discussion).”

    that may be the same as “studying some aspects related to LENR”

    • I would like to know what the scientists at CERN are thinking when they measure the magnetic field on a working LENR reactor…

      • Gerrit

        I would like to have live coverage of that moment with a narrator saying: “After more than 25 years of denial, mainstream scientists recognize that cold fusion is real after all”

        • Yes, they would look like a cow after a thunderbolt 😀

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I guess that the investigations of the Lugano group are still a part of the Elforsk research program, which is scheduled until 2015 inclusive. As soon as there are watertight results, the industrial players will react immediately. Since Elforsk is on good terms with many of them, a paper in Nature or Science will not be required to trigger the process.

  • Bob Greenyer


  • Sanjeev
    Brian Ahern plans to start an experiment on Sunday.
    He is not replicating exactly.

    • hempenearth

      Good news


    Gerrit Kroesen, the dean of Department of Applied Physics of Technical University of Eindhoven , have tested Blacklight technology…

    Not convinced by the theory, but by the experiments….

    the dam of mindguards is leaking from every sides.

  • Freethinker

    The presentation made by Polosa and Faccini at CERN was illuminating. The were good presentation, and also the articles available at Arxiv are interesting. I came out of it with a few observations:

    1. They are clearly negative to LENR. Frequently occurring negative terminology and intonations made that obvious. Also the overall description of what is found on the web was sweeping and negative. The whole thing smelled of debunking. But it was well done, and educational.

    2. I find it almost dishonest to present the neutron emission in lightning, piezoelectric related neutron emission when crossing slabs of rock, with Cirillo et al. electrolysis experiment, which was also commented on by one in the audience. They talked about different phenomena, and theory, and then debunked Cirillo et al’s experiments. All in once, as though it all were connected. Not good, and again revealing as to their general opinion of LENR as a whole.

    3. Their debunking of the Cirillo paper is strange in many ways, although educating at the same time. I have read the draft of Cirillo’s paper as well as the published one. It is clear that he used detectors that used a calibrated source to establish a calibration curve, as how much tracks was received using a certain radiation level. He also had, in each experiment, non exposed detectors (~5 meters away from the experiment) that showed no significant activity. Reading his KAM paper, I’d say that it seem quite solid, and Faccini and Polosa seem to be shooting on that the detectors were wrongly designed, not ideal for the type of neutrons intended to be detected (thermal), Radon sources polluting the detectors,etc etc, but what remains when their experiments are sqrutinized is that for some reason they, Faccini and Polosa that is, failed to achieve the same neutron flux.

    I am still a bit weary about the many power-electrolysis experiments that is permeating the cyberspace, and I am not convinced that just because you have plasma on a metal rod in some liquid, that you would have any kind of LENR. Cirillo’s paper, I think, is provoking, has the calibration, has the null check, and show indication. And as with so many other experiment in this field that has been showing positive and been negative in the quick setup reproductions, likely they didn’t run it long enough, used tungstens rods of a different cut, let the setup wait for two months to make corroborating tests, etc etc. As it is not understood why it works, it is not very surprising that they failed in this specific reproduction. It likely does not give result every time, taken the recipe straight from Cirillo’s paper.

    4. The quick walk through of Widom/Larsen was good as it was given on a quite accessible level of difficulty. Plus on that, although there was all theses hints on what and where they went wrong, seemingly dictated by dogma. Again, theory does not dictate the reality of the world, and as the phenomenon is there, there must be some model that will fit eventually.

    Hopefully Cirillo and the other’s who stepped up on the plate together with him, will continue, and can perhaps try to utilize a wider batery of measurements and reduction schemes for their measured data, so as to fit the expectations of critics like Faccini and Polosa. I hope CERN will do more, critical or otherwise, because it put LENR on the agenda for one of the largest and most well known physics institutes in the world. In the end it will prevail.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Did they comment the SEM data in Cirillo’s paper? (I assume you mean this one: .)

      • Freethinker

        Cirillo’s ( being Germano, Tontodonato, Widom, Srivastava, Del Giudice, and Vitiello) paper in KAM “Experimental Evidence of a Neutron Flux Generation
        in a Plasma Discharge Electrolytic Cell” from Key Engineering Materials Vol. 495 (2012) pp 104-107 does not include any SEM images. It is a fairly short paper on 4 pages, containing basically the same things as is described in (Cirillo, Domenico, “Slow Neutron Generation by Plasma Excitation in Electrolytic Cell,” Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 107, ISSN 0003-018x, p. 418-421, (2012)).

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I did not mean images, but the EDX data from the SEM. The appearance of new elements, and not only changes in the isotopic composition (which might result from fractionation), can hardly be ignored. See pp. 8-9 of the above linked paper, which dates from 2004.

          • Freethinker

            🙂 Sorry.

            No. They mention the new elements found on the cathode, and refer to the work of Ohmori&Mizuno (2 articles of ’98 and ’03) and his own work with Iorio, the one you pointed out. No tables or updates on the matter.

          • Freethinker

            But when I look closer at the diagrams in the paper you refer to I must say I wonder what it is all about.

            The diagram show virtually no abundances, except for possibly minute amounts of Au. The Os, Tm and Re peaks are supposedly all very close to Tungsten peaks, so there is no way to say anything based on those. Further, the question is, what does the unused rod look like? What is the diff between the SEM spectra? Has there been efforts to extract peaks from those that are asymmetric and have energies very close to each other? What are the result from them? What are the estimated abundances and what errors are there in those determinations?

            If you know of any more information on this, I’d appreciate it.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Thanks for the compilation. I have also been wondering about the points you mentioned, therefore (among others) my initial question. If you are interested in transmutations, you might want to take a look at the data of Peery & Attaie (click on the corresponding links on the left side):

            Patent application

            Apparently, Rossi is not the only one who has problems with the patent office. Quote from their homepage:

            “We are preparing a suit claiming FRAUD by the U.S. Patent Office and asking a damage claim of 500 Million US dollars. We propose an examiner at the Patent Office maliciously overlayed photo screening masks over all of our spectrographic images, then claimed they were unreadable.”

    • georgehants

      It is very difficult to respect these people until they take into consideration the knowledge of their own subjects.
      It is clear that particles such as the Higgs can be created simply by looking for it.
      In fact if one looked for the George particle QT says it will be created by thought alone.

      • Dave Lawton

        Spot on George,that’s why I left particle physics. Think up a
        particle,design a experiment to find it,and you will find it.

        • Mats002

          Think up LENR, design an experiment to validate it, and you do.
          Your argument conflicts with your interest.

      • BroKeeper

        In other words we exist in a matrix of thought?

        • bachcole

          Even better, we are an Ocean of Divinity, but we experience ourselves as these finite bodies.

          • georgehants

            Roger, from a scientific point of view, we do not know what we are, but a creator is certainly one of the more sensible theories to explain our existence.
            Only dumb scientists would attempt to remove a theory because it does not fit their own religious beliefs.
            Another fair theory is that we are the result of a student experiment that went wrong in another very advanced reality where creating Universes is just child’s

        • georgehants

          BroKeeper and all, my point as always is that incompetent science excludes on many subjects, clear theoretical or experimental Evidence to maintain the closed-minded religious Dogmas of this silly profession.
          One has seen on page (and off) many times the pressure I come under not to speak the Truth regarding the failures and crimes of science.
          Their is a brain-washed mentality of, one should not criticize the establishment etc.
          It appears to be more prevalent in the US.
          Until science changes it’s outlook and laughs at those who avoid looking at the Evidence on any scientific subject with the pure intention of finding the Truth, then damage to it and society will continue.
          It is very pleasant for me to have you guys looking at the Evidence and supporting open-minded awareness of Evidence that science has had in front of it’s nose for many years and yet ignores.
          Many thanks

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        If we are puzzled on why scientists are paranoid about debunking, keep in mind the cash ‘whences’ and ‘wherefores’… an the implications of change. Cui prodest?
        This is an era where possible opposition is gunned down in the centre of the street with no witnesses, and conveniently broken surveillance cameras.
        Impunity and lies. For cash.

    • Gerrit

      It would have been much better if the experiment had produced the signal. Imagine if they had seen the same results as the original setup, we would be in a very different situation already.

      The experiment didn’t deliver, I understand there are some reasons (excuses) for that, but we won’t get anywhere fast if cold fusion experiments keep failing when observed by skeptics.

      As Barty replied to me further below in the comments, I would like to know what these CERN guys will be thinking when they will have a working experiment in their lab.

      But, fair enough, if the LENR community wants to convince the CERN people, they should be provided with a working experiment first, otherwise it’s a waste of everybody’s time.

  • Freethinker

    Don’t make too much of it. read the About tab of the esteemed publication.
    It is a joke, and it is funny 🙂

  • georgehants

    Dave we wait for the connection between the Phi and the The Mandelbrot set.
    We need Godel or Dirac.

    • Dave Lawton

      George I shall see if I can channel Dirac we both went to the same school Bishop Rd Bristol.It even has a blue plaque now. I have a connection.

      • georgehants

        Dave, Amazing, Serendipity, Ha.