Airbus Scientist to Announce ‘Major Theoretical Breakthrough’ in Cold Fusion in October

This is an interesting comment written by Jean-Francois Geneste, Vice-President Chief Scientist of Airbus Group Innovations on his LinkedIn page yesterday.

13. Aug. 2015
I made a major theoretical breakthrough in the field of “energy creation”. This will be presented at the 11th workshop on anomalies in hydrogen loaded metals which will be held next October in Airbus, Toulouse. What it basically consists in is a global theorization of energy creation which includes all known means up today, that they be chemical, nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Against all expectations, it is proved that there is potential room for cold fusion or so in a breakthrough approach of building a “burner” and making a (new) fuel. As a consequence, even if the burden of proof remains to cold fusionists to experimentally prove, at least, they are right, on a theoretical point of view, I completely revert the burden of proof to orthodox physicists who now will have to prove the non-existence of cold fusion, if they can, since they have been claiming it for years if not decades. The only way my theory leaves them, is to find a counter example to our theory. I sincerely think this will be very hard, the physical foundations being quite obvious and demanding less than orthodox physics itself.

I hope this theoretical work will allow a more objective approach concerning cold fusion in particular and will encourage young physicists to invest in the field.

This should make the upcoming conference at Airbus in Toulouse, France, all the more interesting. We should note that this is a ‘theoretical breakthrough’, not an announcement about a product or experiment, but still, to have a scientist from a major industrial organization like Airbus Group publicly go on the record in favor of cold fusion is a very unusual occurrence, and it indicates that there could be considerable R&D already going on at the aerospace company.

Something else to look forward to in the world of LENR!

  • Sanjeev

    Very good news, even if its a theoretical breakthrough.
    Possibly, the engineers in Airbus can be first to utilize this and convert the theory into practical and useful devices.

    • Maybe they have something working until october.

      • Jarea1

        That would be great!

    • LookMoo

      1905 In London the scientists of the time was laughing about reports of flying machines.. sure it was gliders.. theories was exchanged back and forth. When the German Luftstreitkräfte (Air force of imperial Germany) started to drop bombs over London 10 years later these scientists was standing out as fools.

      We don’t needs another theory we needs something that can be sold on at Wallmart. Big corp already knows it works, LENR have been proven in the Lugano test.

  • bachcole

    And get the interested attention of a few more.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    A lot can happen from here to October, and i mean inside the Airbus Corp.

    Lets wait and see…

  • Bob Matulis

    Very cool. I have an acquaintance with an expert on nuclear energy who dismisses all experimental results since “they deviate from established physics”. If it can be established that LENR can exist within the confines of established physics that changes everything.

    • SG

      While I have experienced the same type of out-of-hand dismissal by nuclear energy “scientists,” my guess is that unless Airbus publishes in a “high quality” peer-reviewed journal, this will change nothing, at least among the nuclear energy “scientist” crowd. And that will likely not happen because of the organized blockade by such “high quality” journals. The traditional system is rigged against LENR. The breakthrough must come in the marketplace, not among the scientific community. Andrea Rossi understands this very very well.

      • Gerard McEk

        I fully agree, even Airbus will not be able to breach the existing physics doctrine!

        • only with a plane, or a boiler.

      • Bob Matulis

        Indeed. Airbus flying from NY to Sydney nonstop someday would certainly be compelling. Competition would mandate others hopping on board (pun intended)

      • even with high quality paper (there was many, like Oriani in the first months), it is hopeless.

        only solution is commercial applications.

      • Mike Ivanov

        I think even publication in a”high quality” journal will do nothing for cold fusion. Stakes are too high now, nobody will acknowledge what they did organized blockade, etc. The only possible way to break this wall is a working device, available for general public.

  • GreenWin

    No. Because it could still be a skam. The blind mice at Airbus are just gullible. /sarc

  • Pedro

    The way I read this, he has a theoretical proof that something like Cold Fusion could exist. He does not have a theory about how Cold Fusion works.

    • yes, that is how I understand it.
      he have an experience in considering laws of physics and challenging their coherence. (L’esprit des lois, spirit of the laws).

      this is probably an answer to “LENR is impossible because it breaks the law of…”

      • MasterBlaster7

        Im not going to hold my breath.

        • Zack Iszard

          Me neither. Tis but a prelude to the first movement in February. F9

  • Axil Axil

    The true theory of LENR must explain many and varied unbelievable things which include the following: the thermalization of gamma radiation, the rapid to instantaneous stabilization of radioactive isotopes, lack of neutron emissions, and the wide variation of seemingly random transmutation results which includes fusion of light elements into heavier elements and fission of heavy elements into lighter ones, remote reaction at a distance from the location of the LENR reaction, and instantaneous cluster fusion involving huge numbers of sub-reactions that occur instantly and collectively.

    Now with the relalations of Holmlid’s results, LENR theory must explain the spontaneous production of a wide range of subatomic particles that can only be produced in a particle accelerator in the 6 gigavolt range. Also why muon decay is delayed after they are produced from the vacuum.

    These LENR results are what science cannot explain and why these results are beyond the power of science to understand. A scientist that has only one system to draw experimental experience from is at great disadvantage in seeing the big picture in LENR theory.

    The true LENR theory will push science into a unified field theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics within the context of condensed matter physics, I will evaluate this new theory based on all the aforementioned criteria.

    • Obvious

      A good LENR theory need only explain a cohesive reason for some of those things that are actually related. There could easily be several pathways that are not connected. That several different pathways are being exploited simultaneously in some iterations is also feasible, and may in fact be a cause of the apparent complexity. Sure, it would be simpler if there was only one gross effect that results in several unusual LENR pathways. But that is not a reason in itself to be sure that is a single effect. Occam’s Razor is not a law of the universe, just a general principle.

      • Axil Axil

        In LENR all these behaviors or related in a single mechanism. This is why understanding that mechanism will push progress in science ahead at least 100 years and allow for safe interstellar travail to occur before the end of this century.

        • mcloki

          First easy access to orbit, Satellite and tourism. Then intersolar. Asteroid mining. But there will be so many earthbound applications. least of which will be agriculture, urban farming, desalination and heat. The basics.

        • Obvious

          I predict more questions than answers will arrive with a single functional theory that will allow engineering of a bunch of neat LENR-related stuff, but will conflate problems in the present understanding of physics, so that another 50 to 75 years will easily go by without a single unified theory. Rather a bunch of unified theories will arrive, most with a lack of testable predictions, or predictions so esoteric as to be effectively untestable.

          So maybe your end of century deadline might work…

          • Axil Axil

            Recently, I was watching an easy to understand lecture on YouTube titled “ER = EPR”, or “What’s Behind the Horizons of Black Holes?” given by Prof. Leonard Susskind, director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. He was explaining how he resolves the AMPS paradox about the limitation a entanglement to explain manipulation of energy inside a black hole through wormholes.

            His explanation related to Black Holes explains perfectly how energy from a fusion event is sent into a SPP(an EMF Black Hole) as a consequence of entanglement. Susskind said that it would take science 100 years to recognized that his theory was true or not because there was no way to experimentally test it.

            He also explained how a black hole sends out entangling photons from black hole evaporation. This also must happens with SPPs. All this EMF from SPP evaporation must create an totally entangled environment inside a LENR reactor. This might explain why Rydberg matter is superconducting.

            I thought to myself that this energy transfer happens as a fundamental mechanism in LENR that can be experimentally verified. Susskind can resolve the structure of space time and connect quantum mechanics to general relativity and prove it experimentally using a LENR reactor. If only one of the LENR experimentalists would let down their proprietary dress and work with black hole science. Just imagine how far our understanding of the universe will move forward when science and LENR are reconciled.


          • Gerrit

            The general picture of cold fusion is still that per definition only crackpot scientists and gullible enthusiasts are wasting time with it.

            A chief scientist from a huge company doesn’t fit in that picture, just as the CEO from Elforsk doesn’t fit in and the chief scientist from NASA Langley doesn’t fit in.

            Let”s hope this will get some news coverage together with the conference.

          • No it won’t be covered.

            the question are too chalenging.
            first journalist wioll have the choice between supporting crackpot science like LENR, or accusing big corp executive, and government officers, and agencies officers, and innovations leaders, and entrepreneurs, to be crazy in mass.

            the only answer is not to speak, not to hear, not to see.

            at least you will not say anything stupid, and if you don’t see or hear it, you cannot be accused of hiding it to the public.

            this reasoning is fruit of my recent observation.

            the revolution will came from an innocent non journalist , probably a kid of 5 years old without any mental deficit.

          • Mats002

            The emperor is naked!?

          • Alan DeAngelis

            The APS rejected Julian Schwinger’s cold fusion theory papers. So, why would they listen to this guy?


          • Zack Iszard

            One word: Timing.

            Julian Schwinger’s efforts were too late in the first big round of the modern LENR saga. In a sports metaphor, like a winning field goal released after the buzzer. Most readers on this forum are familiar with how true science gave way to pressure from the Ivory Tower (in part because F&P were rushed in making their landmark publication) in the early 90s. Schwinger’s efforts (publications and talks) occurred at the end of the debacle.

            I believe Geneste, on the other hand, has impeccable timing. The sort of technical brief he will give won’t be noticed by many outside of aerospace and engineering, but it will act as a poignant primer for the (F9) announcement of the first successful industrial trial of LENR for energy generation in February. Geneste’s academic efforts will grab enough serious engineers’ attention to help catapult IH and the E-Cat to instant fame, mostly because they will provide a very significant “oh, we knew this all along” disclaimer for major media outlets.

            Of course this depends on on the exact nature of Geneste’s ideas. If they are readily applicable to any significant and concrete engineering problem, and supersede orthodox physics as succinctly as he proposes, then his reputation (and possibly career) are on the line. I would bet pretty good money that he knows this, and is going forward anyway, which means his ideas really are that significant. The Ivory Tower will catch up in a few years’ time, and then the gears will really start turning.

            I wonder if kid fusion geniuses Taylor Wilson or Jamie Edwards are aware of the LENR saga unfolding before them?

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Any public discussion by any major industrial group is a
            good thing.

            From the physics community, as several noted here unless
            such a paper gone through peer review, then it not going to make much waves in
            the general science community.

            And remember, we have the yearly CCCF conference in which
            many papers are presented – as such these conferences don’t garner much in the
            way of press coverage. The “stamp” of Airbus or a major company “does” help but
            not really that much.

            So I don’t think this announcement will cause much of a

            I suppose we are all hoping that next year some big LENR
            story breaks out, and that will at least make Airbus look like they on are on
            top of things.

            Given we NOW have several presentations and conferences
            on cold fusion occurring each year, as such these events based on past experience
            don’t make much in terms of press.

            So this is welcome, but announcing a “theory” to the
            public will not cause much in the way of people accepting LENR.

            Now if Airbus was to demonstrate some working device,
            then this would be a big announcement. As such, this will help acceptance of LENR
            and is welcome, but this event will not make much in the way of a splash.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Oystein Lande

        Not a particular modest person, mr. Geneste, hehe. Ref. Linkedin – “A global Expert in mathematics and physics”. Well, maybe he is….we will see …. 😉

        • Zack Iszard

          Very astute, bachcole. I think the “LENR Bungle of 2016” will provide enough of a shake-up in Physics to open a few significant minds. Utter and indiscriminate reliance on Peer Review (capitalized to denote the religion) is a detriment to the virtues of what peer review is for. Other contributors in this forum have identified before how Peer Review actually functions as “an echo chamber” and a social influence tool. Only in the “purist” sciences is this the case. Searching for such monumental confirmation bias in interdisciplinary studies such as material science, computer science, robotics, cybernetics, and biochemistry find fewer of such problems, exactly because interdisciplinary science requires a VERY open mind.

  • Daniel Maris


  • Obvious

    That sounded like an invitation for skeptics to join in.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I would like to see the “handyman/gardener” review his theory.

    • Obvious

      (Scroll down to “Black holes do not exist”)

      • Alan DeAngelis
        • Gerrit

          He announced he will present it at the conference, that’s perfectly okay.

          • Mark Underwood

            Jean-Francois Geneste is pretty familiar and confident working with with quantum entanglement and geometry themes, so I wouldn’t be surprised that he brings these into the equation (pun intended). At

            you can read his article on faster than light communication titled “A pace towards communications quicker than the speed of light”. There is another paper titled “Discrete Increment Value in Fractionated Architectures” which I was unable to read but which may also have clues as to the methods he has employed to put LENR on a theoretical footing.

      • Mike Ivanov

        Well, he did not say anything, actually. Will see…

    • Zack Iszard

      Eh, I won’t bother to spend much time trying to illustrate this guy’s cherrypicking. Instead, around 28:00, I will target his description of the escape velocity of a black hole, defined as the distance from the center of such an object’s mass at which the escape velocity is the speed of light. Only light can go the speed of light. Light is massless. Therefore, the distance from an object at which the escape velocity is the speed of light (the Scwhartzchild radius) does not require a mass of a second object, as this object is assumed to be a photon (a massless “object”). This fits in the descriptions of Einstein’s GR field equations, which Mr. Crothers so consistenyly points out only work for a universe with one mass. Where Crothers really butchers the math is when he says on the one hand that this distance is the distance at which nothing escapes, but on the other hand some other scientist claims that this is the distance at which light can escape. He claims this is an incongruence. If one embraces the notion of limits (the concept upon which all of differential calculus is based), then one understands that this radius at which only light escapes, yet nothing escapes, is not an incongruence, just hasty language by a mathmetician. Any individual trained in secondary-level math will recognize this.

      It seems to me that many of the apparent inconsistencies Crothers points out are indeed these sorts of casual inconsistencies, which only appear inconsistent if taken literally and out of context. Much of his slides feature information taken quite out of context.

      Therefore, I conclude that this Crothers guy needs to do more homework. He may have some fantastically brilliant ideas, but until he embraces some of the long-held and long-proven notions of both mathematics and linguistics (“context”, for example) I don’t believe he is worth listening to. Not to say that I think what he proposes is impossible on face, or that he is a completely incompetent mathematician, but rather that his arguments are not very strong and only persuade the more layman-level crowd he is apparently presenting to.

  • Zephir

    We all already know from 1926, there is potential for cold fusion. I’m explaining it for example here

    We had about sixtysix theories of cold fusion in 2002 already…

    So what we actually need is the practical breakthrough, not theoretical one.

    • Zephir

      What I mean with practical breakthrough is for example the publicly accessible demonstration of cold fusion without any doubts about lack of external energy source, or the public release of freely available experimental kit or affordable domestic unit.

      The contemporary physicists are such an biased ignorants, they will not accept anything else as a proof of cold fusion/LENR – despite they’re routinely validating their pet theories with phenomena at the picowatt scale.

  • ecatworld

    In a response to a question from Peter Gluck on Ego Out, Jean-Francois Geneste wrote: “my model does not specifically deal with vacuum energy. It is both more mathematical and easier than that.‎ In fact, if vacuum is not really vacuum, which I believe, and this will be published by the beginning of September in my new book, then, maybe there could be (theoretical) room to extract energy from vacuum. But my purpose is more engineering oriented.”

    See more here:

    • It would be interesting to know if Geneste issued a paper about his theory to a major journal…
      Otherwise, without peer review no one will notice it

      • Axil Axil

        Currently, there is a movement in physics to connect the theory of the universe with information science. This revolves around the concept of the holographic universe. It sounds like Geneste intends to offer a generalize mathematical proof of how energy is transformed as a mathematical operation on the information that describes the universe.

        There is a good chance that this theory will not be connected to any recognizable physical processes of LENR technologies that you are familiar with. Without a primmer, Mathematical descriptions of reality are near impossible for a non mathematician to figure out. If you a hoping to increase your understanding of LENR through this theory, prepare to be disappointed.

        Yes, I do agree that LENR theory is somewhere in this ballpark, related to black holds, quantum fluids, superconductivity, and their connection through parallelism,

        To start getting yourselves ready for reading Geneste’s theory and supporting mathematical proofs, based on this the information theory of reality, see the following:

        Physics of Information – Quantum Entanglement, Black Holes and Holographic Universe

        I just can’t wait for October to arrive…

        • hhiram

          I’m pleased that someone with some solid credentials has made what he thinks is an important theoretical breakthrough. However, it is VERY discouraging that this theoretical work isn’t being published in a peer-reviewed physics journal prior to appearing in other media/books/etc.

          This is not any kind of conspiracy or any active effort by the scientific establishment to oppose LENR research. It’s just a simple example of bad judgment by the author. The norm and general rule of scientific practice is to publish in a peer-reviewed journal FIRST. Then publish/promote elsewhere afterward. You can’t flagrantly violate the rules and norms of scientific publishing practice and then complain if the scientific community doesn’t take your work seriously.

          • Axil Axil

            Geneste will attempt to form an air tight mathematical argument which starts from some generally accepted theoretical baseline(there are a few of these around now) that is commonly recognized by science. Geneste will then proceed to prove mathematically in a series of steps moving to a conclusion that states some facts about LENR. What that initial baseline scientific theory will be and what the final conclusion incorporating LENR will be are of interest in his arguments.

          • I totaly agree with you!

            Science will see this presentation and the whole conference like any other fraud-based “free-energy” conference.

            Peer review is a must have to be taken seriously and accepted.
            With the name “Airbus” in the back, Geneste should also have very good cards to be taken serious by the editors of major journals without being directly rejected.

          • GreenWin

            Consensus science has forfeited the privilege of peer review on certain subjects. Thus, commerce has stepped in to replace peer review. It is a return to the age of independent research and development. Had the science community been more open minded (and less intimidated) they would not be in this position today. Karma?

          • bachcole

            Karma is justice.

    • GreenWin

      Looks like he’s headed down a good road. Acknowledging vacuum energy is a key.

  • Axil Axil

    Deleted as a duplicate

  • Mats002

    May the weak force be with us! This article is explains LENR for ‘dummies’:

    • Axil Axil

      The question boils down to what is fundamental and what emerges from that basic causation. The strength of the weak fores may be determined by the energy content of the vacuum. The weak force may not be fundamental. The weak force may emerge from the excitation of the vacuum. The excitation of the vacuum may be what is fundamental.

      Radioactive decay is caused by the weak force. But the rate of this decay can vary in LENR. The state of the vacuum is what ultimately determines how fast radioactive decay precedes.

      • Mats002

        Vacuum is the new eather. With new understanding that comes with LENR and EMDrive all of todays “fundamental” forces should be in question.

        There is no requirement that a theory must make predictions at a certain level of detail (scale). Newton and other theories of their time are valid in human scales, Einstein – and other theories of their time – are valid at faster and lesser scales, but with a 3rd paradigm happening now – as it seams – new theories at nano and pico scale will go deep enough to find fewer, common, new fundamental forces.

        • Axil Axil

          See comment above…

    • bachcole

      Did you call me?

      • Mats002

        🙂 For Dummies is an extensive series of instructional/reference books which are intended to present non-intimidating guides for readers new to the various topics covered.
        I presume you are new to the subject of LENR, Mr bachhole?

    • radvar

      Same old war, hadrons vs. leptons, objects vs energy, property vs well-being.

  • Experimentalist


    Will there be a transcript, report, video of this upcoming conference ?

    I would like to know what this theoretical breakthrough is. And like Radvar said, it will be interesting to know if this theory is about the strong force or the electroweak force.

  • I agree with you diagnostic.

    P/R is just a shield against bad work, even if sometime it is a shield against novelty… this is documented, and today some big scientists are very concerned.

    “1) there is no obvious theoretical explanation for the phenomena; and 2) the experimental results are *extremely* difficult to reproduce consistently.”

    you give the key points.
    the 1st is the most important, and where I probably disagree is that I think that 1 and 2, ARE but SHOULD NOT be a reason not to publish.

    the term of echo chamber may be interpreted hard of soft way.
    I take it as evident community effect, where some kind of dissenters are rejected.
    What is funny is that some kind of dissenters are loved, like hard crazy theorist, or pointless discussions…
    but I see that when something is disruptive, first for theory, but more strangely for social impact, then it seems no more funny…

    MOND is funny because it is hopeless and pointless, until MiHsC explains EmDrive and kills Darkmatter/energy and general relativity.

    LENR was disruptive for many reason :
    – it disrupted the morality of physics that say that the more expensive the better
    – it disrupted the academic hierarchy in putting chemistry at front
    – it disrupted nuclear physics in that it could not be explained by 2body physics.
    – it disrupted the habbits of physicist in that results were easily reproduced (for chemist, microelectronics engineers, biologists, it is no news)
    – it disrupted the Ivy League hierarchy of US universities in that an english chemist in Utah have done better job than a US physicst in Caltech or MIT.

    there is a recent paper showing that scientific facts are less accepted when they are morally problematic…

    my feeling is that cold fusion was morally shocking from a physicis, ivy league, point of view.

    no conspiracy, just psychology.

  • Lelien

    Strange M Jean-François Geneste :
    “He spoke at an invitation-only meeting organized by Michel
    Vandenberghe, president of small Swiss-based company LENR-Cities,
    founded in August 2014.

    Geneste’s presentation contained nothing scientific about LENRs. It
    offered his philosophical perspective on physics and science.
    A quick search of the Internet turned up no official reference to any

    Airbus Chief Scientist. According to Marie Caujolle, a media relations
    manager with whom New Energy Times spoke on Wednesday, Airbus has no such position.

    However, the Airbus Group Web page, which lists many chiefs, does not list anybody with the title of “Chief Scientist.”

    New Energy Times spoke with two members of the Airbus
    Group media relations department, Christine (Eirainer) Manderscheid and
    Marie-Alix Delestrade. They had never heard of Geneste.

    According to the Web site for Airbus Group Innovations,
    a network of research facilities, scientists, engineers and
    partnerships, the person in charge of that department is Jean Botti

    New Energy Times sent an e-mail to Botti and to
    Manderscheid seeking clarification of Geneste’s role. Botti did not
    respond. Manderscheid, in an e-mail that she also sent to Martin Agüera,
    the head of corporate media relations, did not respond to our question
    about Geneste’s role.”

    Does Airbus even knows know about him anyway?

    • Gerrit

      you should not pay too much attention to Steven B. Krivit’s “investigations”.

      I am pretty convinced that a Jean-François Geneste exists and that he is a scientist and “Directeur Scientifique” at Airbus group Innovations.

      • Obvious

        Ha. Or he was until a few days ago…
        Good thing he has a new book to fall back onto…
        Or he is like McKubre. All but invisible in the public directory and official channels.

      • I have studied the Krivit story, with access to insiders data.

        JF Geneste is officially
        “Executive Chief Scientists” of “Airbus Innovation”.
        following modern big companies organization, Airbus Innovation is the subsidiary which represent what was before named the “technology and scientific division” (Direction technique in French).
        the CEO of the “XXX innovation”, here Jean Botti is the “Chief Innovation Officer” beside his more classical responsibilities or making the group technical choices coherent (he is Chief IT officer too).
        JF Geneste is straight under the CIO responsibilities in the organigram of the company.

        “Executive” title mean that JF Geneste have the highest level of responsibilities for experts in the group, and he participate the group ComEx where strategic decision are discussed.

        Note that there is many peers “chief scientists”, like there is peers Chief IT Officer, in each division.
        However the specificity of Airbus Innovation is that this structure is responsible of question which encompass the whole group, and not only one of the business unit.

        Krivit made two errors.
        one is a naive inquiry, calling a VIP straight and asking data to the secretary is not the good way in EU… Meeting those people who participate the ExCom of Airbus Group is a battle in itself… not for SK.
        To that, Krivit added his great talent to transform lack of data and misunderstanding into a conspiracy…
        Basically, his error is to make aggressive journalism, instead of trying to meet people, establish sane relations, catching what is happening and how people are organized.
        this takes years.

        Moreover I suspect, from others story that he works (with passion of for money) for some interests… against Rossi, EU,… he was a sincere but naive supporter, but today it is strange. he is the best sources of those against LENR.
        I take him as the dark twin of Sterling Allan.

        • LCD

          Krivit is a snake, and a complete failure as a science reporter.

          Once again half truths converted into obvious fact. Can’t stand that dude.

    • Sanjeev

      As Gerrit said, the source is not trustworthy.
      Lets wait till the paper comes out. Its usefulness will be anyway determined by its content, association with Airbus is a purely social matter.

    • Citoyen Curieux

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.