New Paper from Univ. of Illinois Team Reports Positive LENR Experimental Results (George Miley et al.)

Thanks to John Littlemist for this link on the Always Open thread (via AlainCo on the LENR Forum).

A paper has been posted on the Italian Cobraf forum which I have not seen before. It’s titled “Progress in Development of an LENR Power Cell for Space” and is written by George Miley and others at Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and was presented in the Proceedings of Nuclear & Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS) 2015 which was held in Albuquerque, NM, February 23-26, 2015. George Miley is a long-time LENR researcher and has founded a company, Lenuco, where he focuses on space applications for LENR.

Link to the full paper is here:

Here’s the abstract of the paper:

Anomalous heat, attributed to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs), is obtained by pressurizing metal alloy nanoparticles with deuterium gas. The reactions are enhanced by creation of ultra high-density deuterium clusters in the nanoparticles. Experiments comparing various nanoparticles and plans for a proof-of-principle power unit are presented. Potential applications to space power are briefly discussed.

The experimenters used a small chamber filled with palladium-rich nanoparticles, which were then loaded with deuterium gas. In the experiments described in the paper there is no input energy in the form of heat or electricity applied to the chamber, only pressurization with deuterium gas, followed by depressurization. Below is a figure which shows the temperature readings from three thermocouples (side 1, side 2, and bottom) during the gas loading and unloading in one experiment:


Various experiments were carried out and here here is data presented about the results. The final column is the calculated energy gain.


Here’s the conclusion:

The primary result thus far is that the excess energies obtained in all experiments to date are all well above the maximum estimate of what could be attributed to chemical reactions. The external power/energy involved, such as deuterium gas compression and vacuum pumping, is minimal compared to the output, suggesting very large energy gain. This result then is extremely encouraging relative to this gas-loaded cell becoming a remarkable power unit.


It’s good to see some experimental data from George Miley’s team. There’s a lot to digest in this paper, and I look forward to reading analyses of others. This seems to be a very promising approach to LENR, however in these systems the run time for the experiments is relatively short, with the temperature rises being initially very dramatic, but diminishing over time. The authors state that they have done other work with hydrogen and nickel, but those experiments are not covered in this paper.

  • GordonDocherty

    The same report states:

    “The initial rapid D2 gas pressurization caused the temperature increase from ca. 20C to ca. 50C that produced ca. 1480 J energy release. This is well above the exothermal energy 690 J that is calculated as the maximum possible from chemical reactions involving hydrating … The temperature rose further from ca. 50C to ca. 140C during unloading D2 gas.”

    That second sentence is the reason why we won’t need fracking or oil or coal or gas or uranium, as draining a container of gas (with no burning) would normally be expected to cause the temperature to fall – the gas takes away the heat contained in it as it leaves. That the temperature instead goes up (as high as it does in the first case, and at all in the second) means one thing and one thing only: a large net energy release is occurring, yet more evidence for transmutation and/or fusion in a system that “sits on a bench-top”, surely enough for anyone’s definition of “cold” fusion if they were being honest (though, clearly, for fusion to occur, within the very small volume of the NAE, it is likely conditions are anything but benign)

    Talking of very small volume, is that not what CF / LENR is really all about, recreating or emulating the right conditions for nuclear events to occur at the nanoscale, one to a few events at a time rather than at the solar scale, where many, many events are occurring, too many in fact to deal with in a controlled way? After all, who, when they want a drink, fills an ocean before dipping in a cup?

    Ultimately, CF/LENR are about increasing the probability of nuclear events through, loading, guiding, confining, exciting/energizing and coupling through resonance and strong, externally imposed, local em fields (in part, to synchronize spin) within potential wells in the lattice, with the whole then subjected to one or more “sharp taps” (through sudden field discontinuities and/or high frequency phonons) to momentarily move the energized, confined nucleii in closer toward one another just long enough (and with enough momentum) for the weak force, in combination with external forces that both energize nuclei and reduce the net Coulomb barriers around nuclei within deep wells (think barriers all around, but one is lower than the others, so that when the whole subjected to an inward force, with nowhere else to go, the net forces brings two nuclei just close enough together for their weak forces to overlap and, with electrons and all that extra energy, just occasionally (but enough times), the localized system collapses toward a new stable state, such as a neutron, a neutron formed by what is in effect an implosion, surrounded by energized nuclei with which it can then bind… LENR devices, in other words, are devices that first trigger energy-absorbing “endothermic” implosions, followed by energy-releasing transmutations…

    • oarmas

      Gassing and degassing, does this imply the D2 is reusable? I am assuming it is, but did not get the impression from reading through the paper.

      • GordonDocherty

        I suspect the LENR reactions both close off NAEs and make more as the crystal particles both sinter (close off sites) and crack (making new sites with, perhaps, superior performance – this may be why “old” fuel, once reprocessed, is better than new: the crystalline structure contains more fissures / cracks and hence more possible reaction sites.)

  • Bob Matulis

    Got my engineering degree at University of Illinois and am very pleased to see this! Research at UofI is top shelf.

    • Observer


  • Bob Greenyer

    Just great – and he is a nice guy too!

  • Jarea1

    Is the column of gain the COP? If yes then they have a COP of 12

    • bachcole


  • Robyn Wyrick

    I’m very interested in how the prime components of Cold Fusion/LENR research keep coming up in other Hydrogen-related research. Here is yet another story about, essentially electrolysis, using Nickel as a catalyst. ( These researchers in the story make much of how they’re using Nickel instead of expensive catalysts – like no one ever thought of that.

    I see stories like this all the time, and think of Fleischmann and Pons. They appeared to be doing similar research, but using palladium and heavy water – and seeking a different result from the same pathway.

    I know that Rossi’s E-Cat is now very different (particularly the Hot-Cat) but its like having everybody trying to find power from the same few, basic elements. Clearly *something* important is happening here.

    • Mats002

      My two cents: the catalyst is a transition metal – there are a few to choose from, all with different debye temps (where ferromagnetic property change) and the core function here is splitting H2 into single H which later on may become ions (as in plasma).

      The transition metal (Ni or other) must be free from oxide, this can be accomplished in different ways, as one example oscillate temp (and by that pressure) to use air (moisture) in the vessel to react for this task.

      At this stage, introduce H2 (Rossi solution is release using LiAlH4 giving out H2 at the favored temp) to the ‘cleaned up’ transition metal.

      Now H2 is catalyzed into single H at the surface of Ni (or other transition metal of choice). Single H is h-i-g-H-l-y reactant, but here comes the magic: Collective (resonance) behaviour start kicking in from surface polariton plasmons (SPP – look it up, it is new physics but nonetheless accepted) and forms Rydberg atoms forming Rydberg matter (again new physics but to my understanding accepted) forming virtual heavy (slow) elementary particles, read ultra-slow-neutrons.

      Well, from here everything down the reaction chain is known. New isotopes as in nucleus element fusion with energy released as gamma giving heat without dangerous radiaton – or are there some new discoveries here too?

      Anyway – this process can not be explained with ‘hard’ particle physics, but instead with quantum wave mechanics – Bohr win over Einstein: Nature DO cast dice! (The dice is zero point energy, vacuum is the new eather and again Einstein is vindicated but not as he meant).

      Something like this.

      • Ted-X

        My speculations (supported by some sources):
        1. Rydberg-type nanoparticles are essential to the LENR-effect.
        2. Hydrogen is NOT forming ultra-slow neutrons (the neutrons would get the kinetic energy from other hydrogen atoms – this energy exchange between meutrons and other atoms is well known in the technology of nuclear reactors).
        3. There is a new kind of Bose-Einstein Condensates and these condensates form the Rydberg matter easier than nickel nanoparticles.
        4. The Bose-Einstein condensates were formed by cryogenic crushing of niclel micron-sized particles.

        • Mats002

          1. This is my perception also, after having ruled out other possibilities
          2. No, because there are some loading of H into the lattice of the transition metal at the surface (ADsorption). Those H atoms loose a great deal of kinetic energy (speed) when trapped and packed at a high local pressure inside the lattice.
          3. Yes, BEC might be a prestate for forming Rydberg matter, can you describe this part in more detail than 4 does?

          • GreenWin

            fp, since as you claim, “…their calculation of chemical reactions, which are, however, crude, and they admit they have ignored possible contributions.” Kindly elucidate us as to the particular chemical “contributions” able to produce the 790J difference. And though perhaps unnecessary, your professional experience with making such calcs.

          • GreenWin

            Pardon my ignorance, but where in LENR literature and experimentation is there any indication of “cryogenics?”

          • Zephir

            You’re actually right: we are facing generation inversion, when the most progressive scientists are actually these oldest ones. Also the physical forums at largest social networks like reddit are full of kids, who hate and downvote the cold fusion reports heartily.

          • Omega Z

            Perhaps that is just because they are young & haven’t learned to think for themselves yet. They just follow what is trending. If you want to turn them around, just get Kanye, Bieber, or the Kardashian talking positive about it.

            I would add that I have met a few that are wise for their years. Just not a lot of them.

      • Frederic

        I like your post.

        1) maybe Eonstein is not so much vindicated as he eventually refuted the aether

        2) you wrote :
        “the catalyst is the transition metal”.
        don’t you think it also participates to the global energy out (gamma released) ?

        • Mats002

          Thanks Frederic, answer to 1 is that Albert Einstein’s 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that this early modern notion of a luminiferous aether was not a useful concept. Einstein however stated that this consideration was too radical and too anticipate and that his relativity still needed the presence of a medium with certain properties.

          2: My description was never meant to be complete, cannot say exactly how the transition metal is used in other ways, may be as a substrate for nanoparticles that will be formed by cooling Rydberg matter with temp cycling? And for SPP to be created?

      • GreenWin

        Mats, I like this description. Yes, the catalyst is a transition metal if only to create protium 1H. The above paper indicates that something similar happens in the presence of D2 – likely production of atomic H. If however atomic H was introduced to a lattice able to create a BSC or condensed state (including SPPs) – a transition metal might not be necessary,

        I would consider a nonmetallic catalyst such as N-doped graphene as a potential replacement for Ni/Pd and alloys. Graphene in 2-3D state is manufactured at the atomic scale and has a melting point of 4236C. IF highly conductive graphene nanoparticles also form SPPs – many-bodied resonance – the LENR reaction chain could continue. Thus the particle sintering issues noted in Dr. Miley’s paper would be eliminated.

        • GreenWin

          Correction: BEC – not BSC.

        • Zephir

          This doesn’t explain, why the hydrogen doesn’t generate heat whereas the deuterium yes. Just this extreme isotopic dependence indicates clearly, the cold fusion gets involved.

  • Citoyen Curieux

    Cobraf looks like a web tabloid to my eyes,

    I don’t want to denigrate this paper,
    but why publishing here ???

    Isn’t there better place ?
    Like Arxiv, or some LENR publishing websites…?!?

    I can’t understand ; don’t they want to be taken seriously by maximum scientists and all readers ?

  • Curbina

    For me the most important take away is that there’s no heat imput, so the measurement of energy is quite straight forward and the excess is clearly there. I wonder if the gain data is expressed as COP or not.

    • Jarea1

      The paper says that the gain is ” this result has provides
      evidence of significant excess energy gain (Total energy out – energy in/energy in).” on page 327.
      Again on page 328 “suggesting the LENRs dominated with a gain (LENR energy out/Chemical energy in) of ~ 6. This is viewed to be conservative.”
      Then again clearly on page 330: “As seen in Table I, the highest gain achieved (LENR energy OUT/estimated maximum possible chemical energy IN) was 15.1 using Type C nanoparticles.”

      I think the definitions are clear for each gain notation.

      • Zephir

        It’s sorta sad & shame, that twenty years after cold fusion finding the future of human civilization remains reliant on primitive experiments done with elderly chaps, who should enjoy pension instead of doing hard work in the lab.

        The author of experiments, prof. George Miley had his own explanation for it before ten years already: (

        “In a huge, grandiose convention center I found about 200 extremely conventional-looking scientists, almost all of them male and over 50. In fact some seemed over 70, and I realized why: The younger ones had bailed years ago, fearing career damage from the cold fusion

        “I have tenure, so I don’t have to worry about my reputation,” commented physicist George Miley, 83. “But if I were an assistant professor, I would think twice about getting involved.”

        With compare to it, the young scientists just shamelessly downvote every notion about LENR instead of doing inquisitive research, which could really help the human civilization as a whole. This is the sad reality of the mainstream science at the beginning of the 21st century.

        • Omega Z

          “experiments done with elderly chaps, who should enjoy pension instead of doing hard work in the lab.”

          1. It is sad, that such research can end ones career before it even starts, thus there are few of the younger generation involved. At least not publicly.

          2. These “elderly chaps” enjoy what they are doing. They do it more out of the love of discovery & learning then any other reason. They can retire when they choose.

          • Zephir

            Don’t try to misinterpret me. I’ve full respect for attitude of George Miley and his work, as he does his very best. But I cannot have an evasion or apology for ignorance of the another younger scientists,who are still full of energy and who should be inquisitive the most. Why the cold fusion conferences look like the retirement home?


            Apparently something is rotten in contemporary science.

          • GreenWin

            Something IS rotten in consensus science Zeph. But take a look at the the wizards at the famous Solvay Conference of 1911 – the group that introduced Quantum Mechanics to humanity. The CF guys looks a lot healthier to me.

        • Curbina

          I was talking about the “beyond chemical” energy release. Duh.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Here is an interesting paper from 1989 by Magdi
    Ragheb and George Miley.

  • GreenWin

    Uncle Bob, one might wonder if you bothered to read the paper. The Introduction is abundantly clear:

    “The initial rapid D2 gas pressurization caused the temperature increase from ca. 20C to ca. 50C that produced ca. 1480J energy release. This is well above the exothermal energy 690J that is calculated as the maximum possible from chemical reactions involving hydrating.

    Additionally Table 1 refers to energy GAINS of between 0.3 and 15.1 above energy input consisting essentially of pressurizing the container.

  • Anon2012_2014

    ” The initial rapid D2 gas pressurization caused the temperature increase from ca. 20 o C to ca. 50
    o C that produced ca. 1480 J energy release.”

    I don’t see the 1480 J calculation methodology and input values to the calculation anywhere in this paper.

    Are we to assume that this is based on the thermal mass of the fuel only + plus the adiabatic compression heat of the D2 in the chamber.



  • Curbina

    I think that many miss the point focusing on the “energy input” which implies the pressure of Deuterium. You can pressurise the same with air and/or hydrogen and nothing will happen. The fact that something happens at all with nothing more than addition of Deuterium is indeed the fascinating thing.

  • GreenWin

    You’ve avoided the issue. “Kindly elucidate us as to the particular chemical “contributions” able to produce the 790J difference.”