US Defense Threat Reduction Agency Releases LENR Report — "Investigation of Nano-Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter"

Thanks to Joseph J for posting about a report that has been published by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agencey (DTRA) titled “Investigation of Nano-Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter”. The report is written by Pamela Mosier-Boss of SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, Lawrence Forsely of JWK International and Patrick K. McDaniel of the University of New Mexico.

According to Wikipedia the DTRA “is an agency within the United States Department of Defense and is the official Combat Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosives). DTRA’s main functions are threat reduction, threat control, combat support, and technology development. The agency is headquartered in Fort Belvoir, Virginia”

It is not clear to me exactly when the report was written, but the final page of the document shows a form which shows when various approvals have been given. The most recent references listed in the report are from 2012, so it appears that it has been circulating within the agency for a few years prior to this release. This paper was given approval for public release on Jun 7 2016 by the Public Affairs department of the DTRA.

The report itself is very lengthy and from a cursory reading is an analysis of the scientific evidence for nuclear reactions occurring in the metal lattice in LENR systems. The report focuses on the palladium-deuterium systems which were introduced in 1989 by Pons and Fleischmann.

The report can be accessed at the LENR-CANR site here:, and I have uploaded it to ECW here:

There is a lot of detail in the report that will be no doubt interesting and useful to researchers and replicators, and I would imagine important to the work that the MFMP is doing at the University of Aarhus now. Below are some excerpts of points I found to be of particular interest.

“At the time of the [Pons and Fleischmann] announcement in 1989, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific scientists were involved in developing batteries for torpedo propulsion. The lead scientist in those torpedo propulsion efforts, Stanislaw Szpak, was aware of the Fleischmann–Pons experiment prior to the press conference and knew about the long incubation times needed to fully load bulk Pd with D. To reduce the incubation time, he developed the Pd/D co-deposition process as a means to initiate low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) inside the Pd lattice. In this process, working and counter electrodes are immersed in a solution of palladium chloride and lithium chloride in deuterated water (p. 1).

[. . .]

“The Pd/D co-deposition process has been shown to provide a reproducible means of manufacturing Pd-D nano-alloys that induce low energy nuclear reactions (LENRs). Cyclic voltammetry (2,3) and galvanostatic pulsing (4) experiments indicate that, by using the co-deposition technique, a high degree of deuterium loading (with an atomic ratio D/Pd>1) is obtained within seconds. These experiments also indicate the existence of a D2+ species within the Pd lattice. Because an ever expanding electrode surface is created, non-steady state conditions are assured, the cell geometry is simplified because there is no longer a need for a uniform current distribution on the cathode, and long charging times are eliminated. (5)

“By using the Pd/D co-deposition technique and co-depositional variants (6) (based on flux control(7,8)), solid evidence (i.e., excess heat generation,(7,9,10), hot spots, (11) mini-explosions, ionizing radiation, (12) near- IR emission, (13) tritium production, (14) transmutation, (15) and neutrons (16)) has been obtained that indicate that lattice assisted nuclear reactions can and do occur within the Pd lattice. (p. 2) . . .

“Besides LENR, the Pd/H(D) system exhibits superconductivity. Palladium itself does not superconduct. However, it was found that H(D)/Pd does and that the critical temperatures of the deuteride are about 2.5 K higher than those of hydride (at the same atomic ratios).(19) (p. 2)

[. . .]

“Once understood, LENR has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting, ‘game-changing’ technology. Nuclear energy systems have power densities six orders of magnitude greater than chemically-based energy generation or storage systems. The ability to harness a new nuclear energy source for either thermal or electrical conversion, without the generation of penetrating energetic particles, would have a profound commercial and military impact ranging from small footprint power systems to mobile systems to larger stationary power systems. Depending on how the technology scales, it could be used as a power source for expeditionary warfare and military bases as well as surface ships/submarines; nuclear battery for autonomous C4I operations (communications, computers, satellites); and long duration UAV and USV ops (propulsion). Such a technology would have a profound effect upon one of the U.S. and DoD’s largest financial and environmental costs: burning hydrocarbons from imported oil and gas with their attendant CO2 footprint. Indeed, many U.S. military actions this century, and the most costly in the 1990’s, have been driven by, or consequences of, the geopolitics of oil. Decreasing the use of foreign oil would result in both an energy savings and a reduction in US military presence, and fleet costs, in maintaining access to foreign oil and natural reserves.

“The natural uranium witness material experiments suggest that LENR can be used to create a hybrid fusion-fast fission reactor. Fusion is neutron rich but energy poor while fission is neutron poor but energy rich. Figure 3-1 illustrates the concept of behind a hybrid reactor that combines rich fusion neutrons with rich fission energy. A hybrid fusion-fast fission system capable of fissioning fissile, or fertile, actinides has an impact on nuclear power systems and the remediation of nuclear waste.

“The 23 years of LENR research at SSC Pacific has resulted in 33 publications, 42 presentations/posters/conference proceedings, three technical reports, and one patent. A complete bibliography can be found in Appendix I. (p. 83)

[. . .]

“There are indications that the field of LENR is slowly gaining acceptance. The Environmental Division of ACS has hosted five New Energy Technologies symposia between 2007 and 2011 and published two symposium books. Katherine Sanderson of Nature reported on the March 2007 ACS symposium that was held in Chicago, IL. She reported that the program chair for the session (not a cold fusion scientist) was impressed by the results that were presented
and was ‘keeping an open mind on the matter.’ As for herself, she said she was initially skeptical. After seeing the presentations, she indicated, ‘Cold fusion? I don’t know, but the evidence that something weird is happening is there. Maybe it’s time to think about this again…’

“On March 26, 2012, Mosier-Boss and Forsley were invited by Dr. Michael Adams of Xavier University to speak at the ACS Undergraduates Technical Symposium on “Nuclear Power Generation – Lessons from Fukushima Daiichi and Future Directions.” These presentations are included in Appendix III. (p. 86)

[. . .]

On November 2011, the LENR research at SSC-Pacific was terminated. The official reason given by SSC-Pacific’s PAO, Jim Fallin, to Steve Krivit of New Energy Times for the termination the LENR work at SSC-Pacific is:

“In response to your recent query,” Fallin wrote, “while I won’t discuss details of our internal decision-making processes, I will confirm SPAWAR plans no further low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research. There are other organizations within the federal government that are better aligned to continue research regarding nuclear power. We have taken initial steps to determine how a transition of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research might occur.

“The implications of this statement are that both SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific say that the phenomenon is real and that it is nuclear in nature. (p. 87)

“Initial criticism of the purported Pd/D low energy nuclear reactions centered upon the phenomena’s reproducibility. Many years later this was understood to be due to the long incubation times required to fully load the Pd with deuterium. However, early on, Dr. Stanislaw Szpak, an electrochemist at the Naval laboratory in San Diego, developed an alternative method of initiating low energy nuclear reactions using Pd/D co-deposition. In this process palladium metal is plated out in the presence of deuterium gas. The advantages of this approach are that the palladium metal loads instantly with deuterium, the experiments can be done faster, there is a great deal of experimental flexibility, and the experiments are reproducible. Other groups from SRI, UCSD, Texas A & M, the Navy Laboratory in China Lake, and Berkeley have obtained positive results using the co-deposition process.” (p. 96)

I am not sure what the internal protocols are within the DTRA regarding public release of documents, but its interesting to me that this report should have been given clearance for public release this summer.

  • Hi all

    This all leads to an October surprise. Potential for unlimited energy announcement and space exploration and exploitation but warnings about the proliferation threat, FUD sells! I think we may well see a swift move to international arms control. I think recent international cooperation is a signal as to increased sharing of the implications of LENR.

    The weapon possibilities with the Palladium co-deposition method lead to military capabilities; that several are already speculating on 🙁

    The report confirms LENR exists and that the US military are deeply involved in researching it. We all remember the Italian Navy and US navy links to Rossi.

    Buckle up people it is going to get interesting.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Mats002

      As if it wasn’t already 😉

      Within weeks we should know…

      • Bob Greenyer

        Or weeks + 4 years for the public release.

  • Gerard McEk

    There are many aspects that can be considered of much use for Ni/Li/H co-deposition. Possibly a way AR has already taken (sputtering in a Hydrogen atmosphere may be the way to go).
    The questions is why this is being published. What does the ministry of defense gain with it? I find this rather incomprehensible!

    • Hi all

      In reply to Gerard McEk

      See my comment earlier.

      It is an October Surprise.

      It is about managing the news. Obama announces, Great oportunities but grave threat! FUD!
      Hillary is a safe pair of hands. DONALD!!!
      Hillary is a safe pair of hands. DONALD!!!
      Hillary is a safe pair of hands. DONALD!!!

      I almost think DONALD!!! was part of the get Hillary in power plan.

      With the FUD that spills from LENR who would be stupid enough to vote for a DONALD!!!

      So Hillary wins. Game set and Match.

      Kind Regards Walker

      • Gerard McEk

        So it’s DONALD Duck that’s behind this…… 😉

        • JohnOman

          Haa haa haa…. lol….

        • Hi all

          In reply to Gerard McEk


          Kind Regards walker

      • Sandy

        Donald Trump recently spoke about an “energy revolution” during a presidential election campaign advertisement. I wonder of the Donald has spoken to Andrea Rossi.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Can we find that on YouTube?

          • psi2u2

            Good question. Does the report in other ways (excepting the copyright notice) conform to what you would expect as a release from DTRA? And has anyone called them for comment?

        • Obvious

          I think the idea may be that if the price of energy is made revoltingly high enough, somebody somewhere will eventually make a product or process that makes energy (relatively) cheap again.

          • Omega Z

            Trump runs in the same circles as Darden, Clinton’s, Gores etc… He is aware.
            In fact Trump has done business with Darden.

        • Kevmo ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ


        • psi2u2

          He will have to stand in line behind Obama.

  • sam

    Comment from Lenr Forum
    User Avatar
    7 hours ago+1
    90% of the report was known before through (in part peer reviewed) papers. The report additionally confirms that SPAWAR LENR research is not dead but switched to another lab of the goverment plus the indications that superconductivity and LENR are linked plus more infos on the hybrid fusion fission reactor.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Solid State via electrolytic deposition, The advantages include loading during deposition, and uniformity.
      Progress in the process results in advancement of the fuel as meta material toward nano machine assembly.

      • SD

        As I said in another thread, the quote below seems quite biased as I don’t see those implications in the statement that it is referring to.

        ““The implications of this statement are that both SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific say that the phenomenon is real and that it is nuclear in nature.”

  • Alan DeAngelis

    There’s helium but no 24 MeV gamma ray that should accompany the branch of D-D fusion that gives helium.
    The pairs of electrons, ~ in the two covalent bonds would reduce the Coulomb barrier (See video at 25 min.).

    D~Pd~D > Cd* > Pd + He 24 MeV (no gamma rays)

    2D > He (i.e. would resembles D-D fusion but it isn’t)

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Some sort of infrared, IR stretch might initiate the tunneling of the deuterons (neutron end first) into the palladium nucleus.

    • Warthog

      “2D > He (i.e. would resembles D-D fusion but it isn’t)

      Disagree. The starting material is the same, and the product is the same. Only the mechanism is different.

      As to the absence of the 24MEV gamma, that is distributed to the energy levels of the multi-nucleus palladium lattice and appears only as heat.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Phonons with energies less that that of a gnat fart can handle the 24 MeV?

        • Alan DeAngelis

          ..,less than that…

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Sorry, but maybe I’m just not sufficiently dazzled by all the Hamiltonians that say that.

          • RLittle

            Szpak is very important in the history of this phenomena and his discovery of co-deposition and its acceleration of such is very important experimental contribution. But just as was with Piantelli and Canon, Szpak and Mosier Boss did not reduce the experiments to practice with nanostructures during the 1990s. In reading Szpak papers they mentioned small particles during the 1990s but no mention of nanoparticles and often during this time prior times many researchers mentioned small particles in referring to small micro-particles which have been known for decade for their enhanced absoption. During Szpak 2004 paper they do start to talk about individual particles and interparticle interactions. Te co-deposition process can make nano-particles, but the ability of the technique does not mean that Szpak discovered the nanoparticles and the role of nano-particles for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions; no more so than electric discharge can form graphene therefore the inventor of the electric discharge discovered graphene! The works of Szpak and Boss are very important but it does not follow that they should be credited with nanoparticles for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions.

          • RLittle

            Cannon’s patent mentioned high voltage and electric discharge without direct reduction to practice of magneticfield effects and some would try to give him credit for magnetic field effect for enhanced unconventtional nuclear reactions. Cannon’s patent further reference is made to some ferromagnetic metals but no basis is given for distinguishing them and the magnetic effect for also diamagnetic metal listed in Cannon’s patent. Cannon’s patent explicitly notes electric field effects and resulting discharge from concentrated electric field; no direct magnetic field is reduced to practice. Also no reduction to practice for nanoparticles is demonstrated in Cannon’s patent. Cannon had every opportunity to demonstrate nano-sizes in his art, but he did not. It is Cannon’s style to express dimensions in his patent as throughout he notes the cm dimensions of his electrodes and other macro-dimensions. The fact is that in 1989-90 Cannon did not reduced this effect to practice for nanosizes and structures. I did not copy Cannon; I only read Cannon in 2014 following note of him by Piantelli in Piantelli’s 2008 patent. My patents and papers in 2000-2008 were totally original and created independently and directly reduced to practice nano-size and strong magnetic field effects in word and direct expression with no subsequent coincidence and by incident relations.

        • Warthog

          If enough phonons are stimulated, yes. Here’s a personal story from my direct experience. Back when I was working toward my PhD was the beginning of the environmental movement, and many, many analytical chemistry research groups were trying to devise new measurement methods. One of the projects our group was working on was similar to lidar. We were directing the beam of a CO2 laser (10.6 micron) through dilute gases, and measuring the resulting stimulated IR spectra.

          We found that ALL IR modes were stimulated, including those at shorter wavelengths (3.0 micron). We were told that such stimulation as “impossible” as a 10.6 micron photon couldn’t possibly provide sufficient energy to cause emission of a 3.0 micron photon, and that our research was obviously faulty, and all we were seeing heating of the cell walls stimulating the higher levels. Yet the cell walls were and stayed at room temperature.

          A few years later, I ran across a paper that said that IR energy levels could capture more than one 10.6 photon if the photon flux was sufficiently high (as with a laser), and it could do the internal rearrangement and energy distribution fast enough to stimulate the higher energy emission band.

          I suspect in a few years, we will be told that the transfer of the 24MEV photon into the palladium lattices is due a similar phenomenon in reverse.

          What we do know is that D2 —->He4 DOES HAPPEN (multiple replications), and that no 24 MEV gammas are seen……just heat.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            But the deuterons are farther away from each other in the lattice than they are in molecular hydrogen. I think we’ve been mislead by the assumption that it’s d-d fusion. Something similar to an Oppenheimer-Phillips process might be taking place.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Although we don’t see any neutrons, Mizuno did see isotopic shifts in his palladium cathode. This would also suggest an Oppenheimer-Phillips process.

            And if the energy was evenly distributed throughout the lattice would we see these volcano like hot spots? I may be wrong but it has been bugging me since April of 1989 (in my May15, 1989 letter to C&E News) that the assumption is that it is d-d fusion and not some sort of variation of an Oppenheimer-Phillips process.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Martin Fleischmann was aware of the isotopic shifts of palladium in Mizuno’s replication of the F&P experiment. That may also have bothered him that the nuclear reactions were call “cold fusion” (1:48 min. in this video).

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Pardon me, 11:48 min

          • Warthog

            Why should the energy be “evenly distributed throughout the lattice”?? It probably isn’t, depending on the different energy pathways for energy distribution in the lattice. The redistribution of rotational and vibrational energy within a complex molecule certainly isn’t “evenly distributed”.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            You just said the 24 Mev was distributed throughout the lattice.

          • Warthog

            Distributed, yes….evenly, no. God only knows how many different accessible energy levels are available in a system of this sort. Millions???

          • Warthog

            If it starts with deuterons and ends up as He4 and energy, it is D-D fusion, no matter what the specific mechanism may be.

            The situation is precisely analogous to any chemical reaction available by two pathways, one thermal, and one catalyst moderated.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            D~Pd~D > Cd* > Pd + He.
            It’s fusion followed by fission. The deuterium never fuses with itself. The mechanism is everything.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Ok, I don’t want to belabor the point but the point is that it would not be an electromagnetic release of energy taken away primarily by phonons. It would be kinetic energy that leaves with the alpha (a more localized billiard ball like scenario).

  • LION

    The Report is good for a New look at Transformative `innovative Technology, that is in need of proper Government research money.

    As time passes L.E.N.R. will find it easier to get a proper hearing ,thanks to the efforts of many people on many different fronts, Bobs M.F.M.P. breakthrough being an example.

  • MasterBlaster7

    This information is 4 years out of date. Louis F. DeChiaro info from SPAWAR is much more recent…about a year old. He was hoping for publication of the things he summarized…but I guess he has another 3 years to wait based on how quickly this info is being made public.

    • It does have some current relevance, in that the ‘hybrid’ fission reactor mentioned (later called “GeNIE”) is ostensibly available for purchase from Global Energy Corporation of Annandale:

      However, the company has been offering this product since 2013, seemingly without success, so who knows what the current status of the project is.

    • Brent Buckner

      I believe that DeChiaro’s desired publication came to fruition here (pp.1 – 26):

      • MasterBlaster7

        thanks Brent…I’ll check that material out.

  • US_Citizen71

    All part of the grand plan. The ultra rich have had a chance to maneuver their money away from fossil fuels, solar and wind. The announcing of the fact that LENR is real and Pons & Fleischmann were correct, but misunderstood due to difficulty in reproduction in the past, can now begin. The ultra rich can now invest in LENR and appear to be doing the bidding of the concerned public. Timing is everything.

    • French state-owned Électricité de France (EDF) seems to have been used as a general dumping ground for obsolete plant (coal fired and nuclear fission) and by chance or design now owns much of the UK infrastructure in these areas, and all of the French nuclear power plants. EDF is in the process of ‘acquiring’ the bankrupt and terminally failing company Areva, which will complete the pooling of such soon-to-be-stranded ‘assets’ and place all the liabilities for decommissioning under one roof.

      Of course, when it becomes clear that such liabilities far outweigh the combined value of EDF, this, together with the massively failing EDF nuclear projects in Finland and France (and possibly the UK, if the current govt is stupid enough to press on with Hinkley Point C), will result in the company declaring bankrupty, and the French state – and French taxpayers – will find itself landed with the massive bills.

      • US_Citizen71

        Or they may convert them to LENR. The coal plants at least would seem a relatively easy retrofit and all the environmental impact stuff will be pre-approved for power generation. Even the nuclear plants could be recycled, those sites would be good areas to build new LENR hybrid plants like a Genie and destroy the stockpile of waste. Just like retail location is important for power generation, these obsolete plants are on the grid and in nice spread out areas. The land will be under control of the government which will have a fairly free hand in repurposing the land. We are going to need all of the electrical generation we can come with if we want to end the use of fossil fuels, so anything is possible. I wouldn’t count out recycling some of the obsolete architecture into LENR powered plants..

        • “I wouldn’t count out recycling some of the obsolete architecture into LENR powered plants.” Agreed – I’ve been banging that particular drum for longer than I can remember. Older coal plants are being demolished as they close in the UK, but newer plants (such as Drax) are being ‘converted’ to burning biomass – mostly timber.

          On the face of it, this makes no sense at all as energy costs of growing, harvesting, drying and transporting the feed materials is almost equal to the energy output when burned. This is obviously pointless and non-sustainable, and would only make sense if some further conversion of fuels is intended in these installations. Whether this might be LENR, some new type of fission reactor or just ‘fracked’ gas remains to be seen (my guess would be the latter).

  • georgehants

    Is there any information in this report that would assist MFMP to achieve repeatable Cold Fusion?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I forwarded the report to the chemistry masters student yesterday – certainly, the co-deposition experiment is often cited as having good repeatability, but until now we have not had the set-up to do it – It will be considered in our experiment planning.

      • Warthog

        It would seem to me that a likely approach would be to use co-deposition to create a pre-loaded Pd/D substrate, which would be milled into particulate for use in a “dry” gas reactor.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Start with replication I think. I have met Pamela a few times and had a long chat with her at ICCF18 – if it is something we can do, we’ll see if we can get hands off assistance.

        • GiveADogABone

          Perhaps worth considering that hydrogenated catalytic Nickel is combustible, even spontaneously so? As the problem is the Hydrogen I would think that Palladium would do much the same.

          • Warthog

            To have combustion, oxygen has to be present. One of the continuing impressions I have from ALL the approaches discussed in this forum is the general sloppiness of materials-handling from a chemists point of view.

            All such should, at a minimum, be done in a glove bag under an argon atmosphere. My wife (also a chemist, but organic rather than analytical) did a lot of Grignard chemistries in grad school, and scrupulous exclusion of moisture was critical). Those systems also needed to be handled with strict atmospheric control to have successful reactions.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            It was the recombining of O2 and H2 that caused the tragic explosion in Mike McKubre’s lab in the early days of CF. It’s an aqueous system so the safest thing would be to run it open to the atmosphere with the cathode totally submerged with a fan blowing away any gasses. You wouldn’t want any gasses trapped in a head space.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Pardon me, I was thinking of a protium-Ni rather than deuterium-Pd. So air would have to be excluded. And I should have said O2 and D2 recombined.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I hope to put up a video later this week on the use of a glove-bag – the way we fuelled our GS5 series experiments.

        • GiveADogABone

          The link in the header article works for me.

        • Co-deposition onto inert micro-beads or a highly porous inert substrate (e.g., ceramic) might be safer than milling a co-deposited layer. Various researchers have suggested that almost any significant energy input including percussion/shock, shear forces, heat etc. might be enough to initiate LENR processes in unstable hydrogen/deuterium loaded materials.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      The simplest system I can think of is Les Chase’s football that uses palladium on carbon (a common laboratory reagent) and deuterium gas. (at 36:36 min.)

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Notice Mike McKubre’s very sensitive mass spectrometer (at 37:04 min.) that can distinguish D2 from He (both M=4). See the two peaks.

  • TractorEngineer

    I sent an e-mail to Patrick J. McDaniel at University of New Mexico. I’m wondering what he will tell me about this.

    • Thanks. Its good to look into this and confirm.

  • bfast

    I understand your concern _Jim. It would be interesting, baffling, if this intricate document were some sort of a forgery.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is no forgery – I have seen much of the content before and about the “one patent” I discussed the terrible fight that the group had with the USPTO with Pamela that she had over that for more than an hour at ICCF18 – the went to extraordinary lengths to prove their findings.

  • bfast

    “The implications of this statement are that both SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific say that the phenomenon is real and that it is nuclear in nature.

    That is what I have wanted to see.

    • SD

      Did you read the statement this is based on, and do you agree with the conclusion based on that statement?

      • radvar

        Do you see that you are taking a few sentences out of context to create doubt, which is a trollish rhetorical gambit?

        • SD

          People are taking the last sentence of the document out of context and seem to be happy about it.

          I am giving the context, which is the statement from Fallin that the conclusion is based on.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        If you missed it Tom Conover’s “OOPS” post on JONP is a must read. (:

  • SD

    Once again, people, if you read the quote I pasted below, do you conclude from it that LENR is a real phenomenon?

    On November 2011, the LENR research at SSC-Pacific was terminated. The official reason given by SSC-Pacific’s PAO, Jim Fallin, to Steve Krivit of New Energy Times for the termination the LENR work at SSC-Pacific is:

    “In response to your recent query,” Fallin wrote, “while I won’t discuss details of our internal decision-making processes, I will confirm SPAWAR plans no further low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research. There are other organizations within the federal government that are better aligned to continue research regarding nuclear power. We have taken initial steps to determine how a transition of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research might occur.

    • Mats002

      I still don’t see your point SD.
      They say in my free interpretation something like: “We have done our part, showing it is nuclear in nature, now we leave this for ‘real’ nuclear scientists.”
      The implication is that a) it is real (why pass it to another organization when they could have concluded it simply do not work?) and b) it is nuclear in it’s nature.

      • psi2u2

        I agree. This is clearly the most accurate understanding of the wording.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Please see my comment to SD above.

      • SD

        My interpretation is

        1) We have been researching LENR a.k.a low-energy nuclear reaction
        2) We decided to stop research in that domain
        3) Other organizations are better choices for this type of research anyway
        4) So we will transfer the research to them

        Remember, “LENR” contains the word nuclear. LENR research is therefore intrinsically research regarding nuclear power. Just because someone is researching nuclear power from LENR doesn’t mean they have seen it work or confirmed any nuclear reaction.

        Maybe they have had some interesting results, but concluding that “the phenomenon is real and that it is nuclear in nature” based on that statement is a bit far fetched.

        • Mats002

          Try read the whole report, not only the conclusion. Then, what message did you get?

          • SD

            The experimental results in the report do suggest some nuclear phenomenon.

            Not sure why the authors of this paper would choose to put words in the mouth of SPAWAR and SSC-Pacific in the final words of their document.

            Whatever. People will just keep quoting that sentence and be happy that SPAWAR officially says that LENR has been proven.

        • radvar

          Your rhetorical manipulation is coarse. There is no need to make the conclusion you cite based on the statement you cite. Therefore saying that it is far fetched is like saying that because gargoyles are dangerous we should fear them. Another sign that you are a troll.

    • radvar

      You take a small section of the whole body of text above, which is part of a conversation instigated by a financially biased LENR critic, and ask an insinuating question about that section, without offering your own opinion of it.

      Why should someone not immediately conclude that you are a troll?

      • SD

        Please quit the personal attacks.

        People are quoting repeatedly the following conclusion, “The implications of this statement are that both SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific say that the phenomenon is real and that it is nuclear in nature.”

        This conclusion is 100% based on the section I quoted above.

        I might have asked the wrong question. Should have been:

        if you read the quote I pasted, do you conclude from it that SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific say that LENR is a real phenomenon?

        • Hador_NYC

          My belief is the below paragraph on page 2 of the document. This clearly says that they believe that LENR and Superconductivity is real, but they need to develop a theory to optimize the process.

          Put simply, I see them calling this real.

          “We believe the two phenomena, LENR and high Tc superconductivity, are related and that both need to be investigated in order to gain an understanding of the processes occurring inside the Pd lattice. The scope of this effort was to design and conduct experiments to elucidate the underlying physics of nuclear reactions occurring inside Pd-D nano-alloys and to make that data available to theoreticians to aid in their ability to develop a theory that explains how and why low energy nuclear reactions can occur within a palladium lattice. Development of such a theory is needed to provide insight on how to optimize the LENR processes occurring in the Pd lattice. In this report, results of the following experiments will be discussed: “

        • radvar

          I’m calling it like I see it. Your rhetorical gambits are marks of trollish behavior. By modifying your question, you are attempting to mask the trollishness. However, you are still leaning trollish by focusing on an assumption that the opinion of SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific is somehow the deciding point of the veracity of LENR. That’s an attempt to deflect attention from all the other information cited in the report. “There are no falling green monkeys dropping coconuts, therefore there are no falling coconuts.” It’s just manipulation. It’s like what trolls do. You stop doing it, I’ll stop pointing it out.

          • SD

            radvar: Where did I say that the opinion of those entities are the deciding point on the veracity of LENR?

            At least 2 people quoted “The implications of this statement are that both SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific say that the phenomenon is real and that it is nuclear in nature.”, and seemed satisfied by that conclusion.

            That’s what I reacted to.

            I never said anything about LENR being real or not.

    • William D. Fleming

      I agree, however it is a moot point. There are various other parts of the paper which speak loudly and clearly. LENR is real.

    • Bob Greenyer

      As far as I understand, the story is this, someone at SPAWAR kinda suggested publicly that LENR was real – and so they got shut down – though government research continued elsewhere.

      There is intense bitterness and anger in that group about that sequence of events. Rightly so. But it cannot be said publicly.

      And in the words of Hillary Clinton “I don’t recall” where I heard that and “I don’t recall” when – which is a shame, because I normally have such a good memory.

  • bfast

    Um, no it doesn’t. First, while many have achieved LENR reactions, they have worked very hard to get there. “Anybody” will just fail.

    Second, your equation nuclear = bomb is, well, hogwash. All of the stuff that makes fission and hot fusion so effective as weapons (easy run-away reactions, lethal radiation) are not part of the LENR phenomenon. LENR seems to produce no, or virtually no, lethal radiation. Every time the reaction begins to run away, it melts the metals it is working with and shuts down.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I have looked over some of this, and it is really remarkable for at least three reasons.

    1 – it really appears to settle the question about LENR as a viable energy source. Excess heat, transmutation, ionizing radiation, tritium production, neutrons — in short, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

    2 – It highlights the tragedy of the lost decades where countless lives have been lost unnecessarily. Unfathomable numbers of species have gone extinct, undiscovered habitats lost, nations ruined, and poisons heaped into the unhappy world. The report comes as a quiet affirmation of the truth after decades of hateful, ranting, abuse.

    3 – It amazes me about how Pons and Fleischmann could be left out to dry by the mainstream scientific community, while people with good data remained quiet.

    This is great, and horribly late. But better late than never.

    • William D. Fleming

      Some government officials tacitly allowed cold fusion to be shouted down, apparently because they foresaw military uses and chose to keep their knowledge secret. It is utterly disgusting IMO.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is a watershed

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Stephen

      Hmmm the force is strong in this one.

      It’s just getting more and more amazing.

      Perhaps LENR mitochondria tokk up residence in cells and/or are building DNA tech chemical cells to more easily obtain the ingredients they need to function and reproduce in exchange for energy and useful chemical elements for the cell and organism. I wonder if the transmutations they make are beneficial to DNA / RNA production?

      How many scientific and engineering fields is LENR going to touch?

      Maybe the quark type tech is really a light saber after all.

      May the force be with you Bob.

      • Bob Greenyer

        “How many scientific and engineering fields is LENR going to touch?”

        All of them.

      • psi2u2

        “If it’s such a great source of energy, why aren’t major industries using it.”

        Pardon me for mentioning it, but you seem new in these parts. Your question reveals a significant lack of understanding of the current developmental stage of the new LENR technologies, none of which is yet available for commercial use except, possibly, Rossi’s. Readers here are not your research assistants. There are dozens of articles on this site that can help you get up to steam. As Bob Greenyer said, it took him three years of study to understand what’s going on, and that was only because he was already a very well trained experimentalist and lab technician with a solid understanding the physics and chemistry that may be involved in these reactions.

        • TractorEngineer

          The biggest problem for the regular guy is that when everyday people attempt to understand LENR, they get called idiots and are pointed to a pile of post-doctorate research papers and presentations that are written for people that already know everything about the field. Until you make the effort to reach that guy, you’re always going to be viewed as a UFO nut that talks big but never produces. When his first contact with your field ends with a kick in the teeth, he’s not coming back.

          In my engineering job, I have to explain engineering decisions and rationale to machine shop guys, program managers, parts logistics people, and business school types. I don’t have the option of telling them, “You’re just an idiot so shut up.” That’s why I have the views that I do.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

    It took me a good number of years of hard study and practical experimentation to get it, don’t worry, it’ll come.

  • Ged

    But people have been building things. It takes time, resource and R&D. Sadly it can’t happen overnight. You could always try too.

    • sam

      I asked Douglas Natelson of Nanoscale
      view blog his opinion on the report.

      Douglas Natelson9:57 AM
      Sam, I flipped through it. The report does not really conform to what one would expect for a scientific paper, and the author takes it basically as a given that there are definitely low energy nuclear reactions happening, going all the way back to Pons and Fleischman in ’89. My views on this stuff have not changed since I wrote this or this, the passion of LENR supporters notwithstanding. The TL/DR version: It would be incredible and awesome if it were true, but I have yet to see experimental work that actually meets the standards of reproducibility one would expect for a real effect.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Of course – if a documents layout does not conform then the data must be invalid. Was he aware this is a report and not a paper?

        Granted – he admits to flipping through it, so perhaps he missed the reproducibility of the co-deposition technique.

        • georgehants

          Morning Bob, I think that until the day that MFMP can replicate reliably, any openly any report on a COP of 1+ Cold Fusion, or your own work from the incomplete information that you have to work with, then if is clear that Cold Fusion is nothing but unconfirmed scraps of information from sources that could or could not be fully relied on.
          Only closed-minded fools say it cannot be, open-minds sit as we have for five + years with Rossi etc. and keep hoping.
          Rossi, other than to instigate a very restricted body of interest, has in no way shown a single, indisputable, open demonstration, or information that others can follow now, that would confirm his claims.
          The now millions of arguments on the subject are all a complete waste of time.
          Until an open, repeatable publication is available to this World, far preferably unrestricted and free of patent crap, but if it must be, then a standard patent giving the necessary information to be replicated by anybody, skilled in the art, then we as always wait and hope.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes. And I do not care who does it either.

        • sam

          I told Douglas about your work with Aarhus University.
          Gave him the link to your thread
          on Ecat world.
          So maybe he will take an interest in your work.
          Maybe you could reply to him on his July 30 blog ask me something as I did.

    • radvar

      It’s simply amazing to me (rhetorical gambit, attempting to establish your sagacity) that you have posted a comment expressing such ignorance of LENR, innovation investment, and industrial secrecy.

  • William D. Fleming

    You miss the point. If we had jumped in and funded cold fusion research back in ’89, funded it by just a tenth of what hot fusion has been given, then those things you say you want to see might very well be there today.

    Instead Pons and Fleischman were shouted down and basically driven out of the country–skewered if you will without a fair hearing. There were people who KNEW cold fusion was real, and they refrained from speaking up.

    It’s like telling the Wright brothers back in 1903: “If heavier than air flight is possible, then why hasn’t someone built giant airliners to fly all over the world”? LENR is in its infancy.

    I believe we are on the dawn of a new era, however, I respect your skepticism.

  • bfast

    Kit, you are not comparing apples with apples. Your wikipedia link says, “The polywell is one of many devices that use an electric field to heat ions to fusion conditions.” The polywell is HOT fusion. The technology being discussed here, confirmed by DTRA, is fusion without the extreme heat (like hotter than the surface of the sun.) A different puppy than polywell altogether.

  • Axil Axil

    IMHO, LENR produces muons at high efficiency that catalyze fusion. Holmlid has shown this.

    • psi2u2

      He means that TractorEngineer would not put his name on it.

  • psi2u2

    You are missing the key factor of ethos. The report supplies ethos to already known or rumored findings.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, you have two issues.

    #1 – is LENR real, are their experiments that show excess heat?

    The answer is clearly yes.

    I mean when the first solar cell was developed, your response is why is industry not placing them on buildings? You mean someone invented a device that will turn sunlight into electricity without moving parts? That going make that person and company billions!

    The simple matter is solar panels were not ready for really any commercial application for a VERY long time. (50 or 60 years!) The first use of this technology was military and commercial satellites where budgets were un-limited.

    Any intelligent person who takes the time to study the evidence of LENR will most certainly conclude that the heat effect exists and an output (COP) of > 1 is possible. This is a reasonably intelligent conclusion.

    The problem is high output – and reasonable cost.

    #2 – is LENR real, why no commercial systems?

    Well, that goes back to when the first solar panel or solar cell was built – you did not by magic see solar panels on rooftops everywhere. Today you do!

    So the issue with LENR is not the MANY experiments that show excess heat. The issue is commercial output and viability of such systems. So just like the first solar cell that produced electricity from light, it would have been silly to ask how come industry is not putting such panels on rooftops.

    The question is not LENR, but WHEN the technology will reach commercial viability (or will it ever?).

    I never encounter ANYONE who’s spent time looking into LENR not walking away realizing it is real.

    A great video from CBS that spawned several startup LENR companies is this short CBS piece from 2009:
    The above is a MUST watch video.

    MOST interesting in above is how CBS asked the APS (America Physics Society) to send them an independent physicist that could look into LENR for the CBS story.

    That person came back after visiting a lab in Israel. The physicist was shocked to realize that cold fusion (LENR) was real – despite all the mainstream news and press saying otherwise.

    I mean, Intel built the first computer on a chip. However, it was really 7+ years later that consumer computers for purchase became available. But the transistor only came out in the late 1950’s. And really, the first electronic computers only appeared in the 1940’s, and personal computers did not arrive until the late 1970’s. (so again 30+ years).

    When uranium was first discovered, the physics community scoffed at the idea that heat could occur without burning of some fuel. Heat without combustion was thought impossible! You mean some dirt can reaming in the ground and produce heat for 100’s of years without burning fuel?

    When the science community FINALLY accepted that heat could occur without burning fuel and some chemical reaction? To save the HUGE AMOUNTS OF EGG on their faces they said such heat will never be useful to mankind.

    And to be fair, it took about 50 years before working nuclear reactors were built after the discovery of this new energy source.

    So be it uranium and nuclear reactors, or solar cells – 50 years easy passed before such technologies became viable.

    And to be honest, I still think solar panels are science fiction and one of the most cool devices man has ever created.

    So LENR has several challenges:

    Breaking down the skeptics and fixing the idea that LENR is junk science lumped in with UFO groups.

    Reaching commercial viability.

    So what Rossi claims he has is very much like the Wright Brothers. MANY people stated if the Wright brothers REALLY do have a flying machine that can be controlled, then they can easily ask anyone a king’s ransom for such a technology.

    The other problem is the existing nuclear industry no more wants LENR then did the computer industry wanted personal computers.

    MIT has had a cold fusion course taught for several years now. All students receive a working LENR device that produces excess heat well beyond input power (and well beyond chemical heat). To be fair, the course is un-audited (noncredit), but it is kind of shocking that we have courses at MIT giving students working LENR devices, teaching them a cold fusion 101 course, and yet the VAST majority of the science community is still at the doubting stage!!! I

    It really shows the mess the science community is at today.

    So no need for a bunch of dry science papers on LENR – watch the CBS video, and visit ECW once a week!

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada