Thanks again to all who have contributed to the discussion around the new “What is LENR?” page (now posted). In the process of working on the page, and in the light of discussion about various theories I decided to put a question to Andrea Rossi about what term most accurately describes his technology. I was quite surprised by the length of his response, since I am used to seeing one word answers to many questions.
My question:
There have been a number of labels applied to the phenomenon that was originally referred as ‘cold fusion.’ Some are: LENR (Low energy nuclear reaction), LANR (Lattice assisted nuclear reaction), CANR (Chemically assisted nuclear reaction), Anomalous heat effect, Fleischmann Pons effect, Cold fusion — and more.
What do you think is the most accurate label that should be applied to your technology — and why?
Rossi’s response:
Andrea Rossi
June 2nd, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Dear Frank Acland:
Very problematic question, but intriguing.
LENR ( Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) is acceptable, based on my personal experience, because the Third Indipendent Party Report has accertained beyond any reasonable doubt that the energy produced cannot be generated by the quantic status changement of the electrons orbiting around the nuclea ( see the Ragone diagram of the well known Report).CANR is difficult to define: what does mean “chemical assisted” exactly? Definitions “de omnino et nihil” are basically meaningless.
LANR comes from a nuclear model based on ” lattice structure of nucleons”, but when it turns into models, NUclear = UNclear. It comes from the W-L theory, which is wrong because unsustainable under the theoretical point of view ( conflicts with the leptons conservation law and confers to virtual particles characteristics limited to the real e.p.) and under the experimental point of view ( it has never worked in 10 years of attempts. By the way: I have given to 2 of our US scientists the task to work full time for 1 year to replicate all the existing patents of LENR in the world, to analyze which of them can work. We also analyze the theoretical claims, checking with the instrumentation we can use, very complete, if the supposed radiations, fusions etc really happen. We are making this work both for scientific purpose and for understanding which patents work and which ones do not work).
ANOMALOUS HEAT EFFECT : “anomalous” is generic, this too is a substantive that does not confer a precise meaning. “Anomalous” can be used as an adjective of a phenomenon observed in an experiment or a test, indipendently from a defined process.
FLEISCHMANN-PONS EFFECT is valid for electrilytic systems, but has nothing to do, for example, with my Effect, which is based upon a precise mechanism that has nothing to do with electrolysis.
COLD FUSION is limited to the energy produced if and when fusion is effectively reached: my personal experience is that cold fusion is a side effect of the LENR.
This is my opinion, but maybe Others will be able to coin better definitions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I thought it was especially interesting to learn about the 2 scientists who are assigned to try and replicate patented processes. Rossi contends that there have been patents granted for processes that don’t work, and I guess he is out to prove that’s the case.
