More Respectability for LENR: Now to be Discussed at CERN Colloquium

Shortly after NASA’s web site has featured a video promoting LENR as a possible future energy solution, we now find that CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research) is providing a forum for the subject at a colloquium to be held on March 22 entitled, “Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)”

The description about the event reads as follows:

An overview will be given on the main progress made –since March 1989- through experimental/theoretical studies on thermal/nuclear anomalies observed in forced interactions of Hydrogen isotopes (H, D), in non-equilibrium conditions, with pure or alloyed materials (mainly Palladium, Nickel).

Most of the experiments used electrolytic environments at moderate temperatures (20-50°C). More recently, gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed).

Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role both in basic studies as well as in, recently claimed, technological/industrial applications.

A plethora of theoretical models have been proposed to explain several experimental anomalies in LENR. A brief description of a weak interaction model shall be presented that claims to explain almost ALL of the anomalous effects found so far.

The presenters at the Colloquium are listed as Francesco Celani and Yogendra Srivastava. Celani is a physicist with the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, and Srivastave is an emeritus professor of physics at Indiana University. It seems from the description above, which mentions “a weak interaction model”, that these professors will be making a case for the Widom-Larsen theory of LENR.

It’s interesting to see that the scientific community is giving new attention to a field that has been in the wilderness for so many years — perhaps it is time for LENR to be welcomed into the mainstream.

  • Li

    I really do not understand the sheep effect in science;
    The effect was announced by 1925, than by 1933, 1934, but only when MIT was fighting UUT and trained the DOE clowns into the process the scientific community reacted, and it was the “wrong reaction”, instead involving the inventors or the people who claimed that observed the process to show in detail, they eliminated the specialists, by a well known procedure in US politics – personality /competence assassination – and hoped to obtain better results…is like replacing a specialist commando with a division – with higher costs and different results, unfortunately a common practice in US natl. labs. that drives to mediocrity, with high spending…many countries mimicked US and prohibited their researches to get funded on that subject, while other nations as Greece, Israel, India, Russia, China made significant progresses.
    In fact Stanley and Pons may be entitled to receive damages from US for their criminal action, that now can be easy proven

    • http://www.lenrforum.eu/ Alain

      this denial of inconvenient data is well explained by Roland Benabou in his theory.
      I explain and give ref there
      http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40

      you give mode detailed information.
      As you say it is probebly even worse that a simple denial of annoying data, but a run to conformance by subordinates nations.

      what is killing science, and corporations, those days is the mythology that with better control you avoid the bad decisions…
      in fact the control is done by very conservative and not specific enough criteria, using much consensus as proof of quality. in fact the consensus become self realizing prophecy, because no result can be recognized as invalidating the consensus, because the consensus refuse them.

      sadly the only way to detect fraud, pseudo-science, is to let competing “school” of thinking battle like kids, ensuring no-one win in the political domain (that their respective politics are separates, and that the incentive is to be different, like in the old time with king scientists)…
      after some time, despite total lack of honesty on some camps, the usefulness of the good theory will became so evident that the bad theory will die in less than a century (see N ray, QM, Wegener, Newton/Leibniz, Netwton/achromatic lens), except from organization that make business, religion, or politic based on it(psychoanalysis, homeopathy, wifi fear, intelligent design, marxism) .

  • Dr. Melvin H. Miles

    I hope this CERN discussion will help the American Chemical Society (ACS) to realize its mistake in recently banning LENR sessions from future ACS meetings.

    • DSM

      That may be like when the church told Galileo that what he was seeing in his telescopes wasn’t really there :)

      Re ACS – I hope they do rethink that decision.

      Good luck

      Doug M

  • sapain

    here is a thought, what would rossi`s mega gen be worth as a historical first.

  • sapain

    CERN is a heavy hitter, to step and speak is a big ststement.
    this is more than a small step, more like simon says; three steps and one big jump forward lol.
    lenr now travels faster than light.

  • Job001

    Achieving good yields Wout/Win appears to be sensitive to seven parameters IMHO: Stress crackable NI or PD substrate, particle size, contaminants, loading, EM stimulation field, physical stability, and Temperature. It is no wonder it has taken a couple of decades to get above break-even. It’s no wonder it’s very difficult to replicate. It is cool the process is becoming recognized gradually by mainstream science. I’m an independent Scientist/Engineer with no axe to grind and take neither position of extreme skeptic nor advocate fool. The evidence indicates this can be done but it is not easy.

  • Pingback: Fusione fredda: conferenza al CERN con Francesco Celani - Energia, Nucleare - GreenStyle

  • http://www.neotreksoftware.com Allans Shura

    Until Rossi’s endeaver cold fusion reasearchers were often dismissed summararily by many mainstream funded organizations as
    “tin foil hats”.

    This seems to be a suddenly changing.

    • Ged

      Makes you wonder what people are seeing behind the scenes. All that mysterious university work with Rossi over the past year we are not privy to. Obviously, others also went on to try to replicate his work (more than just Chan and Defkelion), and since no one’s come out and said it doesn’t work, and rather we’re getting NASA backed patents and a CERN colloquium…

      It really is tantalizing. I’d love to see if we can get a transcript or video from the CERN event when it happens.

      I’m still cautious though. Don’t want to put the cart before the horse–but this CERN news is enormous.

      • Achi

        “It really is tantalizing. I’d love to see if we can get a transcript or video from the CERN event when it happens.”

        There’s going to be a live webcast of the event.

        “Please note that this event will be available live via the Webcast Service.”(http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379)

      • DSM

        I am betting the CERN event will be standing room only & the webcast may melt the wires it travels on (hmm transmutation by induction) :)

        Doug M

  • Skeptic

    Perspective: There will be a lecture of an hour by two smart people who claim to have a theoretical model to unify the different LENR claims since 1989.

    LENR is pretty much fringe science (by definition, if it’s not mainstream, it’s this).
    You know what would help? Reproducable results.

    It seems that CERN received a report about just that in 2005, here is the abstract: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/835054

    The summary should raise some eyebrows: Even though reproducable results are the cornerstone of science, it is very, very hard to reproduce LENR-claims. So we propose that the scientific rules are a little more relaxed, because LENR has such a hard time reproducing its results.

    So if you can’t reproduce the results, you challenge the scientific principles. Nice try.

    How would you feel if only 1 out of 500 e-cats actually ‘reproduced results’?
    In other words: why is it so hard for everybody to reproduce results, when Rossi can obviously reproduce them well enough to make home appliances?

    The entire scientific community will sit up and take notice if reproducable results are presented. If LENR fails to do so, all the theoretic models won’t help it.

    • Alain

      Spawar succeeded in 100% reproductibility withe their electrode codeposition method.
      they also have understood many reason of previous failure
      a conference
      http://10.12.136.156:15871/cgi-bin/blockpage.cgi?ws-session=1951540834
      their papers
      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SSC-SD-Refereed-Journal-Articles.shtml

    • http://www.neotreksoftware.com Allans Shura

      If you look at the science and theory it is
      evident why some of the earliest results were not consistent. In fact it is clearly obvious.

      In order for the reaction to take place the deuterium atom must be directly aside or in interlaced contact with the metalic atom.

      Metalic purity metalurgical issues aside many metals are easily surface contaminated by the atmosphere with the formation of oxides etc, on the surface.

      Also ordinary water has only a tiny fraction of deuterium so it is purified to heavy water.

      I was thinking one could use a thin screen to improve efficiency but I was one upped when
      the University of Osaka (Yoshiaki Arata) used nano particles and pure deuterium to maximize surface exposure to the reaction.

      The results were instant and consistent so this is the answer to the wives tale of … hard to reproduce results.

  • Pingback: More Respectability for LENR: Now to be Discussed at CERN Colloquium | ColdFusionBlog.net

  • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

    OK people, I think I figured out what Dr. Zawodny and LENR at NASA was all about. Today they announced that some Romanian hacker found his way into NASA/JPL computers. Specifically the climate science studies machines. This LENR business was bait for your Eastern European crackers.

    • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

      Dr Zawodny is very recognizable face in the scientific community. Did they brainwash him to say what he did as well?

      LENR anomalous heat has been noted by over 16 independant labs including MIT/NASA/Universities, it does appear to be fact at this stage. Open your eyes.

    • Steve Robb

      I thought “cracker” only live in the southern tier of the U.S.

    • Ged

      The hacking of NASA’s climate science division has been an ongoing issue, and has absolutely nothing to do with LENR (some of the hacks happened a long time ago). Nor would LENR ever be “bait” for climate change hacking! It’s all about the battle over global climate change, which is a -completely- different issue. Was the “climategate” e-mail releases baited by LENR?

      In short, what you just said is a conspiracy theory not backed by any rational facts what so ever.

  • Steve Robb

    I imagine an small anonymous voice pipping up from the audience during the meeting: “Let’s not listen.”

    • dandelion

      This is one of the funniest things I have ever read online. It is almost pickwickian, in a dickensian sense. Thank you.

      • Spaceman Tom

        Whatever. Why are you acting like you’re so smart? Speak normal english, and you will be respected. Act like you are better then everybody else, and you’ll be laughed at! ;)

        Your mom must be sooo proud! Loser!

        • Steve Robb

          Whaaat??? Are you speaking ironically or is that your nature on display?

      • Steve Robb

        It originates from the animation show “Futurama” in which the Professor Farnsworth is frequently interrupted by someone in the audience of scientists piping up, “Let’s not listen.”

  • Sanjeev

    http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6027#p6027

    DGT is willing to publish all test protocols.
    It will be a big + for them.

  • Sanjeev

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/overview-of-theoretical-and.html

    It got a good publicity.
    Rossi is not invited ;)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    So, the “Please, May I have a cup of tea?” people will be looking into LENR. I’m sure Rossi’s megawatt reactor (Krakatoa erupting) had nothing to do with them changing their tune.

  • Robert

    Gotta love chales ponzi. A real trail blazer in finance and now LENR is there anything u don’t know?

    • psi

      I know that you don’t know very much about LENR.

    • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

      And your point is?

      • dragon

        His point is that going forward Charles Ponzi comments should be ignored. I agree.

  • Stephen T.

    Anomaly: Something that differs from what is standard, normal, or expected.

    • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

      Overview: “dog and pony show”

      • Paul Richards

        Ha ha, good one.
        I guess you know all about those.

        • DSM

          No he is an expert on fleas.

          D

  • Stephen T.

    Good information. Thanks for posting this. The timing should be interesting as Defkalion should have some initial third party tests in progress or completed by then. Waiting gets easier I guess. Meanwhile, what is the most cost effective way to convert thermal (400C?) to electric? Can it be small enough to provide charge to hybrid vehicles?

  • Roger Bird

    It is highly likely that very few people will attend this colloquium. Those that do may be wearing masks.

    I don’t want these people or government “officials” to discuss LANR. I want them to be totally ignorant of LANR. When they see LANR being sold at their version of Home Depot, then I want them to know about LANR, when it is way too late for them to do anything about it.

    • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

      The sooner that they stop snowing us the better. They being NASA/MIT/CERN. Rossi and Defkalion have an excuse for their actions and everything they say or don’t say. They’re probably scamming some investors. NASA/MIT/CERN needs to come clean with what they have or don’t have.

      • Rockyspoon

        Why on earth would a demo to you influence “some investors”… unless YOU are one of those investors!

        C’mon… come clean. Are you deflecting others from this investment opportunity by saying Rossi has an excuse in showing it so you can justify your own financial participation?

      • Roger Bird

        Charles Ponzi, you don’t really know. You are being unscientific. LANR has been replicated numerous times. Whether Rossi and/or Defkalion are able to jack up the COP and control it and sustain it is still unknown.

    • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

      Roger, I’m with you on this one. I would love it if the scientific world hadn’t figured out that a phenomenon exists when sales become available at Home Depot.

      • http://www.Libertynewspost.com Becktemba

        Bruce, LOL that’s the best post I’ve read all week! That would be something! An anomaly on sale at home depot! So, they go buy one and take it apart to see whats going on!

        • http://sitonmyfacebook E-Cat Investor

          If a unit does ever find its way out of the factory craigslist is where you’ll be able to buy it. Under boat accessories: anchor for sale $600 or best offer.

          • Petrol

            I’m activly planning to retrofit my sailboat to run on an e-cat if this thing turns out to be real.

            It will be the “anchor accessory” that powers my windless.

      • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

        I disagree. I’d rather see 100 billion dollars invested in this globally than see AR (Rossi) trying to bring heaters (sigh) to market financing his research with the proceeds from the sale of his house.

        I’d like every car manufacturer to be looking at ecats.

        I’d like this technology in place sooner. If we wait for home depot units then it will already be a few years from now.

        • Rockyspoon

          And what makes you think the “Skunk Works” at every auto manufacturer ISN’T looking at it (and do you really think they’d feature their investigation, say, in a Super Bowl ad when they know scooping their competition would make them “king of the hill”?)

          I’m amazed that so many people that think Rossi is completely transparent (which he is not, but is much more so than most companies) also think behemoth industries are ALSO transparent. Obviously, my comment isn’t meant to argue there’s transparency in either case.

        • Roger Bird

          kwhilborn, you must be a liberal. Just because you want something and just because something is “good” does not mean that letting government get involved is a good idea, considering that big business owns government. Let’s put it another way; do you want big business to get involved with LANR? Does that sound like a good idea?

  • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

    Ha ha ha! It’s an error. An anomaly they call it.

    • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

      No. They were attempting cold fusion and accidentally got heat from a by-process. It is not from an error. It can be replicated.

      One theory is Widom-Larsen.

      A weak nuclear reaction is any reaction that emits or absorbs a Neutrino. Neutrinos are photons similar to visible light that does not interact with visible matter. LENRS Emit Neutrinos.

      Andrea Rossi has other theories, but NASA likes this one at the moment.

      Certain metals that readily absorb hydrogen (hydrides), can be saturated with Hydrogen (for simplicity I’m leaving out Deuterium,etc.). This “loading” can be enhanced by running electrolysis (electrolytic cells) or having a vacuum chamber.

      If you imagined the Nickel as a sponge being filled with water, once the sponge reached its storage capacity, small droplets would build up on the surface of the sponge.

      This seems to be true of Nickel containing hydrogen. Small pools of theses surface patches (30 microns/pinheads) of the saturated protons (not mentioning deuterons either).

      NOTE: I am also puzzled with why these “pools” would appear, and be proton heavy? Explain to me please.

      Now also there’s a film of electrons on the surface of metals that all oscillate together called surface plasmons.


      High fields result from a breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation via a coupling of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to a collective proton resonance in the metal hydride

      This means the protons which weigh a lot more than the electrons through the electromagnetic field grab the electrons and shake them back and forth. This occurs directly above the little pinhead sized pools of protons previously mentioned.

      This reaction creates a big neutron from the interaction between a proton and an electron. An “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron”. This term is used a lot, and that is how it is created. This is because they obviously lack the energy seen in other nuclear processes.

      the neutron is absorbed by nearby nuclei and you won’t see it.

      Subsequent decays release significant energy.

      It was created by accident when attempting cold fusion, and is why we call it LENR now.

      I don’t think it is an error as error implies it is not workable.

      • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

        Nobody yet fully understands the process. AR says they overcome the Coulomb barrier (electrostatic in nature) and actually create fusion in addition to the above explanation.

        He says they overcome the barrier in a method similar to martial arts. I am guessing he means he is not attempting to fight the current but maybe speed it up?

        It is confusing and some top minds are trying to sort it. A few hundred billion in research should suffice.

        • Steve Robb

          I would rather the field be kept lean of money as I have noticed that when people are starved for funds the get clever and find smart ways of doing things. Just think of how larded hot fusion has been and how poor the results from the Tokamak behemoths. On the other hand, look at the dense plasma focus fusion concept and how much progress they have made over a few years on a shoestring: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

      • Roger Bird

        “A weak nuclear reaction is any reaction that emits or absorbs a Neutrino. Neutrinos are photons similar to visible light that does not interact with visible matter. LENRS Emit Neutrinos.”

        kwhilborn, I fear that you are all wet on this part. Neutrinos are not photons, they are particles. They are not emitted by LANR. I think that you meant neutrons, which are also not photons, but have been measured around LANR.