Two New LENR Related Articles

I wanted to bring attention to two new articles that have just been published in connection with LENR.

The first is a detailed scientific paper submitted to the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (not yet published there) written by Dr. Edmund Storms, entitled “An Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion)” In this paper the author rejects the idea that LENR nuclear reactions take place within the lattice of materials used in LENR systems, but proposes a new structure, common to all LENR reactions, must form which he calls the Nuclear Reaction Environment (NAE). The NAE, he says, “is proposed to take the form of a crack or gap that forms by stress relief in conventional structures.”

The second article is more of a review article published on Oilprice.com website written by British chemistry professor and author Chris Rhodes that looks at the current state of fusion research (hot and cold). The title of the article is “The Progress made in the Different Fields of Nuclear Fusion.” The information about the work of Rossi, Focardi and Defkalion GT will not be new to people who have been following the story, but Rhodes’ account of the state of hot fusion research is interesting to those of us who have been concentrating on the ‘cold’ side of things.

  • Barry

    It was interesting to read the comments on Chris Rhodes story. Somebody wrote in, describing a recipe for a nickle-hydrogen catalst (basically carbon and how to prepare it). Could this be the secret catalst?

    • george gerhab

      I have analyzed Caleni’s generator and, using the Standard Model, have calculated a power output of 15Watts compared to Celani’s 10Watts. My calculations aren’t perfect but they are close. Has anyone determined the transition rate for the nuclear reactions using the Lagrangian density of the electro-weak interaction (using the W- intermediate vector boson) too?

  • georgehants

    From CNN Money — maybe .00000000001% of that money for Cold Fusion? No don’t be silly.

    IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments
    By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney June 12, 2012
    The International Energy Agency says the world isn’t doing nearly enough to combat global warming.
    The International Energy Agency says the world isn’t doing nearly enough to combat global warming.
    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The International Energy Agency said the word’s clean energy investments are sorely lacking and this week called for an additional $36 trillion of funding by 2050.
    In a sharply-worded introduction to a 700-page report, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said governments and private industry need to do far more if the world is to hold global warming to what most scientists say is an acceptable level.
    “Our ongoing failure to realize the full potential of clean energy technology is alarming,” said van der Hoeven. “Under current policies, both energy demand and emissions are likely to double by 2050.”
    The IEA consists of mostly industrialized nations and was set up in the early 1970s to counterbalance OPEC. It conducts energy market research and helps coordinate releases from strategic oil stockpiles.
    The report urged governments to set higher targets for renewable energy use, called for a price on the emissions of carbon dioxide, and an end to subsidies for fossil fuels — which worldwide it said were seven times larger than renewable energy subsidies in 2011.
    “Too little is currently being spent on every element of the clean energy transformation pathway,” said van der Hoeven.
    http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/12/news/economy/iea-energy/index.htm

    • GreenWin

      The IEA immediately discredits itself by refusing to discuss new alternative fusion. To demand expenditure of $36 TRILLION on wind mills, PV panels, and carbon trade schemes is unrealistic. If IEA wishes to be a leader in international energy – they need to demonstrate a thorough grasp of the state of the art. They have not done so yet.

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

        At least they don’t seem to be claiming nuclear fission as ‘clean energy’, as the current propaganda has it. I guess they must be the lobby for the ‘renewable’ energy industry, and wouldn’t be interested in something that may actually do what it says on the can, at least not if they don’t own it. It’s pretty difficult finding anyone who isn’t intent on grinding their own axe these days.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      Full circle: Crackpot, Fringe, Niche, Mainstream, Establishment, Absurdishment.

      • GreenWin

        Heh heh… Sorta like Lion King’s “Circle of Life.”

    • CSmith

      THE IEA has been a horrible waist of money. Why give them more?

  • georgehants

    A little strange that Crystals have always been regarded as very important in the esoteric world.
    MailOnline
    Scientists say diamonds could be the secret to mind-bogglingly fast ‘quantum computer’–
    A turbo-charged computer that could change the world forever is a major step closer after scientists worked out how to store memory using quantum physics.
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2157732/Scientists-say-diamonds-secret-mind-bogglingly-fast-quantum-computer.html#ixzz1xZLCEVNG

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      I’m a bit outside of that field, but if I have understood correctly the “quantum computers” currently envisaged are not universal computers, but devices only for specific tasks such as factoring large integers. Actually I’m not aware of other concrete applications than code cracking. Science journalists often gloss over such details.

      • georgehants

        one of the first uses being considered is the simulation on quantum events that are very difficult to observe because of experimental limitations.
        This would open-up many areas of materials science and certainly Cold Fusion to computer simulation.
        Quantum Photosynthesis etc. could be simulated as very difficult to observe directly any Quantum event.
        The Laser, I remember was the invention that had no use when first discovered.

  • georgehants

    Somebody called Penny4NASA has the begging bowl out for NASA, maybe they could find a few penny’s for NASA to spend on Cold Fusion.

    NASA’s budget currently represents 0.5% of the US budget, and has been relatively unchanged for 25 years. We are calling for their budget to be increased to 1% of the US budget.
    Help us succeed! We are now accepting donations, help us by making a donation. Anything helps!
    Donate Now
    What Can I Do?
    You are already aware of how important funding NASA is, now what? Here’s what:
    First
    Sign our petition asking the Obama Administration and the US Congress to increase NASA’s budget from its current level of about 0.46% to a whole 1% of the US annual budget.
    Second
    Donate to the Penny4NASA campaign, by clicking here. All proceeds go towards the Penny4NASA effort and will not be used for other purposes. We are dedicated to making sure that donations are handled with care. We do not sell or otherwise share your name or personal information with any other entity.
    Third
    Share us on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+. Also, email our website to anyone you think would be interested.
    Fourth
    Email your congresspersons. We know this sounds like it won’t do much good, but trust us! We’ve even written most of the letter for you. Go to our Congress page for the letter template and a link to find your representatives. Together, we will capture the attention of our congressional representatives and make some real change for NASA.
    Fifth
    Educate yourself further on the What, How, Why, When of increasing NASA’s budget to 1% of the US annual budget. And look further into our Videos section to see more about NASA’s history, research, and overall benefit to humankind. You can check these all out on our Educate Yourself page.
    http://penny4nasa.org/

    • GreenWin

      Message for PENNY: Should NASA elect to put LENR on a full budget track and participate openly in disclosure of work in alternative fusion – they will get public support. Non-disclosure of NASA activities will result in no increase in budget.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      Well you can see why – Obama wants to cut NASA’s budget by 59 million dollars to less than 18 billion next year. It’s hard to see how you could keep yourself in catfood for that, let alone have a beer on Saturday. I’m sure their appeal to the kindly and excessively wealthy folk of the US of A will make good the deficit overnight.

      http://www.space.com/14553-2013-nasa-budget-proposal-highlights.html

      • GreenWin

        Peter, you do not understand the hardship that will cripple NASA with this level of budget cut! As your countryman say, one or two of these Bunterish lickspittles will be forced to eat a salad!

        And what will become of Zawodny’s church mouse grant?? Perhaps if he settles in NASA’s parking lot with a “Will Work For Funding” sign round his neck – he can keep the lights on.

        One thing’s sure. The office parties with pole dancers are GONE!

  • georgehants

    A little strange that Crystals have always been regarded as very important in the esoteric world.
    MailOnline
    Scientists say diamonds could be the secret to mind-bogglingly fast ‘quantum computer’–
    A turbo-charged computer that could change the world forever is a major step closer after scientists worked out how to store memory using quantum physics.
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2157732/Scientists-say-diamonds-secret-mind-bogglingly-fast-quantum-computer.html#ixzz1xZLCEVNG

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2157732/Scientists-say-diamonds-secret-mind-bogglingly-fast-quantum-computer.html#ixzz1xZKbOIno

  • andreiko

    STILTE voor de storm!

    • jacob

      Ok,andreiko,i will translate,” calm before the storm”

  • Pingback: Two New LENR Related Articles | ColdFusion | Cold Fusion | Free Energy !()

  • georgehants

    From – Science AAAS.
    ScienceInsider – breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy
    Italian Government Slams Brakes on ‘Piezonuclear’ Fission
    by Edwin Cartlidge on 11 June 2012, 3:25 PM
    Italy’s research and education minister Francesco Profumo has heeded the call from more than 1000 Italian scientists not to fund research into a controversial and disputed form of nuclear fission. The scientists had signed an online petition urging Profumo to block research on “piezonuclear” reactions at the National Institute of Metrological Research (INRIM). The petitioners say they are concerned that the institute’s president, Alberto Carpinteri, was prioritizing research on the subject and that Profumo was about to place a second proponent of the research on the institute’s scientific council. But Profumo has told ScienceInsider that he changed his mind about the council nomination and that he has “no intention” of funding piezonuclear research without the backing of the scientific community.
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/06/italian-government-slams-brakes-.html?rss=1

    • Ged

      And this is how you create dogma.

    • GreenWin

      NO! Signore Galileo! I will NOT look through your telescope!!

      • http://www.cce-mt.org NJT

        You NAILED these Italian JOKERS!

    • dragon

      Wow… It looks like they are really stomping on it (on LENR research)!

      I am amazed on how fast 1000 (that is tens of hundred) of scientists (the whole Italian scientific community?) got together and had enough strong facts against LENR in order to decide on destroying a new scientific field.
      Isn’t that too much lies already ????
      Who is pulling the strings so desperate against LENR in Italy???

      • Barry

        Isn’t this something different than LENR? They’re talking about Fission not fusion.

        • Ivan Mohorovicic

          The “LENR” term per se doesn’t exclude “cold fission” since the definition meerely states that require high energies to initiate the nuclear reaction aren’t needed.

          Piezonuclear fission (low energy) nuclear reactions might just be the other side of the same coin.

          Actually Prof Cardone (associate of Carpinteri) some time ago went even further and said that “cold fusion” reactions might be in fact a form of piezonuclear reactions.

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            I forgot to check the message for typos before hitting “reply”… sorry.

      • Mark

        Let me explain this. In science once a fact
        is proven by a concise experiment, other
        scientists can begin using that scientific
        law, theory or fact in their own work.
        Sometimes using it for vastly different
        purposes then that for which it was first
        conceived.

        For example; If LENR is demonstrated as
        fact then rocket scientists could use the
        operating principles of LENR to make sure
        that it *doesn’t* accidentally happen in
        hydrogen fueled rocket engines. If it true
        then it is all fair.

        What is happening is that an earth
        scientist is trying to use LENR operating
        principles to say that LENR happens in
        rocks inside earths crust and that it
        happens on a fairly massive and important
        basis. I think he is jumping the gun somewhat, but what he is saying is
        *probably* fact.

        What political critics of this scientist
        are doing is trying to suppress LENR
        investigations at the source to try to
        silence this earth scientist. Like killing
        two birds with one stone.

        It’s completely inane, and yet since
        politicos are scientifically
        unknowledgeable it apparently sounds
        good to them. Fortunately science is done
        by scientists and not political
        compromisers. So it will probably blow
        over.

        But one needs to understand that this is
        all unnecessary *if A. Rossi would have
        produced scientific quality unambiguous
        evidence that his LENR process really
        worked*. To science the facts on what he
        did in his demonstrations were quite
        expensive. This is like the first
        indication that the expenses of A. Rossi’s
        approach are real.

        :S:MarkSCoffman

    • jacob

      scientific community ? what a community ,who do they serve? is it a club? is it a joke? is it serving us? no ,it goes against the people and it is well established ,with deep foundations,the establishment , they servers of the rich and powerful,and a disgrace in the face of the universal creator, blocking knowledge and creating
      false illusions ,they are guilty of leading us astray and guilty of keeping us dumb an stupid ,yet they will not succeed forever,their time is coming to an end
      the future belongs to the people ,and we don’t need scientists if the stop our predestined abundance and prosperity.
      THEIR END IS NEAR

      • Filip

        There is no such thing like ‘their'(you make it sound as they know more than us and try to hide it, but they are just stupid and selfish opportunists). There is only stupidity and chaos.
        I recommend Spinoza, in times like this, it’s important to keep the feed on the ground. He fought against dogma’s his whole life, with common sence and common sence is what we need now. It’s not important what your or my believes are, it’s important to know that we have the same goal. To fight for a better world. I keep my believes under my roof where they belong.

        • jacob

          The feed on the ground, I don’t understand,for what ,the birds?

        • jacob

          Keep your believes under your own roof,it is your choice and decision,you are in charge of your own destiny,you are your own King,and there is nothing wrong with that,but I like to wake people up to reality not illusion,what you know may not be complete !!!
          LENR is real , not based on this worlds make believe.

    • Pete

      Has anyone here actually cared about to look why there is such a strong criticism and resistance against this piezo stuff?

      The few peer reviews by other scientists show very bad science with possible data manipulation.
      http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3501
      http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6418
      http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863

      And now it seemed the piezo group tried to pass by the usual grant process by political means. This is not how science is done.

      There might be a true phenomenon. But they are killing any research themselves by being sloppy and/or incapable. No need for conspiracy or dogma here!

    • Karl

      This news deserves a serious laugh.

      We obviously are heading towards “earth-breaking” news that’s a reasonable explanation the banning reaction form the scientific priesthood community.

    • Francesco CH

      Bad governments will pass, good science will remain.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      Well we only had hints before, and the occasional agenda-driven pillock like Hagelstein’s nemesis, but now we see the scientific establishment in all its true glory. Like a bunch of bewhiskered frock-coated Victorian scientists declaring that everything that can be known, is known, so further research is futile. How very, very sad.

  • GreenWin

    It is very interesting to view the selective filter that authors like Chris Rhodes use to report on LENR. They seem often to leave out now commonly available research conducted over the last 23 years – e.g. SPAWAR, Dr. Mills, Miley, Ahern, Arata, McKubre, Piantelli, Celani, to name a few.

    Rhodes refuses to acknowledge the recent announcements by Drs. Zawodny and Bushnell, NASA’s Chief Scientist at Langley Research Center. Or any of the ongoing work by DoD, DARPA, Naval Research Labs, Energetics Ltd. SRI Intl., or Dr. Robert Duncan’s $5.5M LENR research fund at U Missouri. Or the joint ventures between U.S. government and Italian ENEA for a decade. Or the 1400 peer-reviewed articles, papers, talks documenting LENR experiments.

    To Rhodes’ favor he did include the new projected timeline for hot fusion:

    “In the late 50s, we were told that fusion power was 20 years away and now, 50-odd years later it is maybe 60 years away.”

    But he neglected to report father of hot fusion, Assistant Director of the Atomic Energy Commission Dr. Robert Bussard’s statement that magnetic confinement is a myth:

    “One of the biggest obstacles is the world-wide tokamak lobby, which perpetuates the fraud that Hirsch, Trivelpiece and I foisted on the country in the 1970’s when we started the big Tokamak ball rolling.

    Magnetic confinement fusion is a misnomer, as magnetic fields can NOT confine a plasma, only constrain its motion towards walls. The entire history of the MagConf program has been to reduce transport to neo-classical (not turbulent or instability-driven) losses. And THEN the machines are all inherently and inevitably huge and cost too much and make too much power to ever be economically useful…”

    It is really about honesty. And intrepid, thorough journalism. Telling and reporting the truth. These reports are like press releases from intelligent distribution central. But great progress is happening – even if we want to keep it all hushed up;)

    • http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

      Good summary of the missing stuff.

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Petition, Cold Fusion Energy Development
    June 11, 2012 / quintoncrawford / 0 comment(s) / Action, Alternative Energies, Education, Politics, Science and Technology
    Cold Fusion atomic energy has been ignored and pushed aside in discussions/ presentations about alternative energy for too long. Advantages include little/no radioactive decay matter, and extremely high energy output. As an example, 1 or 2 future generation generators themselves could power a metropolis city the size of Los Angeles, California for a month on one small supply of common inexpensive elements. Current energy generation comes from more than 5-sources. World leaders in nations/unions such as Japan, The United States of America, Russia, South Africa, The European Union, and so on have the ability and power to fully engage in the building mass energy production plants now. “Nuclear fission power plants/ weapons are dangerous.”
    Note: As of 06/10/2012 this is only 22 local signatures away from going national.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/petition-cold-fusion-energy-development/

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      Pretty idiotic not to allow non-US locations for people signing the petition. Now I live in Alabama, UK!

  • georgehants

    Mr. Rossi is very subdued and quiet on his page again.
    Hopefully building up for something good.
    That word Hope again.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      It would be good if your second line proves to be right, George, but as time goes by I find that my hopes lie elsewhere. I believe that Rossi probably has more or less what he claims, but I don’t think he has been a free agent for quite some time, and may no longer be in a position to deliver the goods.

      • jacob

        Plausible,but hard to believe,Peter

  • Pingback: Two New LENR Related Articles | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • vbasic

    In the second article, which was a good survey of both hot fusion and LENR, there was a vicious attack on Rossi. Who could it be? None other than Gary Wright with his new website:
    http://shutdownrossi.com/
    Unbelievable. To me it so vicious, its beyond the pale of decency.

    • Matt S

      Just seen the website, anyone who uses comic sans for anything, anywhere, especially a website should not be trusted in my opinion..

      • Ged

        Comic Sans. Not even once.

    • GreenWin

      Time for a checkup from the neckup?

    • racribeiro

      I’ve read some of the posts of this site and, although I’m a believer, I do share the same concerns. What if Rossi is the tipping point of an orquestration to make LENR research even morr “bad science” than what cold fusion research is today? If we accept that there is a conspiracy in “hushing” LENR to the masses, then it is plausible that anything can be part of it, even a “energy lone ranger with a mission”.
      On the other way, there is no point in making big statements because all of us in Rossi’s shoes would probably do the same.
      Meanwhile nothing more to do than wait for a product or a (more) reliable academic announcement.

      • jacob

        reliable academic announcement? lets get real
        if a thousand Italian scientist puppets agree to kick LENR bud
        ,you expect a academic announcement,that’s insane,they are getting organized under pressure from some where,the academians sleep in the same dorm as the puppets,or scientists with strings attached or in Germany they call them ‘ein hampelman’ pull on the string and both arms and legs go up.

        SOME ONE IS CONTROLLING THESE GUYS

    • dragon

      That Gary Wright piece is indeed vicious about Rossi. And what is worse about it is that Gary is doing it because he want a piece of LENR action himself. He wants to provoke Rossi in a 3rd party demo just so he can get a better idea on what drives E-CAT so he can replicate it within http://opensourcelenr.com/ group.
      He is so transparent that is almost repulsive.

      • vbasic

        Yes. Wright sort of says it In his new site:”But for me to shut down this website and all it is doing Rossi would have to let me, Gary Wright, be the person in charge of the testing of one of his e-Cats.

        • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

          indeed an antithesis of “silence to oblivion” ..

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      As I’ve written before in other posts, this “Gary Wright” to me always seemed to be an alternate identity of Steven Krivit in disguise.

      Note how he emerged with his “open source LENR” website (which at first looked much like a parody of JONP, still is in many ways) as Krivit started going silent about Rossi. Krivit and Wright also appear to be in “contact” between each other, or so it’s been often implied. There are also other similarities (from technical ones such as the wordpress platform, to seemingly good connections with governmental entities – I don’t know how many other LENR-affiliated people could have pulled that stunt with the Florida Bureau of Investigation).

      This is of course just my speculation, but a motive for Krivit to do this is that the “Rossi-obsessed” definition was starting to hurt his image and website. A completely new identity would also allow him to do the dirty work as he could have never done before, like this “shutdownrossi.com” effort.

      • Ged

        Someone could do some whois lookups on the websites and their DNS registration information. If the two are the same person you’ll see patterns, or outright identical payment info.

      • Ged

        Nevermind, looks like my idea won’t work, at least not within my capabilities. Seems “shutdownrossi.com” is privacy protected from whois lookups. Someone apparently wants to hide who’s behind that site!

        • Ivan Mohorovicic

          Krivit might have malicious intentions but he is not stupid. If Wright is really one of his personas or if he’s closely related with him, he will have probably taken all possible measures to hide this fact (for example choosing a different ISP or hiding the registrant information as you noted).

          If both are the same person, however, patterns will inevitably arise over time and to me in part this is already happening.

          But again, this is just my personal impression and speculation, and I don’t have evidence to back it up.

          • dsm

            Ivan

            Either put up the facts behind your comments or again admit you are inventing this stuff on the fly because it makes you feel good. Not because you are spelling out known truths.

            Also your comments re Krivit are not any facts but your emotional opinions and not necessarily shared by others.

            Thanks

            DSM

      • dsm

        Ivan

        If you have any facts to back up your claim please do provide them. Otherwise what you are saying is biased rambling.

        Attack Krivit if you will but use real world facts not your ill thoughts about him.

        As for Gary Wright, what he is doing & the way he is doing it is only likely to attract a good deal of odium to himself.

        DSM

        • Ivan Mohorovicic

          I think I’ve clearly explained that this is just my impression/speculation and that there would be good reasons for K. to do this, if he still were to pursue his anti-Rossi crusade. I don’t know if you noticed, but most of his blog posts in his last few months of activity were Rossi attacks (with the rest mostly being attacks toward Widom-Larsen contrarians/”Cold Fusion” proponents), and that became his public perception since mid 2011, causing him to be often cited by skeptics of LENR in its entirety in non-specialized forums/discussion boards, which I think contradicts his “mission”.

          Actually, if Wright were really Krivit in disguise, his would have been a sensible strategy and I would have probably done the same.

          Anyway, I don’t feel I’ve written “attacks”, merely voiced out my thoughts in a fairly detached way.

          • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

            Your suggestion seems to me to be reasonable speculation. If Rossi’s enemies are going to engage in underhand tactics, then these antics deserve watching closely. That includes speculation about motives and identity, when it is stated to be such. As you say, even in the absence of any obvious connections, errors of concealment, or just certain patterns of style and content would inevitably confirm the validity of the speculation.

          • dsm6

            So what you are saying Peter Roe, is we can all make up our personal issues & go onto a world wide public forum and vent them even if they are nothing more than person animosity or paranoia. Wonderful 🙂
            .
            D

          • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

            DSM, you seem to have overlooked the fact that ‘Gary Wright’, whoever he really is, has already stepped way beyond the bounds of what might be considered ‘reasonable’ by launching his rather nasty little website and making the comments in question.

            It therefore seems to me to be entirely reasonable to speculate on his motives for doing so in an equally public forum, and I’m afraid I have difficulty understanding your concern about Ivan’s speculations.

          • dsm

            Peter

            Gary Wright is not posting here (thankfully). We are. My concern is when people start inventing ‘facts’ and then setting them up as defacto beliefs.

            There isn’t 1 shred of anything that says Krivit is Wright and so to post stories imputing it is true is setting an unpleasant trend based entirely on personal bias.

            All I am doing with Ivan is asking him to either provide some evidence or to reconsider posting personal bias as if it might be fact. To me this is not a difficult point to grasp.

            I know I was once guilty of lambasting Krivit but over time (and fairly quickly) realized what I was saying about him was not correct (I ended up sending him an appology).

            So I guess my real concern is making up for when I did a similar sort of thing Ivan is doing.

            Cheers

            DSM

      • dogman

        I don’t think they are the same person. Krivit claims to have an office in a strip mall in San Rafael California. Gary Wright uses the email address gary at garywright.com. WHOIS reports that this domain is registered to a Gary W Wright with a P.O. Box in Las Vegas. a white pages search lists a couple of different entries for Gary W. Wright in Las Vegas.

        This is obviously not conclusive proof that they are different people, but its at least something.

  • Robert Mockan

    In his paper, Storm refers to “cracks” in the LENR supporting material as important, without going into detail exactly what a crack is, how the crack functions to support LENR, how the crack forms, the size of the crack, or the orientation of the cracks.

    I will not call it a crackpot theory, because Dr. Storm is not a crackpot.

    But I wish he had used some other word. He could have said, for example, that the NAE (Nuclear Reaction Environment) seems dependent on the material morphology near surfaces. And he really should have explained more what the Gibbs energy is, how it is calculated, and why it is important.

    Storms neglected to mention a number of other hypothesis that are virtually identical to what he did describe, that rely on lattice periodicity, resonance to increase amplitude, hydrogen atoms that form rectilinear configurations on nickel surfaces that mediate nuclear reactions, and so on. The last, that hydrogen atoms form structures on nickel surfaces, was published in a physics journal in 1989, and was referenced by one of the researchers about 1992 as relevant to cold fusion. So Storms is rehashing ideas going back at least 20 years.

    But if Dr. Storms is correct, the way to proceed is to examine carefully a sample of the Rossi catalyst under a scanning electron microscope to determine exactly what the material morphology is, and with an electron beam x-ray fluorescence spectrometer to determine exactly what the elemental composition is at the material surfaces (that is, nickel plus what?). If the Rossi catalyst has more of the NAE then knowing what they are, and how Rossi is making them, could advance progress on making superior LENR catalysts quickly and efficiently. The kind of analytical equipment needed is common to any advanced nuclear materials research laboratory. Sandia National Laboratories, for example, could do the analysis needed in a few days. It is inconceivable to me they have not already done so, or that they did not do such analysis at least years ago.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed. With Rossi-scale energy output over long time, the transmutation products and NAE should be abundant enough to be identifiable among impurities. With older CF experiments producing only small energy, the task might not be so easy.

      • Robert Mockan

        With a thin layer of Rossi catalyst, fixed on a substrate, it could be examined using SEM in vacuum, and the data recorded showing precise morphology by location. Then the thin layer of catalyst could be immersed in hydrogen and examined using a high resolution image plane photometric amplifier as LENR hot spots occur, and their locations recorded. Then the sample can be re-analyzed with the SIM and the precise locations of the LENR sites, that correspond to the NAE, would be known, with all their morphology details. Then we would know, by direct observation, the what, where, and how, of the NAE sites.

        This kind of material analysis has been routine in advanced materials research laboratories, for many years.

        I hesitate to say there is a conspiracy to prevent this technology from being developed, but I do know that if even I had access to the equipment I just described, I could determine exactly how to make Rossi catalyst, and better kinds of LENR catalysts, in a matter of days.

        So, what is going on here?

        • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

          I’m not sure if I understood. Isn’t the missing piece in your scenario just that Rossi doesn’t give away his catalyst other to test, for the time being?

          • Robert Mockan

            That is the missing piece, true. If a (clandestine) corporate sponsored effort were made to obtain some Rossi catalyst, no question it could be done. But even without the Rossi catalyst the same kind of equipment could be used on less active nickel surfaces treated in different ways. Piantelli observed that even the surface of nickle rods could become active enough to generate a few watts per gram of metal. All that is needed is to find out where the NAE is located, on any of these surfaces, so it can be examined under a scanning electron microscope.

          • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

            reminder: there is already a SEM image in Rossi’s Italian patent description (09125444, fig 2).

          • Robert Mockan

            >Pekka Janhunen

            I saw that. But the rest of the data is missing. We need to know where the hot spots are, and examine those locations at higher magnification. Also need to do the elemental analysis at those precise locations to determine what promoters are being used with the nickel (if any) to activate it.

        • GreenWin

          Indeed Robert, to don the intelligence analyst hat for a moment – we can plausibly assume that Dr. Melich and agencies working on LENR with Rossi – has access to the SEM. And that analysis of a film coated with Ni+sauce HAS been made – and could be made without revealing sauce chemistry (put mass spectrometer in basement.)

          I seem to recall a DiNino ENEA experiment set up to use an IR camera on Pd film to document locations and frequency of nuke active sites.

          Wild card remains in adding Brillouin type Q or RF/magnetic pulse to quench or enable reactions. This would be a key to self-sustain mode as it would modulate the lattice preventing runaway while maintaining ignition equilibrium.

          • Robert Mockan

            If an active catalyst layer being examined for hot spots with at high resolution were exposed to RF, one could see directly if the hot spots become more energetic, and at what frequency. Or if new hot spots form instead. With the kind of equipment readily available in the national laboratories these answers could be found quickly.

          • GreenWin

            Excellent point. Who do we know Robert?

          • http://www.cce-mt.org NJT

            Better question – where are our National Laboratories on the this quest?

    • Ged

      The “cracks” (defects in the lattice structure) idea does make sense in the light that powders or micronized nickle is not necessary for the LENR reaction. There was a bit of focus on those (since they provide increased surface area), but recently evidence is supporting a very different idea. Namely, that the LENR reaction has something to do with the lattice vibrational energy. A defect in the lattice (a crack) could provide a “pinch” point, where the structure constricts during vibration beyond what it can do in the lattice proper; and this may massively increase local pressures, driving the LENR reaction, at least in part.

      It’s fascinating work, and so much remains unexplained. “Cracks” or no, the lattice of the nickle/other metals is only one part of the mystery.

      • Robert Mockan

        Dr. Storms is looking for the common details of these experiments, and eliminating any hypothesis that does not support at least the common details. A reasonable approach.
        But there are several common details he neglected to mention. One is that the dimensions of lattice potential wells, nano-particles, larger particles with rough surfaces, and even the interior of bulk materials under stress that can cause lattice distortions and defects, are all of geometries causing Casimir effects.
        There have been interesting ideas about hydrogen atoms entering and leaving Casimir regions, and the possibility that space-time distortions during that displacement can result in hydrogen atoms drawing energy from Dirac space, that could result in increase of kinetic energy, virtual neutron formation, different kinds of nuclear reactions (not just with hydrogen, but any atom that passes through a Casimir region). Indeed, it is this hypothesis that is used to describe what happens in the Papp engine,
        that is “fueled” only with inert gases like argon, krypton, neon, and so on.

        Very far fetched, I know, but if this is relevant to LENR, then LENR is actually a space energy converter process, and not nuclear in the sense as is presently understood. Now, THAT, would be interesting!

        • georgehants

          Robert, thanks for your informative comments.
          Could I say how wonderful for a scientist to openly consider even the “far fetched” as a possibility and to be taken into consideration.
          I compare your report with the New Scientist article on plant communication as first reported else-where last week.
          In their article they cannot bring themselves to utter the forbidden word Telepathy and only go as far as —-
          “They do suggest that plants have an as-yet-unidentified means of communication, he says, though it is not clear what that might be.”
          Do you agree that science should have no fear of any possible answer to a conundrum and every scientist should feel free to speculate, investigate or research any possibilities with no fear of condemnation or abuse.
          Peace

          • GreenWin

            Well put George. New Scientist is pretty old in thought, eh? But reluctance to utter the telepath word contradicts the regularly uttered “teleport” word. This of course used to demonstrate the confounding EPR non-local effect.

            Let’s give the kids a little time George. I bet they’ll figure it out;)

          • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

            But unknown is unknown, what more can a scientist say. Naming it telepathy doesn’t make it more known.

          • georgehants

            Pekka, It is important, not that the answer is Telepathy, which there is no more proof that it is, than say DNA floating through the air, but that as a proven means of communication, Telepathy is included freely in the meaning of “unknown”.
            It is the fact that much of science is Dogmatically incapable of freely looking at every possibility, if it falls outside of religious Dogma, that makes is so incompetent.

          • http://www.cce-mt.org NJT

            Hi George,

            I brought this question up to you (telepathy) on another blog site with regards to the QUANTUM – now BOOM here you are with it here? Just kind of…

          • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

            george: my point is only that if A and B are unknown, it doesn’t follow that A=B, so to avoid this common logical mistake it’s good practice to avoid naming unknowns by suggestive or overloaded words.

        • GreenWin

          Nice read Robert. Thanks for this post. I agree, the geometry strongly suggests Casimir plays a role. Although irregular surfaces seem less effective than parallel plates – suggesting the crystal geometry of the lattice is better for Casimir.

          If we were to jam (or cram) atomic H into a confining space <20nm forcing its electron below ground, we get energy. Or the Casimir gap is dilating S-T making atomic H appear fractional… at which point we form gravity wells – when multiplied at magnitude we get… a nice lift!

          What’s more fun than abundant energy? Time travel and space ships.

        • Ged

          I just fully read his paper, and I have to say it is outstanding. While I agree that there are some minor points that were glossed over, and other ideas left out, I think that’s mostly due to the selection of published literature he was drawing from. His NAE site hypothesis dealing with cracks in the material does agree with all current observations, and even those ideas you list; and better yet, produced testable hypotheses.

          I was stuck at how electrolysis of heavy water using titanium is known to lead to transmutations and excess energy production. It seems like LENR has been under our noses for ages, and no one has really bothered to understand it till now.

          Also of interest was how X-rays are generated during those processes in very narrow, laser-like beams.

          The idea of a resonance set up with hydrogen atoms in a crack is fascinating–facilitated by the lattice vibrations I would suppose; and really seems to bring all the theories together under one roof.

          That resonance set up in the very narrowly confined space of a crack, could also invoke and explain that Casimir effect you mention, I think.

          The more I ponder on this idea, the more it seems both plausible, testable, and a sufficient explanation for all we’ve seen so far in the LENR field. In fact, it also would explain the instability of LENR reactions, as local heating and stress forces on the material would change crack morphologies, generate new cracks, erase old ones, and basically keep the location of LENR reaction events inconsistent over time–i.e. unstable.

          How would we solve this for massive energy production? We’d need a material that we can control the crack properties of sufficiently. Also, I wonder if the radio frequency generation, which can set up stability in the vibration of a metal lattice as far as I know, is playing a roll in keeping Rossi’s reactions stable by mitigating the effects I listed above. Basically, helping to hold the reaction sites in place so the LENR effect can propagate in a consistent manner.

          So much to think about, if only I could test these things myself!

          • georgehants

            Pekka, you said—
            “george: my point is only that if A and B are unknown, it doesn’t follow that A=B, so to avoid this common logical mistake it’s good practice to avoid naming unknowns by suggestive or overloaded words.”

            Pekka, with full respect, I understand what you are saying.
            I am saying that science does not use the words, Cold Fusion, Telepathy UFO’s Etc.(except to deny and abuse any of their brave colleges working on the subjects) because although proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a fact, they are feared by many card carrying scientists because the subjects are beyond their elites religious dictated Dogma.
            It is time for scientists to stop making fools of themselves and do open science, that is the investigation of any subject with fair Evidence for a phenomenon.

    • GreenWin

      Storms’ suggestion that surface defects in the lattice are a host for NAE has been around. If we are to assume Arata / Ahern’s contention that <20nm provides best reactions – we cannot leave out the Casimir Effect. While this is a tiny amount of energy, it derives from the vacuum, which alone is hard for conventional science to explain. Since Gibbs can be either negative or positive – it is not clear how it affects LENR.

      It would seem that LENR makes use of entirely unexplored physics at the nano scale. If at these scales quantum vacuum flux and virtual particles are introduced – there is no telling how they could alter classical fusion. With enough virtual flux at some resonance could a proton's magnetic properties be eliminated?

      Storms seems to agree with Mills' pinch derived soft x-ray. Mills explains the spectra as radiation from H1 transition to fractional Rydberg (i.e. hydrino.) What we have yet to find is confirmation of coherent x-ray as Storms claims. Mills does not report coherence. This should be simple to confirm using spectral analysis.

      We do know that several U.S. government divisions have been working with Italian (DoE) ENEA for a decade. They likely have a lot more data than we have not seen.

    • Ged

      Why doesn’t someone try to use Titanium as the catalyst? If we’re using Storm’s theories and fusing hydrogen to helium (rather than nickle to copper) in cracks, titanium may work wonders since it has transmutation and excess energy properties during electrolysis already (and a nicely crackable structure). Additionally, one may be able to collect electrical energy directly in a sort of reverse electrolysis by voltage effects occurring in the titanium from the fusion.

      Seriously, someone should give hydrogen + titanium a go after heat stressing the titanium. Titanium also has the advantage of being rather stable, so pockets of intense energy and heat from the fusion may not destroy the ideal crack structures as easily?