LENR 101 by Gordon Docherty

The following article is submitted by Gordon Docherty


We still rely on fossil fuels and Uranium fission for much of our energy needs – all expensive, dirty, even dangerous. LENR is no longer a matter of “if” but “when”, and that “when” is sooner than most people realize – in one year the first coal-fire-to-LENR-power station swap-out is expected, with hot (600C) and cold (80C-120C) versions of safe, totally scalable LENR systems expected commercially in 2 to 5 years, systems that can power boats, trains, planes, cars, submarines, houses, offices, public buildings, factories and space vehicles – but you can’t build bombs from – for the next 1.5 Billion years (and that’s just using normal hydrogen here on Earth). As Robert Godes of Brillioun Energy pointed out, LENR systems work by “freezing” protons into place, not letting them zip about at extremely high energies. This energy source really is VERY safe, VERY clean, VERY abundant and VERY cheap. So, without further ado, here is LENR 101:

LENR 101

  • Jonh L

    Still need that secret catalyst for H2 gas conversion into H+ or perhaps H-

    • Gordon Docherty

      Well, HT sparks reduce H2 to H – wasn’t Defkalion using high-frequency, heavily modified spark plugs? Alternatively, a high voltage grid should do it or, of course, a secret catalyst…

  • Hyper

    One small complaint regarding the slides is the incorrect analogy of impedance mismatching cause ghosting on TV’s as this is incorrect as ghosting is due to multipath. Poor matching causes attenuation which effectively reduces the TV’s receiver sensitivity. Yes – impedance mismatch causes wave reflections at the wavelength level not a the picture level.
    I noticed this analogy was used on the Seattle4truth presentations on Youtube in reference to Frank Znidarsic’s research.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Point taken – incorrect impedance causes reflection, hence attenuation. Still, I like the ghosting imagery – better than TV fuzz (unless you’re a poltergeist fan, of course) 🙂

  • Rémi André

    Nice slide but I still don’t understand how the lattice behaves when 4He is formed. The particles and photons resulting from the reaction 4H -> 4He should completly destroy the cristal symetry. I still don’t understand the way high energy photons can become low energy photons (is it Mossbauer effect or multiple Compton diffusions…..) ?

    Mr Pekka any idea ?

    Thank you…

    • Gordon Docherty

      Good question, and worth researching. My idea is that the Helium is ejected from the Brillouin zone as the fusion reaction occurs – the Helium is the “waste” – trapping the energy behind that is absorbed in the lattice and that there is (just) enough pressure to keep the crystal intact (remembering this reaction occurs under a compression that is already deforming the crystal by “squashing it” (OK, not a scientific term, but very apt), in an environment that is already pressured – and, further, the crystal structure and propagating wave interact to create a counter-pressure “chain” that keeps the structure in place.


      • Rémi André

        Thank you very much Mr Docherty for this clear explanation. I actually start to understand the challenge of controlling the rate of these reactions.

        By the way do you know how to find the caracteristics of the transition 4H to 4He (energy, period of 4H)…Thank you again.

    • Gordon Docherty

      I think it is also a balancing act – too much energy and the crystal structure does break down (“melts”), too little and the reaction fails (“fizzles out”). In the case of Nickel Grains, the reactions occurring mainly at the surface also allow for ejecta and absorption of energy (remembering the lattice a these dimensions has some flexibility), while in the case of Nickel Flakes, the energy can radiate directly outward (this may also lead to some higher energy radiation being detected outside of the reaction chamber, of course). I do not believe the creation of Helium and energy, however, is so intense as to rip the crystal fabric apart, or not most of the time at any rate…


      • Barry

        Thanks Gordon. I wonder if the reason an Ecat has to be recharged after 6 months is because some melting of a small amount of Nickel Flakes is inevitable. Rossi said the Nickel could be recycled. The idea of them losing their nano-structure but not their purity would make sense if this were the case.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Finally, it must be remembered that impedance round the reaction site is zero as the compression wave passes, meaning energy can travel out of the reaction site “as if the surrounding structure were invisible” (as energy can transfer without loss across protons, neutrons, electrons, etc…) – though only for a limited range and time. As the effects of the wave pass, so the energy begins to impact on (now more distant, spread out parts of the structure, causing energy loss as heat… On the other hand, this energy is radiating out evenly in all directions (“a star burst”), falling as the square of the distance and spread out across the spherical “blast front” (for want of a better term), a front that, as already alluded to, will initially travel without impedance, before meeting impedance that is growing with time in a way that allows the energy in the front to be dissipated in distinct quanta at the rate of decay of the gain in impedance: this front will additionally fuel other endothermic transitions in the neighborhood, so preparing the way for the next compression front. This, I am sure, goes a long way to explaining why crystal symmetry is not destroyed after the first exothermic reaction and, indeed, explains why the reactions are self-sustaining for some time after initial heating (excitation) of the lattice and its contained hydrogen atoms. It would appear these LENR systems are, indeed, “very elegant pieces of engineering”…

      • Gordon Docherty

        Like so…

    • Warthog

      As I understand it, quantum mechanical coupling between the various hydrogen adduct species (including the final He4) allows the excess energy to drain off into the lattice without appearing as translational energy of the He4 nucleus as would normally be the case.

      And I don’t think the mechanism depicted above is anything like “the whole story”. According to work by George Miley, if you get the NAE (nuclear active environment, with an appropriate nod to Ed Storms) structure in the reactant matrix “right”, the nuclear reactions start spontaneously at room temperature.

  • georgehants

    Could anybody tell me of any university or publicly financed science establishment that is openly and officially researching the Cold Fusion Evidence?
    If so what is their budget and manpower?
    If not could anybody explain to me why not?

    • AlainCo

      Today I have noticed :

      – SKINR at Uni Missouri

      – Technova from Toyota group

      – Iwamura (which lab) in Mitsubishi

      – ENEA

      – Darpa have some lines on their reports for funding nano research on hydrides which are LENR


      – Navy NRL works with SRI and ENEA

      – SRI works with ENEA,NRL and with Brillouin

      – Elforsk test e-cat
      – NASA NRL in the past replicated some experiments. have stopped

      – Uni tsinghua (maybe more if we search)

      – National instruments makes meta-analysis, claims having missioned third party labs

      the problem is that the only ones who publicly recognize that work is AFAIK :

      – Elforsk

      – SKINR & uni missouri

      – NASA NRL

      – National instruments

      some team have been shutdown:

      – US navy SPAWAR

      – INFN and celani

      – Longchampt in the past at CEA Grenoble, and globally all LENR public but autonomous research in france (like CNAM)

      Some researchers members of a university are clearly not supported :

      – Biberian in Univ Marseilles

      – Yeong E Kim from purdue

      – Hagelstein&swartz by MIT

      I have no idea of the budgets…

      for Skinr it may be told during ICCF18 Skinr visit.

      for SRI it seems to be paid research by Brillouin investors.

      for INFN it seems to be uncontrolled funding

      for darpa and Elforsk it is public in their financial reports

      • bachcole

        Take notice, “for SRI it seems to be paid research by Brillouin investors”, LENR research at SRI started out strictly as an SRI project. Then Brillouin blossomed off of SRI with Mike McKubre of SRI working for Brillouin. Now investors are paying for SRI research into LENR. This means that people with a lot of money and a lot to lose thought so highly of SRI, Mike McKubre, and Brillouin that they were willing to risk their money funding the whole lot of them. This pleases me greatly. (:->)

        • Hope4dbest

          This hardly seems fair to the genius who started the whole ball rolling: Andrea Rossi.

          • bachcole

            Dr. Mike McKubre was working on LENR long before Andrea Rossi. Rossi is famous for two reasons: He invented the E-Cat (not LENR), and he generated a LOT of interest in LENR and LENR+.

            • blanco69

              I think its also fair to say that nobody was getting anything like the kind of heat that Rossi & Focardi were back then. It will be interesting to see, when this all plays out, what triggered the jump from milliwatts to kilowatts.

      • bachcole

        Off Topic and for AlainCo only, please translate this following 44:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01kQDJjehiI I am a HUGE fan of Marin Marais but I have no way of knowing what is being said here.

        • Julius Bourjo

          44:24 : “Le tableau de l’opération de la taille. L’aspect de l’appareil”

          44: 47 : “Frémissement en le voyant”

          44:57 : “Résolution pour y monter”

          45:03 : “Parvenu jusqu’au haut”

          45:10 : “Descendre dudit appareil”

          45:18 : “Réflexions serieuses”

          45:30 : “Entrelassement des soyes entre les bras et les jambes”

          There are more, but while I was transcripting it, I found the score, and all it says is written here : http://lute.omerkatzir.com/ft2/composers/Marais/operation_de_la_taille/pdf/01_lentement.pdf

          It talks about surgery, an more particularely someone describing himslef or someone else using it.

          I have not enough vocabulary to translate it to you, I don’t know the lexical field of surgery, and I’m not very familiar with classical music.

          • Asterix

            Marais describes the removal of a bladder stone. See for more detail:


            As a survivor of a bladder lithotomy myself (pre-lithotripsy), I can’t imagine the pain involved with the procedure being performed without anesthesia.

        • AlainCo

          thanks to Julius&asterix.
          It is difficult for me to see video.

      • Buck

        Thank you for sharing this information Alain.

  • georgehants

    Myth-busting Germany’s energy transition
    Major English-language media have been propagating a false narrative
    about the stunning success of Germany’s transition to renewable energy:
    the Energiewende. To hear them tell it, the transition has been
    a massive failure, driving up power prices, putting Germany’s grid at
    risk of blackouts, and inspiring a mass revolt against renewables.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    • Frechette

      Bottom line is German electricity consumers pay twice as much on average their US counterparts.

      • bachcole

        I am looking for the truth, not promoting an agenda, when I ask how their electricity bill will be in 25 years (not counting LENR). Isn’t solar sort of like eternal, with 50% downtime ever 24 hours. I hear different things about how they degrade, if at all.

        • Frechette

          Solar panels have an expected 20 year life span. At the moment they only make economic sense because of government tax credits. I did the numbers and found that ROI is just about 20 years. I live in the North East where electric rates tend to be higher than other parts of the country.

          • bachcole

            But what is the ROI for 50 years or 100 years? What chemical of mechanical reason would there be for solar panels to not work FOREVER?

  • Julius Bourjo

    Very interesting, for many reasons.

    Considering this image from NASA : http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/gamma-ray-bubbles-milky-way/gamma-x-ray-bubbles-fermi-telescope-nasa/

    Considering the symbol used by these very interesting guys : http://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

    Considering How Nikola Tesla has been erased from my school books, cause he’s one of the huge lead on all this.

    Considering how they like to talk about “gazes” all the time in the mainstream scientific press, hot gazes, gas giants, for them everything is made of gas, they’ll use every words to avoid the word “plasma”, but it tends to change.

    Considering the work of David Lapoint with his TWO MAGNETIC BOWLS (with a hole), a must see !

    Considering the work of a guy named Truthiracy on youtube about the etymology of the word “Bible” , you should hear Bi-BOWL or BI-BULL

    Considering the origin of the letter A, the Alpha , originally depicted as a ox head or a bull head : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph

    Considering The beginning of the word Torah.

    Considering this image : http://lamarzulli.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ufo-cartoon.gif

    Will you see the Bi-bull in this ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0BWlvnBmIE

    Quite interesting isn’t it ?

    Is she talking about the number nine ? Could this be related to the work of Marko Rodin 🙂 you bet it is !

    Considering I don’t have the time right now to write an entire book on this page

    I tell you my friends , we’re living excting times, I’m not a mathematician or a physcist, I don’t have any special degree, I’m just a passionate who like to listen passionated guys, I study attitude and coherence more than math and formulas, I just don’t know how to do this, but this method led me here years ago, amongs other source of informations I go on a regular basis.

    I like logic and pattern, but in fine, I believe this is a definition of a scientisfic mind, except I use a lot my intuition, and I’m very aware of it, and intuition is not something they promote in scientific schools, at least here, in France.

    So yeah , I can’t talk protons or neutrons, what is the quantity of helium it needs and all that stuff, but my intuition about LENR is very strongly positive, it makes sense on all my receptors.

    One last nice clip from KeepTheHeat, well made, Smash like Thor : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm1q_00EpGc
    Ho my G… ? is that 2 bowls !?

    This is the magic of ART.

    I love this website, keep it up !

    • Julius Bourjo

      Hey, I’m sorry, I didn’t want these video appears like that, could you please just put simple links …
      I feel ashamed …
      Won’t do it again .. is there an option to avoid this ?

    • georgehants

      Julius, lovely to see a mind that can reach further than a steam engine. 🙂

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m not too fond of the idea of a proton capturing an electron to become a
    neutron. It takes a lot of energy to
    make a neutron from a proton and an electron.

    Energy equivalences of rest masses of:

    Proton: 938.272046 MeV

    Electron: 0.5109906 MeV

    Neutron: 939.56563 MeV

    p + e > n would require 0.78 MeV

    I’ve had some crazy thought about how helium might be
    formed. If the covalent bond between hydrogen and nickel is irradiated with the
    right frequency (the inferred stretching frequency of the Ni~~H bond) it could
    set off an oscillation of this bond that might get the nuclei close enough to
    undergo the following nuclear reaction: H(1)~~Ni(n)~~H(1) > Cu*~~H(1) >
    Zn* > Ni(n-2) + He(4).

    I’ve gone really nuts thinking about this before. http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/

    • bitplayer

      Interesting point about p + e > n requires .78 MEV.

      Do you have a figure for how many MEVs are required in the other reaction? That is:

      H(1)~~Ni(n)~~H(1) > Cu*~~H(1) > Zn* > Ni(n-2) + He(4)

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Just saw the typo I made 2 years ago.

      …the INFRARED stretching frequency…

  • bachcole


  • blanco69

    Great slide show Gordon. The theory is like a main course of Robert Godes with a side of Frank Znidarsic. 101 LENR is right about my level and it looked great to me. This sort of thing is just what we need to incrementally move our LENR understanding forward though brave souls like Gordon sticking his neck out and throwing a great appraisal out there. I like the quadrium to He4 transmutation idea but I wonder at the longevity of the reaction with all that helium sloshing around.

  • Bhlowe

    Hi Gordon, thank you for the nice introduction. It seems like this could be built by experimentalists… However, it is unclear what equipment or device would produce phonons at this rate, and also be able to withstand temperatures up to 600C. Also, there is speculation that the process starts when the temperature reaches the Debye temp of 179C.

    Lastly, What is your background and how much of this is theory vs. experience?


  • Charles

    Still, I am floating around out here sensing that at least one of the remaining problems with LENR is CONTROL.

    Control Systems Engineering has always been, to me, the magic elixir of systems that have to work accurately. For instance, a good control system for motors may have a first stage whose primary function is speed control, a second stage whose primary function is torque control limiting, a third stage whose primary function is voltage control, a fourth for . . . . . Each has an input scalar and a sample feedback of the output, the two being mixed and the request altered..

    In the case of LENR, with my limited knowledge of the real physics of the system, there may be a first stage that will have an input scaling the system to 600 degrees and a feedback from the output telling the input what the temperature is, if under 600 degrees, order more system input, if over 600 degrees scale back the input, if 600 degrees, maintain the system input where it is. The second stage, for instance, may control the rate of hydrogen input with some scaled perfect value, sample, and if low step it up, if high step in down. The tricky part is knowing enough of the physics to know how to control what the electrons, or the alpha, beta, and gamma rays, for instance, are doing and the magic is knowing how to take that sample and what with and how to control it.

    And so on and so on and blah and blah. There are brilliant authors and exceptional professors in the business of Control Systems Engineering. All I am trying to get forward is that the people trying to produce LENR systems had better be spending big time, big money and big talent on the Control Systems Engineering of their product


    • AlainCo

      right. that is a hard point.
      the secret of fission reactor was twin:
      – there was retroaction reducing neutrons absorption, when heat increase
      – there is delayed neutrons which avoid instantaneous loss of control
      note that the problem of chernobyl have been that at one moment the retroaction get positive, not negative, because working point get moved.

      For me ther cannot be a good design without an intrinsic stabilization phenomenon.
      For example modern fission reactors like thorium or PbBi have intrinsic stabilisation avoiding loss of control.

      It seems that it is harder for LENR.
      It seems Rossi is using thermal feedback, and I imagine he use a tricky mechanism to cause negative feed back (catalyst? phase change ?)…

      For defkalion the fact that they use plasma pulse make it easier to control. it seems anyway that they use a negative feed back mechanism which grow with time, making the reactor warm because of the pulse then cool soon …

      there can be some loss of controls, especially if the cooling fluid cause unexpected situation…

      as you say also, because thermal stability, one have to controle the radiation emitted, and some unexpected situations may cause emission of neutrons, gamma, production of tritium and radioactive isotopes…

    • Daniel Maris

      Well if people aren’t lying about the experiments and machines that have been built, yes that must be the explanation for why we haven’t seen commercialisation yet. Of course control issues are a feature of many new technologies e.g. steam and the explosive processes of the internal combustion engine, and actually took decades to resolve. Of course one would expect such issues to be more quickly overcome now but of course, on the other hand, the physical processes behind LENR are poorly understood (notwithstanding the very nice overview from Gordon). So it is plausible that it is control issues holding things up.

  • Fortyniner

    I am slightly puzzled by the statement: “Once hydrogen has been introduced into the evacuated crystal lattice under pressure and heat applied,one more VITAL element is applied – very high frequency compression waves, known as phononic waves due to their equivalence to sound waves (frequencies around 1 x 10e14 Hz are typical.).”

    100 THz EME corresponds to the near-infrared spectrum but the text seems to refer to some other energy form – ‘compression’ waves at a similar frequency, comparable with sound waves. However 100 THz is many orders of magnitude above the maximum oscillation frequency of any piezo material, so what does this refer to exactly, and what kind of driver/transducer could produce such frequencies?

    As to the rest of the theory (which superficially seems quite attractive) – I wonder if someone with an appropriate physics background could comment please? (are you around, Pekka?).

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Hello Peter. Maximum phonon frequency is Debye frequency which is typically about 10 THz, not quite 100 THz. Otherwise the sentence you quoted up seems to fit with phonons. Later in the text, however, I get the impression that the author thinks that the Brillouin zone is some region in physical space, although truly it’s a region in k-space (wavenumber space, Fourier space). So I can no longer follow the logic of the text after Brillouin zone gets mentioned.

      • Fortyniner

        Thanks Pekka. Just one supplementary question (for anyone): Is there any known way to drive phonon oscillations in a ‘target’ at any chosen frequency as apparently suggested?

  • Asterix

    “LENR is no longer a matter of “if” but “when”, and that “when” is sooner
    than most people realize – in one year the first
    coal-fire-to-LENR-power station swap-out is expected,”

    This would indeed quash any doubts that skeptics may have. I assume that Mr. Docherty makes this statement from absolutely reliable information. The problem is that if this does not come to pass within the year, he’s furthered LENR skepticism. I trust that he’s not pulling this statement out of thin air–if he’s not certain, it would be better to leave it out.

    • Buck

      I can’t speak for Mr. Docherty to explain his timeline.

      I do suggest that his timeline is, in part, explained in a 9/12/13 interview of Brillouin’s Godes and George. Their interview begins at the 30 min mark in the following YouTube video.

      LINK>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXAg_424_2o&list=PLB191A62AE90AE058&index=1

      I believe the relevant point is Brillouin’s painting of the picture for handing off their 600C product at the end of 2014 to operational engineers for engineering the installation into a non-compliant Coal fired power plant.

      It is an excellent interview that is well worth the time to view.

    • AlainCo

      I agree that prediction is dangerous.
      First cause is usual technical problems which usually make that most innovation take about 5 years to be industrial, while promoters estimate 6 month….

      But the specific problem with LENR, which remind me Semmelweis/Pasteur and Wright brothers, is that there is a pathologic denial of any positive evidence.

      Elforsk could have been the perfect independent test, but the skeptics by spreading nonsense like doubting in calibrated IR cam, or conspiracy theories on the physicists, suceeded in convincing any mainstream believers that the test was doubtful, thus no data should be updated.

      Defkalion test by nelson, or even the demo with matt should have opened some doubt, but no they just muddied the water and convinced all their mainstream true believers there was huge doubts…

      they ignored National instruments and robert duncan an ex-skeptic… (when they cannot explain, they ignore).
      They ignored the CV of alexandros xanthoulis, Elforsk, or Aldo Prois, of Luca Gamberale, because considering all those people as scam artist or victims is impossible for all together, and just one real is enough to disrupt their beliefs system.
      So they focus on the only really controversial, Rossi…

      They claim definitive lies as evident truth…
      no peer review paper… showing non PR papers, but ignoring the others.
      no replicated… always ignoring CEA Grenoble replication, gas permeations replication of fralick at NASA, the tritium, iwamura&toyota, and recently ENEA/SRI/NRL team work..

      the way the pretend there is no evidence is by refusing to see them, or by claiming it is fraud if they are forced to open their eyes…

      what can you do ?

      it can last for decades that way, without any exit.

      • Asterix

        Alain, my problem with the paper was that a definite timeline was stated. No “possibly”, “plan to”, but rather a “is expected”. Expected by whom? With what evidence that the plan is real? Is there an official statement from all involved parties that this is so?

        My point is that making optimistic predictions about a technology whose very existence is debated is not a prudent way to lend credibility to one’s paper.

        The popular scientific literature is littered with “could”, “might” and “should” type predictions, very few of which ever see fruition. Joining that crowd is no way to ensure credibility.

        Nobody’s CV really matters in all of this–reputable people with excellent CVs have been guilty of making outrageous claims on shaky theorems. Take, for example, Linus Pauling and his claims of the massive benefits of Vitamin C. Or Andrew Ivy’s relentless endorsement of Krebiozen. Or
        Kanematsu Sugiura and Laetrile.

        • AlainCo

          I agree that industrial claims should be take with care… for any technology… it can and will go bad.

          what is not rational is denying reality of LENR as a phenomenon, just ignoring evidences…

          we cannot rule out totally that LENR will take a decade to be industrial, and without satisfying the huge expectation we have today, but saying all test of LENr are fake, fraud, with current scientific evidence and corporate evidences, is not rational… it is a conspiracy theory.

          the rational position is that :
          – LENr is real
          – E-cat produce heat at kW level at COP>3
          – Hyperion produce heat at kW level at COP>3
          – Brillouin prototype reactor produce heat at COP>2

          what is not absolutely sure:
          – E-cat is reliable, stable and usable
          – hyperion is reliable, stable and usable
          – Brillouin will succeed in developing WET and HHT reactors as planned.

          so what… that is innovation. not magic.

          • Asterix

            Alain, any claims must be taken–and made–with care.

            Whenever a position, however rational (which is, after all, a subjective matter) is taken that contradicts the establishment, it is essential any any spurious claim or error will doom the position in the eyes of the establishment. “Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus” will be the rule of the day, no matter how rational the remainder of the position seems.

            It may not seem fair, but it’s the way things are, particularly in the sciences.

            • AlainCo

              I observed it, and it is pathological…
              It is breaking logic.

              First claims of neutrons, and some huge errors at the beginning of LENR history have killed the domain…

              today any error in a claim is used to kill all.

              I see the guys at fusionnefredda use the 1.6Telsa claim (which is clearly an artifact) as evidence that the calorimetry is bad… just as you say… without any logic.

        • AlainCo

          beside my previous message, I probably join you on the precise cas of that video.

          That video mix a proposed theory, which is probably false, and the reality of LENR.

          Theory is THE PROBLEM of LENR.
          most scientists are aristotelician and refuse facts without theories.
          Some others are desperate aristotelicians and propose crazy theories to match the facts.

          the only non-A position, if to forget about theories…
          Theories todays are used by skeptics to ridicule LENr scientists, to claime LENr does not exist because theories are bad…

          I see (and I did it) many supported who say “LENR is real, see the theory”… they are doing friendly fire.

      • Hope4dbest

        Alain, I have to disagree. It doesn’t matter how many skeptics write on how many websites, ONE working OU unit by Rossi, Defkalion or Brillouin would shut up skeptics forever.

        • bachcole

          And hopefully it will cause them to question their mental pathology; but we can only hope for the best.

        • AlainCo

          re-list the scientific evidences… the industrial evidences…

          the evidence are there since long. they start with Elforsk test to be seriously industrial… so what ?

          they challenge the IR cam, the honesty of 7 scientists ?

          they have challenged tritium finding… they challenged isothermal calorimetry, classic calorimetry …
          and when they cannot challenge, they just ignore.

          I see it everyday. It is why I’m so furious and desperate… it is crazy, like talking to a sect member.

          they have no limit to their denial, except what the populace can understand without help…
          what an illiterate citizen can understand with good confidence, despite all expert saying the opposite, is the limit to their denial.

          this is why it is right that the limit is selling a product and having happy customers.

  • clovis ray

    pretty good interpretation of the rossi effect, they seem to want to change that to the brillioun zone, it should be the rossi zone because they are describing it , rossi descovery

  • Bob

    OT – Not sure what effect this will have on LENR research, but Robert Duncan is leaving the University of Missouri. With the Kimmel grant, this university was one of the few that had a visible LENR program. 🙁

    • Shane D.

      Looks like Dr. Duncan is heading over to Texas Tech University. Other then mentioning his role in heading up SKINR at the UOM, the article mentions nothing of his interest in LENR:


      • AlainCo

        yes, question is if that moving is a sanction, as it happen to most LENR supporters…

        • Shane D.

          I wonder too Alain. Doubtful though. I believe SKINR is affiliated with the University of Missouri, so in effect, by letting SKINR on campus in the first place, UOM supports LENR.

          As you show on your website, the article from the UOM highlights Duncans role in developing LENR, so they don’t appear to be distancing themselves from it.

          The Texas Tech article though fails to mention his involvement in LENR, other then to mention SKINR without elaboration… which may indicate some official reluctance in being associated with anything LENR.

          • AlainCo

            positive situation is possible…
            Maybe he is there to launch a LENR lab for coming revolution.

          • Omega Z

            It’s a 2-fer. They hired his wife also. This is an indication of how much they wanted him there.

            Duncan’s wife, Dr. Annette L. Sobel, M.D., M.S., has been appointed to the faculty at the Texas Tech Health Sciences Center School of Medicine as an associate professor in the Department of Medical Education.

            • bachcole

              I rest my case. This is a good thing.

    • Veblin

      Rob Duncan, vice chancellor for research at MU, will leave his position to become the vice president for research at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas.


    • Buck

      IMHO, this is a truly remarkable and prophetic move.

      If you dig into the reputation of Texas Tech, it seems to be in the
      same range as UOM. The real kicker though is the recognition of TT’s
      School of Engineering as being one of the most underrated. And to top it
      off, it is well recognized as a leader in PETROLEUM ENGINEERING.

      LINK>> http://today.ttu.edu/2013/06/texas-tech-among-top-10-most-underrated-colleges/

      LINK>> http://www.depts.ttu.edu/pe/

      I find it impossible to conceive that this is a rebuke of Duncan with
      this in mind. IMHO, Petroleum Engineering will be a far less attractive
      career in a few years and Texas Tech is acting upon this judgment.

      • AlainCo

        Your position seems very credible…
        Not sure, but i hope so.

        note that few oil company have researched or are interested on LENR :
        Shell, Amoco, did research.
        SAIPEM of ENI group follow LENR conferences…
        exxon have contacted defkalion, said xanthoulis.

        they are very sensible about their doomed future… maybe peak oil, CO2, renewable, have prepared them to change business soon…

        • Buck

          Since Texas Tech is only affiliated with Big Oil, it seems prudent to look out for its own future which is Education & Research. This is true for all businesses whose core business is not Oil but provides services to Oil Industry.

          There will come a time for each of these businesses when a choice has to be made that may or may not please their friends and sponsors in Big Oil.

          • Omega Z

            Years back, Texas became a basket case in the energy crunch.
            Written off by many.
            But it pulled itself up by it’s boot straps & regained it’s economic status.

            They are planning ahead for whats coming. Who better to help them prepare them academically in this field then Duncan.

            • Buck

              I tip my hat to them for taking such a long view in the face of their Big Oil sponsors. Brilliant move.

    • bachcole

      I do NOT see this as a bad thing. First, Duncan is not going to stop being enthusiastic about LENR, and anyone who hired him would know that. So, they must necessarily LIKE this about him; and for them to like this about him, they must necessarily be prepared to HELP him in his enthusiasm for LENR. That sounds like a very good thing to me. Second, the commitment for LENR at Mizzou is not going to diminish, partly since the Kimmel Institute is still there. Duncan must have lit a fire under many people about LENR at Mizzou. I see this only as the new fire spreading. (:->)