Templates for LENR Outreach

Recently I’ve written a couple of posts about trying to ‘prepare the ground’ for the emergence of LENR in the world. I think there is some value in trying to get news about the topic out to people who might be interested. There seemed to be some interest in having something that could be sent around to contacts who might be interested. Below is a template for a letter that could be sent to media outlets or reporters. I sent this to my local paper a few months ago (I got no response, unfortunately).

I don’t propose that this be copied directly and sent to people in the media — that would look spammy in my opinion. But this could be used as a template that could be modified.

Dear __________

I’m sending this to you because I’m convinced that a new and superior energy source is about to emerge into the marketplace, and I thought you might find this interesting.

This technology was once referred to as cold fusion, it is now often called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR). Researchers have been working in the field for over two decades and which now seems to be coming to life again. The work of Italian inventor Andrea Rossi is especially interesting — earlier this year professors from major universities concluded that his E-Cat technology was far superior in energy density than any known conventional fuel source, without producing any harmful emissions or radioactivity (see here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913)

If this technology can be incorporated in commercial devices, something Dr. Rossi and others are working to produce, it could mean giant advances for humanity and be a huge story. I am a little surprised that few journalists have picked up on this subject already!

LENR in the marketplace would likely lead to very low-cost clean energy, and could ultimately mean closure of coal mines, nuclear power stations, a huge reduction in oil consumption, etc.

If you are interested in this topic please email me and I can tell you more and/or direct you to sites where further detailed information is available. I run a web site which as quite a following: www.e-catworld.com. If you check it out you will see some introductory articles along the top menu bar, and useful links on the left side of the page.


Frank Acland

If anyone has something similar to the above (or something better) that might make a useful template, please post them in the comments below, or feel free to send them to me, and I can make a page where they can be listed.

  • JonnyB

    U.K. has announced a new nuclear power station is to be build at Hinkley Point. Have they not heard of L.E.N.R.? or do they know something we don’t? at around £15 billion they must feel fairly secure.

    • bachcole

      I takes study and time to see that LENR+ is for real, now. And people won’t invest their valuable time in something that is alleged to be bogus.

  • Doktor Bob

    I did my own re-make of CBS 60 Minutes

  • barty

    A very nice development is a new CHINESE LENR patent application, see this:


    • Shane D.

      Summer E. J. Sibley is the applicant and inventor. Doesn’t sound Chinese, although there are some Chinese looking characters in there.

      No hits on Sibley when googling.

      • Omega Z

        Appears to be Canadian.

    • LENR4you

      lenr-cars are registered for patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0263597.html

      • AlainCo

        I have analysed the patent claims


        and it seems serious…

        good engineering… question is if the USPTO will find it innovative, because it is good engineer job, as expected.
        anyway it seems many innovation ar of that kind : good engineering job, not rocket science

        • Shane D.

          I have to wonder just what these US Patent Office employees must be thinking as they are thrown one LENR patent after another? After-all, LENR does not exist!

          Yet, from around the globe, and for various practical applications, from the sky to the road, these apps keep coming in. What to do?

          David French, retired patent lawyer and expert, in his presentation to ICCF18 stated that LENR was now accepted by the USPTO , but only under certain conditions.

          Yet, I read on cobraf yesterday that, from inside sources, the Rossi patent has been “kicked around” within that department for months… as if all want to “pass the buck”, and not have to deal with it.

          I would just love to be a “fly on the wall” at the USPO GAU as they are presented, yet again, with another patent application.

  • Sean

    The best way to get ECAT public attention is to encourage the inventors / owners of LENR devices, to market them ASAP. Then the 6 o’clock news will have to report it, as the rush would be bigger than Boxing day sale, post Christmas. However there is a dark side,, we all know what is lurking in the background, “YES” its the “government” and they will be generating there own public awareness by LENR publications, departments, regulations, license, oh, err, perhaps a little or maybe a generous helping of tax to help us along, you know, for our own good. My advice is, buy the ECAT as soon as it comes out. But lets keep very, very, quiet about it. If the tax man or the oil man shows up, you know nothing, see nothing and hear nothing. Also mount the ECAT where it cannot be seen.
    PS. wish us luck, here in old blighty land, we are to be change an extra 10% for our heating gas and electric this winter. Many cannot afford it and will freeze.

    • AlainCo

      One good point all you guys and ladies around:
      when it you can buy it, buy it ASAP, because you will vote with your bill.
      The only strong force able to prevent the lobbies, the doomers, the government to forbid LENR, it YOU, and your BILLING.
      And if they try to remove you that right, don’t be shy, make a revolution. that is the normal way to inform the government he is behaving wrongly…

  • Allan Shura

    There is a lot of hope but like anything worth doing there has to
    be organization and that is usually tied to resource availability
    for a goal. Someone or has to do it. As for public awareness look
    at the two years of advertising bombardment on the benefits of fracking gas by the petroleum producers. There is active taxpayer funded lobbying for pipelines as well as governmental advertising.
    I really hope for the best with Rossi and DGT etc., but it looks more
    and more like immediate exposure and product production has taken a back seat to a research comfort zone and this is one thing I hope I am wrong about. I now am more inclined to think that properly structured co-operative organization may be an expedient way
    to realize a product and center the focus of public opinion.

  • AlainCo

    After answering to pile of skeptics I know they are inaccessible to facts.

    The innocents people, in fact refuse to have a personal opinion on anything scientific, and trust the pathological skeptics and their conspiracy theories, like it happen against Elforsk test (don’t forget it is not rossi’s test, but elforsk, the swedish EPRI, like ENEA, not far from CEA, or BARC)… innocent people will not believe in LENR from scientific evidences until someone trusted will give an opinionj… no trusted scientist will give a positive opinion, of he will instantly lose his trusted status, like it happen from Robert Duncan, Bockris, Carlo Rubbia…

    this is why i propose tha to talk to non scientists innocent, you talk about facts they can analyse and trust their judgement.

    Just says that Robert Duncann have been hired by CBSNews, as a skeptic to debunk cold fusion claims, and since he is a supporter…

    show them the video of Robert Truchard at NIWeek when opening the conference and talking of LENr innovators. showthem the program of NIWeek2012 and the 5 LENR presentations.

    show them the sponsorship of ICCF18 by NI.

    show them the video of Stefanno concezzi promoting software for tokamak… and the the presentation slides for brussels and rome 2012

    show the video of ENEA presentation in Brussel 2013…

    show the report on EU research opportunities in material science…

    show them the page on NASA GRC where they admit LENr is real, and shows their work with gas permeation and mills cells…

    show them the articles of Aldo Proia, and his CV (from linked in). how he support Rossi, with caution, but the e-cat without doubt.

    show them the CV of alexandros xanthoulis (economist…) and the list of his board of directors.

    shows them the answer od bo hoistad to the pomp&erikson toilet paper.

    then show them the letter of Science to refuse to peer-review the report 41 ENEA paper (explaining that this paper if true simply prove LENr is nuclear).

    find evidences of Oriani paper rejection by nature after peer-review.

    show them the list por peer review papers of pam mosier boss

    people will understand that something is happening, that some serious guys are on the game, and that there is clear lack of honesty.

    for anti-scientific synthesis read that wiki-dumped article


    some extracts are making me vomit abou anti-scientific pretended scientists.

    about theory, the quote of yeong e kim explaining that the theoretical arguments were premature, and that using free space scattering statistic insite a lattice where atoms are bounded, to rulout possibility of LENR is … STUPID


    the paper of elforsk is valueless, not because it is bad, but because without changing people prejudice it will not be read, or if read it will be assumed fraud, errors, and artifacts…

    see there


    to see how skeptics treat Elforsk result…
    you can see how may answer compare to the 153voted answers…
    just muddying the water with empty conspiracy theories works very well against incompetent and lazy peoples…

    • scrunt

      IMHO – whats needed now is follow ups to all of the tv documentaries that have happened in the past re: cold fusion. BBC Horizon, 60 minutes etc. The main players should be amenable, and open, and involve the documentary makers fully including 3rd party validation. Frankly if the vendors aren’t open to this – they are either way off target on timelines or even have nothing but an idea. The demographic of the people who watch those programs is important – if they are convinced – increased lobbying should result. If you’d just been told you are likely to have yet another >6% annual increase on your energy bills (UK) yoy with no end in sight, but then saw a documentary that said you may be able to have power that could be price stable, and eventually significantly cheaper by comparison within 5 or 10 years – you’d ask why nothing is being done to at least research it – and why deals are being struck for nuclear plants with a guaranteed £/kw promise to the investors significantly higher than current pricing.
      Sadly I don’t think things will change – there is simply too much money involved in the status quo and the establishment want to keep it that way – its going to take a google / musk type approach to break this, with people power behind them. Perhaps the people that should be targeted are not the politicians but these forward thinking companies / risk takers. Nothing that’s not been said before.

      • AlainCo

        You have a good idea but it will be hard. You don’t imagine the pressure to conformity on media.
        LENR is too serious, to real, to be presented like media do on usual junkTV subject like conspiracies, alien, and alike.

        It is easier to make a document on alien invasion, than on cold fusion… On Futura science the propelantless resonant microwave trhruster EmDrive could be discussed, but not cold fusion…

        it is not a question of oil company, utilities and corps… oil company, like utilities (as the counter example of elforsk and epri shows) are victims of PHYSICIST DELUSION.

        I want it to be clear, the guilty people are
        1- the physicist (electrochemist did their job, they get toasted, lesson taken)
        2- the media : they over hyped LENR, then under fire of APS and other parrots they bended like slaves and refuse to cover LENr again… with maximum cowardliness.

        all others actors did their jobs… some surrendered after hard battle… corps, electro-chemists, few individual scientists, entrepreneurs,

  • bachcole

    I don’t read an article without the thought of how can I create a comment that will relate to this article and tell people that LENR is coming. For example, I was reading an article about an asteroid that has a 1 chance in 60,000 of hitting the Earth in 20 years. So I used that as an excuse to say that by then spacecraft will be powered by LENR and can easily nudge the asteroid away from hitting the Earth. So people see that, and they google “LENR” and start to investigate.

    One citizen at a time is my template.

  • GreenWin

    This is a topic on which time is well spent IMO. But at this stage a “free press” is militantly non-existent for LENR. The advent of LENR might be best addressed by pointing to the remarkable changes happening to the electric utility industry. In the US and most developed nations big, centralized power generation is facing economic collapse. There are weekly news articles detailing dramatic challenges to utilities facing microgrids and Distributed Energy Resources (DER) – particularly rooftop solar.


    The growth of microgrids and distributed energy resources threaten the aging grid and its 600k miles of transmission cable. Today microgrids and DERs provide 92% (42MW) all energy on the UC San Diego campus. UCSD is impervious to grid failure and blackout. The reaction from the century old power system is familiar:

    “Some utilities have responded to microgrids the same way they reacted to the rapid growth of solar and other forms of distributed generation: denial that the threat is serious, push back that the technology is still too unreliable and calls for regulators to clamp down on expansion until the industry can sort out economic and technical issues.”

    As centralized power is replaced by distributed resources and microgrids it paves the road to adoption of LENR. Each district, municipal, housing project, or neighborhood DER-powered microgrid is a placeholder for LENR. This realignment of infrastructure must precede a disruptive resource like LENR and is a logical evolution from fission/fossil fuels to abundant renewable energy.

  • Asterix

    Well, Frank, I don’t know. As a disinterested consumer, I’d be waiting for a real product to sample and then draw my conclusions.

    My best bet, according to the publicity out there from e-cat license holders would be the domestic e-Cat.


    Although, it’s a bit confusing–one place on the page says “available mid 2013”, but in another place it’s stated “RELEASED 2014”.

    Has anyone seen anything even resembling a prototype? All we have is the “artist’s concept” drawing. Given that it’s a pretty sure thing that 2014 will come and go without a Home e-cat being seen anywhere, why doesn’t the Australian distributor ‘fess up?

    What I’m getting at is that all the general population has ever seen is reports of tests and glowing predictions of “real soon now” for real devices–be they DGT Hyperions, Home e-cats or Brilloin Boilers.

    Make something real and available (for any amount of money; it doesn’t really matter that much) and support will follow.

  • stage169
    • Barry

      It’s a nuclear fission device. The portable nuclear generator makes sense for the military because they are way to expensive to set up in a small neighborhood. One of the interesting features is it does not produce high level waste, but low level. Bombs, so they told me, can not be made from their nuclear material.

  • LENR follower

    Something similar, we are collecting signatures for a petition on LENR.


    There is an English version on the bottom of the page. We invite anyone who would like to run a similar petition in their country/region to re-use our work.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I am not sure if this is a wise thing to do at this point. Right now we only have the 5-day test results of Levi et al., and Rossi’s parent company wants to remain secret. And we are waiting for 6 month long results and for the parent company to become public. One can be completely certain about the E-cat’s societal impact only if it works for long time (6 months), if it’s free of adverse side effects and if the development is backed up by adequate financial resources. In this sense what we know now (the Levi report) is much less than what we hopefully will know in the next phase. My recommendation would therefore be to just let their publicity plan run its course. While I agree that it’s frustrating to wait without trying to do something useful, it’s also so that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

    Having said that, spreading true information is never harmful. One can spread the link to Levi’s report; that’s why it was published. However, it’s written in scientific language so journalists do not understand it. Thus when given the link they will ask their trusted local scientists what it means. Most of them will say: ignore it, it’s not refereed. But if a well-known company makes a claim and supports it with evidence, journalists listen and write about it without consulting scientists.

    • John Littlemist

      Congrats Pekka for the recent article about E-Sail in Helsingin Sanomat!
      I was in bar yesteday and I accidentally met a member of Finnish parliament, who is also a member of the “future committee” of the parliament. I inquired him why LENR was not included in the committee’s recent “100 radical future technologies” report. He was somewhat aware of LENR and Rossi, and his answer to my inquiry was the usual “because its not recognized by the mainstream science” claim. He was not aware of Etiam Inc. I recommended him to contact Etiam Inc’s chairman of the board who works for VTT. I also recommended him to contact you Pekka, which I strongly doubt will ever happen. I hope you don’t mind that I mentioned you to him, Pekka.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Thanks. No problem: if he contacts me the worst that can happen is that he asks me a question that I cannot answer.

    • Jimr

      Are we sure

      • Jimr

        Im sorry I don’t know what happened to the rest of message. I was saying, are we sure that the current test is a six month event, i have seen nothing from Rossi stating that. it may be a year long event.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Agreed, I think he said “at least 6 months”. I guess it would be stupid to interrpt a test at 6 months if it was going well. But anyway long enough to guarantee usefulness.

          • bachcole

            They can make a report at any point during the test. There is no necessity to wait until they turn the thing off.

    • bachcole

      I am not a scientists and I had no trouble understanding the Levi report.

      • AlainCo

        the problem is to understand the critics… in many case people who are not much expert can swallow critics too easily… or miss some huge problem… this is why peer review is good… just have to prevent dishonest and incompetent people like pomp&erikson to pretend to make a peer-review, that will be swallowed by innocent, or at least cause unfounded doubts when there is nothing…

    • AlainCo

      Some good point.

      Anyway there is no doubt that from the short result today LENR will be usable and industrial… just maybe 5 years later than what we imagine… if you can make a reactor run for 1 day… can engineer, and either they make it work for 1 month, 1 year… of they change of reactor every day (see the concept of pebble-bed fission reactor)…

      question is to inform enough engineers so they work on the problem…

      as I say elsewhere, I’m afraid spreading data is useless since people who follow the consensus won’t believe their own eyes when reading science…
      best is to target their social brain, who can quickly see that someone is serious, and that he is confident in the reality of something…
      National instruments, robert duncan, stefano concezzi, truchard, Nasa GRC website, elforsk press release and funding report, …

      the idea is to raise doubt on certainty

      the you can destroy the credibility on most critics :
      – not possible -> explain whay usin free space physics in lattice is stupid… quote yeong e kim
      – not peer-reviewed … show the list of PR papers, the evidence of manipulation of PR , on oriani, report41… quote some quote that jed used in wiki cold fusion controversy…
      – not replicated ? many experiments… F&P by longchampt… gas permeation replicated by nasa and many others… tritium replicated…
      – tea kettle ? how unscientific it is… signal over noise is the key.
      – bo hoistad critic of pomp/erikson pamphlet

      the idea is to destroy the credibility of critics as what they are : unscientific and pathetic.

      once doubt is introduced in the brain, the personal intelligence of individual will work.
      they will analyse, like Gibbs, , be carefull, will try to defend the consensus, then finally surrender to evidences.

      guess how it happen to me.

      1- social evidence of serious people convinced
      2- evidence of mainstream science misconduct and errors
      3-let the reader find himself the truth… once his brains is reactivated and is no more a xerox copy machine.

  • GregL

    Media outlets tend to look for controversies to write about, rather than good news stories.

    We know that LENR will be both those.

    To attract the editor’s eye, stressing the former will be more productive.

    I would rephrase the first sentence by replacing ‘superior energy source’ with ‘disruptive technology’

    • ecatworld

      Good point, Greg — thanks.