Category Archives: Science

Progress Report #1: New calorimeter design will test nanocrack parameters

I’m starting a relatively rare kind of project for this field. I have designed and built a Seebeck type calorimeter for the purpose of testing my theory.


First, an attempt will be made to achieve reproducible heat production by applying my theory to the treatment of palladium-based samples. The treatment will be designed to create nano-sized cracks in which I propose the LENR process takes place. Once an active sample is obtained, it will be studied as the cathode in an electrolytic cell placed in a calorimeter.

A variety of behaviors will be explored including loading behavior, emission of photon radiation, effect of temperature on energy production, and the effect of laser light. The cathode can be rotated with respect to the GM detector and the laser to determine whether the angle of emitted or applied radiation relative to the surface is important.

View inside the calorimeter showing the components. The cell is in the center, the GM detector is on the left, and the fan is on the right.
View inside the calorimeter showing the components. The cell is in the center, the GM detector is on the left, and the fan is on the right.

Based on my theory, I predict that all occasions when LENR is observed, the same mechanism is operating. Therefore, information obtained using PdD would apply to all other materials and isotopes of hydrogen found to produce the same phenomenon.

The electrolytic method is chosen for this study because it is the most explored and best understood of the various methods known to initiate LENR. Nevertheless, the calorimeter would permit use of any other methods for initiating the effect, but on a small scale. The size of the sample is not important as long as accuracy of the measurement is sufficient large. The calorimeter used here is designed to have very high accuracy, which will be demonstrated in due course.

The following predictions will be explored:

1. The rate of the LENR reaction is regulated by the availability of hydrogen to the NAE, with a significant rate being possible at low hydrogen isotope compositions when the amount of NAE is sufficiently large.

2. The rate of the LENR reaction is affected by temperature only as result of how it effects the diffusion rate of hydrogen through the material.

3. Photon radiation will be emitted when LENR occurs, with a particular relationship between the angle between the surface and the detector.

4. The rate of the LENR reaction already underway can be increased by application of laser light, with an increased reaction rate as the energy of the light is increased. An enhanced effect can be expected when the frequency matches the dimension of an active crack.

5. Generation of excess energy does not require extended electrolysis when the NAE is created in advance.

This report describes the construction and physical layout of the calorimeter:


Top view of calorimeter assembly
Top view of calorimeter assembly

The next report will describe the calibration and the general behavior of the tool, followed by studies of various behaviors of PdD.

See also:

Progress Report #5

Progress Report #4

Progress Report #3

Progress Report #2

Progress Report #1

Facebooktwitterredditby feather

How To Evaluate LENR Theory?

It has been posed that a major criterion for evaluating theory is “comparison with the observations we expect it to ‘explain'”, such as

1) A failure to observe intense penetrating radiations.
2) A failure to observe secondary hot reactions (recoil etc.)
3) Why the reaction takes place mainly outside the bulk.
4) How tritium / neutrons are produced.
5) How energy is transmitted to the lattice as heat.
6) How the above can occur in both light and heavy hydrogen systems.
7) Iwamura’s transmutations.

I have studied LENR now for 26 years. I found the difficulty in creating the effect very frustrating. Most of my attempts failed. When a sample made energy, it seemed no different from the samples that did nothing. Finding an explanation for this difference became my goal. Use of trial and error was not practical because I did not have the resources to run the required large number of experiments.

I turned to the explanations that were being proposed and found that they ignored the unique conditions required to initiate the nuclear reaction and focused on the nuclear process using selected behavior. In other words, they were useless in showing me how to make success more reliable.

Having a chemical background, my first question was, “What was unique about the material that could cause a nuclear reaction”? After all, for over 100 years, scientists failed to detect any indication that a nuclear reaction could be affected by the chemical environment no matter how extreme the conditions and no matter how hard they looked. Clearly, a very rare and unique condition had to be created. In 1996, I identified this condition as the nuclear active environment (NAE).

Once the NAE is accepted, the question has to focus on where in the material this rare and unique condition is located and how can it be created.

Obviously, the condition is not part of the structure normally present in all materials, such as vacancies or dislocations. If these common conditions were the NAE, LENR would be much more common and much easier to replicate.

An answer to this quandary is basic to explaining LENR.

The second problem involves the mechanism. The mechanism must only affect a nuclear reaction. The process must have no effect on the chemical behavior. After all, chemists have been studying Pd/D for over 100 years and have detected nothing unusual about its chemistry. The material acts like any other hydride, except it is more reactive to H than most other elements.

A mechanism involving electron energy levels would affect the chemical conditions. Chemistry has failed to find such a mechanism. Simply put, DDL, neutron formation, and any other mechanism involving the electrons can be eliminated from consideration, at least at first.

Nevertheless, electrons are required to reduce the Coulomb barrier to a level permitting the observed reaction rate. This means electrons are involved, but how?

Finally, LENR creates helium rather than fragments of helium, as does hot fusion. Somehow a mechanism must overcome the barrier while at the same time dissipating the nuclear the energy. In the case of hot fusion, these two events are separated in time. In LENR, the two events must occur at the same time and be part of the same basic process. This requires a very unique mechanism.

In conclusion, LENR requires a unique and rare condition in the material and a very rare and unusual mechanism must operate in this condition. This path immediately eliminates most explanations and forces the discussion to ask different questions. I asked these questions in my book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, and provide detailed answers to each of the questions posed, along with many others.

Facebooktwitterredditby feather

The Present Status of Cold Fusion and its Expected Influence on Science and Technology


Innovative Energy Policies journal has released The Present Status of Cold Fusion and its Expected Influence on Science and Technology by Edmund Storms.

Innovative Energy Policies is an open-access journal “that aims to present a platform to publish almost all types of research writeups that is devoted to Energy Policies.”

The Present Status of Cold Fusion and its Expected Influence on Science and Technology [.pdf]

Histogram of power generated
Histogram of excess power generated for 157 experiments
“Three messages are important to hear”, writes Edmund Storms. “LENR is real, LENR can generate ideal energy having important economic and political implications, and LENR reveals a new type of nuclear interaction having important scientific implications.”

These issues are the focus of the paper.

Storms writes, “… the world is presented with a choice. If this energy source is ignored, the damage to the environment will grow until some country discovers how to make essentially free energy using the method, thereby giving this country great advantage.”

“Or, the world can invest in discovering how LENR works while finding ways to introduce the energy source without causing too much economic damage. This problem is not going to go away by blind rejection. Pandora‚Äôs Box has now been opened.”

Facebooktwitterredditby feather

Call for review of quantum scenario (based on Ed Storm theory)

Call for review of quantum scenario (based on Ed Storm theory) on

Original article by Alain Coetmeur here

Hi all,

Following different theory discussion, Edmund Storms theory, and my modest understanding I am proposing a speculation about LENR.

First of all I am working in the framework of Ed Storms’ theory, not as hydroton, but about the reason that led him to propose hydroton.

I don’t care what is the animal.

as reference here is the book of Edmund Storms
here is an appendix about the QM part
his theory is described with (too) less details

I don’t follow all the details of his explanation, but just question the most general mysteries, raised in his book (better than in his articles).

His key observation is about Iwamura transmutations, and I match it with many other strange observations :
LENR produce few radioactive products, few energetic gamma, few neutrons…

Iwamura observed that in his experiments the fusion of target elements like Cs was involving an even number of deuterium.
Even number of hydrogen is important for symmetry, but the big surprise is that between 2-4-6 deuterium , it seems the non radioactive outcome are prefered

This make me think that this is not an accident but the natural target of the phenomenon called LENR.
Ed Storms key idea is that all happen in an insulated quantum object, of huge size, which dissipate the energy of fusion or transmutation, BEFORE the transmutation happen…

I’m basically incompetent but I propose my (mis)understanding for review, in the standard model framework (please no hydrino, supergravitation… this is a game to stay in SM, like playing chess) …


Facebooktwitterredditby feather

Requirements LENR imposes on a theory

For LENR to take place, two or more hydrogen nuclei (I use the word hydrogen to mean any isotope of the element called hydrogen.) must come to the same location and occupy this location for some period of time.

For a fusion rate of 10^11 times/sec to occur when 1 watt is measured, the number of these fusing assemblies existing at any time must be comparable to this rate. This requirement is based on the fact that these assemblies do not form instantaneously but require the atoms to diffuse from sties located at some distance from the growing active sites.

As the hydrogen are fused, replacements must diffuse from even greater distances.

In addition, something about this particular nuclear active location and the resulting assembly must allow the Coulomb barrier to be significantly lowered and, at the same time, the assembly must have a way to dissipate the resulting mass energy without the need for the resulting nuclear product to fragment.

These are the requirements that LENR impose on the process. These requirements severely limit what can be proposed as an explanation

To met these requirements within the lattice structure, the hydrogen nuclei must spontaneously rearrange from the known stable arrangement and assemble in these very unusual clusters of hydrogen nuclei.

The laws of thermodynamic require Gibbs energy be created for this to happen. No one has identified this source, nor is such a source to be expected given what we know about the chemical properties of PdD, which is the compound of interest. So, in my way of description, I state that formation of such an assembly violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Some theories propose mechanism to get around this problem. These mechanisms themselves violate natural law, in my opinion. Let’s explore a few examples.

BEC: The BEC is a structure that forms as result of quantum interactions that are very weak, hence the structure is only observed to form between atoms near absolute zero. Nevertheless, the structure is proposed to form at room temperature and above at a rate consistent with the observed production of heat from LENR, as noted above. This idea is justified by assuming local regions in a material spontaneously acquire a temperature near absolute zero in which the BEC form long enough for it to fuse. Ignored is the fact that hydrogen nuclei must diffuse through the lattice and reach this site before it again returns to the normal temperature. Because this region is cold, the diffusion rate will be very small as the site is approached, thereby preventing rapid assembly of the required number of nuclei. This limitation combined with the required assumption that a BEC can actually experience fusion and dissipate the energy without fragmentation of the nuclear product violates basic logic and the law of thermodynamics that prohibit such cold spots from forming.

Metal atom vacancies: Vacancies in the metal sublattice are proposed to form in PdD as the D/Pd ratio approach 1 and some of the D are proposed to move into these sites and accumulate. The previously vacant metal atom sites are not proposed to fill randomly by individual atoms, but instead a certain number of the sites can acquire a large number of D. These large assemblies are then proposed to experience occasional fusion between some of their members and the mass-energy then leaks out of the cluster as phonons. Once again the process of assembling the nuclei is ignored as well as the Gibbs energy required to allow the process to take place.

Creation of sub-Bohr orbit structures: If the electron associated with the hydrogen nucleus could get close enough to the nucleus in a stable orbit, the structure would act neutron-like without having to pay the high energy cost of actually forming a neutron. Furthermore, the electron is proposed to hide the Coulomb barrier just long enough for the neutron-like structure to approach another nucleus and then go on its way after fusion has occurred while effectively adding a d or p to the target nucleus. These neutron-like structures are proposed to form spontaneously, diffuse through the lattice without causing any observed chemical effect until they find a another nucleus with which to react. Even though the Dirac equation can be used to justify formation of the structure and even though Mills has published independent justification, no evidence exists to support the idea. The idea seems to be justified only by LENR being possible. To me, this is an example circular reasoning.

There is a tendency for many theories to ignore the real and well understood conditions that exist in a chemical structure. This is done by applying an arbitrary chosen collection of mathematical equations that hide the required real-world process that must take place.

Theories must begin with what can be actually seen to take place, and apply what is known to be consistent with the known behavior of LENR while also being consistent with the known chemical properties of materials in which LENR takes place.

We need to bring the large number of conflicting explanations together into a common logical structure. I do not believe this can be done as long as the theories are based on LENR taking place in the chemical lattice itself. That is why I moved my thinking to the crack structure where the rules change and conditions exist that can be used to explain LENR.

I admit, when I say laws of nature have been violated, this may be too strong but it captures the universal problem I’m trying to emphasize.

This problem results because many of the present theories start with a model based on a chosen mathematical description and then look for behavior as justification.

In contrast to the present theories, I start with what is known and use this to create a logically consistent model. I’m tying to encourage use of this approach.

Facebooktwitterredditby feather