LENR, the acronym for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is the label commonly used by serious science to describe the phenomena that experiments express for many researchers. LENR started life with the discovery that started in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, becoming a global scientific sensation known as cold fusion, only to blow apart in the conception stages.

But some very tough, smart and persistent scientists more interested in the physics than the notoriety stayed in the hunt for understanding and reproducing, or some might say finally proving with solid evidence, that nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures.

Rife with problems, one being an extreme difficulty in using conventional electronic instruments to detect the small number of neutrons produced in the process, research has gone on. Most research has proceeded with little support often with the personal funds of the scientists. Getting any attention at all has been a struggle and the blow back from the 1989 event often brought along bias, preconceived concepts and just bad blood.

Then Monday researchers reported compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Salt Lake City.

The American Chemical Society’s 237th National Meeting has 30 papers on the topic that will be presented during a four-day symposium, “New Energy Technology,” March 22-25, in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion. The American Chemical Society is a leading scientific organization, which suggests strongly that cold fusion has come back in to respectability with a smarter descriptive title, LENR.

I am to say the least, greatly relieved to see science overcome the old emotions and get on with the research into the facts.

Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., analytical chemist at the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego is one of a group describing what they term as the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring. Ms Mosier-Boss says, “Our finding is very significant, to our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device.”

In the new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or “heavy water” in a process called co-deposition. A single atom of deuterium contains one neutron and one proton in its nucleus.

Neutron Tracks In CP. Click image for more information.

Neutron Tracks In CR-39. Click image for more information.

Researchers passed electric current through the solution, causing a reaction within seconds. The scientists then used a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles that may have been emitted during reactions, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.

At the end of the experiment, they examined the plastic with a microscope and discovered patterns of “triple tracks,” tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point. The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic. Importantly, Mosier-Boss and colleagues believe that the neutrons originated in nuclear reactions, perhaps from the combining or fusing deuterium nuclei.

“People have always asked ‘Where’s the neutrons?'” Mosier-Boss says. “If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions.”

With that the team is able to cite other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. The Mosier-Boss team continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes. Ms Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers can’t predict when, or if, LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications.

Other noteworthy presentations come from:

  • Steve Krivit, editor of New Energy Times and author of “The Rebirth of Cold Fusion,” presented an overview of the field of low energy nuclear reactions, formerly known as “cold fusion” on Sunday March 22. A leading authority on the topic, Krivit will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of this controversial subject, including its brief history.
  • Tadahiko Mizuno, Ph.D., of Hokkaido University in Japan, reported Monday the production of excess heat generation and gamma ray emissions from an unconventional LENR device that uses phenanthrene, a type of hydrocarbon, as a reactant. He is the author of the book “Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion.”
  • Antonella De Ninno, Ph.D., a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment in Italy, will describe evidence supporting the existence of low energy nuclear reactions today, Tuesday, March 24. She conducted lab experiments demonstrating the simultaneous production of both excess heat and helium gas, tell-tale evidence supporting the nuclear nature of LENR. She also shows that scientists can control the phenomenon.

Now before you blast me, keep in mind these presentations are given to The American Chemical Society, a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. At more than 154,000 members, the ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. It’s fair to expect that a great deal of peer thought has gone into the meeting, its contents and the credibility of the presenters.

Its good news – LENR or cold fusion if you must, has a potential for limitless and clean energy production. We’ll never know or get the benefits unless the research presses on from theoretical experimentation to lab demonstrations that are repeatable to prototypes and scaling. It’s a long way to go. But the starting line seems to be back on the map with an exciting race to watch!


13 Comments so far

  1. Matt on March 24, 2009 6:22 AM

    I had an opportunity to see the CR-39 pictures months ago. I am surprised it took so long to make a public presentation of them. But, I guess you have to have all your ducks in a row before annouce and risk career suicide.

  2. Anonymous on March 25, 2009 8:01 AM

    You can see a 45 minute interview about the scientists behind this at:

  3. Wladimir Guglinski on April 1, 2009 8:30 PM

    Theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics, the reason why the physicists refuse to accept the occurrence of the phenomenon.
    The nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia showed by very easy calculations that cold fusion occurrence is theoretically impossible, from the laws of Quantum Mechanics, in a Chemistry Blog where he is the administrator.

    However cold fusion is theoretically impossible because Quantum Mechanics does not consider the zitterbewegung (zbw) as a helical trajectory of the electron (the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation of the electron, but the quantum physicists did not interpret the zbw as a helical trajectory).

    By interpreting the zitterbewegung from a new viewpoint, by considering it as a helical trajectory of the electron, cold fusion becomes theoreticall possible, as Guglinski has shown to Mitch Andre Garcia, along a discussion in the topic “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION”, which can be seen in the link:

    Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007 ».

    So the chemists are now getting knowledge that cold fusion is theoretically possible thanks to the adoption of the new interpretation for the zitterbewegung, and they are undertaking the performance of cold fusion experiments, because it seems that they dont trust in the viewpoint of the physicists.

    Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.

    The new duel chemists vs physicists has ideological origin. The physicits keep their loyalty to Quantum Mechanics, because they dont accept to change their interpretation on the zitterbewegung, since such a changing requires a very deep modification in the foundations of Modern Physics (the zbw cannot be considered as a helical trajetory in Quantum Field Theory, which is the successor of Quantum Mechanics).

    Unlike, the chemists keep their loyalty to the scientific method, according to which any experiment cannot be neglected only because it defies the principles of a theory, as happens now in this duel between Quantum Mechanics and cold fusion.

    Such new participation of chemists is healthy to science’s develolpment. Because as the physicists have some dogmas which they consider unsourmantable (as for instance their interpretation of the zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory), the development of cold fusion requires scientists free of dogmas of Physics, as the chemists.

    In few words, we have to consider the following situation:

    1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory…

    2- … but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy…

    3- … then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)…

    4- … instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).

  4. Wladimir Guglinski on April 9, 2009 6:30 PM

    Based on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment, published in last March.

    See the article in Peswiki:
    How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:

  5. Wladimir Guglinski on April 14, 2009 7:57 PM


    Subject: RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background
    Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:29:47 -0700
    From: pam.boss@navy.mil
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    CC: m_bernstein@acs.org; hestenes@asu.edu; canmarrai@gmail.com
    Dear Wladimir,
    Like many, we have very few funds and resources. But we will consider your suggestions and see what we can do as time and money permits.

    RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background‏
    From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:35:59 PM
    To: PAMELA MOSIER-BOSS (pam.boss@navy.mil)
    Bcc: JOHNATHAN CHAN (coldfusion111@gmail.com); jnaudin509@aol.com
    Hi, Pamela
    Be careful, and take care.
    If all the deuterium of the Pd lattice aligned in the same direction get resonance and have fusion at the same time, perhaps it can occur a small explosion in your electrolytic cell.
    Also, I recommend you to put a loadstone externally in the cell (like in the Letts-Cravens experiment), in order to help to keep a lot of deuterium aligned toward the same direction (that of the external magnetic field applied)
    Good luck

  6. Anton on June 3, 2009 9:36 PM


  7. chemistry tutors on July 5, 2009 6:38 PM

    chemistry tutors…

    another way to “get it” with chemistry…

  8. Chris Skinner on April 9, 2010 1:06 AM

    The arguement that quantum mechanics will not allow cold fusion is pure crap.Quantum mechanics is exactly why it does work.

    Mitch’s chemical forums have also been wrong about other dogmas in the past.Like the arrogant username “borek” and others falsely claiming that you can’t cause chemical reactions with radio waves according to formula E=hv(although many major companies out there have already been doing it for a long time),or that the amazing “outside-the-box” thinkers like Frank Pringle of Global Resource Corporation have just been doing ordinary pyrolysis when “cold-cracking” hydrocarbons with microwaves.

    Such closed-minded,narrow-minded dogma should not even belong in science.Some arrogant people and narrow-minded skeptics even go as far as to claim that science does not have to be open-minded.But apparently it does.To be truly logical and scientific-minded,it takes the right balance of BOTH open-mindedness about unlimited possibilities(uncertainty of nature has surprises),and ALSO putting things to the test of scrutiny to see how well they hold-up.

  9. private student loan on November 8, 2010 7:53 AM

    Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article

  10. bestelkado.nl - normaal on December 3, 2011 8:02 AM

    Hi! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group? There’s a lot of folks that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Cheers

  11. Antique slot machine collectionist on March 24, 2014 3:30 AM

    Hi it’s me, I am also visiting this web page on a regular basis, this site is really fastidious and the
    viewers are truly sharing nice thoughts.

  12. Margery on April 9, 2014 3:41 AM

    I like it when folks get together and share opinions. Great blog,
    keep it up!

  13. Michael E. Brown on April 29, 2014 7:29 AM

    Might be almost unthinkable to find well-aware readers on this content, and yet you appear like you be aware of whatever you’re indicating! Bless You

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind