U.S. institutional politics, government agencies, and academic science have been caught in denial so strident they’re now shouting “no” while stark raving naked.  The nakedness is because of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or LENR, or an evolution of the famed cold fusion.

The intellectual embarrassment is tattooed to the naysayers forever and disqualifies many people.

Steve Krivit reports from behind his paywall physicist Yasuhiro Iwamura from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that researchers at Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratories performed an independent replication of a Mitsubishi low-energy nuclear reaction transmutation experiment.

Iwamura spoke of the replication at the American Nuclear Society’s LENR session on Nov. 14th 2012 in San Diego.  Krivit reports Iwamura saying the Toyota researchers confirmed that nuclear changes from one element to another took place without the use of high-energy nuclear physics.

Toyota is being said to have used a LENR deuterium-permeation transmutation method that Iwamura invented.  This follows the information that Osaka University and Iwate University had previously reported similar replications.

Iwamura is said to have been working with this LENR method for 14 years.

The target of the work in Japan seems directed to the transmutation of elements, something that has been seen in many past experiments of LENR.  Direct potential commercial applications could be processing of nuclear waste or the production of rare earth elements such as platinum.

The story is leading to two different camps, the LENR people trying to produce energy and the Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation (LENT, a new short form to remember) people trying to change an element into another.  The process is doing about the same thing; each pathway is optimized to achieve one result or the other.

Now Mitsubishi and Toyota, two major international industrial firms are releasing information.  The firms obviously understand that the money from product sales will be vastly more important than research grants.

Politics, bureaucrats and academia are being scooped by big business.  It’s probably a good thing.

Private enterprise isn’t just after LENR in Japan.

Dr. Francesco Celani has announced a successful 3rd party replication of his LENR system, which apparently has been improved since he did the demonstration at National Instruments Week in Texas earlier this year.

Celani said the reactor used is completely different from the one he and his group developed and used.  As a result, he says, the probability of a systematic error in the measurements has become highly unlikely.

The private firm involved in this effort is believed to be STMicrolectronics, a French-Italian electronics manufacturer based in Geneva, Switzerland.  The firm’s logo is part of the photos Dr. Celani has released.

STMicroelectronics Replication Results of Celani LENR. Click image for the largest view. Image Credit: Dr. Francesco Celani.

What is one to make of all this?  The first major point is academia has utterly let the world down.  Now that LENR obviously functions there are almost no experimental experts available or organized training underway.  The world economy is completely out of the loop, so far.  The second is governments worldwide have set up a patent barrier, which is still in place that keeps the potential dowsed down.  Only the very brave and eccentric have ventured out with Andrea Rossi leading the way.

At the human level the price of condemnation is beginning to show.  For those who followed the press, media and academic lead to condemn Pons and Fleischmann, while some knew full well that a few very careful experimenters were able to replicate the work, the guilt is the harm done to science progress, intellectual expansion and economic growth.

At the frontier of knowledge there is no disgrace at an experiment that fails.  Disgrace comes from denial of the opportunity for research and experimentation.  Denial of a venture into the unknown is one of the ultimate scientific dishonesties.


14 Comments so far

  1. Warthog on December 10, 2012 5:38 AM

    “The second is governments worldwide have set up a patent barrier, which is still in place that keeps the potential dowsed down”

    Not worldwide. Just the US.

  2. Becktemba on December 10, 2012 12:37 PM

    Excellent commentary.

  3. Al Potenza on December 10, 2012 12:50 PM

    Well, Iwamura’s work has been challenged on various grounds. It’s out of my field so I have to rely on others but apparently, it is still possible that over-reading of the data or contamination accounts for the results.

    As for Celani, he seems honest but the newest graph reveals little and the excess power level is tiny (milliwatts).

    Meanwhile, Defkalion and Rossi claim kilo and megawatts. What do you think of that? Isn’t it pretty obvious that those two are lying?

  4. GreenWin on December 10, 2012 1:01 PM

    It is indeed a total mess. The breakthrough will be twofold:

    1) LENR science will advance quickly once commercially comprehended

    2) Mainstream academia, media, science, will have to answer for their utter ignorance and or intentional suppression of cold fusion.

    The result will be a clean slate and new approach without fiefdoms and cartels ruling knowledge.

  5. The first major point is academia has utterly let the world down. « nickelpower on December 10, 2012 4:20 PM

    […] They continue: […]

  6. Benjamin Cole on December 10, 2012 9:10 PM

    I am happy for cold fusion or LENR to work, to be commercially viable.

    Government need have nothing to do with this.

    Obviously, it is nearly impossible to get LENR to work commercially, so even not having a patent is not important. If one produced a working LENR, went to GE, said “Let’s make this,” GE would say “Hell, yes,” and they would have a 10 year jump on everyone else. Money would be made hand-over-fist with such a device.

    For now, LENR and cold fusion remain fantasies, probably pipe dreams to steal money from investors.

    BTW, this same blog predicted commercial cold fusion was imminent a couple of years ago. Here we are, still parsing and deciphering chimeras.

  7. Zvibenyosef on December 11, 2012 12:00 PM

    This is by far the most positive article I have seen on this subject in this Blog.
    I am convinced LENR will become the main source of energy within the next few years. The anomalous heat effect can now be replicated at will, and though most experiments provide only modest amounts of excess energy, even these small amounts are far greater than anything that has been produced by hot fusion, which has never produced over unity. The fact that it is difficult to extract useful quantities of energy from LENR should not be surprising. Our increasing understanding of materials science and nanotechnology combined with a lot of hard work and experimentation will eventually allow us to create a practical energy device using LENR

  8. John De Herrera on December 11, 2012 12:35 PM

    Until we get a reactor that works – that we can see, touch, and feel the heat of the output, we can remain unconvinced. After seeing all the individual and multiple unit industrial reactors, with the testimony from noted scientists, I am very hopeful Andrea Rossi will deliver a working reactor/Hot-Cat soon.

  9. NJT on December 11, 2012 1:56 PM

    “At the frontier of knowledge there is no disgrace at an experiment that fails. Disgrace comes from denial of the opportunity for research and experimentation. Denial of a venture into the unknown is one of the ultimate scientific dishonesties.”

    Well said and very aptly fits this LENR situation.

    Benjamin Cole, you state: “Government need have nothing to do with this.” Then why have the major governments of the world spent hundreds of billions over some 50 plus years UNSUCCESSFULLY experimenting with Hot Fusion?

  10. Omega Z on December 12, 2012 6:02 AM

    Benjamin stated-

    “Government need have nothing to do with this.”

    OOPS! This statement comes a little late. 24 years to late. When they started suppressing it.

    Governments should either Lead, Follow, Or stay the Hail out of the way.

  11. John De Herrera on December 12, 2012 12:09 PM

    There are many claims for a fantastic new invention. However, the wise investor will give NO MONEY unless:
    1. There is a working model that can be tested by professionals or purchased for use.
    2. An independent group validates the theoretical concept and finds it worthy of investment/support. jdh

  12. Bob Cook on January 24, 2013 2:36 PM

    The following is in follow-up to the comment by Zvibenyosef on December 11, 2012 12:00 PM.

    It comes from a memo made by Adm Rickover in his early years developing reactors for subs. It addresses the point of Zvibenyosef regarding the practicality of developing something new and complicated.

    June 5, 1953

    Important decisions about the future development of atomic power must frequently be made by people who do not necessarily have an intimate knowledge of the technical aspects of reactors. These people are, nonetheless, interested in what a reactor plant will do, how much it will cost, how long it will take to build and how long and how well it will operate. When they attempt to learn these things, they become aware of confusion existing in the reactor business. There appears to be unresolved conflict on almost every issue that arises.

    I believe that this confusion stems from a failure to distinguish between the academic and the practical. These apparent conflicts can usually be explained only when the various aspects of the issue are resolved into their academic and practical components. To aid in this resolution, it is possible to define in a general way those characteristics which distinguish the one from the other.

    An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”). (7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. (8) The reactor is in the study phases. It is not being built now.

    On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

    The tools of the academic-reactor designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone can see it.

    The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in the elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of “mere technical details.” The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solutions require manpower, time and money.

    Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decisions without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more.

    Yet it is incumbent on those in high places to make wise decisions, and it is reasonable and important that the public be correctly informed. It is consequently incumbent on all of us to state the facts as forthrightly as possible. Although it is probably impossible to have reactor ideas labelled as “practical” or “academic” by the authors, it is worthwhile for both the authors and the audience to bear in mind this distinction and to be guided thereby.

    Yours faithfully,

    H. G. Rickover
    Naval Reactors Branch
    Division of Reactor Development
    U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

  13. Paul Maher on January 29, 2013 2:44 PM

    If any nation says they give a damn about the planet and its inhabitants and is not promoting the development of these several technologies they are liars of the first order. If they are ignorant it is one thing, but if their best scientists testify to the reality of it they are far more than liars.

    1. LENR
    2. Focus or Z Pinch Fusion
    3. Catalytic production of HYDROGEN through the use of Silicon Nanospheres or Molybdenum Sulfide and WATER.

    Number 3 speaks to pumping hydrogen through a membrane and producing virtually free electricity. Fuel costs go to zip squat.

    Naysayers should take notice of the dawn of a new age in spite of our bumbling governments and their many institutions.

    Paul D. Maher

  14. Paul Maher on January 29, 2013 3:14 PM

    When I say best scientists I am speaking of men Like Drs. Joseph Zawodny and Dennis Buishnell at Langley Research Center. T%heir organization drives this technology LENR as well as being a constant and loud voice for progress. It is their only product. NASA TV is pretty good also.

    Then there is Professor Hagelstein at MIT. As I type he is teaching cold fusion 101 in Cambridge.

    Speak with Michael McKubre at SRI and his friend Robert Godes at Brillouin Energy.

    Discuss what Edward Teller had to say about cold fusion with McKubre.

    When petrochemical guys can retrieve energy from fossil fuels with 0 carbon coming into environment they’ll have something. Albeit only until the fuel runs out.

    The fission guys and the hot fusion folks should move over for a couple of reasons.

    The conventional nuclear reactors are dreadful in their production radioactive waste and devastating releases of high level radioactivity. They have to go in the near future.

    The folks working on the Tokamak hot fusion machine are trying to control more energy at one time than they will ever be able to, and they need a 20,000 ton machine to even take a crack at it. Billions of dollars has ben spent. It looked good at the time, but not so much now

    All of the technologies I have enumerated can be done on a table top for a couple of thousand dollars.


    Paul D. Maher

Name (required)

Email (required)


Speak your mind