Frequently Asked Questions About Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
(part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as "cold fusion")

Updated: July 7, 2008

1. What is LENR?

Low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research investigates a possible new form of clean nuclear energy and nuclear transmutations. This subject was formerly called cold fusion. LENR does not produce greenhouse gases, strong prompt radiation or long-lived radioactive wastes. The fuel is deuterium or hydrogen, which is abundantly available in ocean water. The dominant reaction product is helium-4, which is harmless.

Low energy nuclear reactions can occur at or near ordinary room temperature. The term "cold fusion" was applied to this field of research initially by the press, not by its discoverers. Many people thought and still believe that it is a form of fusion; however, this claim is speculative.

Initially, the term "cold fusion" distinguished this research from thermonuclear fusion or plasma fusion. Thermonuclear fusion experiments require multimillion-degree temperatures. Since 1951, when thermonuclear fusion research began in the U.S., researchers have not succeeded in generating any useful amounts of energy.

The term "cold fusion " was never ideal to describe low energy nuclear reactions, because it implied that they were just a colder form of thermonuclear fusion, which they are not. The term was adopted by the media in 1989, appearing first in the Wall Street Journal, as a result of confusion with muon-catalyzed fusion. LENR's benign byproducts distinguish them from thermonuclear fusion and a variety of other nuclear experiments that also can run in room-temperature laboratories.

LENR experiments often use for their fuel a form of hydrogen called deuterium, which comes from water. One in every 6,000 water molecules contains deuterium. The energy available in the deuterium in one cubic mile of seawater, if release in a fusion process, exceeds the energy capacity of all the known fossil fuel reserves in the world.

A variety of models has been proposed to explain LENR, some speculate the mechanism as fusion, others do not.

In thermonuclear fusion, a reaction occurs when the nuclei of two deuterium atoms come very close to each other. When this happens, they combine to make helium and a large amount of heat. The hypothesis of a fusion mechanism at room temperature remains speculative; however, the evidence of some as-yet-unexplained source of heat is well-established in the published scientific literature.

Theoretically, fusion of hydrogen can generate 8 million times more energy than the same amount of hydrogen if it were burned in a chemical reaction. Some researchers report LENR experiments using both normal water and machine oil doped with boron. Experiments that generate excess heat using nickel and hydrogen suggest a non-fusion reaction.

2. What is "excess heat"?

A fundamental principle in electrochemistry is that, when one applies a certain amount of electrical energy to an electrolytic cell, one expects a commensurate amount of heat to come out of the cell.

For those who are mathematically inclined, this is represented in the following manner. If "Q" represents the amount of heat, "V" is the voltage, "I" is the current and "t" is time, then Q=V * I * t.

In a standard electrolytic cell, the amount of energy coming out of the system is normally straightforward to calculate, using the above formula.

However, what Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons discovered (see question 7 below) was that, in their cold fusion cell, Q, the amount of heat energy coming out of the cell was up to 1000 times greater than it should have been based on any known chemical reaction.

An excessive amount of heat was coming from the experiment. It did not, in any way, match the amount of electrical energy going in plus other accounted-for energy losses. And this, in a nutshell, was their fundamental historic discovery: something within the cell was releasing a new, "hitherto unknown" (Fleischmann-Pons) source of potential energy. In LENR research, this is the most important aspect of the phenomenon and is known by the term "excess heat."

3. Why isn't LENR energy ready to use?

LENR researcher Edmund Storms provided a succinct answer to this question.

"The phenomena must be fully reproducible, it's not there yet. Many people have duplicated various aspects of the claims on occasion but they cannot do this every time. There is no accepted model or theory that correctly describes the phenomena. Researchers use working models based on trial and error to help guide their search for the right conditions, but these are not explanations.

"Therefore, the situation in CMNS can be compared to the situation that Thomas Edison faced before he found the light bulb filament that worked for more than a brief time. He knew that light could be made by heating a thin filament using electric current, but he did not yet know how to make a filament that was completely reproducible and practical. Now we know exactly what makes a good filament, how to make millions of them, and we have theories that guide the search for improvements. That time has not yet arrived in CMNS."

Many researchers think that the greatest problem to be solved is a materials science issue. Researchers do not understand the specific atomic composition of the source materials - palladium, for example - that are required to make it work. The characteristic differences between batches appear to be at the nanoscale or atomic level. Consequently, such research is extremely difficult to perform outside of a large, well-equipped laboratory, and few researchers have had the means to study the subject properly.

Researchers know the materials differences are a major factor because, when they have used particular batches of palladium that work, all samples from the same batch register excess heat. When researchers have identified pieces of palladium that generate energy, they claim that those same pieces work repeatedly until the material fails.

The second greatest challenge is to remove the enormous quantities of heat from the palladium quickly enough. The heat tends to melt and deform the palladium, rendering it useless.

Researchers know what conditions are required for a working experiment; however, they are difficult to achieve. Minimum thresholds must be attained for the proper ratio of deuterium to palladium. A high electrical current is required, as well as some form of a dynamic trigger that imposes a deuterium flux in, out or along the cathode. Common triggers are changes in temperature, current flow and low-level laser stimulation.

4. What impact will deuterium use have on our oceans?

With the quantity of deuterium in seawater alone, the oceans will provide a nearly limitless supply of clean energy. Deuterium used in LENR can provide several million times as much energy as the same amount of fossil fuel.

Steve Nelson, while an astrophysicist Ph.D. candidate at Duke University, performed a calculation which showed that the impact of deuterium extraction from ocean water, for the purpose of generating fusion energy for the entire world's energy consumption, would lower the ocean surface only by one millimeter after several thousand years.

5. Is LENR dangerous? Is it harmful to the environment?

When we hear "nuclear," many of us think of mushroom clouds and the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, or tritium leaks at Indian Point. These all relate to a completely different nuclear process: fission, the splitting of atoms. Nations that elect not to reprocess spent fuel struggle to find practical methods to dispose of the highly radioactive waste from nuclear fission. LENR is a clean form of nuclear energy; it produces no radioactive "waste." No greenhouse gases result from LENR. The dominant byproduct is helium, an element that does not provide a health hazard or harm the environment.

LENR experiments yield only very low levels of gamma rays and neutron emissions. Shielding, if required, likely will be easily manageable and suitable for industrial as well as residential applications.

6. What are the benefits of LENR besides providing a cleaner, sustainable supply of energy?

It is too early to know the scientific basis for any potential application that may result from this new field, however, some people speculate that several technical miracles could come from it:

• It may provide a way to take radioactive waste from fission reactors and convert it into nonradioactive elements.
• Its energy may aid in transporting water great distances to irrigate barren lands to support agriculture for nations that are experiencing famine.
• It may provide unlimited quantities of drinking water, which in some countries is more precious than oil, by providing an improved method for desalinization of ocean water.
• It may enable new modes of transportation using magnetic levitation technology and transportation with extreme levels of fuel economy.
• And other breakthroughs beyond our current imagination ... both big and small.

7. Who discovered "cold fusion"?

Cold fusion was discovered in the mid-1980s by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and Stanley Pons, chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Utah. They carried out their research secretly, worried that its announcement would cause chaos in the scientific community. They, and the University of Utah held a historically memorable press conference on March 23, 1989, at which the two scientists and university administrators announced the discovery to the world.

8. Where did the term "cold fusion" come from?

Physicist Steven E. Jones, and his team at Brigham Young University in Utah, first used the term in the scientific literature. The proximity of these two schools is a coincidence. The process discovered by Jones' team is markedly different from the process discovered by Fleischmann and Pons. The Jones process does not produce excess heat and therefore does not provide any hope of being a source of energy. The Jones process, through measurement of charged particles, demonstrates excellent validation that fundamentally new nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room-temperature experiment.

Andrei Lipson, a physicist from the Russian Academy of Sciences, was experimenting with a similar process in the 1980s. Because of confusion between the Jones process and the Fleischmann/Pons process, as well as the assumption that cold fusion was a "colder" version of thermonuclear fusion, the term "cold fusion" was immediately and mistakenly associated with the Fleischmann/Pons work. For better or for worse, the name has remained, and the term "cold fusion effect," which also has been used, serves as a vernacular shortcut for the phenomenon, as well as the early research and historical episode.

Several new fusion-related discoveries that occurred in the years 2002-2006, such as crystal and bubble fusion indicate a new general class of nuclear phenomena on a small scale. However, none of these compares experimentally with the power output of LENR, nor is any of them supported by the breadth and depth of research that exists in the LENR field.

9. What does the terminology Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) mean?

Condensed matter nuclear science includes multiple subject matters including low energy nuclear reactions, an entirely new branch of science that gained widespread attention beginning in 1989 with the Fleischmann-Pons "cold fusion" announcement at the University of Utah.

The term "cold fusion" has been erroneously used to describe LENR in the past. For more on that terminology, see the answer to FAQ #1 above. The collective group of experimental observations is called low energy nuclear reactions, which may include fusion reactions as well as nonfusion nuclear reactions. The word "low" refers to the input energies to the reactions; the output energies may be low or high. The practical aspects of this research remain to be fully explored.

Condensed matter nuclear science studies nuclear effects in and/or on condensed matter, targeting its application for portable clean nuclear sources. It is an inter- and multidisciplinary academic field encompassing nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, surface physics and chemistry, and electrochemistry. CMNS applications involve many other fields as well, including nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, laser science and engineering, material science, nanotechnology and biotechnology.

The term “condensed matter nuclear science” evolved from the discussion and input of many individuals during the May 2002 ICCF Advisory Committee meeting in Beijing, China.

A significant set of phenomena that has been observed in the field of condensed matter nuclear science involves the anomalous production of heat and helium-4 in various metal deuterides and hydrides. In some circumstances, liquid media act as condensed matter and take the place of the metals. Several theories involving low energy nuclear reactions have been proposed to explain the experimental observations.

The nuclear effects in condensed matter are not limited to the reactions that yield heat and helium-4. In fact, a wide variety of effects has been observed, including nuclear transmutation reactions. All of the observed reactions appear to lack high-energy neutron fluxes and strong gamma ray emissions and thus show promise of new types of nuclear reactions that can occur without the need for complex containment or disposal systems.

Low levels of radiation are found in at least some of these reactions, but this radiation is usually absorbed directly within the experiments. Much more testing must be performed to better understand any potential health or environmental risks.


10. What mistakes did Fleischmann and Pons make and why was cold fusion initially thought to be a mistake?

Fleischmann and Pons introduced an entirely new field of science. It didn't belong to physics; it didn't belong to chemistry. It was somewhere between them. A turf battle started the day it was announced.

Cold fusion appeared to contradict known nuclear fusion theory; nuclear reactions at room temperature were generally unheard of before Fleischmann and Pons. The reactions were viewed as inconceivable, impossible. The two men were looked on as heretics. They were also regarded as making reckless, unsupported, unscientific claims, and this won them no respect from the community of nuclear scientists whose work was affected by their speculations. But as history has shown, a new phenomenon is often a surprise, and its social, historical, scientific and technological significance can take years to comprehend.

Although Fleischmann and Pons were the first to introduce the subject of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) to the world, they were not the first to perform related research. Their research followed that of Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in 1926, Nobel Prize winner in physics Percy Bridgman in 1929, and physicist Alfred Coehn in 1947. Paneth and Peters subsequently renounced their claim, but only after being the targets of great hostility and outrage from the science establishment.

Fleischmann and Pons used methodologies appropriate for their expertise: electrochemistry and calorimetry. Their experimental results, however, brought them into forbidden territory: nuclear physics. This set the stage for a fundamental conflict between them and the physics establishment because the result of their chemistry experiment yielded a reaction previously only achieved through high-energy nuclear physics research. The main measurement tool used by Fleischmann and Pons -- calorimetry, the science of measuring heat -- was unfamiliar to and untrusted by nuclear researchers at the time and was considered entirely inadequate by most nuclear physicists as a means to justify the claim of a nuclear reaction.

Making matters worse for Fleischmann and Pons were numerous problems with the way they and the University of Utah administrators introduced the discovery to the world. Scientists are expected to be cautious and conservative, particularly when public trust is an issue. When Pons stated at the March 23, 1989 press conference: "We’ve established a sustained nuclear fusion reaction," he and Fleischmann couldn't have looked more ridiculous and suspect in the eyes of most of the world's nuclear physicists.

Their failure to sufficiently inform and share information with their peers caused an enormous amount of animosity. They also extrapolated their observations and this resulted in an exaggeration of their claims. Fleischmann and Pons made it sound like cold fusion was an easy experiment; this couldn't have been further from the truth. Consequently, thousands of scientists around the world hurried off to try to make Utah fusion, and when they failed, their anger fueled the already-burning hostility against Fleischmann and Pons. Lastly, Fleischmann and Pons made a significant error in their neutron measurements that initially led some critics to dismiss the entire set of observations, including the claim of excess heat.

Other human issues also were a significant factor responsible for the hostility, bitterness and volatility of the cold fusion controversy. Thermonuclear fusion researchers had tried unsuccessfully for 38 years to create practical energy from their experiments. Their research program at one time was funded by the U.S. government to the tune of $1 billion per year and had been on a steep decline when Fleischmann and Pons proposed their much simpler and less expensive alternative.

After their announcement, the bulk of the science community focused its attention on the mistakes, both real and imagined, that were made by Fleischmann and Pons, and neglected to consider the core aspects of their discovery that were valid.

The basic and most significant claim of Fleischmann and Pons, that of excess energy in the form of heat, was never disproved, despite myths to the contrary. However, the theory that Fleischmann and Pons proposed was clearly wrong, and their claim for significant neutron emissions also was found to be invalid. This discouraged many scientists from paying further attention to the field.

The result, after the 1989 chaos, was that the media and a large part of mainstream science ignored a fundamentally new nuclear process for many years.

The primary body of evidence, the claim of excess heat, has remained. Evidence of excess heat and related low energy nuclear reaction phenomena continues to accumulate as improved instrumentation, procedures and understanding of materials science are applied.

A major turning point occurred in 2004 when the U.S. Department of Energy took a second look at LENR. Although the official government response was lukewarm, the attention sparked new interest in the subject worldwide.

11. What is ICCF?

The term ICCF originally came from the International Conference on Cold Fusion series, the largest worldwide science conference focusing on this new science. With the increased recognition of the broader nature of the subject, as well as a more scientifically appropriate name, the chosen name for the field became Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

The conference generally takes place every 12 to 18 months and rotates between the Asian, European, and North American continents. A standing body of advisers comprises the International Advisory Committee and a local advisory committee manages each of the conferences.

12. What is ISCMNS?

The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is an independent, international nonprofit organization registered in England which represents and supports researchers in the field of condensed matter nuclear science. ISCMNS was founded in 2003 by William Collis.

ISCMNS organizes scientific meetings, supports communication within the scientific community, and provides recognition for outstanding achievements in the CMNS field.

13. What is the difference between the Fleischmann-Pons and the Jones experiment?

The Fleischmann-Pons experiment  (University of Utah) used D2O in LIOD. Fleischmann and Pons had a very clear and distinct intention for their use of Pd and deuterium, derived from many years of study in that domain, as Fleischmann explained in his paper "Background to Cold Fusion: the Genesis of a Concept."[1]

Steven E. Jones' (Brigham Young University) intention was to replicate what he believed was a fusion reaction occurring in the earth. Jones’ electrochemistry was based on a mixture of elements he thought were present and/or related to the volcanic sites.

Excess heat and helium are the dominant signatures of the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. Jones did not expect to see excess heat and did not seek to measure it.

In a congressional hearing in 1989, Jones compared the trivial amount of energy claimed in his experiment to that claimed in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment as analogous to the comparison of a dollar bill to the national debt.
 
Jones' reported an experiment in 2003 [2] which produced 57 neutrons per hour; however, he has been inconsistent with his neutron claims. He initially claimed to see neutrons in 1989, but according to Beaudette [3], he retracted them in 1993.

The power from the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, if neutrons were produced in the experiment from a thermonuclear fusion reaction, would have produced 10E12 neutrons per second [4]. Instead, the rate of neutron emissions from the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was negligible.

Early in the history of cold fusion, these differences were not well-understood, and many people attempted to draw direct comparisons between the Fleischmann-Pons experiment and the Jones experiment. This is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

Jones' congressional testimony about the trivial amount of energy that was produced by his experiment was widely reported; however, the significant differences between the two experimental configurations, as described here, were not as well-reported in the media. As a result, the public, assuming both groups were working on the same idea, developed a perception that Jones' more modest claims were more believable and credible than that of Fleischmann-Pons.

1. Fleischmann, M., "Background to Cold Fusion: the Genesis of a Concept," American Chemical Society low-energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, Marwan, J. and Krivit, S. Eds., Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8, (Fall 2008).

2. Jones, S. E., Keeney, F. W., Johnson, A. C., Buehler, D. B., Cecil, F. E., Hubler, G. Hagelstein, P. L., Ellsworth, J. E., Scott, M. R., "Charged-particle Emissions from Metal Deuterides," Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Cambridge, MA, (2003).

3. Beaudette, C., Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd ed.), South Bristol, ME: Oak Grove Press, p. 41, (2002).

4. Storms, E., The Science Of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation Of Evidence And Explanations About Cold Fusion, ISBN-13: 9789812706201, World Scientific, London, (2007), page 51.