Updated: April 15, 2009

What is LENR?
Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) are research and experiments that take place at or close to room temperature and pressure which produce nuclear-scale energy and nuclear products. The word "low" refers to the input energies to the reactions; the output energies may be low or high. LENR does not presume a fusion mechanism that involves surmounting a high-Coulomb barrier.

The research suggests a possible new form of clean nuclear energy and nuclear transmutation processes. LENR was historically 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. One of the main reaction products is helium-4, which is harmless.

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. Some LENR experiments use regular hydrogen, which supports the hypothesis of a nonfusion mechanism.

A variety of models has been proposed to explain LENR. Some models speculate the mechanism as fusion, some speculate neutron catalyzed reactions, specifically, processes relating to the weak interaction.

What Is "Cold Fusion"?
"Cold fusion"is a highly speculative, little-supported theoretical process by which two like-charged atomic nuclei overcome the Coulomb barrier at normal temperatures and pressures.

Is "Cold Fusion" Real?
This is really four different questions.

Q1. Are LENRs genuine nuclear reactions?
A1. Yes.

Q2. Is the underlying process or processes responsible for the observed LENR phenomena the result of a fusion process?
A2. Probably not.

Q3. Are LENRs sources of useful energy?
A3. Not yet.

Q4. Is LENR better than "cold fusion"?
A4. Yes.

References:
Krivit: It Doesn't Look Like Fusion
Krivit: 2008 ACS Presentation

Have papers been published in peer-reviewed publications?
Yes, many. Also a peer-reviewed book by American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press published in August 2008 and another is on the way.

Is there a viable theory to explain LENR?
Some people consider the model proposed by Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen, ultra-low momentum neutron catalyzed reactions, to be a vialble theoretical explananation for LENR phenomena. At least half a dozen other researchers have speculated neutron catalyzed reactions.

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."

Why isn't LENR energy ready to use?
Simply, the science is still not sufficiently-well understood. While the research community knows a great deal about the related phenomena, it still does not know the factors necessary to bring it forward to a viable technology. Factors include: how to consistently turn it on, turn it off, up or down.

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.

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 nuclear energy for the entire world's energy consumption, would lower the ocean surface only by one millimeter after several thousand years.

Is LENR 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. A 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. Such low levels of radiation are found in at least some LENR reactions, but this radiation is usually absorbed directly within the experiments. Shielding, if required, likely will be easily manageable and suitable for industrial as well as residential applications.

What are other possible applications of LENR?
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.

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 press conference on March 23, 1989, at which the two scientists and university administrators announced the discovery to the world.

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. 

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.

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.

Their "N-fusion," as they called it, appeared to contradict known nuclear fusion theory; nuclear reactions at room temperature and pressure 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.

Fleischmann and Pons used methodologies appropriate for their expertise: electrochemistry and calorimetry. Their experimental results, however, brought them into unfamiliar territory: nuclear physics.

Several prominent physicists recklessly accused Fleischmann and Pons of scientific fraud. While it is true that mistakes were made and that something inexplicable happened with the gamma spectrum Fleischmann and Pons reported, nobody has ever proved that they committed fraud. The errors in their gamma spectrum initially led some critics to dismiss the entire set of observations, including the claim of excess heat.

The primary measurement tool used by Fleischmann and Pons -- calorimetry, the science of measuring heat -- was unfamiliar to 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. Nuclear physicists were incredulous when Pons stated at the March 23, 1989 press conference: "We’ve established a sustained nuclear fusion reaction."

Their failure to sufficiently inform and share information with their peers caused an enormous amount of animosity. They also extrapolated their heat measurements and this resulted in an exaggeration of their energy claims.

Fleischmann and Pons made it sound like the experiment was easy; 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.

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. 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. A turning point occurred in 2009 when researchers at the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) Pacific laboratory reported evidence of nuclear particle emissions.

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 cold fusion history, 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.