Framing the Debate

A new look at the economics of LEARN (Low Eneregy Lattice Assisted Reactions – Nuclear)

Now to our friends in the corporate world, here’s the good news. Due to the protracted, hilarious and surrealistic march of “Peter the Hermit” and the “Mad Greeks,” and the slow, painful but inevitable crawl of real science in pursuit of the Holy Grail of LEARN technology, THERE IS STILL TIME! The presentations at CERN by Drs. Srivasta and Celani and at the “Emerging Technologies for Space” conference in Texas by Dr. Miley certainly reinforce the growing acceptance of LEARN in the world of mainstream science. These are NOT foolish institutions or events. Although there is no official endorsement of the claims made by the presenters, you can bet your next suborbital flight that these groups would take every precaution to prevent their reputations being tarnished by allowing dubious claims being made under their tent.

I was educated as a mathematician, and physics is way outside my realm. But I have steadily over the years read the various non-technical descriptions of modern physics written by the many brilliant physicists who have cared to share their developing understanding of reality with, well, the rest of us. One thing is certain, however. The greatest of the physicists relied heavily on physical intuition as a foundation for their theoretical work, like Einstein and Feynman to name a couple, in attempting to understand the many attempts to provide a theoretical understanding of what might be going on in the LEARN reactions.

It does seem there is a growing consensus, if not about the underlying nuclear and subatomic processes, at least about the physical conditions involved in the reactions themselves. I will not attempt to go into very great detail but my take on it, and my guess as to where progress will be made, is this:

A very specific configuration of atoms and ions, some metallic, some hydrogen, and some impurities, when stimulated in the right way result in some one or several “not chemical” exothermic events taking place. It seems likely that more than one basic reaction is involved. These configurations exist at the nano scale. They are not very well understood, nor is it well understood how to abundantly create them. The impurities, or flaws, in the nano structure play a key role. The reactions, when they are energetic enough, destroy the configuration that gives rise to them. The physical explanation of what is going on, when it is finally derived, will likely NOT involve any basic inconsistency with the standard model or quantum physics but will, in all likelihood, involve an emergent property and, thus, may well be considered to be a previously unknown state of matter.

It is my further opinion that borrowing from the tools involved with nano scale manufacturing, and research in the computer chips and electronics, will prove to be of great value in materials manufacturing of the most efficient “fuel” for use in LEARN reactors. Various forms of doping, etching and lithography may well provide the basis for creating a sufficient density and organization of these configurations , along with a supporting and moderating matrix to insulate, isolate and/or remove the configurations, if necessary, as they are consumed or changed by their own actions.

So, the good news for corporate America (and the rest of the world too!) is this:  As basic research reveals more and more about the nano configurations which create the conditions for LEARN reactions, there will be an opportunity for patent protected manufacturing techniques and technologies needed to create both the configurations and the supporting framework which will make LEARN a reality. In that, a bold entrepreneur might really corner this multi-trillion dollar business! But, even better, and I mean REALLY BETTER, is this: Thus far everyone has thought that the e-Cat would be cheap, and the fuel would be plentiful and cheap. But the fuel NEED NOT BE CHEAP! The fuel itself, while being made of cheap ingredients, might very well be a HUGE profit maker, like computer chips, if the analysis above is on target. The matrix of configurations and support structure might require very sophisticated (and profitable) manufacturing, even though the basic ingredients are not expensive at all, like (hmmmmm) silicon into computer chips.

So, this scenario, if it plays out, completely changes the game as far as the fears of a destabilizing LEARN rollout. Please take this VERY seriously, those of you in the energy world, or the nano tech world, or the computer chip world. This would be the Holy Grail of a new energy technology.  A plentiful, non-polluting source of energy, but one requiring a super-high technology to produce and deliver the fuel. It would provide an economic stability and balance while providing huge rewards for the companies with the courage and foresight to take on the challenge. Let us just hope that those with such foresight and courage take up this opportunity and pave the way for the continued growth of human potential!

On a different note, I think a “PLAN X Prize” for achieving notable milestones in LEARN research would be a very powerful way to promote further developments. I would respectfully ask that any active researchers in the field to please contribute ideas for proper and useful descriptions of such milestones, which would be as unambiguous and convincing to the real skeptics as possible (not the pathoskeps of course, because for them there seems to be no possibility of movement at all…too bad!).  Anyhow, not being Dick Smith, who used the opportunity to create such a prize of significant size, and then promptly produced a negative smell in the air with his emphasis being on “exposing frauds,” rather than using his wealth to promote the growth of human potential, I can only make a modest contribution in this quest.

So, I therefore pledge $5,000 US to the goal of creating such a PLAN X Prize and, with some help from others in the LEARN world, perhaps we can create a prize which is positive and useful in promoting LEARN research. Please, any of you who take the time to read this, I challenge you to also pledge whatever you feel is reasonable to this goal. Just send me an email, or respond to this posting, with YOUR pledge.

Send ideas or suggestions of what might be the best milestone for winning the $$$.  How about you Dick Smith?.  Maybe even match my paltry $5K in an honest effort to PROMOTE discovery? If we get something really developing we can set up a “PLAN X Prize site with escrow accounts, safeguards and a “rules” committee. Why not!


For the latest news and updates see Headlines/Chatterings.


e-mail Tom Baccei
Short URL for this page:
This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Framing the Debate

  1. Ben says:

    I have nothing but the highest respect for Drs. Pons and Fleishmann, such great scientists. Anyone would be privileged to follow their lead in science

    George H. Miley at NETS
    March 22, 2012

    Cold Fusion Now

    • Anony Mole says:

      So, where is the rest of what Miley said at that conference? Anyone?

      • Admin says:

        NETS elected not to broadcast or release any information about Dr. Miley’s presentation. Why? I have no idea. Apparently they did no think it important, as crazy as that sounds. However, Ruby Carat of Cold Fusion Now did attend NETS and conducted an interview with Dr. Miley. I would expect a write up from her about it sometime in the near future. For now, the abstract released before the presentation is all we have to go on.

  2. Ben says:

    The Limitless Potential of the E-Cat: An Interview with Andrea Rossi

  3. Alan DeAngelis says:

    Pardon me if this is a little off topic but I have insomnia and want to get this thought down before I forget it.
    Perhaps the Pearson hard soft acid base (HSAB) concept may be a simple way to understand how LENR are chemically assisted. Bulk metals (like nickel and palladium) are “soft acids” by HSAB. They have charged states that are strongly polarizable. Hydride (H-) and deuteride (D-) are “soft bases” with charged states that are also polarizable. Soft acids react faster and form stronger bonds with soft bases. Maybe this allows them to get closer together than would be predicted using a simple calculation base on the Pauling electronegativity concept.
    This may be a little to simple minded but I’ll continue with this train of thought for awhile and see if it leads anywhere.

    • Alan DeAngelis says:

      One last thought.
      The “symbiotic effect” in HSAB theory (a concept borrowed from biology) may provide a chemical explanation for a reduction of the Coulomb barrier in both Ni-H and Pd-D systems.
      An acid (Ni+2 or Pd+2) becomes softer when it’s bound to a soft base (H- or D-) to become NiH2 or PdD2. This is because of the ability of the hydride (or deuteride) to release electrons to the metal ion (Ni+2 or Pd+2) causing a decrease in the positive charge of the ion. This may be why super saturation of deuterium in Pd-D systems is required for the F&P effect. Jiggling the polarizable bonds at the right frequency might trigger a nuclear reaction.

      • Alan DeAngelis says:

        Maybe the Coulomb barriers could be reduced even further by having the metal hydrides (PdD2 or NiH2) coordinate with two more H- (or D-) to form square planar complexes with a 2- charge.
        NiH2 + 2H- > NiH4(–) or PdD2 + 2D- > PdD4(–). (Sorry I can’t use subscripts and superscripts here or draw this in three dimensions).

        • Alan DeAngelis says:

          Sorry, the extra dashes I put in get removed in the cut and past process. So, I’ll rewrite it as NiH4(-2) and PdH4(-2).

  4. Ben says:

    Per comment section on E-Cat World

    My name is Ryan Garino.

    Our investment group, the citadel investment group has been very interested in Defcalion for many months and 2 weeks ago we were invited to witness the birth of a new world.

    We witnessed a start of something that will change the world forever. Because of contracts signed with Defcalion we can not say anything specific about the details, but the reactor works. We are investing millions into this project which we believe will start a new world era. An era of power to the poor, water in the deserts and a green technology that goes far beyond what we see in the world now.

    I believe this will take mankind into the future with new hope, belief, and positivity. The reactor started with no problem and we had people watching over it 24/7. It ran from we started and it still ran 3 days later. We are 100% sure this is going to change our planet forever and take us into the LENR era of mankind.

    Best regards
    Ryan Garino. Co head of Convertibles.

    See Ryan’s on-line profile at Citadel Investment Group here


    Citadel Denies Statement of “Ryan Garino”

    ECAT World

  5. Ben says:

    CERN Could be About to Start Researching LENR Following Recent Colloquium

    • Alan DeAngelis says:

      What’s the COP?

      • alaincoe says:

        COP is coefficient of performance, this mean the quantity of energy produced by the system, divided by the quantity consumed…
        if COP>1 this produce energy… in theory with good perfect engineering this could be autonomous energy source… in practice, to have an autonomous energy source, either you need to be able to use heat as input, and recycle the produced heat as input, with a dividend that you can use to run a thermal engine (the gazeous Ni+H reactors are this kind, and the heat recycling allow self-sustain mode).
        If you need mechanical or electric energy, you probably need to use a thermal engine, thus you need a system with a good COP, and high temperature… is like early electrolysis cold fusion you heat only by 5C about 30C room temperature, you would have a carnot efficiency about 1%, and thus would need a COP>>100… while the COP where about 5-30% at that time.
        Ni+H reactors working with heat input, at high temperature, with COP>>2, were the needed breakthrough to make autonomous energy source.

        it is also (and maybe that is the correct usage) used for heat pump, where it is the quantity of heat produced by the pump, divided by the quantity of energy used to feed the pump. unlike the above COP, this one does not count the heat pumped on the cold side. a heat pump is useful, but it is not an energy source. it cannot be autonomous.

        COP is much used in alternative energy, because some strange experimenters propose machine with a COP slightly above 1, and say that they discover an energy source…

        in fact computing small COP let room for many errors, in the input energy, the output energy, and there is room for fraud, self delusion, mistakes, errors margin…
        this was the accusation of physicist against the chemist Fleishman & Pons…
        The experiment of Nasa GRC with gazeous phase, in 89, that they did not publish, were however muche better and leave no doubt . anyway they keep it in a drawer because (celani said at CERN conference this 22/03/2012) ther was no neutrons detected…

        Anyway is like Defkalion you pretend a COP of >>20, there is no room for doubt, especially if the testing condition are simple, like bare reactor tests…

        • Alan DeAngelis says:

          Thank alaincoe. You have me thinking now that COP may not be the term I should be using. Perhaps their goal is to generate electricity directly from the moving plasma. So, the goals of the hot fusion camp and the cold fusion camp may be quit different (So, the terminology may be different).

          • Alan DeAngelis says:

            PS What I really would like to know is: Are they getting more energy out than they’re putting in with these smaller hot fusion reactors? I remember something about an Australian group exceeding breakeven with some sort of small hot fusion reactor.

  6. Bård Havre says:

    The notion that hightech expensive devices shall outperform the simple E-cat in the short run is farfetched, there is only one way for prices to go after the market has opened up, and that is down. Dollars per kilowatthours is the only thing that counts. Unless a company manages to cover the entire field, carpetbombing it with patents, it is not likely that one company can control the market, and demand exorbitant prices for their products. Like cellular phones, the market will eventually be dominated by a few large corporations, who will be making huge profits in the beginning, but all in all they will be small compared to the rest of the economy. Migration of the technology into other fields, like automotive will make some changes, but will not change the overall picture of fierce competition, and the usual survival of the fittest. So the future looks good for the general consumers, not so good for fossil fuel. As for myself, I live in Norway, we have oil up to our eyeballs, so for the moment it is great, but I suspect we will have to start working in the near future.

    • Thomas Baccei says:


      Perhaps you are right. My idea is based on the fact that most researchers other than Rossi and DGT produce low power, and despite the fact that there are so many positive results, it is still not easy to initiate or control a reaction. Reading the various reports which include electron microscope images makes it clear that the reactions occur in small localized areas. Therefore I conclude that the material itself, its configuration and architecture might play a very key role in realizing the LEARN potential. Sophisticated nano engineering would likely require a significant industrial base to achieve. Hope you never have to work, but after a time you might try it to control Northern european ennui!
      Thanks for your thoughts, and perhaps it will play out the way you describe.

      • alaincoe says:

        From the various experiments, and the various available devices, added with the old strange experiments that could be LENR (like exploding wires neutrons, cracking rock neutrons, solar flare 50GeVparticles, South African coke factory transmutations, japanese oil electrolysis transmutations, strange transmutation in irak oil reforming experiments , …among those cited by Larsen in his slides, by srivastava at CERN) it seems that LENR is not so rare, not difficult to trigger.
        the success of Rossi and DGT, that rediscover the same phenomenons, in different conditions (DGT conditions seems different from Rossi, higher pressure, temp, various tested catalysts, different stability/time parameters) seems to show that it is not so complex for engineers to reinvent, while you know the key directions…
        the nanoparticle are not even so nanometric (just micrometric according to DGT), even if surface state is probably important. Since it worked with electrolysis, or with gaz without catalyst (see CERN conf about ZrCuNi@900C, better than DGT reactor), the catalyst migh not be so surprizing, just creating atomic hydrogen, changing loading, and maybe creating protons/electrons flux. not so hard to recreate, if you know existing catalyst used for hydrogen production/consumption, and based on past active research.

        the problem of LENR is the blacklisting of researchers, the no-funding, and the lack of imagination of the few (japanese) businesses that funded, but with clear application.
        anyway, as celani said, there is no more absolute need of funding, since now it can evolve alone… lack of funding will slow the discoveries, not block them.

      • Bård Havre says:

        I am very pro-Rossi, and hope that he will succeed. LENR will however eventually create winners and losers in the energy field, and I am not very optimistic on behalf of Norway. The present administration seems hellbent on exploitation of fossil fuel wherever they can find it in the world (Statoil is deep in oil sand in Canada), and the prime minister Jens Stoltenberg recently said not to worry, we have oil and gas for a hundred years, there is plenty of time to establish new industry to replace our oil boom based welding shops along the western coast, employing tens of thousands of people. In the meantime we spend about 20 billion dollars annually of the oil profits inshore, mostly on health care and schools/kindergarten, keeping unemployment down. In addition we spend another 20 billion outside the budget, on hardware in the North sea and on land terminals, so we are really laying all our eggs in one basket. I have already told the state secretary of finance as much, and received a “Thank You very much” in return, but so far the oil drum has not missed a beat. As for myself I am retired and work as I please, but as I plan to attend the 200th anniversary of The Norwegian Tourist Association on Galdhøpiggen in 2068, I am a little worried about my pension.

  7. psi says:

    As usual, you guys are on the cutting edge of thinking through the larger implications of the imminent LENR-LEARN revolution.

  8. Brad Arnold says:

    For large energy generation, LENR (LEARN) is great, but for small amounts of power (like powering computer chips or cell phones for example) this technology looks more promising:

  9. kwhilborn says:

    Excellent article.

    Many seem to forget LENR is a field advancing despite “Andrea Rossi”. It is nice to hope he can control LENR and will shock the world, but it is more practical to endorse LENR research and hope a multi billion dollar look at LENR today will lead to quicker and better scientifically accepted results.

    Andrea Rossi is not helping research, as his antics fuel the skeptics.

    We have a power that is very close to providing very very cheap and clean energy to the world, and people refuse to talk about it because it has a bad reputation. It deserves a better reputation fast.

    -Imagine 600 million smog producing cars and trucks replaced by a smog free clean air variety.

    -Imagine fresh country air in the middle of any city.

    -Imagine global warming halted.

    -Imagine buying a car that never requires refueling. A lifetime of fuel is built right in.

    -Imagine cheap desalination providing water to deserts and ocean villages worldwide.

    -Imagine lives saved from clean water, food, and fresh air.

    -Imagine 1kg of Nickel = 200 000 barrels of oils. Nickel is fifth most common element on earth.

    -Imagine no oil wars.

    -Imagine the middle east becoming “friendlier” to endorse their new non oil economies.

    -Imagine a resurgence of giant airship flying hotels (BLIMPS) as LENR energy provides the heat and Helium necessary to keep them powered easily.

    -Imagine prices drop on everything as manufacturing costs and transportation costs are drastically reduced for most all items.

    – Imagine the business booms. People say it could hurt governments, but realistically governments will make their money on other fronts. It will be a boom above all booms.

    -Imagine cruises much cheaper and the ships go at five times the speed. Sailboats would only be for enthusiasts and not for people scrimping on fuel. Everyone will want a hydrofoil or powerboat.

    -Imagine retiring or living in the middle of your lake on a boat with enough power to provide a comfortable environment with televisons and computers.


    Imagine all this is possible within a few years. We are close. Support research.

  10. Anony Mole says:

    The beauty of the silicon or integrated circuit chip is that it forms a foundation, which, in itself, is not directly consumable or useful. But it provides the platform for follow on industries, the value-add industries that then take the IC chips and turns them into useful products: PCs, phones, cameras, CPUs for autos, etc. If I follow what you’re saying Tom, then perhaps, LENR type fuel manufacturing might progress along the same lines. The mere layperson is incapable of producing their own computer chips, but given a sack full they can build end user products from them. Given a sack of LENR fuel modules, countless end products might be engineered and produced by the LENR value-add industry. Evocative thinking. (My first thought was self powered integrated circuits…) And as the energy industry is at least as large as the silicon industry there would be thousands of broad application and niche products that would spring up to fill existing and future needs. Sounds like a new frontier to me. Per the funding – maybe you could help direct effort to fund such endeavors at .

    • Thomas Baccei says:

      Considering the engineering and research data on various types of LEARN cells, the physical qualities of the fuel itself seems to be the most important variable in determining the strength and longevity of any reaction, or even whether one occurs. Considering the growing consensus that nano particles are required and a very special structure, and that physical changes happen at the “hot” spots, where the powerful reaction is happening. It just seems likely that the 3D architecture of the fuel is much more important than the exact substances involved, and that very difficult problems remain to be solved. Just putting nickle and hydrogen together as powder produces weak and short lived results. Putting together a macro sized piece of fuel in which the nano scale architecture is controlled and tailored to long lasting and strong energy production will be require considerable manufacturing effort. I can envision “grades” of fuel being sold in a modular design, so that someone could buy the equivalent of 1000 gallons of gasoline in a cell the size of a D cell and put it in their new fangled car, or pop it out and put it in their camping generator, or heating system. Very expensive cells would last a LONG time, and produce a LOT of power. Cheaper cells would be more “disposable”, less power, shorter life span etc. Recycling would be convenient and mandatory. But someone has to manufacture these fuel cells, and my guess is that it would require a sophistication on the level of the microchip industry. Silicon, and nickle and hydrogen are cheap, but the techniques and equipment need to create the finished product are sophisticated, patentable and will only be possible by large, well funded companies (or governments, but governments would SUCK at doing it, and we are back to the MFC: Our military does NOT design fighter planes, or tanks etc. but buys from specialized vendors) So, my argument in this article is that there is PLENTY of profit potential in LEARN, and in fact all of our fantasies of a liberating “poeple’s energy” are NOT likely. However, that is GOOD news, since it will take large industry, large R&D budgets and many years to make the transition from a “low energy, lab curiosity” to a viable, NON POLLUTING, and LIMITLESS source of energy, and of course, that will ONLY happen if there is a huge and undeniable pot of gold at the end of the R&D rainbow. But, happily I think there is one!

      As to Rossi and Defkalion, in my humble opinion, there is no possible course for the rest of us but to ignore them. If they have made some huge advance, it likely they need time, money and big partners to realize the potential of LEARN. In a technology as huge as this potentially is, you can pretty much stop counting on patents etc. to assure your success. If they reveal a viable, genuine but half baked first product without the support of some HUGE partners they would quickly be outpaced, overrun and left in the history books. So, there flirtatious style has at least a bit of credibility to it. I myself would have been MUCH MORE SECRET than they have been until I had Boeing, Intel and Mitsubishi (or the equivalent ) as locked in partners.

      • Anony Mole says:

        This is sounding a lot more like science and industry now. Thanks for your insight.

  11. Brad Arnold says:

    When Leonardo and Defkalion come out with their LENR Ni-H reactors, they will (and are planning on) a big head start. What you are suggesting is going to come naturally when successful commercialization occurs. Why paint the fence when you can get others to do it for you?

    It is just like all those Greens insisting that legislation be passed forcing companies to cut emissions, when the best method is to invent a clean cheaper method of energy production, so that cutting emissions is done by the marketplace voluntarily to save money.

    BTW: This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers:

    Here is a survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization:

    I’d like to close by saying that Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons were undone by the hot fusion community at MIT. In my opinion, it is inefficient to appeal to the scientific community (or the political community either) for more LENR recognition. It didn’t work last time, and it probably won’t work this time either. When those supposed men of science smell money and prestige by delving into the LENR field, they will come running faster than a dog who smells a steak.

    • Alan DeAngelis says:

      Yeah Brad. I’m old enough to remember the gang raping of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons (and anyone who supported F&P). LENR prevailed IN SPITE of all the obstacles put before it over the past 23 years (they never anticipated a Rossi). So, why seek a seal of approval now form the very people who got it totally wrong (and the Johnny come latelies who say F&P made no significant contribution to the field) after all the work (all the blood sweat and tears) has been done?

  12. Pingback: Framing the Debate | E-Cat News Live Feed

  13. Ben says:

    Video presentations at CERN by Yogendra Srivastava and Francesco Celani now available on CERN web site, including full audio and video.

    Yogendra Srivastava –
    Francesco Celani –

    Y.E. Kim and Dr. George Miley will present this afternoon, 03/23/2012, accordingly to the schedule from NETS. If available, these presentations will be broadcast at (updated, previous URL incorrect)

    Kim Y. E. * 3:30 p.m. CDT – 4:30 EDT – 8:30 CET
    Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles [#3006]
    Possibility of cryogenic ignition of deuteron fusion in micro/nano-scale metal particles is described based on nuclear fusion theory for Bose-Einstein condensation of deuterons in metal. Experimental tests of hypothesis and predictions of the theory are also discussed.

    Yang X. Miley G. * 3:50 p.m. CDT – 4:50 EDT – 8:50 CET
    A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) [#3051]
    Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell has been verified, confirming nuclear reactions provide output energy. Neglecting unlikely chemical reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to negligible power input with gas loading.

    • Anony Mole says:

      Ben, any idea where the recording or transcript of Miley’s presentation is? I’ve poked around and found nothing so far. They offered up everything else, but this last day’s video is no where to be found.

Comments are closed.