[REQ_ERR: OPERATION_TIMEDOUT] [KTrafficClient] Something is wrong. Enable debug mode to see the reason. LENR explained | The End Of Petroleum
Summary:  Cold Fusion/LENR Is Not Fusion.  It is Chemical.  It is Hydrino Catalysis 
There are numerous companies trying to work on “low-energy nuclear  reactions” (LENR).  For a summary of the cold fusion, read this simple article. Here is a summary of what you need to know.  
  1. Cold fusion has no theoretical support.  No nuclear physics theory allows cold fusion. Some LENR researchers claim they make neutron-free nuclear energy AND others say they make cold neutrons that are harmless.   Conversely, chemical hydrino catalysis has 28 years of experimental work and massive experimental support from at least 100 hundreds scientists.  Hydrinos are supported theoretically by Maxwell’s equations – Mills theory (GUTCP) involves no new physics per se, but a discovery of the architectural structure of the electron using existing physics.   Mills uses existing proven physics.  
  2. Fusion – by all scientific understanding – requires massive temperatures and pressures and nuclear by-products.  Fusion will see neutron signatures – neutrons are deadly.  In cold fusion, we don’t have the right environment for fusion and we don’t see nuclear signatures like neutrons. 
  3. Dr. Mills has been stating for 27 years that cold fusion is an accidental reproduction of hydrino catalysis.  However, Pons and Fleischmann did not do their homework. See the letter at the bottom of the page where Fleischmann just shrugs his shoulders at his colleague saying “maybe there is something to Mills?”
  4. Anyone making LENR devices is playing around with hydrogen and metals, exactly what you need for hydrino creation.  
  5. Any company claiming to make heat from LENR will be off-gassing hydrino H2[1/4] gas (input is hydrogen, output is smaller hydrogen (hydrino) paired with itself to make dihydrino gas).   Gas Choromatography and other chemical tests can easily prove this.   If you want to see extensive world-class science see the gas chromotography results and many other tests Brilliant Light Power has proved they make a new state of hydrogen.  The US Department of Defense affiliated labs ran tests independently before they licensed hydrino energy (see video here) from Brilliant Light Power.  WR Grace a multi-billion dollar chemical has proven hydrino signatures. 

Conclusion: the output of any LENR device can be tested and it will show hydrino off-gassing.



Who are the LENR companies?

There are many.  Clean Planet is new circa 2019 (funded by Mitsibushi, Nissan and others).  Brillouin Energy is raising again (private investors).  Deneum is raising and already has a crypto currency tied to energy.  Leonardo Corporation is Rossi and the infamous e-Cat. Go to their websites and science sections.  In this page we show examples of how they are really making hydrinos by accident.  Hydrogen + Catalyst = Hydrino.  There is nothing nuclear about any of this.  In this page we cover Clean Planet – which started with Japanese researchers – and Brillouin Energy –  but analysis of the others shows they are doing similar things.  



Are you a potential investor in LENR?

From a consumer point of view, the safety of any “LENR” device that claims to be nuclear when it isn’t nuclear would be hazardous.   From an investor point of view, a company breaking patents inadvertently on hydrino science and technology is uninvestible.  From a scientific point of view, LENR researchers have been extremely unprofessional and should not be funded – there are more than a hundred articles in established journals you can’t miss them. 

A literature review is expected from a high school lab report. In almost three decades why are scientists not reading journal articles in Hydrogen Energy when they are playing with hydrogen energy?   It is perplexing.  Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will see that Martin Fleiscmann just shrugged his shoulders when a colleague Melvin Miles told him Dr. Mills is very brilliant and there might be something to his theory.


What are hydrinos?

Hydrinos are just smaller forms of hydrogen. They come in many sizes each with a size 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, a step smaller than regular hydrogen. These steps are due to to the way electrons work (beautiful, but beyond our scope here).  You can’t predict hydrinos with the old theory of Quantum Mechanics.  Mills theory – The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) – predicts hydrinos, tells you what catalysts you can use to make them and what energy output you’ll get when they are made.    



Is the hydrino reaction a chemical or nuclear reaction? 

Chemical.  This is the most powerful chemical reaction known to mankind.  Here the catalyst is the molecule water – in breaking it’s bonds it can accept energy from atomic hydrogen.  There are just two steps, hydrogen transfering energy out to a catalyst (atomic resonant transfer), and then hydrogen falling to a lower stable level. Both steps release energy.  The first step we will skip for now, but the second step is the same as a glass falling from a table, the falling is releasing potential energy).  There are many catalysts.  Some are molecules  (e.g. H2O or  NaH) and others are atomic (e.g. metals like Potassium, Calcium, Nickel).
Are Hydrinos validated to exist by experiments?  

 Major chemical firms like WR Grace have validated hydrinos in their own labs. See  endofpetroleum.com/proof    The fact that hydrinos are real, means quantum mechanics is wrong.  There is going on 30 years of experimental evidence in 110+ journal articles.  The conclusion is that Dr. Mills is as important as Newton, Maxwell or Einstein to the future of science, and will likely be considered the greatest scientist in human history.  There are 200 scientists who have done work in this area.  Here are just a few.    


Historical perspective between LENR and Hydrino Catalysis

This topic has a huge history.   The 1994 BBC documentary “Close to the sun BBC”  featured Mills and cold fusion researchers (Pons & Fleischmann).   The ironic history of cold “fusion” intersects with that of hydrino-catalysis.  Mills tried to tell them then, but he was so so far ahead of his time nobody believed him.  There are of course other reasons (Mills is not in academia and with some comments by Nobel prize winners many refuse to look at his work).  Science is done by human beings which makes it a human endevour: politics, psychology, and social factors set agendas and determine outcomes.  This all has prevented a scientific revolution from beginning. 

Why do LENR researchers get excess heat?

Because they are accidentally creating hydrino reaction in their cells. They do not understand what is going on.  Thus, they cannot optimize the conditions (i.e. catalysts needed) but still they may be able to get large heat gains. 

Hydrino catalysis is extremely easy to create.  Gil Crouse the Chief Aerospace Engineer at Boeing has reproduced it by himself. Hydrinos are easily detected by any laboratory in the world once they know it exists!  Many teams have accidentally recreated hydrino catalysis without knowing it – one more from a year ago.  


What is the evidence that Japanese LENR researchers are generating hydrinos?

No Nuclear Signatures 

A six institution collaboration in Japan tried to verify the existence of the Anomalous Heat Effect AHE in nano-metal and hydrogen gas interactions.   They did not see neutrons.  A fusion reaction will produce neutrons – in a quantity with 20 Watts excess heat that would kill the researchers.




Dr. Takahashi one of their lead researchers admits in a recent interview:

If cold fusion is real, the heavy water electrolysis should emit 2.45 MeV neutrons by deuterium-deuterium fusion as Steve Jones of BYU claimed. This was the common sense effect that mainstream nuclear physics people (I was one of them) would look for.

Curiosity moved me to try neutron detection with spectroscopy, which I was very familiar with, by heavy water electrolysis with palladium cathode.                                                         

After several weeks in trial…the observed neutron level was very weak. If..anomalous thermal power (heat) in a few watts level was by cold deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions,1012 neutrons per watt per second were lethal, but my observed neutron level was very very weak at 10-13 level of required d-d fusion reactions.

The Japanese work is the academic support for funding of a new company in January 2019 called Clean Planet.  They are doing hydrino catalysis (with hydrogen and nickel!), the same as Randell Mills in the first days of 1989 except they still think it is some nuclear process.    


 High energy Per H Atom |Assuming No Chemical Reaction Exists

The energy of 50ev+ per H atom is perfectly in the range of hydrino catalysis. They state “not explained by known chemical reactions.”  There is two decades of scientific papers that show the hydrino energy.  As we show above, hydrino catalysis to a 1/4 radius hydrino H[1/4] can generate 204ev and is a well known chemical reaction.  Hundreds of scientists know about it, and anyone who reads the Journal Of Hydrogen Energy can’t miss it!    

Heat Results With Regular Hydrogen

If Cold Fusion is real than deuterium should produce fusion, but hydrogen is unlikely to.  However, the Japanese research shows that deuterium is not needed.  See the table and gas used D- Deuterium H – Hydrogen.   


Needing Metals Known for Hydrino Creation to Get Extra Heat

Palladium by itself did not give extra heat, but with nickel and other metallic powders Japanese researchers did get extra heat. See the catalysts list for hydrino creation higher up on this page.






Hydrino Catalysis Is Widely Reproduced  In History – By Tens of Independent Researchers

Early Collaborators of Brilliant Light Power are outlined in Dr. Jansson’s Master’s thesis from 1997, available from Rowan University.   (Dr. Jansson is a now a Professor at Bucknell University who still supports Mills!). Some of those results are listed in the table on the right.  As you can see, hydrino energy gains are normal and were reproduced at many national labs.  While LENR is hard to reproduce, there are hundreds of reproductions of hydrino catalysis because it is a real phenomena in nature. 



Interestingly, in the 1990’s Thermacore – an early commercial partner with Brilliant Light Power – was doing a lot of electrolytic cells with nickel. Here is a quote from our book.
Laboratory Work Performed Energy Gain
Idaho National Engineering Lab Electrolysis, XPS 8.5
Chalk River National Lab (Canada) Electrolysis 1.3
NASA – Lewis Electrolysis 1.7
Brookhaven National Lab Electrolysis ?
MIT Lincoln Lab Electrolysis 4.0
Pennyslvania State University Gas Cell 20.0
Moscow Power Engineering Electrolysis 2.5
Thermacore Electrolysis 21
Westinghouse Electrolysis 1.5

The kicker, however, was that the electrolytic cell that produced 50 W of excess heat used 10 kilometers (40 pounds) of nickel wire. The reaction occurred on the nickel surface at a power density of only 2 mW/cm2. Even though a single gram of nickel had the surface area of a tennis court, they were unable to design a cell that used nickel more efficiently. To make the reactor commercially feasible Thermacore needed 10-100 times more heat output..

Holverstott, Brett. Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy (p. 85). KRPHistory. Kindle Edition.

What is the evidence Brillouin Energy is generating hydrino heat?


They use regular hydrogen and nickel. 

This is again, the typical setup for Mills 1990’s cells.   


They have no published papers in physics journals.  

MAJOR RED FLAG.  4/5 of their “publications” justifying their science  come from one issue of a single journal.  They claim they are “peer-reviewed.”  The published 4 articles at once in a “special issue” of the Indian Journal of Current Science, which publishes articles on “Quality of Ph.D. Holders in India” to “Mango Fruit Borers.”   Here is the issue where Brillouin “published.”  


They claim a net 2x in/out but claim a 100x theoretical expectation

They are are basically generating hydrinos at a very poor rate, that was done in 1990 with similar cells.  A claim of potential 100COP appears fabricated for marketing as they have no scientific literature behind them.


They claim to make neutrons that are harmless and cold. 

They are generating 2x input to output energy.  That is typical of mixing beakers and test tube of hydrino catalysis.

But it gets worse, they claim to make a new neutron:

LENR does not create high-energy neutrons. The low energy neutrons created in LENR remain localized within the core of the reactor.

The theoretical fiction continues, this looks like outright fraud.  Even if they believe this, not writing a single article on this mechanism indicates they probably don’t believe it either:

Mass is created and a proton is converted to a neutron, causing a tremendous loss of energy in the system. 1H (protium) is converted to 2H (deuterium), 2H (deuterium) is converted to 3H (tritium) and 3H (tritium) is converted to 4H (quatrium). This results in net energy out as the 4H (quatrium) rapidly beta decays to a release of (largely) heat, plus a tiny amount of 4He (helium) into the system.



What about SRI International?

SRI International sounds official, but they are just a testing facility that serves as validators for Brillouin devices. They just validate extra heat is being made. From their reports we can see ideal hydrino catalysis environments.

Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) can produce thermal power when Ni, and other metal, coated tubes are stimulated using fast rise-time pulses. These experiments operated in H2 or He gas from 200°C – 600°C.  




What about transmutation?

Reports also show that LENRs can produce local surface temperatures of 4,000-5,000 K and boil metals (palladium, nickel and tungsten).  The cathodes can have pitting and strange melting effects. That is because of the intense heat generated!   

Transmutation – the claim that elements are being converted to other elements – is a claim of nuclear cold fusion. This is Dr. Mills response to that claim:

Assuming no analytical error which can not be ruled out, the reported amounts are trace without corresponding nuclear signatures that would be easily detected.  Contamination and concentration of trace impurities by electrolysis, heat cycling, diffusion, field acceleration, and other methods fits that data well.  Moreover, even if there are isotope ratios that are abnormal, then why resort to heavy element fusion or any nuclear reaction as the only explanation when it is known to require a supernova to create those conditions?   The reactions are at ordinary temperatures and conditions, and there are no required nuclear signatures.  


Why not consider i) differential reaction kinetics based on the kinetic isotope effect regarding isotope dependent bond energies, vibration and rotational energies, and migration rates, ii) the mass dependence of diffusion through any medium, and ii) the mass dependence of field acceleration and mechanical energies and forces.  After all deuterium is made by electrolysis of ordinary water that exploits the higher rater for H2O to electrolyze over D2O.  Deuterium is not commercially produced by fusion of hydrogen that is difficult and has an incredibly slow rate even at the core of the Sun.  Membrane separation is another common physical method to enrich naturally occurring isotopes.  Uranium enrichment may be preformed by this method as well as by i) differential centrifugal forces based on mass, and ii) laser ionization and selective separation based on ionization potential and/or differential in field acceleration of the uranium isotope ions.  Differences in ionization potential and electric field acceleration can be effective at isotope enrichment.  Do some metal purification and isotope enrichment research; I’m sure that you will find plenty of “LENR” devices.  No nuclear signatures with them as well.  There is clearly no fusion or transmutation based on the absence of gamma and particle detection as well as an absence of a difference in claimed heat between Hydrogen and Deuterium. 


Mills responses to LENR (you can talk to End Of Petroleum scientists for in-depth technical explanations)  


Why did Pons and Fleischmann think about all of this?

Sadly, as letters from Miles to Fleischmann show, they never really investigated Mills’ theory even though it was available for a decade. 

Mills is arguably greater than Newton by dismantling quantum mechanics and unifying physics, and has completed what Einstein hoped to do.  It is unfortunate that Fleischmann, or in the quantum realm Hawking, did not get to meet one of the greats living in their time.

Mills for those who don’t know is the dismantler of hocus pocus science (electron in two places at one time, multiple universes exists at the same time and observing the electron makes one of those alternate realities come into existence).   He blew up Quantum Mechanics for good on January 28th, 2014 with this blast.  He affirms that Maxwell’s equations, Newtons’ laws and special relativity are sufficient to describe the universe in every form.