French physicist Jean-Paul Biberian has spent three decades investigating cold fusion and LENR, from palladium experiments to nickel-alloy nanoparticles operating near 1,000°C. In a November 2026 AltSci interview, he described a reported 10-watt excess-heat result from 10 grams of nanopowder, plans for a 100-watt experiment, and a proposed several-kilowatt reactor. His work now focuses on scaling laboratory results through advanced materials, high-temperature calorimetry, and reactor engineering.

A Surface Scientist Enters Cold Fusion

Jean-Paul Biberian’s laboratory occupies just 36 square meters of his home near Avignon, France, but it contains the equipment needed to investigate one of the most controversial questions in energy research. The French physicist and honorary professor at Aix-Marseille University prefers working directly with instruments, adjusting experimental conditions, and watching measurements develop. His background is in nuclear and electronics engineering, surface crystallography, thin-film physics, and catalysis. Early doctoral research examined vibrations of atoms at graphite surfaces and the growth of thin lead films deposited on gold. He subsequently worked at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he studied surface structures and catalytic processes. Those subjects provided a foundation for understanding adsorption, crystal defects, metal interfaces, and the behavior of hydrogen at solid surfaces.

Biberian first became interested in cold fusion on March 23, 1989, when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced that they had observed unusual heat production in an electrochemical experiment. He recognized the potential implications immediately, but the scientific backlash discouraged further discussion within much of the research community. His own experiments didn’t begin until 1993, when a colleague introduced him to Francis Forrat, a researcher associated with the French Atomic Energy Commission at Cadarache. Forrat had developed an approach involving solid-state proton conductors, allowing hydrogen isotopes to move through heated crystals under electrical excitation. For Biberian, who had extensive experience with solid-state physics but relatively little electrochemistry, the method offered an accessible way to investigate the reported phenomenon.

His first experiments used lanthanum-aluminate crystals containing lanthanum vacancies. The specimens measured approximately two square centimeters in area and 1.5 millimeters thick, and were compressed between tantalum electrodes inside a stainless-steel chamber approximately 35 millimeters in diameter. Tungsten wire supplied heat, while the chamber could be evacuated to approximately 0.01 Torr before introducing hydrogen or deuterium. Applying direct current encouraged hydrogen isotopes to migrate through the crystal, producing visible red, white, and blue regions associated with changes in the material. Biberian compared the thermal behavior of hydrogen-loaded and deuterium-loaded specimens and reported excess heat in the latter. He subsequently acknowledged that the initial calorimetry was relatively crude, with manually recorded measurements and limited precision.

More sophisticated experiments followed through his collaboration with electrochemist Georges Lonchampt. Their apparatus used two lanthanum-aluminate crystals around a common cathode, with a surrounding tungsten heater whose electrical resistance provided information about temperature. The researchers reported thermal effects continuing for almost two hours after electrical excitation stopped. In pulsed experiments, they described approximately 150 milliwatts of apparent excess heat following 120-milliwatt electrical pulses lasting one second and repeated once per minute. The interpretation depended on the duty cycle, thermal response, and accounting of electrical input. Nevertheless, these experiments established themes that have remained central to Biberian’s work: material preparation, hydrogen transport, surface condition, and the difficulty of accurately measuring small thermal effects.

Palladium, Hydrogen Permeation, and an Unexpected Explosion

Palladium became another important experimental material because of its unusual ability to absorb hydrogen and deuterium. Hydrogen molecules can dissociate at its surface, allowing hydrogen to enter and diffuse through the metal lattice. Biberian investigated hollow palladium tubes in which hydrogen isotopes could pass through the tube wall under controlled pressure differences. In one arrangement, gas entered the interior while the surrounding chamber was evacuated, creating a concentration gradient across the metal. During the interview, he recalled an experiment that produced excess heat for at least seven days. He became particularly interested in the possibility that hydrogen movement, rather than simply its concentration inside the metal, influenced the reported effect.

That interest had an important precedent in a 1989 NASA experiment conducted by Gustave C. Fralick, Arthur J. Decker, and James W. Blue. Their apparatus used a palladium-alloy hydrogen purifier, a device designed to separate hydrogen isotopes from other gases by allowing them to diffuse through a heated metal membrane. The researchers investigated possible nuclear signatures but didn’t detect neutron counts significantly above background. They did, however, report unusual thermal behavior when deuterium was evacuated from the purifier. The temperature response differed from what they expected during ordinary gas removal, and comparison experiments with hydrogen didn’t reproduce the same observation. The NASA experiment didn’t establish a nuclear mechanism, but it provided another example of unexpected thermal behavior associated with hydrogen-isotope transport through palladium.

Biberian encountered a much more dramatic event in September 2004, shortly before organizing the 11th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Marseille. He was operating an electrolysis cell containing a hollow palladium cathode, with finely divided palladium black placed inside the tube. Deuterium generated at the electrode could move through the palladium wall toward its interior. One morning, he arrived to find that the computer had stopped recording data and the glass apparatus had shattered. The electrode itself appeared largely undamaged. Biberian initially wondered whether an unusually energetic nuclear event might have occurred, but he couldn’t determine the cause from the available evidence.

Years later, he collaborated with engineer Jacques Ruer to reconsider the incident using conventional combustion physics. Their 2018 analysis investigated the possibility that hydrogen and oxygen had accumulated in a configuration capable of producing a powerful detonation. They examined shock wave amplification by coherent energy release, known as SWACER, in which combustion and pressure-wave propagation reinforce one another. Their published conclusion identified chemical detonation as the probable explanation for the destroyed apparatus. The episode illustrates an important feature of Biberian’s experimental history: an unusual observation can remain real even when subsequent investigation changes the proposed mechanism. It also underscores the safety requirements associated with hydrogen systems, particularly when gas can accumulate inside confined metal structures.

CleanHME and the Development of Nickel Nanopowders

Biberian’s most important recent materials program emerged through CleanHME, a European Horizon 2020 collaboration investigating energy effects in hydrogen–metal systems. The project operated from August 2020 through January 2025, involved 16 academic, scientific, and industrial organizations, and received approximately €5.51 million in European Union funding against a total budget of €5.62 million. Biberian worked with researchers including Robert Michel, Christophe Le Roux, Mathieu Valat, Sébastien Bucher, Arnaud Kodeck, Per Sjöberg, Jacques Ruer, and Damien Chaudanson. Their objective was to develop and characterize inexpensive metal nanocomposites capable of interacting with hydrogen under controlled thermal conditions. For Biberian, the collaboration offered a way to move beyond costly palladium toward nickel-based materials that could potentially be manufactured in larger quantities.

The starting materials are layered double hydroxides related to hydrotalcite, containing nickel, aluminum, and, in some formulations, copper. One reported precursor has the composition Ni₅.₂₅Cu₀.₇₅Al₂CO₃(OH)₁₆·4H₂O, corresponding to a nickel-to-copper molar ratio of seven to one. Another uses nickel without copper. Thermal treatment removes water, carbon dioxide, and hydroxyl groups, converting the layered structure into mixed oxides. Subsequent treatment in hot hydrogen reduces nickel-containing oxides and produces metallic nickel or nickel-alloy nanoparticles dispersed within an amorphous alumina matrix. Biberian describes the resulting particles as approximately 5–20 nanometers across, creating extensive interfaces between the metallic regions, oxide support, and surrounding gas.

Surface activation is critical because nickel oxidizes readily, and its oxide layer can inhibit hydrogen access to the underlying metal. The preparation procedure therefore combines heating and hydrogen exposure to reduce the oxide, forming water that must be removed from the system. Published work describes reduction treatments across approximately 300–700°C, while further high-temperature processing changes the material’s appearance and properties. At around 900°C, the treated powder becomes black and magnetic. Biberian emphasizes that the chemistry is comparatively straightforward, but the thermal treatment requires precision. Heating too much, too little, or under the wrong gas conditions can change the material’s behavior. That makes activation history as important as nominal composition when comparing experimental results.

The alumina support also distinguishes these materials from earlier Japanese nanocomposite experiments involving other oxide matrices, including zirconia. Biberian initially limited his experiments to temperatures near 400°C, partly because of the operating conditions used in related research. He later increased the temperature and reports that excess heat became more pronounced around 700–800°C, rising further as the experiments became hotter. He credits alumina’s stability with allowing the material to withstand more demanding conditions and says he has subsequently operated above 1,000°C. Those temperatures make the research potentially relevant to industrial process heat, but they also impose requirements on reactor containment, insulation, gas handling, thermocouples, and thermal control.

Measuring Excess Heat at High Temperature

To investigate the nanopowders, Biberian and his collaborators developed a custom high-temperature heat-flow calorimeter based on Calvet and Seebeck measurement principles. The active quartz cell sits inside a stainless-steel vacuum chamber approximately 150 millimeters long and 63 millimeters in diameter. Fifty type-K thermocouples are connected in series across the insulating structure, generating an electrical signal related to the temperature gradient and heat flowing outward from the sample. Three stainless-steel radiation shields reduce radiative losses, while a constant-temperature water bath helps stabilize the surrounding environment. Electrical power is supplied to a Kanthal heater wrapped around the experimental cell, allowing the researchers to establish controlled thermal conditions.

Calibration uses an inert alumina sample in hydrogen, with electrical heater power increased in 10-watt increments up to approximately 70 watts. The resulting thermocouple response is fitted to a calibration curve, providing a reference for estimating heat output during later experiments. The published instrument operates at temperatures up to approximately 950°C and has a stated resolution better than about 100 milliwatts. The apparatus isn’t a completely enclosed heat-flow calorimeter, however, because heat escaping through its upper flange isn’t directly measured by the thermocouple arrangement. That contribution must be addressed through calibration and environmental stability. The authors also identify changes in ambient temperature as a potential source of measurement uncertainty.

A typical experimental sequence involves heating the powder under vacuum, introducing hydrogen, and increasing heater power in steps of five or ten watts. Each operating condition may require six to eight hours to approach thermal stability, making a complete experiment a multiday undertaking. At elevated temperature, the chamber can be evacuated before another hydrogen-loading cycle begins. The researchers report that apparent excess heat often increased after repeated hydrogen-loading and evacuation cycles, approaching a plateau after approximately four cycles. This history dependence suggests that the material’s active state may depend on changes occurring during treatment, including oxide reduction, hydrogen diffusion, defect formation, or restructuring at nanoparticle interfaces.

The group’s 2024 paper describes seven powder configurations with sample masses ranging from 11.9 to 52 grams. At temperatures below approximately 600°C, most experiments produced reported excess-power signals smaller than about 200 milliwatts. At higher temperatures, the authors observed stronger responses and calculated activation energies ranging from approximately 0.6 to 1.8 electron-volts. They interpreted those values as compatible with hydrogen diffusion processes. One reported experiment continued for four days and generated nearly four megajoules of calculated excess energy from approximately 0.1 mole of metal. The authors estimated that this exceeded the chemical energy available from the reactions they considered by roughly an order of magnitude. That conclusion rests on their calorimetric measurements and chemical-energy accounting, which remain important subjects for independent verification.

From One Watt per Gram to Industrial Scalability

During the November 2026 interview, Biberian described a newer result that has become central to his development ambitions. He says approximately 10 grams of nickel-based nanopowder produced 10 watts of excess heat, equivalent to roughly one watt per gram. He now wants to increase the charge to approximately 100 grams and obtain 100 watts. A kilogram producing a kilowatt is his longer-range illustration of what maintaining that performance might make possible. The figures are attractive because the active materials are relatively inexpensive and the reported output increases with operating temperature. They also provide concrete targets against which subsequent engineering progress can be measured.

The published record requires an important distinction. Biberian’s 2024 nanopowder paper doesn’t document the specific 10-gram, 10-watt result he describes in the interview. A March 2026 CleanHME summary reports approximately 90 ± 5 milliwatts of excess power per gram of powder, about an order of magnitude below the later interview figure. The difference could reflect changes in sample preparation, operating conditions, experimental timing, or material performance, but the available records don’t establish the explanation. The one-watt-per-gram result should therefore be understood as Biberian’s report of later experimental progress rather than a published, independently verified benchmark. His hundred-watt experiment remains a target, while the kilogram-scale example is a projection.

The engineering difficulties become substantial as material quantity increases. A small powder charge can be heated relatively uniformly and exposed to hydrogen through a short diffusion path. Larger quantities introduce temperature gradients, differences in gas access, pressure losses, and variations in activation throughout the bed. Heat generated in one region can change the local temperature, potentially altering the same process responsible for the reported output. Removing heat through a reactor wall or heat exchanger creates additional gradients. Biberian compares the problem to cooking rice for one person versus ten: the ingredients may be identical, but a procedure that works at small scale doesn’t necessarily behave the same way when the quantity increases.

Reproducibility is equally important. Biberian says collaborators in Belgium and Italy have reproduced effects using the same material, although publicly available documentation doesn’t yet establish independent reproduction of his specific one-watt-per-gram result. Other research programs have reported null results in different experimental regimes, including a Google-supported investigation published in Nature in 2019 and the more recent Project Callisto program. LENR researchers dispute whether those experiments reproduced the material and loading conditions associated with positive reports. For industrial development, the practical requirement is clear: a preparation procedure must consistently produce an active material, and independent laboratories must be able to measure comparable thermal output using well-characterized calorimeters and controls.

Engineering a Practical LENR Reactor

Biberian’s work is now extending beyond individual calorimeter experiments into a collaborative reactor-development program. In 2026, Jacques Ruer, Biberian, Arnaud Kodeck, Christophe Le Roux, Robert Michel, and Mathieu Valat presented a concept called the LENR Based Reactor, or LBR. The proposed system uses hydrotalcite-derived metallic nanoparticles dispersed in alumina, with intended operating temperatures around 800–1,000°C. Its purpose is to investigate whether the reported thermal behavior can be maintained in a device designed to deliver useful heat rather than simply measure it. The team places the concept at approximately Technology Readiness Level 3, indicating experimental proof-of-concept work rather than an operating industrial product.

The proposed reactor must contain hydrogen at high temperature while maintaining uniform thermal conditions throughout the active powder. That requires gas-tight containment, compatible construction materials, reliable seals, and careful management of thermal expansion. Hydrogen must reach the active material without creating large differences in concentration or pressure across the bed. The heating system must bring the powder into the operating range, while a separate heat-transfer loop removes energy for external use. Those requirements interact: increasing heat extraction can lower the temperature of the active material, while insufficient cooling can create localized overheating. The reactor’s geometry and thermal conductivity therefore become central design variables.

Control and safety requirements are another major part of the proposal. The team identifies the need for predictable startup and shutdown, reaction-rate regulation, stable operation, and avoidance of uncontrolled temperature excursions. Material lifetime is also unresolved. Nanoparticles may change during prolonged exposure to hydrogen and high temperature through sintering, surface modification, contamination, or other processes. The design consequently includes recovery and recycling of the powder when its useful lifetime ends. Engineers will need to determine how many operating cycles the material can tolerate, whether activation can be restored, and how its performance changes over time. These measurements will influence both the technical feasibility and operating cost of a larger system.

The collaborative roadmap includes a proposed prototype capable of producing several kilowatts of heat. That is a development objective, not an achieved output. The prototype would be intended to establish economical operating procedures, characterize the powder’s lifetime, demonstrate controllability, and evaluate heat extraction under realistic conditions. It is also distinct from Biberian’s immediate hundred-gram, hundred-watt laboratory target. The two efforts address different stages of the same challenge: first establish repeatable performance as material quantity increases, then develop a reactor that can operate reliably while delivering heat to an external load. The transition from calorimeter to industrial system depends on both stages succeeding.

Laser-Treated Palladium and Elemental Changes

Biberian has also investigated unusual material changes that don’t depend on calorimetric measurements. One line of research followed experiments by Italian scientist Ubaldo Mastromatteo, who exposed palladium films to hydrogen while illuminating them with a low-power laser. Biberian obtained prepared samples and repeated the procedure during the 2020 lockdown. His published apparatus used a red laser operating at 650 nanometers with an optical power of five milliwatts. The sample was placed in a chamber approximately 30 centimeters long and 30 millimeters in diameter, evacuated to roughly 0.02 millibar and subsequently filled with hydrogen or deuterium at approximately two bar absolute pressure. The illuminated area was about four square millimeters.

Biberian extended the exposure to approximately three months, considerably longer than the two-week experiments he describes in Mastromatteo’s earlier work. Afterward, he examined the samples with colleagues in Marseille using scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The researchers found localized regions with altered surface appearance and composition. During the interview, Biberian recalled an affected area approximately 150 micrometers across, while the published paper reports a region closer to 180 micrometers. Within parts of the altered area, the measured palladium concentration had decreased substantially, and signals appeared from lighter elements including oxygen, nitrogen, nickel, iron, and other metals.

Biberian has suggested that the observations resemble a fission-like process in which palladium might be transformed into lighter elements. He also acknowledges that he doesn’t know the mechanism or the precise role of the laser. The analytical evidence establishes localized differences in surface composition, but elemental identification by SEM/EDX doesn’t independently demonstrate nuclear transmutation. Contamination, material redistribution, contributions from the substrate, and analytical artifacts must be excluded before such a conclusion can be established. Isotopic measurements would provide stronger evidence than elemental composition alone. Biberian also makes clear that he didn’t measure tritium in these experiments because he lacked the necessary analytical equipment.

The experiment is nevertheless relevant to his broader research because it concentrates attention on the microscopic behavior of hydrogen-exposed metal surfaces. A five-milliwatt laser provides little thermal power compared with the high-temperature heaters used in his nanopowder experiments, raising questions about whether illumination changes the surface electronically, structurally, or through another process. Related observations have also been reported without laser exposure. The next useful experiments would compare illuminated and unilluminated specimens, establish material provenance, examine contamination pathways, and measure isotopic composition before and after treatment. For Biberian, the result remains an experimental observation requiring further investigation rather than a completed explanation.

Stanley Pons, Palladium Cathodes, and Isotope Analysis

Biberian’s longstanding involvement in LENR has given him access to materials associated with some of the field’s earliest experiments. He joined the advisory committee for ICCF-5 in 1995, when Fleischmann and Pons were working in France, and developed a friendship with Stanley Pons. The following year, Pons considered hiring him for the Toyota-supported research laboratory, but the opportunity disappeared as the laboratory’s circumstances changed. The two remained in contact, and Pons later gave Biberian laboratory equipment and several electrodes. One was a palladium cathode that Pons said had produced substantial excess heat during electrolysis.

The electrode measured approximately 10 centimeters long and two millimeters in diameter. In 2018, Biberian examined selected regions using a Cameca secondary-ion mass spectrometer, or SIMS. The instrument directs an ion beam at the surface, removing small quantities of material and measuring the masses of ions released during sputtering. Repeating the analysis as material is removed produces a depth profile, revealing how the mass signals change beneath the surface. At one localized region, Biberian found a mass-107 signal substantially larger than mass 109. The anomalous signal decreased after approximately 1.3 micrometers of sputtering, indicating that the effect was confined to a shallow surface region.

The result attracted attention because natural silver contains two stable isotopes, silver-107 and silver-109, in nearly equal proportions. Biberian initially interpreted the unusual mass ratio as possible evidence of an altered silver isotope distribution. However, the SIMS instrument couldn’t distinguish silver-107 from palladium-107 at the required mass resolution. That limitation prevents the mass-107 signal from being identified unambiguously as silver. Subsequent inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry of dissolved surface material found only a relatively small shift in the silver isotope ratio, close to natural abundance. The measurements therefore didn’t establish nuclear transmutation, although they documented an unusual localized mass signal.

The investigation reinforces the importance of surface-sensitive analysis in Biberian’s research. The reported anomaly was confined to microscopic regions and disappeared within a shallow depth of the electrode. If unusual hydrogen–metal behavior depends on defects, deposits, grain boundaries, or other localized structures, measurements averaged across an entire specimen may miss the relevant features. Conversely, surface contamination can produce striking analytical signals that don’t reflect changes in the bulk material. Understanding the distinction requires careful sample preparation, spatially resolved measurements, isotopic identification, and suitable controls. Those methods connect directly with Biberian’s earlier expertise in surface crystallography and thin-film physics.

Lattice Energy Converters and Direct Electrical Output

Biberian’s investigations expanded into direct electrical output after former U.S. Navy researcher Frank Gordon contacted him in 2020 about a device called the Lattice Energy Converter, or LEC. The arrangement places an activated metal electrode near another conducting surface, separated by a hydrogen-containing gap. Although the electrodes don’t physically touch, an electrical potential can be measured between them. Biberian initially tried placing a bare palladium rod inside a stainless-steel tube and introducing hydrogen, but observed no voltage. He subsequently recognized that Gordon’s procedure required a specially prepared surface. After electrochemically depositing palladium onto the rod, he repeated the experiment and reported a measurable voltage.

The preparation method became an important part of his subsequent work. Biberian found that black palladium deposits were more effective than shiny deposits, suggesting that surface morphology and deposition conditions influence the electrical response. He describes successful preparations using palladium bromide dissolved in acetonitrile, while later attempts using palladium chloride were often unsuccessful. Deposit thickness, current density, plating duration, and the condition of the underlying electrode all became relevant experimental variables. These observations resemble his experience with nickel powders: the presence of a particular metal is insufficient to describe the active material without knowing how its surface was produced.

He later developed a high-temperature LEC apparatus using a quartz tube approximately 33 centimeters long and 25 millimeters in diameter. A crucible containing nanopowder sits inside the tube, with a type-K thermocouple monitoring temperature and a stainless-steel counter-electrode positioned approximately one to two millimeters above the material. Hydrogen and vacuum connections allow the gas environment to be controlled. The 2026 paper describes experiments involving nickel–bismuth nanopowder, distinct from the nickel–copper materials emphasized elsewhere in his excess-heat research. Above approximately 700°C, the researchers report both increasing thermal anomalies and electrical signals. Oscilloscope measurements revealed a DC component accompanied by irregular pulses around two to four kilohertz, with excursions near negative 30 millivolts followed by positive peaks around 80 millivolts.

Producing voltage doesn’t automatically establish a useful electrical generator. A practical LEC would need to deliver measurable current through an external load over extended periods, with a complete accounting of the electrical, thermal, and chemical energy involved. Engineers would need current–voltage curves, internal-resistance measurements, operating-lifetime data, and controls addressing thermoelectric effects, contact potentials, electrochemical gradients, and instrumentation artifacts. Biberian has discussed connecting devices in series to increase voltage or in parallel to increase current, and he has suggested long-duration, low-power applications such as medical implants. Those remain prospective applications rather than demonstrated capabilities. The immediate research objective is to determine the origin, stability, and usable magnitude of the measured electrical response.

New Materials, Induction Heating, and the Road Ahead

Biberian continues to investigate new materials and experimental techniques that could improve hydrogen loading or alter the behavior of metal surfaces. Titanium is one candidate because it readily absorbs hydrogen when its surface is clean and can form titanium dihydride, containing two hydrogen atoms per titanium atom. His earlier experience with ultrahigh-vacuum equipment included titanium sublimation pumps, which deposit fresh titanium to capture residual gases. The principal challenge is that titanium rapidly develops a stable oxide layer, making surface preparation difficult. Biberian considers the material promising but continues to concentrate on nickel because his group has already developed a high-temperature nanopowder preparation route.

He is also interested in induction-heating experiments reported by Swiss researcher Heinz B. Winzeler. The 2026 work describes nickel foil structures coated with palladium–nickel material approximately 2.6 micrometers thick, with a total reaction-material mass of about 3.01 grams. The samples were treated under vacuum and exposed to hydrogen while an induction system operated near 102 kilohertz. Winzeler reported apparent coefficients of performance between approximately 1.4 and 2.4 during experiments involving hydrogen cycling and pressure reduction. These are Winzeler’s reported findings, not results Biberian has reproduced. Biberian wants to investigate the approach because it introduces high-frequency electromagnetic excitation into an experimental system already influenced by temperature and hydrogen transport.

The induction frequency differs substantially from Biberian’s earlier experiments using rotating permanent magnets, which operated around one or two hertz and produced limited results. High-frequency induction can generate rapidly changing magnetic fields and electrical currents within the metal itself. Nickel adds another potentially relevant variable because it loses ferromagnetic order near 358°C, its Curie temperature. Whether magnetic excitation, induced currents, or the magnetic transition influence the reported thermal behavior remains unknown. A carefully controlled experiment could vary field frequency, temperature, hydrogen pressure, and sample composition to determine which conditions matter. Biberian’s interest reflects his broader approach of reproducing promising observations from other laboratories before attempting to explain them.

His most recent work also shows increasing attention to the distinction between chemical energy and reported anomalous heat. At ICCF-27 in 2026, he presented high-temperature LEC results involving solid metals and contributed to research examining chemical energies during the activation of nickel–copper hydrotalcites. That accounting is essential because reduction, oxidation, adsorption, and other material changes can release or absorb energy during an experiment. Meanwhile, the collaborative LENR Based Reactor program is moving toward high-temperature engineering, and Biberian’s own laboratory is focused on scaling powder quantities. His larger ambition is widely accessible energy, but the immediate milestones are measurable: reproducible materials, independently confirmed calorimetry, sustained thermal output, reliable control, and useful energy delivered to an external load. Those are the requirements that will determine whether his experimental program can progress from excess-heat measurements toward industrial scalability.

References

Primary Interview

• Cold Fusion & LENR: From Excess Heat to Industrial Scalability | Jean-Paul Biberian — YouTube Video Interview w/ Tim Ventura.

Biographical Background and Professional Roles

• Blog de Jean-Paul Biberian — Jean-Paul Biberian, 2018.
• ICCF-18 Conference Abstracts — International Conference on Cold Fusion, 2013. Includes Biberian’s professional biography.
• About the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science — International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
• ISCMNS Prizes — International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Documents Biberian’s 2015 Giuliano Preparata Medal.
• ISCMNS Honorary Fellows — International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Documents his 2023 Honorary Fellowship.

Early Cold Fusion Experiments and Palladium Research

• Cold Fusion — Jean-Paul Biberian. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 13, 2014, pp. 44–55.
• Results of an Attempt to Measure Increased Rates of the Reaction D-2 + D-2 Yields He-3 + n in a Nonelectrochemical Cold Fusion Experiment — Gustave C. Fralick, Arthur J. Decker, and James W. Blue. NASA Technical Memorandum 102430, 1989.
• Reanalysis of an Explosion in a LENR Experiment — Jacques Ruer and Jean-Paul Biberian. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 26, 2018, pp. 76–97.

CleanHME, Nanoparticle Materials, and Calorimetry

• Clean Energy from Hydrogen-Metal Systems — European Commission, Horizon 2020 CleanHME Project, Grant Agreement 951974, 2020–2025.
• Clean Energy from Hydrogen-Metal Systems: Project Results — European Commission CORDIS.
• Excess Heat in Nanoparticles of Nickel Alloys in Hydrogen — Jean-Paul Biberian, Robert Michel, Christophe Le Roux, Mathieu Valat, Sébastien Bucher, Arnaud Kodeck, Per J. R. Sjöberg, Jacques Ruer, and Damien Chaudanson. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 38, 2024, pp. 186–195.
• Excess Heat Evolution from Nanocomposite Samples Under Exposure to Hydrogen Isotope Gases — Akira Kitamura and collaborators. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 43, 2018, pp. 16187–16200.
• Key Scientific Achievements of the CleanHME Project — CleanHME Consortium. IWAHLM-17 Conference Abstract Book, Bergamo, Italy, 2026.

Reactor Engineering and Industrial Scalability

• A LENR Based Reactor (LBR) — Jacques Ruer, Jean-Paul Biberian, Arnaud Kodeck, Christophe Le Roux, Robert Michel, and Mathieu Valat. IWAHLM-17 Conference Abstract Book, 2026.

Laser Irradiation and Elemental Analysis

• Transmutation of Palladium Induced by Laser Irradiation — Jean-Paul Biberian, Lawrence P. Forsley, and Pamela A. Mosier-Boss. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 37, 2023, pp. 9–22.

Stanley Pons Cathode and Isotope Analysis

• Anomalous Isotopic Distribution of Silver in a Palladium Cathode — Jean-Paul Biberian. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 29, 2019, pp. 211–218.

Lattice Energy Converters and Direct Electrical Output

• Lattice Energy Converter — Frank E. Gordon and Harper J. Whitehouse. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 35, 2022, pp. 30–48. Direct article URL not confirmed.
• How to Build a LEC — Jean-Paul Biberian. IWAHLM-17 Conference Abstract Book, 2026.
• High Temperature LEC Experiments — Jean-Paul Biberian, Robert Michel, and Christophe Le Roux. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 41, 2026, pp. 19–24.
• High Temperature Lattice Energy Converter Results Observed with Solid Metals — Jean-Paul Biberian. ICCF-27 Conference Program, Niagara Falls, Canada, 2026.

Induction Heating and Emerging Experimental Methods

• Temperature Effects and Transmutations With High Frequency Induction — Heinz B. Winzeler. Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol. 41, 2026, pp. 153–161.

Independent Investigations and Scientific Assessments

• Revisiting the Cold Case of Cold Fusion — Curtis P. Berlinguette, Yet-Ming Chiang, Jeremy N. Munday, Thomas Schenkel, David K. Fork, Ross Koningstein, and Matthew D. Trevithick. Nature, Vol. 570, 2019, pp. 45–51.
• Electrochemical Loading Research Final Report: No Evidence of Anomalous Heat Effect in Electrochemically Loaded Palladium Deuteride After Extensive Exploration — Project Callisto, September 2026.
• Peer Review of the Project Callisto Reports on Cold Fusion — Jean-Paul Biberian and collaborators, October 2026.

Cold Fusion & LENR: From Excess Heat to Industrial Scalability was originally published in Predict on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I wish financial markets worked like my calendar. Write “Uptober” next to October, turn the page, and watch Bitcoin go up 😄

Crypto traders have followed this October tradition for years. Historically, Bitcoin has often performed well during the month, and the nickname gradually started sounding like a prediction. But October 2026 gave traders plenty of reasons to question that assumption.

On October 15, Bitcoin fell to around $80,210, roughly 36% below its October 6, 2025 peak of $126,200. September’s US inflation reached 3.7%, above the expected 3.6%, while approximately $1.02 billion in crypto positions were liquidated on October 14–15, according to Bitfinex Alpha.

Looking back at October, I’ve picked four calendars that offer a more practical way to understand market movements.

1. The Macro Calendar: Fed Meetings and Inflation

The Federal Reserve’s October 27–28 meeting was one of the month’s key events. Following September’s higher-than-expected inflation report, investors were looking for clues about future interest rates.

For Bitcoin, the connection is fairly simple. Interest-rate expectations affect liquidity and investors’ willingness to take risks. And markets tend to react most strongly when new information differs from what investors have already priced in.

2. The Unlock Calendar: $1.11 Billion in One Week

Between October 5 and 11, approximately $1.11 billion worth of tokens was scheduled to unlock, according to BeInCrypto. Some of the largest scheduled releases included:

HYPE: approximately $340 million

ENA: approximately $41.52 million

APT: approximately $9.06 million

An unlock doesn’t automatically mean a sell-off. Hyperliquid, for example, arranged an OTC deal for its October HYPE allocation rather than immediately selling the coins on the open market.

Still, unlock schedules help investors understand potential changes in supply. The market impact depends on who receives the coins, whether they sell, and how much demand is available.

3. The Operations Calendar: Blast’s October 26 Deadline

October also brought an operational deadline. Ethereum L2 network Blast announced plans to shut down because maintaining the network had become more expensive than the revenue it generated.

Users were asked to withdraw through the regular interface by October 26. After that, withdrawals would still be possible through Ethereum bridge contracts, as reported by The Block.

For users holding assets on the network, that deadline had an immediate practical consequence. It also raised a broader question about whether L2 networks can generate enough revenue to sustain their infrastructure.

4. The Product Calendar: WBT and Whitechain

WhiteBIT Coin (WBT) is another example of how product milestones can shape a coin’s market calendar. In March 2026, WBT was listed on Kraken with EUR and USD trading pairs. On September 21, it reached an all-time high of $87.91, according to CoinGecko.

The next major milestone on the Whitechain roadmap is the public Ethereum L2 mainnet launch, targeted for Q4 2026, with WBT retaining its role as the native gas coin.

These developments illustrate how exchange listings can expand market access, while network upgrades and potential payment integrations can create additional opportunities for coin usage. Their longer-term impact depends on actual adoption.

Looking Ahead: Which Dates Matter in November?

October offered several examples of why scheduled events deserve attention. Macro announcements influence expectations, token unlocks affect potential supply, operational deadlines change how platforms work, and product launches can expand a coin’s utility.

The date alone rarely tells us which way prices will move. Market positioning, liquidity, and actual results still matter. But tracking these events gives investors a clearer basis for analysis than relying on seasonal averages.

So, which dates on your November crypto calendar deserve the most attention? Are you following macro announcements, token unlocks, or upcoming product launches.

Disclaimer: This is not financial or investment advice. Do your own research before making any decisions. Use at your own risk.

Why Bitcoin Ignored Uptober: Four Crypto Market Catalysts Worth Watching was originally published in Predict on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“We launched the wallets, users are coming in, so what do we do now?” Years ago, product teams mostly asked me how to launch crypto wallets. Now I hear this question much more often.

I find it easier to explain with a simple parallel. Picture a small café that suddenly lands in a city guide. Yesterday it served twenty guests and today there’s a line out the door. A fintech goes through the same when a new market or partner brings far more users than planned.

More fintechs will face this moment, because the line itself keeps growing. According to Crypto. com, global crypto ownership reached 741 million people in 2025, 12.4% more than a year earlier.

So what happens inside the café when the line forms? I’d look at two places: the kitchen and the dining room.

🍳 The Kitchen: Wallet Infrastructure

In this model, imagine the kitchen as the wallet infrastructure:

🔸 The menu is the list of assets and networks.

🔸 The recipes are flows like deposits and withdrawals.

🔸 The chef tasting every plate is the team checking each transaction.

At launch, the kitchen is small. The menu is short, there are few recipes and the team can check every transaction by hand. When the line grows, users ask for new networks, transactions multiply and the team has to rebuild the kitchen in the middle of the rush.

That’s where many in-house kitchens fall behind. Engineers spend more time on maintenance than on the product and every new network becomes a separate project. So many teams switch to ready-made infrastructure from a supplier that builds kitchens for a living.

For example, let’s look at three of them:

🔹 WhiteBIT Wallet-as-a-Service solution for Institutions

This one fits teams that want the whole kitchen ready to cook. It’s designed so businesses can handle growing transaction volumes and numbers of users, with multi-chain wallets through APIs, MPC-based security and programmatic wallet creation for large user bases.

🔹 Crypto APIs HD Wallets Management

This suits teams that want to keep the keys to the kitchen themselves. A wallet is managed from its extended public key, balances are read across 11 blockchains and the business signs every transaction on its own side.

🔹 MoonPay Ramps

This covers the counter where money comes in and goes out. It brings crypto on/off-ramp functionality into a product across 160 countries, with KYC and sanctions screening handled by MoonPay.

🧾 The Dining Room: Operations

Okay, the kitchen is sorted. But guests meet the dining room first and in a fintech, that’s support and compliance. At launch, a few people answer every ticket and review every flagged transaction. At ten times the volume, those same people become the bottleneck.

That’s why I suggest agreeing on thresholds in advance. At a certain number of active users, the team hires another support agent and at a certain monthly transaction count, it reviews compliance staffing.

☕ Get Ready Before the Guide Comes Out

I hope this parallel made the idea a bit clearer. At launch, the main question is whether the flow works. As the product grows, it becomes whether the wallet infrastructure, support and compliance can all keep up with the same pace.

If your team is planning its next stage right now, I hope this article comes in handy. Growth is easier to handle when the infrastructure, the people and the review thresholds are all part of the plan from the start.

And if you have something to add or a different view, I’d be glad to hear it in the comments!

Disclaimer: This is not financial or investment advice. Do your own research before making any decisions. Use at your own risk.

My Favorite Café Taught Me How Fintechs Should Scale Their Wallets was originally published in Predict on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Paolo Ardoino’s talk at Plan ₿ Forum, a 300-line smart contract and why the money behind AI matters as much as the model

At the end of October, I went to Lugano for Plan ₿ Forum. For two days, the city turned into one of Europe’s main Bitcoin meeting points.

Plan ₿ Forum grew out of the city’s Plan ₿ initiative, launched together with Tether in 2022, and now draws more than 4,000 participants from over 60 countries. This year’s fifth edition took over the Palazzo dei Congressi on October 23–24, and Bitcoin is exactly what I came for.

Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, set the tone himself: Bitcoin, he said, is the most beautiful technology, and financial technology ever built. Not a controversial statement in that room.

Then he moved to a much smaller piece of code. USDT’s smart contract, he said, is roughly 300 lines.

Running Tether obviously takes much more than code: reserves, redemption, security. Still, the product behind around $10 billion in profit last year is surprisingly small. And honestly, I was more curious about where that money goes. Part of it now pays for humanoid robots and AI that runs on your phone.

I wrote a short post on LinkedIn about it, but one question needed more room than a post gives you: who is going to pay for the future of AI?

When Profit Becomes a Research Budget

Tether’s Q3 2026 results add fresh numbers to that question:

→ $1.5 billion in net operating profit for the quarter
→ $4.5 billion over the first nine months of 2026
→ excess reserves of about $7.95 billion, almost double the $4.1 billion at the end of Q2

Marcel van Oost’s recent review reads the quarter mostly through that reserve buffer, which grew while USDT supply stayed around $184 billion.

I’m a marketer, not a financial analyst, so I’ll leave the balance sheet to people who read them for a living. What caught my brain was simpler. This is a company that earns money every quarter and decides for itself where it goes. Paolo put it plainly: Tether is profitable enough to build these things simply because it’s the right thing to do.

A startup has to ask how long its runway is. A company in that position can ask how long it wants to keep building.

Same Code, From a Cheap Phone to a Data Center

Most of the AI part of the talk was about QVAC, Tether’s open-source kit for running AI on your own device. Same code, very different hardware:

→ a cheap smartphone
→ a laptop
→ a full data center

I won’t attempt a technical review. Developers would find my mistakes faster than I could type them.

What matters to me is that it’s already in use: in robots and in a learning app for kids in the Philippines. That’s a product built from the cheapest device up, which is as much a distribution choice as a technical one.

Meanwhile, my own phone barely survives a travel day, so it probably needs a power bank before it needs its own AI 😄

Paolo showed that this problem is real at a much bigger scale. One case from the talk was a network of solar-powered battery kiosks in African villages: you bring back a depleted battery and collect a charged one. Before anyone can use a wallet or a local AI model, the phone has to be on.

The same roadmap puts wallets for humans, machines and the AI agents between them side by side. As a product person, my first question is who sets the spending limits once an agent can pay.

Round to Round, or Your Own Money

Most AI startups live from one funding round to the next, and every product has to help them raise the next one. It’s a bit like building a house on a mortgage: you can build faster and bigger, but the bank has a say in your plans.

Paolo went further. He said investors keep backing the same companies people worry about most. Bold thing to say on stage at a tech conference.

I don’t think venture money is the villain here. Many of the AI tools we use every day exist because someone took that risk, and a big budget has never been a strategy on its own. The difference is in the question a team wakes up with: will this help us raise the next round, or will it still matter in ten years?

Tether funds its AI bet from its own profit, keeps the code open and admits its assistant is still in alpha and behind the big players. If it makes the future 10 or 20% less dark, he said, that’s already worth it.

I’d take that over another promise to save humanity any day.

“Our Technology Should Survive Us”

This was the line I’d hold any company to.

In marketing, we spend years making sure customers stay. Retention, loyalty, products people don’t want to leave. Here a CEO set the opposite standard: build it so it keeps working without you. For a customer, that means some practical questions. Could I keep using it? Could I move my data and assets? Could someone else maintain the tools?

I wouldn’t present it as a proven result. The assistant is in alpha by his own admission, and a promise about decades stays a promise until it has a track record. But as a standard, I like it a lot.

The Question Behind the Benchmark

We spend a lot of time arguing about which AI model is the smartest. Much less about who owns it, who funds its development and what happens to everything built on top of it if that funding stops.

Came to Lugano for Bitcoin, left thinking about who pays for the future of AI. And btw, the full talk on YouTube has far fewer views than it deserves.

More thoughts on marketing, tech and conference takeaways on my LinkedIn & X.

Who Pays for the Future of AI? Notes From Plan ₿ Lugano was originally published in Predict on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.