Saturday, January 21, 2017



Image result for quotes buridan ass

I have to confess you what happened today. I wanted to offer you quotes about what I call "the old of still alive roots of my discontent"- I read yesterday about some meeting organized by APQC 
American Productivity & Quality Center. During my PVC years I succeeded to  get many APQC publications- e.g. the Deming-Juran-Crosby teachings about quality helping me to create a kind of technologal spirituality- Quality, productivity, Ecology, Effectveness Efficiency are sacred things for a technologist. And i have so many dear professional remembrances linked to quality as the process of discovering 
that "the quality of Quality itself is constancy" An other name for constancy is reproducibility
You know my slogan: " I think, I exist. I decide, I live. I solve problems, I live with purpose" however this time when I had to choose Mottoes re Quality I decided to be like Buridan's ass- not decisions now! and as you see I respected my decision.
Anyway I think quality has to be applied to the results of the research works too and for the case of LENR classic system as you will see below.


a) Discussion re progress, quality of research in the PdD electrolytic LENR system.

Actually this has started with my question to our scientists regarding the progress in these investigation- long term. 
How much have you progressed - as results and as understanding from your first Test to the most recent one?

I have received a fast and nice answer from Ed Storms; today Melvin Miles has answered:

My cold fusion progress began in March, 1989 with trying to find if I could observe any F-P excess heat effect.  After six months of failures, I finally observed a reproducible excess power effect using JM palladium electrodes. My next question was about observing any nuclear products or radiation.  The answer in late 1990 was that helium-4 was present in the  gas phase when excess heat was present.  I also observed fogging of X-ray film in these same experiments. Further experiments showed high Geiger-Mueller counts when Pd/D2O + LiOD experiments were running (counts up to 73 sigma) but always only normal counts (within 3 sigma) when no experiments were running.  Also, an experiment in Japan in 1997 showed "thermal spikes" tor the thermistor used in an active cell likely caused by radiation.  I did not know until later that F-P observed very large excess power effects only at cell temperatures above 60 C.  My experiments were always at cell  temperatures well below this threshold temperature,  and my largest excess power effect was about 37 %  larger than the  electrochemical power input.

A major finding was that only certain palladium materials were likely to exhibit excess power effects such as  JM palladium or NRL Pd-B.  Most palladium materials would never show any signs of excess power no matter what you tried.

I only had U.S. government funding for cold fusion from 1992 to 1995 and then again briefly (6 months) in 2010.  In fact, my reporting of cold fusion effects basically ended my career as a Navy research scientist.  My research has always been on the Pd/D2O electrochemical system. I have never found any electrochemical system that is 100 % reproducible or that showed any easy pathway to commercialization.  Anyway, this is a brief summary of my cold fusion progress.  

My answer to Melvin Miles

Thank you very much, you have nicely answered a rather 'bad' question.
I well remember meeting you at Como ICCF-2--1991.

The problem is NOT with you, you made great things with scarce funding.
But please take  a look to the results and outcome at IMRA France with Martin and Stanley working there, or now to SKINR and ENEA with funding and the results not much better than at the start or as yours.
What i try to convince people ere is that there is inherently impossible with the cradle system to obtain higher levels of excess heat, reproduciblity.
The system is the problem, not the researchers. We can add Ed Storms to this list, excellent work but limited results, and scale-up or intensification.

I am a technologist not interested in weaknesses of a system but more in where and how these weaknesses can be converted in strengths.

However Ed Storms, whom I mentioned in my above answer has given now a consistent answer:

Peter, you keep ignoring the important point people keep making. We are not at the level of technology yet. We do not know how to apply the LENR effect. Even Rossi does not know how to do this even though he is trying. We are at the scientific stage where the effort is to understand the phenomenon. We are trying to find out what causes LENR, not how to make useful energy. Useful energy will be easy to make once we understand the process.  In fact, once the process is understood, I expect none of the generator designs being explored will be used and neither Pd-D nor Ni-H will be used as the site of the NAE. 

The Pd-D system is the easiest system to study in order to obtain the required information.  Yes, the Pd system does not make as much energy as Rossi claims, assuming the Rossi claims are correct. Nevertheless, we are gradually understanding how LENR works and this understanding is being published, unlike what Ross does with the information. It would be helpful if you supported the effort to understand rather than keep complaining about how people keep focusing on the Pd-D system.  The Ni-H system might be useful some day but right now it is only a claim made by Rossi without proof or understanding and it is a distraction.  

You say you are a technologest. But you also do not have the understanding required to apply the effect. You accept what Rossi claims without having any idea what he is actually doing to make the claimed energy.  He is not telling you what you need to know because it is not in his self interest to do this, even if he actually knows what is required, which is doubtful.  Technology can not advance without basic knowledge about the process.  LENR is too complex for the process to be applied using trial and error.  We need understanding. This information can only be obtained using careful and focused research to which effective evaluation is applied.  Instead, we have people trying this or that and then arguing about what the results mean without bothering to study the extensive literature about the subject and master the basic science that applies.   We have most of the focus being applied to the physics of the process when chemical conditions actually control the mechanism.  The skeptics are not our only problem.  The basic problem lies in the field itself. I would ask you to help solve this problem. 

My answer to Ed Storms

a) I am not ignoring, I am regretting bitterly that we are not discussing- for the cradle system technology after almost 28 years.

b) What I am regretting even more and it hurts me saying it but I must, is that we well, in my opinion, never discuss technology for the cradle system. I am unhappily convinced that as it is, it is not technologizable.

c) For some linearity and order in thinking let's now ignore Rossi and even the NIH systems just now, let's see what can be done (if) for the cradle system, and what can we hope from it. As understanding of LENR first

d) You speak about the progress in understanding and this is Your theory- NAE- nanocracks-hydroton- slow  energy release the problem is that applying it what can we really understand better and then DO better? More nanocracks of optimal size and structure, how? More efficient hydrotons?  Are there serious proofs of accumulating knowledge? Your relatively recent tests were followed with much empathy-expectation and you have indeed said some interesting things as those about the role of temperature and of about the real role of Pd/D ratio. But how to use this knowledge?

e) I have told that the main problem lies in the problem itself, you say that it lies in the field itself. I say that the problem is not solvable, you seem to say that the researchers do not accept the facts- as you accept and judge them (cort recct?)
therefore the knowledge necessary for progress is wasted.
I fear that the problem has to be moved in a better place to become solvable.

f) As regarding in which extent what we will learn from the PdD electrolytic system
will be transferable to other, more technologizable systems (surely working at temperatures >400C) - the verdict is still in the future as in the case of of the Rossi vs Darden litigation. 

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

b) Other concepts from's Annual Contest

Frank Wilczek

Complementarity is the idea that there can be different ways of describing a system, each useful and internally consistent, which are mutually incompatible. It first emerged as a surprising feature of quantum theory, but I, following Niels Bohr, believe it contains wisdom that is much more widely applicable.

Understanding the importance of complementarity stimulates imagination, because it gives us license to think different. It also suggests engaged tolerance, as we try to appreciate apparently strange perspectives that other people have come up with. We can take them seriously without compromising our own understandings, scientific and otherwise

Lisa Randall

People can disagree about many deep and fundamental questions, but we are all pretty confident that when we sit on a hard wooden chair it will support us, and that when we take a breath on the surface of the Earth we will take in the oxygen we need to survive.

This notion is practical and valuable. But we should be wary since it also makes us miss things in the world—and in science. What’s obvious is what’s in our effective theory. What lies beyond might be the more fundamental truth. Sometimes it’s only a little prodding that takes us to a richer, more inclusive understanding. Getting outside our comfort zone is how science and ideas advance and what ultimately yields a richer understanding of the world.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

Has science discovered the existence of protons and proteins, neurons and neutrinos? Have we learned that particles are excitations of underlying quantum fields and that the transmission of inherited characteristics is accomplished by way of information-encoding genes? Those who answer no(as opposed to dunno) probably aren’t unsophisticated science deniers. More likely they’re sophisticated deniers of scientific realism.

What then could be more central to the scientific mindset than the questions that swirl around scientific realism, since without confronting these questions we can’t even begin to say what the scientific mindset amounts to.

1) Now discussed on E-Catworld
Announcing the Development of $20 Million+ XPrize for Abundant Clean Energy Technologies (David Niebauer)

2) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Jude Rabalais
January 20, 2017 at 6:36 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi
Is it confirmed your demo in the next couple if months?
Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 5:00 PM

Jude Rabalais:
It depends from the amount of work to make for the litigation, that in these last days has escalated enormously. The organization of a demo well done takes a lot of time and work.
Probably we will have to delay the presentation of the QuarkX after the verdict of the litigation, that is expected by July. I matured this thought today returning from Raleigh, where work for the litigation has been made.
The presentation of the QuarkX must be perfect and to make it perfect I have to work on it with maximum focus, that now I have not. I am under too much pressure. I must first win one battle, then make the next and the litigation is now.
Probably we will start in March to receive visits of experts to make together with them closed doors measurements and tests.
This is the idea I formulated today examining the situation.
Warm Regards,

Steve L.
January 20, 2017 at 12:13 AM

Dr Rossi

Is this a possibility, that Industrial Heat seems to be set up to be patent trolls.

could you comment?

Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 4:43 PM

Steve L.:
No comment about issues to be disclosed in Court. I can only say that we are convinced that there are bases for us to be very optimist, due to the evidence we have collected.
Warm Regards,


Patrick Ellul
January 20, 2017 at 11:01 PM

Dear Andrea,
What impact would a loss in the court proceedings have on you and the e-cat QuarkX?
Best regards,
Andrea Rossi
January 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM

Patrick Ellul:
It depends on many factors, but, honestly, the evidence we have collected puts us in a positive mood. I cannot say more at this point.
Warm Regards,
3) From Gregory Goble:
LENR/Electric… An interesting patent granted


5) Video signalled at Andrea Ross's JONP:
Paolo Accomazzi
Atomi Binucleari Fusione Fredda Rossi Ecat

6) Krivit continues con-fusion


Science can lead us to the fundamental questions, andsometimes, in some extent to the fundamental answers. The arch-enemy of Cold Fusion says the following:
Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

Icelandic Study Suggests That Maybe We Are Getting Dumber

Humanity Has A Massive Trust Problem, But We Can Fix It

Friday, January 20, 2017



Image result for vilfredo pareto quotes

Image result for vilfredo pareto quotesImage result for vilfredo pareto quotes



EGO OUT wishes all well to the new President of USA asking him to 
contribute in the highest degree to stop the epidemics of Probletence
in his Country and worldwide. Success!

a) About the MOTTOes

I wrote many times about the ideas especially the 80/20 law of the Italian  
mathematician  and economist , Vilfredo Pareto- he has described a =an essential Law of Nature. 
This morning I came about an opus of an other Italian mathematician, Vittorio 
Loreto- a very inspiring model of Inovation- vital for the future of LENR too.
It is at LENR IN CONTEXT-2. A bit about the Author see please:
Vittorio Loreto, Sapienza Univ. Rome,Google Scholar Citations
I hope this scientist will support LENR in the most direct way,
And perhaps we will have one day a mathematical model of how the Universe works via Incessantly Increasing Interestingness... 

b) Inspiring concepts  from Edge .org the Annual contest

James Geary
Bisociation is a form of improvised, recombinant intelligence that integrates knowledge and experience, fuses divided worlds, and links the like with the unlike—a model and a metaphor for the process of discovery itself. The pun is at once the most profound and the most pedestrian example of bisociation at work.

NIgel Goldenfeld
It ought to be more widely known that the truth is indeed out there, but only if one knows how to ask sharp and good questions. This is the unifying aspect of the scientific method and perhaps its most enduring contribution.

Michael Shermer
Why is negativity stronger than positivity? Evolution. In the environment of our evolutionary ancestry there was an asymmetry of payoffs in which the fitness cost of overreacting to a threat was less than the fitness cost of underreacting, so we err on the side of overreaction to negative events. The world was more dangerous in our evolutionary past, so it paid to be risk averse and highly sensitive to threats, and if things were good then taking a gamble to improve them a little bit more was not perceived to be worth the risk of things turning south for the worst.


1) Designing An Abundant Clean Energy XPRIZE Competition

2) Secrets of China’s Renewable Energy Success

3) A LENR Bibliography

4) Former ITER Spokesman Confirms Accuracy of New Energy Times Story


Stanford engineers develop state-by-state plan to convert U.S. to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050
(LENR not considered)

Meeting the challenges of nanotechnology: Nanoscale catalytic effects for nanotechnology
Date:January 19, 2017
Source:Swansea University
Summary:Scientists show nanoscale modifications to the edge region of nanocontacts to nanowires can be used to engineer the electrical function of the interfaces.


Ambidextrous Innovation:
How Can Leaders’ Best Explore and Exploit both Disruptive and Incremental Approaches to Innovation?

Thursday, January 19, 2017



Image result for pacifism quotes

Uncle Albert, can you explain this to the fighters in the RvD conflict? And to many others? I will send you a list by e-mail this evening.


I simply wanted a peaceful day; on my word of honor NOT my arterial tension has lead me to the decision to organize a peaceful day today. NO LENR quarrel and reading with calm opinions that openly contradict my LENR ideology.
I do not think this will last (I know rather well myself),  I  do not hope pacifism is contagious in any way and history will surely NOT be marked by pacifism on 
January 20, 2017.

MY question to PdD electrolytic system researchers, Ed Storms's answer.

The Question: 
I take the risk of an seemingly impolite  question but I justify it asserting that
with PdD electrolytic- the Problem is the problem per se, it is difficult and it if my  in 
more senses simply unsolvable if we remain in the cradle setup. (F&P Cell)
How much have you progressed - as results and as understanding from your first Test to the most recent one?

The Answer
Peter, understanding of how to cause LENR  is gradually increasing.  Much of the understanding is not accepted by many people in the field simply because they do not understand or accept the models that actually apply.  This is a materials science problem, not a physics problem.  Until that fact is acknowledged and applied, very little progress will be made.  Meanwhile, people who apply this fact are making progress.  This progress is not shared because IP issue are involved and because I find that very little gain results from trying to educate the skeptics or the ignorant.  

 I do not expect any deep level of understanding will be accepted until the subject is taught in university.  Most people are too ignorant of the required information and have too little basic understanding of science to understand much of what is said about the subject.  Everyone seems to have their own ideas about what is real, which makes teaching difficut. At least in university, the student has to listen to the source of knowledge (professor). On the internet, facts and understanding can be ignored because everyone thinks their idea is correct.  In university, such people have to change their minds or they fail. 

Yes, I agree, initially every idea has to be considered and open discussion is needed to sort the wheat from the chaff.  We have passed that time in the LENR field. Much more information is available than most people consider or accept.  People keep trying to reinvent the wheel while fighting every description of how the wheel works - or even that it works at all.  

Thsnk you, dear Ed! 
Dear Readers, please think about both, Q and A! 

1) Rossi Goes to North Carolina — Working Towards Settlement?

2) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Ashford C.
January 19, 2017 at 11:09 AM

Good luck in NC – just remember .. IH wants the ECat technology really badly – it even issued new patents around it during the tests * which is probably what did upset DR Rossi the most.

Make no mistake here: these technologies work and all the people involved know very well about it.”

Andrea Rossi
January 19, 2017 at 2:13 PM

Ashford C.:
I prefer not to comment.
Warm Regards,

3) LENR-Forum “explains” LENR

4) Seminar "Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightning at the People's Friendship Univ of Russia takes place on January 26, 2017 16.00 hour
Семинар "Холодный ядерный синтез и шаровая молния» в РУДН состоится в четверг 26 января 2017 г. в 16:00
Coordinates, instructions given.
Program of the day

1. 16-00 – 17-00  Prof. M.Ya. Ivanov, V.K. Mamaev  Aviation Institute, Moscow: "Entropy in technical physics"

2. 17-00 – 18-00 G. I. Shipov Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Institute for Vacuum Physics, Moscow "Dynamics of the inertia fields"

3. 18-00 – 18-30 Meeting of the redaction Commitee
5) Krivit: Explorations in Nuclear Research

6) From Gregory Goble
Republic of Korea LENR (Ukraine 2016 Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology Publication)

7) I have already forgotten this jewel-homage to LENR

8) MFMP's Appeal:
Help us trawl the declassified CIA archives!

9) MFMP's other Appeal:
Transcript in Russian- English of this video:
Vlail Petrovich Kaznacheev - Interview for the Nikola Tesla Institute March 2013

10) Google Scholar- the scientific branch of Google offers today the following 3 papers for "LENR"

a) Microwave Induced Elemental Transmutation in Compact Flourescent Lamps
 Ernő Lakatos web: Hungary 
The low energy nuclear transmutation reactions were investigated within a compact flourescent lamp (CFL), which was irradiated by intense microwave energy. A modified microwave owen operated as a source of intense electromagnetic field. Solids like glasses or CFLs absorbed efficiently microwave energy (E+H field both) resulting arcing, ionization and plasma state. We observed and measured possible elemental transmutation of the P to Si and S in CFL-s during intense microwave (MW) irradiation. Since this phenomenon seems to be very complex, therefore it requires multidisciplinary approaches. Keywords: Low energy nuclear reaction, LENR, transmutation, microwave energy, plasma, atomic state, hot spots, CICP, cooperative internal conversion process, Compact Flourescent Lamp, CFL,
  (the paper is already known here, has raised interest and I have asked the Author to join Vortex)

b) Peculiarities of hydrogen absorption by melt span amorphous alloys Nd90Fe10 
V.I. Dubinko, O.M. Bovda, O.E. Dmitrenko, V.M. Borysenko, I.V. Kolodiy National Science Center "Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology” Kharkov 61108, Ukraine 
A fierce exothermic reaction was detected in Nd90Fe10 films with sufficient degree of amorphous phase upon filling them with hydrogen or deuterium, which resulted in the melting of the samples and the Cu foil, in which the samples have been wrapped. Quantitative analysis have shown that the amount of heat produced in large Nd90Fe10 samples in our experiments is 80÷100 kJ per g of hydrogen, which cannot be explained by DSC data on the heat produced in small samples under different heating-cooling balance. Possible reasons for the discrepancy are discussed including low energy nuclear reactions taking place at the initial stage of hydride formation.

c) Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)
Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)
  • Leif Holmlid


Large signals of charged light mesons are observed in the laser-induced particle flux from ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) layers. The mesons are formed in such layers on metal surfaces using < 200 mJ laser pulse-energy. The time variation of the signal to metal foil collectors and the magnetic deflection to a movable pin collector are now studied. Relativistic charged particles with velocity up to 500 MeV u-1 thus 0.75 c are observed. Characteristic decay time constants for meson decay are observed, for charged and neutral kaons and also for charged pions. Magnetic deflections agree with charged pions and kaons. Theoretical predictions of the decay chains from kaons to muons in the particle beam agree with the results. Muons are detected separately by standard scintillation detectors in laser-induced processes in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) as published previously. The muons formed do not decay appreciably within the flight distances used here. Most of the laser-ejected particle flux with MeV energy is not deflected by the magnetic fields and is thus neutral, either being neutral kaons or the ultra-dense HN(0) precursor clusters. Photons give only a minor part of the detected signals. PACS: 67.63.Gh, 14.40.-n, 79.20.Ds, 52.57.-z.
11) Dieter Britz authorizes to host his cold fusion resource

12) just arrived now from RUSS GEORGE:


About Wright Bro achievemenet, like about Edison, what surpised me was that I realized recently they had strong method, strong rigor.
It is not only trial and test, there is also a vision, a deep understanding of the problem, BUT this vision, this understanding is Bottom-Up, not theoretical, but engineering focused.
Of course quickly they understand they need theory, measurement, tables, and Wright Bros invented the wind tunnel, and produced wing shape performance table, propeller theory.

Their success is produced by putting science and theoyr at the service of engineering challenges, not the opposite.
now I connect that to another I dea I had recently reading the news on Lidgren and Lundin patent, and ponderomotive force theory...
I cannot understand if this is a great theory, but let us assume it is, but that it is not complete, not exactly explaining LENR as they say.
My naive proposal is to mix their theory to enhance another.
My favorite is the Slow Fusion of Edmund Storms.
i use the term Slow Fusion because for me, the hydroton is an anecdotal proposal of mechanism, while "Slow fusion" is for me the unescapable conclusion od Edmund Storms from his conservative assumptions and his percerption of the experimental resulst (that i share).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that Slow Fusion theory, even with Hydroton hypothesis, is an incomplete theory.
The core quantum mechanic mechanism is not precisely defined... I see ideas, but it is not mathematically defined.
When i read Takahashi TSC theory, Kim-Zubarev, Swartz-hagelstein, I see much better mathematical definition, but the disagreement are more with the observations, as Storms complain.
My desire would be to merge Ponderomotive force ideas with other theory.
With incomplete theories like Slow Fusion, it looks possible to put the mathematical description of Ponderomotive Forse as an inner mechanism to implement Slow Fusion, with Hydroton (or alike) giving the metalurgical context in which LENR happens.
With complete theories like TSC, it is not easy for me to imagine how to merge it with Ponderomotive Force idea.
Edmund Storm's theory for me is like the Wright brothers theory of Wings, of propellers. He proposed it from a range of experiment, exploiting his knowledge in macroscopic science,and few from QM.
there is room for a QM physicists to propose a "QM module"...
the problem is that today this incomplete, bottom-up, macroscopic, phenomenological approach is not fashion, and people want upfront and totalitarian theory from the QM to the macroscopic.
You talk often on the LENR+ approach versus the old F&P approach.

For me, after long maturation in my immature engineer mind, I propose that we oppose two approach :
- upfront physics, top-bottom QM-to-macro theory, explanation focused motivation, experiments validating theory, technology servicing experiments, experiments servicing theory.
- phenomenological to QM theory building, engineering challenges to fundamental research, experiments inducing theory proposal, physics servicing engineering.

To be clear, the engineering approach cannot avoid the theoretical, and even the QM theory challenges, but it is only a question of method, of governance, of priority, or direction upward vs downward...
Question is who is the boss, and what is the problem.

Wright and Edison shows that it works best if the dreamer is the problem provider, engineer is the problem definer and solver, and science is there to serve problem solving effort with theory, experiments and math.


Technology: He wrote the future. On Arthur C. Clarke's centenary
by Andrew Robinson
The author is very "LENR", the paper not so.
Mesmerizing scientific paper confirms iron as the most precious and rare life sustaining factor for ocean plant life. By Russ George


Probletence-destroyers of the World: Unite!
From income inequality to gridlock, progress is coming from some unlikely sources.