Friday, April 11, 2014


' We are sinking, we are sinking!!! '
' What are you thinking about?... '
(For proper understanding, this needs some visual effects - you can find them here)

Brain waves. Hugs. Signs.
Words. Music. Dance. Sculpture. Painting. Building. Flying.
Papirus. Paper. Morse. Feather. Coal. Chalk. Pen. Keyboard. Touch screen.
Radio.Tv. Computer. Phone.
Theatre. Opera. Multiplex.
Pigeon. Horse. Post. Courier. Internet. Email. Call. Sms. Chat.
Evolution or involution? Curse or blessing?
Fear or desire? Irony or smile? Tear or laughter?
Love or hate? Acceptance or rejection? Hurt or embrace? Anticipation or avoidance?
Honesty or deceit? Reality or dream?
Photo or paint? Live or unplugged?
Eloquent or ambiguous? Intimate or public? Gentle or aggressive?
Build or destroy? Divide or join? Break or conquer?
Manipulate or convince? Seek or avoid? Share or hide?
Give or take? Endorse or disclaim?
Listen or hear? Watch or see? Say or insinuate?
Loud or whispery? Stereo or surround?
Read or heard? Seen or imagined?
Flat or curved? Colored or b&w? Sepia?...
Touch. Hold. Hug. Kiss. Weep. Smile. Frown. Laugh. Blink.
Speak. Feel. Smell. Hear. Taste.
Morning. Lunch. Afternoon. Evening. Night. Late at night. Early morning.
Clock. Tick-tack.
Over and out.

By now I have already communicated to you more than in all the other nine roots put together. This would be true in case you have been reading properly each line and everything lying between and behind those lines. If you haven't, I invite you to slooowly read them again.

Did you find different meanings? Did you imagine different scenes and different persons on the second reading?

That could be triggered by the common while abstract nature of those words. We go through life convinced that we listen, understand and react. Actually we may very well spend most of our life imagining, translating and acting on what we think we know.

Why do I believe that current communication pattern has become one of the deepest roots of the current status of our world? One reason could be that we started to take too many things for granted. We got used to so much communication, on so many levels and coming to us in so many packages that we are gradually turning off old-fashioned communication, the one occurring on a basic intuitive level. We (ab)use surrogate communication so much that we are gradually convinced that we know it all. We get carried away by online presence of hundreds of remote friends, adrenaline rush of movie characters, news about public persons, accomplishments of sportsmen and emotions of artists, most of them happening on a flat cold computer or television screen, while we are comfortably snoozing on our couch. We are nicely fitting in pre-packed life stories and consume the enormous supply of communication which is being fed to us. Quantity seems to have won the war over quality and is now taking heads-on another challenge: our time.

Some of us even got used to the idea that robots and people have daily access to our communication and don't even bother about it anymore. A handful is fighting to win back the right to intimacy, but the 007 Genie is out of the bottle for a long time on a planetary scale. One can only hope that the paranoia of supervised communication may actually have positive consequences, such as bringing back into our life the communication channel which matters the most: eye to eye. One can dream that someday we will go back to using all our given senses at the same time (including common sense!) and therefore minimize as much as possible misunderstandings.

I wonder what else is to be said as a closing note. I believe at this point it would be better just to challenge you to remember any classic French movie, so you can draw your own conclusions. When I was young I used to hate the fact that those movies had no ending. Today I would just smile, turn off the tv and move on. 

I have learned that one should not seek answers to all life questions. Some things, facts and people are just there for a reason which will reveal itself much later in the process. There are events which just happen - for apparently no reason. Asking for answers and looking for endings in advance just leads to misunderstanding of much bigger pictures.

Georgina Popescu

Friday, March 28, 2014


What can do an old, incurable workaholic during a period of relative absence of news? Inactivity, like the sleep of reason produces monsters- this is a certainty; it is easy to imagine the destructive effects of a prolonged hibernation! Being aware of this, I have used the not-so-interesting -times, almost two and half months from the start of Defkalion’s technical Armageddon with and for Hyperion-6, up to the Anniversary MIT Colloquium- to compose a review of my life’s philosophy.
In my basic profession, Research, as in many other creative activities, the great differentiator is Initiative; the mark of great researchers (as we have discussed many times with my friends Yiannis and Axil) is the rare ability to make a Synthesis.
Not an easy task, we have a natural trend to misinterpret our own ideas, to use critical thinking much too gently, to ignore the subtetlies and to by-pass the paradoxes and internal contradictions that are core elements of a good thinking method/system.
Anyway, I have tried to solve the puzzle, have welded together many fragments of truth forming a something with logical consistency.
When this opus was almost ready, I started to think: where to publish it, in a place with good visibility, making it a “presence”.
This publication must have a much broader audience than my modest blog EGO OUT where these ideas are already there in pieces. lacking unity!

The Foundational Questions Institute’s 2014 Spring Contest

Being aware that great questions illuminate us better than great answers, I knew about the existence and generous aims of Then Jed Rothwell, leading supporter and librarian
of our field has published there a great essay: Cold fusion may have revolutionary potential”; I hope this will be great winner
despite the present bad reputation of cold fusion; till the end of the contest (August) this can change (and the understanding of the concept as well).
FQXI’s 2014 Spring Contest is about: “How Should Humanity Steer the Future? “ I had a secular revelation- this is my aim too,
the Ego-Out philosophy is the obligation of an individual to tell
Everything he/she has learned in a lifetime in order to help the future generations to make the world a better place.

What a wonderful opportunity to make my philosophy known!

I wrote an essay for the contest, it is here:
Its title and its essence are:

My general ideas about how our world works and about how our problems can and have to be solved are described; these are used in my understanding of what cold fusion is, too.
I am asking all my old and new friends; please visit and read the essay, if you like or dislike relevant ideas and/or the integral ideology of it, please make comments as requested by FQXI. Please help me only making the essay known to all the good people who actively care for the future of Humanity.
The essay is not about an ideal but about realism; I know that the public prefers pleasant perfect crystal shaped lies to unpleasant fragmentary truths.
However by this essay the ideas became present and universally accessible hopefully waiting for their day to come.

Thank you,


Thursday, March 20, 2014


My Blog went through a longish period of hibernation.
As I have told you, I have finished describing the Problem part of the LENR field and the Solution part is still in intensive construction, nothing relevant can be told just now
It was a dead season; even the usual old subjects were not de-frozen and discussed on our forums.
Regarding the real battlefields, no relevant information will be published before Rossi’s professors of three continents long time experiment report and/or Defkalion’s pre-commercial Hyperion 6, whichever will arrive earlier. A few weeks, probably.
Tomorrow will start the festive 2014 Cold Fusion (LANR) MIT Colloquium celebrating the 25 anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. Three days of interesting presentations and discussions. It is remarkable that the spirit of this meeting has progressed from the scientism of ICCF-18 to
including engineering in the way to obtaining usable heat excess.
The problem of cold fusion is not more “to be or not to be” but
“to be useful or not be at all.”
As it is adequate for this anniversary, some of the papers have features of a review, or are concerned with the basics or line out a strategy. My selection of the genuine anniversary papers is as follows:
Mitchell Swartz “Our Emergent Need for a Clean, Efficient Energy Production Source
Arik El-Boher “Progress Toward Understanding Anomalous Heat.”

David Nagel “Scientific and
Practical Questions about Cold Fusion”

 Brian Ahern “Nanomagnetism for Energy Production

Nikita Alexandrov “
Advanced analytic and highly parallel Cold Fusion Experimentation”
 Charles Beaudette “Post
Missouri Priorities for Cold Fusion”
Nathan Cohen “The Tortuous Path of Innovation and Implications for Cold Fusion in the next Decade” 
Peter Hagelstein “Landscapes in cold fusion research”

The other experimental and theory papers do not seem to be very surprising or game/paradigm changing, with the possible exception of:                                                                        Tadahiko Mizuno: “Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles.”  See please my failed attempt to learn what this co-author has concluded about reproducibility in cold fusion experiments. Perhaps now he will say more.
I am especially curious to listen to or read these presentations and I hope the organizers and our nice reporter from Cold Fusion Now will be fast and of excellent quality as usual..
It is sad that many great contributors are missing from this cold fusion feast. Surely, due to my talent to make blunders I will forget many good people but I still think about Founding Father Stanley Pons, discoverer and creator of the Ni-H LENR line Francesco Piantelli, 89ers as Akito Takahashi, Yeong Kim, Li Xing Zhong, Jean-Paul Biberian, Michael McKubre (traveling) It is most unfortunate that it is considered as axiomatic that the lattice is the place where CF takes place and the active sites (NAE) concept is not welcome at this meeting; therefore our very merituous leading author and thinker Edmund Storms is not there. I think scientific disputes should not be taken as personal. Follow please my example- I agree (even pre-agree)  with Storms in principle but I strongly disagree in the details; I also think lattice is vital for LENR but the reactions take place on it, not in it. In cold fusion-as in many other fields we have mainly fragmented truth and what seems to be opposites are de facto complementary. It is not “my truth” vs. “your truth” – we all are still well immersed in a pond of ignorance and error trying to swim to the island of technology. Please let me to organize the coming 50th anniversary and I will invite all the important researchers if they agree with me or not.
LENR+ i.e. enhanced excess heat will be only implicit at the meeting; due to a diversity of causes a decisive Defkalion demo with Hyperion R6 could not be included in this 3 days program. It will be a separate, unique event in the near future.
Both Nature and history dislike round, seemingly beautiful numbers; e and π are the greatest “stars” and are irrational
The Hundred Years War lasted some 116 years'_War and now I predict that Cold Fusion’s 25 Years war will last 304 months instead of 300 and will be finished by an absolutely convincing, inexorable demo.
Big Science, Big Oil, Big Money and their close associates are slowly thinking and will need up to other 6 months to see what is obvious- the New Energy Era has started.
My best wishes of success and illuminations or revelations  to the organizers and the participants of the MIT CF Colloquium!
Long live Cold Fusion- by its real name!


Friday, February 7, 2014


Dear Bill,

My name is Peter Gluck, I am living in Cluj, Romania. After
working for 51 years in the chemical industry, then for new sources of  energy, web-search, Internet journalism and consultancy- I am now an independent blogger interested in real life problem solving.
See please I have experience in
R & D in the three realms of Matter, Energy and Information- and I want to use it till I am here upstairs.

I have studied your recent Annual Letter 2014 and I am very positively impressed- it is more than an thorough analysis- it is a real holistic synthesis. I like it and I take it as an opportunity to congratulate you for everything you have done for Mankind during your Microsoft era and after it. You are very rich however NOT your richness defines the best your personality and activity but your creativity and desire to help those in need. Your richness belongs to the area of meritocracy.
I am writing you because I have an ideology & strategy to donate to you and I dare to think it is something that can improve a lot the effectiveness and efficiency of your Foundation.
I know that the Internet is wonderful, however I am unable to predict if:
 a) my Open Letter will indeed ever ‘arrive’ to Bill Gates;
b) if he will read it, and
c) if he will take my suggestions in consideration. Anyway, I have not much to lose. I have had discussions with really great people as the writer Arthur C. Clarke and even with a Greek Goddess- see please [1]- who has explained me the root causes of the recent global Crisis already in 2007.Maybe I will have luck in the present case too Perhaps the rule of six- or less degrees of separation will help. My dear reader, perhaps you know a way to Bill  Gates?!
The 2014 Annual Letter has already generated aome 4000 Open Letter to Bill Gates.

The Gates Annual Letter

I agree that the world is a better place now than it was before, despite the general validity of the Twin Peaks Principle: “Evil is indestructible and always wins.” Actually Evil changes its form and its intensity decreases sometimes. ‘Geography is destiny’ and ‘History is a trap’ are evanescent truths in many places. Not in North Korea as an extreme negative example.
I am very pleased to see that you are using the same strategy- complete definition- first negative as in my problem solving rules.
(the 20 rules are attached to this letter).
Yes, the removal of the imaginary obstacles – in this case Myths is the first, decisive step.
To stop all these myths we have to fight the inherently natural trend of poor (and in a smaller extent- rich) countries to become kleptocracies where corruption is endemic and systemic being modus cogitandi, operandi and vivendi for the politicsl leaders and  citizens.. If human rights are not cannibalized by super-human privileges- the 3 myths can be defeated. Problem solving is ineffective when the privileged people in a country take more profit from the problems than from the  solutions.  

The global problem is aggravated by what we know as Crisis- due to complex causes, the Whole (contrary to its natural state) is becoming smaller than the sum of its parts. I know the explanation of this national/global tragedy from the best Person possible, [1] but due to the Cassandra Syndrome insignificantly few people believe “us” Nor Athena, neither I want money, we just want to solve the heinous, persistent and recurrent  problem.

I have studied your Foundation’s strategy with admiration; I think it can be characterized by aiming to do the maximum good directly at the problems/humans interface where the need and the pain are the greatest.
What I think it could be the best for your long range-greatest scale effectiveness is to act complementary at the deepest core of the problems/solutions interface where the positive effect is the greatest.
Very specifically it is about solving the essential problems of technology in the optimal mode; this will have the greatest possible positive impact on the future of the Mankind.

The core problems of Technology. [2]

The best and smartest definition of Technology due to Pierre Le Goff is:


Simple and comprehensive. The global situation is as follows:

a) we, humans have solved quite well the transport and transfer of information (with a decisive contribution of Microsoft). Transformation on the DIKWP- data- information- knowledge- wisdom – prediction scale is an endless problem that has to be solved for each case again and again.

for energy is situation is much worse, the domination of fossil fuels used via destructive burning is the shame of human technology and the weakness of the natural regenerable sources. WE NEED NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY! My blog Ego Out (ego “out” i.e. lost ego that is the information, knowledge and wisdom lost by the death of n individual) – is dedicated to the best new energy sources of the near future and to real life problem solving. A decisive step will be made in New Energy this year! Please believe me

For matter- chemistry, physics, materials science are fighting on many technological fronts; it would be unfair to tell which is more important- however nanotechnologies and nanoplasmonics appear to be a cornucopia of great possibilities.

The starting idea- what can the Gates Foundation do now?

There is no real equivalent of the Nobel Prize for technology. The Foundation could create it in the most adequate form- three prizes:

Gates Prize for Core Technology of Matter; 
Gates Prize for Core Technology of Energy;
Gates Prize for Core Technology of Information.

I bet this will be the catalyst for great achievements. Matter and energy technologies will follow information technology in solving their fundamental problems.

Peter Gluck




by Peter Gluck

It is available in 21 languages


“ I think, I exist.
   I decide I live.
   I solve problems, I live with a purpose.”

1. There are NO isolated problems, they always come in dynamic bunches

2. There are NO final solutions for the really great problems, these have to be solved again and again.

3. NOT solving the problem, but defining it is the critical step.

4. NOT the unknown data, but those known and untrue are the greatest obstacle to the solution.

5. .NOT what we know, but what we don’t know is more important for solving the problem.

6. NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented.

7. NOT all problems have a complete, genuine solution.

8. NOT the solutions that seem perfect from the start, but those which are very perfectible are the best in many cases.

9.  NOT the bright, shiny, spectacular solutions but those elaborated, worked out with difficulty and effort and patience are more valuable and have a larger area of applicability.

10. NOT the solutions that are logical and perfectly rational, but those that are adequate for the feelings of the potential users, even if they are ilogical, have the greatest chances of fast implementation.

11. NOT the quality of the solution but the speed of its implementaion is the decisive factor in many cases. It can be better to have a partial solution applied fast than a slower almost perfect solution.

12. NOT always long hours of hard work and great efforts, but (sometimes) relaxation and fun is the best way to obtain solutions for (awfully) difficult problems.

13. NOT our own problems, but the problems of other people are usually more boldly and creatively solved by us

14. NOT the solutions worked out by us, but those borrowed. bought or stolen from others are more easily accepted and implemented.

15. NOT the enhancement of human strengths but the limitation
of human weaknesses is more useful for efficient problem solving

16. NOT the very careful perfect planning, but the smart assuming of risks and firm decision taking are the practical keys to successful problem solving.

17. NOT always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.

18. Do NOT accept the premises of the problem, change them as necessary and possible.

19. Do NOT stop at the first solution, seek for alternatives.

However, for the really advanced problem solvers, there is a SUPER RULE- the most important of all;

20. NOT the wise application of these rules but the finding of the specific exceptions to these, is the real high art of problem solving.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Stoyan Sargoytchev about "Gamma radiation in nanoparticles and shielding"

Our friend, Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev explains the problem:

"I see some discussions with a doubt about a cold fusion because gamma radiation from the E-cat HT test was not detected despite that it did not have a lead jacket. I added my considerations about gamma shielding in my article in (page 15)"

He cannot make additions or corrections to the original paper, however his personal expert opinion about this is as follows:

.Let considering the gamma radiation from the nickel nanopowder and its shielding. For gamma energy in the order of 6 MeV, the wavelength is about 0.2 pm. This wavelength is a few orders smaller than the gaps between the nanopowder particles. The gas occupying the gaps has a refractive index close to one, while the refractive index of the nanoparticle material for the wavelength of 0.2 pm is much higher. Then the emitted gamma rays from the nickel nanopowder in the bulk will undergo multiple reflections, refractions and absorption, so the energy they loose will be converted to heat. Some proper attenuated gamma rays will produce Rydberg hydrogen that is useful for the cold fusion. Only not absorbed attenuated gamma rays may escape the fuel powder, so they must be shielded. Gamma rays emitted from the nickel nanopowder that is closer to the cylindrical enclosure will be stronger. From the publicly released information by Focardi and Rossi it is known that a small gamma radiation exists. For this purpose the E-cat described in the Rossi patent contains a lead jacket [28]. For the E-cat HT reactors that were tested by G. Levi et al., however, a lead jacket was not noticed [3]. This does not mean that there is not any radiation shield. With the advancement of nanotechnology a new way of effective gamma radiation shield is developed. This has been in focus of NASA research for years [40, page 14]. A new technology for gamma shielding is already offered by the company Radiation Shield Technology, Inc. [41]. They manufacture a trademarked product Demron™, which is a lead-free radiation protective fabric in a form of a blanket created with nanotechnology. The Demron material is designed to reduce emission from high energy gamma sources such as Cesium 137. Such material might be hidden beneath the silicon ceramic or inside of the cylindrical body of E-cat HT where the heaters are placed.

Added reference:
40. Revolutionary Concepts of Radiation Shielding,
41. Nanotechnology used in radiation protection – new product (2004)

Saturday, January 25, 2014


“Contradictory news circulate about Count X. Some say he is dead, others say he is still alive. The truth, as almost always, is in the middle.
(Source went in oblivion but I suspect it was “La rire” (The Laughter) by Henri Bergson the first ‘serious’ book I have ever read)

A remarkable statement in my former blog publication was: “Complexity is the keyword in the cold fusion phenomena”
It was written by my good friend Hideo Kozima and was approved
by many commenters including one of the giants on whose shoulders I am staying and looking for the future of the field. (take this symbolically please).
So, the statement is true, is absolutely true- but a great question appears here; HOW, in which sense is it true that complexity is the
key to cold fusion? Is complexity mainly good or predominantly bad; is it on the side of the problem or on the side of the solution?
What is certain: complexity IS!  Everywhere in Nature and also in human bodies, souls and societies.

Note: everything that follows is true; however it is a special kind of truth, omnipresent for cold fusion and described precisely in my best, but completely ignored essay – as my biographers will state it: Is this too complex and strange an idea to be understood?

It is also certain that complexity leads to problems, see this classical quotation:

Three reasons problems are inevitable; first, we live in a world of growing complexity and diversity; second, we interact with people; and third, we cannot control the entire situation we face.” (John C. Maxwell)

Thinking at the highest intensity I am able to now, I had a revelation: complexity is very similar to cholesterol- i.e. to something that is more familiar, part of everyday life and of standard thinking. Apart from a systematic comparison, the most powerful similarity is that we are systematically educated to hate both cholesterol and complexity. See please Dave Pollard’s bright essay:

A more recent smart publication about the subject is:

“Understanding complexity”:

For cholesterol see please:

I consider that complexity is very much like cholesterol- it is unavoidable and ubiquitous, both are clearly considered of two sorts one good and one bad.
The role of the bad sort is much exaggerated:

 -for cholesterol by Big Pharma (that wants to make billions by selling dangerous Statins),

-for complexity by those who are not able to understand the roles of the critical parameters.

I will not tell you more about the cholesterol mythology because the Big Pharma’s effective propaganda – it spends more money for marketing than for research and it is difficult to confront its strong memes.
Complexity is complex per se and has a natural trend to become increasingly complex structurally, quantitatively, qualitatively, functionally, causally, and LENR is an extreme case- multi-stage, multi-phase, multi-disciplinary. To this adds diversity and dynamics and strongly non-linear effects. Systems thinking is a must. The system has to be described by many parameters and its evolution from the initial state to the final one is quite difficult to predict. However- LENR’s complexity is manageable – as the coming-soon commercial applications will demonstrate it. 
There is no simple way to success therefore this old CF simplicity myth promoted by a recent paper:  

“The dream of cold fusion is that it brings cheap, unlimited energy from devices that can be built in a garage.”
is false, counter-productive and harmful. THe solutions need good engineering, science and serious professionalism.

We will understand that complexity is actually good, is the gateway to many possibilities.

My gratitude goes- in reverse alphabetical order-  to F. Piantelli, H. Kozima, J Hadjichristos who have helped me a lot to believe that I am on the best way to  understand the essence of  LENR complexity.


Wednesday, January 15, 2014



Scientists study the world as it is; engineers create the world that has never been. (Theodore von Kármán)

Cold Fusion was discovered in a form, place, and time generating severe inborn problems to it. To solve these problems, it has to be re-invented. (Peter Gluck)

This is not a Motto; however I think that the optimal mode to learn from good and smart people is when and by disagreeing with them. Really, many errors are made by mixing differing things as friendship and admiration for somebody with not using critical, independent thinking – mercilessly, for his ideas. Obviously to be fair, you have to accept the same brutal treatment for your own, dearest ideas. If ideas are valuable and true, they will eventually win. Perhaps, sometimes after a painful process of evolution.

Recently ( I have tried to find out what has concluded a Japanese paper about the most evil problem tormenting our field from its early childhood up to now- bad reproducibility. From the lacunar
information I got, it seems that the Igari-Mizuno paper has no conclusions of the good sort, neither positive (telling what you have to do) nor negative (justifying deep desperation)
However my friends are trying to help me. Their ideas and suggestions are diverse- but have in common the very stimulating
feature that I disagree actually with all. I have a simple explanation
for this situation- I consider they judge the situation from the side of the Problem, while I am already on the side of the Solution as promised for 2014. The name of solution is Engineering.  It would be naivety thinking they see it in the same way, but time will judge.

Hideo Kozima whom I consider as a brother after his visit at us in
1994 and whom I remember inter alia singing Mozart and this beautiful Japanese song with a splendid, cultured voice: wrote:

I would like to give you my opinion on the problem of reproducibility in the cold fusion phenomenon (CFP).
In my opinion, the CFP is a phenomenon of complexity and has no quantitative reproducibility but a qualitative reproducibility like the earthquake, typhoon, and so forth. It is enough to have a qualitative reproducibility to investigate a phenomenon. Your have to remember that almost all nuclear reactions in nuclear physics have only qualitative reproducibility. The simplest example of them is the alpha decay; we do not know which Ra nucleus decays at what time but we know the statistical law of alpha decay.
It is my pleasure if this letter is useful for your consideration of the problem of the reproducibility in the CFP. Complexity is the key word in the CFP.

Hideo is a scientist; if I translate his message in the language of technology- it says CFP cannot give anything of practical use. Qualitative reproducibility is, IMHO, a partial oxymoron. It is reproduced but when, how, if something occult, unknowable wishes.
I wouldn’t enjoy explaining this paradoxical concept to students.
Cold Fusion is and isn’t a natural phenomenon. In its potentially useful form it is man-made and has to be controlled, developed and used by humans. Earthquakes are studied not because they are interesting per se, but because they do a lot of harm to people and their assets. I dislike this association for CFP. In Romania we have a major catastrophic earthquake approximately each 40 years – the most recent ones being in 1977 and 1940. Time to be worried.
Hideo says complexity is the keyword in CFP. Very true but it has to be a complexity of the bad sort, a very chaotic one. Why should CFP be of so much higher complexity than many similar phenomena in Materials Science? I have concluded long time ago that cold fusion’s complexity is a toxic one, the presence of any gases that compete with deuterium/hydrogen is the cause of bad quality reproducibility. This simplistic, dirty idea was not accepted by my scientist friends because it is not scientific enough.

Then Ed Storms who was so helpful and generous during my visit at LANL in 1995 and who is trying so hard to explain the very basics of LENR up to now- Ed has also joined the discussion.

Cold fusion will be completely reproducible once it is understood. This is a phenomenon of nature that we presently do not understand. In addition, this understanding requires knowledge about both chemistry and physics, which is an unusual combination of skills.  People with a chemical background ignore basic rules of nuclear physics and the physicists ignore the basic rules of chemistry.  A time will come when properly trained people have the incentive to read the extensive literature and put the pieces together in a proper way. Only then will the effect be reproducible. Hopefully once Rossi puts a generator on the market, the system will wake up and give people the incentive to properly study the effect.

Now even if I well know Ed’s great merits and achievement and wisdom in the field, I also have almost formed a habit to –as respectfully as possible- to disagree with his ideas aimed to be part of solution.
As regarding his first sentence here, the reverse is also true, cold fusion must be made reproducible before it is completely understood. If cold fusion takes place in cracks as Ed tries to convince us then CF depends on a destructive process by definition, it is possible it can be understood quite well but not really controlled.
CF is too complex a matter for both physicists and chemists because the Solution is based on many engineering disciplines.
Ed calls cold fusion a “phenomenon of nature” however for us it is a human creation; take in consideration that Nature has only Solutions while we, humans have Problems too and these have to be solved,
I agree with Ed that only a commercial energy generator on the market can give back the lost reputation to CF and lead to the renaissance of the field. However I have strong doubts that Pd based wet systems will be ever more than a lab curiosity. 

(Hideo and Ed have then started a discussion about reproducibility and statistics, a bit apart from the main line of this discussion.)

Now a third friend, Mitchell Swartz enters the discussion. I have met Mitch in 1998 at Cambridge, Mass at a cold fusion meeting and I am reading with pleasure his excellent Cold Fusion Times. However, what he does say here happens to be for me like the  red color for the bull:
Alleged 'non-reproducibility' is not applicable to cold fusion for several reasons.  
First, the heart of the issue is that "reproducibility" is nothing but a euphemism for failure, used by those who are against the 25 year successful science and engineering of cold fusion.

   Second, for cold fusion, reproducibility obviously exists. As but one example, there were three (3) demonstrations of cold fusion at ICCF10 by John Dash, Dennis Cravens and Letts, 
and myself.  Three groups independently elected to begin experiments at a specified time (Tuesday) at MIT in 2003, and all got successful results.  That is reproducibility. Q.E.D.
   Third, another problem is that this is more complicated because reproducibility depends upon who does it and how.
Consider the art of glass making, or making cat-whiskers, or souffles, or bearnase or baked
Not everyone can do it. Are they reproducible?
   It depends who does it, and how much experience they have.
How about a kidney transplant?  or curing even an early Stage Hodgkin's disease by ionizing penetrating radiation.  Does anyone really believe that any and all readers of CMNS would get the same success for their attempting a kidney transplant into the pelvis of a 12 year old?  or that they would achieve the same 20 year disease-free survival if they had access to the machines (6 MeV linacs and the like) to treat the tumor cited above (which requires licensing and certification, of course, therefore).

  Fourth, analysis of 'reproducibility' is even more interesting showing how illogical it is, as a 'straw man' argument.
Consider that as regards 'reproducibility' there is even a possibly spatially varying activity for some systems.
  As an example, penicillin VK (an antibiotic used since WW1 against gram + bacteraciae when it replaced proflavine)
works successfully outside of the hospitals today in about 96 of every 100 infections.
It is very curative, whereas the untreated infections might have killed many of the patients as they did when they were the major cause of death in the early 1900's.
  There is much clinical significance because each of these cures are very significant to the people involved.
  But it is not completely reproducible at ~96%.     [ So is there utility?   I say yes. ]

  But consider, inside hospitals where nosocomial infections today are "winning" all too often, penicillin VK may only be effective against a very small fraction (maybe 1 in 3 or less), 
and at those locations infected patients die if not given superlative therapy(ies) to PVK.
  In one location, the antibiotic's effect is almost reproducible (although 'not completely' is it?), and elsewhere, in the hospitals festooned with nosocomial drug insensitive strains, it is a failure and not reproducible.
  So the drug's effectiveness is ---> spatially varying with respect to 'reproduciblility'.

  In summary, allegations of non-reproducibility in cold fusion (lattice assisted nuclear reactions) are today not logical, and are disingenuous because reproducibility has already long existed
 in several types of cold fusion systems (using probably similar types of CFP) for years.

I am completely unable to accept Mitch’s arguments or to synchronize with his mode of thinking; my impression is that he tries to kill the problem before and instead of solving it.

First he says (very correctly) that non-reproducibility is just an other name for failed experiments – and adds that this is just a hostile action of those (bad and stupid people) who are able to ignore the great and valuable achievements of cold fusion from its 25 years glorious history. How should call a correct, faithful CF researcher the same situation, say a series of experiments with 5 to 20% reproducibility? What is the connection between blaming the others and genuine failure?

Second argument very strange- episodes of reproducibility obviously existed once, then they exist today. Listen to this aria:
It happened that Don Giovanni was faithful to a woman for three days, but if cold fusion can be called reproducible due to some short episodes of reproducibility, than Don Giovanni is really faithful, I think. As “winning” in the well known quotation by Vince Lombardi, reproducibility is not a sometimes thing, it is an all-time thing.
Third, reproducibility seems to be very subjective, needs special skills- OK, the truth is that even very most skilled people cannot achieve real reproducibility. The many examples from the medical domain are interesting but of no use, as long as experimental geniuses have not achieved high reproducibility
And fourth, an argument far over my head, variable reproducibility is not true reproducibility and the numerous examples from medicine have not much to do with the cases of cold fusion. Why should the demand for reproducibility be illogical today?  We want good heaters working reproducibly.

It is not polite and not productive to just negate others’ ideas.
It is not the first time and hopefully not the last time when I state
that engineering is the key to usable/useful cold fusion. Take in consideration that during this process of development it will be transformed in such an extent and deepness that the name of the field will change.

Hideo will be right then: complexity- just smartly organized will be
the keyword.
Ed will be right then, the phenomena will be well understood and controlled in a perfectly reproducible way.
Mitch will be also right then it will be illogical and unjust to call the phenomena irreproducible.
I bet with you that after the triumph of engineering in our field the ab ovo erronated name of cold fusion will evanesce surprisingly fast.


PS This paper was published on my Blog with the explicit approval
of two of my co/counter-authors and lack of protest of the third. My gratitude- the dialogs come from a closed Forum.