Friday, October 24, 2014

OPEN LETTER TO THE AUTHORS OF THE HOTCAT LUGANO TEST



To:
Giuseppe Levi giuseppe.levi@unibo.it
Evelyn Foschi: unknown, please convey
Tornbjorn Hartman:  torbjorn.hartman@tsl.uu.se
Roland Petterson: Roland.Pettersson@kemi.uu.se
Lars Tegner: Lars.Tegner@angstrom.uu.se
Hanno Essen: hanno@mech.kth.se

Dear Authors,

For the sake of Science and especially for the New Paradigm
of the energy source called in present Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, it is necessary to get more essential scientific data
regarding the very important experiment made by you.
This is possible only via a collegial and mutually respectful
dialogue with you.
I have elaborated and described the principles for organizing such a dialogue here: 

The impact of my proposition was minor and I have received too many thorny and Krivitized  questions, unusable - therefore I have decided to write you in my own name and in the name of my Blog and to ask you the following questions:

LIST OF QUESTIONS (I stage)

1- Can you tell us more about the design of the Cell and the planning of the Test?

2- On which thermal and optical characteristics of the alumina used for the vessel, was the test based?

3- Can you give more data regarding the internal structure and the transport, transfer and transformation of matter and energy in the Cell?

4- What methods of stimulation (EM etc.) have you used to trigger the reactions?

5- In which extent the cell/process tolerates the presence of air and water?

Please remove any and all the doubts regarding the temperature of 1400C on the Cell ergo question 6 and 7:

6- How do you explain the survival (?) of Ni nanostructures in the close proximity of the melting temperature of nickel?

7- Is the device “calorimetrable” i.e. what is the effect of cooling, partial removal of excess heat?

8- Based on your two tests including the analyses of both fuel and ash what do you think about the reactions taking place?

9- Is there a complete set of analyses bound to the test- that can be used to work out understanding and theory/ies of the process?

10- -With whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?

11- What your attitude toward replication of the test, new tests other actions in collaboration?

Please send the answers to the Blog (comments) or to peter.gluck@gmail.com
Thank you in advance,


Peter Gluck

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

PREPARING FOR A DIALOGUE WITH THE AUTHORS OF THE ROSSI REPORT.



INTRODUCTION

Dear Readers,

The publication of the new Rossi report is an important event for our scientific-technical field. My expectations from this research project were:
 a) the proof of massive excess heat and
b) scientific data usable for the building of the new paradigm of LENR (or what it actually is) – implicitly for the necessary replacement of the old paradigm that does not work neither toward understanding, nor toward a new source of energy.

The Report supports both expectations however not completely. The reason is that I am not a know-it-all; I do not understand some principles, subtleties and details of the Report. This is a problem and problems must be solved. The most straightforward solution is to initiate a productive high quality dialogue with the Authors. Clearly this has to be a multi-staged dialogue going from the essentials to the details, however not by-passing the critical issues, if any.
I make an appeal to the empathy of the Authors: remember that “It is the question that illuminates, not the answer” (Eugene Ionesco) Their task is easier, they know the answers while we have to create quality questions able to pass all the natural barriers and to stimulate the positive attitude of those who have made this great work.

EMPATHY FOR THE AUTHORS.

On our turn, we have to feel sincere empathy for all the Authors who took great risks by supporting an idea that is oppressed and an individual who is demonized by merci- and shame-less critics and bravos who all have made a passion and credo for attacking everything connected to Rossi. The authors have received tons of insults, offenses, are ridiculed both by dogmatic professionals and sadistic amateurs. It is no exaggeration in this, I have read all those personal attacks; they are personal because almost all the trolls have high degrees of technical and scientific illiteracy and have not written a single research report in their lives. The Authors are right to avoid any contact with ill-willed ignorance, dominant arrogance, incurable prejudices and loquacious incompetence. Lack of respect for the work and the authors are not excusable.
We have to demonstrate them that we are different, we sincerely and professionally motivated want to understand how the process works, how this experiment was organized – and what open problems- if any- are left. We are in the same boat as they.

THE AIM IS: ASKING ANSWERABLE QUESTIONS

I have watched the Internet for long years and I have to say that very rarely I have seen a dialogue that wasn’t actually a set of parallel monologs- we have to try very hard now. We have to practice the high art of asking answerable questions in the most consistent logically way. Obviously this will be a multi-stage – process- and within the stages – going step by step.
It will help, I hope, the authors to write the promised updates to the Report here: http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad/

If we want a bad example, how to NOT ask here is a horrible one, venomous:

Which kind of questions to NOT ask:
1-     idiotic inquisitorial question as in the document above;
2-     “I know you don’t know” arrogant questions
3-     curious kibitz questions style “I am just asking”
4-     obviously ill-willed, you will fall in my trap questions
5-     unprofessional, badly formulated unclear questions
6-     mixed questions- combining more incompatible ideas
7-     more questions jumping from on idea to other
8-     any questions linked to Rossi +IH’s industrial secrets, however we have to let the authors to decide which ones belong to this category.  

 Which kind of questions to be asked:
1-     short, condensed, clearly formulated, generative questions
2-     "first-things- first questions
3-     MAXIMUM 10-12 essential questions in the first stage

Sources for questions- are many: forums as Vortex- a lot of threads, some abandoned, some still open, E-Cat World – for good questions.
There are some 50 unanswered questions at the LENR Forum, unfortunately this did not worked- no wonder it is an olla podrida of very different questions- no taxonomy there.
But we have to use the most natural one.
When I have had the task to analyze hundreds of patents for the technologies of OLTCHIM, the natural order was: chronologically (in time), logically (type of technical solution) and technologically (according to the owner company, grouped as solutions) – so it was possible to use the patents to get the visions of technologies (obviously in combination with book, papers, grey literature and many other sources)
For the Report- the basis is chronological: before, during and after the Test, design, execution, interpretation.

In this case we have an excellent model-in-principle for questions (implicit ones) - the prompt analysis of Mike McKubre:

I am asking for your help – for the best choice and presentation
of the (say) First Dozen of questions. See, but take only as preliminary- my choices- what I consider as prioritary.

THE TAXONOMY OF THE QUESTIONS

Research strategy, working hypothesis in the Test
- how have you contributed to the design of the cell?

The structure and functionality of the E-cat
- thermal, optical properties of alumina vessel?
- internal structure and materials dynamics in the cell?
- have you used EM or other form of stimulation?
- in which extent the cell tolerates presence of air and water?

Heat measurement balance details problems
- remove please any doubts re 1400 C!?
- how do you explain Ni nanostructures survival at 1400C?
- is the device calorimetrable- effect of cooling?

Analytical problems
- progress in understanding reactions in Hot Cat?
- is there a complete set of analyses for foundation of Theory?

Conclusions for present and future
- with whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?
- your attitude toward replication of the test, new test?

Each question can be explained and its motivation will be presented.

Peter


Sunday, October 19, 2014

ETHAN SIEGEL’S THIRD BOMB THROWN ON COLD FUSION.



Motto:
“The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously”
                                                                  (Henry Kissinger)

As a former citizen (captive) of a communist regime I am very indebted to the author of this popular quote for his political activity. The authoritarian regimes have collapsed and I am free today and he has contributed to this.
The Kissinger quote is appreciated as something wise – and, in many circumstances- as life or death situations it indeed is.
However in more normal and less stringent situations, exactly the contrary of what he has told is true:

The absence of alternatives blocks the mind completely”
                                                             (Hostile Pragmatic Reality)

Later in retrospective, after the disaster, many times, you will see that actually there were alternatives but you had no idea about their existence. You had no proper information about the possibilities, about the ways to escape, the saving solution or, simply the correct explanation; the circumstances have forced you to act or answer what you could - and you lost or failed. The response was a forced error due to lack of information- or knowledge, wisdom.

This has happened in 1989 with the Fleischmann Pons discovery: lots of excess energy- it cannot be chemical being too great – than it MUST BE nuclear. Due to our inherited love of certainty and simplicity- we (the collective mind, a splinter of Zeitgeist actually) have called the new source of energy Cold Fusion. In a sense it was both a blessed and a cursed moment of the history of science and technology. I still consider justified calling Cold Fusion a “miscovery” http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/05/concept-of-miscovery-and-what-it-means.htm - and a misname. Only now so many years later we start to see and understand that the process is nuclear only partially and it is nuclear of a special kind- a new reality appears, it is much more than a new theory.

However Cold Fusion gave the creative opportunity to Ethan Siegel to write a third cold fusion paper- I have dis/miscovered it today:
Throwback Thursday: the Foolish Fallacy of Cold fusion

Nasty, aggressive title the content is very similar with the other two Siegel papers presented here recently…
Probably to suggest that Rossi is a scammer, Siegel re-tells us the story of the chess automaton of Kempelen  Farkas (1734-1804) Hungarian inventor and scientist, kind of Dean Kamen of his age. The chess automaton- with a very talented dwarf player inside was more a joke, a challenge however this player inside was a formidable talent. See his games: http://www.chessgames.com/player/the_turk.html

 Siegel re-demonstrates that Cold Fusion cannot be fusion.
I don’t remember when exactly has told Arthur C Clarke “it is probably not cold and not fusion” The founding fathers have also spoken about an “unknown nuclear process” quite early.

Speaking about the Sun- as a model for fusion energy we are not warned that it is a lousy weak source of energy- very low energy density- we cannot use such weaklings. Our patent specialist, David French has written an intellectually enchanting paper about this:

Our Universe is the most interesting of all possible Universes but it is not a model of efficiency. For long time I have complained that the speed of light, the absolute maximum is snail-like if we take in consideration the huge distances between the material formations, galaxies stars, whatever. Not a model of promptness, not in the spirit of “bis dat qui cito dat”
But Siegel will not give; in the name of Science he will take our new source of energy away. Dear Ethan, you are right that cold fusion of the productive sort is not fusion, so please join the efforts to find out what it is. Learn together with those who have started the job.


Peter 

Saturday, October 18, 2014

VICTORY OR DEFEAT? ALL COMBINATIONS POSSIBLE!



An overanalyzed victory is indistinguishable from defeat;\
and the test described by the Rossi Report is only a bit different- can it be called a victory? It is a difficult problem of definition. As usual, all the parts involved in the confrontations claim victory. Judging realistically, it wasn’t a breakthrough, a game changer event. (Note: in this essay I am speaking about a victory for science)

As a professional problem solver (see and use my problem solving rules!) my approach is this:  I see the solution- the test is what it is, but it can and must be converted in a full victory! Opportunity lost has to be made opportunity re-gained.

It could have been done by parallel experiments in the same place or more places. It also could it be done by repeating it
in improved, anyway smartly chosen different - conditions.
The sampling procedure was a horrible Waterloo battle for science. I still hope that a second – everything goes to analysis- sampling was indeed done. The results of the grand analysis are accessible probably only to Rossi, Industrial Heat and a few insiders- but does this sanalysis+multi-disciplinar investigation exist or is it only a product of my wishful thinking?)

Rossi says he is now fully committed to the 1MW plans and the customers will decide if these multi-Ecat heat generators bring profit or not; if Yes! the new energy source is here and everything is OK, technologically and economically. It is sad and quite symptomatically: Rossi is not more speaking about the promised Theory.

He speaks about the Standard Model and other classical theoretical physics issues, while this new energy source
is actually new physics- added to old physics- extending it, not contradicting it. Who knows what is the philosophy of scientific progress of Andrea Rossi? Is he able to understand and to control well his own invention?  I don’t know him, I cannot communicate with him but I still hope. I know from many examples from history- human nature does not change essentially- that the relationship of all kind of creators and their creations can be complex and paradoxical. (For me, given my personal cultural example the most impressive example is described in Stefan Zweig’s book: “Decisive Moments in History” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisive_Moments_in_History
chapter 9: “Genius of a single night- Rouget de Lisle writes La Marseillese”. The most revolutionary song was written and composed by a rather reactionary person. I know all analogies are flawed but our brains are programmed to use them.
It was very na├»ve to hope that the great dream of Cold Fusion will be saved by a Knight with no fear and beyond reproach”
Rossi is perhaps too real, too human to be a new Bayard in science and energy. He has problems to solve. How could he combine a technological financial victory with the victory of science? More probably other researchers will do it for him.

The lack of a theory of LENR became something intolerable.
One of my reader friends, whom I consider a brother in life experience based non-idealism, Doug Marker from Australia writes about these fundamental realities:

- No one has yet come up with a published theory or set of theories that full explain all the LENR / HENI reactions that have been demonstrated up to now.
- Without a widely accepted theoretical base for the devices, some scientists can 'fairly' (in a fashion) argue that they 
 don't really exist or worse are deceptions.
- The biggest opposition to Rossi and others is from scientists who argue that the devices violate fundamental laws of
science, BUT that is NOT and can NEVER BE absolute proof such devices don't exist, only that they can't be explained
using known rules/laws.
Doug is so right wit this requirement of capturing LENR by the accepted theories; I will illustrate this with two papers of a mainstream scientist fiercely fighting for the orthodoxy of Physics.
Ethan Siegel has published a new anti-CF, “I do not believe (in) Rossi” paper at the elite

The E-cat: cold fusion or scientific fraud? (Synopsis)

in Science Blog Channel Physical Science
It is highly similar with his first paper discussed in my “Learning from a confrontationalist” paper
I take only the final sentences of these papers

The first one ended with:
Given everything that we know, as others also demonstrate (thanks, Steven B. Krivit), it’s time to set aside the mirage of Nickel + Hydrogen fusion and get back to work finding real solutions to our energy and environmental problems.”
The great problem here is the order of words- actually this has to be read- “we know everything and it is no place for Nickel + Hydrogen fusion” But, dear Ethan, is this Report speaking about this impossible fusion? It says, despite its mutilated analytical part that we have to deal with a complex dance of interactions and isotopes, something DGT started to assert very soon after its divorce from Rossi in 2011.

 Siegel’s new paper ends with a superior and arrogant: I will hold up the torch of what scrupulous science would look like, and challenge the participants to live up to it. Until then, this isn’t meritorious enough to be interesting.”
Doug, like me, has much understanding and empathy for Rossi’s secrecy ( I am more contrariated by what he has said about all Ni going to the isotope 63- was or wasn’t this a huge surprise for him?)
Doug says:
“If I were Rossi and dealing big problems he has, I would NEVER let anyone have full access to my fuel or all the ash. That fuel and the ash are Rossi's crown jewels and if Rossi knows his device works but that he can't explain it nor get a good patent for it, then he could well feel fully justified in tampering with his 'crown jewels' knowing that once he allows full access to them in all their detail, he has given away his achievements and still can't explain how it works. That glory would go to the next person who could use Rossi's fuel - process and ash to figure out the science. I have no difficulty stepping in to Rossi's shoes and behaving as he does while grappling with his dilemmas. If Rossi knows his device works (just ask Defkalion) then any trick or lie or sleight of hand can be justified if it is protecting his position”
 Point being that the core of Rossi's problem assuming no fraud, is that what his device does is impossible because no known laws explain it.

It is sad, but I must agree with Doug- we cannot wait complete analytics or theory from Rossi just small fragments of truth or partial truth.
The solution can come from Defkalion when they will finish launching Hyperion 6 and this includes the bureaucratic legal part
for this household generator (Rossi will try to solve this only after the customer experience with the industrial 1 MW gathering of E-cats.)

But a faster solution became also possible due to our true –and young knights with no fear and reproach – the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Group. These researchers have courage and despite many warnings that CF/LENR is bad for your career, despite seeing slow progress , open problems, non usable theories, chronic and deep lack of funding plus extreme heterogeneity, confrontations, conflicts, failures predicting new failures- lots of unhappy things- these admirable boys believe in the Fleischmann-Ponsian bold dream of an energy source at the  far right side of the Ragone plot accessible only from the very far right side of the Medawar Zone and they have decided to replicate the Lugano experiment. Bravissimo, this is the best news we had after the publication of the Report:

Design MFMP Plans E-Cat Replication Attempt Starting in 6 Days, Posted http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/17/mfmp-plan-e-cat-replication-attempt-starting-in-6-days-post-design/


I have read what and how they want to do and I like it sincerely, good strategic thinking.

MY APPEAL TO ALL MY READERS, WHEREEVER THEY ARE IS TO HELP BY ANY MEANS THE MFMP GROUP TO REPLICATE THE LUGANO EXPERIMENT!  ASK ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO SUPPORT THEM FINANCIALLY, WITH INSTRUMENTS, MATERIALS, CHEMICALS, CRITICAL INFORMATION, EVERYTHING THEY MAY NEED!

I wish so much to be younger with 40 years and join them but this is not possible due to my limitations, and all I can do depends on you, dear readers. 
I hope they will embrace the new paradigm and will succeed converting the test in a scientific victory.


Peter

Thursday, October 16, 2014

LENR CONFRONT JOURNAL, OCTOBER 16, 2014



 I am still confused about the analyses made/not made by Rossi. He helps/does not help- paradoxical style; nobody has tried to console or help me and I do not know what to think...

Yesterday in an interview with John McGuire Rossi said:
This report is no doubt very interesting and we are studying it because, as you probably know, there is a surprising result regarding the Nickel-62 in particular, and we are studying it because we are strongly directed, under a theoretical point of view, to understand these kinds of results that was unexpected.

Today, answering on his blog to Italo R.:
No doubt about the increase of 62Ni, which we found many times, about the entity measured a strong work is in the making

It seems to be a contradiction here, I dare to think but I am not sure.

The brightest comment of this day was made at this very positive and encouraging paper:

LENR-THE PROMISE OF CLEAN AND AFFORDABLE ENERGY Lecture October 20.

The comment of Christopher Calder:
“There are many exciting players in the race to bring Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) to the marketplace. There are also several competing hot fusion nuclear reactor designs that could be very cost effective and compact. The main thing is we have to replace fossil fuels and end the renewable energy fad-fiasco. For details and the BIG PICTURE, please Google *The Renewable Energy Disaster*. We need solutions that do not cause far more problems than they solve.”

The last sentence seems to be general but also an allusion to Rossi and to the Report- but this is my opinion, not Christopher’s.
I am still waiting the authors of the Report will answer to the doubts regarding energy measurement (because I KNOW Rossi’s feline creatures are able to generate huge quantities of excess energy. I say and sign this, Mary Yugo and her companions trolls can call me as they wish)  The problem of sampling is more difficult, does a complete analysis exists and is this in harmony with the former analyses made. I still hope he has told the truth today and not yesterday.

Calder is right: progress is when the number of the problems decreases and the number of solutions increases, when each problem is replaced by an other one, as tricky as the original we have stagnation; when we are overwhelmed by problems
it is decay – and if always the same old problems hit us- it is probletence.

I will start a list of Solved Problems in LENR. Can you suggest some examples?


Peter

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

LENR CONFRONT JOURNAL, OCTOBER 15, 2014



A week after the publication of the Rossi Report, the turmoil continues but we already can start to build a vision of the general situation, asking: who confronts whom and what.

Let’s start with the worse one; at first sight you surely do not realize the horror of it.
Rossi confronts real problems, enemies, competition and this is natural for such a difficult and challenging research project like his- but now also belonging to Industrial Heat and, in part to Elforsk.

Now I find it shocking thatRossi Working Hard to Understand the Physics behind the E-Cat in Light of New Report http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/14/rossi-working-hard-to-understand-the-physics-behind-the-e-cat-in-light-of-new-report/  It is mainly about the isotopic changes. What can this mean?

a)     The professors have obtained unique surprising results now, for the first time;

b)     Rossi has worked for some 3+ years and has never analyzed the ash, or has obtained different results;

c)      Here it is some big lie- the unique good variant is the results of the Test were actually expected but Rossi still cannot or will not explain them.

I am totally confused by this problem.

 

This is a crucial problem; for the time given- as far as I know- the authors have not answered a single question at a special forum organized for this.

Rossi declares very clearly on his blog that he will NOT answer any question regarding the reactor and the test- niente! So he does not confront more the questions of those curious people discontented with some aspects or details of the test.

 So many questions will remain unanswered. But this still is not so troubling as Rossi amazement with those isotopic changes.

 

Rossi gives us (the public) fragments of information, as pieces of a puzzle. Those who have other pieces of the puzzle (supposedly Industrial Heat, Elforsk) can reconstitute  a bigger piece and understand the situation we remain with half-truths or in the best case with Pareto truths- and this is endemic for LENR, see:                                    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/11/80-of-all-truths-are-pareto-truths.html

 

The Report confronts: many angry attackers and the assertion it was a remarkable achievementagain is a Pareto Truth. One test, one reactor (as I commented yesterday) calorimetry in rather unusual conditions, no more alternative methods used for calorimetry, no verification, re-verification and cross verification. I know two colleagues who are unable to swallow the 1400 C temperature- plus red glowing plus nickel melted for sure in some places. Reality is not homogeneous; there are hot spots in many places. It smells of disaster.

We are a family of chemists- my wife and my daughter are specialized in analytical chemistry, I am a chemical engineer

We know from practice that sampling and sample preparation is the most difficult part of the analysis and it is so easy to obtain non-relevant and non-representative samples and results. And what has happened with the sampling after the test? I may not use 4-letter words here. The problem is – and Rossi will not let us know- was a correct sample taken too, analyzed and evaluated? And are there insides who know the complete results?

Rossi and his new nuclear physicist collaborator need his information for the TRUE THEORY promised by Rossi

And for a patent if he really wants one

 

People who invested hopes this new source of energy are confronted with this situation:

No absolute certainty of getting this energy, the test indicates with high probability (taking in account the first test too) good excess heat- Rossi is right that only the commercial generators will bring certainty;

 

It is a VUCA situation (Volatile (changing, Uncertain (not much predictable things and evolutions), Complex (positive and negative as Siamese Twins), Ambiguous (friends and enemies both claiming victory). The VUCAWorld of what is now LENR will last more than we wish. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/07/the-vuca-world-of-lenr-how-long-it-will.html

Interesting: a reader called Amos- I believe he is from South Africa commented on my blog (thanks!):

Either way, the next few months in the LENR space will be quite interesting thanks to this report. Remember I told you 2014 will not be the year of LENR as you had postulated. I still maintain that 2015 / 2016 will be the year. Wonder what Randall Mills thinks of the E-Cat now.

He can be right, I have my reasons (77 of them) to be in hurry. As regarding Randy, I can ask him but it is just a formality. Who believed in the functionality of the E-cat continues to believe after this test and is happier but this 32 days test not converted many -skeptics in E-cat lovers.

 

Do not ignore competition- it comes! There are scientists able to understand even those mysterious isotopic shifts and know the complete scenario and are adept in controlling the energy release

 

No more scientific experiments like this one says Rossi but even in his camp surprises are possible. What will do Elforsk?

I have full empathy for he testers who have risked much, get tons of insults, I wait for an opportunity to express it to them directly.

 

Peter


 

ABOUT "A SCIENTIFIC FACT, GRAVEN IN STONE" Dean L. Sinclair

 

It is my pleasure to publish this small essay of Dean, despite its lack of direct connection, at the surface, with LENR and with the center of the actual burning dispute the Rossi Report.
Actually, more in depth the essay is very inspiring for us,
we are fighting now – and we have done this for long time-with things, ideas truths graven in stone. Unfortunately we have also
graved some certainties in stone.

I am grateful to Dean for this miniature; Dean and I share two
problems
-         one very disturbing: pre WWII birth certificates;
-         one more formal: we both have theories that are not popular


THE ESSAY
It is known to every physical scientist that it is an absolute '"Fact, carved forever in stone, that "Matter and Anti-Matter annihilate on contact."

This supposed "Fact" is totally refuted by logic stemming from two other quite incontrovertible facts.

     1. Physical objects which are mirror images, or very close to mirror images, when placed in a particular orientation to one another combine into a far more symmetric unit.   They do not "annihilate," totally destroying one another, they simply combine...

      2. Matter and Anti-matter, by the very definitions, may be
considered as "perfect," or, "very-near-perfect" mirror images.

Conclusion:  Matter and Anti-matter units, if they can be brought to an exact orientation will combine to form a combination unit. This is what might be called a"Ying-Yang."

 As we now have one unit rather than two, there will be but half of the total motion disturbance that there was before. "Energy will be emitted."

Here are some examples with possibly logical interpretations.

     1. Negatron and Positron. (Electron and Anti-electron.) This is the "Annihilation” which has been often observed, misinterpreted, and over-generalized.  It can be diagrammed as follows:
      e^=  +  e^+ --->e^0, "Zerotron formation."  This unit has never been observed, probably because it was never suspected, yet it may be the "Ubiquitous Parent of All Matter."
      2. Proton and "Conton," diagrammed similarly produces what could by analogy be called a "Zeroton." This unit, as with the "Zerotron," has never been suspected. However, it may be a known particle, the "Tau."
       3. Hydrogen and Anti-Hydrogen combine. The product? Deuterium.
       4. Deuterium and Anti-Deuterium combine. The product? Helium Four.
       5. Tritium (H3) and Anti-Tritium combine.  The product?
Lithium Six.

Although we could continue to write other hypothetical examples, this will not be done. the ones given above are for simple enough units that the antimers have a finite probability of meeting in the right orientation to combine.  For larger units, there is too much complexity for there to be any logical expectation that they would combine, There might be a finite, but very small, possibility for units which form molecular dimers as do all of the cases cited above.