Saturday, January 24, 2015



Yesterday evening, Yuri Bazhutov has informed us that:
"The research regarding Plasma Electrolysis is continuing and this process is considered as a possible alternative to the Rossi warm E-cat, not the Hot Cat where the energy density is huge.
The target productivity is of the Russian E-Cat is 1MWatt.hours per 1kg of water the present results are only 2-3 kWatt.hours from 1kg common water.  
The main task now is to perform a demo experiment for a public of students too, with heating alkaline water in the Thermostat without evaporating it in the fume hood as a more ecological 

I will try to keep you  (Readers) up-to-dated with this innovative technology and will try to get answers to your questions.


“You can judge a researcher by the size of the problems he tackles”  (Anthony Jay) 

adapted from today's Gapingvoid Art that states:

Anthony Jay once said something like "You can judge a leader by the size of the problems they tackle." 

Size for a research problem as LENR - placed at the far right of the Medawar Zone is a very complex quantitative and qualitative concept including wickedness and Volatility-Uncertainty-Complexity-Ambiguity etc. A great problem needs great bold new ideas

"Realize that if you have time to whine and complain about something then you have the time to do something about it."
(Anthony D’Angelo)

Touché! Does "this" Anthony does speak about me too? I feel a bit being guilty- not the meek New Paradigm supporters will inherit LENR!

Apropos, Anthony, Antonio - ICCF-19 will take place in Padua - the town of Saint Anthony. First, thinking about this, I remembered when I still was helping my wife with a a musical culture contest (question from the history of music) I was able to answer a very difficult question: " A musical composition and a famous painting on the same religious theme were composed and, respectively presented in the same year,
The solution is "Saint Anthony preaches  to the fish(es)" - Gustav Mahler's 
"Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt" – St. Anthony of Padua's Sermon to the Fish 
and Arnold Bocklin's painting 
were created in 1892.
Both demonstrate that Saint Anthony was a good speaker  and a real democrat, preaching to fishes means you indeed believe in equality.
I have met San Antonio of Padua in hundreds of thousands of copies in 2003 when visiting it in 2003 together with two friends, both called Paul at the kind and generous invitation of a technologist genius  friend from my PVC years living there.. The streets of Padua are simply wonderful; I was a bit confused due ti the mercantile affairs connected with the Saint, but tourism is a business, I have to understand that tourism is great business, and..basta! It was a nice travel but the sad thing is that both Pauls, one two years older and the other 12 years younger than me, died of cancer in the  next two years.
So, at ICCF-19 we will meet Saint Anthony and he will help us; he is the saint responsible for the lost things his job is to give them back to the good people.
His direct representative is no coincidence) Antonio La Gatta the CEO (Chief Event Officer) of ICCF-19.
What has LENR lost and what can you and the Conference bck to us , caro Antonio?
The hope for a working technology? The intellectual pleasure of understanding what happens- both great vision and deep detail? The courage of sayind a decisive NO to what is impossible? The extase of confessing that we went in a wrong direction and the boldness to try a new one? The power to change?
Let's listen together to: but please keep in mind that even the best saints are educated to help exclusively problems solvers and you cannot build a brand new technology based on miracles- you have to cope with ever situation including this LENR.

3) Biased Saturday LENR lecture

The dedicated LENR workaholic has today a lot to do, he can explore the two Russian Nuclear Transmutation Reactions & Ball Lightning conferences reading the abstracts  and using Google Translate (and the on-line dictionary Russian to English) for the papers of special interest- start from: 
Not easy, I know, but if you are really interested...

Then, the great event of yesterday was the special LENR section in the Indian journal
Current Science, group of 11 papers written by our best LENR-ists 
About this please look also to:

Hindu Newspaper Pushes LENR as the ‘Other Nuclear':
and here:

After a few years we will understand that it is better to say "the otherwise nuclear" or "the nuclear of other kind"- but the sense remains.

I will read all these papers too but openly with the hope to find something outside wet PdD- as  NiH, LENR+.

4) New data or new points of view regarding LENR
a) In many places it is discussed if the following fragment of the Annual Letter of the Gates Foundation:

The most dramatic problems caused by climate change are more than 15 years away, but the long-term threat is so serious that the world needs to move much more aggressively — right now — to develop energy sources that are cheaper, can deliver on demand, and emit zero carbon dioxide. The next 15 years are a pivotal time when these energy sources need to be developed so they'll be ready to deploy before the effects of climate change become severe. Bill is investing time in this work personally (not through our foundation) and will continue to speak out about it.
I think only Bill Gates or some team that has already received fubds can answer now. Great expectations.

b) An improved theory paper:
The Hypothesis of Micro Acceleration Mechanism for Nuclear Fusion E-Cat Reactor — 2nd Ed. (Fedir Mykhaylov)

c) My friend AXIL has a decisive contribution to the New Paradigm of LENR. I can only admire his encyclopedic professional culture in physics and his continuous exploration of the New, the new we need- because something is missing for the understanding of LENR.
This comment of AXIL is a fine example:

Welcome to the new physics...
We can manipulate the waveform of a stationary subatomic particle using a phase mask to increase its energy up to the speed of light. This process uses the theory of relativity to convert the stationary subatomic particle into a spread-out waveform with lots of energy applied against the size of the waveform. The size of the elementary particle as defined by the extent of its waveform is increased by time dilation where energy is increased by extending the tail defining the waveform of the elementary particle to satisfy the momentum conservation laws.  In quantum mechanics, waves and particles are considered to be two aspects of the same physical phenomena. We can modify the properties of a subatomic particle by manipulating its waveform.
In a time dilation tradeoff, the lifetime of the elementary subatomic particle is lengthened to increase the energy of the particle.
The key to this manipulation of the waveform is the Phase mask.
The specially prepared nanometer sized dimpled surface of the nickel micro particles in the Rossi reactor serves as a phase mast to accelerate stationary particles to a ultra high energy wave shapes in the particle's frame of reference but the particle remains stationary in the reactors frame of reference.
In nanoplasmonics, it is the dark mode surface plasmon polariton that absorbs infrared photons. So the “hole” / photon hybrid of the dipole must be the subatomic waveform that is being modified to light speed even when it is embedded inside that nickel lattice of the surface of the micro particle. 
Big Twist for Electron Beam
One question that was hanging in the magnetic theory of LENR causation was how a strong magnetic field could be produced by an irregular surface, I have just become aware of a potentially new spin (magnetic) amplification process that fits in well with the magnetic theory of LENR and helps explain how  a properly formatted nano surface feature on a metal surface could lead to LENR.
A beam of  electrons rotating in a highly constrained vortex can have the strength of their spins multiplied by hundreds of times. These vortexes are produced by a surface mask where the waveform of the electron is modified by constructive and destructive interference.
Just like a dipole where a vibrating electron is always paired with a hole, and every vortex has two ends, paired SPP has bright SPP paired with a dark SPP. It is the Dark SPP that is both magnetically and LENR active.
For example, the wavelength of infrared light is about 700nm to 1000nm. If the vortex that the Hole/light hybrid is circulating around in is 1 just  nanometer, the spin of the SPP is multiplied by 1000. A dark mode Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) with a spin of 2 will have an effective spin of 2000 if rotating in a dimensionally small SPP vortex.
In addition as described above, when the tail of the waveform of the electron or hole is expanded by the time dilation energy uncertainty principle trade off which accelerates stationary subatomic particles to the speed of light, even more spin multiplication will occur, how much...a lot.
These two new quantum mechanical principles of condensed matter subatomic particle waveform manipulation can now explain where the huge strength of atomic level magnetism comes from.


It is clear these guys have not read my editorial of yesterday!Scientists slow down the speed of light travelling in free space

Exercise - please apply the teachings of this essay to LENR:
3 C’s for Learning and Leading on Social Media

A leadership symphony in C major (the letter "C")

Friday, January 23, 2015


MOTTO (kind of)

To the star that now appears
Is there such a long extend,
Hence so many and long years
Real light needed to land.....

The icon of the star that died
Smoothly is rising in the air;
It was when wasn’t in the sight,
Now shines, but not is there.

This sounds much better in Romanian, it  is the poem "To the star" in 4 stanzas by the Romania's national poet, Mihai Eminescu who complains here. He deeply is discontented because:

The light travels thousands of years from a star we see now, so we have no guarantee that what we see was not destroyed in meantime;so we are misinformed by the retarded image. Eventually he connects this with his own love life (he suffers for love affairs already gone)- but this has nothing to do with this essay about the Time Factor.

Original text and English translation (one of many) is here:

As Freeman Dyson said it and I too, quite independently, "this (our Universe is the most interesting from all the possible Universes". About this philosophy I wrote a lot in this blog - but see the first part of

However we have to pay a very high and painful price for the infinite interestingness of our world- the difficult and SLOW cognoscibility of the World. And this has a basic root cause- in our Universe the speed of light is unbearably low if analysed objectively in comparison to the huge interstellar distances. Re-read please the Motto poem.The speed of light is the maximum speed of information of matter of anything, except imagination and wishful thinking. We are sentenced to live in a slow Universe. Sometimes it happens that some very human issues get this illness from the Universe and are developing very slowly or not all- e.g. ethical intelligence

Very unfortunately for us, LENR is a slow developing scientific-technological issue, I will not debate about this but I want ardently to change it, I want to see LENR accelerated.
Now I will give only one very recent example of slowness in LENR+ land.
As you know, Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat have sold one 1MW plant to a customer (who knows what's with the very first carried away by the legendary colonel Domenico Fioravanti in October 2011?). The new !MW plant will be tested for an entire year before the supporters of LENR get some relevant data. Why this terrible excess of "festina lente"?  My guess is that  each month the client reports to IH :"the plant has produced N MWhours and has consumed M MWhours , after two-three months you know the situation and can compare it with the expectations and with the competition.  But what we get is:

Andrea Rossi- real data will be furnished when the test is over (in Italian)

Is this not too slow? It would be unfair to expect high COP's from this pioneer pilot plant, but why keep the results so secret?

NEWS or new ideas for today

1)Thoughts on LENR Rollout (Omega Z)

2)Vox populi, vox dei (the voice of people is the voice of the gods):
In  a Hungarian newspaper, a comment re the future evolution of the price of gas, a anonymous says:  " further, it is already certain the breakthrough for the LENR technologies which will replace stepwise the fossil energy sources"

3)News Portal:

The News Portal of Dr.Bob's website is fast and does a thorough job, no wonder that the Russian site- Cold Nuclear Transmutations and Ball Lightning has made a link to it 
I like the LENR-Forum

4) great news!
The Indian scientific journal - CURRENT SCIENCE latest issue has a special section for LENR, excellent papers:

For those who like fast information, here is the list, two clicks earlier: 
  • Z. M. Dong, C. L. Liang and X. Z. Li

5)This can be good news, even if still not quantitative:

More later or tomorrow- I want to publish this fast.


Thursday, January 22, 2015



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

(My Problem Solving Rules)

For a professional researcher this is a defining imperative.

Wet LENR+ is an technological oxymoron I concluded a few years ago but this does not apply to plasma electrolysis from easy-to-see technical reasons (this means I have no idea why but so many secondary unknown  phenomena appear that the situation can be reversed in something useful.I remember doing plasma electrolysis- preliminary tests in Gene Mallove's laboratory in 1997 it was then popular.

However, in Russia plasma electrolysis  was reconsidered for technological applications, energy generation. Citing from Bazhutov's interview:

"I believe that our option of Russian E-cat on the basis of Plasma Electrolysis gives a much better perspective- heat generator at close realization still having a very high output specific power (MWhours from grams common water).

I have already informed you about the publication of thr proccedings of two Russian LENR connected conferences- the key is there.

Plasma electrolysis in the Proceedings of the Russian Conferences Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning, for 2012 and 2013

See please the following abstracts- from 

Vol 19

 Plasma Electrolysis as Alternative Heat Generator
Yu.N. Bazhutov, A.I. Gerasimova, L.L. Kashkarov, A.G. Parkhomov4

In this article it is presented the investigation results of plasma electrolysis with anode gas
discharge. Voltage was (500-800)V. Current amplitude was (1-5)A. The electrolyte
composition was (2.5-10)М NaOH & 2М Na2CO3 in usual water. Nickel foil (0,1 х 50 х 100
mm3) was used for cathode & Tungsten or Niobium rod (Ø6mm) was used for anode. In our
experiments there have been used different nuclear & calorimeter diagnostic methods. In
these experiments there have been received results with numerous demonstration of their
nuclear nature which were in full accordance with Cold Nuclear Transmutation Erzion
Catalysis model predictions. In much series there were regulary demonstrated large excess
heat generation (< 700%), which can provide creating of new kind of perspective heat
generators & new perspective nuclear energetics.

Vol 20

Demonstration of Plasma Electrolysis 
as Alternative Energy Generator
Yu.N. Bazhutov
, A.I.Gerasimova

A project of the experiment to demonstrate the receipt of excess energy at the facility
"Fakel-D", which uses the mechanism of electrolysis gas discharge at the anode. Power
supply - (300-800) V. Electric current - (1-5) A. Additives to the electrolyte solution
- (5-20) % molecular. It is proposed to use a tungsten anode and a cathode - stainless steel or
nickel. It is proposed to use the following methods calorimeter diagnostics:
1) integral evaporator calorimetry measurement dispensers evaporated water as a Plasma
Electrolysis Heat Source (PEHS), and the control TEN boiler,
2) diagnosis of the same input from the mains power to the PEHS and the control TEN boiler. 

Erzion Interpretation of our Experiments with 
Plasma Electrolysis & Light CNT Stimulation

Yu.N. Bazhutov

The short review of some Cold Nuclear Transmutation investigation for last years is
presented. It is shown the main physical results of these experiments with plasma
electrolysis & light CNT stimulation of different water solutions. It is proposed the
Erzion model for theoretical explanation of the generation of excess heat, new chemical
elements and isotopes (Tritium) & neutrons in these experiments. 

Research of processes on installation 
of small power plasma electrolysis

The description of installation on which plasma electrolysis is investigated at various
operating modes of the reactor (immersion in electrolyte, an easy contact, a small gap, various
polarity of the central electrode, various capacity of the condenser, the single discharge or
long work) is given. The technique of definition of the relation of being allocated heat to the
electric power absorbed by the reactor is described. Value more 100 percents takes place only
in a case when the anode doesn't concern electrolyte, and is from it at small distance. In other
cases the heat emission approximately as much, how many it is absorbed of electric power or
a little less. Results of the analysis of electrolyte element composition before and after plasma
electrolysis are given. 

Reading these  (actually the papers per se!) we can better appreciate what  Yuri Bazhutov has told us in the interview; we get a better vision of the magnitude, deepness and difficulty of this direction of LENR.
Therefore I have asked Dr. Bazhutov to tell us the present situation and the perspective
This was just an introduction to what he will say us

Other info

If this has nothing to do with LENR, as i guess it, then I am not made for a career in nuclear physics:
Individual protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei do not behave according to predictions 


Fast early morning information:

An excellent, comprehensive up-to-dated analysis of the field by Stirling Allan
LENR-to-Market Digest -- January 22, 2015:
Many things happen and a great part of them can be called "good":

LENR-Sweden Facebook page- information rich:         

Brillouin Energy- has the support of Mike McKubre:

Vessy's Blog presents a physics book used by Andrea Rossi for understanding his LENR+ system
Book review: “Models of the Atomic Nucleus”

The Proceedings of The Russian Conferences on Cold Nuclear transmutation and Globular
Lightnings- No. 19 (2012) and No 20 (2013)

Impressively strong organization, many participants- interesting papers some must-be in LENR bibliographies- especially those about LENR+. Our Russian colleagues have reacted to the Rossi stuff very fast. Guide points and abstracts in English. Wish you good exploration and will help you with translation, if the case.


Wednesday, January 21, 2015



If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea. (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)
I want now to teach you to long for a high  quality LENR paper.

Only smart questions can generate good answers

Infinite Energy Magazine created by Gene Mallove is not a strictly poor reviewed scientific
journal. There are not many experts in the unknown and those who think the known has to be applied for judging and everything make many destructive errors therefore peer review has a limited validity for the new ideas in LENR. Some of the best, most important, impactful, high level Cf/LENR paper were published in Infinite Energy and a new bright example is in the recently launched issue 113- it is 
" Questions About Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions: Experiments, Theories and Computations"  by David J. Nagel 
It is the second of a troika of papers; the first is here:
In No 2 the following questions are asked:

Q13. What are the roles of various stimuli applied to LENR

Q14. Do resonances of any kind play a role in occurrence
of LENR?

Q15. What are the reasons for the lack of reproducibility
in many LENR experiments? (

Q16. What are the control parameters for production and
variation of excess power?

Q17. What are the prospects for long-term reliable energy
generators based on LENR?

Q18. What parametric variation and other experiments
might be done to advance LENR empirically?

Q19. What experimental tools should be employed for
LENR experiments?

Q20. What might be done theoretically to speed the
understanding of LENR?

Q21. What are theoretical LENR energies and rates?

Q22. Which computational tools should be employed for
LENR theories?

Q23. What is the value of computing material characteristics
and properties?

Q24.What is the payoff from data analysis and data mining?

Now about question 15- some LENR-ists, immune to optimism and with serious flaws in ceative thinking (I am one of these)  think that reproducibility is the Mother of All Questions in LENR
and this has absolute priority for solving, therefore I will show here the complete answeer of Prof Nagel:

"Reproducibility is commonly and sensibly taken to mean that, if a particular experiment is redone properly, the results will be repeatable, that is, close to what was originally measured.
Reproducing an experiment means that the equipment (in and around an experiment), protocols (procedures and practices) and materials (fuels and others) are either the same, or sufficiently similar, in the key features that determine the outcome of the experiment. Hence, achievement of better reproducibility requires careful attention to everything that goes into, and is done before or during an experiment.
Reproducing an experiment is easier if it is done in the same laboratory as the initial experiment. However, the reproducibility that is most meaningful is that between laboratories
with different scientists and organizations. Related questions are what most controls the reproducibility of LENR experiments, and what is needed experimentally to achieve full reproducibility?
There are two major reasons why experiments are difficult to reproduce, in general, and especially in a new field where the key variables are not known adequately. The first is the
difficulty in matching the setup and input factors. The second is the natural tendency of scientists to vary these factors, either because they think they have a better idea, or
because they do not have similar equipment and materials.
Some of the factors already discussed above must be responsible for the early and remaining problems with lack of reproducibility in LENR experiments. Variations in seemingly identical experiments, as well as changes during an experimental run, have proven to be major problems in the field.
They must be due to lack of knowledge of the conditions necessary for the production of LENR and ignorance of the details of material requirements, which are almost certainly
key to LENR.
Reproducibility is so important, and so challenging for LENR experiments, that it has been continually discussed in the literature and commentaries on the subject. Reports on specific experiments have cited the percentage success rate, that is, the fraction of a group of experiments that give excess heat or some other evidence of LENR. They are widely scattered
in the large literature on LENR experiments. The topic of the reproducibility of LENR experiments deserves a new study and report. Here, we will cite only one paper from a decade ago. 
Letts and Cravens wrote: “The thermal response of the cathode is typically 500 mW with maximum output observed of approximately 1 W. The effect is repeatable when protocols are followed and has been demonstrated in several laboratories.” This is one of several published assertions about the good reproducibility of some experiments.
Variations in the chemical makeup of the experimental equipment can introduce inconsistencies. However, good control over experimental equipment is usual, and it is
unlikely that variations in apparatus are responsible for the irreproducibility of many LENR experiments. If the same equipment is used by the same scientist in the same laboratory,
there remain two candidates to explain the lack of  reproducibility, protocols and materials.
The protocols in LENR experiments include what voltages are applied at what times and which measurements are made when. It is possible to automate entire protocols, including
additions or removals of electrolytes during the course of an experiment. A computer program, with no variation from run to run, could drive the entire experiment. Complete computer control is not commonly done, which leaves open the possibility that variable human participation in the protocols is responsible for variations in experimental outcomes. So, it is
desirable to remove this possibility by a series of experiments without human intervention, once the experiment is set up and the computer programmed. However, it is not expected that differences in hands-on participation by scientists can account for all the experimental irreproducibility.
If it does turn out that protocols are not the main suspect for irreproducibility, materials are left as the prime candidate.
The experience at SRI International is directly relevant. Pd from a wide variety of sources, treated in diverse ways, was subjected to tests at various temperatures and many different additions to electrolytes for loading of either protons or deuterons. Success in loading of hydrogen isotopes and the production of excess heat varied widely. A more recent article, also from SRI International, deals with the topic of replication of LENR experiments.
It is possible that low levels of impurities within the solid materials in an experiment are basic to the outcome of LENR experiments. This could be the case because the impurities create conditions needed for LENR, or because they catalyze the heat-producing reactions, or even because they participate in the reactions. It is very expensive to measure accurately the quantities of low-level impurities in the materials that go into and come out of an experiment. So, few experiments in the field have done a defendable job of assaying impurities that might influence or even determine the outcome of experiments.
The Naval Research Laboratory was unable to produce excess heat with pure Pd cathodes in over 200 experiments. However, they had some indications of heat production with old Pd materials that contained Pt and Rh as impurities. That observation led to experiments with Pd alloys, which contained 10% Rh. Those cathodes gave significant excess heat in 6% of 61 experimental runs. The composition of cathodes is clearly important to the production of power by LENR.
Work at ENEA showed quantitatively that the production of excess power depends sensitively on fine details of cathode structures. Violante and his colleagues discovered that Pd cathodes, which they manufactured, were more likely to give excess heat if they had surface roughness in the range of 106 to 107 m-1. They also found that having dominant (100) surface crystal orientations favored the production of excess heat. These findings encourage a series of experiments in which metallurgical techniques are used to insure the correct crystal orientation, and subsequent ion bombardment or other surface treatment methods are employed to produce roughness with favorable spatial frequencies.
Even if materials with well-known composition and structure, and also uniformity, were available, reproducibility of LENR experiments is not guaranteed. Fortunately, there are
systematic approaches to the problem of reproducibility.
One of them is to obtain good statistics on experimental behavior by running large numbers of nearly identical experiments and using as many time-dependent diagnostics for each as is reasonably possible (affordable). Having many measurements for numerous runs would permit various types of statistical analyses. If any of the experiments gave excess power for at least some of the time during their operation, the analyses could point to what is different and useful
about them. Remember the many materials tried and numerous tests made by Edison before a reliable filament for light bulbs was discovered.
Multiple parametric experiments can be run serially or in parallel. So-called matrix experiments, in which many experiments are run simultaneously, with one or two parameters
being varied between the different experimental setups, can be very valuable. However, they are impractical (too costly) for complex experiments that require expensive equipment. Parametric variation experiments with such equipment must be done sequentially, preferentially in the same apparatus, if it is stable over time and use. Sequential experiments can also be conducted in different apparatus. At this time, operation of many small and relatively inexpensive setups with simple but adequate diagnostics should be very useful for empirically improving reproducibility of LENR experiments, even before full understanding is
achieved. The prospect of running multiple LENR tests simultaneously in the same or very similar conditions is attractive. 
Understanding, that is, having a theory that is clear and well tested, should also solve the reproducibility problem. But, that approach contains a Catch-22 in that the experiments
needed for adequate testing of a theory might be problematic, if all of the relevant parameters and their values are not specified by the theory being tested. The situation can be imagined as similar to a system of roads. If a person starts at a point that has no connection to the desired
goal, there is no hope of getting to it. But, even if there is a connection between the starting point and the desired destination, there are many forks that will lead off to places other
than the goal. Some of the “topography” is known for LENR, such as high loading for electrochemical experiments. But, key guidelines for achievement of reproducible excess power
in various experiments are still missing.
Before leaving the topic of reproducibility of LENR experiments, it should be noted that there has been little attention to quantification of whether or not excess heat or some other evidence for LENR has been observed. The question, yes or no, is part of the important subject of “binary classification.”
That topic is critical to medical testing for questions about whether or not a person has cancer or some other malady. If heat, radiation or other effects occur at low levels, there is naturally
a question of whether or not an experiment produced LENR. That decision is commonly the opinion of the experimenter.
Usually, there are not enough runs to achieve statistics adequate to apply the common 3σ rule. Then, an effect is considered present if its magnitude is more than three standard deviations (σ) of the noise in the measurement system above the average noise level. No LENR experiments have come close to being run enough to apply the detection methods that go by the name Receiver Operating Curves. The classification challenge is toughest for heat data. Not only are
there the normal statistical considerations, but sometimes small levels of LENR power production are not distinguishable from power due to chemical reactions. In general, there
should be more attention to measures of reproducibility, beyond subjective determinations of success or not, and to distributions of those measures.
In summary, not all of the key factors for the production of LENR are known, let alone adequately controlled. Hence, it is difficult to replicate experiments, even within one laboratory
and, especially, between laboratories, even if they seem to be similar in their construction and operation.
Despite this fundamental challenge, the problem of imperfect reproducibility of LENR can be systematically confronted.
This requires two things, a serious and adequately funded attempt to have similar equipment and procedures, and the use of very well characterized materials. Both the composition and structure of materials have to be known in detail before and after experiments.
Lack of assured reproducibility is both a scientific and practical problem for LENR. And, it still figures in the unwillingness of the broader scientific community to accept LENR as a legitimate field of science. It can be noted that, even after more than a half century of dramatic industrial success in a multi-billion dollar industry, the production of integrated circuits does not produce yields of 100%. Achievement of even good reproducibility will speed acceptance of the reality of LENR, even in the absence of full understanding. So,reproducibility remains a critically important goal. But, it alone does not guarantee the development and success of
commercial LENR power generators. Control of such systemsis also mandatory.

Please compare this objective, systematic, consistent presentation of the facts and rational search for a solution with my incessant whining due to the extreme wickedness of the R-problem in LENR and rhetoric about "actionable" and "non-actionable parameters". 
Eventually both say the same thing: we will need a cut-the -Gordian knot type solution for this problem.

2) News, info for today.

Playing LENR Catch-up ...already
jd_sweeney trying to convince Canadians to join the LENR race

National Instruments – Serious about Cold Fusion:

Open Power Association Newsletter #17: Roy Virgilio honored; collaboration with Francesco Celani moving forward speaks well about two friends of mine

Questions and Answers - Brian Ahern about his plan of reproducing the Parkhomov experiment- remarkable!

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

European Patent owned by Russian scientist... and news

1) European Cold Fusion Patent belongs to a Russian scientist.

This was published yesterday evening on the Cold Nuclear Transmutations and Globular Lightning Russian page, above the newly made links to Doktor Bob's blog and to Ego Out.

I have started my career in CF journalism with the patents page of Fusion Facts (Hal Fox's() however saying that my attraction to non-functional Cold Fusion LENR patents is low today, is a hyperbolic euphemism. A patent is good if it works effectively or when it is wonderfully well and wisely written as Piantelli's highly professional patents from which you can learn more than from tens of scientific papers.

This patent...the presentation is written by the patent agent and not by the inventor, V.A. Kirkinskii, well known in our circles e..g for his theory paper:

He has 9  papers, 5 downloadable in LENR-CANR. Great theorist

The presentation starts with
"Nowadays it is much promoted the LENR technology in which it is used nickel and hydrogen. However, it also exists an other technology that uses deuterium and palladium. And here enters the scene Bill Gates! Around a month ago, Bill Gates with his unlimited financial possibilities , communicated that his company, Terra Power will sponsorize the technology that it based on the use of deuterium and palladium,"  
My comment is that nothing sure is known about Bill Gates financial support, how many $ will he allocate for PdD technology. If somebody has exact data, please say. I am firmly convinced that capitalism is the way, is en ensemble both effective and efficient in solving problems including that of  technological progress, I know that capitalism made possible the Information Revolution and will make Energy revolution a reality, I am aware that it is a fatal error to be old just now when so many wonderful things wll happen- for technology; however I also know that even unlimited finance  has limited solving power. I have told openly, more times that wet PdD technology is like the hero of a known nursery rhyme:
"All Bill Gates' billions and all the dreams of our men
Couldn't put Humpty together again."

A unique hope for Kirkinskii comes from the fact that his system in the patent is dry.
The patent presentation continues with:
" The Japanese companies Toyota and Mitsubishi in their research for nuclear transmutation also prefer deuterium and palladium.
Yasuhiro Iwamura – ANS Presentation on LENR Transmutation, December 9, 2012

The paper is not about technology, not about progress toward heat generation.
The Russian language presentation continues with:
"We want to call your attention to the following. As we already know, in the contemporary world, the development and  use of technologies is based on patents. Who succeeds to register a patent in one or another field gets monopoly type rights for developing the given technology. Other can replicate again and again but without a patent they have no right for commercialization. In this context, we want to call your attention to a patent, registered in Europe, whose author is the Russian scientist Vitalii Alexeevich kirkinskii. This patent is based on the use of deuterium  and palladium, and as can be seen is the unique of this kind."
The abstract of this invention:
The invention relates to the power production using deuterium nuclear interaction in the crystalline structures of deuterides of palladium and other metals activated during phase transitions. The inventive device comprises a reactor containing a working substance, a system for measuring and controlling a gas pressure, a system for heating and temperature control, a system for transferring and using the released
heat. The reactor (1) containing the working substance (13) and capable to undergo isostructural phase transformations accompanied by the modification of the deuterium content is embodied in the form of coaxially disposed pipes (2 and 3) provided with valves (4 and 5) which seal the volume there between. Heaters (14 and 15) are arranged at the end of said pipes in such a way that it is possible to produ ce a directionally variable temperature gradient along the longitudinal axis of the reactor. The heat exchanger of a primary circuit (22) is embodied in the form of coaxial pipes (23 and 24) between which a heat carrier (29) passes, and butted against the reactor on the side radially opposite to the position of the heaters.
Various modifications of the inventive device enabling to carry out the simultaneous desorption and sorption of deuterium in the working substance on the opposite sides of the reactor, efficiently transfer and use the released excess heat, increase the reliability of the operation and to provide the conditions for the automation thereof are also disclosed.

By the way, it is from 2012  Gregory Goble has already included it in a list of LENR patent analysed by him:                                                                                                     
What Can We Glean From Recent LENR Patents Granted?

The presentation ends with the essential information for testers and investors: 

"Currently the patent owners are planning performing of independent parties,as it was done at its time with the Rossi generator E-Cat. These tests will confirm the efficiency of using deuterium and palladium, and this will allow the immediate going further to the industrial application of the technology and to the manufacture of LENR devices in series. 
Now, we invite the investors for doing these tests , following which they will get priority rights for commercialization. 

Contact information for investors:
E-mail: ,
Phones:  +7 (495) 599 1565, +7 (495) 599 7224,

What else could I add than wishing success to Vitalii Kirkinski and his associates?

2) +LENR+ literature

I forgot to tell but my multilingual list of papers that can convince any authority in any country  to initiate preparations for the LENR Era will be public and anybody can use it.

La fusione fredda si scalda Cold fusion heats up

If you read.speak Italian but you are a newcomer to LENR or have memory problems or you want to write a review of the recent events, please use this:

Alain Coetmeur informs about Norwegian language LENR paper, the meeting with participation of Mike McKubre and Hanno Essen:

Alain says on LENR Forum:

it describes the presentations, with video of the slides.
see Infinite Energy article for Michael McKubre point of view

theory controversy was not the subject.
Hans Haakon Faanes, NTVA, SET/Tekna start with a general presentation.
Then Sten Bergman of Stone Power AB make a survey of the phenomenon
Hanno Essen make a report of the E-Cats funded by Elforsk
Michael McKubre of SRI, describe the problem and conditions, work with Brillouin.
Øystein Noreng discuss of the financial perspective, state of development, risks, economical importance

3)- The bite of hydrinos

Randy Mills shows a negative enthusiasm for Ni+LiAl H4
(with thanks to Steven Vincent Johnson)

This issue became long enough, I have to go to the next,.


Monday, January 19, 2015


1) A traditional Cold Fusion teaching event

Tomorrow it starts, a very  important,very LENR traditional event:

Cold Fusion 101 at MIT for 2015 Introduction to excess power in Fleischmann-Pons experiments
A very rich, interesting program presenting the process that gave us the certainty of existence of cold fusion-excess heat:

"The Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments course will run again on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) over the IAP winter break Tuesday through Friday Jan. 20-23, 2015.  Professor Peter Hagelstein of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, and Dr. Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy, Inc., will present the course with topics such as: Excess power production in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment; lack of confirmation in early negative experiments; theoretical problems and Huizenga’s three miracles; physical chemistry of PdD; electrochemistry of PdD; loading requirements on excess power production; the nuclear ash problem and He-4 observations; approaches to theory; screening in PdD; PdD as an energetic particle detector; constraints on the alpha energy from experiment; overview of theoretical approaches; coherent energy exchange between mismatched quantum systems; coherent x-rays in the Karabut experiment and interpretation; excess power in the NiH system; Piantelli experiment; prospects for a new small scale clean nuclear energy technology."
Only the technology purists could nit-pick saying the last 10 words are not as true and valuable as the rest.

2) Toward a technological future of LENR

How a technology develops:

Definitely, a smart, well written paper, with many parts valid for LENR. What it needs is a second part much more LENR-specific- with possible parallels between the new energy source
and the recent great industrial success stories
The paper distinguishes 6 stages of development of an industry/technology:

First stage:Discovery/Concept;
Second stage: Working Prototype
Third stage: Early Commercialization
Fourth stage: Enthusiasts
Fifth stage: Widespread Adoption/Disruption
Sixth Stage: Acceptance 
It is not clear in which stage actually LENR is, but in few months we will know it better.
I quote from this paper, this time just for the "science-first! purists:
" Note: people can build technologies without understanding the theory or science behind them. People were building firearms, canons and explosives centuries before anybody understood either the chemistry or physics involved in those devices." 

However, they must understand principles and safety.

3) An initiative. Its time will come.

Crowd funded Mass Spectrometry for A. Parkhomov                                            

I think it is a good idea, however perhaps premature,;rather long times can be necessary to make the changes, as isotopic shifts (these are so captivating)  easily measurable. At Lugano the time was 32 days!
Parkhomov will come with his analysis, as good as any other high quality analysis (see what he has shown us about nickel particle size analysis). It would be useful to get confirmations  from reputed western laboratories.

4) The tortuous and practically closed way to get a cold fusion patent in the US
(thanks to Jed Rothwell!)

Patenting Your Basement Fusion Reactor: Utility Requirements Under U.S. Patent Law
A delight for masochists; however I think that it is rational tp patent only what really works. OK, if you are very rich you can collect vanity patents.


Dear Readers from everywhere,
I need your help. I intend to go to the real leaders of my country, Romania, sons and daughters of my colleagues of generation and tell them:

"You are retarded and under-informed again! The LENR revolution is coming, smart people are preparing - you have no idea. It is the time for change and awakening!"

And I must demonstrate them that the world is preparing for LENR.
I need for this an impressive collection, at least 50 papers fulfilling the following requirements:
a) + LENR- that is clearly supporting and promoting LENR:
b) LENR+ that is about enhanced LENR, post-Lugano events
c) in as many as possible languages present on Google Transkate
d) If possible- decent quality sources and journalism.

Obviously I search the Web as deeply as possible, but there are limitations-
an example is a paper in Nordisk Energi, I am not able to get access to it.

Some examples found today:

This is translated in many languages but it is not entirely + LENR, too many questions and doubts:

E-cat news- positive approach- in Italian:

We already know these events implying warm and hot cats, but for many Polish readers they can be new- and promising. It enters the +LENR+ collection. 

6) A warning from AXIL

It is a bit subtle, but very important.

So sorry, please excuse me but I have developed an opinion. These heater power failures are caused by the LENR reaction and if not immediately countered, these power drops will delay the onset of the LENR reaction. A 5 seconds response time to counter is far to long a time delay to increase the current flow to the heater. I don't believe that MFMP  counters this heater behavior at all since they have no constant power circuit mechanism in their heater power supply. Like MFMP, the Russian experimenter sees temperature variations of up to 100C. This is very primitive an unsophisticated experimentally.   A nanosecond might be enough of a response time lag to counter the heat circuit current drop. This unusual superconductor onset behavior is causing long startup times for the onset of the LENR reaction. I hope that Brian Ahern will develop constant power circuitry to add elegance to his experiment  to greatly increase the response time for the onset of the LENR reaction and thereby increasing experiment turnaround times.

Other interesting things will happen this evening and I will tell you about them, tomorrow.