Tuesday, August 16, 2011


Professor Francesco Piantelli is the discoverer, main developer, and, very soon, will be the creator of an industrial energy technology based on LENR (for Ni but also for all the other transition metals, their mixtures and/or alloys.)
However, in the almost universal spirit of inverted meritocracy, Piantelli is not well known, even by the ,say, Cold Fusion community and not appreciated in proportion to his achievements, 
The main reason for this  is not an enigma- his life and work, his modus cogitandi, operandi and vivendi, all carry an unpopular implicit message: “there are NO shortcuts in science”  Worse, he thinks and has demonstrated  that science needs hard work and discipline. Science has some rules that MUST be respected. Specifically, first of all, he refers to the 4 rules of Galileo i.e. the scientific experimental method. Piantelli and our mutual young friend, Roy Virgilio (see the site of his forum: http://www.energeticambiente.it)  
are writing a book; “Galileo e il metodo scientifico attraverso i secoli” that’s “Galileo and the scientific method during the ages”- mainly for students, young researchers and scientists. First of all physicists, but the principles are valid for any branch of science. This book is necessary because even in Italy, in education and in the very practice of research, the scientific method is many times evaded, forgotten, ignored, marginalized. The influx of destructive ideas, strange damaging to Science- as New Age’s killer idea “rational thinking is only one he many possibilities” accelerated research for commercial success, the cultivated ambition of scientists to become mass media stars, exercise a great pressure on the scientific work and tend to lower its quality, its long time efficiency and even its ability to solve the really important (ergo, difficult) problems. Based on his personal experience, Prof Piantelli promotes Galileo’s Rules – a vital and survival condition of serious scientific research.
You will learn that the Rules are in the same time principles and stages and are valid and a “must” in their entirety.

Galileo’s experimental scientific method is a turning point in the history of Science.

Galileo’s Rules and the Science.
By Francesco Piantelli

The experimental method was used from the dawn of human civilization, much before Galileo lived.
Each and every  phenomenon was simply experimented and that constituted a proof, even if unique and there was not considered necessary to ask about any particularity or to compare it with  other experiments, therefore every phenomenon was considered- as it still happens in biology sometimes , a fact “per se,” independent from any other experimental data.
This has lead to consider the result of an experiment not as a true scientific fact, but more as simple curiosity, even if has some potential applications perhaps not convertible in some industrial product in the modern sense. Some of these experiments have resulted in practical devices used in the everyday life; starting from the far old ages (see the fire, the wheel, sailing, rowing, and the pump.)  The empty ball filled with water that was heated to produce steam and started to rotate when the steam came out through four tubes placed at90 °and all bent in the same direction and so many other experiments. It remains famous the automatic system for opening the door of the Temple of the Delphi oracle driven by the pressure of heated water. (Heron). All these discoveries have not generated specific knowledge regarding the nature of the fact, only regarding their practical uses.
Then it was not search for scientific explanations (Science did not existed then) that could help to understand the phenomena taking place in order to extend the possible uses.
Some of these experiments have resulted in practices and devices used in the everyday life in the antiquity.
The great merit of Galileo is the introduction of the scientific experimental method, i.e. the foundation of Science. His method is based on 4 precise rules.
1.   “sense-experiment”-comprises the reproducibility of the phenomena and the definition of the parameters that are framing the characteristics and the behaviors. It gives us a stimulus to study the phenomena, but does not show the natural law that rules them. (It is about observation and description, and is the high art of asking good questions from Nature)
2.   - “intuition” and “axiom” constitute the working hypotheses that have to be confirmed by the reproducibility of the “sense experiment”. It is derived from the critical examination of the “sense experiment” and it is the peak moment of the discovery- being an equivalent of the act of an artist who creates his art-work. It is not a mathematical act but a physical creative process.

3.-“mathematical progress” –is formed from logical deductions. based on the working hypothesis, that can be preferably expressed in the formal and rigid language of the mathematics. It allows the continuation of the deductive moment
for getting new knowledge – to be verified from time to time experimentally (this opens the way to the inductive method that helps in finding new knowledge and applications.  
However the mathematical conclusions must fit the sensible world.

4.”Experimental verification” is made of putting in practice the intuition for the final conclusive, definitive experiment of verification and this is final judgment regarding the validity of the phenomena and the knowledge. It generates complex possibilities of application. Incomplete, partial knowledge of the parameters is always a source of risks. Galileo’s conclusion was” our discussions (works) have to inside the sensible (real) world and not above it in the world of paper. (N.T- “sensible means “cognoscible by senses, but also real
and having inner significance)
Galileo’s method of scientific experimentations starts with the initial experiment and ends with verification (final experiment)

What happens now with LENR shows that we still are in the presence of the “sense –experiment” (N.T. –observation, description) and it is a very long way to go. An example of how dangerous it is to not apply the rules of Galileo completely is the insecurity that persists in the nuclear centrals based on fission
An example of how dangerous can be the non-complete application of Galileo’s rules is the insecurity still existing in the nuclear centrals based on fission because these were completed in a too great haste-the cycle of research being
in some way interrupted, shortened in the name of commerce. (and profit)
It cannot be known what will bring the unsteady and accelerated commercial research if it is not supported by adequate knowledge.

Thank you, dear Francesco! You made me to understand that Galileo is
our contemporary and his Rules …dura lex, sed lex and HAVE to be respected.
I will abstain from the rhetorical question; “How, in which extent was the Scientific Method applied in the case of Cold Fusion research?” If later I will decide to put this question, I will take in consideration that there were difficulties starting with the “sensate sperimento” the observation experiment as the author say in his essay...
HOWEVER it is my pleasure to call your KIND attention to Roy Virgilio’s report about Piantelli- realistic and…fine:


  1. Thank you. This is a way to look forward. Let us not dismiss any of the methods to achieve knowledge. From quiet contemplation to loud parades, from academia and commerce, humanity will learn.

  2. I thank you! I wrote about a model that will not be popular, about a way not many will follow,about an effort that will remain unmatched probably. It is not about silence or noise.The majority of people want shortcuts and not the obstacled way

    The actions of Piantelli are far from quiet contemplation, he asks Nature with energy and insistence and in a quasi-continuous mode.

    The problem with Rossi is not noise and search of popularity, but mixing the things, usually with their contraries. One single example science with pixie dust.
    The different ways are not equivalent, they are not complementary but incompatible and led to different destinations.We will see...

  3. What a fucking great load of OLD BOLLOCKS!

    1. Can you please be more specific?
      Especially, if you agree or disagree
      with what is written in the paper
      and why.

  4. In your opinion does the E-Cat meet the above Galilean criterias?

    1. The problem is more complex. We don't know how has Roaai invented an effect that enhances the intensity of the LENR reactions. it was probably a combination oF Edisonian tests- empirical with a hypothesis and luck. Even he cannot remember the process exactly, I think.
      The continuation is more engineering and development- here other rules have also to be respected besides Galileo's and it seems Rossi was not very good in this action.