Thursday, May 31, 2012


Ruby Carat is a really nice lady & editor- she has not ignored-as-usual my idea regarding the alternative utopistically positive optimist history of Cold Fusion LENR. See please:

Ruby is receiving many interesting comments. Some like comments hot, but I prefer a calm cold comment supporting a
point of view opposite to mine over a comment at a too high temperature coming from the same side of the barricade on which I am fighting. Facts-yes, opinions-OK, strong negative feelings- NO!
A LENR colleague wrote: “Instead of science being shown as the incompetent and ridiculous slaves of religious, dogmatic, “opinion experts”, who deny anything out side of a steam engine, they could have restored some of the respect lost through their closed-minded, 19th. century reductionist philosophy that is falling apart around their ears.”
I have learned to be more tolerant with people who think differently.
My long years friendship with the skeptic author of the Cold Fusion Bibliography, Dieter Britz is an example.
I also had some empathy for Prof. S. (9 days younger than me, R.I.P.!) who used to say he will believe that Cold Fusion exists when he will see a boiler for 2 eggs using it. This is a logical fallacy- “things exist only if they can be used”- an error with some practical reason in it.
The impact of the enemies of cold fusion on the evolution of the field was not quite so fatally bad and there had been short periods when some cold fusion teams had plenty of funding. However the progress has remained slow and hesitant- the way to commercialization did not become visible.
What could change 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times more funding?- is a fine Question.
And really high quality professionals had worked for LENR worldwide despite its lack of popularity.

I opt for a more balanced answer.
“What if?” is an information rich question and we well know that: "The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco) “
However, the complete question- “what if Cold Fusion/LENR would have been embraced and gladly supported by the entire scientific community and by the society as a whole, everywhere?” is clearly a hellishly iffy, unanswerable question.
We can learn a lot from unanswerable questions. Perhaps.
“What?” “How?” I cannot answer!
But based on my Problem Solving Rules- the solution is to convert the unanswerable questions in more answerable questions.
In our case – could the success and spoiling of LENR change everything-  or only accelerate the development- in the same direction as it has happened in the real history marked by oppression and financial plus resource-starvation of the field?
I think acceleration could be more likely- a prehistory of say only 5 years,  superior cradle management*, Piantelli with hundreds of follower-competitors, a less enigmatic and exotic Rossi coming from inside the field, LENR+ replacing LENR easier and in much shorter time. a wonderful spirit of coopetition, fast industrialization, continuous communication between the researchers, ICCFs every 6 months. Some well known players would have been missing from the equation as Defkalion and myself. Defkalion because the field is going well and does not need a savior. I have joined the Cold fusion movement because hot fusion was contradicting  my principle of continuous technological progress, however I became irreversibly dedicated to it only when almost everybody started telling it is a lost cause and I knew it isn’t and wanted to demonstrate this.

Appendix: What is cradle management?
During their first months of life, while helpless the cradle (largo sensu) is the home of the babies. When they grow and became more and more independent, the cradle is abandoned, kept in the attic or the basement, sold or donated whatever. It is too small for the child –forget it!
Something very similar happens in science on more planes- the original set-up in which the phenomenon was discovered, and the initial thinking, proto-theory used give a first theory have to be replaced with better one. This action can be painful but it is unavoidable. Cold Fusion had a very strange cradle- a wet electrolysis cell with palladium cathode, electrochemist fathers- not a good combination for a supposedly nuclear baby science. 
More generally, cradle management is a part of maturization.
LENR was slow in this process- due to the lack of resources, it remained addicted to palladium- a precious metal per se, but one of the worst for the development of LENR, inadequate for
a new energy source and a trap for the poor theorists.
The alternative triumph scenario could have been avoided the problem of prolonged maturization of LENR.

A few quotations re CRADLE.
“The Past: Our cradle, not our prison; there is danger as well as appeal in its glamour. The past is for inspiration, not imitation, for continuation, not repetition.” (Unknown)

Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave” (Muhammad)

“Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin” ( Robert Green Ingersoll)

The Earth is the Cradle of the Mind -- but one cannot eternally live in a cradle.”
 Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky (a similar case- the Pd-D Cell)



  1. This gibberish sounds like an ego maniac ate the wrong species of mushroom while puffing the magic weed. No math. No experiments. No scientific literature search. Whatever did you explore for your PhD thesis? Give me a URL site for it. Stick to Homeopathic groups where nonsense is God.

    1. You misunderstand, Mr. Anonymous. There are thousands of papers on cold fusion, and thousands of published experiments. Peter Gluck is familiar with a broad range of these papers, and has often discussed them. However, this particular essay is not about the science per se; it is about history's might-have-beens. You cannot expect every essay on cold fusion to recapitulate every aspect of the field.

      To answer your demand a scientific literature search, please see:

    2. Oops, why not work more on the references rather than trying to complete your efforts toward making money as a cold Fusion Consultant and/or author? See: Ruggero Maria Santilli for one.

  2. I like your cradle analogy,if LENR was the baby, then the parents, (The Science, Physics community.), unceremoniously threw it into the nearest trash bin seconds after it was born.

    1. Dear Nixter,
      I was there and have followed carefully the process.
      There were a few months when a lot of labs were testing
      Cold Fusion. See please "My Cold Fusion history (I)"
      Why the baby was thrown out - this had a broad range of
      causes- the lack of neutrons was one of the worst.
      The famous Douglas Morrison from CERN had been a believer
      at start but later he changed his mind. I had discussed
      with him at ICCF-2 Como. We cannot speak about simple ill-will and bad deeds of the Hot Fusionists.

    2. Why was the the the lack of neutrons such a show stopper? In hindsight, was this a scientifically correct assumption to make?

      To the layman,(that's me), the anomalous heat energy was curious enough to warrant further investigation, did P&F somehow set up this expectation of neutron signatures? Were P&F's presentation of their experiment in any way responsible for the ensuing rush to judgement? I suspect they may have contributed to the mess unwittingly.

      I am happy to find out from you that not ALL involved were blind to the scientific possibilities.

    3. Dear Nixter,

      It was a "be or not be-NUCLEAR!" questions. Based on
      the idea that cold fusion is similar to hot fusion
      the search for measurable neutrons has continued
      for some 2 years, after that Cold Fusion was excommuicated from the Scientific Community and has served more and more as a bad example.
      No anomalous heat results (intense, repeatable, persistent) had been obtained at a level to make the skeptics to shut up.

  3. Eventually an answer I like!
    I have absolutely no interest in homeopathy.
    Please write a documented answer with math,
    good experiments and many references.
    Thank you in advance! But sign it with your
    real name, please.

  4. This is what the Internet is for! An exchange of thoughts and ideas, thanks Peter for your time and this blog.

    I know you have not been contributing to the spark plugs thread on Vortex, but I had a thought on the subject. A few have wondered why two plugs are able to be used, I think it could be that they may be used to send two different frequencies simultaneously into the reactor without the need for the two frequencies to be combined into one, the sum of the two would be multiplexed together in a low tech manner.

    let me know if you do not want me asking Vortex questions on your Blog Peter, and I will stop.

    1. Dear Nixter,

      I have not contributed to the discusiion re spark
      plugs because they are out of my expertise. I never
      had a car both due to lack of money and blind left eye.
      For problems of electrical engineering I am asking
      my friends- first of all Mike Carrell (se his BLP messages)who is agreat specialist and can always tell
      what is all about.
      Re the two spark plugs first we ahve to know, not to speculate what is the first one seems they mske
      the hydrogen reactive.
      You can ask me, write where do you wan, no problem-
      you can decide this is a Vortex, a blog or a personal problem.

  5. Want neutrons? Enough passing wind. Here is one of a zillion
    references. Now what about a peek at your PhD Thesis?

    Copyright � 1997-2003 Institute for Basic Research, P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682, U.S.A.
    "Tests had to be terminated because of excessive detections when
    hydrogen was at 100 psi.
    A view of one of set ups used for the first series of tests
    showing detector SAM 934 attached to Klystron I three days
    following the tests to assure absence of atomic excitation,
    yet detecting significant radiations whose scans are reproduced

    This took place in Tarpon Springs, around the corner from me.
    The employees had to be evacuated several times during and
    days after the test because of neutrons leaking out of the
    site walls.

  6. Dear Anonymous,
    I don't want neutrons, at least not now.
    Thank you for reminding me about the IBR Lab,
    I have visited the Lab during Spring 1998,
    have collaborated with Ruggero Santilli for
    Fine Don Borghi experiments were performed by
    prof Lino Daddi, Livorno Univ.
    For the role of neutrons in LENR take a look to
    the works of Hideo Kozima and to the Widom Larsen
    If you have problems please ask me at I will try to help you myself
    or send you to the best specialist in that specific problem.

    1. Apologies. Thought you might have been another wannabe liberal journalist. Next trip to the states you have a couch to sleep on in Florida. We can revisit Dr. Santilli. Will show you a closed circuit powder dispersed in oil cold fusion devise about 4' high and 1' wide with cold water in hot out. C >1.

    2. Thanks- low chances to travel, age illneses very bad vision, cannot travel to ICCF-17 too far.
      Hope to visit Defkalion in Athens. (near I am living in Cluj, Romania).
      Very interesting - your device- I could tell you my opinion in full confidence.
      My main expertise is in chemical engineering and my PhD
      1983 re morphology of suspension PVC. I was professor of management of technology.
      As regarding hot discussions - no problem for me, I have
      a black belt in verbal karate. But I am very peaceful
      and busy, thanks LENR!

    3. Small world. Time machine => 1971 (Age 45)bought into small Corp. in P.R. to use feed stock from PPG (PPG Caribe Facility 1971 to 1978 Penuelas)using my expertise in vinyl chloride polymerization to set up satellite facility and supply growing water based paint market in area. Lost a bundle, thanks to bureaucrats. Rusted hulks still loom today in Penuelas like grave stones marking another monument to politicians.
      For a youngster you might try trotting through another open door of opportunity. Build a LENR devise. Pilot plant NiH coated PVC emulsion for LENR use. Hint: Add NiCl(II)to emulsion followed by NaBH4 solution. Unlimited world of discovery excitement begins now. BTW, give that special lady a box of chocolates and tell her she has pretty eyes.

  7. It was your question that sparked the imagination, sir!
    And and excellent one at that.

    There will no doubt be many dramas created, fictionalizing the possibilities; the history itself is a story, a fiction of sorts. All the stories (histories) will take years, decades to coalesce into a few Major Myths.

    What will the tone be? I can only hope that we do discover this technology's secrets, and it changes us so much that we evolve beyond our past mistakes and cruelties. The heroes will be those who kept going, persevering, working for more than themselves, sacrificing. Those who tried to destroy that effort will be forgotten; only the achievements remembered.

    Isn't that how history is? Kepler's poor childhood with alcoholic parents, ten years of house arrest for Galileo? That's not what's first touted - only the achievements.

    An "Odyssey" of the future is happening now!

    1. Dear Ruby,

      Thank the Goddess of Wisdom, the presnt of LENR
      is so interesting that we can perhaps get back to
      the future a bit late, on some winter evenings while
      enjoying the pleasant warm coming from our new
      Hyperion or E-cat generators.
      We have to be very careful in defining mistakes,
      inclusive experimental errors- especially for some very
      complex issues as Cold fusion. I am refering here to the
      reproducibility problem. VERY WICKED- I wrote about this.
      By the way, Odyssey- do you know that the sci-fi megawriter Arthur C Clarke was an entusiast and very generous suporter of Cold Fusion.He has communicated constantly with the group formed by Gene Mallove, Jed Rothwell and Chris Tinsley; Chris from the UK knew Arthur. Arthur has died- the 2004 tsunami has destroyed his propertes in Colombo he could live longer; Chris died
      young, Gene was killed as you know.
      Jed is doing a very useful work for our field and is a great fighter for LENR.
      I have joined from distance this Group in 1995 due to the Yuri Potapov story.
      I hope Jed and I will see the triumph of LENR- this year.

  8. "cold fusion as a gift" was written by our friend and philosopher John Francisco! I am learning it is the gift that keeps on giving: There is always more to learn. I've learned more in the last two years than all of college.

    Yes, I was aware of ACClarke's support. Question: Who in the arts supports LENR today?

    I believe more prominent people will come out for this when the documentary movie The Believers comes out. Many people will be exposed to cold fusion, and our situation gets difficult with energy and money, people will be open to the possible solution LENR offers.

    The loss of people over the past two decades will be soothed with many newcomers eager to learn about this alternative. The writings and photos and videos Mallove and Tinsley that outline this field will provide decades of material to mine. Jed's collection is a treasure for young scientists. People have not yet even begun to explore these resources, but they will, so it's important that they are still there.

  9. Dear Ruby,
    Let's hope that the things will go much, much better.
    By the way what is your personal most probable LENr
    scenario for 2012?
    And will you travel to ICCF-17? There are chances it will
    be the New Paradigm Congress. Chnges are accelerating.

    1. Thank you Peter. I admit that I have no idea what will happen. Those of you in this drama for much longer than me might have better feelings. I too hope that a commercial product is released, or, a device is operational performing some task 24-7 like heating an office, or providing a jacuzzi tub with fresh hot water.

      The MIT device is a fabulous example of cold fusion. It is publicly (for the most part) available. But with all the excitement over commercial products, the bar has risen, and we need more.

      I am still dealing with skeptics who comment or email me and want to see a device working. They harp that it should have been done by now. All I can say is that Richard Branson is two years behind on his Spaceport building. If he can't marshall the resources to make a green building happen, then how can we expect a revolutionary technology to follow a ten-month schedule. My response does not work.

      I will not be at the ICCF-17. I am not a scientist. If I had some spare cash, I'd go to get photos, interviews, and video, but alas, things are very tight right now. However, I hope that some of those going will think to snap some photos, or better yet, live-stream the video so the world may hear the discussion. Are you going? Bring your camera!

      I look forward to the New Paradigm. LENR+ is the entre.

  10. I have also received a comment by Anonymous- I thank
    for it. Have no idea why it does not appear here.
    A. says something very interesting about PVC and his research. Pwerhaps he will come back with results presented.