Wednesday, August 1, 2012


I will believe you that Cold Fusion exists when you will show
me a boiler for two eggs, working with Cold Fusion.

(Prof Ioan Silberg, R.I.P!)

It’s vain to deny that our field, LENR, has wicked problems of development and of acceptance scientifically and it is nowhere technologically... However I dare to think these problems can and have to be solved.
In this Open Letter I am presenting some ideas/implicit suggestions that, in my opinion, could be used in the frame of a solution. I am fully aware that some of the ideas can be considered as non-conformist even heretical or simply erroneous.
However my desire to solve the problems – after more than 23 years of waiting, hopes and disillusions in the field, is perhaps stronger than even my fallibility.
These are the personal opinions of a technologist and do not refer to LENR science, scientific discoveries and development-a realm of richness and diversity, only to LENR as an energy source.My secret hope is that the coming experimental data will demonstrate that great part these ideas are simply false/idiotic, but these demonstration need facts not words.

The list of ideas.

To change from an idealistic view to a realistic, pragmatic, materialistic one…

It is not about the existence of LENR, it is about its usability;

We have to accept that we are in deep trouble and this is not only the fault (guilt) and effect of the skeptics.

We have to accept that a failure is a failure only when you start to blame others for it; the skeptics are only a smaller part of our problem

We cannot accept endlessly and candidly what is unacceptable for others; the Scientific Method has no exceptions. Unpredictability, low reproducibility, lack of understanding and control cannot be tolerated for a small eternity.

To examine seriously the idea that the cradle system of Cold Fusion, Pd – D, electrolysis is a dead-end for technology…

The inherent weaknesses of the Pd-D based LENR systems, low intensity, bad reproducibility, ephemerality, are not curable. As long as my poisoning hypothesis is not accepted and thoroughly tested we will persist in error. It says that any gaseous impurity is blocking, deactivating the nuclearly active sites and makes the reaction chaotic. Pragmatically seen the Pd-D electrolysis system is unmanageable, uncontrollable and partially incognoscible.

The classic CF system Pd-D via electrolysis is hopeless technologically and inconclusive scientifically, it is vital to spend the available funding preponderantly with gas phase systems. As regarding palladium perhaps we have to realize (metaphorically speaking) that cradles and cars are made from different materials;

To examine the limits of the smartest nanotechnology-based methods to enhance LENR...

Preformed nanostructures can enhance the nuclear reactions only to certain limits, seemingly not sufficient for large scale, long time, energy generation.
This is the most dangerous and risky idea of all, however I feel it is my duty to present it to the LENR community for fast falsification.

LENR cannot be understood by simple theories or explanations…

We have to fully accept the complexity of LENR, both theoretically and in experimental practice. Chris Tinsley has told: “Cold Fusion is to Hot Fusion what biochemistry is to chemistry” and really it seems that LENR is similar in complexity to photosynthesis or nitrogen fixation.

Ideal LENR has one barrier (Coulomb’s), real LENR has more barriers.

LENR cannot be explained by a single theory; I have stated this very clearly in my paper: “Cold Fusion- a wicked problem to solve” New Energy Times No 17, June 10, 2006:

From the understanding/theoretical point of view, it seems to be a fatal error to attempt to explain a multiphase, multi-step, multilevel aggregate of phenomena by a single theory -- without considering adequately where they take place, how and what they are…

I know only one LENR theory based on this basic principle- that of Prof Francesco Piantelli. (Pontignano Poster 2010)
A similar broad and advanced vision of LENR has Defkalion Green Energy Global: “LENR- a dynamic system of the multi-stage set of reactions.” Hopefully we will learn more about their theoretical understanding at this Conference.
These type of theories need a trans-disciplinary approach in application.

To acknowledge the dichotomy LENR vs. LENR+…

It seems that all the “classical:” LENR systems tested till now, as such, are not technologizable
We have to accept that the scale-up of LENR systems needs a radical change, to LENR+ systems, that have, first of all a different mechanism of generating nuclearly active sites (NAE).
LENR+ works at very high temperatures at which active nanostructures are destroyed very fast,

LENR that works- is an active LENR based on smart, systematic, modifications of the participant materials both metal and gas; everything depends on these complex preparations, before and during operation.
Andrea Rossi has invented the first such system and Defkalion, present at this symposium, has solved the most complex and difficult problems of engineering of a similar but different system.
We have to acknowledge that LENR is like a caterpillar that has to be metamorphosed in LENR+- a butterfly able to fly (i.e. to generate useful energy).

. Instead of conclusions…

I think the best option is for radical changes, first of all in the mode(s) of thinking in/re LENR.

Peter Gluck
Aug 1, 2012


  1. Hi Peter,
    You made a lot of very good and interesting points. Hopefully others will take them to heart.

    Until the end that is - when you made this statement: "Andrea Rossi has invented the first such system..."

    If that statement was true, then you would not even have needed to write this article in the first place. Because if they can do it everyone else should be able to do it too.

    Joy & Peace,
    Gary Wright

  2. Dear Gary,
    It seems this a fact, despite the problems Rossi had/has with control and stability, Remember please Defkalion has explained
    in the Business paper that the "recipe" "catalyst" "additive" is only a small (but necessary!) part of the technological solution.
    Engineering can be as difficult as science or even more tricky.

    1. After reading the papers of Kozima about his 3 laws, that support a chaotic and neutronic process, I start to understand more the problems of Rossi and DGT.
      And also their final success, because chaotic process can be tamed, but not with usual control. The method discussed by DGT (pulse modulation) looks like shaking a voodoo coffee machine to make it work on demand, yet working point is unpredictable.
      There is probably different methods to tame chaos, and maybe they even kill it.
      Hearing the time constants of Rossi and DGT reactors, I understand that they are different. Hearing Aldo Proia talking of 12h self sustain (if not recycled electricity), it is possible that Rossi with his slow control, and adaptive model predictive controller succeed in killing chaos at short term...

      Maybe the mistake, and budget, problem of previous scientists was that they did not work with industry engineers. transforming a lab produced molecule, into an industrial chemical plant is not an easy job... same for industrializing, stabilizing, LENR.

      I just hope that all that hard work will not finish wasted in bloody battle.

      If Hollywood does not make a 20+ episodes Saga and a trilogy about Cold Fusion, it will be an alien conspiracy. ;->

    2. Dear Aalin, I think there are too many missing data re what you want to explain but I definitely like the ideas.
      Especially the connection with making order from chaos.
      Do you want to add something (more bureaucrtically formulated to the Open Letter-? I could add the best comments to it and let ICCF-17 know about them. This -if the OL will be accepted in some way.

    3. for open letter, my interest are evident. knowing if the process is neutronic, screening, bulk , crack or surface, HH fusion, or NiH merging, weak-interaction or not, gamma screening... as everybody.

      Kosima vision would make me ask if the process is random, badly mastered, or intrinsically chaotic, and thus how evolve the branching.
      the cause of the lack of replicability for so long is a question.
      Maybe todays science is "administratively" unable to manage chaotic phenomenon... the example of some denying the facts because of lack of replicability, is shocking for someone knowing how technologies have begun(transistors, planes...).
      Maybe also the consequence of "zero risk", total transparence, total democracy, total quality, common criterias...

      then i would be curious to know todays methods to control the chaos... to play with the attractors...

      another remarks is about science and engineering. maybe , despite the high lab competences or experimentalists, there was a need of industry engineers, that different mindset, complementary to researchers,theory agnostic, phenomenological...
      beside the epistemological drama, that put that research to the underground, maybe was there a lack of team work... maybe not beside, but because of the blacklisting.
      Same question for cooperation between the chemist culture, and the physicist culture, with well known gap. is it part of the cause ?

      another remarks is that LENR seems to be an example of a new problem we have in science with theory and practice. we seems to refuse facts if theory don't match... Some say that theory is too much successful...
      another independent drama, the abuse of modeling, or numerical modeling, might be of the same vein.
      Is it the key problems of our epoch of theory domination.

      big question for the society is what is a proof ?
      it is clear for me that indirect proofs are stronger that visual, and classic review. But am I right? what are the categories of proofs ?
      What problems raise the story of LENR...
      Why were many proofs, accepted for other subject, been so much rejected... what can bee proofs in that cace.

      problems also might be caused by dominance of a common mindset, common procedures, common criteria and good practices, that reduce bio-diversity of science, and science process.
      Desire to have application, democratic control, might also be the problems?
      What is the perception of various actors on that ?
      do we need more craziness in science, more bio-diversity of procedures, more school battle, more king battles... is the global village a soviet republic, with soviet media, soviet review, soviet administration, soviet democratic control.

      You probably know that my explanation goes to the theory of "rational denial" groupthink/collective delusion of roland benabou, so opinion of actors in LENR, could be interesting, if Benabou theory look realistic. ( )

      now some practical question, (off topic?)
      Up to how much can be reduced massic power, price, is there intrinsic limits ?
      About possible applications, planes, rockets, cars... and beside LENR, engineering ratio about turbine/generator, TEG, could be nice...

      nb: feel free to rewrite all, since I realize my ideas are messy... they are only direction to think ...

  3. Hi Peter, while i agree with your statements, i need to point to you that most of LENR field issues have the $ sign on it, once somebody makes a little step in LENR technology it starts to become LENR$ more than LENR+ displacing the goals you want to see for others that are money related.

  4. Right, but only LEMR that works, and works well genertes $ and other hard currencies. And this normal, today's societies are moneyteistic. No technology, no money.

  5. Peter, I would agree with you if you had write this letter after the ICCF17 and if at that conference Defkalion had proved what they are saying, but, at the moment there are only claims.

    I want to point out that even Pianlelli's claims are only ... claims. No one in the world has never replicated Piantelli's cells power output and COP (you well know the failures of the replies which has been done at CERN and university of Pavia).
    He stays closed in his laboratory since years, he filed patents, but no details that would help someone to replicate his results. He suffers of the same illness of his competitors: industrial secrets. He doesn't publish, he doesn't submit his cells to independent verification (only about calorimetry).
    Here in Italy there are a lot of skeptics and they don't make any differences between Rossi and Piantelli: both are doing claims without any believable evidence (Defkalion has never been keep in count from skeptics because at the moment they are like ghosts, you hear the chains' noise but you can't see nothing).

    For what I know, McKubre tried to work with Nikel-Hydrogen, but he found no results. Maybe Piantelli, Defkalion or Rossi should talk about their work in the specific, because, I repeat myself, nobody has been able to replicate something of concrete with Ni-H system. But no one of them can talk of their work because they aim to the money, they aim to hold their secrets tight, they aim to go to the market with a device even if it takes years.

    So, at the end, does LENR+ really exist? Maybe we'll know it after ICCF-17, but only if Defkalion will disclose their (ultra-secrets) independent tests made by (ultra secrets) third-part testers. If Defkalion will go to the ICCF-17 with the idea of doing merely claims, or illustrate to the world their theory (multi-step or multi-stage, fusion or magnetic etc.), well, skeptics are going to laugh for years, and LENR+ is going to remain a dream (in the same way is LENR the moment).


  6. Dear Franco,

    I have written this Open Letter before ICCF-17 because it is a collection of problems; as regarding the solution I can tell only my own opinion not the impressions, doubts and desires of other people.
    I take responsibility for what I say.
    I have a different opinion about Piantelli and about the failure
    of the replication by Zichichi et co. What is true, Piantelli does not want to reveal his secrets. However there are many data in his two patents and these are very useful for replication- with much discipline and some creative fantasy but these two should not interfere!
    But please notice that the Piantelli process with its fine nanostructures and Rossi/Defkalion working at temperatures where these sensitive structures are instantly destroyed are different.
    I ask you to continue this dialogue after ICCF-17 and take in account soem aother info you/we weill receive in meantime.