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.
Aug 1, 2012