Sunday, September 16, 2012


I think it was the initiative of my Vortex colleague and discussions partner, Abd ul Rahman Lomax to use the generic and metaphoric name NEW FIRE for what we try to accomplish.
He says in a thread that we have to do the followings::

Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy source we call the New Fire;
Once shown, help develop people’s understanding of what the New Fire is;
 Help promote the development and uptake of the New Fire in all its various guises.

Being a convinced bureaucrat- I agree with this name approximately 50%, that I like New despite the fact that it says nothing however I am not enthusiastic for Fire. I reckon the huge historical merits of Fire- it helped our caveman ancestors to survive, only a healthy energy-intensive diet based on mammoth steaks has helped us to develop our giant brains, etc. Till age 21 I lived in a flat heated by burning wood, coal briquettes, sawdust, shells of sunflower seeds, corn cobs- heating was a problem. Now in our two-rooms flat we use natural gas in a Bosch 3000W heater. (It is good but not cheap and I will replace it with a Hyperion of DGTG ASAP)
Fire comes from burning that is using oxygen from air to destroy stuff, usually organic matters and converts these in carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water and some ashes i.e. much simpler products. Burning is degradation, simplification. Take oil you can make fine chemicals and plastics of it or you can burn it to heat hones or to drive cars; which is smarter?  Constructive chemistry versus destructive chemistry… This year was special, with a long hot summer in so many places and with the unavoidable forest fires that make the view so much uglier and simpler. Yes burning is a simplifier and this is the reason that I don’t like the word fire in this case.
However two remarks:

1- Fire simplifies but it is, per se, not simple. This week I have received the new publications of my friend Tibor Braun, professor at the Budapest University and one of the fine papers is: “The nanodiamonds are shining in the flame of the candle” This paper is in Hungarian; however you can find similar information attesting the complexity of fire on the Web. History should not forget that in April 1989 Tibor Braun’s “Cold Fusion Flash” was the first CF Newsletter.

2- The issue of renouncing to simplicity in our field is a decisive one; if we do not accept, understand, actively improve and use  complexity –as DGTG has see please my interview with their CTO the most heroic efforts and the brightest experimental approaches will not result in a commercial energy source, I bet.
Here, the Internet has helped me again. You know I am publishing strikingly unsuccessful writings re. the best papers
I am discovering on the Web. The newest one
was read by 11 visitors in the first day. However it has a real treasure in it, a good easily readable, instructive, essential paper:

 Complexity Thinking or Systems Thinking:

I ask you to read it very carefully. It is about Cf/LENR/HENI too.

However in some respect it is good to be simple, not smart, not sophisticated, not original. Therefore I oppose/propose NEW HEAT to NEW FIRE. It is a step toward accepting the complex reality of HENI.



  1. "... The newest one
    was read by 11 visitors in the first day. "

    That link was somehow split on your site - we can click on "....good-" or on "papers.html".

    Fortunately, it's easy to get to the paper.

    "Take oil you can make fine chemicals and plastics of it or you can burn it to heat hones or to drive cars; which is smarter?"

    That's a reduction to an either one or the other outcome. Of course, people in Siberia (among other places) would very much like to have oil-fired stoves; people in the U.S. would very much like to drive cars, or move goods around by truck or train.

    The great thing about the world is that we can do all three.

    It's similar to the question asked on one of your links: "Would you rather live in a world without religion or without science?"

    The fact is that we don't, nor do we need to. Both are here to stay. Both can work for good or ill. Both, properly understood, work for good.

  2. Thank you, ZZMike!

    It is MUCH difficult to ask good questions than to
    give correct answers. Anyway GOOD PAPERS are useful,
    fist of all, for me. Volens- nolens I am informed.