Sunday, December 9, 2012

IS COLD FUSION NATURAL? (an essay in questions and counter-questions)

 It is well known by the experts and I also have emphasized this many times- good questions are more important, relevant, efficient, stimulating and lasting than the best answers. Our field, cold fusion or LENR has problems described by our leader Edmund Storms, based on his very personal experience, so:

“I have been studying LENR for 22 years and have run hundreds of experiments, most of which were unsuccessful and all of which could not be replicated at will.  I have read every paper. A huge data base supports the field. The problem now is the inability to agree about what this data base means. In other words, we do not agree about an explanation. Each example you show has a unique characteristic that does not apply to CF, which describing would be a waste of time. 
Until a useful explanation is achieved, the effect will not be made reproducible because too many variables affect the process.  Presently, success has been based on luck. Luck can start a search, but it does not make a reliable technology".
(quoted with the kind permission of the author)

My own experience is degrees of magnitude smaller than Ed’s, however my collection of disillusions, my worry, my silent chronic desperation, my negative enthusiasm, my desire to contribute to a Solution- is all very serious.
Now, I have supposed that the question:
“Is cold fusion natural?”
is a good one and will be able to reveal decisive facts and generate valuable ideas that can radically change, even reverse a rather unhappy situation.

You know the Question- its short answer is NO! And a bit longer answer is YES! Both are correct and in the same time incorrect, you have guessed- this is a question with a special answer, a MU answer, much beyond and over Yes and/or No... As the majority of self-educated thinkers and intellectuals, I also have first learned about Mu from the book of Robert Pirsig:

My Italian friends can read my 2006 presentation: “Is there an energy crisis? A Mu answer to an incomplete question.” dedicated to my much regretted dear friend Claudio Ciavarolli who was a Buddhist. [1]
This Mu answer means we have to improve the question and a question’s natural (i.e. based on its interrogative nature) allies are other complementary questions or counter-questions (CQ) that is, investigating the question itself.  Let’s try:

CQ- actually which kind of CF is natural or not natural?

Cold Fusion as we already know it and Ed Storms says it, is far from being in an optimal situation. From the point of view of theories it is merely a combination of Far West and a bazaar of ideas and explanations created by people united both by optimism -long term and silent desperation for the present situation
There is a broad range of diverse experimental results that show very clearly that the excess heat is real but does hide well its natural trend to be useful too. Excess heat remains small, short-lived, and uncontrollable. But from this chaos a Great Question arises just to be sent back traditionally with anger: we have only one form of Cold Fusion or more?  CQ has cold fusion a plural? It is a question about natural- how does Nature work? Is Nature ideal, full of wisdom, using the best economical ways and then surely in this case:”Nature has only one mechanism to produce LENR” and this mechanism works both in the Pd-D and the Ni-H systems more or less alike. Or on the very contrary, Nature’s unique ambition is to be interesting, not good, wise or efficient, Nature is incredibly rich an creative, Nature knows only solutions but no problems and waste is her mode of action and then why should be imposed any damned limits on the variants of cold fusion? Why not, as I have predicted in
there are more ways to the much desired technologically valuable cold fusion, but most of them practically inaccessible?
My readers know that I have my place in the CF bazaar; I am selling rather unorthodox ideas. Yes, I think there are two main variants of CF one is interesting the other is useful, and, quite paradoxically, even more interesting than the first one. Society-wide a Niagara of  skepticism pours over interesting CF, and the existence of useful CF is not accepted even by many who know that the interesting variant is real only unfortunately not well manageable.
I had using the name LENR+ for the useful species of cold fusion.
To repeat my argument very shortly, I think Pd D is able to generate only a very small number of active sites, now called NAE and in the inherent conditions of electrolysis, most NAE are poisoned and inactivated irreversibly. The system is not able to serious intensification and/or scale-up and will never grow up technologically.  If it will, during my lifetime, I will sincerely celebrate my lack of inerrancy.
The newer classic branch of CF/LENR is using man made NAE i.e. smart nanostructures. For the time given it seems the systems have limited spatial densities of NAEs, only partial ability to regenerate and too short lifetimes. If somebody will make a preformed nanostructures-based system to give useful energy above the 1kW level, I will arrange that my blunder should be included in the Guinness Book. However, till then I will repeat that neither Pd-D nor the smartest nanostructures are not energy-dense enough to be used as sources of energy. To further erode my popularity I will say that what Rossi has quasi-discovered very probably a method to generate many NAEs at higher temperature dynamically, a lot are generated, some react, some are destroyed but this is a process in some equilibrium. Short lifetime of NAE is not more a problem! It is continuous renewal and replacement. The system is never NAE-less!  Defkalion has understood the potential, the problems and the way to develop this idea.
Defkalion has mercilessly modified the structure of nickel aiming to intensify the continuous NAE-genesis at high temperatures. . In order to make these NAE more efficient and productive, the hydrogen must be converted to a reactive form, molecular H2 being lazy and relatively inert. (and poor interesting cold fusion tries to use it as such!) I consider this vision as logically consistent, and I believe that useful CF was already created and is just now growing up faster than you will think.

Is interesting cold fusion natural? Yes, because it is there in the systems used but unfortunately it belongs to a category of very rare and rather weak phenomena. No, because the systems itself are not natural; for example, as far I know deuterium is nowhere separated naturally from the light hydrogen isotope.

Is useful cold fusion natural? First answer is a strong No because the very nature of both the metal and of hydrogen are so radically modified from their natural, let say standard state. But it is also a clear Yes because it seems that some forms of Cold Fusion/LENR do happen in Nature, Defkalion’s ICCF-17 paper speaks about “LENR in nature. What we already know” [3] and they say natural CF/LENR has inspired them for working out their proprietary heat generating method/process. (just to mention, it is about non-biotic forms of CF.)
I think it is encouraging that we have some relatives of cold fusion in Nature, but perhaps it is not vital. Mankind has created unnatural (more precisely man-made) things that work perfectly for us combining and transforming natural raw materials- there is no other. (Re)read please my paper “Technology- mon amour” It is unique, however in more senses of this adjective.

CQ- just to not forget- what does “natural” mean?

Natural is an over-abused commercially exploited, ideologically misused, many times misunderstood poor word. Adjectives are so slippery and so vulnerable!
This question being important but not on the main thinking line of these writing I recommend you to read first this:  There is not about cold fusion but so many fundamental issues can be asked and discussed here as;
CQ- is life natural? Is cognition natural? If Yes than how and why? If No then how could life and thinking be created- and are they omnipresent in the Universe or is our Planet a singular privileged place?
Alternatively hot questions in the worst sense can be also asked as is homosexuality a “crime against Nature”? Before trying to answer please read:
It seems sometimes Nature is very unnatural.

CQ- natural or not natural, is this the question, or not?

For the start we will define natural simply as pre-existing in the Nature; this question is then: is it so very important for cold fusion to be present in some form in Nature. Fire is obviously natural, cold fission has happened at Oklo [2], hot fusion heats the stars, hydro-, solar-, wind- geothermal energies are genuinely natural, however this does not mean that using them does only good or some good to Mother Nature to our environment.
There are possible also endless discussions about Man playing Nature (not God perhaps) as making GMO (genetically modified organisms). It is not advisable to anger a hornets’ nest. Please use
“natural” with care.

CQ- What means to understand Nature and natural realistically?

This is about capturing mentally the essence of Nature, the very nature of Nature inexhaustible richness and limitless interesantity
at all levels and places due to complexity, dynamics and diversity.
If you develop a realistic vision and use a bold approach, you will
Understand that (this being true for Cold Fusion theories) that homosexuality cannot be categorized as a crime against Nature but some simplifications definitely are so
The solution of the vital Cold Fusion problem i.e. the conversion
of the interesting variant in the useful one is made by increasing
complexity in the system in a creative and intelligent way and not by some simplification.
Or: “Is cold fusion is too complex a matter to be left to physicists?

CQ- Is cold fusion an unnatural energy i.e.  harmful for the Nature?

Recently, Mark Gibbs, Forbes columnist who has inspired some of my CF writings here has published this paper: “Cold Fusion and Unintended Consequences"
My natural reaction to it was negative enthusiasm; first of all I was not able to understand Mark’s motivation. As a journalist I was shocked by the two absolutely inadequate analogies from the
first part of the paper, with cats and mosquitoes that have nothing to do with cold fusion’s advent, the unintended consequences are much better defined here as side effects. Side effects are essential in technology, in problem solving and in medicine. I hope you have never forgotten my problem solving Rule that says:

No. 6. NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented.

But the Gibbs paper signifies no solution is possible ever for Mankind’s energy problem because radioactive wastes are absent at our useful cold fusion- ask Defkalion! and see how important is to use a proper name for this technology: The technology is ecologically harmless and will have (I predict) an exponential development however not disruptive. As regarding it’s dangerously low price the moneytheist societies know well how free meals can be sold at a good price. Do not worry! An old Romanian tale describing the futility of this kind of worry is hidden here: (the first part of the tale)

CQ- CF and human nature. What is the essence of human nature?

What can we learn from the discovery and the stubborn survival?
from the past miseries and the coming splendors of cold fusion
about the essence of human nature?

A fundamental question that everybody has to ask, implicitly or explicitly is the relation between Nature and Man, and this leads to an other one: what’s the true essence of the human nature? Is it the same as Nature’s nature or is it different?
A quotation I have found a few years ago in an ad of a Hungarian naturist restaurant says it: “Nature has no Problems, only Solutions”
What means it to have a problem? You state that something is not as you like it and you try to change it in your favor. (If you don’t try than you have troubles not problems). In practice we are drowned in problems, crises are endemic and endless and not only for cold fusion.
I have studied the problem of the essence of human nature for many years and now I will tell you the conclusions- I dare to think you are interested in this as much as in cold fusion.

What we are not?

Homo bonus or Homo malus- good man or bad man- because Good and Evil are Siamese twins.

Homo sapiens- it is not allowed to call wise a species with an auto destructive suicidal demographic strategy and with an education system based on accumulation of bare facts not on stimulating thinking.

Homo doctus- is not valid either, so few people are striving for real knowledge and ignorance- arrogant ignorance is so popular.

Homo faber-or Homo ingeniosus- despite my deep respect for technology, it is obvious that statistically the destructive trends are so strong and weapons are the most evolved things man has ever created. And as long as we take more than 80% of our vital energy from burning a primitive, destructive and harmful process that degrades complex structures to simple gases- the use of “faber” is to be excluded.

Homo ludens (playing) or Homo gloriosus (bragging) are about almost general specific human traits but are not sufficiently relevant.

Karl and Friedrich, two bookworms with few contacts with reality and real people, had a very harming idea: Homo pauper (proletarius) is by definition, birth, existence good, honest, smart and full of other virtues and has the very mission to lead the world, obviously after eliminating his natural enemy, Homo copiosus- the rich one. This idea was the source of great catastrophes, of rivers of tears and blood, epidemics of pauperity and misery.  It has hit me too. This happens every time when a category is declared to be kind of Homo privilegiatus always on some obscure criteria, never based on merits. Don’t worry Homo copiosus has survived and is increasingly rich but being only 1% of the population- richness is not human nature.
Eventually, Homo alienos- (strange) is not justified, exactly as
many other beings, Man is as he is and barely could be different...

What we are?

I don’t care if I am original here or not: I have decided that discontent is the essence of the human nature, and our name is HOMO DISCONTENTUS. A Google search proves both my originality and my inability to convert Homo discontentus in a meme. I have to add that I am speaking not about a whining passive discontent, but one inspiring action, first of all problem solving and creative progress.
You will find many examples (as cold fusion) proving that this is true. However the first negative effect is that contented people are extremely dangerous for the human society, they are against changes and improvements, dislike progress and are always on the part of the problems and not of that of solutions. They try to live  by the and from the problems and thus are actively creating problems. Such people make even simple problems to be wicked. They poison society and life. Just look to people who think that Nature being God’s creation is perfect, to our education system and to those on the sunny side of social inequalities. An extreme example is North Koreans who being completely brain-washed are contented (even enthusiastic!) with a dynasty of bloody dictators; contentization = imbecilization, destruction of human nature.

My cold fusion life was a long alternation of the four seasons of
discontent. When the first application of useful cold fusion will become commercial, our human nature will ask loudly for better and greater CF energy generators. And so on…


[1] Peter Gluck: “C’è una crisi energetica? Una risposta MU ad una domanda incompleta”
“Energia Infinita” Convegno organizzato dall’ONNE
Osservatorio Nazionale Nuove Energie 11-14 Maggio 2006
Grottammare (AP)

[2] Natural nuclear fission reactor:

[3] John Hadjichristos, Menelaos Koulouris, Aris Chatzichristos
“Technical characteristics & performances of the Defkalion’s Hyperion pre-industrial product.”
17th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Daejeon, Korea, 12-17 August 2012


  1. Yo Peters, Im in the states networking, sciencing ... all that... Dr Bob Style... check out my webpage for the latest updates on my adventure!

    Information & Technology Can solve all our problems /


    1. Dear Dr. Bob,
      Very nice from you to visit my humble blog. I am honored! Well informed people know that Shin-tzus are 1 order of magnitude smarter than humans, therefore I will note the datum of your visit with golden letters in the history of Ego Out.
      I think we can start a constructive, positive discussion about the essence of Cold Fusion.
      Be my blog-guest, Dr Bob!


    2. Dear Peter,

      The honor is all mine.
      Thank you for all the valuable information your posting :) Also, I hope to see a comment from you on my blog soon ;)

      Love / Dr Bob

      Nothing Grows Without A Seed, And Without a Dream, Nothing will Change

  2. While writing essays is necessary to measure a student’s narrative skill and proficiency in understanding a topic, tight deadlines and pushy professors often force students to rely on helps from essay writing services.essay writing companies

    1. You are right. The ability of writing reports etc., is vital
      for the any career- especially in research.
      Thank you for thta useful link, i wil tell about it in my next lesson for ypung LENR researchers.

  3. It has been quite impressive blog and I really like to read because there are discussion about counter questions of cold fusion. I think blogger narrate superbly in this essay about topic.

    1. Thank you, on my turn I am impressed by your website
      and mission.
      Perhaps we could collaborate- re. cold fusion but also beyond cold fusion.
      Please take a look to the writing labelled BASIC and
      PROBLEM SOLVING. I dare to think some of my essays
      deserve to be known by the great public, e.g. the
      20 rules of Real Life Problem Solving.
      If you can help Humanity and me, please write to


  4. I really enjoyed this article. It is always nice when you read some thing that is not only informative but entertaining. write my essay for me

    1. thank you, I have continued to write.What else can I do?