Friday, May 3, 2013


I like to be right, to be able to understand what happens and even, by climbing high on the DIKW scale ( see here please “Arthur C. Clarke”) to predict things that will come. In a few cases, I almost succeeded- but this is, in part, a problem of interpretation.

I have composed this in 1998, in the frame of a small essay written for the Cold Fusion book of my friend Hideo Kozima.

I personally think that the root of troubles and the start point of the final solution for Cold Fusion is its inherent catalytic nature: all the unexpected and highly desirable phenomena take place in very limited active areas, and the research strategy is to breed and multiply and reinforce and enhance these active areas.

1998- it was before the names LENR and NAE became popular, the year when the paper of Google’s young founding fathers: made me enthusiastic, more by instinct because I have not understood it completely and I am especially proud of it (and I hope Info Google will be followed by an even greater Energy Google, now!). 1998- nobody knew then what a blog is. And it was the most dreadful year of my life- my son Robert’s cancer has demonstrated that it cannot be stopped. Hope has died before him.

However we have to discuss especially the last sentence from my prophesy. I think the main difference between lazy LENR classic and productive LENR+ is that in the second case the active sites are effectively and continuously generated, “in situ” during the entire process. LENR classic works with preformed active sites and has scaring problems due to the competition of hydrogen (deuterium) with other gases for occupying those vital places.

A very good analogy is rabbits (fast light) and pigs (slow, heavy)
fighting desperately for burrows (holes) on a meadow. The animals not hiding are hunted by predators as foxes, wolfs, eagles, hawks, humans, whatever The pigs are lurking everywhere in compact groups and have (really, the animals) a much higher IQ that the rabbits. The pigs have more chances to be in the right place at the right time, so they will occupy the newly found holes on a meadow. The rabbits will lose the contest and will be eaten by the hungry carnivores, with few, very lucky exceptions. Does this remind the reproducibility problem to you?

The impurities- any gas molecule different from deuterium, any component of air - as nitrogen and all those S, C and N containing polar gases plus light hydrocarbons all these compete successfully with D. They are ubiquitous- they are pre-adsorbed on the surface of the cathode and dissolved up to saturation in heavy water. Light D cannot displace the heavier gas molecules and does not enter the much desired active sites.
 Piantelli has solved the problem by very deep degassing, see his recent patent EP2368252B1,

LENR+ solves this problem because it is based on a continuous formation of active sites and hydrogen is much faster than all the other gases which could be present; plus it is used in some activated (not molecular) form.
Imagine rabbits and pigs on a meadow where miraculously holes are formed instantly, it is obvious that the much higher mobility of the rabbits will be a decisive advantage, the pigs will arrive there much too late.

When I have concluded that gaseous impurities make CF non-reproducible many years ago, I was inspired inter alia by an extreme example- emulsion polymerization of some acrylates, 20 ppb sulphur compound can destroy a batch completely- you don't get a latex but a sticky mass (mess). Analysis is too difficult for such trace quantities; the problem is solved pragmatically- a little spoonful of copper salt is added to each batch and inactivates the killer S compound completely. Is this method -scientific? What about cutting Gordian knots when other methods do not work? Better good than scientific!

Re rabbits and pigs: I well know that any analogy, metaphor, techno-parable, story, whatever when examined too carefully is in part false and has a healthy dose of idiocy in it, but this does not impair its creative functionality and illuminating relevancy. This is valid for the historical examples of difficult birth or acceptance used to justify the situation of CF/LENR as the dawn of aviation or the initial fiascos of the semiconductors- because our case is so peculiar, strange and specific. If you find this essay is too sad, please read this: but come back because my formation of LENR+ sirens still has lots of songs for you.

Perhaps it is this is a good opportunity to make order and to re-define the basic concepts: active sites (at plural) and NAE (at singular). Taking in account the publications of DGT and some messages of Yiannis Hadjichristos on our forums;
-        the nano-cavities where the desired energy generating events take place are active sites;
-        the reactor volume where the conditions, the context, the technical environment that stimulates hydrogen to enter the places for reactions and to do what they have to do, this is
    the NAE.


My favorite CF/LENR discussion partner, Abd tries to convince me that perhaps LENR is actually a mystery, and this idea is inspiring and we have to accept and enjoy it. As many colleagues do. I have joined this movement on March 24, 1989 because I understood that‘s the new clean source of energy that can replace all the other, including atomic (fission) energy that has disappointed our generation. If I wish contacts with the mysterious other great domains of Culture –art, religion, are more adequate.
Awe and admiration of the Cosmos or of Life – are signs of a positive approach, mystery has something passive in it, as when Reason takes a nap. No mystery can satisfy my intellectual curiosity; any and all mysteries that suck the blood of some practical problems will become my enemies. A mysterious
problem is one that cannot be solved. Mysterious LENR will
not give us usable energy, just unanswerable questions and stress.
I guess there are some masochistic traits in an attitude of mysteryphilia. Otherwise we have plenty of mysteries to think about- things too complicated, too dynamic, too paradoxically
auto-contradictory to be understood by our limited brains- let’s tell only about a few: prime numbers, evolution, photosynthesis, bad thinking, political stupidity, the “means cannibalizing aims” tragedy (I started to write about it), hating people with diverging opinions, the financial crisis etc.

Abd is, in the best sense of the word, an idealist. I am (now irreversibly) pragmatic and narrowly realist. Cold Fusion mystery is not for me.  

I will not ask if I have predicted LENR+, and I will not whine about Cassandra Syndrome and "geography is destiny". And history is a prison, sometimes, and I am not focusing on it.
I prefer to contribute as much I can to LENR+’s fast progress.



  1. It has just occurred to me that the “secret sauce” chemical additions to the Ni/H are where the large number and continually renewable NAE come from.

    In the polariton theory of LENR, a mix of nano-structures of various sizes amplifies and concentrates strong electric charge. The more the variation in sizes of the various nanostructures the stronger the Nanoplasmonic effect will be.

    The “secret sauce” is a chemical additive that forms solid dust like metal nano-particles, little solid balls of alkali metal droplets, with sizes that range in the hundreds to thousands of atoms.

    There sizes are about 1 nanometer or less. These small bits of matter form in the billions, like dust settling on the nanowire covered micro-particles.

    The contract points between these dust particles and the nickel nanostructures are the nuclear active areas.

    This potassium 1 nn Nano dust is constantly renewed and there is literally billions of such sites produced by chemical processes in the hydrogen as the dust falls like snow on the nickel micro particles

    The strength of the charge concentration is proportional to the smallness of the smallest nano-particle in the nanostructure aggregation.

    A nano-particle that is just a few hundred atoms in size will produce a huge electric field concentration.

    EMF concentration of up to 10 to the 15th power has been experimentally verified. This “secret sauce” mechanism may produce even higher levels of charge amplification.

    For example, in the high school tungsten reactor where tungsten nano-particle of random sizes is covered in a solution of potassium carbonate, that reactor produces a COP of 4. The potassium carbonate produces solid potassium nanodust that mixes with and sticks to the tungsten particles and it is this dust that forms the NAE in that reactor design.

    1. Thanks!
      It is simply wonderful to see how the vision
      of LENR+ - useful LENRis developing step by step
      even before we have massive serious expetimental data

  2. Peter, you are not a realist, you are a dualist. I'll accept that I'm an idealist, but ideas are, to me, only tools, not the Truth (TM).

    You were correct about NAE, but .... to me, that's a no-brainer. *Of course* that is where research into a mystery begins, learning to set up the effect or phenomenon being studied.

    The passing of your son, perhaps, embittered you, and I grieve, with you, the loss. However, cancer *can* stop. We may not stop it, it may be out of our personal control, but a cancer diagnosis is not a death sentence. It's a reminder that we are mortal. I got that diagnosis four years ago, prostate cancer. I acted, with what I knew to do, VLC diet. I just had another biopsy. Totally negative. Cured? No, not necessarily, simply not seen any more. What was there before may still be there, but so what? All it means is that life is impermanent. That's realistic. It's quite likely I will die from something else.

    Peter, I'd like to suggest some ontology: "mystery" is not a *fact,* it's a declaration, a stand. Cold fusion is not "actually" a mystery, I simply made that up, because of the effect of this declaration. Watch what happens.

    You are free to believe, if you choose, that there is no mystery, but, then, you are outside of science and the scientific method, which depends on mystery *as a default.* It is when we believe that we already know Truth that we get stuck.

    This is all part of a developed technology of transformation, an approach to breaking through limitations, even where it may have seemed impossible. "Impossible" is an invention, there is no "impossible" in Nature, which simply does what it does.

  3. Dear Abd,

    If I am a dualist, this has to mean something connected with "2"
    Perhaps you are alluding to my conviction that for "solving" the LENR problem we need both science and technology.
    I don't get exactly whst you say about NAE and me. but I think
    the idea was too obvious and natural. Actually I have seen it first in an abstract published in Referativnyi Zhurnal Khimyia the Soviet equivalent of Chemical Abstracts it said CF is kind of
    What is more interseting- inside the CF/LENR community there are still divergent opinions- bulk or surface, volume or very restricted, very special areas. Strong controversies, see please the high intensity disputes between Ed Storms and Mitch Swartz.

    Re cancer I am happy that you have defeated it, however it is a
    Richter scale of malignicity, Robert had ganglionar cancer one of the worst forms and two of my best friends, both called called Paul had pulmonary cancers that has bred many metastases. One had 71, the other had 53 years. Not smoking but working many years with vinylchloride (like me BTW)It is difficult to define a cause of cancer (I am following the literature) but the problems is. like at LENR -complexity, structural and dynamic. In the later case the aggravating factor is non-accepatance of complexity, the despearte rush for si[;e, schematic and easily
    understandable solutions.
    Let's forget about mystery as long as it is not reflecting a defeatist attitude.
    I hope, later this year, you and many other good people in this community will accept the LENR vs LENR distinction/differentition
    and this will change everything

  4. Peter
    In regard to the comments by Abd R L, am leaning toward the possibility of language being blurred thus possibly creating miss-interpretation or wrong emphasis on points being made.

    In 1st reading Abd's comments (email then here), my reaction was 'Hmmm, Abd has some issues he wants to "get off his chest" in regard to all Peter (remarks)'.

    In the broader sense, I can't see any problems with your original post or your (good) intentions. The cancer matter you raised was just a personal matter (makes you human) & did not require an analysis by Abd other than it is clearly a personal & emotional issue for him and he needed to raise it (but it is good that his outcome is positive, now let us let it rest).

    I also wondered Abd's issues raised were alluding to a rift between LENR vs LENR+ issues (with Peter being repeatedly pro LENR+).

    I too was not able to divine the purpose of the "you are not a realist, you are a dualist" ?. I concluded these remarks were a "storm in a teacup" that unfortunately distract from Peter's well made (IMHO) core message.

    My advice to anyone following the topic, is to read and look at Peter's pragmatism in what he wrote. IMHO it is well founded.


  5. Dear Doug,

    Thank you for the kind message, I owe you and to other readers, open minded now or in the future- some explanations.

    Re Abd- I enjoy discussing with him, je is a pro-LENR man indeed,
    hopes to find the secret of CF/LENR in the Fleischmann Pons cell. is tolerant toward the low reliability of the experiments, nad considers the 1191 Miles experiment of papramount importance, Re this last point I agree with him, however I am not able to get the predictive power of that event.

    There are other problems with this paper:
    a)its success rate is very low, despite the importance of some ideas sketched in it;
    b) nobody seems to seek some rational explanation of the very bad experimental situation in the field;my poisoning hypothesis s ignored with hosyility
    c)the definitions presented are not interesting for the readers,
    they have to be rejected or accepted but discussed anyway. It is a formidable conceptual chaos in the field;
    d)some colleagues start to accept the existence and absolute necessity of LENR+ but it is by far not mainstream.