Wednesday, August 13, 2014


“Most people don't grow up. Most people age.” (Maya Angelou)

“Growing up is hard, love. Otherwise everyone would do it.” 
Kim Harrison)


The worldwide epidemic of Probletence is hundreds times more dangerous than Ebola and where it hits- disasters come fast.
For the lovers of definitions: the word is formed by combining ‘problem ‘ and ‘impotence’ and means chronic inability for solving problems, including the really vital ones.  Probletence is not in the dictionaries, is not popular, not a meme; however combating it is a condition of survival.

Probletence- has more rules, here are the first three ones:

First Rule “A problem will NOT be solved if the number, influence or power of the people living, taking profit from the problem is greater than the same characteristics of the people who want solve the problem." 

(when the rulers oppose to the solving of a problem in order to protect their privileges or interests, the problems persist and can become permanent)

Second Rule: “A problem will NOT be solved in the great majority of the cases not because people do not see the solution,
but because they do not see the problem itself.”

(any form of ignorance and illiteracy is deadly danger for problem solving, however the cult of ignorance and the practice of arrogant illiteracy are fatal; in most cases the problem solving does not start at all- it is ejaculation ante portas)

Third Rule: “A problem will NOT be solved when the methods used for solving it become more important and valuable than the solution itself and the same inefficient methods continue to be used in vain for “solving” the problem.  

(this is a specific case of “means replace aims” and …it is impossible to solve problems with inadequate tools or worst practices)

So, problems are not solved- when a solution is not desired, when the problem is not recognized and when the tools used are not good. Oppressed, ignored and tool-less problems have no
The first rule refers to problem killers but the second and the third to the problem solvers.
Many combinations and stages of these laws appear in practice...

If you believe these rules have value, please combine them with the Rules of real life problem solving, attached to this paper.

When you analyze these rules, please take in consideration that in Western modern cultures “solving the problems” is an obligation, therefore many unsolved problems get replacement solutions, pseudo-solutions, sometimes solutions that are worse
than the initial problem or solutions generating new problems.
The realm of probletence is vast and varied.


Is LENR impacted by probletence, now? Everybody will be agree that LENR was/is a victim of the First rule – the field has a broad range of oppressors- hot fusionists enjoying their own long range huge cost probletence, fossil fuels profiteers, renewable energy workers with problems of development, neophobic and dogmatic theoreticians, sadistic bullies in search of a vulnerable cause. Lack of funding, ostracization by high rank journals, bad press are efficient forms of oppression; research in LENR is risky for careers. Terribly bad, only a very fast victory of (then) cold fusion in the first stage after the Fleischmann-Pons conference could change this. However the great strategic error of searching for neutrons and then the
dreadful calamity called “irreproducibility” combined with weak signals in the few successful experiments lead to a long time existential crisis. The accumulated results can give the certainty that the phenomenon exists. However, in 25 years of heroic work it had been slow progress and the perspective of creating a new energy source is – as it is. By the way, I have written a lot of blog papers saying what I will repeat now here- however my ideas have limited success and only LENR is more probletent than me, in this respect. I will mention here only this obvious loser:
I will now re-write the history of LENR in this spirit of the fight with probletence; it is here about the second law- LENR is not understood well.


The second law of probletence is dominating the field- the basics of the LENR problem are not understood.
What has happened in 1989? A phenomenon of paramount importance was discovered before its time, in the worst place possible in an undeveloped form-as a newborn infant weak, sick, vulnerable, with serious birth defects, needing intensive care.
Because Fleischmann and Pons who have discovered it have achieved a status of heroes, the cradle of the infant was considered the place where the infant will develop, grow up.
The wet electrochemical PdD model has achieved many horizontal, incremental successes and has continued to be popular Actually, it can be seen that the cradle has converted CF/LENR in a kind of unhappy bonsai-cat and the cradle can become a coffin too.
I dislike these forced analogies; they have good doses of idiocy in them however they help us to define the root problem:

LENR HAS TO GROW UP!  So much about confronting the first two laws of probletence and applying problem solving rule no.3. However it comes the great war with the terrible third law of probletence – it needs courageous decisions, radical changes a and a lot of blood, toil, tears, and sweat- to cite my favorite politician

The inner myths and memes and labels of the field are “we take no prisoners” type enemies in this war.


If you misunderstand the problem, how could you know what the solution has to be? LENR has to grow up, and this means
more, a lot more then growing greater and stronger, it implies
deep radical quality changes as the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly, the creeping “creature” from the electrolysis cell has to become a different, high “flying” and a high temperature energy source everybody wants in his/her house snd/or factory.
In the spirit of the third law of probletence-actually against it- new tools are needed, new approaches, improved thinking, and a paradigm shift.
About the “tools”- old and new- worn-out and created now:

-From the start CF was considered to be a scientific problem. it was believed Science will solve the LENR problem and all we have to do is to find the scientific explanation of the phenomenon and to use it for development. It was supposed that this is a relatively easy and fast way. There will be used probably more tools but the handle for all will be a good theory.
There is no other way than that of the Scientific Method and for
building a technology, it is necessary to understand well LENR.

-The search for the Theory was very successful quantitatively but, optimistically speaking, a complete failure qualitatively no usable theory for guiding experiments was found. This is a sad reality not some vision based on depression. We know the phenomenon is existent, it is manifested by excess heat- but where, when, how, why this heat appears is not known. And why (XXX) it does not appear so many times?  What have we to do in order to obtain more heat, regularly? Is this possible or just a dream or unfulfilled promise? I judge the situation is intolerable and has to be changed. Many of my friends tend to be less wary, LENR is such an interesting and fine mystery!

No good theory yet- this has to be explained- what I think:

-CF/LENR was discovered prematurely and science still has not discovered the adequate theory- it has to be created. (Do not dismiss this nasty idea, better take a look to this:
It says that HTSC –a non-probletent phenomenon, 3 years older then LENR was explained only very recently. In Condensed Matter Science, nuclear or not nuclear, theories still are not realistic and cannot be used for applications. It is developing fast- nanosciences are leading- however for our case/problem new theories re necessary. (missing theory)

-The birthplace of Cold Fusion has determined the kinds of theories tried- electrochemistry, palladium-hydrogen interaction, nuclear physics. The catalytic model proposed by me for investigation in 1991 was ignored however it partially entered the field as NAE (active sites)
It is much disagreement regarding the topology, nature and mechanism of the reaction that generates the desired excess heat, the secondary and the parasitic reactions.
Chemistry cannot explain LENR therefore LENR MUST be nuclear, and if it is nuclear it is only nuclear and nothing else.  
(bad choice of theory model)

-LENR does not need one theory, but many- it is more complex and complicated than thought- it is a combination of sequences;
DGT has formulated this as: “dynamic system of the multi-stage set of reactions” a very bright definition, IMHO. No single theory can explain LENR. Some of these steps are nuclear, others are pre- and post-nuclear. (multiple theories necessary)

HOWEVER: the solution seems to be in a way prior to theory, the primary task is not to explain LENR but to transform it in a productive system. The CF device was just a start- whispering an “it is possible” message, we have to build reliable, powerful working device. The issue is much more about “to do” then about “to know”, action and knowledge have to work together.
For many of our colleagues this seems to be not a “scientific” way- but, you will see, no other way leads to success.

Technology is the way, engineering is the key, and science is both means and aim, not the panaceum. We must choose the way less known and be aware that it is obstacled even dangerous.

The E-cat and Hyperion sagas, still in development, allow us to learn a few things about engineering and technology. Gas phase dry and clean, degassed metal –micro and nano mixed as it has to be (?) in contact with hydrogen in an activated form, at high temperatures. 200 C seems to be a practical lower limit. The system is dynamic, in more senses. Materials science is vital, control is difficult, heat transfer is critical. Changing, improving, understanding, trying and retrying, making errors and correcting them, surprises and delays, tests and other tests, standardizing the tests – the unique beauty of industrial research. A wave of bitter-sweet nostalgia hits me, once I was a player now just a passionate sunset-stage kibitz always in search of broken, scarce information.
Eventually, LENR technologies will be created, Fleischmann’s and Pons’ magnificent dream becoming real, very far from the cradle in some sophisticated heavy metal boxes...
It will be demonstrated that probletence is not a fatal curse and it is not invincible. If Homo sapiens cannot find the answer, Homo faber- a denier of the Impossible- will save him. Technology is the domain of human activity where probletence cannot rule.

Only new good ideas and very hard development work can save LENR!

Comments are NOT welcome- they lead to dialogues and these are only one step from the ”You are wrong, I am right” trap. Let us use fertile parallel monologs- so please send only additions and/or subtractions to this paper. Thank you!




“I think, I exist. I decide, I live. I solve the problems, I live with a purpose.”

1. There are NO isolated problems, they always come in dynamic bunches.

2. There are NO final solutions for the really great problems, these have to be solved again and again.

3. NOT solving the problem, but defining it is the critical step.

4. NOT the unknown data, but those known and untrue are the greatest obstacles to the solution.

5. .NOT what we know, but what we don’t know is more important for solving the problem.

6. NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented.

7. NOT all problems have a complete, genuine solution.

8. NOT the solutions that seem perfect from the start, but those which are very perfectible are the best in many cases.

9. NOT the bright, shiny, spectacular solutions but those elaborated, worked out with difficulty and effort and patience are more valuable and have a larger area of applicability.

10. NOT the solutions that are logical and perfectly rational, but those that are adequate for the feelings of the potential users, even if they are ilogical, have the greatest chances of fast implementation.

11. NOT the quality of the solution but the speed of its implementation is the decisive factor in many cases. It can be better to have a partial solution applied fast than a slower almost perfect solution.

12. NOT always long hours of hard work and great efforts, but (sometimes) relaxation and fun is the best way to obtain solutions for (awfully) difficult problems.

13. NOT our own problems, but the problems of other people are usually more boldly and creatively solved by us

14. NOT the solutions worked out by us, but those borrowed. bought or stolen from others are more easily accepted and implemented.

15. NOT the enhancement of human strengths but the limitation of human weaknesses is more useful for efficient problem solving.

16. NOT the very careful perfect planning, but the smart assuming of risks and firm decision taking are the practical keys to successful problem solving.

17. NOT always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.

18. Do NOT accept the premises of the problem, but change them as necessary and possible.

19. Do NOT stop at the first solution, but seek for alternatives.
RULE- the most important of all;

20. NOT the wise application of these rules but the finding of the specific exceptions to these, is the real high art of problem solving.

The rules are inherently perfectible. Despite their broad applicability
including the most wicked problems and their availability in 20 languages the rules are till not taught in schools and are far from the stage of epidemic dissemination. This results in Humanity terrorized by myriads of unsolved, painful problems of all kind, by worldwide epidemics of Probletence.

Translations of the Rules


  1. ADDITIONAL RULE- the most important of all:

    21) The Hyperion scandal will NOT mask behind your chattering here or anywhere.

    Your supporting to them it's another big scandal for LENR.

  2. Which scandal, Anonymous? Where how, except in your fantasy? They do their work in silence and the others wait. What is the problem with you, have you invested in DGT have they promised you a Hyperion for May this year, other...?

    1. Did you read Gambetale's Report about final test of Hyperion?
      Did you read last interview to the CEO of DGT Europe?
      Pretend to ignore that they clear demonstrated and wrote that Hyperion doesn't work and spoke also of bad faith?
      You don' t have any technical argument to refute Gamberale's Report, only your chat, smoke into the eyes and endless promises about Hyperion R6, R7, ..., R1000 and yada yada.
      Maybe you invested in DGT and now continue to support them against the known scandal, a big scandal for LENR.

    2. I read the Gamberale report and it refers to gis experiments and not to the ICCF-18 demo.
      I have read the interview of the CEO pf DGT Europe and I have discusssed with him- we do not agree n the Gamberale Report.
      The report has no value- the Hyperion is working well.
      I have not invested in DGT but I know what they have and what they are and I trust in them- they will come soon with a commercial generator. You and your imaginary scandal is not interesting me.
      Are you paid to attack DGT and by whom/what?

  3. If you are able, give public evidences of what you wrote otherwise you are again throwing smoke into the eyes here.

    "We do not agree the Gamberale Report".
    "We" who? You and your big friends of DGT?

    Are you able to write clearly on paper what (just for you) is Gamberale lying?
    If you have evidence put it in written and public here (facts not chattering) otherwise you are just bluffing and you don't know absolutely anything.

    Here anyone can read just yada yada about that, not even a technical written that proves your chattering.
    They are infecting LENR due to your support.
    You should be ashamed. The suspect to be paid is on you.