Thursday, September 18, 2014


“Truth is a river, not a lake.” (n.d. Scottish Proverb)

Recently, vivid discussions regarding the correlation of excess heat to helium formed- take place on the LENR forums.

Generally seen it is a case of Defrostitis – an old theme/subject is taken from the refrigerator of the LENR past, defrosted heated up and discussed as if it was something new. Defrostitis is followed by Disputitis and when everything was said the problem goes back to the refrigerator supported by Dilutitis- it fades gradually away and hibernates till its next resurrection.

Personally seen it has not much reason in it, I am perfectly convinced that the 1991 paper of Melvin Miles is an unassailable proof that this correlation exist- it was confirmed by other LENR researchers- fast memory shows me first Mike McKubre and Russ George. This correlation- as such- is for me an axiomatic truth. What does it really reveal, what is its significance for the development of our field and how can this truth be used efficiently for convincing newcomers or honest investigators about the truth of cold  fusion/LENR- all these make up a different, complex story.

Introducing the concept of unsolving problems.

Beyond Defrostitis –as a professional problem solver I am remarking an other side of this discussion- “unsolving problems” In the past a solution was found  for a problem, then the solution is re-converted in a problem again- this was done with heat/he now. It is not a perfect solution, it is not an easily actionable solution, but it is NOT a problem.

Actually the problem is solved as my discussion partner Abs shows it so well and other colleagues help him.

Unfortunately a solution is accepted- outside the circle of experimenters who are creating it-- NOT based on scientific
criteria. I was amazed to discover that this “ unsolving the problems” is something so viral and important that you can find it in the lyrics of a song belonging to rock music a very recent one-see please        
It is about unsolving problems at the level of our species.

I have stated many times that the lyrics of non-classic music are mysteriously very highly placed on the DIKW scale- sometimes. It is much wisdom in this text- I am speaking quite seriously. I will ask these Sweet Empire guys (probably via my young friend Dr. Bob) to write a song about the World Wide Epidemics of Probletence. I also have noted that any time I am trying to invent a new concept or new name, immediately I will find a rock band already owning that name.

Back to the heat/helium problem.

Heat/helium is truth but not of the kind you can convert in a meme that everybody accepts. There are more reasons for it and I will try to show you these- you will not like my arguments- I also don’t like them at all but they are stronger than me.

Heat/Helium is not exactly the kind of truth people want

An Italian skeptic let’s call him Guido whom I met at ICCF-2 Como (where I also met Fleischmann, Pons, Miles< Gerrischer
Morrison and other important CF people)- Guido was a believer then. Now he has written about what he would consider a convincing Heat/Helium experiment:

He advises me:

a) to read again with activated critical thinking- this 

b) to accept as a reasonable condition that at the end of a successful experiment the concentration of helium has to be at least 10 times greater inside the cell than outside

c) Says- make 10 tests within +/- 20% difference of He final content.

It can be easily seen that he wants actually not a heat/Helium correlation but intense and reproducible heat.
If LENR has a technological future, then Guido is right. Heat/Helium is scientifically fine, but how relevant it is?

Heat Helium is not a simple experiment.

The point b) in Guido’s requirements is kind of a trap, actually in the Miles’ successful experiments the concentration of Helium inside the Cell is ~ 10 ppb, while in the air outside the cell it is the natural 5,240ppb, much greater. A non-motivated newcomer will not accept this beyond all proofs. The public
always believes much easier a simple lie than a complex truth.
It is highly unfair in this case, even not smart at all but difficult to change. See the text of the song above.

LENR truth is now so strongly associated with LENR value that it’s not 
more accepted separately.
This was demonstrated in my essay of yesterday at the end with these words: You do not need to be a prophet when it is about LENR, it will be accepted by science and public only when it will demonstrate both its TRUTH (Science) and itsVALUE (as practical source of energy) - this was the original promise and people have good memory.”  It is about LENR in toto but it is true especially for this seminal Heat/Helium Truth.

However a fifth condition also exists for the truths- the non-religious truths to be accepted:

Static stagnant truths have low chances to be accepted.

It is nothing special in this, I had the intuition of the dynamicity of the world in an incipient stage of my education when I started to collect wise quotations and to write some- probably less wise, one of them that I have not forgotten was:
“The existence is inexistence in movement” an idea pre-existent in many ancient philosophies. Movement, dynamics in both science and in technology is vectorial- and the name of its direction is progress. Tomorrow it has to be more, better, cheaper, safer than today.

says if something is not progressing it decays- in the world of technology there is never just stagnation. Think about Moore’s Law, about your PCs, mobile phones but also about your first car and your newest one and about all the products of technology you are using.
By extension and by psychological transmission, by the research culture a significant truth must also be dynamic and progressive.
Heat/helium seems to be a rather static truth – were its further confirmations been more impressive, more complete or more understandable good for theories- than Miles’ masterwork of 1991?
Can we imagine a better experiment now?

LENR will be dynamic or not at all (it is not by Malraux)




Re my pessimistic paper of yesterday- I have received some moral support – this paper:


 The Upside of Pessimism

The theory of defensive pessimism suggests that imagining—and planning for—worst-case scenarios can be more effective than trying to think positively.
It is not so counter productive to be a pessimist, isn’t it?
It also confirms my negativist approach to problem solving.

Now when I am finishing this essay- it is 03: 45 at Glasgow and the results of the referendum are not known. It depends if the Scotch will listen to their heads or their hearts- says a wise journalist on Google News. I think he uses one euphemism.

Rossi’s Blog dominated by the theoretician Wladimir Guglinski for the moment- nothing about the Report.

E-Cat World of Frank Acland – some positive rumor not very reliable- COP over 10. It can be true.

The day of Sept. 18, 2014 is still not over in many regions of Terra.


1 comment:

  1. The problem with stagnant truth is something I observe whil trying to face the groupthink.

    Many time I had the answer "your article are 20 years old, you have nothing new"...

    See that most stupid scicast!/questions/152/safe

    "Which organization(s) will publish the first paper describing a net energy positive Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (also known as cold fusion) device or process in a journal indexed on Thomson Reuters Web of Science?"

    I had to comment that it is not a forecast , since it is long time that excess heat is measured.

    Electrolysis is until recently quire unrelieble (ENEA reached 100% by controling surface metallurgy), but some protocols are 100% reliable, like codeposition, thin film...

    but for those scientists, old claims are without value.

    neomania says taleb.