This is a new form of communication with my readers- a faster
one. I am trying to re-think LENR from the basics and to see how its existential and developmental problems can be solved.
In my most recent publication on the blog, I succeeded to define
the laws/principles governing LENR in the real word. For the time given- the “Otherness + Complexity+ Diversity + Metamorphosis + Creativity + Dynamicity” ideaplex cannot compete with the traditional simple cold fusion born and palladium-, deuterium- based vision of LENR. No problem, I will continue till the end. My end, obviously I want to see the old cold fusion dream becoming reality.
I have decided to tell you each day this month what I learn about LENR or in some connection to-, correlation with it.
November, the nastiest month of the year usually was not marked by special events. A few LENR papers can be found easily here: http://www.ecatnews.net/
Much ado for Bill Gates’ visit at ENEA- Vittorio Violante does not say if he gets funding or what would he do with this funding.
Much negative enthusiasm from Rossi’s abandoned licensees.
No really new information regarding the Lugano experiment; the MFMP guys working hard and fast toward its quasi-reproduction.
My best and dearest American friend, Mike Carrell dies on Nov. 23 without achieving the certainty that Randy Mills’ new process will indeed go commercial. Painful loss, painful question: will I live enough to see “LENR” rising like a phoenix?
Yesterday late evening- my friend Russ George has sent me is
excellent paper about patents published on his blog:
PATENTS MUST TEACH
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2014/11/30/patents-must-teach/ Realistic, pragmatic thinking re LENR patents including Rossi’s- a must read I think.
An inspiring short essay by Axil re the Higgs boson, LENR and theories on Vortex: https://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg99997.html
“Those physicists are hypocrites when they criticize LENR for not being well grounded in a single theory and LENR has been at it for only 25 years. The Higgs theory is more than 50 years in the making with no end in sight.”
A similarly consolating idea: Professor Tibor Braun has sent me his paper in pre-publication state re. High Temperature Super Conductivity- the vision of its development appreciated by the 11 Nobel prizes received by HTSC researchers from
1987 till now. No accepted theory for HTSC exists
Tibor is, by the way, a CF sympathizer and diligently waits for a really convincing proof that it works. I have sent him the Lugano Report; however he waits for something even better.
Prof Tibor Braun is founder editor of the following journals
Scientometrics, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry : Fullerene Science and Technology. To not forget Cold Fusion Flash- really the first CF publication in 1989. that
was ended after issue No 13.
Due to an attack of Defrostitis on one of our closed forums, it has started a discussion about the ancient question if LENR takes place in the bulk or on the surface. This dispute always
ends without a decision. My opinion was presented here:
and has never changed. I can reproduce in my blog only my personal contributions:
First starting from my paper cited above:
“The paper had zero impact- for example it is not cited in Ed Storms great books. There must be reasons for this- most probably its low scientific level.
But it was conceived in the spirit of problem solving, I consider(ed) that the reproducibility problem is intolerable.
It was about the catalytic nature of CF (the reactions take place in active sites on the metal surface) about killer impurities, the essential role of the dynamics of the metal surface atoms. The most provocative idea was this:
paradoxically, lack of reproducibility has an amazingly great informational value.
I concluded that the R-problem is inherent to the experimental system used and says a lot about the topology, nature and mechanisms of the essential reactions.
I concluded that the common factor that can cause irreproducibility is the blocking of active sites by gas molecules from air- an unpopular idea in our circles. An interesting event- cathode 64 of Energetics which I thought to be due to the aleatory protection of the active sites by adsorption of a very thin layer of silicon oil has lead to the idea that the cathodes could be protected by quasi- monomolecular layers of surface active agents perhaps cationic plus non-ionic. I wrote about this to the greatest experimenters but the idea was never tried - its execution is not easy.
I have learned a lot from Piantelli and DGT, indirectly from Rossi and the facts have forced me to believe in things I dislike and I hope they will be shown to be false and even stupid. But I cannot ignore them, just because I have the mentality of a problem solver.
The general situation of LENR is marked by perplexity, we do not understand the basics and we do not have any known strategy for solving the core problem in experiments- reproducibility, scale-up-control.
An unavoidable rule seems to be the following; "wet and not deeply degassed metal surfaces cannot assure usable (reproducible, scaled-up, under control results"- i.e. are not viable technologically. This idea can be rejected only experimentally.
If I am right (?) even the
Project’s money is
unable to convert a PdD wet electrochemical cell in a new energy generator.” Manhattan
“the option is between "on the volume" and "in the surface"
It is a historical malheur that LENR was not discovered on Ni
or Cr or W but on Pd - a metal characterized by a desperate competition between bulk and surface for hydrogen; this fight leads to chaos and an almost unmanageable system.”
More coming tomorrow.