Wednesday, July 30, 2014


Slow progress is in LENR, the predictionss were mine.
I have re-read my paper: “Why technology first?’ automatically remembering one of the favorite books of my childhood ‘Twenty years after.” by Alexandre Dumas.
The paper is attached to this essay, perhaps it is too long, has a rather low ideas/words density, has much too many quotations and embarrassingly naïve concepts- however, I dare to hope, it can be used to illustrate the progress  made in the field and
proves some predictions made by me in illo tempore.
I have used much stuff from my course of “Management of Technology”- presented at the local university of Eco Management.
I wonder if somebody will have the angelic patience to read it,
but it can happen. I will use the comments to up-to-date this text, Blogger allows me to do that.
Let’s remember the old battles (lost) prior to going in new battles we must win- if we will not accept to perish.
However this is just nostalgia, the victory and the solution is in new ideas not in old books and papers, not in the past.


(with special thanks to Christy Frazier)

Why Technology First
by Dr. Peter Glück

The Problem
“We are very good at making and talking about the bricks of the temple of science,but most of us are shy about the mortar or
about the speculative blueprint of the whole design” — Gerald Holton

“The great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge” —(Author unknown, quoted after Daniel Boorstin)

I will present here my vision about Cold Fusion, an offer for a strategy in this field, and a theory. These are as subjective as possible because I have learned well that an “objective analysis”
is both a contradiction in terms and a symptom of fear of responsibilityor of inadequate knowledge. I don’t aim to compete with the many other theories which try to explain the puzzles of Cold Fusion; obviously there is a state of crisis which requires
a radical change of rules in the contest, that is what Edward de Bono has called surpetition, creatively replacing the usual “competition” [1]. The trick is not how to defeat the “rival” theories
but how to assimilate selectively their valuable elements, the fragments of truth they hold. In short range, this has some drawbacks such as hostility and a success similar to that of
Cassandra’s predictions, as it results from the citation rate of my papers which are politely and systematically ignored [2-5].

“When truth is discovered by someone else, it loses something of its attractiveness” A.Solzhenitsyn

In the longer range, after the recognition of the theory, after its metamorphosis from an “ugly duckling” into a swan, hopefully laying golden eggs, it has to be adequately extended and
developed, in order to cure its inborn mathematical debility. But now we need a theory which can be used as a solid working hypothesis and we have to follow one of the advises of the
Father of Scientific Management:
“Quantification without adequate logic is worse than no quantification at all.”—Peter F. Drucker

In my opinion, we have to create first a very general and not precisely defined frame useful for the commercial development of new energy sources; real, profound understanding and impressive formulas will come later.

“In science the primary duty of the ideas is to be useful and interesting more than to be true” —Wilfred Totter

If we are pragmatic enough, we have to accept this, and if are not, it doesn’t matter: the situation cannot be changed. However I am not fanatical about my opinion or my theory:
“When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because
these dogmas or goals are in doubt”—Robert Pirsig

And a general acceptance is neither possible nor desirable:
“It is time to understand that consensus in the scientific community is not a good sign,but rather a symptom of crisis. The polarization of views is normal” —V. Koliadin

To generate a viable mental tool, I have used both scientific data and basic principles of action and management:this is justified by the extreme difficulty and novelty of the problem [6].
“Problems worthy of attack, Show their worth by hitting back.” —Piet Hein

The Perils of Neophobia (and Its Justification)

A very great part of the problems faced by Cold Fusion are due to the normal, self-protecting, neophobic reaction of the scientific community.

“All great truths begin as blasphemies”—G.B. Shaw

“The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resistsit with similar energy. If we watch ourselves
with honesty, we shall often find that we begin to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated”—Wilfred Totter

“One of the marvels of creation is the infinite capacity of the human brain to withstand the introduction of knowledge”
Theodore Roosevelt

When you don’t understand something,you are against it”
—Grigore Moisil, Romanian mathematician

My dear Cold Fusion fellows, you have to understand that:
“What men really want is not knowledge but certainty”—Bertrand Russell

Cold Fusion was discovered by chemists, but the physicists are convinced that real or not, CF is their field and has to be treated their way. This generates some trouble as it can be concluded from an editorial entitled “Are there limits of scientific knowledge?” [7]

“..there is a difference in the way that physicists and chemists regard science, and I sincerely hope my physicist colleagues
are not unduly offended. Many physicists hope they can understand EVERYTHING and they manage to pronounce
this hope with great regularity to the public. There’s a certain arrogance there, but also an ambition one must respect. Chemists seem to have no such problem. The complexity of molecular
behavior- the origin, phase state, dynamic structure and, above all bond making and bond breaking reactions of molecules amounts
to a complexity equivalent to that of a decent sized universe. Yes, physicists, a universe. Chemists appreciate the enormity of molecular complexity very well and they regularly say, “We don’t
long time before we do.” Contemplating molecular complexity is a good mental exercise in humility. Chemists appear to be quite content with this well adjusted,honest attitude even though as scientists we are sometimes less well regarded for our admitted lack of complete understanding of our subject.” —Royce W. Murray

Whether cold fusion belongs to the physicists, to the chemists, to both, or demands new specialists is an open question. Any kind of combined solution is possible. Being a chemical engineer, my expertise in complexity includes elements of know-how and
direct experience in hypersensitivity, chaotic behavior of real systems, and unpredictability. I know that complexity, chaos, change, and paradox cannot be solved, but have to be managed.
It is time to recognize the immense difficulty of the field, as
well as the impossibility of finding or guessing solutions by starting from a particular aspect or from wishful, beautiful, but unfounded analogies (‘miniature hot fusion,’ ‘room temperature fusion,’ ‘piezonuclear processes,’ etc.) It is time to accept with joy that complexity is our mode of existence: “The World is constructed designedly in order to fulfill the interest of the scientist, being infinitely complex and perfectible,providing an endless and eternal field of thinking and action for him” —Y.H. Prum
It is time to understand that such a problem will get a solution only if we use adequate heuristic principles.[6,8].

The Way of Strategy

A strategy is essential because: “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there”—Theodore Levitt

My offer is a logical strategy based on the following five modes of confronting the problems

Global Approach
Consider the entirety of the available data, information, knowledge, all the systems, results, isotopes of hydrogen Only a cooperative combination between reduction and holism, analysis and synthesis, depth- and breadthoriented methods will help us to achieve an integrative vision of the intricate problem: what is actually Cold Fusion?

Open Approach
Supply and use a continuous influx of information from the neighboring fields (no good fences!) and even from more remote areas of the human thinking and action. We are not permitted
to forget that Koestler has proved that creativity works with
‘bisociations,’ i.e. associations between seemingly unrelated or even
mutually alien concepts.[9]. And Goedel’s theorem shows that it is
never possible to solve all the problems of a system by using only inner data, information, and knowledge.
Even a hasty investigation demonstrates that the neighboring fields of solid state science are lacking theoretical underpinning[10], and therefore an idea such as “cold fusion has no theory,therefore doesn’t exist” or “only theory can support the advancement
of CF” are completely false regardless of who issues them: a skeptic or an adept. The best method to stop progress in any science was stated by a skeptic, whose fervor, negative enthusiasm, and continuous combat against cold fusion has helped him to be quoted in a rather esoteric society of participants:
“Let’s get the theory sorted out before we make claims about practicality”—Alan M. Dunsmuir on the Internet, Fusion Digest No.3103, January 1995

Focused Approach
Concentrate on the essential aspects, on the core of the problem. This core is excess heat, because cold fusion is oppressed and needs a quick final victory in order to flourish; there are many more chances that the savior of the field will be the Invincible Cold
Fusion Demo— demonstrating that the energy source of the future has been found— rather than the Absolutely Convincing CF theory.
Nuclear ashes obtained in small quantities in some of the CF systems have only scientific significance and it is more and more obvious that these are secondary products; ‘Focused’ and
‘Global’ are thus complementary.

Positive Approach
Accept both the positive and the negative results, that is, be positive
toward both, and to make use of both. I have used the plethora of negative results to deduce the catalytic nature of cold fusion, i.e. I have used negative data to obtain positive, and possibly essential information. The extreme case of this approach is my claim to
have founded Scipiology (the science of converting disasters in triumphs) [11]. Managers know well the importance
of positive thinking:
“Here is one secret of success. Avoid being against some-thing.Instead be for something.Examples. Instead of being against
illiteracy, be for literacy and you will help to improve literacy. Instead of being against your company’s policy, be for an
improved policy. What happens: Whateveryou are against, works against you. You begin fighting it and become a part of the
problem. But when you state what are you for, you begin focusing on the potential for the positive change” —Wayne W.Dyer[12].
Here I have to confess that it is quite difficult to apply this doctrine in one’s attitude toward the militant, active skeptics. Perhaps one of my cold fusion friends is right when he states that ‘a 99% skeptic is better than a 200% believer’ but this is also open to interpretation. I have many good friends among the skeptics, however they have taught me that the next statement, which demonstrates the
existence and power of the negative thinking, is not a metaphor:
“If you don’t think at all, you think more than the average of the people.”—Jules Renard

During writing this piece I came across an essay of Daniel Boorstin
dedicated to the virtues of the so called ”negative discovery,” i.e. paradigm changes which prove that “some long-admired fixture of the imagination does not exist”[13]. It is clear that cold fusion is also a “negative discovery” in the most positive interpretation of this wording. This shows once again its progressive character:
“Perhaps the modern realm of discovery isno longer a realm of answers but only ofquestions, which we are beginning to feel
at home in and enjoy. Perhaps our modern discoverer is not a discoverer at all but rather a quester in an Age of Negative
Discovery, where achievements are measured not in the finality of the answers,but in the fertility of the questions.”—Daniel Boorstin
Our case illustrates the conceptual richness of the positive-negative

Realistic Approach

Admit the limits of the present understanding and realize the present stage of development. The following advice is many thousand years old but very rarely understood:
“Gain power by accepting reality.” —Chinese proverb
It isn’t easy to accept that:
“Truth is never pure and rarely simple”—Oscar Wilde
“Knowledge is but a struggle for knowledge.And we are always equally far and equally near it.” —Ramon Sender
“Science, at the bottom, is really antiintellectual.It always distrusts pure reasonand demands the production of the
objective fact” —H.L.Mencken
“Truth is perfectible at the most, only lies
can be perfect.”—Y. H. Prum
Or the worst of all:
“ Theories are ways of thinking which determine the choice of the experiment —Mary Migley
Theory and know-how have to be in equilibrium because
“When the cobbler became a shoe specialist,comfortable shoes could no longer be found” —Erwin Chargaff
We can learn from the great managers; a single quote is convincing:
“Past wisdom must not be a constraint but something to be challenged. Yesterday’s success formula is often today’s obsolete dogma. My challenge is to have [the organization] continually questioning the past so we can renew ourselves every day.”
Yoshio Maruta, chairman of Kao
Skeptics and cold fusioneers unable to think beyond the basic Pd/D2O system, please take note!

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

“I hate quotations! Tell me what do you know!”—B.Disraeli
O.K., Ben, you are right, no more quotations, and I’ll tell you because I am looking back with pleasure. However, I am quite busy looking forward.

Cold Fusion Systems
After more than 25 years practice in the systematization of patents and elements of know-how for chemical technologies,taxonomy is my baby. I have learned how to classify —chronologically, in order to comprehend the evolution —logically, i.e. according to the kind of the solution, trying to get a global vision of the possibilities —
technologically, that is by the companies owing the patents, correlating the data aiming to a realistic view of the technologies worked out by the leading companies. For my specialty (suspension polyvinyl chloride) I had processed more than 12,500 patents
and, obviously, had no computer.Then I joined the Cold Fusion movement (actually it happened a few years before the F & P press conference; hot fusion seemed to contradict my theory of unstoppable technological progress and I knew that an alternative solution must exist) and when very soon the great stumbling block of irreproducibility came in sight, I immediately identified the stigma of catalytic processes. To be catalytic is a blessing
in the case of a well-tempered process, but is a curse when it’s beyond control.All CF systems discovered are cases of catalysis [2-4] and using this criterion they can be classified in the following logical way, using as criteria the location of the active sites and the
method used for raising them:

1. WET SYSTEMS (gas/liquid/solid interfaces)
1.1. Electrochemical:
1.1.1. Pd/D2O
1.1.2. Ni/H2O
1.1.3. Pd/ molten salts
1.2. Ultrasonic:
1.2.1. Pd/ D2O
1.2.2. Metal/H2O

2. DRY SYSTEMS (gas/solid interfaces)
2.1. gas loading/unloading
2.2. gas discharge
2.3. gas sparking
2.4. gas/solid, stimulated
2.5. gas/ proton conductors
2.6. ionic implantation

Only systems in which excess heat was obtained are included here. Who knows, there may be others! Details regarding these systems can be found in the reviews of Storms[14,15] and hundreds of other papers and patents.

Occam’s Razor
The systems are very diversified, and it seems that what they have in common is the inhibition of the positive effects and the immediateness of the negative effects; excess heat generation
can be triggered with great difficulty but can be easily interrupted. It
is obvious that the cold fusion effect is based on some entities hich are very difficult to breed, but easy to destroy. In other words, they are hypersensitive and determine a chaotic behavior of the systems if these are in a suboptimal condition. However there are striking differences regarding the practical means of managing the different
CF systems. Storms calls the entities’ a Special Condition of Matter
(SCM) and states that this condition can appear in different chemical environments. He states: “ The challenge for a theoretician is to find what these SCM’s have in common.” In my opinion
all the CF systems described are based on methods of activation: electrochemical, ultrasonic, and others specific for gas/solid interfaces, that is, on creation of catalytic active sites.
As seen from the practice, both in the chemical industry and in case of cold fusion, this isn’t an easy job. Working by cavitation, the process is quite powerful and unperturbed, in contrast with the “classical”Fleischmann-Pons cell where the active centers are
created long after all diffusional processes have attained a state of
equilibrium. This suggests another criterion, yet not well defined, for ordering the CF systems from the most tough and efficient to the most sluggish and delicate. Catalysis is inherently economical given the processes are very localized and only an extremely small fraction of the matter has to be in the productive “Special Condition.’ And this condition isn’t bound to a special composition
but it is actually a quantum state determined by the topology and the dynamics of the atoms placed in the active sites. For this reason, I am using the name “surfdyn concept” for my working hypothesis. Quantum confinement, quantum corrals, and quantum cavities are the probable scene for the unexpected processes. (I don’t like the wording “anomalous,” the anomalous of today is the trivial of

Isotopic Democracy

The participants in the Cold Fusion drama are as surprising as the scene. At the very beginning of the story it seemed that only deuterium could play a role, and D+D fusion was the name of the game. Now we know that in at least 5 systems (1.1.2., 1.2.2., 2.1.,
2.3., and 2.4.), light water (or hydrogen) has an excess heat producing potential similar to that of deuterium.
A recent “surprise” the very first bastion of deuterium has fallen: using palladium-coated beads with very high surface area (that is with enhanced catalytic activity), Patterson [16], was able to obtain excess heat with a H2O-based electrolyte.
Reifenschweiler [17] has published data about the temperature dependence of the radioactivity of tritium embedded in titanium soot, having nanometric particles. The myth of inaccessibility of the nucleus by low energy processes has fallen. Where does this miracle
happen? In a catalytic environment, of course! With another isotope of hydrogen. As far we know, there are no essential differences
between deuterium and protium regarding the level of excess heat. A kind of Isotopic Democracy is working, possibly in all the systems. However, this proves that Cold Fusion has a component which is not nuclear.Who cares as long as it is a reliable source of energy?

The Cold Fusion Scenario
A simple scenario, hiding a treasure of complexity can thus be imagined:Cold Fusion” is actually a combination between: a Catalytic Quantum Effect, providing the capture of the zero-point energy, and more Catalytic Nuclear Effects, leading to nuclear
Obviously the nuclear particles are able to induce secondary reactions. The quantum non-nuclear and the nuclear effects have different ratios in the systems described and this is a
kind of mark of each system. The nuclear contribution to the excess heat is significant only in the deuterium based systems when helium-4 is formed; the maximum “nuclearity” appears in the palladium-heavy water ultrasonic system. According to my guess, even the Fleischmann and Pons cell is only 20-25% nuclear. (Yes,
my reputation is at stake!) Eventually let’s imagine a very simple play, based on the concept of pairing postulated by Reifenschweiler. Two atoms of hydrogen isotopes, confined in a quantum well, can form a pair (lots of theories describe aspects and forms of this idea). Beyond a degree of pairing they are able to tap ZPE, and excess
heat is emitted. At higher degrees of pairing and if deuterium is present, the nuclei are fused and a new source of heat is at work. An analogy can be found: the nuclear events are like marriages,
while the quantum events are like pairings, both intra- and extramarital.
This gives an idea of the relative frequency. Obviously, the real situation, (of cold fusion) is much more complicated. I don’t know when my theory will be accepted. In the worst case the final victory will be semantic: the catalysis jargon will invade and
conquer the field.

[1] E. de Bono: “Six Action Shoes”, Harper Collins Publishers, 1994.
[2] P. Gluck: “Understanding reproducibility:topology is the key”; Fusion Facts 3, 11, May 1992 pp 19-23.
[3] P. Gluck: “The Surfdyn concept, an attempt to solve or rename the puzzles of cold nuclear fusion”; Fusion Technology 24, 1, Aug 1993 pp 122-126.
[4] P. Gluck: “Cold Fusion- a logical network approach” Cold Fusion Source Book, InternationalSymposium on Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy Sources, Minsk, May 24-26, 1994, Hal Fox, Editor pp 79-83.
[5] P. Gluck: “A paradigm too far?” Fusion Facts 6, 7, Jan 1995 pp 19-21
[6] S.H. Kim:”Essence of Creativity: a Guide to Tackling Difficult Problems,” Oxford University Press, 1990.
[7] W. Royce Murray: “Are there limits of scientific knowledge?” Analytical Chemistry, 66, no.17, Sep 1, 1995 (Editorial).
[8] E. de Bono: “Serious Creativity” (Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas), Harper Business Publishers 1992.
[9] A. Koestler: “The Act of Creation”, Laurel Ed., 1965
[10] P. Gluck: “ The Neighbor’s Goat”,Fusion Facts 5, 9, March 1994, p 13-14.
[11] P. Gluck: “Cold Fusion-a case of Scipiology”, Cold Fusion No.6, 1995
[12] Wayne W. Dyer: You’ll See It When You Believe It, William Morrow and Co.,N.Y. 1993, quoted from:Communication Briefings, Oct 1994.
[13] D. Boorstin: “The Age of Negative Discovery”, The American Enterprise ,Vol 5, No 6, Nov/Dec 1994 p 28.
[14] E. Storms: “How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect” to be published in Fusion Technology, 1995
[15] E. Storms: “A Critical Review of the ‘Cold Fusion’Effect,” January 30, 1995, preprint received from the author.
[16] J. Patterson: US Pat. No.5,318,675 and 5,372,688 cited after ref. No 15.
[17] O. Reifenschweiler: “Reduced Radioactivity in Small Titanium Particles”,Physics Letters A, 184, 1994, pp149-153.

Saturday, July 26, 2014


For LENR, lots of theories, few principles.

Semantics is not quite an exact science; words have different and somewhat fluid meanings. A congress of philosophers  could not tell us what are the differences between a theory and a principle however when we are moving in a familiar territory of knowledge where theories abound and principles are not considered relevant & important- we can tell the ones from the others quite easily- just by looking to them; remember the pragmatic definition of pornography. “I know it when I see it”- principle.
In the VUCA world of LENR, there can be intermediary states
or hybrids of theories and principles. Theories are knowledge-oriented, more precise and detailed than principles, while principles are action-oriented, implying change.
Theories are interesting and passive, principles active and useful- as a somewhat general rule.

To the faithful readers of this blog is obvious that I have a passion to discover basic principles- see the “Twin Peaks’ and the “Sue-Ellen principle” (combined with the Kaltwasser doctrine) the Principle of the Chief Engineer and, especially the realistic and very practical technical principles of Defkalion Green Energies. My personal techno- moral principles-slogans as:
“I think, I exist; I decide, I live; I solve problems, I live with a purpose” and
“My favorite sport is swimming. My favorite metasport is swimming counter-stream”
are – at least for me, proofs that principles are important. In the present case we need to find those principles that could contribute to the solutions of the wickedly wicked problems of LENR.

But let’s discuss about LENR theories at first:
May I tell here what everybody knows- theories have not achieved much, have not explained even basic facts, are not guiding experiment, do not have problem solving power.
Despite these non-successes, many theories are beautiful impressive logical constructs and their authors plus some fans like them, promote them and oppose them to the competition.

It happens that just now, a new theory, created by the most knowledgeable and reputed author of the LENR field is fighting
for general acceptance and supremacy, having an excellent press and a lot of supporters. It is discussed on the forums, in many threads and it is the core idea of a book written just for the sake and for extended/deep presentation- of the theory- w
by dr. Ed Storms. You can buy the book, “Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” from here:
and I advise you to do it- the qualities of the book are more important than any and all possible weaknesses of the new theory. The book is surely a treasure both for old cold fusionists like me happy to remember the great events of the past and to
young LENR researchers trying to build a great future for a most interesting, however very special domain of Science.

It happens that I have followed the creation of Ed’s theory from its embryonic stadium when it was just a sketch of a paper; and I disagreed with parts of it- all the time... 
However both the book and the theory will be inspiring; the book after a pleasant study, the theory after its evaluation and dissection (to which I contribute here; at least I think so). 
The book has to be taken seriously because it will surely be taken very seriously (not a tautology!) by the young people entering the field due to the reputation and authority of its creator and the high quality of his writing.

My history with the new theory:  I have learned long ago that Ed Storms is a leading personality of Cold Fusion/LENR and therefore I have taken in consideration the theory as soon as it was formulated. These writings are more than 2 years old:


Ed Storms' answers to 5 questions. Questions No. 6 and 7

Ed has answered patiently to all my questions- as you can see. However, I was not convinced by his arguments, as we will see later. I was quite stubborn, Ed had the impression that “we are looking at Nature in very different ways”- and I had to agree.
For those unable to understand his theory, the answers cannot be supplied in few words, so he has decided to write this book.


Personal note: in 1970, when I became the Head of the research laboratory for PVC and chlorine compounds at OLTC HIM  Ramnicu Valcea I delivered a short discourse  about strategy and future.  Toward the end I have tried to say something quotable:
“I know well differences in opinion are attracting intelligent people and are repelling only those who are not so!”
My coworkers liked it. Then I have added:
“Take care, friends! You can do many things with me, but for your own sake, beware contradicting me!!!”

Now, more than 40 years later I am increasingly convinced that the first part was one of the greatest idiocies I have ever said.
People are unbelievable conflictual and take their opinions
very personal- “Ma theorie, c’est moi!”
However I dare to claim that I am an exception to this, being really tolerant to different and even opposing views re any issues with no ethical implications.

For the present case my disagreement with Ed Storms theory described in his book, is just the tip of an iceberg and the body of this iceberg is the major contradictions from this “frame”: 

The hybrid scientific-technological approach

The basic contradiction is regarding the Solution of the LENR commercialization problem.

Theories belong to the Scientific Method- and Ed’s theory
has obviously the same natural purpose: to explain how LENR works and how this could be used for creating a commercial energy source based on LENR. Absolutely correct, this is the essence of the scientific method, a creative dogma, a must. You are not allowed to develop a technology if you don't know well how it works, isn’t it? It is unscientific and it can be very risky!

However what to do if you are not able to understand, you cannot create a theory fulfilling this elementary request? Perhaps you cannot have a theory because the phenomenon/process was discovered too early and science is not prepared to explain it.  And surely, the phenomena are so complex, so multilayered and poly-sequential that they need more theories not one single one? Add to this that the experimental situation is simply dreadful- only, say, one experiment from 5-6, gives a measurable result. The phenomenon clearly exists but cannot be controlled. I don’t know why nobody believes me and Ed Storms rejects my air poisoning hypothesis)
What TO DO THEN? You have to abandon the issue and continue to strive heroically for the perfect theory and deep complete understanding? I have to take this personally; I will be 77 years old in October, how many years I can wait for a good theory to save LENR and to make it flourish? I know that the distance from a perfect theory to a working device is great, technology is much more than applied science.

Yes, I take it personally and I say it is an alternative to the seemingly fatal obstacles and to a blocked way is to build a new way, the way of technology.
What does this mean? If you have no theories to help, and you are lost theoretically as in our case there still is a possibility- use guiding principles and smart engineering, hard work to develop a well functioning device and technology i.e. to solve the problem per se. The problem has to be reframed, the task becomes to create, by radical changes a functional process.
The scientific method says “how the process works” but if it works badly the alternative is “how can we make it to work
well?” by very smart engineering. The scientific method is combined- actually hybridized with the technological method.
This is based on principles not on complete theories.
For those who believe in the universality of the Scientific Method, this is a sacrilege however it is possible pragmatically
It was done by Andrea Rossi and by DGT (see their "make hydrogen more reactive and metal more receptive” principle) I have written much about this on my blog. If the scientific method does not work, use the hybrid technological scientific method - engineering is the key. I have promoted this idea starting from the very first issue of Infinite Energy.
How this principles-based hybrid scientific-technological works in practice can be seen here:

We have to determine more guiding principles for solving the LENR problem. Ed’s technology is stating the following:
-        PdD and NiH LENR are similar and the experience from the first can be used for the second- I think this is not true;
-        The active sites for the reaction are cracks of critical dimensions say 1 to 10 nm width. More good cracks lead to more reactions, more heat. but actually more cracks is destruction of the working material;
-        Only the cracks are important, many materials will work;
this seems to be implausible- only transition metals work;
-        The existence of the hydroton has to be demonstrated

Ed’s theory is incompatible with the hybrid approach.

Active vs. passive approach.

Ed’s theory takes a passive approach to the problem.
He resumes the essence of his theory as:

We are faced with three facts.  Many other facts are known but let's discuss these three
1. The LENR process is rarely produced.
2. The LENR process takes place somewhere in a physical structure.
3. The LENR process does not emit neutrons or energetic radiation consistent with the amount of detected power.

These facts have several consequences:

1. A difficult to create NAE is required
2. The process must be consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics
3. The process must release the mass energy in small units of energy rather than all at once. 
These facts and consequences limit the nature of the mechanism that can cause LENR.

The active, approach guided by technological principles would be:
1. The best methods to create the maximum density of NAE have to be found, the process has to be intensified, controlled and optimized.
2. The process has to use the laws of Nature, including some newly discovered ones in order to obtain the best possible results by a comprehensive multi-disciplinar R&D program.
3. Nuclear signals have to be reduced as much as possible, they are useless in the case of a heat source.

Further contradiction regarding LENR vs. LENR+

Ed’s theory does not show the difference between classic LENR and enhanced excess heat as obtained by Rossi and DGT. It is about going from tens of Watts to kWatts, can this be hundred times more good cracks or is it something more fundamental and more smart?

My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites ( Ed calls them NAE, but I disagree- see: )  Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continuous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear; the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. The constructive side of the high temperature must be added to its destructive effect and this is the clue of the LENR+’s exceptionality and progress. This is something more sophisticated than crack management.
The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes and the generation of active sites can begin. In my opinion the active sites are at the very surface of a specific metal or alloy.

I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please my Surfdyn paper:

I hope that the coming LENR+ crucial events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to practice and, simultaneously to theories.
The denial part of Ed’s papers and book is remarkable anyway. He assassinates a lot of theories that are not valid and promotes his theory created in the following basic assumptions:

 The LENR process does not take place in a chemical lattice.
. The LENR process takes place only in cracks of a critically small gap size. 
. All isotopes of hydrogen can fuse by the same basic process, with only the nuclear products being different.
. The basic process removes energy over a period of time as photon emission. Most of this emission does not leave the apparatus.
. The fusion process causes the transmutation reactions.
. The overall process is consistent with all natural law and requires introduction of only one new process.
. Cold fusion and hot fusion are not related in any way.
(from his interview:

As already shown till now:
The LENR process, indeed does not take place in the lattice but on the lattice;
The LENR process does not take place in the “void” part
of the cracks but on some special dynamic nanostructures on the surfaces, including the surfaces of cracks;
Deuterium and hydrogen are participating in different nuclear reactions and interactions and different things happen in the
PdD and NiH systems. No simple, logically symmetric vision can be created
The remaining statements are probably valid in great part but this has to be proved by experiment.

What to do with the bad theories

Theories are actually a form of truth and I believe that many are Pareto truths. Even if a theory is not usable for guiding experiments, they may contain fragments of good ideas. smaller or greater sometimes hidden due to a harmful principle (as Pd D is like NiH in Storms’ new theory.)
Therefore, I think we can learn from history what to do and the
Mayan Meteorology Management will be fine as guide, in principle. See please
The victims were beheaded and their hearts were extracted and offered to bloodthirsty (however de facto inexistant) Gods- in exchange of enough rain and other blessings.
Similarly, the smartest and most valuable parts of the bad theories have to be offered to Science serving for the creation of
healthy and potent principles for LENR.
I well know this parallel with human sacrifices, prohibited now, in the manner described, is a very weird idea.
I have only one excuse: Ed Storms’ new theory is based on cracks, formed by the cracking of Pd- that is, on the irreversible destruction, sacrificing of a precious material.
Were human sacrifices, “efficient”?


Sunday, July 20, 2014


Anybody can contribute to the text, can present his/her own ideas and even
 can change the title at will.
This is a 'wisdom of crowds' exercise.


Friday, July 18, 2014


My war with and for Memes.

In one of my Septoes, I have stated that we are living in “memcracies” i.e.  dominant memes are ruling over us.
The definition of a “meme” – largo sensu is a cultural element
(see propagating usually epidemically by imitation; however for the subject of this essay- that belongs to Science, higher quality and intellect memes are mainly concepts, ideas or theories.
For all the cases, the concept of meme, is paradoxically not a meme per se, perhaps because important fields of real and imagined knowledge as politics, religion but even established science strongly dislike the idea of meme. Even memes that
are like pathological criminals and or obviously combining
violence, greed and stupidity- re-read please “Stop Koalemos!” are considered genuine truths and not lowly memes.
I have to confess that, based on my personal experience and system of thinking, I have accepted the concept- it has both explanatory and predictive power for me.
The duty of a thinker is to create memes, good ones from the sort that solves problems and does not create or aggravate them. I have failed almost completely to do this; my philosophical ideas including those regarding Cold Fusion continue to be unpopular and in danger to go in complete oblivion when I cannot more promote them. It is a possibility that they will be discovered again around 2050, however it is more pragmatic to survive and prosper than to resurrect and start again, without parental support.

Actually it is about a sensitive process of memefication- ideas are selected by Reality- some become almost immortal memes, while other perish irreversibly. The factors of success are overly complex and contradictory- beautiful simple, low IQ, emotionally charged lies are favored to unpleasant, not positive,
complex truths needing effort to be understood, however miracles (in many senses!) can happen. Sometimes, by sudden collective or just uni-personal satoris, a concept, symbol, image or idea gets value, importance and life and starts to generate
newness and light. It is terrifying to see how the most evil memes of the XX-th and the XII-th Century are prospering just now.

Discovering VUCA, a terrible meme

Recently, I had such a moment of illumination and a concept from the management-leadership philosophy that I have ignored till then- was revealed almost explosively.

Kurt Harden’s wonderful “Cultural Offering”-
has generously included EGO OUT in a list of “25 blogs guaranteed to make you smarter.” I am studying systematically the other 24 blogs –these are really fine and able to make smarter a good part of their readers. Recently, I have discovered a masterfully written paper:

Leadership in VUCA World: Perspectives on #IndiaHRChat

It was a sui generic intellectual discovery; I realized that VUCA is an acronym as inspiring as SWOT and as stimulating as ASAP – the first examples that come to my mind. The previously ignored acronym was converted in, upgraded to- a shining, splendid meme.
Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous is an excellent acronym, describing huge chunks and zones and periods of our world. Obviously not in the ideal or desired sense- you have to combat VUCA- it is an opportunity for the negative to come first and to dominate us as I have described it in my, now fallen, essay:
A pragmatic strategy for catalyzing self-sustained progress
see please:”3. Priority and predominance of the negative.”
Actually, really- VUCA can be many other bad things as: violent/vulnerable + undefined/unmanageable+ chaotic/crazy + arguable/acausal- more or less. The Quaspire blog paper also offers a VUCA Solution: Vision- Understanding- Clarity- Agility a quasi ideal one, to the VUCA problem.
VUCA is nothing new, our first ancestors had to confront it as soon as they were thrown out for a vegan sin, from the Garden where perfect harmony has ruled. VUCA is strongly related to other concepts: directly to “wicked problems”, to hidden parameters and dangers, inherent negativity, Black Swans (Black Raptors is more realistic). In a VUCA World the truths are mainly Pareto Truths or worse- irreversibly fragmented- incompatible Lego pieces, maddening color changing Rubik cubes…the realm of the Twin Peaks principle. The Evil si indestructible and in some places, it always wins”
LENR is also a VUCA World- now.

Please take in consideration this: "Words mean more than we mean to express when we use them," Lewis Carroll” 

Let’s investigate how much means the components of the malefic acronym VUCA for our favorite acronym, LENR.

V. Volatility- in which senses is LENR- volatile? My instant reaction to volatile is the Italian word volare- flying, also flying away; when a bit of time is added- disappearing. My primary feeling toward “volatile” is negative due to my professional experience, highly volatile substances are explosive, dangerous too. One of my research tasks during my apprenticeship (1962-3) was to remove even traces of volatiles from plasticizers by steam distillation combined with vacuum and for some months I was focused on this task starting with the Bible-like, unique Perry’s Chemical Engineers Handbook.
12-15 years later I was very dedicated to removing the volatile but very sticky residual monomer, vinyl chloride from PVC- difficult task but of vital importance- because the monomer is
cancerogenic for processors and users.

See please the web-dictionaries for the synonyms of volatile- can you discover a single positive one? Even the good perfumes have a well moderated volatility.

What is volatile in the LENR field? Good results and hopes, first of all. From the very start, lots of ideas were considered to
solve the problems- to make cold fusion reproducible, upscalable- to convert it in the Promised Energy Technology, however all were volatile and have disappeared- illusion, deception and new illusions came. Only the fundamental idea
that cold fusion exists, remained permanent, however can we speak about progress when open questions multiply so much faster than good answers? How else can we call the tens of theories that eventually did not help to define, understand and manage the desired phenomenon- excess heat- than non-answers?
No unity could be found in variety, no stop to the volatility, no explanation of the situation, no solutions to the problems as unreliable, uncontrollable weak effects. No solid and permanent experimental support could be obtained...

These days our community is discussing a theory elaborated by the most knowledgeable scientist of the field, Dr. Edmund Storms, see please:
 and buy Ed’s book:
I could not read the book till now- have to wait till it is in electronic form due to my vision problems- I hope the book explains how the theory can solve the chronicized problems of
LENR. We will come back to this “theory de jour”, however for a technologist like me the seems to be too pessimistic, putting too much emphasis on the inherent difficulty and rarity of the LENR process. For its author, the theory is a certainty and so we have arrived to the second letter of VUCA; to a nasty word-  

U. Uncertainty- it is difficult to survive and impossible to be happy with no certainties, both personally and professionally. In LENR the offer of certainties is modest and in most cases what is a certainty for some of us, is falsity and trash for many of our peers. It is tragic we had not been able to manufacture solid, non-volatile certainties accepted by most of our community members.
I am explaining this bad situation based on the personal certainty that Cold Fusion was discovered too early, when Science was not prepared to understand and exploit it as I say here: and in many other writings, in vain.
This remains a personal certainty and many readers (if they read the paper indeed and don’t abandon it due to the bad title)
become certain that my CF-specific IQ is very low and I am simply unable to understand the basics of the field including its
history and essence and heroes...
An other personal LENR certainty (even in my worst nightmares or episodes of depression, I have not the slightest doubt about its validity) is that the working surfaces in LENR must be free of alien gases- ergo the wet electrochemical PdD cell will never become reliable and manageable- those who bet on it will remain prisoners in a VUCA world – for lifetime. Here VUCA is more: Vulnerable- Unmanageable- Chaotic- Adrift (both scientifically and technologically). This idea of poisoning of LENR systems with air was ignored with hostility and generated the certainty that I have pathological ideas re the LENR experiments- euphemistically speaking. Many times I got promises of perfectly reproducible FP Cell type experiments that will invalidate spectacularly the very idiotic idea of air-killing-CF. I still wait for these wonderful results and if uncle Alz allows me, I will discard this certainty, together with my humble apologies.

C- Complex- it seems the field is not able to generate the much desired certainties- as LENR Technology- Yes! however these are coming from outsiders as Rossi and Defkalion- surprise! You could guess that the situation is not simple in the field, this new battlefield has added static and dynamic magnitudes to the third VUCA adjective: complex- and is also confusing, chaotic, challenging. It is full of internal conflicts.

It is an elementary principle of the Scientific Method to develop understanding first and only when you know what happens you are allowed to develop technologies. This is a seemingly healthy dogma. An ideal dogma. But is it always possible to proceed scientifically, is it possible and good- realistic, pragmatic materialistic? What when the science per se is quite VUCA-like
as it is for LENR? Are we “allowed” to try to create a technology by discovering some principles and the factors that determine safety using excellent engineering combined with incomplete science? Many of my dearest friends say clearly NO!, science must come first and overall, however Andrea Rossi, the Defkalion team, I and other technologists admit that “technology first” is also possible. I have published a paper with this title in the first issue of Infinite Energy, so I am an old sinner. I have concluded long ago that the scientific method has some limitations, however these cannot be limitations of technological progress. This paper emphasizes the complexity of the subject:
Perhaps the situation of LENR is unique because real LENR differs essentially from the model(s) accepted initially that persisted almost unchanged till today. A radical paradigm change will alleviate the VUCA status of LENR

A Ambiguous-we have to consider carefully the fourth VUCA feature of LENR too- it is called Ambiguity but it is worse than this going much beyond the multiple and instable interpretations of facts. The field, for the time given is sentenced to pre-logical thinking, see: Correlations and causations seem to be impossible or at least, very unsure.
The experiments are based mainly on trial and error, the results are aleatory, in great extent- cannot be predicted and reproduced at will; the cause-effect relationships are quite mysterious, LENR seems to be acausal. The experimental facts are very diverse and cannot be connected in a logically consistent vision with predictive capacity..
Eventually, the researchers don’t know what to measure as cause and don’t know how to measure the effect (excess heat) because it is usually very small and evanescent. The word ametric adequate for our case is not in the dictionary but is in the wet cells and leads to a tragic reversal of the efforts and creativity, from intensification to measurement.

There are no general rules in such a VUCA world, it is difficult to define/determine what is correct and what is error and it seems the tunnel has no end- it has a 3-dimensional Mobius strip topology- no end, no lighting.

Can be LENR de-VUCA-ized?

Improving the status from inside, using the old paradigm or theories like that of Ed Storms as guide is theoretically possible.
New approaches, ideas and methods from outside (rs) as Rossi and DGT needs practical demonstrations- working technologies, in the very spirit of the VUCA Solution to build vision and understanding, clearly and fast.
I believe these will come and after that the field will really radically Change.
Dum spiro, spero!