Tuesday, April 21, 2015



The problem is not that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem. (Theodore I. Rubin)

Some of the most important innovations of the coming decades will not be new technologies, but new ways of working together that are made possible by these new technologies.” We must create the culture that encourages and rewards collaborative working, that makes best use of all these new technologies (Patrick Mc.Govern, MIT Sloan)
borrowed from: 


Answering to Frank Acland's paper de jour- Nickel or Palladium?

I have written volumes of blog posts about this subject and I have systematically described the inherent, inborn, irremediable (?) weaknesses of the wet Palladium-Deuterium system- take only these writings:

Therefore I think I have the moral right to contribute to this fundamental discussion initiated by Frank, a very logical and natural, even necessary follow-up of  ICCF-19.

Second, I also think that the question is put correctly today, but will become too small in the future.
Palladium had an unexpected (and unworthy) historical luck due to the genius of Fleischmann and Pons, nickel had a chance due to the genius of Piantelli. However Piantelli has discovered that nickel is not unique, all the transition metals work - some possibly better than nickel.

I’ve seen some discussion regarding the recent ICCF-19 conference about the direction and future of LENR research in terms of the types of systems that are being tested and reported on. Many of the talks at the Padua conference were given by long-time researchers who have focused on the palladium-deuterium reactions that that were the subject of Pons and Fleischmann’s research and many others following. And some people wished there had been more focus in Padua on the newer types of research going on.

I repeat what I have said yesterday, at ICCF-19 it was a mixture of the past and the future, of 
 small heat and great heat of things we consider much more closely related and connected than they really are. As far as I could understand till now, the results obtained by the PdD champoions (Violante, El Boher, Kidwell, Scholkmann) say something like if it works, it whistles (or vice-versa) it is about a very interesting RF emission, however not much about intensification, scale up, reproducibility or actionable parameters. Beyond any doubt, very interesting purely scientifically. Better understood? I have not seen a new or old theory making more light about the process(es).

The emergence of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat has really changed the focus of many people interested in LENR towards the nickel-hydrogen reaction that he works with. He is apparently able to generate kilowatts and even megawatts of power (as opposed to the milliwatts and watts that are more typical of the Pd-D systems) using these two cheap.

The very surprising apparition of Andrea Rossi in Jan 2011 has generated an unusually broad spectrum of opinions from the most negative- he is anti-scientific, an offense for the sacrosanct Science to an increasing army of faithful fans. But let's history, he is here, says he has resolved a lot of problems of development. It is a nasty and complicated situation, scientist generally believe technology is just applied science, no science, no technology. In principle true, in reality and in historical perspective- true-untrue. Technology is MORE than applied science. Much more.

The emergence of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat has really changed the focus of many people interested in LENR towards the nickel-hydrogen reaction that he works with. He is apparently able to generate kilowatts and even megawatts of power (as opposed to the milliwatts and watts that are more typical of the Pd-D systems) using these two cheap and plentiful elements, and the newer generations of replicators seem to be gravitating towards the E-Cat type reaction.

Isn't this an understandable reaction/attitude? Cold Fusion was born as a promise of unlimited, cheap and healthy energy- not as a new branch of science.

In an article on his impossibleinvention.com website reflecting on the recent ICCF conference, Mats Lewan discusses this divergence of research focus in the LENR community. He writes:

This is understandable. Any times when we are angry with Rossi for an reason or another it would be good to imagine a Rossi-less LENR  world. Nothing interesting happens on Jan 14, 2011 Pd prevails Piantelli's research is oppressed. In this world hope is dying slowly, funding becomes scarce, in many places it dries out. Exactly as now, many bright but unusable theories appear. What color is the near and  the far perspective? Is the number of LENR fighters increasing or on the contrary decreasing drastically, even tragically? Which scientific values are preserved? This is a painful problem for many physicists 

Let us not forget this huge experience. I know that several LENR researchers have found themselves in difficult situations because of the focus on Rossi and the E-Cat. Popular views on the E-Cat have stolen the attention and been an indirect reason for closing down some research programs.

The argument of a huge experience in PdD s central- we have learned so much from the heroic work of many researchers and we must use this for developing the field- including Rossi's technology is a must be accepted thesis.
Just it has some weak or uncertain points.
1- what is the actual degree of scientific kinship between the Fleischmann Pons effect and the Rossi Effect? Do we have an answer based on genuine scientific proofs? Many LENR-ists have immediately accepted that the process used by Rossi is a daughter, a bit illegitimate but a natural daughter of the process that generates certain but feeble eruptions of excess heat in the PdD cell.
Actually Rossi comes on the line started by Piantelli- that was never completely accepted by the 
PdD crowd despite he very good experimental results- unfortunately not replicated by a hostile community. For example, Storm's popular theory claims unity of the entire LENR field from the wet cells to the incandescent Hot Cats. I think differently.
Rossi was not very decided to claim his Effect's is a descendant of the process from the F&P Cell.
He appreciated the energy dream of the Founding Fathers.

2- the huge experience accumulated in 25+ years by the experiments of the Cold Fusionists later LENR-ists MUST be applied in the developing of the new technologies.
We know SO much, it is not permitted that this great value should be wasted!!! 
We know so much, I think it is a great certainty here and this is calorimetry- this can be indeed applied in the new directions of research.
We know so much...yes but this claim has to be made more precise. The DIKW scale has to be used (I have written about it so annoyingly frequently.
How high on this scale is the experience in classic LENR?
Isn't it true that we have mainly DATA, results that are not all additive and it is difficult to be combined/structured in good, reliable INFORMATION?
Is not true that the information is too diverse to be distilled in actionable KNOWLEDGE?
Who can deny that our knowledge is hit by uncertainty, ambiguity, volatility we can describe it
in books but can we make a review of the essence? A holistic-holographic vision? No WiSDOM possible till we have no realistic theories based on the Six Pillars of the field see:
Neither the LENR community nor (officially)  Rossi are ready to accept the dichotomy/difference, the otherness of LENR and LENR+ - with enhanced (some 1000X) excess heat.

This is sad. Because when results from Rossi’s MW trial will be presented, if not before, we will have a breakthrough for the view on LENR as an existing phenomenon. But we will still lack a solid, accepted theory for explaining it, which is necessary to carry on efficient engineering, also for Industrial Heat, even though Rossi has come a long way through intuition and some possible theoretical concepts.
And to build that theory, all existing experience will be a gold mine. We will also need more experimental data from stable processes, hopefully from the E-Cat and from a series of new replications that are now going on.

My bet is that the useful theories will be based on very new, unexpected ideas see for example the nanoplasmonics papers at OTHER..

Mats is arguing here that there is a place for both strains of LENR research which are needed to get a firm theoretical grasp for what is going on in LENR. His point is, that even if the old-style Pd-D LENR systems might not be suitable for commercial products, there is great value in the body of research that has been compiled over the last 25 years.

I agree in principle I know PdD will continue, it is interesting- we (you) will see what happens. This is scientifically correct.

My expectation is that the younger generation, and those newer to the field will want to go to where the power is — where materials are much cheaper and easier to obtain, and where stable operations at high levels of output power seem to achievable, as shown by Rossi. The allure of producing lots of energy from super-cheap and super-abundant elements is hard to argue against, and we see there is a lot of enthusiasm behind this approach in the amount of attention the E-Cat and similar technologies are getting. There is a lot of excitement and energy being generated around the individuals and group trying to replicate the Rossi effect.

So where does that leave the state of palladium-deuterium research? I imagine that many of those working in this field will continue to do so, but I wonder how attractive this branch of LENR will be as we move into the future. Mats brings up an interesting point regarding the value of the body of all LENR research in terms of understanding the effect. Would we lose something important if activity waned in the original avenues of LENR research?

Let's see- what will contribute more to the progress- in both application and understanding of LENR; existing knowledge or knowledge to be created, how and in which extent.


Nickel or Palladium? The future direction of LENR research?
See the Editorial
1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #21: Mats Lewan: Sources Confirm Plant Running ‘Very Well’]http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/20/1-mw-e-cat-plant-watch-thread-update-1-rossi-production-cost-in-kw-is-very-competitive/

Absence of LENR Theory in Rush to Market

Dr. Parkhomov explains the critical approach to heating - Eng video
The results iof the fuel/ash analysis of Parkhomov are still not definitive (only from one lab of three)

More comp[ete
Dr. Alexander Parkhomov @ ICCF19 - the big revealhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtxnkaDSU0

A technological principle of Andrea Rossi:

Andrea Rossi
April 21st, 2015 at 8:22 AM

Nicola Cortesi:
This is quite an issue. You know what? This is the classic case in which to make the papers is far more difficult than to make the technology.
In principle, I agree with you, I always sustained that many cats are more convenient and safe than few tigers, or lions. This principle has been recently taken in consideration also in the highest echelons of astrophysics: the future astronomic observation stations will be made by many very small mirrors interconnected instead of big mirrors, because the clouds of microscopic mirrors are far less expensive ( by two orders of magnitude) than the big ones used today.
Warm Regards,


Take a look or more looks to this, please:
According to some of our colleagues this is alos about LENR- a part of the real multi-step process.
A fine paper is this:
9502-5, Session 2 
Nanoplasmonics suggests the existence of a new fundamental scale (Invited Paper) Alexander Figotin, Anatoli Babin, Univ. of California, Irvine (United States) 
Plasmonics has grown in recent years into a well established area of research with a great potential. Our interest to this area roots in mechanisms involved in plasmonic resonance responses and implied pretty narrow spatial dimension range between 1nm and 25nm. We entertain an idea that the very existence of surface plasmons with sizes in that range suggest a possibility of a new fundamental scale such as the size 5nm of a free electron in our neoclassical theory. This theory features a new spatial scale - the size a_{e} of a free electron. This scale is special to our theory and does not appear in either classical EM theory nor in the quantum mechanics where electron is always a point-like object. Our current assessed value for this scale is a_{e}≈100a_{B} where a_{B} is the Bohr radius, and consequently a_{e}≈5 nm. In our theory any elementary charge is a distributed in space quantity. Its size is understood as the localization radius which can vary depending on the situation. For instance, if an electron is bound to a proton in the Hydrogen atom then its the size of is approximately 1 Bohr radius, that is a_{B}≈0.05 nm, and when the electron is free its size is a_{e}≈100a_{B}≈5 nm. Interestingly, the upper bound 25 nm is the skin depth and that implies that a nanosystem of size smaller than 25nm is transparent to the external field. The same transparency should hold for a nanostructured surface indicating such a surface is better for nearly ideal field electron emission. There is an experimental evidence showing that the highest current densities were obtained for nanotips with sizes ?1nm yet another important fact supporting a possibility of a fundamental nonoscale.

The Economist explains
The end of Moore's law

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/04/economist-explains-17?fsrc=nlw|newe|20-04-2015|  But see this too:

There's more to come from Moore
Moore's law is approaching physical limits: truly novel physics will be needed to extend it.
What kind of Moore's Law will have LENR once started in full speed development?

Intelligence Is a Burden on Making Good Life Decisions;
Try to find out how this applies to LENR.

Slavoj Žižek: Political Correctness is a More Dangerous Form of Totalitarianism:

OK, I well know this author is not respecting the rules and not watching the limits,
however, what is the situation of Scientific correctness? Cannot sometimes the idea that the solution of the problems of future are in the past (including the volatile present) become a deadly obstacle for progress? For LENR the solutions still have to be built, I am convinced.


  1. Nickel or palladium or uranium they all are metals with a high affinity for hydrogen. If the LENR work is real and a substantial percentage of such metals are transmuted when a proton or neutron is inserted via lenr into the nucleus then of course the horror is that common U238 accepts a proton becoming Np239 which decays to Pu239. LENR suggests a vastly more efficient, simple, and inexpensive process to make vast quantities of weapons grade plutonium than present day nuclear reactor systems.

  2. Nickel is makes little hydride and it rejects hydrogen at elevated temperatures.


    Laser irradiation of gold nanoparticles can decreases the half life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. This technology could remove the proliferation protection that U232 provided to U233, the most bomb friendly kind of uranium.

    Because of this, should we outlaw lasers?