Sunday, June 21, 2015



 I propose that we add the words dyssolution and missolution to our lexicon. (The word dissolution is well established, of course, so I use dyssolution instead.) We might use these words analogously to the way we use the words disinformation and misinformation. A dyssolution would be a solution known by its proponent not to be valid, but that is introduced for another motive, often to deliberately mislead or for propaganda or financial purposes. A missolution would be a false solution, in essence, a bad idea that will not work or a solution that falls well short of the mark. And, finally, a malsolution would be a solution that is very imperfect and might solve a problem in one place but create another one someplace else. (Christopher F. D'Elia)

It is kind of sadomasochistic pleasure to dissect your own errors and to explain - again  your own abyssal failures. I have will tell now about  Probletence
My opus:
had no success, no readers, no comments, no impact, no echo, zero effect; very few people have signed the petitions asking for stopping the epidemics of probletence; the concept of probletence per se is at light-years from becoming a meme. Naively  enough, I considered that I was not well understood and i am a victim of a misunderstanding.
This morning I had a satori (illumination) and- very late! I understood I made a blunder, probletence is a fatal, optimist mis-diagnosis of the situation. 
My essential errors were: 
a) things are not what they seem- it is not about the lack of solutions, it is worse than simple and passive probletence, there are many solutions just they are so bad that they aggravate the problem;
b) my thinking and approach were stupidly problem-centric and I have ignored many cases of disastrous solutions
But this morning I had an intellectual awakening. I realized the problem is not lack of solutions but bad solution. I have found an immediate  metaphor from Nature.
It is drought and the plants are thirsty. Then they get water- but not as rain- it is hail
and the entire crop is destroyed (it has happened here in some places last week).
So it is not probletence it is bad solutions- mainly. As a maniacal logophile I imagined the word "malsolutions" - obviously not original and so I have found the excellent paper- of Christopher F. D'Elia (MOTTO, OTHER) . Please read it and then let's discuss the implications for LENR. There are and are serious! It is about energy
and we need the collaboration of this author for LENR.

It is impossible to not speak about the most tragical malsolution of today. The Earth has zones with solutions, working for the people from there and has zones where the problems are terrible. BUT FOR THE CIVILIZATION'S SAKE, what will happen if the unhappy people from the problem-zones migrate massively and unstoppably in the zones with relatively happy people of the solution zones? The most malefic solution possible!


1) Denis Vasilenko's Experiment discussed see many smart comments on E-Cat World, LENR-Forum, then here:

by Jim Rovnak


By Abd ul-Rahman Lomax:

Two Norwegian language papers- well readable with Google Translate!
2) Is cold fusion solution for the climate crisis?
Er kald fusjon løsningen på klimakrisen?

3) Production (energy) already flow from impossible source:
Produserer allerede strøm fra «umulig kilde»

4) Andrea Rossi says more things but these converg to a forced (by cirumstances) "festina lente " strategy:
Andrea Rossi
June 20th, 2015 at 6:34 PM

Bernie Koppenhofer:
We will not push on the market until the test on course with the 1 MW E-Cat working in the factory of IH’s Customer. After that, our problem will not certainly be the competition- I do not see why we have to help any competitor- but our development.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
June 20th, 2015 at 8:00 AM

As I said, I cannot give any data related to the performance of the 1 MW E-Cat in operation in the factory of the Customer of Industrial Heat until the tests will have been completed.
Sorry for this: I sympathise with your request.
Warm Regards,


Andrea Rossi
June 21st, 2015 at 7:56 AM

Pietro F.:
Our strategy is the only possible one, based on the necessity to have consolidated results of the industrial operation of out first industrial plant put at work in the factory of a Customer and on the necessity to defend the IP to allow serious investments necessary for an actual massive production. You say that 4 years have been spent from the first public demonstration: right, and 4 years are nothing respect what can be expected for the development of a revolutionary technology in this field, so difficult. Think to the Hot Fusion prototypes, funded with tenths of billions since 50 years ago and still not productive and make a comparision. To talk is easy. To work and get results is not.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
June 21st, 2015 at 7:51 AM

Peter Frost:
Thank you.
Will be important also the results that we will have from the Hot Cat , that will have worked for 1 year 24/7: it is probably the core of what will be the domestic unit.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
June 21st, 2015 at 7:46 AM

Frank Acland:
After the final results will have been obtained,
if they will be positive, we will give information also about the commercial strategy, that will depend on the results .
Warm Regards,

5) Got LENR? by Gregory Goble

6) Still unanswered, unchallenged by the Lugano Testers:
Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications
BUT NO! At least in the press:

7) LENR Forum announces triumphantly:
The newspaper "Aftenposten" has interviewed Bo Hoisted, one of the lugano-report scientists.
He confirms that in the meantime, since the lugano report, they measured excess energy on three other replication experiments, completely independent from Rossis Hot-Cat!

Physics is the Frontier, the Inescapable Root, and it is also Utterly Beautiful
By William Gillis
Human Iterations

1 comment:

  1. The Replicators of Parkhomov are following his one success out of ten tries strategy. To put up will all that failure takes a special kind of person. The Replications do not want to change the dogbone build formula. If they would just strengthen the reactor shell a tini bit, more test reactors would get through the startup phase. At least the Replications are running multi-day tests in which the temperature of the reactor is increased very slowly. If someone would breakout of the Replications mind set and use a more blowout resistant reactor shell, the percentage of successful test would increase substantially.

    "Parkhomov and the recent Chinese experiments contained the fuel in an inner container of stainless steel and nickle so that it was not in direct contact with the alumina container. This could keep an energy burst from damaging the alumina and allow the reactor to reach the stable phase."

    Why hasn't MFMP picked up on this fine point of reactor construction. The Replications are working in a state of "malsolution". How can we help them out of the effects of this mind lock problem?

    No one has tried to replicate the Chinese experiment. I do not understand this.

    I would like to see someone run a test of a weak blowout proof Mouse stimulating a half dozen Cats. But that might be asking for too much at this early juncture.