Sunday, June 28, 2015


Every morning is the dawn of a new error (Unknown)

I have to add that unfortunately, the complement "every evening an old error will set down" is NOT true, old errors are even rarely fading away.

There is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it. (Charles F. Kettering)


Main Problem of LENR (I of more)

Recently I have tried to do a survey- with a single question:
WHAT IS THE MAIN PROBLEM of LENR NOW?Translate this in pragmatese: Why the things are not going well with it?

I have received some very good answers, detailed and explained and these are continuously inspiring me to see how we (LENR community global) could find answers, on which ways we have to go. Surely the survey per se is questionable,
does a main, central, fundamental, principal, Mother-of-all-other-problems exist?
Lennart Thornros who is coming with a professional experience of technologist plus management like my own - gave a Mu answer - there are more basic problems of LENR- we will discuss this later- the survey just started.
The fastest perfectly natural answer came from Jed Rothwell and was approved by 
other CMNS colleagues:

The main problem of LENR is that no one knows how it works

So LENR has a serious epistemic problem, nobody knows its functionality, ergo its identity, nature, its possibilities of development, of improvement- what can we do with it? Epistemically LENR is much more feeble than say, High Temperature Super- Conductivity. For LENR unknown origin is very unluckily associated with a bad and unpredictable behavior. The metaphoric education of LENR is also a problem; it wants to grow up but this goes very slowly and erratically.
Now, instead of quote my friends who gave  a lot of very good details of the epistemic problem I will try first  to lead you to one of the root causes of this situation.
On the lack of known identity of LENR - it was above grafted a very probable but unverified one- it is cold fusion (the hard variant), there are some unknown nuclear reactions at play (the softer variant). This was enough to enrage legions of nuclear physicists... we well know the story that is continuing... But is nuclearity the essence
of LENR ...or is it about something more complicated. I started to have doubts say in 1995.
I will cite now from a a presentation of the recent event organized by LENR CITIES at Neuchatel; LENRG is using a progressive form of the non-nuclear Wisdom_
-Larsen theory and considers the letter N from LENR is more "nanostructured" than nuclear.
From Alain Coetmeurs report at LENR-Forum:

Angelo Ovidi, the CTO of LENR-Cities, managing the "Scientific Functional Group" presented what is LENR. LENR is much more than cold fusion. It is superconductivity, transmutations, biological transmutations, catalysis, energy : a chemonuclear domain when nanoscale is the key. The products will be nanostructured material and micro-technology engineered devices which control those nano-materials

 I think such a mode of thinking is a must for solving indeed the problems of LENR and make it an industrial commercial reality

If we cannot accept the otherness, complexity and variety of LENR- it is our problem, not LENR's


1) With thanks to Gregory Goble!

Issues in Science and Technology 31, no. 2 (Winter 2015). University of Texas at Dallas

"Nuclear Power for the Developing World"
by Ahmed Abdulla, M. Granger Morgan

LENR condensed matter nuclear reactions at The University of Texas at Austin (cold fusion energy)

LENR - Texas Tech University’s
Board of Regents agenda book for December 11-14, 2014

2) Andrea Rossi says:

Andrea Rossi
June 27th, 2015 at 3:32 PM

The Cook Rossi paper has already been published.
About future papers, I’d need the mostly cited crystal ball.
Engineering of advanced applications of the so called Rossi Effect will rise from an Intellectual Property about which we’ll maintain the confidentiality, until a massive production will have been put on the market.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
June 27th, 2015 at 8:13 AM

Frank Acland:
Good question, impossible answer: to explain what has been the source of important factors emerged from the Lugano Report I should have to disclose confidential particulars. The huge work we made in our lab before the Lugano Report is the base that allowed us to see in the Report what can be observed only if you have “eyes” for it, trained by the huge background I mentioned.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
June 26th, 2015 at 8:04 AM

Frank Acland:
These days we are satisfied how things are going on. ( F9 ).
As you know, the measurements and the report of the ITO after the Lugano test have allowed us a strong improvement, for reasons that we deem confidential, so far. The Lugano Report of the Independent Third Party for us is a gold mine. For this reason I am very curious to read the reports after the replication of the Effect they are trying in the Universities of Uppsala (Sweden) and Bologna (Italy).
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
June 28th, 2015 at 8:56 AM

James Andrew Rovnak:
You are continuing ( also today June 28) to send theories and I am continuing to spam them. Guess why.
I appreciate your enthusiasm and your kindness, but I cannot give room to theoretical nonsenses, nor I have time to object to them.
About the replications you are giving us the updates of: it is necessary to have scientific and detailed reports, with all the data concerning the description of the measurement instruments, a detailed lay out of the measuring system, the graphs of the data.
Warm Regards,

3) Cold Fusion - What Is The Definition Of Fusion In Science

4) Recent accusation of frauds on e-cat

A bit more openness from Rossi and IH could make such people- they are still a lot- to shut up - and this without a iota of loss of intellectual property. Or are they of some use in demoralizing the competition?


  1. From the times of Tesla in the 1890s, Cold fusion has been discovered and then forgotten and then later rediscovered in a tragic cycle of frustration and forgetfulness. Tesla may have been the first. There is a persistent urban legend about Nikola Tesla. The prolific Serbian inventor who claimed that his greatest achievement, the achievement that he was most proud of, was not alternating current or the radio, but a high voltage tube which could produce energy and transmute materials. This story has usually been dismissed as nonsense, a product of a demented mind. Now in the light of our emerging LENR experience, this tale might well have been true after all.

    Tesla claimed “nature has stored up in the universe infinite energy" (Columbia College lecture. New York. May 20, 1891). Tesla demonstrated the “carbon button lamps," a spherical gas discharge device in public lectures (London 1892, then at Philadelphia 1893, vs. Patent 4,546.22118911). Tesla was only the first of many. There then came Henry Moray, Joe Papp, Janos Jakkel, Edwin Gray, Ken Shoulders...All these men and many more have discovered LENR and let this precious secret pass through their fingers like the grains of sand through an hour glass, as the fleeting days of their lives. Generation after generation the secrets of cold fusion have appeared and been eventually forgotten. Mostly, because these men of invention did not understand cold fusion in the least, but some because of greed and the desire for fame and acclaim, but almost all because they failed to share their knowledge to keep those precious hard won insights alive after these special men were gone.

    Cold fusion is more than just the production of energy, this mysterious mechanism entails its miracles too. These processes are not explicable by our current natural or scientific laws. Such events can only be attributed to some unknown science far beyond the mind of man whose understanding would entail the very essence of the universe. These miracles are the production of energy without the associated generation of gamma radiation and radioactive isotopes. And even more perplexing is that this lack of nuclear byproduct are a sometimes thing where when the conditions are just right, the evidence for the nuclear nature of LENR comes plainly through.

    LENR can occur in the guts of chickens and on the skins of bacteria. Evolution has shrewdly made use of LENR to keep alive the creatures that nature has invented. Lenr can be applied to radioactive wastes to speed up its rate in varying degrees almost as if LENR holds the key to the control of time itself.

    We now see a crack in the perpetual cycle of lost opportunity, a chance for the first time to get LENR to hold fast and become a part of the fabric of civilization. Let us all try to do our part in keeping the truth of LENR alive both now and into our future.

  2. As another 0.02Cents worth, It is very clear that LENR & LENR+ are documented phenomenons attracting some very bright minds, as to what 'they' are and how can they be exploited. Lack of a good base theory is a great impediment. That is clear to us all. But there are other cases of working devices that suffer from a lack of theory too.

    Let us take a quick look into Quantum Mechanics, in particular Heisenburg's 'uncertainty principle' and the never ending challenges to the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle (waveform collapses to a particle when waveform state is tested).

    Most of us have heard of 'spooky action at a distance' and despite Bell's inequality theorem being *well* tested to prove their is no local reality (*pre knowledge of their Q state* when entangled particles are spat out). It is *accepted* that testing the state of one entangled particle tells us the state of the other no matter the distance between them.

    We keep seeing new papers from very bright theorists claiming to show that there must be some form of local reality and that Einstein must be 'in principle' right that QM is incomplete and that the Copenhagen interpretation has to be wrong.

    Whatever view one holds, entanglement works and is now being used in rapidly advancing QIP (Quantum Information Processing).

    So the point here is that QC (Quantum Computing) is adequately proven and working (see latest DWave link below) and in use and relies on 'spooky action at a distance' to function. DWave have assembled an impressive 512 QBits and run their chip at near zero degrees Kelvin.

    The reality for both QC and LENR is no one can fully explain how either works. There are phenomena, but - there is *no* consensus that anyone has it right for either QC or LENR.

    A fair conclusion is that LENR / LENR+ phenomena deserve deeper investigation and research at least to the same point that we have QC working despite no one having a solid theory for how it works.



    1. June 2015 - DWave just announce 1000 QBit computer ...

      Today D-Wave announced its next generation 1000 qubit system –

      The first 1000 qubit system is already installed at a customer site (undergoing final acceptance testing). A formal announcement of that installation is expected in July.

    2. About Bell's inequality ...

    3. Alain Aspect who successfully tested Bell's theorem and showed there could be no local reality applied to entangled particles.

    4. What emerges from all the above is that we still have people today who won't accept the multiple continual confirmation of violation of a Bell's inequality as demonstrated in all the major tests conducted on the theorem to date and over many years.

      Someone always seems to step forward with yet another 'loophole' argument in support of possible 'local realism'. But despite this constant skepticism, quantum entanglement works and is being used as illustrated in the case of DWave.

      One may well ask if this is what we are seeing the start of in regard to LENR / LENR+ phenomena & tests. No test will ever be enough until we have a theory which may not emerge in our lifetime - even if LENR+ can be shown to work.

    5. And a last comment: Why does it matter about eliminating any last 'loophole' in the tests on Bell's theorem ? - we already know Quantum computers work !. Entanglement is proven !. So who cares if there is a loophole or if they have been fully eliminated in tests of Bell's inequalities.

      The point here is that if science accepts that all remaining loopholes have been tested out, then Einstein's theory where nothing (such as entanglement information) can travel faster than the speed of light gets violated. !.

      The information that tells the second particle of an entangled pair what spin it has, only becomes 'set' when the original particle is tested and its wave-form collapses. It may show spin-up which tells the testers that particle 2 has spin-down.


  3. We already understand, how at least some versions of LENR work, but these opinions are as ignored, as the cold fusion itself.

    The main problem of cold fusion is, it competes the research of many other areas of energy production/conversion/transport/storage - so that the physicists have good reason why to ignore it. Otherwise the absence of understanding isn't obstacle of research, but motivation of it (HT superconductivity, for example).

  4. Zephir,
    You raise a very good point. If we compare QC and LENR(+) and ask why is there no pathskep opposition to QC the answer is that QC has no competitors. It is new.

    LENR(+) have competitors, deadly serious ones. They include the 1000s of researchers trying to build the ITER reactor. So QC is to them a possible aid to getting their multi-billion dollar dream to deliver more energy than it consumes.

    One can fairly ask that if ITER is truly soaking up taxpayer funds to the tune of $US14 billion (said to already be 3 x the original estimate) and it has many years to go (thus more expected blow out in costs). They we can agree that there are organizations who would want to protect this ballooning investment and, perhaps do so at all costs.

    So while we don't see ridicule for QC theories (and lack of them), we do see a tirade of abuse and ridicule targeted squarely at those who encourage or do research into LENR / LENR+.

    QC is in many respects stranger than LENR / LENR+

    One has to draw one's own opinion as to if established science as a strong motive to discredit and discourage LENR. I am in little doubt as to my own opinion on this.