Saturday, October 31, 2015



For LENR, time for discussions is over, now we need real action.

(Vladimir Vysotskii)

So true, overall! And so urgent! So late!


I am not addicted to LENR news and will not replace them with pseudo-or echo-news.
We have not many news, however it is a great abundance of unsolved problems and painfully difficult widely open questions.   We have always something useful-in-principle to do together.I am continuously searching for solutions for our problems
For a realist pragmatic, effective research strategy. For cutting an old collection of Gordian knots. It is extremely important to develop the most adequate Modes of Thinking- and very soon I will have a  special offer for, you my friends.
We have to learn to distinguish killer simplicity from complexity but also healthy, creative complexity from messy, unhealthy complexity. also we will learn to appreciate the effects of lazy inertia of those of healthy dynamics but also to strictly and safely avoid ultra-fast uncontrollable explosive and destructive dynamics.
However the very first step is to accept complexity, diversity and otherness of real LENR- the sort that has a great future. LENR+ perfectly managed and ruled and well understood in essence. We have a lot of recently accumulated data, facts, ideas, theories to discuss- so
EGO OUT can perform its duties even if there is not an abundance of news.
However today we have an excellent LENR STRATEGIC PAPER by Vladimir Vysotskii.


I have told you about a long discussion trying to find out if "IS OUR FIELD DEAD?"
I had the permission to present you an excellent presentation of the problem by Edmund Storms.
There is not clear or even possible answer to this question- first of all due to the lack a common definition of "our field" and of what means "dead. It was a rhetorical question replacing the more active "Has our field died?" The discussion- as for unanswerable questions it  is usual, will be drowned in minute technical-lab-methodology-historic details. remaining captive in the smaller frame of PdD, that was dead- in high degree, technologically speaking- from birth because it works outside the zone of temperature/dynamism where the active sites are massively and continuously generated. 
My friends will disagree, however Ed Storms can demonstrate experimentally that I am in error.


Our good friend, Vladimir Vysotskii has informed me this morning about a paper entitled
"Again we are going to be late, gentlemen" published by him in the Ukrainian socio-political newspaper " Weekly Mirror" (in Ukraininian and Russian).
The paper is about a comparative development and perspectives of the LENR+ t (E-Cat) technologies in Ukraine and in other countries. I hope that the decision takers will follow Vysotskii;s counsels

See paper No 1) for today well readable with Google translate. 

Prof Vysotskii has a message to my reader friends, it is about his teams important work- please look for Vysotskii in EGO OUT- we have learned essential things from him; he is a LENR generalist, theorist , experimenter, innovator and thinker.
I cite:

"I consider that any theoretical model for LENR must answer to 3 questions::

1. what will happen with the Coulomb Barrier for light, mrdium and even haevy nuclei?

2. Why from the LENR reactions THERE ARE ALWAYS formed only stable isotopes?

3. Does it exist only one single mechanism of LENR for all the observed successful experiments (electrolysis, glow discharge, interaction with THz radiation, the action of slowly changing magnetic poles on gases, cavitation, wire exolosions and so on?

 The theory developed by us- of formation of coherent correlated states in non-stationary systems allows us to univocally answer to all the questions and to give a foundation that is  not only qualitative- at the level of principles) but also quantitative.
The answers are direct for questions 1 and 2; for the question 3 the nanswer is big YES."
(thanks,  dear Vladimir)



Available both in Ukrainian and in Russian (I have reader friends from both countries)

Again, we are late, gentlemen.
Знову запізнюємося, панове!

2) Andrea Rossi - how frequently is the Customer paying his energy bills?
October 30th, 2015 at 9:49 PM

As you correctly imply, the ratio between the energy bill the Customer paid before the E-Cat and after the E-Cat is the most important data for what concerns the success of our operation. For a Customer what is important is not the science of the plant, nor positivisms and negativisms: for the Customer counts mainly the money he makes with our plant.
Such a critical data can be given only when the test will have been completed.
Warm Regards,


(shown here with the kind permission of the author)

 A hybrid Holmlid-Hot-Cat experiment

here are a few possible ways in which the findings and the techniques used to make dense deuterium for Holmlid could find a direct and easy applicability in a glow-tube type of experiment – using the same type of alumina tube (or mullite)used by Parkhomov.
To be safe, this kind of hybrid should be done without a laser, using as a substitute,a monochromatic light source. As for the fuel - I agree with Robin that deuteriumprobably works better – after all, the nucleus is bosonic and the proton is not, but Holmlid clearly indicates that either will densify. Monatomic H, in contrast to the proton - is an atomic boson, so maybe that is the feature which lets either isotopework.
This hybrid version will be a two stage system – an activation stage and a conversion stage. Both will use only photonic energy input, NO resistance wire, which is a big departure from Parkhomov. There is no resistance heater to burn out and the net gain should improve due to efficiency of SPP formation. Both of the stages can be referred to as “mini-tanning-booths. J
The underlying concept is premised on SPP formation, both in the activation stage and in the conversion stage. This requires a light source and a magnetic field to optimize. The further assumption is that the laser is effective for both Holmlid and Letts/Cravens because it is coherent light, but that monochromatic photons will also work. The magnetic field does not need to be strong, and can be provided byloudspeaker magnets placed outside the hot zone.
Holmlid is apparently seeing large amounts nucleon disintegration – which wedefinitely need to avoid in a kilowatt level systems due to gamma radiation; andtherefore, it would be better to avoid the laser in favor of monochromatic light. As fate would have it, there is an ideal light emitter device in the sodium vapor lamp,which is the small version of the common street lamp. It is the most efficientphoton source known – better than the best LEDs and single frequency.
Sodium is naturally monochromatic at 580 nm, and not only that, mass productionhas brought the cost of the bulbs way down - such that the 400 watt bulbs areparticularly cheap (this is apparently due to the widespread hydroponic farming of a certain cash crop). Anyway, an efficient light source makes much more sense than powering a ceramic tube with resistance heaters, since it is the incandescence(photons) which you need for SPP – and not the heat, per se.
Obviously, one must buy into the SPP hypothesis for the operative modality before any of this makes sense. But once you do buy into it – the absurdity of using resistance heat to get surface plasmons is obvious. It is a no brainer to start with photons, not electricity.
400 Watts should be an ideal size for the conversion stage but the activation stage could best use a lamp in the range of 75 watts. The activation stage will last for an extended time frame – say 100 hours of continuous irradiation of the fuel-tube. This can be done safely with a lamp. The alumina or mullite tubes being used are translucent, and will downshift the 580 nm yellow light of the sodium bulb down to IR – which is ideal for SPP. Once activated, the fuel is not removed from the tube – instead the same ceramic tube is used in the conversion stage, as is. The conversion stage looks the same but has a larger lamp for input triggering.
The fuel mix which would work best, according to Holmlid would be mostly Shell 105 catalyst. The rest of the fuel mix could include LAH as the hydrogen source, and nickel powder. The idea is that two reflective and insulated mirrored troughs arefabricated from aluminum foil or equivalent, such that the loaded ceramic tube is irradiated all around by monochromatic light and also heated to a modest level where hydrogen pressure is minimal. Some insulation will be required. Magnets are outside the “tanning booth” so they can be kept cool, but the net effect is that SPPshould form more readily than with Parkhomov – and over time, a population of dense hydrogen will accumulate. This activate fuel will be converted in the adjoining “booth” (actually bulbs could be swapped out in the same booth).
Once activated, the fuel tube needs only the addition of thermocouples before it isready to be irradiated (at a much higher level) in the conversion stage, where themonochromatic  trigger, from the sodium vapor light is 3-6 times more intense than in the activation stage.
If the SPP theory/modality is correct, and if the Holmlid dense hydrogen modality is also involved, then the end result is that the COP of this system should be higher than the Parkhomov system, where incandescence provides the photons at perhaps 3-5 % efficiency. Sodium is a factor of 10x more efficient for photons.

As I have said many times, Management is the source of the new philosophy- here we encounter a question with a broad area of validity- that actually hurts
Why it’s still a world of ‘grow or go’
In a challenging environment, growth matters more than ever.


  1. Regarding:

    Prof Vysotskii: "Why from the LENR reactions THERE ARE ALWAYS formed only stable isotopes?"

    The fundimental LENR mechanism produces a bubble of negative vacuum energy. When vacuum fluctuations are suppressed by negative vacuum energy, the rate of radioactive decay increases. When vacuum fluctuations are mostly to completely removed, all nuclear excitations are removed from the unstable isotope leaving an almost instantaneous formation of a stable isotope.


    Effects of Vacuum Fluctuation Suppression
    on Atomic Decay Rates

    " Because electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations are essential for radiative decay of excited atomic states, decay rates can serve as a measure of the suppression of vacuum fluctuation in non-classical states, such as squeezed vacuum states"

  2. Regarding:

    Prof Vysotskii: "what will happen with the Coulomb Barrier for light, medium and even heavy nuclei?"

    The Coulomb is bypassed as a barrier to the LENR reaction through the entanglement of the atoms that participate in the LENR with the bubble of negative vacuum energy. The fusion of the participating atoms will transfer binding energy through quantum energy teleportation into the bubble of negative vacuum energy that will expel it as infrared radiation and possibly subatomic particles decaying to electrons..

  3. Regarding:

    Prof Vysotskii: "Does it exist only one single mechanism of LENR for all the observed successful experiments (electrolysis, glow discharge, interaction with THz radiation, the action of slowly changing magnetic poles on gases, cavitation, wire exolosions and so on?"

    The fundamental LENR mechanism is the SPP (polariton soliton) which has three sub mechanisms: entanglement, anapole magnetic beam, and subatomic particle creation. All LENR reactions are produced by this single mechanism from low energy bio-LENR, to high energy cluster fusion and production of transuranic elements,

  4. Beene have an interesting experiment, but why did he choose a light source of 580 nm? Is that the exact antenna frequency of a nanowire made of H rydberg matter? Can it be calculated like this?

  5. "....will be drowned in minute technical-lab-methodology-historic details. remaining captive in the smaller frame of PdD, that was dead- in high degree, technologically speaking- from birth because it works outside the zone of temperature/dynamism where the active sites are massively and continuously generated. "

    Sorry, Peter, but it is very premature to make such a comment. We KNOW that the PdD system can release massive amounts of energy in a very small time frame. This was proven by the Pons and Fleischmann "meltdown" phenomenon.

    AT BEST, from the knowledge available, we can conclude that the electrolysis-based approach is not a viable platform to reach such levels of performance reliably, for either Pd OR Ni.

    It is my impression that gas-phase experiments on Pd are in almost as short a supply as for Ni.