Monday, November 23, 2015



A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way. (John Maxwell)


Building a LENR vision with the help of Edmund Storms

Allow me please to start with my question  because the answer is not what you and many others expect.

Peter: Chemistry can be surprising- allow me a simple question:
- you have a tall glass column filled with concentrated HCl' you start to bubble
ammonia gas through the bottom. What reactions happen and how? Which  laws
of chemistry are respected?

Ed: That is easy, The laws of thermodynamics are respected. Using these laws, the reaction products and their concentration can be calculated. 

ANSWER  I have made the experiment. In 1975, one of my friends, M. then the leader of battery research in Romania needed some ammonium chloride of high purity and knowing about the glass column has asked me to help him with the stuff using pure reactants. M. a bright chemist and amateur mathematician
has calculated everything, thermodynamics and kinetics, designing a fine experiment, ammonia feed rate, cooling, duration of the synthesis etc. scientifically.
The experiment started, we could see how the very first bubble of ammonia gas entered the  solution of HCl and suddenly it was covered with a white shale, like an egg; it raised up in the column with the gas protected against the contact with HCl. A lot of similar gas eggs accumulated at the top of the column, some break and a lot of stinking ammonia that traveled through the liquid came was released in the room. We stopped the experiment concluding that theory works only if we have a stirrer that breaks all the  NH4Cl protective layers as they form.
Can we say that the theory does not worked here?  No important laws were violated just temporarily silenced. No! We have ignored a minute but essential detail
NH4Cl soluble in water is not soluble in concentrated HCl- it is a ions' play.But who could guess that the in-situ formed salt is able to form such an impermeable strong layer. This details are in many cases discovered only by technology, however they can decide between Yes or No, it goes or it does not go., possible or  upright impossible.
The lab at OLTCHIM where this has happened was specialized in syntheses with liquid phosgene (chloroformiates for making peroxydicarbonate initiators for vinylchloride) so it had excellent ventilation. ammonia did not do any harm.

Everybody can decide how this old story- laws are acting only when they are allowed to, or revenge of the ignored detail, technology IS know-how- can be applied for LENR. Or not.

Peter: Why people in the field are almost unanimously against a common understanding?
Because the field is great, more diversified than thought, cannot be reduced or grounded to the original and still dominant form of LENR, people come with different backgrounds and scientific myths- it is a great (>>6) group of myopic men examining a huge elephant.

Ed: I agree, these are good reasons why agreement is hard to achieve. Nevertheless, nature plays by certain rules and science attempts to understand and apply these rules.  I'm simply pointing out that the rules are not being followed when most explanations are suggested. In addition, as Axil has made an art form, most theories consist of many ad hoc assumptions having no ability to predict or show how the behavior might be modified.  

ANSWER  I thought about this; first question; will be such an agreement good for progress in the field? 
Obviously the disagreement are too sharp, too far but so many new things have appeared recently that
for me an agreement is a fata morgana. HOWEVER a continuous flux of information and exchange of ideas is a must.
It is a pleasure to discuss with yo,u Ed, even if in terms of Pareto thinking you seem to believe that Pd D gives 80% of the understanding  LENR, while I think that it is less than 20%.
I am alone in thinking that in 1989 science and technology were NOT prepared to understand and develop Cold Fusion and even now we do not have a correct vision of it.

Peter: But I guess you are more interested why the common understanding is not identical to your personal understanding achieved by hard work and deep thinking? 

Ed: Yes, that is part of my goal.  But, another issue is important. As with all aspects of science, progress is made only by standing on the shoulders of experts.  No one in physics would accept or welcome contributions to explaining quantum mechanics, for example, from someone who never studied the subject and has very little understanding of what is already known. Yet, people feel free to discuss LENR based on ignorance of what is known about the phenomena and without any background in basic chemistry or physics.  I have that background, which I would expect would give my ideas extra weight.  Yes, my ideas might be wrong, but not as wrong as someone who has never mastered the subject. 

ANSWER Again this reduces to the ratio and the relative importance  and significance of what is known and what is unknown. you have my full empathy but I really cannot find out how could you convince more people that you are right and- what is more questionable- if you convince them, what you can advise them to do, which way to go. How can your certainties be put to work for scientific and technological advancement?

Peter: So consistent and so naturally transferable  to the entire field? I think exactly the same about my ideas, I have also analysed data information, knowledge- a lot taaken from your books and papers- just I came to very different conclusions- I think you cannot accept any of my Six Pillars of LENR, isn't it? On my turn, I see no direct proofs of nano-cracks as NAE and I cannot understand how hydrotons will work or even exist.
Other people think similarly, physicists think LENR is their problem and ignore the multidisciplinar character of LENR.

Ed: You say you come to a different conclusion. I have not been able to understand why. As best as I can tell, you agree with me in many ways and then add additional ideas that you call a conflict.  If find that reaching a conclusion is best done by identifying where agreement exists and only then determining where the split occurs and why.  You want to place more emphasis on NiH compared to PdD.  I agree, NiH deserves emphases as a possible commercial source of energy.  But why do you reject my emphasis on PdD as a possible source of knowledge about the mechanism?  What do you gain by taking that approach? I see you have partially answered this question below. 

ANSWER Actually I think PdD has many fatal weaknesses- technologically speaking and that the knowledge acquired here has limited application. Anyway, we will both follow how the things developing the field as long as we can- and discuss, if you agree.

Peter:  b) Why I think PdD and NiH work differently? More reasons: I know well the properties of the two metals, then there is a huge difference (the greatest for all isotopes) at the atoms level between protium and deuterium, Ni does NOT work with deuterium,

Ed: How do you know that deuterium does not work with Ni?  At the present time, the explanation of how Ni works has emphasized heat production from various transmutation reactions.  It is easy to show that transmutation CAN NOT be the source of the energy.  The apparent isotope changes must have a different explanation.  In this context, we do have a basic difference of opinion. 

 Peter: I think the surface of metals works differently at 70, 450 and 1200 C. I think both systems work with NAE- and these are more sophisticated than cracks however the nature and the mechanisms of the reactions differ. Therefore, NiH cannot be managed on the basis of what we know about PdD 

Ed: OK, I understand. You believe two different but very novel and rare mechanisms can operate in two different but chemically similar  materials. The mechanism operating in PdD produces helium by fusion between deuterons and the mechanism operating in Ni causes transmutation when a proton enters the nucleus of a Ni isotope.  Apparently, for some reason, a deuteron can not cause transmutation in Ni but it can in Pd (aka Iwamura).  And, fusion can not take place in Ni.   If you think fusion of deuterons can be justified to a normal scientist, I suggest you would have much more difficulty justifying transmutation.

ANSWER Yes, I believe in the novelty and the otherness of LENR.
Peter: c) The best question is for me:

Why would you expect the mechanism operating in NiH to violate basic chemical rules; the same rules I insist PdD follows? 
It exists an obsession with VIOLATING the Laws and this was used as a weapon against Cold Fusion LENR. It is not about VIOLATING it is  just about respecting, using, obeying other Laws.

Ed: Redefining the words is not useful. LENR VIOLATES what we know and accept about nuclear interaction. Calling it something different does not change the fact.  Yes, the word was used as a weapon because it is true. We have to respond with a different weapon.  We need to show that the violated laws do not apply. Something new is operating. Yet, people keep applying the same old laws and expect a different result. We know what that approach is called. 

 Peter: Is nanoplasmonics violating some sacred laws of thermodynamics? Is the collective transformation of Urutskoev violating  established laws? Is nanotechnology a sacrilege against thermodynamics?

Ed: The answer is no. My question is, So what?  Simply calling LENR nanotechnoogy or using the term nanoplasonics is not an explanation. An explanation needs to show how these concepts are applied while being consistent with the rules of chemistry operating in PdD or NiH.  The mechanism is complex and the operating parts must have a logical connection while being consistent with chemical behavior.  I see very little effort made to acknowledge this requirement.

Peter: Because we both are chemists, can you tell me what laws of chemistry, specifically are you speaking about and how could they be VIOLATED?

Ed: For example, formation of the NAE is a chemical process that must be consistent with the chemical properties of the lattice structure.  Assembly of the hydrogen nuclei before fusion must be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. These requirements severely limit the possible form of the NAE and the fusing structure. 

ANSWER  This issue of  violating laws or using other laws has to be discussed more thoroughly. It is not a semantic trick but a reality.


1) Alexander Parkhomov has written a paper for the journal; "Questions of the atom science and technology" at the request of E.B. Belikov, however eventually the Editorial B oard has rejectedit- it does not match the profile of the journal
It is now on the Internet
M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University , Moscow, Russia

At interaction of hydrogen with a number of metals, including nickel, not only mechanical and chemical changes, but also such extraordinary phenomena as abnormally big thermal emission and change of isotope and atomic structure are observed. The review of experiments in which these phenomena are investigated is given. 
Key words: hydrogen, nickel, heat release, isotope structure, radiation 

Excellent paper for popularization- no really new dta. I will ask Parkhomov about his new achiwvemnts. 

 2) A German language paper about Rossi's 1MW plant ready for commercialization
Fusion: 1 MW ECat-Anlage von Andrea Rossi bald marktreif?

3) Rossi mainly about theory
Andrea Rossi
November 22nd, 2015 at 10:40 PM

Hank Mills:
The next paper Cook Rossi will be published only if it will be worth. Before the publication there is nothing I can say of it, in positive or in negative, as it is obvious.
The E-Cat X is too green to publish photos of it.
Have a Great Thanksgiving you too: my one will be inside the plant.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
November 22nd, 2015 at 4:00 PM

The work I am doing with Prof. Norman Cook is theoretical: we are producing a theoretical paper. Theories have nothing to do with patents. As a matter of fact, theories cannot be patented. On the contrary, the US Patent is in the references of the paper, because it has been useful for the formulations we are working upon.
Warm Regards,

4) Sam Hansson's updated list of LENR publications:

5) A distinction for Mats Lewan's book about the E-Cat:

6) A surprise that came this morning, let's see if the future of the new BLP is brilliant indeed?
Blacklight Power Gets A New Name

BrilliantLight has developed a commercially competitive, nonpolluting source of energy from water. A SunCell™ catalytically converts H2O-based solid fuel directly into brilliant light which is converted to electricity using photovoltaic panels.

1 comment:


    At 6:43 of this video of a Russ Griss experiment with a hydrogen plasma, the experiment shows the emergence of a streak of plasma that when through the glass and into the space just outside the glass. Fisher and Oriani used the polyneutron theory to explain this type of occurrence.

    I posted yesterday that all this experimental data which is called by many names might be explained by the same physics process.

    One name is the SPP which is a ball of light that can pass through material that is transparent to the EMF that the SPP contains.

    Tachyons are another name for very energetic particles that pass through material and leave tracks on photographic emulsions.

    Polyneutrons are heavy particles that leave track on CR39 solid plastic radiation detectors and can even produce reactions inside that plastic material as it passes through it.

    There is a school of thought in Russia that believes that plasmoids or ball lightning are a cause of the LENR reaction.

    Ken Shoulders came up with a term for balls of EMF that he created with electric arc called EV and then later EVO.

    Edward Lewis believed that LENR revolved around the plasmoid theory.

    Mark LeClair saw these particles come out of his cavitation reactor and punch holes in the walls of his lab and even punched holes in the trees outside his lab. These particles were very heavy and powerful.

    i believe, this ball of EMF that has many names is all one and the same thing. It is the ultimate cause of LENR in all its many forms.