NOV 29, 2015- LENR DISPUTE & INFO WITH HELP FROM FRIENDS

MOTTO

The new always happens against the overwhelming odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, everyday purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle. 
(Hannah Arendt) 



DAILY NOTES

Continuing discussion with Ed Storms, today more about research and statistics

A message from AXIL to Ed Storms

I can not understand Ed Storms' devotion to the crack causation of LENR theory. Co-deposition of palladium hydride has been shown to produces results 100% of the time and excess heat is seen in just minutes. Ed should be coming up to speed on Co-deposition. There are no cracks on the electrodes used in co-deposition. 

Dear Ed, dear readers,

I have once stated that: 
"Opposite opinions, views attract smart people and repel only those who are not so"

Not a bad idea, statistically confirmed in a bit more than 0.1% of the cases but painfully infirmed by the irreversible loss of many good and smart friends. And I have restricted opinions to those neutral from ethical points of view.
Based on what I know, I hope on my present experience in discussing with leading LENR expert  Ed Storms I hope - this will add to the 0.1% of cases of the disputes.
It is not easy
Despite our fundamental agreement around NAE: "In LENR, WHERE determines, WHAT, HOW and WHY (including WHY NOT) " (my formulation, what's your, dear Ed?) we think almost antagonistically about the relationship of Science with Mother Nature, about the Laws of Nature, simple/complex, the relative value of the known and the unknown in Science. linear/non-linear thinking. Does this make one of us a saint, and the other a sinner? I don't think so, simply we are human beings with some limits, not omniscient and not infallible- having different personal histories, assumptions and even myths (many myths end as being converted to verified truths)

Now Ed has responded to my reaction to his assertion that people usually find in research only what they are looking for

Ed: 

Peter, I'm sometimes completely baffled by how you interpret what I say. It is well known in research that we see only what we are expecting to see. This is a universal experience and says nothing about the competence of the researcher. For example, if radiation were expected, a detector would be set up. If radiation were not expected and a detector was not used, any radiation would not be seen. The radiation would remain invisible and be ignored. It would not be discovered no matter how competent the researcher.   If I expect an important feature on a surface to have a size of 1 micron, I can use a common SEM. However, I would be blind to any effect occurring at the nanolevel. I would have to expect to see something at the nanolevel to justify the expense of using a much better  SEM.  The nano-crack exists only at the nano level. All the SEM pictures I have seen would not resolve this feature.  Therefore, what I claim to be important has remained invisible and overlooked.  I'm only asking it be looked for. It this too much to ask?

Peter
I have a different research experience and mentality- coming from industrial research. There is indeed a routine research focused on improvements, incremental. bit a bit step by step. But Research is transformative, creates quality leaps and I have seen a few ones and "lived" them, contributed to some.  
A few examples first for chemists:
- changing strong acid esterification catalysts with mild organometallic ones in the 
manufacture of phtallate plasticizers
- chlor-alkali electrolysis - from mercury cells to membrane cells;
- oxo process- replacing cobalt based catalysts with rhodium based ones;
- advancing from slow polymerisation initiators to fast peroxydicarbonates (for this work my team has received the Nicolae Teclu (to not be confounded with Nikola Tesla) Prize of the Romania Academy;
- music recording from vinyl plates to DVDs to YouTube;
- what we have see in computers hard and soft, in phones, in al the gadgets;
- the development of websearch, the great leap from AltaVista to Google Search actually from search to find etc., etc...great, fast progress due to research
Researchers must look for everything but especially for the radically new, unknown, unexpected , surprising. Why should a researcher in Cold fusion/LENR deliberately ignore radiations? It is risky. Why should a morphologist like Violante ignore nano-cracks? I guess he has some very modern  microscopes.
All I can do is to ask Graham Hubler for cooperation and understanding and for re-thinking nano-cracks.
Ed, please advise how it would be the best to look for nano-cracks and to quantify them.
It is my Credo, Research has the meaning and duty to do great things

 I have asked quite specifically about papers authors, journals, issue, pages in which results matching those of cathode 64 were obtained but I have received this answer:

Ed: 
If you had read my first book, you would know the answer. I have attached a histogram showing the power produced by various studies made before 2007.

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8Ba0lGbmkwRzh6dVpOYUVaeHg0cnBXa2NTMmVR/view?usp=sharing

I have received your first  book from my regretted friend Mike Carrell and have read it , studied it more times. This does not mean that I have learned it by heart- there are too many data in it. Then, because it was the best book in the field I have asked our Europarlamentarian friend, Gabriela Cretu to give it to the EU Energy authority and she has done this. Possibly the book has had some impact there, I considered it is my duty to try.

The histogram is statistics, it shows representative things but hides the essential like a bikini (Arthur Koestler)  In this case it gives Watts produced but are these Watts coming from a needle, wire or a greater Pd plate? Cathode 64 happened in 2004 so it is included in your 2007 book.

So please help me to know who, when has obtained such exceptional research as Energetics with Cathode 64 and 64a?

Ed: 

Everyone using the superwave claims it simulates the LENR effect and results in greater reproducibility.  Of course, the effect occurs in the cathode and is caused by the NAE in the cathode. This fact does not have any relationship to what I said. 

Peter
Yessir! 
However it is only an improvement not a radical change making possible what was impossible till then (as WiFi for example) Unfortunately PdD needs much more. And, I repeat it- tens of other cathodes were treated, used in the same way but only 64 made a miracle- so this is not an effect of the superwaves, for sure.

Ed: 
No, I can not do as well as SKINR did in the past. I have no idea how well they are doing now. In any case, this has no relationship with trying to explain their results. 

Peter
Sorry for this; however what you can do is to show us a histogram similar with the former one (which was discussed three times this year on our Forums so it is well known by many of us) for 2007 to present. I think you have it, do not remember if it is in your new book- OK, was it real progress comparing 1989-2007 with 2007-2015? In intensity, reproducibility?

DAILY NEWS

1) Invitation to the next  (2016) Russian LENR Conference:
Dear colleagues,
On behalf of the Russian Coordinating Council on Problem of CNT and RCCNT&BL-23 Organizing Committee I invite all of you on the our next annual RCCNT&BL-23, promising us big fulfillments this year.
We wait for all of you in Russia (Dagomys-Sochi).
Yury Bazhutov.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BdXV0cUthR3o5ME8zTHNOaV9JRTFhMmkyR2I4/view?usp=sharing

2) Norman Cook on E-Cat Fuel Elements (Tungsten and Iron mentioned):
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/11/29/norman-cook-on-e-cat-fuel-elements-tungsten-and-iron-mentioned/

3) We do not know much about the European Branch of te W-L theory/theorists, except their affiliation to LENR Cities. Now our Patent specialist, David French says about:

A US patent application published March 5, 2015 names Srivastava,Yogendra Narain,  (Lugano, CH); and Widom, Allan, (Lugano, CH) as inventors.  This is available as publication number 20150063520. The Applicant to whom the inventors have assigned their rights isClean Nuclear Power LLC of Via Greina 2 CH-6900 Lugano, Switzerland (CH).

The Title and Abstract are as follows:

Nuclear Reactor Consuming Nuclear Fuel that Contains Atoms of Elements Having a Low Atomic Number and a Low Mass Number

Abstract

The invention relates to a reactor for consuming a nuclear fuel that contains atoms of elements having a low atomic number (Z) and a low mass number (A), wherein the nuclear reactor (1) comprises a vessel (2) containing a reaction chamber (3). This reaction chamber (3) is topped and sealed by a sealed container (4), and contains the nuclear fuel, which comprises a colloidal mixture capable of producing Ultra Low Momentum Neutrons (ULMNs) by using electromagnetic radiations (5).

This application was based on a PCT filing made in Geneva, PCT/IB2013/050218 published as  WO/2013/108159.  The PCT filing date was 10 January 2013 and priority was claimed from an Italian application filed 16 January 2012. The Attorney for the PCT filing was Filippo Ferroni, Via Palestro 5/2 I-16122 Genova (IT)

Claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A nuclear reactor (1), comprising a vessel (2) and a reaction chamber (3) located in the vessel (2) for containing a nuclear fuel, wherein said nuclear reactor (1) comprises a radiation source suitable for providing electromagnetic radiations (5) to the nuclear fuel contained in the reaction chamber (3).

This claim is essentially silly.  It was rejected by the  PCT Searcher in the Preliminary Examination Opinion as describing exactly what was disclosed in prior art located by the Searcher. Claims 4, 8, and 10 were rejected on this basis as well.  All claims were rejected as lacking a sufficient “inventive step”.  In US terms all claims were “obvious”. That means these claims all described obvious variants on the Prior Art.  

 I have listed the Attorney who filed the PCT application because he has to accept responsibility for this situation.  There remains the possibility that some portion of the disclosure might be salvaged as being novel and inventive.  The real nature of the invention seems to revolve around the concluding three claims:

 8. A nuclear fuel reaction process wherein the nuclear fuel comprises elements having a low atomic number (Z) and a low mass number (A), comprising the steps of:

a. preparing a colloidal mixture of metallic powder comprising one or more of the following elements: Lithium, Nickel, Copper, Palladium, Titanium, or isotopes thereof;

b. irradiating the colloidal mixture by using an electromagnetic radiations (5). 
9. The nuclear fuel reaction process according to claim 8, wherein said reaction process is controlled by varying the intensity of the electromagnetic radiations (5).

10. The nuclear fuel reaction process according to claim 9, wherein the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiations (5) is substantially similar to a radius of grains of the metallic powder in the colloidal mixture.

Allan Widom is listed in this filing as resident in Switzerland.  He is still listed as being on faculty at Northeastern University.  A 411 search of the Boston area shows an Allan Widom resident in Brighton, Massachusetts.  Why is this important?  A section of the US patent law, 35USC 184, 185 invalidates US patents for inventions “made in this country” if an inventor assists in filing an application abroad without getting a Foreign Filing Licence from the USPTO. These provisions are relevant depending on where this invention was made.

A great thank you to David French!

This is an Italian  video about Yogendra Srivastava:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGCUqFtbdlc (short)

4) NOTE OF ERROR

Yesterday I have erroneously told about the fourth paper from AIRBUS-ISCMNS Workshop. Errare blogarum est- I apologize to the authors and to the readers.

Actually It was NOT for the Workshop, but on viXra in June 2015 and will be published on JCMNS.In fact it's a more developed version of ths paper to be published in the ICCF19 Proceedings,

in particular it includes  "pedagogic" appendices about Dirac equation.
Here it is the  paper for ICCF19 proceedings: Basis for Electron Deep Orbits of the Hydrogen Atom 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BOVFWVmJFcWlLdlQyVGVzQWpiSUZSWl9IS3RN/view?usp=sharing

5) An idea of our Canadian friend and high-quality blogger, Jim D. Sweeney inspired by a paper about catalysts- already discussed here- but Jim sees more:

Hello, Peter

https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2015-11-23-atom-sized-craters-make-catalyst-much-more-active.aspx

One sentence in this item that caught my eye could relate to lenr NAE:

"And we can tune this activity so the bonds that form on the catalyst
are just right – strong enough to hold the reacting atoms in place,
but weak enough so they’ll let go of the finished product once the
atoms have joined together.”

Perhaps this is what Rossi has stumbled upon!

Thanks!

OTHER

Do You Have a Contrarian on Your Team?
A divergent opinion can lead to more creative and better decisions
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/do-you-have-contrarian-your-team?utm_source=Stanford+Business&utm_campaign=2b57f8e029-Stanford-Business-Issue-76-11-29-2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0b5214e34b-2b57f8e029-70256133&ct=t(Stanford-Business-Issue-76-11-29-2015)

I am hesitating to connect this paper with me in LENR