DEC 16, 2015 LENR DEBATE, NEW BOOK ABOUT ANDREA ROSSI, SOME INFO

MOTTO

When you feel life at crossroads, you need higher perspective view. (Toba Beta),

What's true for life here, is also true for "problem"; if it seems undecidable or unsolvable, you need a superior vision.
LENR's dilemma :to work with surely bad or unsurely good data? See please the discussion below.

DAILY NOTES

It is my pleasure to discuss with Ed Storms, he is always inspiring and bright, however, is he also right?
Yesterday, I wrote:For Ed, I add that I don't think that the most careful study of a part, a variant of the field can be applied to the whole. So I am part of the toxic diversity now. I hope it will melt away one day. 

He answered promptly:

Granted we do not know whether one or many phenomenon are operating to cause what we call LENR.  But would not an effort to understand exactly how PdD works help in understanding how NiH works?  Why do we need to be distracted by having to debate this issue?  Why not focus on what we know and then apply it to what is unknown?  

We know a great deal about PdD. This experience reveals a very unusual effect having significant conflict with conventional understanding. Obviously, a new phenomenon is operating outside of normal understanding. I suggest once this phenomenon is understood, we will be able to explain much of what is claimed to occur in the NiH system. Why not ignore NiH and focus on the good data? Why must we be distracted by Rossi and his ignorance?

Dear Ed,

I am both sorry and proud to think very differently.

In real pioneering, breakthrough research there are few privileged cases/researches with the research subject placed in the safe center of the Medawar Zone.

Research is not a piece of sweet cake; it is hard work in circumstances far from the ideal ones. Research intelligence is usually the ability to work with missing, lacunary, redundant, surprising, seemingly occult, high quality mixed with low quality, certain with uncertain data, mutually contradictory, incompatible or non-additive data. Selecting only good data that are easy to understand and can be explained in the frame of a Theory must be done with extreme care, otherwise it is mutilation of the experimental reality. The number of unknowns is systematically greater than the number of equations but this is a bad comparison: linearity 

has not much to do with the complexities of a revolutionary research theme.

The possibility to apply the Scientific Method in its full splendor, asking Mother Nature with all the necessary best instruments and getting clear answers is more of a dream if the research is of paramount importance and novelty.

In the spirit of this research philosophy I will answer now all your questions;

1- Would not an effort to understand exactly how PdD works help in understanding how NiH works?

Short answer- it would; longer answer- it would only if by a very radical improvement of the situation, the PdD system becomes much more cognoscible and manageable.

However the effort is made all the time including teams with decent funding. Are you happy with the results? You have used them to create your own theory however I will believe this theory only when somebody manufactures palladium with a huge density of proper nano-cracks and this palladium generates high intensity excess heat very convincingly and repeatedly. As regarding the hydroton it is an elegant hypothesis in need of multiple proofs. Does the D+D reaction mean that a H+H reaction must be at the core of the NiH  heat excess?

In any case I read and review any old and new information about PdD results with scientific empathy but (I confess) with increasing pessimism

I do not reject, ignore or disbelieve PdD data, just they don't make me happy and i don't know how to use them for a future LENR technology.

We have ideas in common as priority of locus in LENR reactions and the idea that this is first a material science problem.

However based on my old ideas- rejuvenated after the Rossi events which I call LENR+, I am unable to hope that what happens in a wet, dirty cool system at 70 C will be very relevant to a dry, clean, hot system at 550C or 1400 C. In my vision it is about static vs dynamic systems.

BUT I will be always happy to get relevant information from PdD- the sacred cradle of Cold Fusion.

2- Why do we need to be distracted by having to debate this issue?  

Short answer- and the only one- there is no real debate- we just need DIKW from the PdD system that can be applied for the development of the more promising transition metal-hydrogen  system. But, is there a PdD orthodoxy? I am a humble technologist

however, using exactly the same data, Peter Hagelstein has arrived to strikingly different conclusions than yours. Which theory- of all- is more useful for the Experimenter?

3- Why not focus on what we know and then apply it to what is unknown?  

First we are de facto still focusing mainly on the known but does this help somebody in the field to cope with the unknown? Can somebody well communicating with ask Andrea Rossi if he has got some inspiration from PdD to solve some problem, to get an explanation of a phenomenon encountered during his experiments? He claims evn to go on a different way than the creator of the NiH system, Francesco Piantelli.

Is there a royal road to LENR- understanding and/or technology.

Personal reason- I take seriously my problem solving rule based on experience- unknown data are more necessary to solve difficult new problems than known data.

Please contradict me with.. data.

4- Why not ignore NiH and focus on the good data? 

To answer this I have written the longish introduction here. Research includes working with all kind of data- sure unsure, the Rossi system generates valuable, game changing data. The trouble is- not perfect certainty yet. I also do not forget 

what Yiannis Hadjichristos has said and I do not swallow the story told by Gamberale. Money problems and illness has destroyed Defkalion (I will not discuss this here) 

For me is irrational to ignore NiH. On a longer term, what do you predict? Pd D prevails (how?) and NiH goes to oblivion? 

5- Why must we be distracted by Rossi and his ignorance?

I do not think we are distracted by Andrea Rossi- he has indeed discovered enhanced heat excess release and now is trying to develop it. Has the classic LENR community helped him in any way? Has some of our colleagues became a REAL competitor to Rossi? And (I almost told 'for God's sake') why is he ignorant or what does he ignore? My LENR+ surface dynamics concept, your nano-cracks? He is going on his own way and does not care if we like this or not.

DAILY NEWS

1) A NEW BOOK ABOUT ANDREA ROSSI

The author wrote about it yesterday evening to Rossi- on Rossilivecat.org

The New Fire: A Simplified Introduction to Cold Fusion and LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

by Dennis W. Drumheller

http://www.amazon.fr/The-New-Fire-Simplified-Introduction/dp/1522713913

"In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible." Not since the discovery of fire, utilizing the burning and combustion of bio and fossil fuels, has there been a replacement for it. Fire is the primary energy source in the production of electricity, which is a secondary energy source. In 1989 Martin Fleischmann (then one of the world's leading electrochemists) and Stanley Pons reported that their tabletop apparatus had produced excess heat of a magnitude they stated would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. Many scientists tried and failed to replicate the experiment and by late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion dead, and cold fusion gained a reputation as a pathological science. A small community of researchers continued to investigate cold fusion, preferring to call it LENR (low energy nuclear reactions). The LENR reaction is not nuclear fission or fusion, but fusion-like generating zero emissions and no radioactivity or waste, just lots of heat energy. LENR, as the new primary energy source, has the potential to address most of the world's energy problems and solves the Climate Change/Global Warming problem, by the end of this century and possibly by 2050 as some believe. The author takes the reader through a simplified explanation of LENR, Cold Fusion, and its history providing references and verification resources. We are living in exciting times!

Dennis Drumheller, now retired, was a Senior Software Engineer with more than 35 years with breadth and depth knowledge of disparate operating systems, databases, client/server, and telecommunication technologies. Dennis has participated in numerous Strategic Alliances and Partnership arrangements with companies such as IBM, IBM Global Services, SAP, and Microsoft Corporation delivering solid software solutions. Dennis believes that nothing is impossible in delivering solutions - it's just a matter of proper requirements analysis and design. Dennis has been following Cold Fusion and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) since 2012 and believes it may have the potential for becoming the new primary energy source that could address most of the world's energy problems including Climate Change. While the subject matter is complex he has developed a simplified version that everyone can read. Something wonderful is dawning and people need to know it is arriving.

2) Light and electricity- not impossible with E-Cat-X                                                http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/15/light-and-electricity-not-impossible-with-e-cat-x/

3) Isn't this a bit surreal?
Anonymous
December 15th, 2015 at 6:38 AM

Mr “AR”:
At the end of your tests it will turn out that your plants do not work and are not reliableI bet 1000 Euros to win 3000Eyros if you fail. I bet you will fail.
…and I remain anonymous, so you can say you spammed “nobody”.
Anonymous
Andrea Rossi
December 15th, 2015 at 3:18 PM

Anonymous:
As strange as it might seem, I think
maybe you will win your bet.
Warm Regards
A.R.

4) LENR pressurized reactor test 1 wmv

http://www.eurvi.com/lenr-pressurized-reactor-test-1-wmv_91c606ca6.html

5) Germany Just Made A Giant Breakthrough On A Nuclear Fusion Machine

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/12/15/germany-just-made-a-giant-breakthrough-on-a-nuclear-fusion-machine/

It speaks about Cold Fusion too...

AXIL DIXIT

One requirement of the successful application of nuclear power is the preparation of nuclear fuel. In fission, plutonium of U233 must be made or U235 must be enriched. In fusion, tritium and deuterium must be isolated and combined. 

Any theory of LENR must define the process whereby LENR fuel is prepared. In the Cathode 64 experiment, cavitation and the application of super-wave EMF stimulation got the experiment to produce LENR results. But the LENR effect was only temporary; the LENR magic was lost after a number of hours. Theory must also explain how LENR can both come and go so fleetingly. This transient behavior is indeed strange. Once Plutonium or U233 is prepared or U235 is enriched it stays untacked indefinitely. 

Holmlid’s fuel takes weeks of laser fuel irradiation processing before the LENR fuel becomes active. Holmlid says this long fuel preprocessing is why his process has not yet be duplicated.

Could LENR preparation be comprised of a two-step process where firstly a formation of a seed occurs and then in a prolonged process, a long period of enhancement occurs as that seed grows in power to a point where a threshold is reached, the LENR fuel becomes active and mobile?

and

If there was an energy storage mechanism that could buffer energy release and that could contain a few million GeV of energy but has a gradual dispersive mechanism of the energy over time, and if that mechanism became easily entangled with others and shared energy between the members of the BEC, things would work out nicely. The energy transfer mechanism is the monopole magnetic field where the rules for nonassociative quantum mechanics apply. 

The analog micro black hole provides multiparticle entanglement. This new form of entanglement associated with black holes was proved to exist last year.
All this has been experimentally verified. The hang-up is nobody accepts these experimental results. See http://restframe.com/rf/home.html

LENR CONTEXT-1

From one of my favorite websites, about entanglement :

A FLAW IN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY -- 12/16/15

http://www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=2960&utm_source=Spooky+Action+At+a+Distance+18-23+12%2F16%2F15&utm_campaign=12%2F16%2F15&utm_medium=email