Tuesday, August 23, 2016



Image result for theory quotationsImage result for theory quotations


a) A developing multi-theory concept for LENR by Alain Coetmeur

Alain Coetmeur, a friend, a thinker, contributor to EGO OUT has written a comment about theories. Very creative and valuable. I take the permission to re-arrange aLENR bit the comment, use my standard taxonomy and explain what I found the most important in the comment.

Alain says his position toward PdD, NiH and the mainly empirical methods - has evolved and is still in progress and development. Ergo, this discussion willl continue.

A single theory is not enough, not possible what we actually need is: 
two structurally different (families of) theories which will converge to the same (unity/) when science has resolved the problem.

1- the first kind of theories- can be seen as more scientific, falsifiable in the Popperian sense, more fundamental- they are tools for the experimentalist, they ac usually at the small scale but up to the meso-scale. Using them the experimentalistsdirect the way experiments are designed, which are to be replicated from the mass of available data, which sensors are to be installed, which results are to be considered failures  and which are definitely positive.

2- the second category of theories was called by Jf Geneste at LINRG Mila"theory that allows engineers  to improve continuously the technology.
These not need to be fundamental, and they can be just phenomenological in a restricted range of parameters. However it need to work well.

An approach recommended by Alain:
- make a review of all theories.
- list all key experiments on which those theories are base; 

list all critics against those theories, and list all experiments that support the         critics;
re-analyze all the theories and try to classify them,
- try to partial meta-theories that just propose a concept ewven if with less precision.

Alain gives us examples of such concept as as:  "NAE" concept , ENP concept, BEC/CQED concepts...
Such a meta theory may be like "there is a "beast" of that kind, but we don't know what it is exactly (real, isn't it, take NAE as an example?!".)
- for each theory,  met-theory, critic of theory, try to find new experiments
for each theory, meta theories, and critic, try to find new experiments, new sensors, new parameters, improving older, which can provide positive or negative argument to a theory or it's critics

Priority has to given to experiments which will give maximum information, are easier to replicate and can confirm or reject more theories

Take care to prevent any theory to take over or disappear before enough independent experiments, done with different methods, supports or eliminate those theories.

Alain considers that purely experimental work based on trial and error, improperly called "Edisonian Method" lacking a theory, will not work from more reasons, as these:
- if really you have no theory, not even phenomenological, you cannot make something work reliable
- if you have no theory you cannot know what to do to improve your technology, so no industry can emerge
- if really you have no theory, the generator/device  can explode or fail at the most dangerous moment

Alain's essay ends with:

"This is why, even if the battle of theory is mostly sterile today, this debate is what should fuel the experimentalists, even if it is the experimentalist, like the jury, who will have the last word.
A Jury without good (talentuous and desperately biased) attorneys, will be unable to understand what is important is the crime judged and may miss a key point."
Thanks, dear Alain, I hope you will make corrections, addition and updating to this strategic plan!

b) A sentence by sentence answer to Ed Storms re my beliefs and approach to LENR+
My answers in red

Peter, I'm trying to understand what your are saying, what you believe, and what you propose be done.
I am grateful for this and take it as a sign of friendship, however I have many times openly described my LENR ideology- so please do not expect surprises   

 Apparently, you want LENR to be applied as soon as possible. 
Who, in our circles does not want exactly the same? Just there are some differences
in defining and timing of the word "possible"

You want the heat to be amplified as soon as possible and you want the focus to be on the Ni-H2 system. 
For the first statement- yes,  amplification and scale -up are vitally necessary and already possible. Basisis my hypothesis of dynamic generation of NAE's, amplification means a continuous abundant supply of the active sites where the heat releasing reactions can take place- high temperatures, high mobility of the surface atoms of the metal. But it does not go easily, there are other know-how elements to be discovered for triggering and sustaining the dynamic process.
For the  second, on short term yes Ni-H is the best system available now but on long tern=m probably an other metal will be the best, my guess is the "extremist" Tungsten.

 Your emphasis is on application first and understanding second. 
A bit more precisely, I think this is reality's way, emphasis- the idea as such- not perfect understanding but already use in factories and homes does not make me too happy. But as so many times, scientific idealism is replaced by a realist, pragmatic and materialistic solution.

You believe LENR can be applied as a commercial source of energy without the mechanism being understood.
Yes, however in the best possible sense- please consider the plurivalence and multi-level nature of understanding, see the "engineering" theories in Alain's essay above
There are basic laws, principles, practises that have to be respected even if we still do not know all the details.

You believe PdD has nothing of value to offer because it makes too little energy, the electrolytic method is unsuitable for technological application, and the process is not related to what takes place when Ni-H2 is used. 
Festina lente! PdD has offered something of immense value and historical importance - has demonstrated beyond any doubt the EXISTENCE and REALITY of Cold fusion, LENR.
Unfortunately it was unable (being an uncomplete form of LENR) to reveal its identity and nature. As seeing only the hallux, you cannot evaluate the entire foot. Due to its inherent weaknesses (I am speaking about the F & P Cell) it is of no use for technological development. The process in PdD is only a part of what takes place in  high temperature cel/generator  a larvar form -cannot "fly"

 You believe no theory effectively explains the effect.
Absolutely true, and you was inspired to use the singular. LENR is a composite group of combined phenomena- in your terms= NAE genesis, NAE- working and postnuclear stages involving more disciplines. No single theory can do the job.
And a good multi-theory ledas to LENR+  usable heat release.

 Nevertheless, you have a model you accept, yet you have not revealed or explained it. 
The task is too great for me, but at least I have honestly explained why I cannot explain more. Please read "The Six Pillars of LENR+" Thank you, even if you will disagree.
You ignore all the arguments I offer that conflict with your beliefs.
Please let's use the adequate words.These disphemistic euphemisms and/or euphemistic disphemisms) are disturbing. Why should we use "ignor"e for "reject" or "unable to understand" for "disagree with"?. Despite of myriads of disappointments,  I still desperately try to believe that " Differences in opinion attract smart people and repel only those who are not so" Or believing this is "symptomatic"?
Is this a correct summary of your beliefs and approach?
I will abstain from citing :The crab is a little red fish that goes backwards" because now, taking my answers in account the situation is clear. However I am perfectly aware of the reality that my
ideas will not florish, gain popularity, become memes outside this very personal blog. Probaly not, even if "Technology First! will be confirmed. And, I bet, it will!



1) LENR Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/

2) Presentation of Stepan Andreev - conference on May 20, 2016: "On the verge of a scientific breakthrough"

"Low Energy Nuclear Reactions- not more an unexplained reality of Science"

The existence of such reactions was demonstrated beyond any doubt, for further research we need the ATOM theory of Kevin Dooley.
Published in REGNUM
3) At June 6, 2016  it was held a seminar in the Institute of General Physics of the Russian Academy of Science named after A.M. Prokhorov with presentation in favor of the BIOTRANSMUTATIONS of the radioactive wastes.                                                                               http://lenr.seplm.ru/seminary/6-iyunya-2016-goda-sostoyalos-zasedanie-seminara-v-iof-ran-im-am-prokhorova-s-dokladom-po-podtverzhdeniyu-biotransmutatsii-rao
4) To be integrated with ICCF20:
The Satellite Symposium of
20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
September 28-30, 2016
Xiamen, China

5) Thermal Analysis of the Production Plant Process in the 1MW test in Doral, Florida (GiveADogABone)


Light and matter merge in quantum coupling
Physicists probe photon-electron interactions in vacuum cavity experiments

New theory could lead to new generation of energy friendly optoelectronics
Date:August 22, 2016
Source:Queen's University, Belfast
Researchers have created a new theoretical framework which could help physicists and device engineers design better optoelectronics, leading to less heat generation and power consumption in electronic devices which source, detect, and control light.


An excellent essay:

Simplicity or style: what makes a sentence a masterpiece?


  1. "- if really you have no theory, not even phenomenological, you cannot make something work reliably"

    A totally ludicrous comment, which displays a complete lack of knowledge of history. The theoretical meme is VERY recent in overall human history, yet huge amounts of technology were developed and applied reproducibly. Agriculture, metallurgy, glassmaking, weaponry of all sorts and on and on and on. The steam engine was developed LONG before the theory of thermodynamics was even thought of.

    1. Phenomenological theories are theories.
      We could surely agree that currently people have forgotten that before there was upfront theories from bascic physics, like thermodynamics or QM, there was simple theories that worked quite well.
      even aristote theories were working not so bad in the context.

      your comment shows, that despite your desire to put old-style development, you are influence by today's ideology, to think that phenomenological theory is not a theory.

    2. Back when the master craftsmen and guilds were developing technology, even the concept of "theory" did not exist. And yet usable and repeatable technology was developed. "Trial and error" works, and has worked since the first protohominid chipped the first rock.

      Development of the scientific method and the concept of theory accelerated the rate of attainment of results drastically, and was definitely a good thing for mankind, but to maintain that "trial and error" CANNOT work is simply ridiculous.

    3. what you talk about is phenomenological theory.

      when I make Bread I have theory, inspired partly by serious knowledge, partly by wild guess and induction.

      I have respect for phenomenological theory, like the one that allowed Wright brothers to fly before the wings were modelized by navier-stokes equations.

      however Wright online many people who died, had a coherent corpus of knowledge allowing them to be confident in their success, at least their chance of success.

  2. After over a hundred years, superconductor theory has not yet been well formulated. Many prominent condensed matter theorists, Nobel laureates among them, have proposed theories for new classes of superconducting materials discovered several decades later, followed by teams of experimentalists working furiously to provide solid evidence for these theories. More than 100,000 research papers have been published on the new materials. And yet, even with the most advanced experimental instruments at their disposal, science offers no consensus in theory as generally accepted where the exception proves the rule. And yet, superconductivity has its uses.

    LENR, a allied phenomena to superconductivity is even more obscure, more riddled by exception, and less well studied then superconductivity.

    There will come a time when science will turn all those amazing instruments of discovery onto the causes of LENR. And LENR theory will be revealed in all its ambiguity. The mature of LENR will also lift the veil on superconductivity and many other major mysteries that still plague science. All this will come to pass in the due course of time.

    1. Axil writes:"After over a hundred years, superconductor theory has not yet been well formulated...".
      It seems there is light at the end of the tunnel, see, please:

      Superconductivity and Superfluidity-Part I: The development of the science of superconductivity and superfluidity in the 20th century
      BV Vasiliev
      Universal Journal of Physics and Application 7 (4), 392-407

      Superconductivity and Superfluidity-Part II: Superconductivity as a Consequence of Ordering of Zero-point Oscillations in Electron Gas
      B Vasiliev
      Universal Journal of Physics and Application 8 (1), 22-35
      Superconductivity and Superfluidity-Part III: Superfluidity as a Consequence of Ordering of Zero-point Oscillations
      BV Vasiliev
      Universal Journal of Physics and Application 8 (3), 165-170

  3. oops, I'm not so proud of my typos... anyway I hope it can be understood.

    about the NE, my concept of NAE is the one explained by Ed Storms, the fact that the recation happens in a rare place.
    this concept is challenged by bulk theories, by full surface theoies, by vancancies theories, by exotic particles theories...

    in my comment I forgot to state the origin of my cange of opinion.
    It is based on Ed Storms positions, and as I say confirmed by EmDrive story.

    It is right that the two families of theories are slightly different.
    One family, for engineers, have to work.
    the other family for experimentalists, have to be testable.

    It can be both, in which case it is a good theory, but we are far from both today.

    One need in my opinion is to extract "meta-theories" from existing theories, in fact the "good ideas" but not the full story, and accept to mix all, or to let holes.

    for example in Ed Storms theory there are many meta theories (NAE, coherence, multi-transition fusion outcome, conservation of miracles, heavy element fusion accidents) that seems interesting, but the mechanism is really not convincing other theorist, especially the QM mechanism that should allow quantum coherence accross many nucleus, and thus multi-level transition.
    this is where A Calaon, Holmlid, BEC, ENP, WLS, could bring a stone, an idea, an approach, a character in the film.

    in fact I think that we should try to extract "meta-theories", which are a bit like trying to find the personality of key characters in a film, no yet the scenario, not even the names of characters.

  4. Re: LENR IN CONTEXT-1 --> New theory could lead to new generation of energy friendly optoelectronics

    The actual paper is here (which 3 different news outlets failed to reference):