Sunday, September 25, 2016




  • Image result for :bad luck" quotesImage result for :bad luck" quotes
    • Good Advice
    • True wisdom knows
      it must comprise
      some nonsense
      as a compromise,
      lest fools should fail
      to find it wise. (Piet Hein) 

To make it clear the second image Motto is NOT for Ethan Siegel


Actually this is a message to physicist Ethan Siegel following the paper committed recently by him:

Dear Ethan,


I am your faithful reader, I like almost anything you are publishing in the Science Blogs, I admire 
a) your knowledge in physics, 
b) your logic,and 
c) your connection to the universal culture- the context of your writings.

In contrast with these is my following reaction to your recent paper re Cold Fusion/LENR:

Is Cold Fusion Feasible? Or Is It A Fraud?

It was published also in Forbes and it generates lots of echo-papers and citations given you are an authority in Physics and your words have weight and impact. However  being an authority means also having a serious responsibility and therefore I am writing now this letter to you.

The history of our dispute re LENR Cold fusion.

See please this blog issue dedicated to your former Cold Fusion paper from 2014:


You can find other consideration re your ideas regarding Cold fusion here:

Critic of your paper

a) Obviously the paper is an half assed opus in which you have invested neither documentation nor creativity it has exactly the same logical structure and content as your former paper:
Throwback Thursday: the Foolish Fallacy of Cold fusion

b) You have now re-used your story A similar to story B, story A ended badly ergo story B will end badly too trick from the former paper now and the Kempelen Farkas
Turk chess player makes some>40% of the paper AGAIN. I considered it ab ovo irrelevant for any scam, it was a proof of a genius inventor and a genius chess player
and of the marvels of mechanics plus it had humor. A bad choice of you, belonging to both the Hungsrisn snd Romanian language based cultures, I have a very positive vision of the story well described in the Wikipedia.
I guess you are a passionate of chess, so I am too see please:


c ) It seems you strongly dislike the idea of Cold Fusion per se, and you take it literally as fusion at low temperatures- it is more friendly to use its newer name,more realistic Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Recently a very important study has demonstrated the existence (but not yet the usability) of LENR- 


It is not fair to ignore this, as well as the rich LENR classic literature star
ting e.g. with Edmund Storms' second book:


Or take a look to the program of the coming ICCF20- in Japan and China.
LENR exists and is alive.
However it is not prosperous nad the main point of this message is to explain you- nd not only to you the reasons for the nedemic howawever curable development problems of LENR.


The birth and early history of Cold Fusion is/are  not well understood, even and in a sense, mainly in the LENR community which is tragically fragmented, divided and recently (2011) -split. In April 2016 a local civil war has started there.

The start was as unlucky possible the broad phenomenon being discovered at a bad time, in the worst place possible, in an underdeveloped form by two geniuses having an improper profession for this great discovery- electrochemists. In the Fleischmann Pons Cell, Cold Fusion was drowned in (heavy) water and constrained to work at temperatures less than that of boiling water. The Cell has shown beyond any doubt the very existence of excess heat in amounts  greater than chemistries of all kind could explain however has worked in self-limited conditions, the phenomenon being weak, unreliable and of rather short duration. The alternatives as Piantelli's NiH were marginalized and considered as heretic. The competition of Hot Fusion and the theoretical impossibility of low temperature fusion by linearly thinking physicists have lead to the fast conversion of LENR in a pariah science; unfortunately science was unable to inspire emancipatory strong results.
The truth- PdD a la Fleischmann and Pons is not a complete, optimal form of LENR was and is not recognized. LENR has heroically survived despite its debility due t the heroic efforts and admirable creativity of its faithful experimenters. A great variety of theories  have been published but their connection to the experimental progress is -euphemistically speaking- vague.
So our Pechvogel science had a very unhappy youth being not able to solve basic problems as understanding of identity and nature, intensification, reproducibility, scale up... The Physicists have claimed that LENR belongs o them- and i dare to think this is an other unlucky factor.
Being a Pechvogel myself living in an oppressive society, having tragic family problems, fighting for survival- I could not dedicate my actiivity to experiments and when I could in principle it was too late and i too old.
But I was free to think and to tell what I think as now based on the results of my colleagues to whom I am deeply grateful.
My approach was of a technologist and a problem solver my dream is that LENR will be the energy source of the future.
So in 1992 I made a review of the existent data and have concluded that cold fusion includes a catalytic phase, takes place in active sites, and these depend on the dynamics of the surface metal  atoms  (surfdyn):

  It was later published  in Fusion Technology, but due to my Pechvogel nature it went unnoticed.
Then in the very first issue of Infinite Energy I have concluded that due to the unexpectedness, strangeness, complexity  and extreme difficulty of Cold Fusion cannot be solved by science (read for then- physics) alone, without the direct contribution of technology

[9] “Why Te[chnology First?” 
Infinite Energy 1s tissue, March-April 1995, p 26

A blasphemous, unpopular idea - it exists a cult of the Scientific Method, no shortcuts are admitted.

OK, years have elapsed progress was incremental. Then in 20111 Rossi- an entrepreneur and inventor has arrived with his claim of enhanced excess heat. 
It was bad luck or else that no insider LENR-ist found a solution.
The rest of the story is very complex- Rossi's 1 year 1MW experiment is now denied by Industrial Heat and a trial is in full development. I am convinced that Rossi's data are valid- his long time test a success. Rossi' has opened new horizons to LENR
at higher temperatures(up to 1400C) tyhe Surfdyn effect makes excess heat from additive to multiplicative. But it is not easy!
However only the first commercial generators on the market will bring certainty and the conversion of LENR from a Pechvogel in a regular science technology with a great future..

The conclusion of the Siegel paper.

"This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re lying, that LENR is impossible or that there’s fraud going on. But it isn’t the job of science to prove that someone is fooling us; it’s the job of a good scientist to prove to the world that we aren’t fooling ourselves when we make an extraordinary claim. As soon as that bar is cleared — and that starts with the people working on this making an extraordinary effort to demonstrate that bar is cleared — we can promote LENR or cold fusion to the realm of real, robust and incredible science. But until that day, we should all remain skeptical."

It says nothing, but it says it well.
I think and hope, somewhere in the near future a dialog with Ethan will be possible-
if he wants to take real responsibility for his statements about LENR.


1) The Energy 2.0 Society/ LENR 101
Date:September 23, 2016
Source:Cornell University
Multiferroics -- materials that exhibit both magnetic and electric order -- are of interest for next-generation computing but difficult to create because the conditions conducive to each of those states are usually mutually exclusive. And in most multiferroics found to date, their respective properties emerge only at extremely low temperatures. Now researchers have combined two non-multiferroic materials, using the best attributes of both to create a new room-temperature multiferroic.
Closing in on high-temperature superconductivity


  1. Peter - Ethan Siegel's conclusion is eminently reasonable. You will not, however, convince him that Rossi's year-long test had valid results. I'm sure he subscribes to the validity of Conservation of Energy, and for Rossi's demonstration to be valid this would need to be broken.

    There is a very high bar set for Ethan to accept LENR as valid, anyway. He obviously does not even accept the Miles experiment with Pd/D that establishes the ratio of heat to Helium. Whereas with most LENR experiments there is room for attack on the calorimetry of the low level of heat produced, the Miles experiment seems bulletproof given the integral control experiments and cross-correlations. AFAIK, there is no such solid proof for Ni/H yet.

    Ethan, therefore, is right to remain sceptical about Ni/H, but ought to accept Pd/D as real and proven. That he doesn't accept this should tell you that he's going to be difficult to convince anyway. The big holes in Rossi's story certainly won't impress him.

    I remain hopeful that Ni/H will be proven at some point. It seems unlikely that Pd/D would be commercially viable even if it could be made to work reliably. Ni/H, if it can be made to work reliably, might well be commercially viable depending on just how much processing the fuel needs and how long it lasts.

    Still, one thing Rossi said that is true is that people won't be convinced it works until there are commercially-available devices.

    1. Dear Simon,

      Actuallyh if you read the editorial you will see that I know Ethan well, understand his mode of thinking and his position.
      All I wanted to communicate im was my opinion bout the paper, about how it was conceived.

      The main idea of my writing, the Pechvogel character of LENR has not got attention.
      I think you know what I think about PdD, if Rossi's technology is not working then NiH is also in the limbo

      But let's see wht we learn about the Brilloouin, Tohoku, and Miley approaches at ICCF20.
      If Rossi has a technology as I believ than trying to kill it is a technological crime.

      By the way I know what you think about 1MW heat at JM, may I ask your opinio as thinkng human being not illiterate in technology, what you think sincerely about the Murray-Rothwell idea of haf full pipes?

    2. Peter - on Vortex, you asked if someone who knew Ethan could send the link to him. I thus wasn't aware you knew Ethan well.

      Yes, I'm aware you think that if Rossi's ideas aren't correct, then Pd/D is a lost cause. I disagree there, since by studying Pd/D we should get ideas of why it happens and thus be able to make it work for cheaper materials.

      The Tohoku report is somewhat thin on details. Specifically it doesn't give more than a rough idea of the quantities of materials and the temperature difference, and no information about the actual heat-flow or the time it persisted for. I'd hope for better data, and also more from Godes and Miley.

      If you're right that Rossi is telling the truth then I agree it would be a crime to try to kill it. Whereas a lot of people have come up with ways that the ~1MW _could_ have been got rid of, all the methods suggested would have been easily visible or sensed without any need for equipment. Leaving an outside door open would work, but then someone outside would have been able to see into the locked room and even enter while no-one was around or was sleeping (this was a 24/7 operation). A big chimney would still produce a heat-plume visible in IR. None of the witness accounts we've seen mentions that anything was out of the ordinary. No fan noise, not too hot, etc. - nothing really to comment upon. Given what we know so far, I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that Rossi didn't expect to need to dissipate ~1MW of real heat and didn't prepare for it either. He thus knew before the test started that the reactor wouldn't work as he claimed.

      As regards the water-flow sensor, the rust stains half-way up the static vanes are a dead giveaway that the water-level was largely at that point. I do not have a schematic of the system so I can't say for what reason the flowmeter wasn't full, but if those stains are there then anyone with any plumbing experience will tell you that it can't have been full for a large part of the time in service. I'd need to see the actual bit of kit to be absolutely certain, but a problem with the alloy manufacture would be unlikely to produce the same type of tide-mark. For reference I worked in Failure Analysis (mainly electronics) for about 6 years. Not plumbing-related, but still uses the same logic.

      The half-full flowmeter is thus a valid hypothesis based on the forensic evidence of the tide-mark seen by Murray. Unless you have a decent (and true) schematic or set of photographs of the actual plumbing used it can't be taken further than that. I'd however bet that the pipe was indeed half-empty if pushed.

      How the bad data was collected is only however of academic interest. There are many ways of getting wrong measurements, including simply writing down what you expect to measure. Here we're being told that 1MW simply disappeared without trace. It's thus obvious that whatever the measurements say, there's something severely wrong with them.

  2. Simon, very well put. Thanks.

    Some may argue that Piantelli has the NiH proof and has published significant data/results at least twice, albeit with small levels of energy but with long periods of operation.

    Doug Marker
    Doug Marker

  3. Simon,

    Also - re the last sentence "people won't be convinced it works until there are commercially-available devices" - the reason for this is that no one (not even Piantelli) has put forward an accepted/acceptable theory that explains the effect no matter what test results they demonstrate. This issue is part of the fuel that feeds the Siegels of the world and may continue to do so.

    Doug Marker

    1. Doug - Thanks. For Piantelli, there could be an unnoticed systematic error in the heat measurement, though personally I think his results are good. Celani's excess heat did seem to be a systematic error, after all. Piantelli's use of cloud-chamber measurements (thus avoiding accusations of errors in electronic measurement kit) should however be the clincher that *something nuclear* happened. You can't fool a cloud-chamber. For some reason the Siegels of this world gloss over this absolute proof of a nuclear change and concentrate on the heat measurements which are easier to attack.

      LFH pointed at an interesting new patent at where there is also a definite nuclear effect with hydrides, though this appears to me to actually be hot fusion at low temperatures. Useful as a neutron source but the signature of LENR is actually the lack of large amounts of nuclear radiation.

      My hunch on the theory is that a synthesis of ideas from Mills, Holmlid and a few others, with a bit of reinterpretation of the orbital shapes/sizes for negative quantum numbers (with the smaller lobed orbitals needing higher energy to make them rather than being below-ground) could give us a single-step from 4 H atoms to an He atom and no nuclear radiation apart from some neutrinos. The nuclear radiation seen would thus be a low-probability branch.

      The main problem I see on both sides is the degree of unreasoning belief. Where the sceptics have a good point we should address it as a valid objection. Where LENR enthusiasts believe a claim that is unsupported we should reject that (for example Rossi's lack of explanation of where the heat went, which is my current bête noir).

      It's pretty obvious that any workable LENR theory will contain something new and surprising, since current theory does not explain it. The current LENR theories, though, seem to predict results that aren't seen. W-L implies that any available nuclei will be neutron-activated and we don't see that. Brillouin's theory predicts intermediate products we don't see in the quantities implied. Maybe they just aren't crazy enough to match reality.