Monday, December 12, 2016



Image result for censorious quotationsImage result for censorious quotations


harshly critical; fault-finding
cenˈsoriously adv
cenˈsoriousness n


I have written a lot about the priority  and preponderance of the negative in problem solving and research - REMOVE OBSTACLES FIRST!. However in life and in interactions with other people I usually have a positivity first approach; I try to find what is the best in somebody , I am trying to find seeds of truth in ideas that seem false and/or harmful and I am peaceful in disputes - but only till some limits of justice, decency, reason are respected.

I can be even somewhat positive toward those whose job is to be highly negative toward values or people who do not deserve that negativity.

Both in Romanian and in Hungarian language there is a proverb about "to find a knot in a rush"  See:
- it has NO knots!
If you like comparative linguistics, you will enjoy to discover the English equivalents of:
A căuta nod în papură   and
Keressünk csomót a kákán!

Anyway it is about finding something negative even where it is not- and this can be done by biased, tendentious interpretation or by inventing/lying.

I have received  the following comment from Pweet and I think it is an opportunity 
to show my benevolence and fractional empathy for those  who have a job of targeted censoriousness

I have discussed about things that are obstacles for the progress of LENR and weeet adds Bad Science described as:

Some glaringly bad basic science being used against all convention to produce supposedly amazing results. 

Excellent idea- just such dreadful science had to be presented with many examples, in direct opposition to bright examples of good science that contributes to the progress of LENR as 1)... 2)... and so on using a taxonomy worked out by Pweet as say, the 10 best theories of LENR, 5 breakthrough experiment in LENR. To define good Science here is a must..

However Pweet is happy to discover "the perfect example of exactly what I refer to" on "the Rossi-blog"

And what is this criminal scientific error made by the all-evil Andrea Rossi?
Patrick Ellul ask Rossi about using a control dummy for the Quarkx however i is obvious that an inactive device cannot yield  ore energy than it receives. Does Pweet know more than us about the structure and functionality of the Quark X and so can he tell what this dummy can be?

To Pweet's horror,  Andrea Rossi gives the following perfectly logical answer:

Of course it is useless.
The COP is what counts.

Being programmed to find errors in everything Rossi does Pweet insists that the dummy is necessary to "
check the validity of the results by way a doing a control run on an un-fueled or known inert reactor"
Not being a researcher(professional or not) Pweet ignores that Rossi already had hundreds of opportunities to compare active and inactive  QuarkX's, he probably forgot that the setup that produced blue light was made of 3 individual ini-generators
so a dummy is indeed useless.

Here we go a bit beyond censoriousness, I could state that Pweet and his ilk do not
understand COP, technology and that 'size matters' And that time matters too, 27 years was too much and it was a necessary step to pass from LWNE cassic to LENR+.  COP is essential, it shows when the research has progressed in the necessary stage of multiplicative heat excess. The desired COP is infinite- generators working in the self-sustaining mode. 

Pweet end's with:

It's equally amazing that some people keep referring to lenr+ as though it was a proven truth, when in fact it is so far from it. The main support for lenr+ are the claimed results of Mr Rossi. 
Can you imaging where science and engineering would be if scientific theories were accepted as proven fact on the same basis as Mr Rossi uses. ? 

Programmed negativism goes over in programmed negationism. The last sentence 

ignores the distinction - difference between scientific research and technical inventig activity. Can Pweet reveal his favorite, exemplary scientific theory for LENR?


1)From Alan Smith
NEW $1BN Cleantech Fund

2) Thermonuclear fusion of light nuclei by impulse cavitation by V.F. Iudaev
Термоядерный синтез легких ядер в области импульсной кавитации Юдаев В.Ф

4) Doktor Bob's New Portal - updated:

5) Hope for an E-Cat/QuarkX Presentation


The big challenge in science is to find out what is fundamental and what is emergent. It's the chicken and the egg problem. The theories of LENR are filled with this chicken and the egg problem.

As an example, let's look at the "Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR"

The Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR is a theory that requires exceptional behavior on the part of the weak force. Normally, heavy electrons, that is, electrons that have a kinetic energy over the threshold that makes amalgamation of the electron and proton together to form a neutron in a beta decay requires the formation of a weak force mediation particle, the W or Z boson.

W bosons, and Z bosons, excitations of the electroweak gauge fields are required to produce the Widom-Larsen effect.

Weak Force boson Mass
W: 80.385±0.015 GeV/c2
Z: 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2

the weak force bosons are very short-lived, with a half-life of about 3×10e−25 sec. 

That weak force mediation effect requires a huge amount of energy to be formed, close to a giga electron volts of the proton mass out of the vacuum.

IF the Widom-Larsen effect is occurring, it is because the is an exceptional condition in place where the weak force is greatly amplified. The Widom-Larsen effect can be considered a emergent weak force process that is being produced by a special environment in which the weak force is operating. To the best of my understanding, the description of the special environment that the weak force is operating under is not described by the WL effect. The WL effect is describing what may be happening by not why it is happening. 

Furthermore, the production of low energy neutrons may not be the only thing that the modified weak force is causing. The decay of the proton may be also occurring as witnessed in the Holmlid experiments. Another effect of weak force amplification may be rapid decay of radioactive isotopes that leave only stable isotopes on the ash after the LENR reaction occurs.

The chicken and egg structure produces a treelike pattern of causation where one cause results in many emergent results. For example based on the same cause, LENR can occur in a plasma, a transition metal lattice, or a microbe. 

The next post is an attempt to climb down the causation tree and find as a next step, to find the tap root of what might amplify the weak force.


Hydrogen from sunlight -- but as a dark reaction
Generation, storage, and time-delayed release of electrons in graphitic carbon nitride material for artificial photosynthesis

Hydrogen from sunlight -- but as a dark reaction

Date:December 9, 2016

The storage of photogenerated electric energy and its release on demand are still among the main obstacles in artificial photosynthesis. One of the most promising, recently identified photocatalytic new materials is inexpensive graphitic carbon nitride. Scientists have now explored a modified form that can produce light-generated electrons and store them for catalytic hydrogen production even after the light has been switched off.


Create Your Invisible Advantage through a Culture of Innovation


  1. Peter
    I posted Pweet comment on ECW and had these replies.

    If the COP is high enough say 20 then a dummy is extraneous and a complete waste of time and material. If is is less than 2 or 3 then sure I could see the need for a dummy. Let me phrase this another way do expect them to produce a dummy version of ITER and fill it full of helium to show the contrast of fueled vs dummy if not then why?
    1 • Reply•Share ›

    Stephen sam • 4 hours ago
    I agree unless it's something really obvious like a light bulb. You don't really need bulb with out a filament in it next to it to see if it works.

    With experiments making marginal COP I think dummy's are really essential to be really sure we are seeing something. but if the out put Energy is orders of magnitude larger than the input do we really need a dummy device to see it?

    Maybe to quantify the COP accurately it is useful to have a dummy but maybe accurately calibrated measuring equipment might be sufficient for his need.

    In a public Demo though it could be interesting to demonstrate the COP in some visible way perhaps powering a football stadiums lights compared to a single bulb?

    Or did I miss some point?


    1. thanks, dear Sam..excellent comments.

  2. If the result of an experiment is amazingly good, then it's always a good idea to use a control in order to double-check the measurement methods which all have assumptions built-in. This saved me from getting a (public) red face when I'd determined the efficiency of a spark-generating system as 7% by use of a calorimeter, then saw what I thought was around 7 times the power out when using it on Titanium in Hydrogen. The use of a control system there showed that the efficiency of the spark-generator was in fact a variable.

    Much the same problem exists with pyrometric measurement of heat output (which can be upset by spectral emissivity) and most digital measurement devices which can be foiled by EMI and noise in the system.

    Such errors can often be found by the use of control experiments and by sanity-checks using the dumbest equipment available.

    Hands up anyone who hasn't ever had a wrong measurement from digital kit....

    1. dear Smon

      let's wait about more info about the Quark X some research project comprise multiple verifications.


  3. Brilliant Light Power's October 26, 2016 Industry Day Part… —

    Brilliant Light Power's October 26, 2016 Industry Day Part… —

    Brilliant Light Power's October 26, 2016 Industry Day Part… —

    Brilliant Light Power's October 26, 2016 Industry Day Part… —

    Brilliant Light Power's October 26, 2016 Industry Day Part… —

    Brilliant Light Power's October 26, 2016 Industry Day 7 of 7 —

  4. "The big challenge in science is to find out what is fundamental and what is emergent. It's the chicken and the egg problem."

    And the big problem in science today is the trend to put theory as superior to experiment. Experiment is the chicken, always, and theory is the egg. The egg may give rise to a superior chicken, but then again, it may never hatch.

  5. There may be many questions which you should ask your self. First is - must you begin using dietary supplements for your muscle building weight-reduction plan? next can be - need to you mess with the hormone tiers in your body?