Friday, December 16, 2016



Image result for mystery quotationsImage result for mystery quotations


Toward a list of LENR Mysteries, and in very far perspective - their Solutions

A few introductory notes, remarks even warnings re this list:

- this is just a sketch, cannot be complete or definitive;
- in this formulation it is interrogative not declarative- about QUESTIONS NOT ANSWERS
- I am fully aware that things are sometimes very different from what they seem, so that the  list will show perhaps hyperbolically the volatility/vulnerability, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguities in our field but this will be settled in the future- in proofs we trust! 
- it is intentionally pessimized or if you wish, optimized for maximum frustration and      amazement;
- it is already censored, the WTF? was mercilessly removed before many sentences,
- the diversity of the list is overwhelming- as importance, effect, place, severity, chronology, ideology  etc. so despite "Taxonomy -mon amour!" I cannot  make an unitary, elegant classification- at least not now;
- the miracles are numbered but this is only for reference


1. Why is so much hostility, in fight, segmentation, contradiction, dispute in the LENR field?

2. Why is the progress in the field so slow, incremental, based on diversification,

3. Why re the technological applications of LENR so far in the future and why are those which are claimed to exist- denied with hostility?

4. What is the general definition, identity, nature of LENR? What is in, what is out, what is related?

5. Is the Scientific Method- Galileo's 4 Rules- able to solve alone without the help of technology all the problems of understanding and developing LENR?

6. Does it exist absolute certainty that in PdD electrochemical cells excess heat was obtained, the reactions is D+D = He? Will this reaction (process be perfectly reproducible and even upscalable?

7. Will be ever demonstrated and accepted my idea that PdD is an underdeveloped, incomplete for of LENR and will not be used for applications because it is missing the actionable parameters?

8. From the great and diverse offer- which LEN theories can be considered as correct and which are ab ovo defective, erroneous?
8 a. W-L theory to be dismissed?

9. Where in the Nature appear forms of LENR and how are they related to
our experimental forms of LENR?
9a. Special interest biological transmutations

10. How can be judged the rare, extremal phenomena- as melting downs
explosions, unstoppable heating etc. possibly related to lENR or forms of it? (note: David Fojt seems to be specialized in these)

11. Why and how exactly has Francesco Piantelli and NICHENERGY not
succeeded to create a LENR technology and not published a seminal theory paper about their NiH process?

12. What are the similarities and distinguishing differences between the
Piantelli and the Rossi NiH processes?

13. Does LENR+ exist- i.e. has Rossi indeed achieved multiplicative not additive heat excess; will he win the Trial with Darden et al?

14. What is, what signifies and how does work the QuarkX of Andrea Rossi?

15. How snd why exactly has failed the Defkalion Technology?

16. What is the motivation and abilities of the Swedish professors and Giuseppe Levi, are they unable or unwilling to make a working device a la Lugano?

17. What should we think about the chances of success of the Russian, Japanese, Chinese, italian, India's almost national LENR research strategies- near future included?

18. Is AIRBUS taking LENR seriously indeed, their efforts seem to be half-assed: will JF Geneste get strong internal support?

19. Is ETIAM in Finland worth of attention?

20. Is the Brillouin technology inherently limited in performances?

21. Will Parkhomov, MFMP or other Rossi-Lugano replicator make a breakthrough- achieve self-sustaining regime, multiplicative excess heat?

22. Will any research team funded by Industrial Heat make a significant breakthrough?

23. Is the Rossi process based on nuclear reactions or it involves too nuclear interactions, collective phenomena, nuclear reorganization?

24. Has Randy Mills done it really? (not LENR anyway)
24a. When will he distribute hydrino compounds to the many analytical labs?

to be continued and processed!


1) Rossi, Focardi e la FUSIONE FREDDA

2) Seminar on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: L.E.N.R.

3) From Rossi's JONP
December 15, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Dear Andrea;

When you do your demonstration for invited guests will you do anything spectacular for them, such as run the QuarkX in SSM without any power input?

Andrea Rossi
December 15, 2016 at 11:24 PM

I think it will be interesting enough.
Warm Regards,

4) From Steve Krivit
The $21 Billion ITER Lie

5) From the SEPLM.LENR.RU site
Saturday, 17.12.2016 at the moscow State Univ.  at 12.00 will take place a 
conference entitled: "Fenomenological model of the fundamental structures of matter" - dedicated to the 80-th birthday of Y. V. Bugaev 93 presentqations on the theme)

6) Discussions of the Rossi Answer


  1. 25. Have a good Christmas Peter.
    and a good LENR New Year.


  2. The theory of fundamental force modification is making progress

    Verlinde’s new theory of gravity passes first test

    Bye Bye dark matter

    Verlinde's theory seeks to replace Einstein's theory of gravity with a theory that large scale and all pervasive entanglement in space time increases the strength of gravity by many times.

    This insight into the way fundamental forces behave is important for the theory of LENR because at one time when the Cosmos was just beginning, gravity, the nuclear strong force, and the electroweak force were combined into a single fundamental force. At that initial time, the entire universe was entangled as a single coherent entity.

    Over time as the universe cooled, the unified fundamental force separated into four separate forces that we know today. By understanding the way gravity is now behaving informs us about how the other forces are behaving. As the twig is bent so shall the tree grow. All the four separate forces still behave as they once did when they first were created. Quantum Entanglement is still having a profound and formative effect on the other forces as they once did when the Cosmos first began during grand unification.

    Superconductivity and quantum entanglement through coherence is still strengthening the weak force just as it once did when it was combined in the nascent universe with gravity in grand unification.

    In this way at looking at things, LENR is an emergent behavior of high temperature superconductivity. LENR is the child of coherent entanglement.

    This insight is not new. J. Schwinger understood this behavior from the very beginning of LENR theory.

    J. Schwinger understood the role of coherence as recorded in the "Nuclear Energy in an Atomic Lattice", in The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990.

    ​“This representation of the overall probability, per unit time, as the product of two independent factors, may be true enough under the circumstances of hot fusion. But in very low energy cold fusion one deals essentially with a single state, or wave function, all parts of which are coherent. It is not possible to totally isolate the effect of the electric forces from that of the nuclear forces.”

    Schwinger recognized that the electric and nuclear force were unified in action when the coherent LENR condition is in process.

  3. "Why is the progress in the field so slow, incremental, based on diversification."

    LENR is connected hammer and tongs with high temperature superconductivity and after more than a century since 1911 when superconductivity was first discovered, science has yet to correctly understand how superconductivity works.

    A theory put forth by Dr. Giuliano Preparata

    has be largely ignored by the cold fusion community because it is generally considered impossible for coherence to exist at or above room temperature. That is the hangup.

    Coherence allows superradiance to come to the fore as a way to amplify the power potential of the LENR process. This process is not understood or appreciated.

    When superconductivity is shown to apply to systems of ANY temperature, then the true cause of LENR will be appreciated.

    One method that LENR experiments can undertake to speed this theory along is to use highly enriched lithium 7 in their experiments. Lithium 7 is a boson that is compatible with coherence. Lithium 6 is a coherence poison or at least a moderator of the LENR reaction. The proper enrichment level of lithium 7 will produce the coherence needed to produce a controlled LENR reaction.

  4. 4. What is the general definition, identity, nature of LENR? What is in, what is out, what is related?

    The LENR reaction is based on a amplified weak force. LENR is a nuclear decay process. The weak force is responsible for nuclear decay in all its manifestations which include beta decay as occurs in the W&L reaction, free neutron decay, and nucleon decay.

    All this accelerated and amplified decay produces a boatload of mesons which in turn generates both fusion and fission secondary reactions.

    The smoking gun in the LENR theory is the lack of radioactive isotopes associated with the LENR reaction. The only way that such a miracle can occur is if the weak force in LENR is strong in the extreme.

    When some other right thinking LENR experimentalist like Holmlid takes the amplified weak force hypothesis seriously, and confirms massive meson production in LENR then the Road to a proper LENR theory will be make smooth and stright.

  5. 5. Is the Scientific Method- Galileo's 4 Rules- able to solve alone without the help of technology all the problems of understanding and developing LENR?

    LENR experiments must look for the production of mesons, pions and muons. Without the proper tools and detection methods that enables this sort of sub atomic particle science then the real cause of LENR will not be apparent in LENR experimentation. Looking for excess heat in the LENR reaction is not up to do the correct type of science that the cause of LENR requires.

  6. 8. From the great and diverse offer- which LEN theories can be considered as correct and which are ab ovo defective, erroneous?
    8 a. W-L theory to be dismissed?

    There are a hundred different ways in which coherence can form in LENR. One way is in nanocavities in a metal lattice where hydrogen condenses into a ultra dense state. This has been seen in what Ed Storms have identified as LENR in nano cracks. This coherence has been seen in palladium when loading is at its greatest extent as explained in this reference:

    Magnetic and Transport Properties of PdH: Intriguing Superconductive Observations

    Another is in plasma based LENR where balls of plasma form coherent ball lightning on the nanoscale.

    The W&L neutron reaction will not occur in normal situations when the weak force is at its nominal strength level, but when the weak force is amplified through coherence, low energy neutrons might well form as one of many anomalous subatomic particle LENR based reactions catalyzed through coherence.

    The W&L neutron reaction may cause the LENR reaction but it may be only one of many related causes of the LENR reaction all based on coherence.

  7. 9. Where in the Nature appear forms of LENR and how are they related to
    our experimental forms of LENR?
    9a. Special interest biological transmutations

    Quantum coherence is a well known and accepted process that enables special reactions biological systems.

    Here again, the LENR reaction is a result of quantum coherence in biological systems through the amplification of the weak force.

  8. 14. What is, what signifies and how does work the QuarkX of Andrea Rossi?

    Fabiani, Rossi's electrical engineer has reported this observation of a Rossi reactor meltdown:

    "We have photographs of creatures that emit pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive."

    This reaction is a direct consequence of coherence.

    These plasmoids of light are similar to ball lightning. The Rossi's EMF stimulus system creates and distroys these balls of light. They are not derived by nanoplasmonic processes that are understood by science. They spring from EMF processes emanating from nanoparticles. The name science gives them are Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) but what are they?

    I explain how the nanoplasmonic waveform : Whispering Gallery Waves" upshift infrared photons into the XUV and x-ray range.

    There is an interference mechanism called Fano resonance that enables the photons to upshift.

    For more info on this process, see:


    1. Fano Resonance

      Thanks Axil for one of my many new physics subjects studies for the month.


      "Fano resonance engineering in slanted cavities with hyperbolic metamaterials"

      Fabio Vaianella and Bjorn Maes
      Phys. Rev. B 94, 125442 – Published 28 September 2016

    2. Fano Resonance is important in LENR because it is the way that polaritons thermalize themselves to the same state inside a cavity. Reaching a common phase space produces coherence inside the cavity where all the wave frequencies of the polaritons become equal. Reaching that common state of thermalization is what produces bose condinsation in the polaritons.

  9. 21. Will Parkhomov, MFMP or other Rossi-Lugano replicator make a breakthrough- achieve self-sustaining regime, multiplicative excess heat?

    Yes, if these experimenters use enriched Lithium 7 over natural occurrence in their fuel mix.

  10. The actual purpose that muscle loss happens is thru inadequate nutrition. in case you were to definitely starve your self, protein loss would be extreme as your frame scavenged for glucose with which to keep your mind functioning.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. A thought just struck me, haven't taken the time to research if it's original or not. Yet I imagine it is for me so I awarded myself a prize!

    The Age of Enlightenment wasn't so much about how much we discovered or came to understand. More importantly, it was a time when many many more mysteries were presented for us to ponder.

    A LENR mystery to offer up for this pondering list…

    LENR with Zeolites - Iraj Parchamazad, Melvin Miles, George Miley


    LENR Golden Ball Reactors of Dennis Cravens

    Each are very different… Neither requires much (or any) energy to initiate… both are self sustaining...

    Beyond their differences, both have many obvious commonalities.

    What is the common driving force of the systems? What are the energetics which lie beneath their common success.

    What mystery can we formulate, which hasn't been put to words, that is common to each of these LENR phenomena. What makes them both tick?

    Let's call it the Golden Sphere/Zeolite LENR Mystery

    Take a moment to consider this sister LENR mystery for the list.

    Each element has a different frequency, its atom vibrates at a unique atomic geometric structure.

    Nanoparticles are a form of matter where these atoms become superfluid… Both their geometrical structures and their frequencies. No longer atoms locked in a crystalline lattice… now in a superfluidic lattice.

    To top it off, sub-atomic particles also have magnetic fields and spin, while forming these atomic structures.

    Note: All this and more comprises a butterflies flight.

    Energy in the form of light, radio waves, microwaves, acoustic, and more have been used as triggering methods for LENR. Single band to little success, yet using two frequencies, creating a possible harmonic, utilizing multiple bandwidths shows more.

    Mystery of Fractal LENR

    Fractal LENR being where a fractal group of minute energy (and correspondently larger) energetics interact with a specific geometric fractal matter interplay.

    Is there fractal geometry in matter?

    Is there fractal geometry in energy?

    How do they interplay in harmonics, standing waves, focussing… dampening.

    Control… in LENR?

    A sub-mystery is, how would the subatomic particles react to a "tuning" of such a system?

    1. We often speak of LENR, Science and Theory.

      Let's remember… or better said…


      Formulate and bring to the fore…

      The Science of Mystery and Hypothesis

      The precursor of Experimentation/Observation and Theory.

      Off topic...

      Life On Titan
      Mystery and Hypothesis

      It has been suggested that life could exist in the lakes of liquid methane on Titan, just as organisms on Earth live in water. Such organism would inhale H2 in place of O2, metabolize it with acetylene instead of glucose, and exhale methane instead of carbon dioxide.

      Although all living things on Earth (including methanogens) use liquid water as a solvent, it is speculated that life on Titan might instead use a liquid hydrocarbon, such as methane or ethane. Water is a stronger solvent than methane.

      However, water is also more chemically reactive, and can break down large organic molecules through hydrolysis. A life-form whose solvent was a hydrocarbon would not face the risk of its biomolecules being destroyed in this way.

      In 2005, astrobiologist Chris McKay argued that if methanogenic life did exist on the surface of Titan, it would likely have a measurable effect on the mixing ratio in the Titan troposphere: levels of hydrogen and acetylene would be measurably lower than otherwise expected.

      In 2010, Darrell Strobel, from Johns Hopkins University, identified a greater abundance of molecular hydrogen in the upper atmospheric layers of Titan compared to the lower layers, arguing for a downward flow at a rate of roughly 1025 molecules per second and disappearance of hydrogen near Titan's surface; as Strobel noted, his findings were in line with the effects McKay had predicted if methanogenic life-forms were present.

      The same year, another study showed low levels of acetylene on Titan's surface, which were interpreted by McKay as consistent with the hypothesis of organisms consuming hydrocarbons.

      Although restating the biological hypothesis, he cautioned that other explanations for the hydrogen and acetylene findings are more likely: the possibilities of yet unidentified physical or chemical processes (e.g. a surface catalyst accepting hydrocarbons or hydrogen), or flaws in the current models of material flow.

      Composition data and transport models need to be substantiated, etc. Even so, despite saying that a non-biological catalytic explanation would be less startling than a biological one, McKay noted that the discovery of a catalyst effective at 95 K (−180 °C) would still be significant.

      As NASA notes in its news article on the June 2010 findings: "To date, methane-based life forms are only hypothetical. Scientists have not yet detected this form of life anywhere."

      As the NASA statement also says: "some scientists believe these chemical signatures bolster the argument for a primitive, exotic form of life or precursor to life on Titan's surface."

      In February 2015, a hypothetical cell membrane capable of functioning in liquid methane in Titan conditions was modeled. Composed of small molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, it would have the same stability and flexibility as cell membranes on Earth, which are composed of phospholipids, compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus. This hypothetical cell membrane was termed an "azotosome", a portmanteau from "azote", French for nitrogen, and "liposome".

  13. Peter, thank you for bringing up this list. It gives cause for much additions/discussions.
    Some additions I would suggest: Maybe one additional point listing all the technical questions still exists about LENR like the passing the Coulomb barrier, lack of radiation etc. Axil has mentioned a few also.
    Ad 9: b. Sono-nuclear reactions in water. C. When rocks are pulverized transmutations occur (Italian study)

  14. 24 I think Mills has become the front runner
    for a new energy break through.
    But Rossi, Godes and others are still in the race.

  15. Comment from axil on Lenr forum.

    User Avatar
    Verified User
    A change of opinion
    Nov 6th 2016+2

    I am now an ardent admirer of Mills who has solved most of the issues inherent in high power density LENR reactor design. I love high power density in a reactor.

    Mills can get top of the line power density out of just hydrogen fuel without melting down the reactor, something that Rossi has been trying to do for years now. Have you noticed, all hydrogen only based LENR reactors will get out of control and melt down unless they are liquid already.

    The liquid electrode idea is great and its implementation is even better. A miracle upon miracles is the self-driven plasma reaction that can last for minutes without input stimulation. No one would have ever imagined that this astounding feat was even possible.

    And the most satisfying trait of all, Mills is completely open and will explain how his tech works.

    Rossi on the other hand has sacrificed power density for 5 sigma. When he reduced his reactor unit to 20 watts, Rossi cut his power density again by a factor of 1000 to keep his reactor from early destruction. Low reactor power density paves the road to system commercial failure.

    Mills can improve power density even more by adding CAT/MOUSE based multi electrode operation. Instead of just one liquid electrode pair, Mills can setup an array of 100 pairs that work in parallel with each electrode producing a plasma ball the size of a teacup with only one of those electrodes receiving power. Mills can add magnetic protection to his structure to produce a hot fusion/LENR hybrid design with huge power density...a 100 megawatt reactor in a breadbox.

    The limitation of the size of this reactor type is the amount of light conversion surface that is required to convert light to electric current.

    A technology beyond photovoltaics can be developed and is currently in development that converts photon energy directly into electron flow by downshifting the EUV to longer wavelength EMF and generating current from that converted EMF. See nanoantenna…f/2015/01/epjam150012.pdf
    Post was edited 1 time, last by “axil” (Nov 6th 2016).

    Dear AXIL please take a look and help with the best formulation of the Miracles.
    What is still missing, what is not in place?

  17. In this video reference, at about 19:00, there is mention of the first order correction of the phase space related to rapid change of states and resulting eigenvalue crossing. This is called Berry Phase. This first order state is an electromagnetic force which turns out to be a magnetic force described as a dirac monopole.

    It has been shown experimentally that the Surface Plasmon Polariton(SPP) produces a magnetic monopole field. This may indicate that the SPP is a LENR capable bose condinsate that projects it entangled property using this monopole Berry phase field.


    Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

    In general, any Bose Condensate that is changing with eigenvalues overlap being in a state of nonequilibrium will produce a Berry phase direct monopole field.

    Based on symmetry, from what has been seen in LENR experiments like the golden ball demo by Cravens, a anisotropic magnetic field produced by a rare earth magnet can produce a state of bose condinsation and a LENR effect.

  18. 24. Has Randy Mills done it really? (not LENR anyway)

    Yes. Given what his theory is capable of, and despite the difficulty many have accepting that QM is wrong (as a description of reality), Mills GUTCP's predictive ability and simple formulas that give the right answers using only integer values and fundamental constants indicates the underlying physics are correct. The hydrino is almost certainly a reality, is the identity of dark matter, the power source of the Sun's corona and is also likely the principle cause of excess heat in LENR experiments.

    The failure of the LENR community to account for hydrino based heat in their experiments is also a cause for confusion and infighting in the LENR community. How can the truth about LENR ever be properly ascertained if what may be a primary source of heat is not accounted for?

    Mills latest silver boiler mode- which generates intense heat from hydrinos for extended periods in the absence of input energy (excluding the electrolysis that provides the hydrogen) is clear evidence that he is on the right track.

    Note that Mills theory does permit hydrinos to result in fusion for D and T, but his calculations indicate that reaction rates even for small hydrinos are low- lower even than muon assisted fusion which itself is not viable. Mills could be wrong about that- but he does not appear wrong about hydrinos and the massive source of non-nuclear heat he is generating.

    To progress, the LENR community should read GUTCP, should account for the existence and energy release from hydrinos AND only then determine if LENR is occurring.

    24a. When will he distribute hydrino compounds to the many analytical labs?

    Such labs can do the same experiments as detailed by Mills, using getters to trap formed hydrinos and applying one of several analytical tests published by Mills that indicate the electron is more tightly bound to the proton.

  19. 21.