Tuesday, March 7, 2017



Indecision is a virus that can run through an army and destroy its will to win or
even to survive. (Wendell Mayes)

Indecision and delays are the parents of failure. (George Canning)

The risk of a wrong decision is preferable to the terror of indecision. 

Indecision and reveries are the anesthetics of constructive action. (Sylvia Plath)

The optimist lives on the peninsula of infinite possibilities; the pessimist is stranded on the island of perpetual indecision. (William Arthur Ward)

Indecision is the seedling of fear (Napoleon Hill) 

Indecision is the graveyard of good intentions (Unknown)

Indecision is debilitating; it feeds upon itself; it is, one might almost say, habit-forming. Not only that, but it is contagious; it transmits itself to others 
(H. A. Hopf)

Indecision has often given an advantage to the other fellow because he did his thinking beforehand. (Maurice Switzer)


a) First- indecision at European level

See please paper 1): unfortunately the European Parliament  has still not taken a 
decision to support financially Cold Fusion/LENR but nothing is lost a part of the report sounds promising.

b) Internal LENR indecisions

The Rossi vs Darden dispute is a divisive event that could have beeen avoided by the breaking of the contract in early 2015- if the experimental situation was really so  bad as the IH etc part claims now.
Many of the LENR scientists consider they have nothing to do with the dispute
that is, not scientific and has no direct influence on their work and progress. Let's remain undecided, not our job, we are researchers, scientists. Very correct just when looking  he problem in a broader context, some questions appear due to Rossi's work and claims:
- should be our research focused on low temperature (< 100C)  or should we penetrate the  high temperature area? How great is the LENR territory?
- should we accept LENR+- enhanced excess heat as a possibility or should we reject it ab ovo?
- can we remain absolutely certain that without a complete theory we should not try any technological research?
- should we insists that the Scientific Method is the unique key r should we boldly try to extend it, to adapt it to our peculiar case?
- can we learn something from Rossi 0r should we consider him the enemy of the genuine, noble, sientific  LENR?

Our situation, status, perspective is not the best, we need brekthrough and it is not so far the time when we MUST decide.

C) Indecision is many times bad but it is a decision too
Short- lacking data, reliable information, time, and some knowledge for the time given I have not taken any decision, position, opinion re what Bob Greenyer wants to tell us. I need time but I want to declare my empathy for Bob and my wish that he should indeed discover an important tLENR related truth. 

d) Fabio Penon's decision. how has he chosen has chosen the flowmeter

Fabio Penon, the ERV of the 1MW 1year test has chosen the instruments for the Plant and different IH supporters have criticized him, destructively but IMHO, unjustly and unprofessionally. Really surreal discussions - based on the Exhibit 5 had as target- and victim the flowmeter chosen by Penon- however please follow what i say now:

Please compare these two data;
37.57 km/hour and
21.09 km/hour
It is not very difficult to guess what the represent but I will tell you:
These the average speeds attained during
100 m run - 9.58 sec -Usain Bolt-  and
 the marathon (42.195 km) 2.02:57- 7203 sec-  Dennis Kipruto Kimetto 
as show the present athletic world records table.. 

For the long distance run/long range test you can/must /will run slower.

Penon was accused for incompetence because he has chosen a flowmeter seemingly oversized- actually specially calibrated and having high endurance  and reliability for an entire year of heavy work- a technological marathon. It was actually not oversized and it was calibrated on purpose - in the very conditions it had to function. Then sealed, working for a year then verified by re-calibration in the same condition- these documents are at the Court, I bet.
The flowmeter has rotating parts and these must be as resistant to wear as possible. In conditions of good measurement it is an advantage to have a minimum total number of rotations- therefore the size of the Apometer
Penon was guided by techno-logic, good common sense, his industrial experience, technological culture - in this choice.
The instrument behaved well during the loneliness of the long distance runner's experiment.
He is playing in an other higher league as his detractors- many of these are un-professionals


1) The European Parliament about LENR 

"Answer to a written question - Latest findings on CF (cold fusion)"

 Parliamentary questions
27 February 2017
Answer given by Mr Moedas on behalf of the Commission
The Commission is aware of the claimed successes in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).
As mentioned by the Honourable Member, this domain includes a vast array of apparently unrelated phenomena that seem to point to the possibility of nuclear events at relatively low levels of energy, but this is still debated by the scientific community and there is no unanimous agreement on the mechanisms behind the experimental findings.
However, apparently some of these results have been replicated lately, in a few cases by reputed scientists or laboratories.
Such research could in principle be supported by the bottom-up parts of Horizon 2020(1), such as the European Research Council(2) and Future and Emerging Technologies(3), but the mounting body of evidence and the growing investment by companies and governments outside Europe might indeed require an in-depth review and assessment of results to date in view of deciding whether research funding should be granted in this domain. .

(1)The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)

2) From Alain Coetmeur new thread on LENR Forum:
US20170012571A1 patent application of heat to electric generator considering LENR among sources. (Magnetic Miles LLC ​)

3) Torus Design with E-Cat/LENR Home Energy System

4) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

March 7, 2017 at 6:15 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can you give us a listing of the instrumentation you are using to measure the performance of the QuarkX?
Andrea Rossi
March 7, 2017 at 7:52 AM

Thermometers, thermochamber, spectrometer, flowmeter, gamma rays detector, wattmeter, plus the usual parafernalia.
Warm Regards,


Gerard McEk
March 7, 2017 at 7:47 AM

Dear Andrea,
It must come as a relieve that you can spend some time on the QuarkX’s again. Obviously the tests went on while you were occupied by the litigation work, so it didn’t cause too much delay in the development, I hope.
1. Now you can spend some more time on the QuarkX’s, can you perhaps tell us what type of additional tests you are planning to do?
2. Is it related to the theory you are developing simultaneously?
3. One of te most difficult issues with LENR is the lack of radiation, while transmutation and/or apparent fusion seem to take place. Do you think you can explain this in your developing theory?
4. No doubt you are aware of the work of prof. Holmlid at al. He found that irradiating ultra dense hydrogen with a green laser produces al lot of energy, but he has detected also muons. Have you ever tried to detect these as well?
Thank you for answering our questions.
Kind regards, 

Andrea Rossi
March 7, 2017 at 7:54 AM

Gerard McEk:
1- no new kinds of tests, just marching toward Sigma 5, but with more attention to the theoretical bases
2- yes
3- yes
4- I prefer not to comment on this
Warm Regards,

Questions About the SunCell


New materials could turn water into the fuel of the future
A new materials discovery approach puts solar fuels on the fast track to commercial viability
Date:March 6, 2017
Source:California Institute of Technology
Combining computational with experimental approaches, researchers identify 12 new materials with potential use in solar fuels generators.See please also:


Researcher Identify a New Cognitive Bias


  1. Regarding: Gerard McEk

    "4 - No doubt you are aware of the work of prof. Holmlid at al. He found that irradiating ultra dense hydrogen with a green laser produces a lot of energy, but he has detected also muons. Have you ever tried to detect these as well?"

    Rossi: "4- I prefer not to comment on this"

    When muons are detected from Rossi's reactor, that will be the end of unregulated sale of LENR reactors. Rossi will never attempt to detect muons because that will kill Rossi's plan for massive production which will destroy the competition.

    The production of muons in LENR systems will preclude the aspirational goals of overunity energy production, such as simple, uncomplicated, direct, home based, unregulated and widespread common useage.

    Sadly, both Rossi and IH will be heartsick when they realize that they will need to dance to the tune of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the electric utility industry, all their best efforts, hard work, astroturfing, legal wranglings, and monumental investments will have come to naught.

    1. Dear Axil,

      Best instrumentation for muon detection (fast simple) and measurement 9 sensitive, reliable.
      What do you recommend?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. I just gave this design for a top of the line unit to MFMP.


      Assembly Manual for
      the Berkeley Lab
      Cosmic Ray Detector

  2. "can we remain absolutely certain that without a complete theory we should not try any technological research?".

    With respect, that's a loaded question fishing for a desired answer. An equally loaded question would be, "Is there any purpose in racing ahead with technological research without first attempting to understand the science?".

    Even an incomplete theory would be more than helpful. What is missing are fundamental experimental data, the questions as to what are the fuels, what are the products, where do the reactions occur, what is so special about nickel or palladium, why is external energy required? Even without these data, theorists have proposed their models, but almost all of them fall over at the first hurdle: the absence of penetrating radiation. The usual explanations are quite unscientific. Ad hoc assumptions are made, new but unspecified physics is invoked, accepted experimental and theoretical facts are ignored without justification.

    Technological research into LENR, without understanding of the underlying processes, has not produced hoped for results. The technology is still unreliable at best. And no government is going to authorize the use of any unknown nuclear technology for commercial use. So my view is that technological research, and in particular the unscientific obsession with excess heat, is a waste of valuable resources.

    Of course to every hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And the same is true of engineers who want to develop a potential technology. Such people need to understand that a complicated problem needs a multi-disciplinary team. Even theorists are required!