Sunday, February 17, 2013



Research without a strategy is a tragedy. 

1. LENR is in essence technology, a practical energy source.

a) LENR will not be built only on scientific principles; it will be deeply understood and applied commercially almost simultaneously;

b) The approach to useful LENR will necessarily be hybrid, scientific and technological, both theoretical and empirical, active and based on R&D plans;

c) The accomplishment of this new energy source is based on science but also on highest level engineering;

d) LENR is a broad and profound inter- and trans-disciplinary issue and it is much too complex to be let only to physicists, its research and development needs, beyond nuclearists, also material scientists, engineers, specialists in complexity theory and in advanced process control, technology developers, etc.;

e) LENR is based on a cooperative combination of new material aspects- kind of intricate materials science conspiracy to make it work; only one stage is nuclear the others are not;

2. LENR is much more complex, dynamic and diversified as usually accepted now.

a) Complexity, dynamicity and diversity of LENR have to be understood and used rationally and technologically;

b) We have to use the plural not the singular to investigate, describe, study and use the multiplicity of the phenomena and variants of LENR that exist as raw material for research and development;

c) The different variants of LENR have some tricks of materials science and some nuclear reactions in common but some of them are better than others for being converted in working energy sources;

d) LENR, in all its forms is a multi-stage, multi-barrier non-linear process and needs more specific theories to be understood to be made functional and controllable and to be applied;

e) In LENR, Occam’s razor has to be applied to itself i.e. in most cases not at all; its complexity defies our simple logic;

f)  LENR has roots in the Nature but its useful forms are super-smart artifacts;

3. LENR is now in a deep creative crisis and in a “grow or die” (scale-up or perish) situation

a) The highest priorities for LENR are: Technology first!, Transformation first! (basic, radical changes) and Topology first! -all these contributing to scale-up that is the reason of being of LENR;

b) LENR can survive and develop technologically only as LENR+ gas phase, high temperature, high energy density variant with a powerful in-situ mechanism of generation of the nuclear active sites (NAE) only LENR+ can be scaled up;

c) The development of the LENR technologies has to go stairwise not simply stepwise;

d) The weak, unreliable and short-lived variants of LENR as the wet Pd-D systems or the preformed static nanostructures based system will be restricted to scientific studies, mainly descriptive ones;

e) The LENR community has to accept that there are some not well known entities as condensates, clusters and effects
nano-magnetic, nano-photonic etc. mainly on the walls of the NAE that play decisive roles in this process.

4. LENR has a huge potential as new energy source.

a) LENR optimism is fully justified and I am convinced that at the middle of this century LENR will furnish more than half of the energy used by the Mankind.

a) The conversion to LENR will be a harmonious evolutionary process not disruptive;

b) The unstoppable technological progress needs an entirely new thinking about LENR, a new paradigm, elimination of many specific myths and negative memes;

c) The LENR community has to accept that it must focus on the technologizable forms; if not, then “we are barking not at the bad tree but at a dwarf useless bush”;

d) In LENR research, 80% of the efforts have to be used for intensification of heat release and 20% for measurements not vice-versa as it happened up to today;

e) There are no reasons to think that nickel is the optimum, ideal  transition metal for LENR+, many other metals, mixtures and alloys plus enhancement additives and methods will be tested in the coming years and technologies will flourish;

f) Up to the first pioneer commercial LENR based energy generator there are no real chances to improve the reputation, public image, press’ attitude toward LENR/Cold Fusion, it is waste of time to fight with the skeptics;

g) Lack of new ideas is the root problem of the field even with
unexpected funding


A, These ideas have resulted from the accumulated discontent with the ways on which LENR was going and is stagnating even now due to its extreme difficulty. Desperate problems need radical strategies.

B. I was inspired by the recent publications re. LENR theory by Ed Storms, and the MIT Cold Fusion 101 course by Peter Hagelstein and   Mitchell Swartz see e.g.: or
as well as by the serious and vivid discussions re LENR basics at the CMNS and Vortex Forums. My gratitude goes to the colleagues Abd, Andrew, Axil, Brian, Ed, Ludwik, Mitch, who have, perhaps unwillingly suggested to me that time is ripe to cut the LENR Gordian Knot(s) - or at least to try.

C. I believe all these strategic ideas were mentioned in my blog writings before, especially in connection to Defkalion and the Piantelli theory and patents; now you can see them bare-bones
and combined.
I am now wWaiting for the inquisitors.



  1. Sorry peter, you have been denounced on lenr-forum for a great article.

    nothing personal... ;-)

    PS: on linked-in too...

    your article raise, by shadow image, the concern of many problem todays :
    - we try to solve theory first
    - difficulties to cross specialties
    - engineering and technology is not enough respected compared to science
    - new science is based on engineering complexity, not finding new laws. QM won't change at it's core, just usual approximation and numerical practices.
    - the dynamic of change is not linear nor rational. good things can crash if missing their time-window.

    1. Sear Alain,

      Thank you, independently from this article, it is my pleasure to see the great progress of the
      and I have just decide to try to be more active there.
      Excuse me, I don't get the sense of "shadow image" here.

      Re the problems:
      -it is true we indeed try to solve theory first just we cannot do this, we cannot use well the scientific method due to the quality of the results and LENR needs not 1 theory but more;
      I respect engineering and technology and science too, they have their place and roles in this story too;
      complexity is reality we ahve to listen carefully to wht DGT says and to what Rossi don't say;
      realistic modelling is, simplistic modelling is not efficient
      A chorus of 24 years sings: "CHANGE!"

    2. "shadow image" is an awkward translation... about negative image...

      the idea is that your article give image of the solution, but indirectly of the problem of current time.

    3. Thank you, I understand and I think we have to focus on the solution, the problem takes care of itself.

    4. Peter

      Once again thank you for your persistence in getting the core messages through to us. This comes across to me as a very useful writing.

      The points about Pd+D and those experiemnts chasing use of static nanostructures resonate well with the view I now have. They are in essence only useful for research purposes & even then some people may well argue justifiably that such funding is misplaced.

      Just on a side note, when I 1st heard about the serious issues Boeing were having with Lithium Ion batteries, and the nature of the problems that have kept occurring, I immediately wondered if the runaway heat was in anyway a LENR process ?. I decided not to air these views as I really know so little about both fields so it came as a surprise to me to see several other people raising this possibility as an issue. But I see one professor is suggesting a switch from Lithium Ion to nickel metal-hydride batteries.

      Again, my real knowledge is too small to be convinced there is a connection but it seems a few of us have wondered.

      Doug M

  2. Commenting on the content of the Nasa patent as follows:

    ‘The material system may comprise a metal hydride.

    The electrically-conductive material may be in a form selected from the group consisting of particles and whiskers.’

    Clearly the theory that this revelation implies is apparent. Nasa even uses the word Polarition in its patent; what can be more obvious?

    I was about to castigate an eminent LENR researcher and experimentalist for not seeing the truth in this insight from Nasa and configure an experiment to validate this concept.

    Then a rare attack of prudence came over me; before I asked others to do something, how would I go about doing it myself?

    First, the answer to the LENR puzzle is centralized in the formation of micro-particles with whiskers on them.

    But then I contemplated; how would I do what I wanted others to do; that is, to produce the optimum particle configuration? This is a congenital problem that the theorists have. That is, understanding the practical challenges that the experimentalists face.

    A crack and a whisker are identically the same topologically. We can create cracks by manufacturing whiskers on or nanorods coating the surface of a micro-particle.

    Between the whiskers, cracks are formed.

    It seems that everybody is about cracks as the active agent in LENR. I just don’t understand why the experimentalists do not have the imagination to modify their experimental concepts to produce cracks using micro-particles with whiskers. This failure of imagination was beyond me.

    Just run the experiment using hairy micro-particles instead of producing cracks.

    But how do we laymen without the required skills in this nano-engineering art produce such a product that our theory requires.

    I personally do not have the required knowledge or background in this nano-engineering art to fabricate such a precision product to the tolerances required.

    Such a task is reserved to a few very experienced companies with years of related practical expertize.

    My experience in systems engineering told me that one approach that might bear fruit is to write a specification for the production of the micro-particle and submit it to the leaders in the appropriate industry as a request for quote (RFQ).

    The basics of the specification would go as follows:

    Provide a nickel micro particle with a diameter of 2 microns (for a 1200C Rossi type reactor) with a tolerance in this size at no more than plus or minus 5%.

    Cover that particle with nickel whiskers/nanorodes/nanowires as appropriate one micro long and 20 nanometers is diameters with a tolerance of 5%.

    The spacing between these tubules covering the particles must be 20 nanometers with a tolerance of 10%.

    If a commercial off the shelf-product (COTS) is available even if it is formulated using alternate material or construction, this product will be considered.

    If this COTS product is currently in production and on the market, it must be made available for evaluation in laboratory sample quantities.

    In detail, these decades old tried and true systems integration approaches are my first cut on how to address the issues you have raised by this statement:

    “LENR is a broad and profound inter- and trans-disciplinary issue and it is much too complex to be let only to physicists, its research and development needs, beyond nuclearists, also material scientists, engineers, specialists in complexity theory and in advanced process control, technology developers, etc.”

    The bottom line, just offload the know-how burden to someone who can do the job properly.

    But the down side of this out-sourcing approach is that secrecy cannot be maintained; this need for secrecy holds back LENR greatly to individual efforts.

    1. Axil,
      An interesting notion. My 1st thought though (as a layman) is surely such whiskers, on nano particles would be so fragile as to be unstable in use ?. The thing I understand about a crack is that it is going to be inherently more robust than a whisker & thus could better endure the changing dynamics (cause by rapid changes in temperature) ?.


      Doug M

    2. If I remind ENEA paper at ICCF15 and defkalion pare, one possibility is not simply cracks, or whiskers but cristallography site with some spécific structure... this structure being more common near cracks, whiskers , or some kind of surfaces...

      anyway my opinion is just reflecting what I read. I'm doing a chinese room experiment.

    3. dsjm1

      In a well-controlled LENR+ reaction, there is little if any temperature variation because the diameter of the micro-particle provides a set point resonant temperature where the temperature stabilizes. If that diameter is well controlled, then so is the reaction temperature. For a temperature of 1200C, the black body set point in 2 microns, for 400C that diameter is about 4 microns.

      Rossi’s reaction was unstable because he had a mix of micro particle sizes that varied in shape and diameters because of some unknown issues in his micro-particle fabrication process.

      Furthermore, the robustness of the whiskers can be controlled by increasing their diameter as required.

    4. Hey Axil,

      How do you know Rossi's "reaction was unstable"? How do you know that Rossi has an LENR reaction rather than a simple electrical heater which has been badly and incorrectly measured?

    5. Hi Mary;

      As an amusing distraction, it was a barrel of fun to try to deduce what sex you really were before you were banned from our site. I like puzzles.

      But back to the point:

      Rossi has talked insistently about his technology over the years. He has said far too many things to totally protect his technology.

      I have correlated all that he has said for internal consistency, with my research in similar main stream fields of science and technology, and with a wide range of LENR experiments.

      Like a lawyer or more appropriately, like a judge and jury in a courtroom, I weigh the evidence for consistency and I have ALWAYS found it.

      Even the most inane of his comments can hold significant meaning and they added pieces to the puzzle which a fraudster would never have the skill to do.

      Why would he ever admit these flaws in his design? How could this honesty advance his purported scam; this type of behavior is far and away beyond what a fraudster would need to do to extract money from investors. Only a foolish and honest man would say such things.

      His business dealings are oftentimes misleading but not his engineering.

      In my research into Rossi’s technology, he taught me valuable new things in far-flung and varied technologies as I labored to piece his puzzle together.

      Rossi proved to be a valuable learning tool for me and provided a thread of interest in my lessons holding my interest and supporting my academic motivation. Learning without this sort of motivation is dry and tedious.

      As an example, Rossi introduced me to nano-technology, cluster chemistry, super conductivity, astrophysics and the obscurer ramifications of quantum mechanics, all black magic to most people.

      And without exception Rossi’s babblings were always consistent to whatever I learned.

      Rossi provided an ever expanding mosaic of engineering complexity that was delicious to imbibe for those so predisposed.

      Rossi added me in my overarching conceptualization of LENR and its ultimate causation.

      Furthermore, engineers are pathologically honest to their great detriment. They need to be totally honest to be successful. In my informed and educated judgment Rossi is an engineering genius with a level of honesty that is consistent with that genius.

      With all this being said, his technology may not be ready for commercialization, but as to its existence, I have no doubt.

      Since he stopped talking, I have lost interest in his story to a degree.

      I have now moved on to the study of Joe Papp and his mental pathology and engineering genius.

      Joe Papp was a lot like Rossi in pathology and genius but far more extreme.

      It seems that the great leaps in human knowledge are made by social outriders, the eccentrics, the paranoids and the savants.

      Rather that put them down with mistrust and envy, I chose to study them and their work with fascination, curiosity, and gratitude.

    6. Dear Axil,

      This comment of yours is one of the most bright ones I have ever read. Knowing how professional your analysis
      of the Pap Engine is, I expect great contributions from you to LENR- obviously LENR+

  3. Dear Axil,

    Thanks for your ideas, it is becoming obvious that 3.e
    is the point where the future of LENr+ will be decided,
    and it has to be the focus.
    Recently I ahd the privilege to study your analysis op a non-LENR
    technology and I was impressed by your insight and creativity.
    Therefore I will ask you to focus on the 3.e problem, the entities.
    Thank you,

  4. Dear Peter,

    I agree 100% on your positions listed in this post trying to define or highlight a strategy for R&D in the so called LENR/LENR+ field.

    Obviously it is true that research without a strategy is a tragedy whilst it is also true that no strategy can be applied with poor or wrong resources and alliances .

    Following closely the public debates in CMNS and other forums, I recognized that most (if not all) of the active researches in this field are retired (from their profession) and some very close to the end of their biological circle as well. Research (out of strategy) also needs new ideas carried out by fresh, young minds with modern skills and mind openness. To attract such needed young people in this research area money need to be allocated. Serious money. I assume that some members of this research community still believe that such needed funds can be attracted by governments if a theory is in place. Allow me to say that this is a naive approach as far no (at least Western) government is expected to allocate directly any research dollar or euro in this field, no matter how many theories or sporadic experimental results are stated or presented, due to the domination of conventional nuclear lobbies in all related Authorities and decision making bodies related with research and energy strategies.

    So, trying to define and follow a non tragedy strategy, as the one stated by you above, we need to introduce an other paradigm shift in research strategy that can attract new creative minds and alliances.

    We in Defkalion feel our responsibility towards such an important goal providing two important "tools" towards such a new strategy materialization:

    1. We have allocated already funds for common R&D and theoretical interpretation to specific distinguished members or teams of the existing "LENR" research community, providing them full access to our experimental data and resources. Hopefully the expected results of such "focusing to objectives" activities will start showing up in papers within 2013.

    2. We emphasized on our efforts to create alliances with powerful industrial partners that wish to take advantage (for their own reasons) of the results on the evidenced progress in our basic R&D, towards building new applications on their field, based on the results and the progress of our core technologies R&D that focus (at this stage) on the preparation to license of the Hyperion first generation product designed for household, agricultural and light industry uses only. One such new application research center (in Milan, Italy) is already under preparation whilst 4 more are scheduled for 2013 in different geographical regions.

    We hope that the results of such efforts will be fruitful and useful to all existing active researches of this field that they have to realize that nothing new may come up by just recycling old ideas and introversion practices trying to prove "unique truths". There are not any such out there...

    Thank you again for your continuous efforts to introduce common sense in this field.

    Yiannis Hadjichristos

  5. Defkalion wrote in their forum that seven major testing organizations or companies had tested their reactor last April. Where are the test results? Who are the companies?

    Defkalion wrote in June 2011 that they were testing multiple 10 kilowatt reactors which ran continuously. Where are the independent tests on those? Where are the photos of those and the test data?

    I don't understand how Mr. Hadjichristos expects anyone to believe that Defkalion has any technology at all.

    1. No points for guessing who this is. None other than our resident cross dressing pathoskeptic, George "Mary Yugo" Hody. :-)

  6. Dear "Anonymous" of February 17,2.20PM

    I expect non "anonymous" to believe or not to believe anything we state or present. As a matter of fact, the only people that need to "believe" and trust on what we do in R&D are our share holders and our industrial and scientific partners. Non of them posts "anonymously".

    Yiannis Hadjichristos

    1. The tests are OK, thank you and do not worry.
      You will learn about details soon. Who are you?

    2. Good to hear the tests are ok and I will learn about details soon (you apparently already have). I can't help wondering what all the fuss is about then. Tests being "ok" last year with 7 (if I recall) reputable organizations running reactors at very high COP levels and everything going smoothly - why do you worry at all? Shouldn't you lean back and enjoy it rather than writing articles on the creative crises in LENR?

    3. Dear Yamal,

      I am old and have some problems with memory, however I do not remember organizing your program or giving advises to
      you or telling you what to write on your blog. I don't know you. I am usually friendly and will make no exception with you: what do you want to read about on my blog?

    4. What I want is the truth and there is precious little of that in the whole Rossi/Defkalion affair. You say that "the tests are ok" and have hinted repeatedly at having some secret knowledge that Defkalion does in fact hold the key to what may well be the most important discovery since fire itself. You don't supply any evidence (for whatever reason - presumably you gave your word) and I respect that. I simply don't understand why, if you are so sure that Defkalion has achieved what nobody achieved before, you're still writing about a creative crisis in LENR research. IF they really had running reactors in the multi kW range a year ago and independent entities tested them and came away satisfied, then the cat is in the bag, the champagne is popped, the world is saved... whatever you want to call it - and nobody in their right mind would still care about creativity in LENR research. This is your blog, of course, and nobody seriously wants to tell you what to write. My comment was just meant to point out what I perceive as a blatant inconsistency.

    5. First please remin abou the testing report of Nelson

      it give some modest evidence of COP>3 in bad condition, of total control, and high density.
      Nelson notes also give very, if mot most crucial important, hint that Defkalion trust it's reactor enough to let a skeptical tester that bashed Rossi , play with their baby.

      What is sure today is that DGT trust its technology sincerely.

      after that, i absolutely agree, sadly, that we have no reason to be informed.
      Only clients, shareholders, employees, partners have reason to be informed.

      Maybe I can became one of these, but probably I will have no incentive to inform you of that.

      However you don't need to see the blood if you see the sharks dance the jerk.

    6. PS: I see the sharks around us. ;-)

    7. Ah, John Hadjichristos, you are completely hilarious. I thank you for the comic relief. You write, "As a matter of fact, the only people that need to "believe" and trust on what we do in R&D are our share holders and our industrial and scientific partners. Non of them posts "anonymously". ". ROTFWL!

      None of your famous industrial and scientific partners posts at all, do they? So they are very much anonymous. If not, please name a well known company or institution which believes that you have what you claim and a contact person to talk to in that institution. You won't of course because you can't because there is no such a thing.

    8. Dear Mary,

      Please listen to this:
      I am asking this for two reasons:
      a) listen to the very disturbing noise- this happens when you play the
      same old vinyl disc too many times, it become unbearable. I like you but not sooo much that I include you in my studies of statistics, however i can bet tht this is no 25 to 40 with the same cuckoo like message;
      b) exaggerated trend of repetitive messages is a sign of obsession, and obsessions belong to psychiatry, therefore please Parlez moi d'autre chose...

      Please be a clever girl and think, say today DGT makes a demo for Google. and Eric Schmidt is there. The results
      are good and DGT asks Google-please publish the results, make Mary Yugo happy!
      Schmidt agrees, WSJ publishes a paper entitled "Google supports Cold Fusion", Google shares are today at 861.44
      will be tomorrow at 721.73.
      Be reasonable and at least a bit rational, dear Mary!
      Next year it will be very different, just wait.

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Hi Peter.

    Censoring your blog won't help Defkalion's case. But it's your blog so go ahead. It's pretty cowardly and suggests you have no faith in the company's claims.

    1. Dear Mary,

      Polemics based on past events will not help any cause.
      I wonder why you do not compose your own blog where you could tell anything you wish?
      I remember you had a human, nice reaction toward my health
      troubles and I dare to hope that you are not essentially ill-willwd just playing a role. And you are a gentleman or gentle lady and you will make a memorable "mea culpa" when
      the LENR generators will enter the market.

  9. Peter,
    I keep wondering why you put your faith in DGT. They behave like an investor scam. Do you have any information that proves that these tests have been carried out (successfully)?

    1. Dear Bettingman,

      I Bet you will put your faith also in DGT when
      you will know what they have and are doing.
      They are really skilled and good. Please study
      their past and coming publications sine ira et studio
      and you will be rewarded by seeing a great energy future
      real. Can you get rid of your bad memems?

  10. NIST challenges fundamentals of electromagnetism

  11. @ John Hadjichristos
    "Following closely the public debates in CMNS and other forums, I recognized that most (if not all) of the active researches in this field are retired (from their profession) and some very close to the end of their biological circle as well

    This is not a surprise. Why should a young an able researcher get into this field when is not even clear that this field exists? Maybe it exists because Hadjichristos says that? Hmm, and who is Hadjichristos, why should a researcher believe in his chatters? Why should he/she dedicate his efforts and his working life for companies or individuals that speak by "claims", secrets and NDAs but never with facts end/or evidences?
    I know what would be very attractive for researchers and for founding in general (included government founding, why not): the certainty that the phenomenon is real and the production of energy, at commercial levels, is possible, but so far no one, and DGT has the very last position, has been able to convince the world about this.

    "We hope that the results of such efforts will be fruitful and useful to all existing active researches of this field that they have to realize that nothing new may come up by just recycling old ideas and introversion practices trying to prove "unique truths". There are not any such out there..."

    Yes, it would be sufficient to show that "different truths" exist for real and not only inside Hadjichristos's brain or mouth. Is it so difficult to understand this basic concept?
    Andrea Aparo (from Ansaldo Energia) at NI week 2012 said: "data, factual data, that's more than enough to convince people", so I'm asking: where are your factual data?
    Please, stop talking, stop writing on this blog, show us facts, otherwise be silent please. You don't understand that you (and Rossi as well) with your not verified claims are doing a awful service to this field.

    "I expect non "anonymous" to believe or not to believe anything we state or present. As a matter of fact, the only people that need to "believe" and trust on what we do in R&D are our share holders and our industrial and scientific partners. Non of them posts "anonymously"".

    Do you have share holders and industrial scientific partners? Really? And who they are? Hmm, I forgot, all are secrets companies and entities, all under NDAs. You have learned very well form your "putative father" Andrea Rossi and the credibility you have is the same Rossi has i.e. _zero_.
    Keep in mind that writing anonymously is not so different than saying that there are unknown (and hence anonymous for all the people that read here) companies or entities that have tested the Hyperion (and I mean serious and real entities, and not the Free Energy Founadation). As long as you don't say who these companies are and what are the results, it is as you'd write anonymously despite the name you put under your comments, that for me, and for the 99.99% of the people, means absolutely nothing (if you were sign your comments as "Mickey Mouse", would be the same).
    If you want respect, you must deserve it, and so far you did _absolutely_ nothing to deserve respect apart from a bunch of chatters and broken promises.


    1. Dear Franco,

      a) I prefer comments from responsible persons, using their
      real names. BTW I have three good friends called Franco but I think you are not one of them,
      b) This thread is about my Strategy Principles for LENR and
      I would like comments re what I have told not secondary comments of comments,
      c) I strongly dislike bitter low IQ and very low EQ personal attacks,
      d) I warn you- you have absolutely no right to decide
      who is writing on my Blog, it is my creation (plus of my associate not interested in LENR)so I am waiting your excuses for deciding in my place.

  12. Defkalion (DGT) stated above that "the only people that need to 'believe' and trust on what we do in R&D are our share holders and our industrial and scientific partners".

    Given the article argues that LENR is in a scale-up or perish situation it is clear that it would be good if DGT were to stay silent until they have products for sale or scientific data on new physics. Good for their shareholders, good for their partners and good for LENR, which may perish if those with dramatic claims fail to deliver.

    Regarding posting anonymously, I thought this was an exchange for ideas, not a dating site. Anonymous is easier - less data entry to post and facilitates focus on ideas, not person.

    Regarding strategic principles, if claimants have harnessed such a generically important new energy phenomenon, then the only strategies that come to mind are :1. governments worldwide wasting * trillions* in new energy generation plant that is no longer viable 2.Strategies, through the use of abundant LENR energy, to improve health, food, water supply and conditions of the billions on this planet that are in miserable poverty.

  13. Hi, the new DGT web site isnt better than last one :) i dont like 3d web sites hurts the reading, the apple makes me nervous and its too big.

    I think DGT could make a regular (monthly?) status report public to low peps anxiety, after all DGT has been trying to keep a good relationship with the crazy people following LENR :)

  14. Hi Peter,

    Here is what Defkalion was saying in June 2011. Do you know why these test results have never been released? Could it be that they were never started? Because Defkalion had nothing to test?

    Here is a quote from the old Defkalion forum:

    "Safety test in progress by the Greek Authorities include procedures and scenarios (for all ranges of products) on:
    -Stress tests
    -Operational and safety test in not normal conditions (fire, earthquake etc). Please note that Greece is a country with earthquakes and very high safety standards because of the earthquakes
    -EU regulation SEVESO II related tests (hydrogen storage and handling)
    -Tests on critical components failure
    -All tests for radiations etc, according to EU standards
    -Safety/Stability tests
    -Other safety related tests

    All tests protocols and results will be released and published in Defkalion's site with the Certificates from the Greek Authorities before any releasing of products in Greece."

    Do you remember that, Peter? And all the other large claims by Defkalion before they deleted their forum entirely?

  15. Dear Mary,
    if you want to be happy, follow my example- focus on the future!
    i am a bit angry with you, I dare to think I have written a
    provocative essay about LENR, I have tried hard to contribute
    to a solution and you are asking me about Defkalion. Or do you
    find my paper as not interesting?
    When I will write about Defkalion, then we will discuss about them, OK.
    My blog is My castle, remember this, please

    1. You're right. And yes, your paper is interesting. The original article was not about Defkalion. However, when Mr. Hadjichristos contributed one of his usual flowery and non-informative posts, I thought Defkalion had been opened for discussion.

      So let me ask you this. If Defkalion is telling the truth and they tested desktop multi-kilowatt LENR reactors back in June of 2011 and if they are in fact getting ready to market these soon, why are we worried about the future of LENR? If Defkalion is telling the truth, LENR will be wildly successful and will attract all manner of money and talent... SOON! No?

    2. Mary Yugo, shut the fuck up

    3. "Mary Yugo, shut the fuck up"

      Brilliant response. You're obviously a credit to the LENR community. With friends like you, LENR needs no enemies!

  16. I will share with you my name below, but why do you think it will be a real one?

    Defkalion question as well as Rossi question can be solved only by them. There is a social responsibility for them to help us (THE PEOPLE) with whatever they discovered. If they need to make money that is ok. But they still need to certify the field (LENR) with one or two very conclusive and open tests. Mainstream media should be invited and also many credible scientists.
    If Defkalion/Rossi do not feel any responsibility towards the people (for at least 2 years now), than we can safely conclude they are social monsters.

    That being said, we are still waiting for their move for more than 2 years now. Hope is fading and now Peter's general LENR blog is getting hammered because of these two "social monsters" claims.

    My two cents is that if Peter knows something that the people should also know, he also has a social responsibility towards us, enhanced by the fact that we consider him to be a wise person and a sort of leading theoretical player in LENR arena.

    So peter please share with us some facts taht you know about Defkalion. Be a Mordechai Vanunu for this secret LENR field.


  17. Whoever the inane Maryyugo is you should just block that person out. He or She is pathological.

    Nice Blog Peter.

    Please join our Google+ stream


    1. Dear Becktemba,

      Actually Mary is a harmless electronic paper tigress.
      I know her from correspondence and I think she has a
      good heart. You know it is sad when you play a role and
      tnis role takes you over. I will block only trolls that
      speak about subjects of no interest for my blog.
      I joined your Group.
      Best wishes,