Wednesday, March 13, 2013


Please consider the following just a strictly personal opinion and as an idea pushing t extension of freedom of expression near to its limit.

It is about the mottos of the coming International Conferences on Cold Fusion; a critique of the motto chosen for ICCF-18 and a proposal for the next conference.

ICCF-18 Conference, describes its raison d’etre in this way:

“Applying the Scientific Method to Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges.”

I find this as self-limiting, out-focused, even “thinking in a box” in some extent. Some reasons:

a) the Scientific Method can be applied well only when the experimental results are of high quality and reliable; the organizer of the Conference has spoken recently about a success rate of 20% the lower Pareto number- in PdD experiments,

b) recent studies as well as information coming from neighboring fields as HTSC, ZPE etc. are suggesting that not all scientific concepts necessary for a science of the phenomena had been discovered or developed up to the level of scientific explanations; see e.g. Nanoplasmonics.

c) the problems cannot be solved by a purely scientific approach (this has to be wisely defined, anyway!) and the contributions of technology – engineering, materials science, and control science. A hybrid approach is a must, being given the weaknesses of LENR:

d) We need to accept that the complexity, dynamicity, multiplicity, diversity of the LENR phenomena are much greater than we usually think. Specifically, we have to distinguish between LENR (weak, sporadic, ephemeral, unusable because it cannot be scaled up) and LENR+ (high intensity, high energetic density, long duration, controllable via high quality know-how.

e) UNDERSTANDING is actually a means not an aim, the great original promise of Cold Fusion was a source of energy not some exotic phenomena;

f) ANOMALOUS is a dangerous, false self-defeating word- to be avoided! The anomalous of today is the basic science of tomorrow; however this should not happen in the same way as how time converts paradoxes in dogmas.

The last 4 words from the motto are OK, I think;

Something has to be changed, after a dozen days we will enter the 25th year of technological stagnation of our field.


ICCF-19 will take probably in Europe, perhaps in Italy. If it will be the conference of paradigm change, a good motto will be:

”Solving the useful heat source problem.”

But perhaps the best motto will be no motto at all, just good, serious professional experimental results reported and clearly explained on a causal basis...



  1. Our mastery of nature is almost always constrained by the toolkit that we have assembled to look at the details of what we need to understand.

    Major scientific breakthroughs have always followed the development and common use of new and more powerful tools that can make the area of interest more comprehensible.

    Calorimetry is just too blunt a tool to fully understand the processes involved in LENR.

    More and better tolls are needed and the expertise in their use are required penetrating the mysteries that underlie LENR.

    Drawing on the great lessons from the history of science, The germ theory is now a fundamental tenet of medicine that states that microorganisms, which are too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope, can invade the body and cause certain diseases.

    Until the acceptance of the germ theory, many people believed that disease was punishment for a person's evil behavior. This belief followed the supposed truths that society and religion taught.

    When entire populations fell ill, the disease was often blamed on swamp vapors or foul odors from sewage. Even many educated individuals, such as the prominent seventeenth century English physician William Harvey, believed that epidemics were caused by miasmas, poisonous vapors created by planetary movements affecting the Earth, or by disturbances within the Earth itself.

    The development of the germ theory was made possible by the allied development and widespread use of certain laboratory tools and techniques that permitted the study of bacteria during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

    This lesson from history also tells us how a theory is useless until it is widely accepted by the scientific community overall.

    Just because one person knows the answer, this knowledge is ineffective and does not amount to anything of substance until that knowledge is spread and widely accepted.

    As an illustrative example of this principle, many people believe that American biologist James Watson and English physicist Francis Crick discovered DNA in the 1950s. In reality, this is not the case. Rather, DNA was first identified in the late 1860s by Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher. Then, in the decades following Miescher's discovery, other scientists--notably, Phoebus Levene and Erwin Chargaff--carried out a series of research efforts that revealed additional details about the DNA molecule, including its primary chemical components and the ways in which they joined with one another. Without the scientific foundation provided by these pioneers, Watson and Crick may never have reached their groundbreaking conclusion of 1953: that the DNA molecule exists in the form of a three-dimensional double helix.

    The determination of the details of this structure took the use of just the right cutting edge X-ray crystallography tools by experts well versed in the field to open this door of discovery. Among them were Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, who utilized X-ray diffraction to understand the physical structure of the DNA molecule.

    What these wide ranging meetings to discuss LENR should do is not only to discuss experiments and limited results, but to search for new and improved experimental methods and tools that can be applied to the problem.

    Looking for excess heat or helium just won’t be effective in getting to the principles that underlie LENR.

    A survey of all the currently available scientist tools in the toolset of technology and inspiration and the willingness among the attendees at the conference to find and use them could possibly add immeasurably to the future understanding and success of LENR.

    1. Dear Axil,

      Thanks- what you say is about when the time of a new idea is
      coming, isn't it? 1989 was perhaps too early Now the tools are in full development and will help us to build what LENR actually needs- a Meta theory.

    2. It is not so much that the tools are lacking as much as the young scientists with the energy and zeal to apply them are absent. This became clear to me as I scanned the auditorium at ICCF-18. My guess is that the average age of the 200+ attendees was somewhat past retirement age. Our educational system and the way we fund it may be the cause. Hopefully, renewed emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) will help reverse this, but only if we are willing to fund education more equitably.

  2. ICCF-19 will be held in Venice, Italy March 15-21, 2015. It will be organized by Antonio La gatta of TSEM

    I am not completely sure, it seems they may have changed the 'motto'.

    International Conference on Cold Fusion

    New Approach on Material Investigations