Wednesday, March 27, 2013


 “ I, like everyone, look at Nature and try to figure out how it works.” (Edmund Storms)

I think over 99.99% of the scientists agree completely with  Ed- this is their mission and mode of action. This is the essential scientific approach, the way to discoveries and to knowledge. It is about the scientific mentality and culture. A fast search will give definitions of the scientific mentality as the following:

“Science is a body of knowledge wherein the truths of physical world is ascertained or established on the basis of verifiable and testable methods. Authority and beliefs have no place in science. Scientific mentality is the mental process of thinking based on science as defined above. Scientific methods are strictly objective.”

However, the real relationship between Mother Nature and Homo discontentus ( a better name for Homo sapiens) is more complicated and it always was much initiative coming from us humans. We have survived not only because we are “wise”- “sapiens” without “faber” does not work.
Too long an introduction, you already knew this for ages at least outside LENR.

Back to LENR.  In: perhaps I have misunderstood a bit my own ideas perhaps under the pressure of the compulsory scientific approach. But I have opted for a hybrid approach in solving the problem of LENR:
And I have defined the problem here: as a kind of counter-axiom complementing the scientific mentality:
LENR is in essence technology, a practical energy source.

The decisive factors for success include wisdom – understanding the phenomena but perhaps even more boldness, skill, creativity, patience, inventiveness, determination. Radical changes

LENR –the useful one, has to be invented, not discovered.

Here I remembered my favorite Bulgarian proverb, short in its original language “ne pitai starilo, pitai patilo”- but a bit longer in translation: Don’t ask the old, but the one that has endured bad times.” Usually old people can give you good advise, but young people who have experienced the same difficulties as you may help better It is about real experts and authorities. If you want to solve a problem ask those who are solving it. It happens that yesterday somebody has told me that “senior” means more ‘authority’ than ‘old’.

We still are at home in the Balkan Peninsula; I have asked the opinion of Yiannis Hadjichristos the leading scientist of Defkalion. He has told about a  saying coming from ancient Greece  "Συν Αθηνά και χείρα κείνει"  do not expect everything from Athina (the goddess of wisdom) -the theory in our case- move your hands also. Wisdom and hard work go together’

Yiannis also has emphasized that they have highlighted natural HENI-like phenomena in their NIWeek and ICCF17 papers. However, all these natural phenomena- that have inspired them are not controllable! They had to use inventions (plural!) to create the controlled conditions within a specific limited space and its environment.
“So we have to trick (cheat) nature to harvest the benefits.  This is what engineering (μηχανικη)  literally means: trick the nature (or the gods in ancient tragedy) to reach a desired outcome (the catharsis).”

What impresses me is the broadness of the real problem, Nature has to be changed with due respect because we know Her bad temper and force, but without mercy. BTW, pantheist thinking: I had the privilege to make two interviews with my favorite Greek goddess  Athena, one of them is already published on this blog- it is about the causes of the Crisis. I also had the unique privilege to discuss by e-mail with Cold Fusion’s greatest supporter, Arthur C. Clarke his saying:”It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.” Perhaps the creative powers of the humans are not limited directly by their wisdom. In the case of LENR, this would be our salvation.

One issue more- if so many different inventions are necessary to make the system work, then it is the time to remember the Latin saying: “"hominem unius libri timeo" meaning "I fear the man of a single book”
Now I fear the man of a single LENR theory if he/she thinks it is a complete explanation. Even the best theory explains only a part of the tamed process. Nature and technology alike will punish the crimes against complexity and interestingness.

In the very first issue of “Infinite Energy” (March-April 1995) I have published a paper entitled inquisitively “Why Technology First?” The answer is simple now: because there is no other way
for LENR.
My obituary will say, i.a.: “he had few ideas and limited answers, but he was consistent, the answers were always the same”.



  1. Peter, you have an extensive grasp of so many different things, and it is interesting how you tie them all together.

    1. Thank you Gary, some will say there are too many
      and and they are not well connected. De gustibus...
      But Technology First remains valid!


    2. We can use logic as a sensitive probe of LENR.

      Let’s explore the proposition; LENR+ is not self- destructive, since it functions for a long time.

      A LENR theory that does not explain how the reaction is not self-destructive is a false one.

      Most successful LENR experiments produce heat for a short period and then stop.

      This failure to persist is the mark of a LENR system. A LENR+ system does not quit in a short timeframe. The LENR+ reaction will persist for weeks and months without any loss of vigor. It does not consume its environment. It is immune to the ravages of transmutation. It will utilize any element to produce heat as transmutation progresses over time.

      All these strange and miraculous characteristics must be accounted for in a viable theory of LENR+.

      There may be many different causes for LENR but if they are not self-destructive, they are useless.

      We want a LENR+ theory to explain two equally important things, how it produces heat and how it does not self-destruct.

      Both of these characteristics are important to the theory by the avoidance of self-destruction is the most important and also the most difficult to understand.

      Huge amounts of extremely high energies are produced in a microscopic volume; what keeps that volume from decomposing? This is the most amazing miracle of LENR+.

      Let us put are logic probe to work on an example or two.

      The best know theory of LENR is the Widom-Larsen theory (WL).

      I emphasize that the WL is a LENR (not LENR+) theory that does not explain how it is a persistent reaction.

      WL attempts to explain how heat is produced, how radiation of the reaction is suppressed but it does not explain the most important theory requirement to the best of my knowledge: how the nuclear active sites are preserved.

      Professor Y. E. Kim’s theory involving Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) explains more but not how the BEC of proton pairs are not-self destructive or how a BEC can form at 700C.

      A threshold logical hoop that a LENR+ theory must first jump through is how to explain reaction persistence.

      By the way, the plexciton theory of LENR+ meets all these operational requirements mentioned above.

    3. Axil

      Provocative thinking - the 1st question that comes to my mind is "is this LENR+ process that does run for a long time, one that can accelerate out of control ? - if not why not ?"

      Going by Peter's and our friends at DGT, there is no one process or theory but a combination of them such that the LENR+ total process will not run out of control for this reason. It takes our intervention to stitch the right sequence together which allows it to happen and be controllable.

      But I guess we really do still have to see proofs that anyone can demonstrate a consistent combination of processes & hidden in Andrea Rossi's latest claims is his version of the claim.

      I do worry with Andrea, that his most recent 'Rossi Says' claims are that
      1) only he knows who the testers are so again we have to believe him (getting harder by the month)
      2) he didn't bother to let them complete this claimed testing before he started spouting about them and it
      3) His timing is remarkably in line with a looming rejection of his EPO patent since he got that letter from the EPO only granting him a 2 month extension before they reject his current patent application (deadline is now 19th April 2013). Is he upping the ante in some way as to forestall the rejection ?. But, his claimed 'hot cat' is not detailed in the current patent so this possibility is murky.

      Doug M

    4. Doug I really wouldn't worry about the deadline, there are many ways of extending that from what my friends tell me.

      Other than that I agree with you, Rossi, he makes it hard to believe anything he says.

    5. Axil there is one interesting part about the WL model for Metal Hydrides albeit hard to swallow.

      The model purports that when neutrons they are immediately absorbed by other nuclei causing nucleosynthesis and subsequent decays. These decays produce the gamma's which are "shielded" by the heavy electrons that began the process.

      The interesting thing about that is that there is a feedback mechanism there that could produce many neutrons and "drive" the system. That is the neutron to gamma to neutron to gamma loop. And of course the logical deduction is that getting that feedback loop tuned is the whole point. Could be the difference between LENR and LENR+


  2. Dear Axil
    You are mixing in your "provocative" thinking completely different technologies under the same "umbrella" which is not fair or correct.

    Please refer to the paper we released in ICCF17 where we criticized all thermal shock or gas loading methods as resulting to negative feedback mechanisms making any attempt to control or maintain the phenomena impossible or extremely difficult. The old electrolysis approaches suffer from more problems as Peter has pointed out.

    Thank you for your creative thinking (even provocative some times).This field has a lot of brilliant people with excellent analytic capabilities. The problem as always is in synthesis.
    John Hadjichristos

    1. >"we criticized all thermal shock or gas loading methods as resulting to negative feedback mechanisms making any attempt to control or maintain the phenomena impossible or extremely difficult"

      According to Piantelli, with more than _15_years_ of experimentation in the field, the trigger for the reaction in his cells comes from a sudden variations in temperature and/or pressure (after gas loading).
      According to Piantelli, two cells, among the others, worked for 278 days and 319 days respectively before being stopped with a Pout/Pin equal to 2.41. The cell that worked for 278 days emitted neutrons for some days with a value around 1000 times the neutron flux due to cosmic radiation. Different cells emitted electromagnetic radiation with energy of the order of 100 keV.

      Why are you so sure that thermal shock and gas loading don't work? Listening to more expert (and credible) players in the field it seems exactly the opposite.
      Did you get best value for reaction's duration in your Hyperions than 319 days of continuous reaction? (Maybe your whole history doesn't last 319 days, but this is another issue).


    2. I reread my response on this thread and realize that it is flawed in the language that I used in conveying my intent.

      I should have said that a LENR+ system is not destroyed in a short timeframe.

      I was talking about LENR theories and not about LENR technologies.

      Engineering techniques are more specific than the generalities of a theory even through my theory recommends engineering techniques. This detailed approach can make for some confusion.

      On another point, the LENR+ system uses nano-geometry to control the reaction. The finer the tolerances used in the nano-manufacturing of that geometry the more passively controllable the LENR+ system will be.

      When such nano-manufacturing tolerances cannot be achieved to the level required for steady state passive control, one engineering solution that can compensate for this long term control problem that results from this manufacturing imprecision is to set up an active cyclic pulse system. Such an active system turns on a supercritical LENR system for a short time and then when the system is approaching the burn up level, controls will shut down the reaction in a cycle.

      On another point, some LENR systems do not achieve the level of electron loading required to start the LENR reaction. These systems need a shock from heat, a laser, or a spark to get the electron loading up to the proper reaction level.

      For example, Arata used a laser pulse to light off his powder. Rossi used heat.

  3. Dear Franco (?)
    With all our respect to prof. Piantelli and his work, we never said ,and I never comment in this blog that his apparatus is not working. Working or not is a completely different question as controllability or not which is related with many parameters out of duration such as the level of the energy produced, the noise to signal ratio in measurements etc.
    As for the young of our company: Peter wrote above an excellent Bulgarian saying. Please read it more carefully.
    John Hadjichristos

    1. Mr. John Hadjichristos (?)
      Yes, you didn't say that Piantelli's cells don't work, you said that:
      "thermal shock or gas loading methods[e.g. Piantelli's or Rossi's as well]... making any attempt to control or maintain the phenomena impossible or extremely difficult"

      I want to add that according to many rumors, Piantelli is getting the self-sustain working in his last cells, that means the phenomenon is controllable and can be maintained completely under control.

      On the other hand it seems that you (Defkalion) are the masters in the field, so every other player is getting a marginal role when he comes to compare with your great(??) results.
      At least Piantelli is working in absolute silence, instead you don't lose the opportunity to criticize LENR systems different than yours.
      I really hope that your arrogance will be supported by factual data, sooner or later. You can't go on and on about this farce.


    2. Dear Franco,

      Till Yiannis answers to you: DGT simply uses their
      own method of triggering the reaction(s)because they
      had difficulties with the former methods. Nothing offensive in this statemment, I think.
      As regarding the rumours re Piantelli this would be marvelous, however "many" is inadequate because rumors
      multiply but do not add up. I have many good and informed friends in Italy (possibly you are one of them but you use here a nickname) and I have, unfortunately not heard a similar positive rumor. You can send any information re this subject to me in full confidence if you decide so.
      I will ask you friendly to not transform differences in opinion in antagonisms and disputes. It is counter-productive and harms LENR Thank you!

  4. Hadjichristos's company claimed they had dozens of 10 kilowatt LENR reactors under continuous test and that they ran reliable. That was June 2011.

    Where are they? Which credible scientists and technologists have seen them? Which university or government lab has one or has tested one and written a report? Why are they not part of papers and reports in main line publications?

    Why should we believe ANYTHING this man says?

  5. Maryygo, I happen to have the same questions.

  6. It would be nice to get that cleared up here Mr. Hadjichristos. That statement was indeed made. Although I don't appreciate the attitude that maryyugo has asked it with as I'm sure she is completely unaware of what it takes to manage a company.