Wednesday, July 24, 2013


Many years from now, Clio (the Muse of history) will acknowledge this demo was an event of great impact.
At the surface it was simple: Defkalion made a written promise-the Protocol:
and then made a demo keeping all its promises- brightly.

I wrote that Defkalion is a company of high professionalism and this became obvious from the first sequences of this 9+ hours test.
Yiannis Hadjichristos was in excellent form and his expose was flawless, he knows the lesson because he had a great role in creating this lesson- the Hyperion, step by step with great efforts.
Hs team-mate Stavros- the operator was admirable. Looking at them you could also understand the creative power of routine, this test had a long prehistory of trials, tests, errors, new trials and successes.

 Probably you have noticed the absence of some persons who had to be there according to their function or to the Protocol but surely you have not observed that somebody unexpected was very present and disturbingly active. It was the malefic spirit haunting first of all the technologies, known as Captain Edward A. Murphy; you know him and his (CENSORED!) Laws:  When I was working in R&D Murphy has almost killed me (or my reputation, what’s worse!) and I have created a personality, Yves Henri Prum, YHPRUM is MURPHY written in reverse- the Father of Technological Optimism to fight with Murphy). Prum’s war against Murphy
remains undecided. 

Now, Murphy has made Alex, the CEO of Defkalion, very ill. Alex heroically took the risk and was present at this historical
event and has two times spoken to the public. I congratulated him
at Skype both for the test and for his courage. Symeon the Director for Business Development at DGT had a gardening accident and could not come to Milano..
The Professor from CERN had to leave urgently due to his mother’s serious health problem; however he was enthusiastic in his comments and hopefully we will hear from him.
Add to this that the local DGT leader, Luca Gamberale became exhausted at the previous day’s Italian demo
The contact with mass media, especially TV is very stressing for
people of high value who suffer from something called modesty
(I lack this gene, cannot tell you anything relevant about it but it seems powerful)
Mats Lewan, our journalist colleague who has helped at calibration and in demonstrating that there are not hidden energy sources gave me the impression that he feels the pressure of the skeptics who will accuse him of insufficient vigilance and making a pact with the “enemy” had a “black finger” and succeeded to blew the fuse of the entire building when trying to connect an oscilloscope- it was said “fortunately” – in the degassing period between the argon and the hydrogen test.
I had a different opinion- the demo had been compressed in a limited time frame- a two days test in a half day and the degassing  period was already shortened. Deep degassing is for me kind of techno-obsession you know my fixation that air molecules compete with deuterium or hydrogen for the active sites (NAE) And Piantelli has explained me the absolute necessity of deep degassing in gas-phase experiments (see his recent European patent) Alien molecules are bad for the DGT process too., so when I have not heard the noise of the vacuum pump my blood tension raised fast.
Anyway this is a resilient technology and demo was a great success despite partial degassing and all the dirty tricks of Murphy. I think the COP was approximately halved from the optimum, but excess heat is more than obvious, control is good, the “ignition” is fast and the reaction powerful as it is, it can be stopped instantly.
The reactions to this demo cannot be fully evaluated yet. The skeptihawks cannot be convinced by facts; they have Teflon brains specifically for the new sources of energy. I was simply enchanted by Mary Yugo’s fast comment:
There is not much to be learned from a test done with their equipment in their lab by their people.
Sorry for her, it is so bad she cannot learn. She thinks it seems that research can be best done by mercenaries in remote labs with borrowed instruments. When she will buy her first Hyperion boiler she will verify it for hidden invisible wires. Absurd is a euphemism.
DGT is preparing for the next battle.

Sunday, July 21, 2013


Test code: 3.2.30

Hyperion lab devise Functional & Performance Test

Test Plans & Test Results

By: Defkalion GT S.A. R&D Team

Table of contents

TEST PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC DEMO ............................................................. 1

R5.1 lab prototype testing procedures...................................................................................3
Overview .....................................................................................3
Test Description; Sub-Systems/ Critical Components Being Tested; Main test objectives; Secondary test objectives ....................................................................................3


Test Strategy……………………………………………………6

New Definitions; Important Terminology; Key Words ......................................................................12

Hyperion devise Functional & Performance Test Plans & Test Results

PART I: TEST plan 3.2.30, objectives and permissions (DEFKALION INTERNAL DOCUMENT as part of this protocol)

R5.1 lab prototype testing procedures


The 3.2.30 scheduled test on Defkalion GT’s lab reaction triggering procedures is part of the series of triggering and performance tests of R5 series lab prototype reactions focusing to investigate conditions that influence reaction’s triggering and performance versus expected phenomena.

Test Description; Sub-Systems/ Critical Components Being Tested;
Main test objectives; Secondary test objectives

Test description

3.2.30 testing of Hyperion Single Reactor Kernel will follow the same procedure as for all 3.X.X testing protocols. Reaction will be triggered in the R5 type reactor (R5.1, using the following test parameters:

Test parameter                                                              Condition                                                  Remark

Atomic Hydrogen production  method                                   SP                              As identified in ICCF17 paper by.J.Hadjichristos et all

Internal structure                                                          Typical 5.1

Calibration and control                                            Calibration of instrumentation     Control run using Argon “blind test” run before the H2 run (actual test) 

Leakages control                                                     Yes                                           H2 under pressure at min 10bar

Ni mixture                                                             No V04 sample, prepared 4gr

Initial dry preparation                                               Yes                                            With parallel heating up to 200C,for 25min, vacuum for at least
                                                                                                                                 12h prior to the test

Electric pre- heating                                                  Yes

H2 or Ar                                                                 1st input: >1,1 bar
                                                                               2nd input, 1,1 bar when reaching
                                                                               mixture temp if required

Safety levels                                                             Not changed

Sub-Systems/Critical Components being tested

R5 Kernel reaction ignition 

Reaction ignition is expected following the atomic hydrogen production only with the method
SP (high voltage spark generator)

Main test objectives

•   Control (Start, Stop, Increase, Decrease) Reaction ignition

•  Reaction duration to produce enough energy to exceed
equivalent energy of a chemical reaction of mass of
components internal to the reaction chamber

•  Total accumulated energy output divided by total
accumulated energy input greater than 1.1 on the active test
and less than 1 in the Ar control test 

Independent testers/observers

The test will be performed in the presence of: 
Paolo Vitulo (University of Pavia – Researcher for CMS Project, CERN – Geneve), 
Raymond Zreick (News editor, Focus), 
Mats Lewan (Journalist, NyTechnik) 
A member of CICAP (Italian comitee for the control on scientific scams). His name will 
be announced on Monday, 22. 
from Defkalion GT application lab in Milan, Italy. Test will be photographed and videoed from
DGT and broadcasted live to ICCF18. A short pre-recorded introduction will be broadcasted
also before the start of the live test (to be repeated 1 or 2 times during the test without
disturbing data broadcast using slit screens)

 Test objectives. 
Run Control test using Argon (instead of H2) in the same conditions and 
with all “powders” in presence within the reactor to isolate the  
dependence of Hydrogen in the reaction.
Run the test for as long as required to assure that excess heat is not due to 
chemical reactions.
To calibrate flow meters using scale and stop watch during tests..
To spot check the power measurements with independent loop meter 
provided by DGT (RMS factored post test on LabView data) and. 


Approved by: John Hadjichristos, Stavros Amaxas, Luca Gamberale (June 20th 2013., RDF VLT


Team Head Members 
John Hadjichristos, Luca Gamberale, Stavros Amaxas  
Ciro Areni, Fabio Salvaggio,
 Guide –
John Hadjichristos   Sponsor –Defkalion GT BOD 

PART II : Test scheduling

Test Strategy

Note to Teams: The important components of the Test Plan and later Final Test
Plan are:

1. Reactors type R5
2. One reactor of type R5 will be configured to run with flow calorimetry.
A R5.1 similar to th one operating will be weighted.

3. Monitor temperature
Calibrated thermocouples will be present inside the reactor chambers, on the
external surface of each reactor and in In and Out of the coolant circuit. All
temperature monitoring will be through the same DataLogger (NI) and National
Instruments Lab-View software. Data sampling every 3 sec.

Observer’s thermocouples can be attached in parallel with DGT LabView
thermocouples on the coolant circuit.

Pressure will be monitored and logged using both a manual pressure meter on the
hydrogen circuit and a digital pressure meter to Data Logger. Data sampling every

4. Electric consumption of heating element
Sampling/data logging for electric energy to the heating elements will be through
Carlo Gavazzi accuracy measure M2172D-3 phase energy meter will be every 3
sec, logging data in NI board. Manual or when changing conditions upon request of
the independent observers/testers, using portable clamp A/V meters. L1 is used to
power heating elements.

5. Electric consumption of spark high voltage
Sampling/data logging of triggering currents will be through Carlo Gavazzi 
accuracy measure M2172D-3 phase energy meter will be every 3 sec, logging 
data in NI board. Manual or when changing conditions upon request of the 
independent observers/testers using portable clamp A/V meters. L2 is used to 
power triggering high voltage mechanism.

6. Flow meter
Coolant in use to perform calorimetry will be water. Flow meter will be performed
with an Alpha Dynamic (Australia) AM2S pulse (1/4’) logging to NI board every 3

7. Maintenance of reaction
After pre-heating the reaction to its triggering level, maintenance of the reaction will
be performed with the triggering method, decreasing electric energy to the heating
elements and increasing the coolant flow in order to maintain the internal
temperatures in the reaction as steady as possible.

What you’ll test (and what you won’t test) 
Transmutations and gamma spectrum or gamma emissions will not looked at. 

How you’ll test: equipment and materials needed, test configurations and procedures

Equipment tested: 
As shown in Graph below

Test procedures

1. Leakages testing before tests
2. Test will run in two phases:
a. Phase I: Run R5.1 with the same input values as any active H2 tests, using
Argon instead of Hydrogen as input gas (control test).
b.Phase II: Run R5.1 with the same input values as with the Phase I test
above using Hydrogen instead of Argon as input gas (active test)
3.Calibration/ Accuracy Control curves
a.Run in R5.1 with Argon in the same apparatus with the test run
b.Check the accuracy of flow meter with scaling of coolant at 2 different
levels (0.2 – 0.8 lt/min)
c. Measure input electric energy during and after each test using RMS clamp
meters versus the recorded in the data logging system.
d.Calculate measurement error of each instrument.
4.Cool the reactor after shutting down reaction

5.Test procedure
a. Prior to start of test , dry and hold vacuum in reactors heating to 200C for
45min (approx) and maintenance the vacuum into the reactor’s chamber
for at least 12h. Leave the reactor to cool to room temperature (first run

b. 1st input of Ar at approx 1,2 bar
c.Preheat the reactor
d.Trigger sequence when reaching proper conditions
e.Maintain the input condition for the period of approx 1.5h by monitoring
output power vs input power
f. Shut down all input energy
g.Cool the reactor to room temperature and vent Ar using vacuum pump.
h.Maintain vacuum for at least 30 mins.
i. 1st input of H2 at a pressure in the range 1-2 bars
j. Preheat the reactor
k. Trigger reaction
l. 2nd input of H2 if we observe a leak 
m.Maintain the reaction for the period of approx 3h by monitoring output
power vs input power.
n. Shut down all input energy
o.Cool the reactor to room temperature

6. Test data logging:
a. T1(internal), T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 (external on reactors body) from R5.1
b. T-in and T-out of coolant
c. Water flow rate
d. Pressure in hydrogen circuit
e. Power in from L1+L2 -> TOTAL

Reactor and Test Equipment available

As shown in the following diagram:

Test equipment configuration 

(Thermocouple T_body in one of the hole heaters)

 New Definitions; Important Terminology; Key Words

The following table describes the sensors attached and the name of the
records in the log files:

The actual names and sequence of the data columns are the following

No.       Notation In  report file       Notation used in data files         Description 

1               T3                            Tamb                                  Room temperature

2               T4                            T_back                             Temperature of back flange of the reactor

3                T5                          T_front                              Temperature of front flange of the reactor

4                T1                          Tinside                               Temperature inside the reactor

5               Tin                          Tin                                      Coolant (cold) input temperature

6                Tout                       Tout                                    Coolant (hot) output temperature

7                 T6.1                      T_body                         Temperature signal around the reactor from a
                                                                                   thermocouple placed in one of the holes (#1) next
                                                                                   to heating resistors. Appears as T6 
8               T2                          Tcoil                           Temperature between the two coils rounding the
                                                                                  reactor where the coolant is driven.

9                                           Pressure (bar)                 Internal gas pressure

10 WR                               P in (heaters) W                 Electric consumption of pre-heating resistors

11 WTrig                            P in (HV) W                      Spark generator electric consumption

12                                      Pout (flow)W                    Energy output from the system

13 F                                    Flow(lt/min)                      Current water flow

14                                       Minutes since start             Minutes since start logging


“In order to succeed, we must define Success.
(old truism)

A nice reader, who confessed to be a scientist and is concerned re LENR, has helped me to understand better some important events that will happen next week.
The reader, a scientist, not member of our LENR community, will attend ICCF-18 and hopes that this conference sheds more light on this fascinating subject.

He (I call him Brother John) agrees that reproducibility is key.

In Brother John’s words:

One thing that concerns me is that after 24 years, I'm still hearing too many premature claims of success, as well as premature but incomplete "theoretical" claims (either "divorced" from experimental reality, or sometimes the converse - supposedly "in line" with experimental literature but not well-grounded theoretically).

I have asked Brother John what he thinks about these claims of success, what is:”success” in LENR?

He is a realist researcher and defines “success” by:
1)  reproducibility
(2) scalability along with an amount of excess power which is clearly beyond that attributable to experimental error

This is the natural and rational definition of success here, however most of the authors are contented with any much more modest signs of excess heat or of some clearly nuclear phenomena and are very tolerant toward bad reproducibility.

OK the task – also of this blogger is to define the degree of success of two somewhat inter-related events:
a)       The Defkalion demos of  July 22 and 23 – the first public ones in a series;
b)       ICCF-18 as a step in the long history that started as Cold Fusion in the Fleischmann Pons Cell.

The first is a tactic issue and needs a fast answer, the second necessitates strategic thinking, re-thinking and deep analysis. The coming days will be dedicated to the analysis of the Defkalion demos. I know the Internet will help me if I succeed to use its formidable potential, and I hope that you, my dear reader will tell me what do you think about the demos; PLEASE DO IT!

As told recently a great 89er experimentalist cold fusionist has seen such a demo and has concluded: “it is obvious you have a robust device which generates heat on demand. All of you deserve congratulations on this achievement!”
OK, soon we will know how many people worldwide, who are watching these demos, will come to similar conclusions as our expert friend. It is not a “now or never” problem, many such tests will follow and commercial Hyperions will be convincing indeed.
The most positive factor and the main virtue of the DGT company is professionalism. And this is the reason of my deep empathy and
desire to see them victorious.
Usually speaking about professionalism we think first in terms of rules of conduct. However, for each profession and especially for researchers there are both specific. Professionalism is first of all
problem personalization- deep dedication, the ability to live (for) a problem- there are practically no clear limits between professional and personal, and Defkalion has demonstrated total dedication to their energy source. (Conversely capitulation to a wicked problem- I am alluding to the R- problem in LENR)

An other “sine qua non” condition” for professionalism is the trend to know everything about the subject and use a very broad inter- and trans-disciplinar range of sources of information (read please DGT’s ICCF-17 paper). Total motivation leads to a complete, holistic & holographic vision of your problem. This is
an asymptotic trend; Defkalion has discovered and revealed so many surprisingly new aspects of their HENI process and has opened new avenues for scientific research. For example a new understanding of the potential of nanoplasmonics, Rydberg hydrogen and Bose-Einstein Condensates. This is only the start.
The initial ideal image of Cold Fusion – never clear, now fades away.  

Professionalism is superior knowledge management, agile surprise management and solid reputation management.
Professionalism is effectiveness and efficiency in using the best tools- ALL the necessary tools! In this case not only scientific theories but also technology and engineering.  and the best people- forming genuine functional team in this case in Greece, then in Canada and now we will see the Italian DGT –Europe team in action...
Professionalism is discipline, order, rules and very high standards;
but even the highest standard is standard i.e. a form of healthy bureaucracy.
Professionalism is wise plans, proud search for excellence, is fighting for the advancement of the profession (and by Jove!, it was placidly stagnating for so many years!) It is pragmatism in its best form.
We have to mention here that Defkalion has a well developed
and verified Protocol, for the experiment per se. This has to be combined now with other protocols- diplomatic, for mass media.
Hopefully these combinations will work well, however small glitches that are always possible cannot change the basic fact that the device works as it will be presented.

In 2011, I was very disappointed by the non-professionalism of the dozen experiments made by Rossi; my papers re this can be found there:
Now we will see the difference.
Obviously, Defkalion is respecting always the merciless Rule 1=0
too, see please:

The coming test is discussed in many places on the Web. Friends and enemies are preparing for attacks and battles; the test, even if everything will go perfectly has to fight with petrified memes, arrogant egos, hostile interest, Koalemos and so on.
Typical comments can be found there:

Agreeing with Mary Yugo


ICCF-18, Missouri University, Credibility & Defkalion

Very soon you will receive the proofs of Defkalion’s professionalism and of Hyperion’s functionality.


Sunday, July 14, 2013


Saturday morning’s e-post- a good friend calls my attention to some really new- a breakthrough: 

Individual Atoms Imaged in a Living Catalytic Reaction

A triple opportunity, for me but for LENR even more, to be happy with this news: 

1) It is about catalysis- and catalysis is kind of uncle of LENR and I have told this quite clearly in my ancient Topology paper: 

Citing from that paper: 

In my opinion, the cold fusion phenomena are localized at active sites (similar to catalysis), and characterized by intense surface dynamics.

Cold fusion phenomena must be considered as sui-generis heterogeneous catalytic processes and the modern concepts regarding active sites have to be applied in order to understand and direct the reactions.

Surface mobility of metal atoms is the key both for heterogeneous catalysis and for cold fusion.

Actually, the study of catalytic surface phenomena in operating conditions is very difficult, given that the most modern analytical methods must work under high vacuum conditions.

What the nature, rise and dynamism of the active sites are, is an open question. A very rapid and massive information influx from the field of science and technology of catalysis could be useful to get the answer(s).

2) JEOL has achieved this breakthrough- and I had once a fine professional love affair with the JEOL Company. For JEOL please see:
In 1967 I started to work in research at the OLTCHIM Chemical Works and have decided to become a specialist in PVC-S, suspension polyvinyl chloride the “flagship” product of that industrial unit. I have collected books, papers, reports, patent, grey literature re the technology but for being able to manufacture really competitive products we needed more: samples of the best, most reputed, highest quality products from which we can learn about the products. Call it reverse engineering if you wish, but it is perfectly legal and everybody does it. I have asked samples from almost every known manufacturer but have also used any honest or at least legal means to get samples. PVC-S is a versatile product with a challenging complexity that was then produced using some 20 different basic technologies.
The samples were characterized by specific methods and it was concluded that there exist very complex correlations between the physical and chemical characteristics of the polymer and its processability in a diversity of products (think in terms of quality reputation, brand!) One of the most important is the morphology of the powder particles (50-250 microns). Here JEOL enters the equation and play – I was informed about the pioneer role of JEOL in scanning electron microscopy- an analytical method that= became commercial around 1968- and when a JEOL Stockholm specialist has visited my to install a gas chromatograph we bought from them, I have asked him to take SEM images of the most significant PVC samples. The JEOL man – a very smart and nice man (I regret that I have forgot his name- Japanese working at the Stockholm branch of JEOL has sent me fast the much desired imagines. I confess that this proved to be the best, most expressive analytical method – very, very helpful for understanding the samples a scientific revelation of high class.
SEM revelation!.
Now again JEOL helps us to understand the intimate principles of catalysis and, I bet this new microscopy will help us to understand LENR too… Bravissimo JEOL!

3- Perhaps the best reason to happiness is the fact that this new method helps me- and hopefully many other more important people to understand the real validity of the Scientific Method for
our field. This is a vital problem and I am very worried for having seemingly quite opposite views than the organizers-strategists of ICCF-18.The Scientific Method is based on putting smart questions to Nature and using, more smartly the answers for solving the problems. However in the case of LENR we still do not have the adequate vocabulary to ask well and then we have to combine science with technological methods, making the research more empirical and seemingly less intellectually elevated.
Take the method worked out now by JEOL it gives new possibilities for the catalysis experts to ask and to get better answers- to understand catalysis. It becomes obvious that the Scientific Method needs and is based on ever new and improved and more telling methods and on a permanent re-thinking and repeated re-understanding of the phenomena.
The slogan of ICCF-18 promotes the use of the Scientific Method
and promises understanding of the heat release being IMHO off target because the scientific method still lacks the best methods
(experimental, analytical) and considering that the seemingly incurable bad reproducibility problem is strong noise that destroys both questions and answers.

The genuine scientific method is based on new means to ask and new ideas in understanding and not on formal application of some tentative dialogs with Nature with non-optimal questions and inaudible quasi sibyllic answers. Scientific method has to be a creative process. It is also a high quality process that cannot tolerate chaotic unpredictable behavior and is incompatible with\ the catastrophic and seemingly occult lack of decent reproducibility. However this seems to be just my personal opinion, many of my colleagues are much more tolerant than me.

This writing is just a preamble for my coming Open Letter to ICCF-18 telling the organizers that the Scientific Method has to be re-understood; Scientific Method hybridized with technology is the most adequate and even most scientific form of it.

The story of a story about Scientific Congresses.

One thing more about congresses. There are 4 places in this world
where I feel well like a fish in water: water pools, libraries, restaurants and scientific congresses. Perhaps my most disappointing experience was with scientific congresses and restaurants- but I will speak only about the former.

Because I am just reading about this remarkable book- just published
I will tell you a story; it is about how I think that congresses are.

Its 1989, autumn- Cold Fusion was already discovered and I was enthusiastic about it, a lot of strange things happen. Our dictator Ceausescu is stronger and more confident than ever knowing he
and his regime of terror are invincible and eternal. The Chemical Works Ramnicu Valcea OLTCHIM is organizing its yearly Chemistry and Chemical Industry Congress and as a founder I am invited. As the PVC guru (modesty ignored) I am speaking about the ways of technological progress for this polymer- but I feel that I want to tell more to the participants. One evening after dinner we organize a special lecture beyond any official program\
and I tell the strange story of a special PVC congress. It is my most successful speech ever. It is well known that at congresses
the most important and relevant things happen always outside
the so called program.

“A few years ago the deputy minister of Chemistry has called me to Bucharest and has told me: “Tovarish Gluck, a company from New Zeeland is asking us to send a Romanian specialist to heir PVC Congress. The good boys cannot go X is ill, Y has better things to do, so we have taken the risks and send you. They pay for travel and expenses so even if you get lost, it will not be a disaster. But take care and behave yourself and do not drink too much!’ Bureaucracies and autocracies are more unpredictable than a palladium cathode. I have received the tickets, some money
(US and NZdollars) and a nice badge “VII-th PVC congress”

A very long travel; at the Ankara airport I have met a 61/2 feet tall Nigerian guy who was wearing a badge like mine. In 5 minutes we were good friends, after half hour and a few glasses of my tzuika and his ogogoro premium we were friends for ever. He had a long Nigerian name but has asked me to call him just Joe, I was Peter as usual. Suddenly Joe asks me:
“When have you abandoned the Freudian teachings?”
I was perplexed what has polyvinyl chloride to do with this?
Then I realized then that this PVC congress is about Psychological Vigor & Creativity is made for psychologists and I, the reputed Expert in Polyvinyl Chloride had been  degraded to a total Ignorant nobody who can tell only stupid and false things, a non-professional, a pariah! I am in dead trouble- cannot go back or communicate with the bosses in Bucharest- I have to play. I have confessed to Joe my real identity and he has started to lead me toward a decent solution of my surprising nightmare like problem:

(Acronyms can define very different things, I knew then PVC
also as Peripheral Vasoconstriction in medicine and PVC as Pigment Volume Content in the paint industry; now here: you can find 47 different definitions)

Joe speaks:
“Peter, do not make you any illusions regarding Psychological Vigor and Creativity! It is a strange field and many mainstream psychologists do not care for it and even deny its existence or want its name changed in positive psychology, soul’s antifragility, mental resilience or something else like this... Every personality in PVC has his very own definition and a pet theory.
There are two great Leaders and geniuses, Professor B and Dr. M each having a lot of followers and fanatic fans and these two megaguys are continuously fighting like Ormuzd and Ahriman
or like two old bald men for a comb.
You will see how parallel the monologs can be, how strong the conflicts can be! The experimental part is for enhancing the vigor in thinking of different categories of people and the same sad story repeats itself: a group of researchers obtains some great success with a new vigor enhancing procedure. Triumphal music can be heard, the press is happy, the future of PVC seems bright and glorious. But then the new wonderful method is applied to a different group of subjects- and nothing happens. Or sometimes worse a lot of them become depressed. Professor B himself had once three successful attempts of suicide in such a test but this case is kept secret, you know! \
So get rid of any complexes and fear- just read these papers and reports and try to learn the jargon of PVC, find the most frequent and popular words, the MEMES of this discipline, my friend!
And never forget to refer as much often as you can to the great authorities. Say “Ted has advised me” re Professor B and “Dick thinks so” re Dr. M and you will be accepted by the gang even if considered not a high intelligence. Do not smile too much and refrain your annoying East European politeness!”

Joe has helped me to understand the normality of that congress,
Being restless I have participated at discussion regarding the psychology of research and of innovation- a very broad spectrum of opinions about me has developed and everything went well.
I was not debunked as alien. I have understood that it is something very bad and harmful with PVC and that some really
radical changes are necessary, but words like paradigm shift or renewal are rarely welcome- anywhere.

And then something great has happened.
The last day the participants could visit industrial units in order to test the newest methods of improving the psychological vigor and creativity of the staffs. Joe and I have chosen a brand new PVC factory (polyvinyl chloride!) near to Auckland. We have visited that technological jewel, had free access and the engineers, foremen and workers have tried very hard to explain to those naïve psychologists all the details of the process. Lots of new valuable technological information.
I wrote a good report about the polymer factory and “forgot”
to tell about psychology.

The PVC/PVC story is not real, but it is true.


Friday, July 5, 2013


Motto: The Sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it had nothing else in the universe to do (Galileo)

Today, after several days of blue sky and hot weather, release of a heavy rain over Bucharest was decided on a very high level. By the intensity I would say it was an unanimous decision. It started abruptly and went on so intense that I would not be surprised if its efficiency levels raised beyond most expectations of the decision makers. It may have cleaned tons of dirt from streets, cars, buses and trams, stray dogs and any other usually dirty Bucharest items - in just a few minutes. Of course deep cleansing is still required, but most things will get quite a shiny look - at least for a while.

There was a secondary result, quite hard to notice for those categories which remain only with the polishing effect out of a heavy sudden summer rain. For those who genuinely love this simple and quite common natural phenomena, such a breakout is a moment of pure timelessness - our tiny but overactive lives are set on hold for a few minutes. It just sweeps away time and space. It is a window of fascination, with people stopping whatever they were doing, either to run and find shelter or just to watch that force of nature unraveling. It comes along with a perfect smell and with a symphony of sound and visual effects. Free spectacle with guaranteed front seat, no matter from which angle you watch it.

I realized today that heavy rain plays with time in a manner and with a frequency hardly comparable to anything else in our lives (and even more in its 'snow' version). We can always count on it to seemingly spoil plans or at least reshape our priorities. We are unhappy when it blocks us on airports or highways and delays us from reaching our destinations. On the other hand, it bring us closer to our families and friends when we are all stuck in the same place and we are forced to remember how to genuinely communicate. It has been 'accused' of favouring sleep and also some other (more active) bed-related pursuits. It is a famous cliché on which we can count in all romance movies to bring lovers together for their 'first time'. It is one of those things which we invoke when we don't have it and wish it goes away when it is too much. It is unpredictable and disloyal, it steals our attention every time we are on holiday and it diverts our conversations every other day (but we need to admit it also helps when we have no topic whatsoever).

Heavy rain stops the time, cleanse the matter, refreshes the mind, while at the same time generously gives back to Earth the very indispensable matter which is presumed to be the source of life on this planet. So many wonderful roles for just one natural process, which is allah so unpredictable, disloyal and moody. Thank God we have not figured out how to control it too much, and so it can continue undisturbed with its majestic power, without failing us on a planetary scale yet ...


Monday, July 1, 2013


“Sacred cows make the best hamburgers” (Mark Twain)

The usual, let’s say traditional, totems and taboos of the Cold Fusion /LENR field/movement have generated the certainty that the phenomena are real and many interesting scientific data, however no usable energy. It increasingly seems these symbols/concepts are ripe for a rather radical metamorphosis and replacement.
The situation of the initial positives: palladium is good, it has to be combined with deuterium, electrochemistry is the way, pure scientific method will create all the solutions for research and development- seem to be too weak and fragile; ugly facts are increasingly eroding and destroying them.
Recently something much unexpected, even unbelievable has happened: the last sacred cow- NUCLEAR is marching vigorously toward slaughter house, suggesting me a title for this essay.
It is not difficult to write volumes about the complex and diversified relationships between excess heat release and nuclear signals in many-many CF/LENR experiments. However, the conclusion is simple: thermal and nuclear phenomena coexist but it is very difficult to find a univocal correlation between them and no causal relationship could be established. Melvin Miles’s 22 years old experiments in which heat and helium are relatively commensurate, needs new solid and extended proofs. Do not forget the 1 = 0 rule! Thermal and nuclear phenomena are usually just simply parallel; the founders have opted for nuclear because all the possible and even impossible chemical reactions from the successful systems could not explain the quantity of heat energy released in the few successful experimental systems. If not chemical, then what? Only nuclear can explain so much heat- quantities sufficient to be a problem but not to be a solution.
The snobbish ambition of Cold Fusion to be as nuclear as hot fusion was used by ill-willed, envious, closed-minded and by simply prudent skeptics to stigmatize and pauperize and marginalize our field- but this is history and will be ended when
the first commercial metal-hydrogen based generators will enter the market. To be nuclear is not a virtue per se for a source of energy- ask your ecologist friends.

It is fascinating to follow how fast data indicating that the “cold fusion is nuclear axiom’ will fade away- it is about an idea whose
time has arrived. See the messages coming from Defkalion, study
the discovery and process building, explaining work done by our colleague Axil Axil. Or why not? Take a look to this blog for Nanoplasmonics.

Jeane Manning has brightly understood the essence of the Defkalion process and has described it in her new Infinite Energy paper see please:

“However, readers who are aware of nanoplasmonics—a
new area of science dealing with the interaction of photons
with matter including nuclei or sub-nuclear particles—will
be interested to read how scientists at the Defkalion Green
Technologies (DGT) lab now describe phenomena that they
see happening in DGT’s excess-heat-producing Hyperion
product. Instead of using the term low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), DGT has been calling the process HENI—heat energy from nuclear interactions. A recent breakthrough
resulted in a change; instead of the “N” standing for nuclear,
it now stands for nanoplasmonics. I expect that this simpler
interpretation of the phenomena could help with the public
image of this field and its products. Could it also build
alliances with other academic fields.”

Coincidence or not- the nuclearity/non nuclearity problem was discussed very intensively on our forums. However, not very openly still.

Our colleague Felix Scholkmann, author of a really good study about Andrea Rossi has signaled today this paper that demonstrates the formidable possibilities of nanoplasmonics:
Plasma Nanoscience: from Nano-Solids in Plasmas to Nano-Plasmas in Solids

This month will take place an important event- ICCF-18 and I will ask you, dear readers- take it

Survey regarding ICCF-18

1-What do you think, which interesting questions will be put and which important problems of the field will be raised at ICCF-18?

2- What answers will be given and solutions will be presented to the issues from 1?

3- Globally, ICCF-18 will be characterized better by Change or by Continuity?