Thursday, August 8, 2013



Things would be so much easier if we could change the past

Our field, LENR, has some problems, a part of them serious and these have to be resolved. Without them, the things would be so much easier; the scientific-technological progress would be very fast, continuous, harmonious and diversified...
A short and extendable list of the most necessary changes.

As the quote says it. things would be so much easier if we could change the past- and the good alternative follows: LENR had been discovered in 2003 by Martin Veganis, materials scientist and Stanley Varoli, physicist both working at LANL while testing Ni/support industrial catalysts in extreme conditions- at much higher temperatures than usual. Later they were joined by Prof. Gustav Erdelieder, the great guru of Nanoplasmonics and a group of engineers. The Group has obtained more than a dozen US patents and this alternative history continues; recently the commercial HATM generator No 10 million was sold (HATM- means Hydrogen and Transition Metals).
Some days ago at the 5th Congress of Hydrogen Metal Energy some very important scientific discoveries and technical innovations were announced. Fine, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, the real history of the field was indeed highly anomalous and as far I remember we cannot change the past: God also cannot; only the historians can- but they too are limited to the political past.

However, things would be so much easier if we will be able to accept that LENR classic a la Fleischmann and Pons and/or with preformed nano-structures, at one part, and LENR+ - enhanced excess heat, at the other part, are very different and have to be treated separately. They are animals that belong to the same family but are different species (are not hybridizable). The former is scientific but not technologizable- the later is technology based on a vast combination of many scientific disciplines.

Also things would be so much easier if
we make many other necessary distinctions,
we don't the try to do the impossible,
don't search for the inexistent and
don't insist stubbornly on what does not work


distinction between the tolerable and the intolerable- as bad reproducibility, between means and aims; the Scientific Method \is just a means that works only in combination with other methods,

impossible a good Pd based LENR system,

inexistent- a mono-theory that explains this complex, multi-step
set of phenomena,

what does not work: wet or dry, at low temperatures- under say, 200 C

Even more, things would be so much easier if we do not put constrains and set limits on the methods and tools used for solve
the problems of research and development just in name of some
ideals as the Scientific Method.

However, things will go so much easier if we limit drastically the use of thinking based on historical analogies because these do not explain much and solve nothing, history just rhymes but offers specific cases, and cold fusion is the most specific of all I ever met, .first of all due to the strength of its weaknesses. Learning from history, in this case is limited because the LENR+ story has new features, never seen before.

Nobody can deny that the things will go so much easier if the number of know-it-alls in the field will be reduced to one-tenth of the present value. (this is a more general truth)

Please allow me to cite here one of my favorite pragmatic philosophers.
Failure is simply a few errors in judgment, repeated every day.  (Jim Rohn)

Errors, as NOT trying hard to make things to go so much easier are effective only if repeated for long time and I think this became obvious after more than 24 years for Cold Fusion/LENR that it is time for Changes.

The target of this writing – you could easily guess  is the recent ICCF-18. I have followed with great interest the presentations- with great thanks to Ruby Csrat and her team on Cold Fusion Now, who have made really good journalism. The congress has not generated surprises as shown here:        
and that’s regrettable, however it was much better than it’s unhappy (my opinion) slogan.
There were no great events- except the DGT Demo
that was a great but outside achievement, a guest and not yet a member of the family. 

What regards future of LENR as discussed here:

I was very pleasantly impressed by the realism of the founder of the Sydney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance learning that SKINR’s objective, as tasked by philanthropist Sidney Kimmel, is a practical technology in his lifetime. We owe it to all of us to move this field forward to a useful technological objective.” A wise billionaire!
That signifies, the Scientific Method and all the scientific investigations are seen as means and not aims per se. I hope that the hybrid approach, scientific and technological, by theory and by engineering will become a standard in LENR research.

A very inspiring report was published by David French with whom I had a very friendly correspondence, whom I admire and who is a true “technologist”
I will not cite from this report because it is a must read and is a more elevated, more elegant, more convincing invitation to smart changes than the present paper.

Eventually, things will go so much easier if we accept that the following months will be an Armageddon with Defkalion in the position of spearhead and leader.
 LENR+ will be the Great Winner becoming an infinite source of energy. LENR classic a la ICCF-18 will be a smaller winner because LENR+ will provide it with plenty of funds for many interesting studies.
The Loser will be the reactionary, closed-minded, skeptical. Ill-willed sons and daughters of Koalemos.



  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. What do you mean about Defkalion and Armageddon? Are their findings false?

    1. Dear Paul, the Armageddon is the final Battle between the friends (few) and enemies (a lot) of LENR that gaves useful
      Defkalion's technology, is good, it is rock-solid and will resist to all the attacks and will be applied commercially.
      The adjustments to be made to this technology are not essential.
      Who has told you that their findings are false?


    2. The most advanced LENR technology results from partnership of many branches of science, here LENR thrives. SPAWAR and NASA are examples of labs where advanced LENR engineering is emerging, with both flight (NASA LENR Boeing 747) and the transmutation of nuclear waste (The GEC GeNie Reactor).

      Yes, doing the same thing with limited involvement is most likely limiting. Enthusiastic involvement by many branches of science, in advanced laboratories, leads to success.

      LENR The Debutante At the Ball

  3. Well, I am a long years friend of "Cold Fusion" aka LENR(+) and after thousands of hours of analyses (mostly only indices) I have suspicion, that something wrong/out of plan is developed at Defkalion. Even Rossi after numerous screams about "absolutely stable reaction between 1030-1070°C in Sept 2012" (and after that melted reactor during scientific tests).

    Analysing businesses from 1973: Who need presence at TSE, when You have demand from 1000 businesses and 60 willing to pay 40,5 million for blueprints of factory (not for technology itself)???

    For me it is clear: Huge delay at DGT, R6 was in plan for Jan/Feb 2013. Last demo was R5. They have some serious problems and keep quiet about this, so they have not enough money to finish a basic development of first commercially viable reactor. So their TSE adveture plan is their Plan B.

    1. Dear Guru,

      I do not wonder why such a long wait has made you pessimist. I became angry-especially due to the high tolerance toward irreproducibility that could be explainde by my poisoning hypothesis.

      Based on my own hands-on, brain-in, position in danger experience with such projects, I have the correct idea of
      what technical, msterials, science, scientific and legal problems have and had DGT to solve and I see no delay. They are good problem solvers- and I think only an Eric Schmidt
      or a Steve Jobs has the right to criticize ab ovo theirf business plan without knowing a lot of details.
      You will see, and I hope I too. Is this nickname covering an old friend?

    2. Dear Guru,
      Your fear of technical problems is my second choice to explain Defkalion Behavior. They may have problem, like they admit for Nelson tests.

      However my first choice is that DGT hides guns in its trousers, as Millis was advising.

      using the data of the Italian test, and assuming that good engineer my replace external heat by self-produced recycled heat (or by bootstrap reactor like the e-cat Mouse), and assuming fair test and real dry steam, you can propose that the Hyperion may react up to COP 160...
      What is clear for defkalion is that they seems to hide their performance, giving steam to the skeptics, accepting bad performance by short degassing...

      This reduce the hypothesis of low performance to small.

      now there is the scam hypothesis that MY&clone loves.
      This hypothesis have to be studied like any other, and not as a null hypothesis.
      This does not match the many micro-moves that we can observe... Like the freedom given to testers like Nelson or Matt Lewans, like the partnership with Defkalion Europe, who bring no money but bring a skeptic boss, competent and having access to the baby.
      It is funny to see the skeptics notice the apparent inconsistencies in business strategy, and missed the inconsistencies in their conspiracy theory...
      Funny how they interpret Defkalion "present to the skeptic" as an evidence of fraud, and not an evidence of self-confidence and understatement of performance, as business strategy demand.
      Funny to see them moan on flow calorimetry after having asked for flow calorimetry... now asking for phase change mass calorimetry, or isoperibolic...

      anyway, if Murphy's laws does not provide us another bad surprise (hum, not sure), we can expect good testing in septembe, moaning skeptics who will invent usual FUD, and partnership publication in october for the IPO...
      Just afraid MY call canadian SEC to block the IPO.

      I agree, it is the last battle, the armageddon, before the apocalypse... the moment when the cover is removed over the truth.
      It will be bloody, FUD will be broadcasted as desperately as the end is near.

      question is whether, supported by planet-wide delusion, the skeptic will be able to delay the end.

      From my experience they will succeed. They will delay LENR+ entry to market of few quarters again, probably helped by Murphy's laws...

    3. Dear Alain, from 2012 NIweek DGT papers I have even more wild hypothesis:

      What punch me into nose was fact their papers (XRFS) was published with PERCENTAGE of materials, not picograms or miligrams. So I have suspicion that not only energy is produced, so also mass is PRODUCED. Very heretical and in accordance with Dr. Keshe theories

    4. hum, I'm skeptic...

      I have a huge tendency to think that the basic laws of physics (conservation of mass energy, charges, bonds on entropy, uncertainty, ,lightspeed limit) holds...
      but anyway I follow the experimental results...

      for now the law of business, psychology, and stage magic, tell me that DGT have something real and feel comfortable about it .
      the laws of Corporate Behavior are compatible with that.
      Accepting that fact, the law of thermodynamic, tel me that COP>100 is not to exclude with good engineering...

      beside that, and especially in physics theory, I only know that theory have to follow experiments and not constraint their acceptation.

      among the theory who are compatible with the facts, the ones which respect the basic conservation laws contain probably the good one.
      But I did not design the World, so it is a guess. ;-)

  4. Dear Peter,

    yeah I remember Alta Vista search Engine. When Google-stein started, I don't unedrstand this million tonnes hype in mainstream media, because at start Google-steing was not better then Alta Vista. After years and unfolding that (one democratic country) GeStaPo's investing hidden arm was involved in start of Google-stein, I understand rest. Mr. Schmidstein has no right to criticize. Google is simply spying arm of (one democratic country) Geheim Staats Polizei.
    I have a long term dream: One day will Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech, Poland a one strong block, not such Bilderberg puppets as today. I was in Romania as 4 year old child on holidays, so yes, we all are old friends.

  5. Things would also be a lot easier if we weren't so afraid to speak the truth. This applies to the believers as well as the critics. Here, I'll give you an example.

    I got about as far as the 1.6 Tesla claim in DGT's presentation. Does this seem right to you? Hall effect probes need to measure millivolts of electricity accurately, rather like a thermocouple. Both can show massive errors in the presence of strong RF fields, such as you will find under high voltage sparking/arcing conditions. Precisely the conditions we find in this experiment. Would it have been so hard to validate the incredible claim of such a massive field by shielding the probe with a bit of foil? If not, then what does this say about other measurements and claims being made by DGT?

    Now before hitting that reply button, find yourself a nice hall effect probe, and hold it next to a sparking source. There. Now hit the reply button, and perhaps we can advance the field a few more yards.

  6. The True Believers on other forums seem to think I refused Hadjichristos's offer to test the Hyperion. In fact, here is what happened.

    For what I hope is the last time, I did not refuse to test the Hyperion.

    Here is what I actually did (here on Peter’s blog you can read most of it, the rest is by email and the discussion of method is on Henning Dekant's blog):

    - I responded that I would put Hadjichristos in touch with two qualified scientists who would do the preliminary preparations with him so the three of us, and some technical people we would bring, could do the test.

    - I laid out some very reasonable conditions for the test

    - Henning Dekant, and many others including me, contributed to putting together a DETAILED step by step protocol for properly testing the Hyperion. Hadjichristos did not respond.

    - I required that my anonymity be preserved but ONLY UNTIL THE TEST BEGAN. In the meantime, the identity and qualifications of the other two investigators would be revealed on the internet. One is already public and is Henning Dekant who is very qualified to participate.

    - The other scientist is a professor emeritus of engineering physics (EXACTLY the specialty needed) at a large university. He emailed Hadjichristos privately asking for discreet contact. What did Hadjichristos do? He published the private email on the internet.

    - Did Hadjichristos make a good faith response to my acceptance of his offer (with a few simple conditions)? HE DID NOT.

    - Did Hadjichristos make a proper response to Henning Dekant and the physics professor? HE DID NOT.

    - Did Hadjichristos respond to a few polite preliminary questions about his and his company’s previous claims which I asked him here in another message string? HE DID NOT.

    - Did Hadjichristos propose some alternative scenario if he did not like the one I suggested? HE DID NOT.

    So basically, Hadjichristos seems to have a weird and inappropriate fascination about the identity of skeptics and critics. And that’s all.

    There is and never was a real offer to test Hyperions. In addition, there is no reason or logic to the strange idea of inviting critics and skeptics on the internet test Hyperion.

  7. Dear Mary,

    before any discusiions, can you explain me in private why you
    HAVE to hide your identiy?

    And answer me also very sincerely, would you discuss any kind of
    collaboration with somebody who hides his/her identity?

    I will understand if somebody says he/she has worked for FBI and has signed an identity hiding contract for 50 years after retiring. Is this your case?
    I will not reveal to anybody your confessions (NDA of honor)


  8. I'll tell you publicly. The problem is that a lot true believers get easily offended when I gore their ox and cast doubt on their lovely but fanciful beliefs. They tend to get abusive, and they threaten to stalk me or take legal action. I don't need any of those things.

    The other point is that my identity IS NOT and NEVER WAS an issue.

    I provided the names of two qualified people who can speak for me and are willing to be identified.

    So now, what is the problem with Hadjichristos making a proper proposal and agreeing to a protocol and a date for a test?

    And for goodness' sake, why doesn't he answer the simple questions I asked him about his previous statements? Why don't you as Hadjichristos that? And also while you're at it, ask him why he published the well intentioned but clearly private email from Angus? Is that supposed to help us trust him?

    Those are the things that matter in this issue of whether or not Defkalion really can do LENR. To think the issue is my identity is preposterous and ridiculous. It couldn't matter less.

    1. MaryYugo

      I think you answer needs an accurate response.

      a) You claim other people get offend by you, yes I have seen that but too often it is you being abusive as wwell as bullying in your comments. You are *not* an angel of any sort.

      b) The 'qualified people' to my knowledge do not know you personally and you have never admitted this, (unless 1 of them just happened to be you which I doubt).

      c) Your anonymity IS AN ISSUE ? - how can you pretent it isn't ?


  9. @maryyugo

    We offered YOU in public (and only you) the privilege to make a test under only one condition: tell us in public who are you, the one to sign a test report. No NDA we required nor any other condition. You try to avoid that only condition hiding bellow claims and other anonymous people or people that do not know you.

    Dear Mary Whatever, we do not communicate with people hiding under anonymity and we do not consider messages signed with nick names as "private communication" but as non-messages.

    So, either our way or take the highway.
    John Hadjichristos

    1. "We offered YOU in public (and only you)..."
      The type of test we are talking about can not be done by only one person as is obvious from Mats Lewan's recent rushed and completely inadequate "performance". And if your staff is involved in helping with the measurements, it is not any longer an independent test. So your above response revealed that this is not an offer for a proper and independent test and it never was.

      Furthermore, making this offer to me (and "only" me) instead of, for example, a national laboratory, makes absolutely no sense. Exactly like just about everything else your company has done or said over the previous two years.

      "Your way" is not the way a real cold fusion device would ever be demonstrated or properly tested if it were real.

    2. MY,

      For the record, Jeane Manning did go to the DGT Vancouver office to test the hyperion this past spring. Accompanying her were 2 experienced Electrical Engineers from an interested power company along with a physics expert from a National Laboratory.

      I only mention this after your comment accusing DGT of negligence for not: "making this offer to a national laboratory".

      If you are interested in Mannings report afterwards, I suggest you look it up. Appears she and those accompanying her, including the one from the "National Lab", were quite impressed with the R5.

      Shane D.

    3. Dear Mr Hadjichristos, beside that fencing at speckled foil, I take the occasion to ask few question.

      - First do you confirm the statement of Luca gamberale on the discrepancies found, and test in September. can you give some details on the questions raised. Is it a long lasting problems, of a specific discrepancy linked to that precise setup? Is it applicable to Nelson testing?

      - about the IPO preparation announced in ToVima, there are some speculation about the reasons of such call for capital. Do you have an official position?

      - can you tell us if in the process of IPO, beside the name of the partners and licensee, you will publish third party test reports ? What should be the number of such independent test (on-site, off-site, independent instruments and plumbing)? how independent? what kind of organisation (certification labs, academics, govt agency, non physicist academics, which kind of countries involved)...

      I am among those who feel that we are few days before the Berlin wall was open, but I remember that the day before it was open and soon dismantled, someone was gunned to death for trying to pass through.

      as a tech-watcher I see some ebullience on the convinced and deniers sides, but the outcome is uncertain. The VoPo are well armed and parrot the same moto.
      this is where you answers may cool down some fears, and impede some armchairs critics raised by lack of information.

      Best regards.

    4. Dear Allan
      Asking Peter's forgiveness as having to respond (again) off topic under his very interesting article, I can say that the questions you raised are business and not science or technology related. As such, they will be answered in due time through official announcements in our company's web site.
      Thank you for your supportive interest.
      John Hadjichristos

    5. "MY, For the record, Jeane Manning did go to the DGT Vancouver office to test the hyperion this past spring. Accompanying her were 2 experienced Electrical Engineers from an interested power company along with a physics expert from a National Laboratory."
      Ms. Manning's report is found here:

      If you would take the trouble to read it, you would find it contains no test results and no technical information. The people who accompanied her are said to have been under an NDA and are not identified (what a surprise!). Also, the lab supposedly involved is not identified. Their conclusions are not provided. Their test, if there was one, would have been done with Defkalion's technicians and facilities and therefore would not be independent. I saw this and critiqued it when it first came out, what?--a few weeks ago?

    6. Dear John,

      Since the first question from Alain is technical in nature, can you elaborate about the measurement discrepancy? You have been very open about the experimental setup.

  10. " ...we do not communicate with people hiding under anonymity and we do not consider messages signed with nick names as "private communication" but as non-messages..."

    So, just as I thought, it is not a real offer, it is just a scam and a weird fascination with my identity. It has nothing to do with obtaining a proper test. You do not want a proper test of your machine.

    You don't seem to have a problem with the anonymity of those six of the ten world's greatest companies which your chairman, Xanthoulis said (to Mats Lewan) have tested your device. You have apparently no problem with the anonymity of the seven major companies which supposedly tested your device in April 2012.

    In fact the only identified person you seem to have no problems with so far is Nelson, an investigator of perpetual motion claims.

    "So, either our way or take the highway." Yes. That's evidence of your tremendous spirit of cooperation!

    Obviously you don't want a test from me and you'd never allow it. If you change your mind, talk to Angus like I asked you to. If you just want games, I am not playing.

    1. MaryYugo

      This snide quip by you is a classic example of your warping details to belittle anyone who may have shown positive interest in a LENR+ device.

      "In fact the only identified person you seem to have no problems with so far is Nelson, an investigator of perpetual motion claims."

      To me this is typical of a troll poster who makes derogatory remarks using anonymity about respected professionals such as Nelson. The clear tactic is to besmirch anyone who says anything positive. Even Prof Kim (and we have been through your bad behavior on that matter elsewhere).

      You know about Nelson (because I posted details at ECN) of Nelson's background with NASA and the presentations he has given at NASA GRC LENR related conferences in 2011 & 2012.



  11. Mary Yugo- I will not feed your megalomania, but it is not
    acceptable to replace Moby Dick with two dolphins.
    In the off-line real world anonymous persons cannot be partners for discussions nad collaborations.

    However, can you send me the sketch or leading proinciples of the testing protocol worked out by you for the generators?


  12. With apologies to Peter for a slightly off-topic post, I am quoting what "General Zaroff" has to say on another blog-- I found it relevant as well as very funny:

    "... the situation at DGT is absolutely humiliating. Could you imagine being a “scientist” there, having the solution to the world’s energy problems on your desktop for the past two years, and still not being competent enough to measure the energy balance properly? To top it all off, the company is now seeking the help of an anonymous blogger to test the device for you. Yikes, I think the average employee there could make a strong cse for getting a refund on their university tuition at this point."


    1. First time in history that anyone has quoted "General Zaroff"... let us pray it is the last.

  13. No problem MARY, I have read even greater idiocies than this
    on the internet, not many but quite enough. The recipe is simple
    say exact the contrary of truth.
    The worst imbecilities of all are on the anti-vaccine group sites.
    This Zaroff would be a smart guy there. Despite his negative IQ.

    1. Perhaps, Peter, but do you see "Zaroff's" point? It makes no sense for Defkalion to claim that they have working high power reactors under continuous test by the dozen, each with built in flow calorimetry. This is what they said almost two years ago?

      And then they show something completely lame and inadequate to Lewan? And they ask someone they don't know, from the internet, (me) to do a test? Alone without help?

      This is a bad joke, don't you think? It certainly can not be a valid effort by Hadjichristos to acquire a properly conducted and reliable independent test, can it? Anyone reasonable can see that the "offer" is not intended to be a serious one leading to an actual test.

      No legitimate offer would be made that way.

    2. /As specialist of e-trust I know the difference between having a proof of something, and sharing a proof of something.
      I also know that is the peer does not want to accept the proof, there is nothing else to do than retry, change the algorithm, or break the communication. If the peer-party is not honest there is no way to make it accept anything, because he can just say NO. At worst a third party can claim the evidence is valid, but the peer-party can reject the third party unless the protocol is well locked.

      note also that in that domain, with my experience, I know there is no "trusted third party" agreed by both side, since the mainstream side have shown reluctance to reality and fraud, and since the few realist accepting LENR are immediately accused of complicity and delusion.

      I would advice to use "innocent children" (non academic students in engineering) to test the reactor (like an engineering school Junior Enterprise), but I know that the academic will again reject those lower species as unable to judge of so important claims, demanding the standard delusioned academics (who even if realist, often are less competent in electricity and plumbing).

      Try to convince a 9/11 conspiracy fan, about the mainstream theory and you will see that to convince, evidence are not enough...

      I admit that the position of Luca Gamberale let us think there is a real weakness in the proof presented end of july.

      however beside that detail, I have see you, and others ask for any variation of protocol, then change and ask something else, moan on optimism and pessimism, on precision and lack of precision, ...

      The basic of Hypercritic method is to move target as soon as it seems that the other party comply with your demands...

      Thomas Kuhn concluded that there is no possibility to convince the other side, whatever the evidence are, until it have material impact that give huge advantage to one side.

      for LENR it means sales and big money.

    3. Mary
      You well know Zaroff is a regular poster who adopted the Zaroff id just to attack and ridicule anyone who the attack team want to shut down.

      The Zaroff id never posts anything whatsoever supportive of an open mind or any belief that LENR/LENR+ may be real.

      I have a great story about a friend's old decrepit and farting black dog that sums Zaroff up to perfection. Maybe I need to post it here too.


  14. You don't know the history of the tests- in a fisrt stge DGT
    has focused on control- and this was very effective; yopur best friend Rossi still has control problems.

    Your genius is not necessary in order to solve any problem of
    DGT, howver if you, the Queen of deniers and the saditsic fairy
    come make a test and being honest say it works, this would be a good and free advertisment. No other reason to invite you.
    Do not care for independent tests of Hyperions. And a good joke we can enjoy together with you-- "Mamma mia mia, I thought I am infailible" will you say laughing. Do not worry for the generators and for the company. Take care of your reputation- in this case.