SHORT SUNDAY LECTURE

It is well known that who forgets history, will repeat it. Conversely, who focuses too much on history, will also repeat it with delight and will become its prisoner. I think the solutions of our present problems are not in the past, and much of the past wisdom is actually misleading. Politically and not only politically, the strings by which we are manipulated come from the past. I think much of the wisdom of past has to be examined by critical thinking, mercilessly- starting with old stories taught in the schools. For example, when my blog had less than 10 readers per day, I wrote this:

An unwise ancient parable

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/02/unwise-ancient-parable.html

The analysis tells you a lot about the true nature of corruption

while the original blows away tens of your IQ points.

Today, some strange circumstances force me to re-examine an other well known story, again about an emperor, (kings seem to be trivial for true monarchist stories):

The Emperor’s New Clothes

http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

It was made known by Hans Christian Andersen, but actually is much older with folkloric roots.

“But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. This is the crucial point of the story.

Andersen offers us a relatively peaceful ending of the story, but he lies. The historical truth is this: the parents and grandparents of the child were executed with no delay, for ‘supporting defamation and lèse-majesté”. The child being so young, was exiled to a remote area, however he died underway due to some mysterious accident. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

We have to learn that things are not what they seem, or we are told they are, so many times.

Peter

ABOUT PROBLEM SOLVING by AXIL

There is a training process that forms the mind of the problem solver that might explain why scientists are reluctant to accept unorthodox ways of problem solving. In scientific education, a scientist gains success by learning the established doctrinaire of the field of study he is being educated in. The scientist is presented with a doctrinaire outline in a text book and will pass the course if his way of thinking has been properly molded by his professor in the course of his studies whose chief objective is conformance with the required doctrinaire. He passes a final examine that demonstrates that he understands and agrees with the doctrinaire and the professor who has enforced the course of study on the student.

Over a lifetime of conformance based thinking, a religious like need to conform to the prevailing belief structure is ingrained in his mental being. When an idea is outside that conformant framework, the scientist’s mental processes automatically and unconsciously rebels to discount the new idea as a sin against doctrinaire and the dereliction of consistency implied by the new idea.

Over the centuries, this doctrinaire has been modified and oftentimes been replaced whole cloth with some new way of thinking that is forced on science to meet some unusual nonconforming natural idiosyncrasy. When a new scientific theory is introduced it usually takes years or decades to penetrate through the closed minded prejudices of the majority of conservative scientists.

Furthermore, science has become specialized to such an extent that in order to get to the cutting edge of any given field, it takes half a lifetime to acquire the knowledge and the history of the narrowly defined subject matter.  When a scientific specialist writes about the hard won advancement that he has labored hard to contribute to his specific field, that information lays fallow because only a few people in the world understand the context and the background required to properly understand and utilize his contribution.   Over his career, the scientific specialist builds on his contributions to the field and hopes someone will reference any of the papers that he has produced. Each new paper becomes more and more incomprehensible dealing on more and more unfathomable and obscure detail of the subject matter.

This extreme scientific specialization has resulted in stove piping of the scientific disciplines.

Stovepiping (also stove piping) is a metaphorical term which recalls a stovepipe's function as an isolated vertical conduit for information and knowledge, and has been use to describe several ways in which raw  information may be presented without proper context. It is a system created to solve a specific problem.

The lack of context springs from the specialized nature of the knowledge and information. It also has limited and myopic focus that is not easily shared. Alternatively, the lack of context may come from a particular group, selectively presenting only that information that supports certain conclusions or supports the agenda that advances the interest of that group.

The other mode of education of problem solving is provided by real world experience in meeting project oriented requirements. In business, a customer puts out a request for quote (RFQ) that requires a potential vender to meet a specification describing the project.

The customer does not require the vender to follow any method in the way that the vender solves the conformance of the proposed solution to totally meeting the entirety of the specification.

The vender in a functional analysis of the specification brakes up the specification into a thousand atomic level individual requirements. His solution must meet all these many requirements simultaneously and in every possible permutation and combination of situations.

A chief project engineer will develop a pragmatic solutions oriented way of thinking. This mindset is not concerned with following the rules as a means of the solution; he just wants to come up with any viable way of solving the problem, rules be dammed. Success is what counts no matter the way in which that success is achieved. Cleverness and elegance of thought is what distinguishes a great project engineer from all the rest.

An experienced project engineer will develop a feeling about the major directions to be taken that are implied by the specification. He thinks to himself, if we can stay true to these fundamental design principles we will be alright.  In this way like high art, the design engineer breaths the essence of his soul into the system to be uncovered by any who can appreciate the brilliance of his creation.

Under the realities and pressures imposed on the chief project engineer by the commercial world, this renaissance man  is usually faced with a task that he has little or no background to apply to or depend on. And yet, to be successful in implementing his project, he must become an expert second to none in multiple fields. His first job is to determine what fields of expertise he must acquire to meet the new challenge. Two dozen diverse fields of knowledge might be required in a large and convoluted project. As an expert adept at learning and correlating of information, he begins his study by identifying, surveying, and going through all the thousands of obscure scientific papers that have been produced by the various scientific specialist both newly written or that have been laying fallow and unappreciated for ages.

He begins to apply this knowledge to the requirements both specified and implied in his project. His plans are formed around the aggregation of knowledge that seldom ends until the customer accepts the project as completed. Even then he works to solve latent defects in his project until the project has reached a high level of utility, effectiveness, and customer satisfaction.

A good example of this type of adaptable mentality is the various ways NASA has solved how spacecraft  land on Mars. Based on the projects requirements, the Mars landing method may use balloons that bounce the lander on touchdown, or use retrorockets, or a Sky Crain that gently lowers the lander from a height.  All these method are based on absolutely meeting all the requirements of the project, the least of which is a successful landing.

LENR requires a project oriented way of thinking. The LENR method must conform to the multitude of individual observations of its nature. The method must be independent of any constraints imposed by existing scientific doctrinaire, the majority of which are always subject to some level of untruthfulness. We must look for a solution that meets all the experimentally derived clues that have been gathered over the years and no clue must be ignored.

The ultimate goal of the theorist looking to understand LENR must be to uncover the ultimate operational principles that underlie the entirety of LENR. A true LENR theory will cover all LENR systems as well as each and every situation demonstrated by all those various systems.

I believe that this is what Peter Gluck means when he says that LENR requires an engineering solution approach that is not constrained and limited by existing scientific doctrinaire.

LENR’S FUTURE MATTERS MORE THAN ITS PAST

THE PROBLEMS

The LENR field has seemingly intractable problems of understanding the science, of managing the experiments and of intensification & scale-up to an energy source. The existence of LENR is beyond any doubt; using it for a real energy source still is a very open question.                                               

Anticipating the main message of this paper, I will say that actually you cannot do much good with the immature, sick form of native LENR- it must be converted to a superior one- helped to grow up. 

It is time to completely re-think and re-write the history, the status and the perspective of the field and adopt a radically and painfully new strategy, new modes of thinking- shifting to a new Paradigm. (R: who the xxxx are you to decide?)

 

THE ROOT CAUSE: BAD START!

LENR’s mystery and tragedy: it was an unlucky discovery (“miscovery”). Fleischmann and Pons have found the phenomenon too early, before its time, in the worst place, where it certainly exists, but only in a handicapped, underdeveloped vulnerable, suboptimal state. (R:do you indeed believe this or are you depressive?This is the strangest thing I have ever heard!)

The natural imperative to this- “move it!”- find a new, better environment without the useless and/or harmful things- water, palladium, deuterium electro-chemistry, too low working  temperatures- was realized only in part with a great delay, with no determination. In the cradle system- the F&P Cell- the deadly curse of the new field- irreproducibility is not solvable, intensification and scale-up are simply impossible. The bad start was aggravated by a series of vis major errors and by unexpected obstacles and difficulties. (R: only the enemies of Cold Fusion have made errors!)

VIS MAJOR ERRORS

These “forced errors” are more fatalities- unavoidable. Due to very unfavorable circumstances, adversities and to lack of alternatives some bad choices were made by those working in the field, collectively:

a) premature announcement/publication/presentation of the discovery due to “competition” with Steve Jones:

b) in the initial period hot fusion thinking was used e.g. neutron hunting; the huge differences between hot fusion and cold fusion were not understood;

c) due to weak signals – forced focus on measurement and not on enhancement;

d) the heat produced being more than any chemical source will produce- it MUST be nuclear and only nuclear;

e) science and the scientific method alone can solve the problems of LENR including practical energy source; we have to find a theory (sing.) for LENR;

f) the electrochemical wet PdD model has dominated over the gas phase catalytic NiH model; around 1994 the results of Piantelli et al have NOT  determined a mass exodus to the NH model;

g) the absolute necessity of deep degassing, of air-free working surfaces was never recognized (for wet PdD it cannot be done);

These errors have lead to three impediments to problem solving- 1-merciless oppression by mainstream science, 2-the community has misunderstood the essence of the problem and 3-inadequate tools, methods, concepts, approaches were used for problem solving. The progress in the field was slow, mainly horizontal and incremental.                                                                                           Metaphorically speaking, a scientific little ugly duckling is unable to grow up and become a beautiful technological swan even after 25+ years (R: a bit of respect please, Peter!)

OBSTACLES AND DIFFICULTIES

 

 LENR is too complex, too new, to unexpected, too messy, too multifaceted, too dynamic, too non-linear and too weird to be really understood and controlled at the time of its discovery. LENR has all the disturbing VUCA weaknesses: volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity.                                                  The R problem is the deadliest for LENR- bad reproducibility has to be judged in association with two other issues- weakness of the heat release and its short duration. For the cradle system, Fleischmann-Pons Cell and similar wet systems the reproducibility problem and scale up practically cannot be solved, therefore these systems have no technological future.      I am a sad outlier with the unpopular idea that the main cause of the R problem is the uncontrolled and uncontrollable blockage of the active sites (a.k.a NAE) by gaseous molecules coming from the ubiquitous air is the main cause of the bad function; add to this the low density of these active sites at the temperatures at which the wet cells work at atmospheric pressure. No chances of acceptance for the air poising hypothesis, no real progress in reproducibility. The real tragedy in my opinion is that many of our colleagues think the field can coexist with the R-problem, survive and even make progress. Reality shows the contrary. (R: this is your obsession, you lack courage!)

WHAT DOES NOT WORK

The search simple and simplistic theories has not contributed much to a solution can be very enjoyable intellectually.

It became increasingly evident that the scientific method alone does not work in this case, in such a chaotic experimental situation the noise disturbs both answers and questions put to Nature. This is a sad reality and till now the LENR community was not able to find an inner solution – the way out. It is attached to its axioms and do not accept that a simple and simplistic theory is:

- an obstacle for the progress in field;

- an offense to Mother Nature

- mutilation of logic

- a guarantee that after 25 years of failures we will have other 25 years of failures (R: how dare you to criticize what you don’t understand?)

 

SKETCHING A SOLUTION

Predictions for the future are difficult, for the past they are much easier- however the events are far from being crystal clear. The solutions-in hope- have appeared some time ago and are on the way to certainty, that is commercial reality.

What has happened- in my interpretation? LENR, in its       original form is not viable and it had to be re-invented. This was done by Andrea Rossi who has made a creative bisociationeen between what he knew about LENR a la Fleischmann and Pons and Piantelli his practical experience in heterogeneous catalysis- a great idea. I am absolutely convinced that he has never read my “Topology is the key”or “Why technology first?” papers and he has found alone everything. It happens that Rossi is a very demonizable, non-standard paradoxical personality, for me this is irrelevant. I have read thousands of biographies; many inventors and saints were worse than Rossi. He has made errors before and after his great idea, DGT has a much better engineering than Rossi. Perhaps Rossi will understand how “his effect” works based on the second Report of the “Professors” He tries to convince us that he is also waiting for the results as everybody and some people believe him.

For the sake of correct degree of filiations, I will repeat here some of Rossi’s ideas re. the “old” LENR:

a- His Ni-H system has nothing to do with Piantelli's Ni-H system;

b- the can not learn much useful for his technology from the entire LENR field\

c- the true LENR specialists are not those who we have learned

to think;

d- Fleischmann's great merit is that he has given us a dream not the idea or science per se; (Rossi, at his turn has given us nightmare of hope, uncertainty and waiting)

Re-inventing LENR, converting it to a superior form, LENR+ can e done only by combining the scientific method with the way of technology- that is by a hybrid method and in this action the key is engineering. Accepting that LENR is like a caterpillar that must be metamorphosed in a butterfly able to fly i.e. generate plenty of useful energy is a strange, too radical idea for many. It needs new thinking, new mentality, displaced focus; scientific research coupled with and lead by technological research, complete paradigm shift.                                                 Great questions:

- can we, the LENR community accept newness, reality, complexity, difficulty, diversity, conceptual broadness of LENR;

- can we accept that LENR needs a meta-theory and not a simple theory for its many pre-nuclear, nuclear and post-nuclear stages?

- can we change direction and say farewell to so many familiar dear concepts? (guess which ones!)

- can we accept solutions (Rossi, DGT) coming from outside so far and different from PdD wet cells?

- is it believable that the difference between LENR and LENR plus i.e. from watts to watts is only dynamic generation of active sites at high working temperatures?

- is it only wishful thinking to imagine many new LENR+ type technology first approaches by teams young in spirit and bold in aspirations?

At this point the peer reviewer of this paper said me he cannot decide if my ideas are more heretic or more false. I am trying to create a new reality opposed to the things that are actually simple- a proof that I know nothing. We will receive funding soon and things will go well, without those Rossi and Defkalion and R+..

I got angry and answered him:

“In any scientific field the most harmful people are those who know everything but understand nothing. I try to understand things in my way, nobody believes me- no harm. What I regret is that we still have problems. Why?”

Peter

Fundamental Causation Mechanisms of LENR.

Introduction

One of the many miracles that we see in LENR is the stabilization of its nuclear waste products. This miracle is real as witnessed by a number of patents having been awarded that have this LENR base isotope stabilization effect as the centerpiece of its operating mechanism. [1,2]

Furthermore, a newly recognized phenomenon involving a violation in the common rule held by science that nuclear decay rates are fixed and constant has been shown to be violated by something emanating from the sun. The results of many experiments showing this phenomenon has rocked the physics community. This fixed rate of radioactive decay has been shown to vary widely under some strange force that arises out of the core of the sun. [3,4]

There is something that is causing LENR and at the same time stabilizing its reaction waste products. One pleasing and elegant idea is that both phenomena are caused by the same thing. This article is an exploration of the possibility that just a single factor is the fundamental mechanism of LENR causation. We also attempt to show how this one critical factor can produce both LENR characteristics with one characteristic emerging from the other.

Finally, this article will tie in the explanation of how magnetism is produced as an end product of the Ni/H nanoplasmonic process and how magnetism is the cause of accelerated nuclear decay rates. This article will explain how magnetism does this in as simple a way as possible.

The acceleration of nuclear decay rates in LENR.

A well recognize feature of LENR is the rapid or sometimes almost instantaneous stabilization of radioactive elements. This is the process by which a nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing radiation and/or subatomic particles. To start a simple explanation of what the stabilization of radioactive elements is all about, the nucleus of a radioactive element is excited in a state of energy retention that is not as low as it could possibly be.

Radioactive decay is a random process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay. However, the chance that a given atom will decay is amazingly constant over time.[5,6]

Einstein hated the uncertainty of quantum mechanics. He famously dismissed this uncertain universe when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Unfortunately for Einstein, however, he was proved wrong, when 50 years later experimental evidence finally caught up with theoretical physics, and quantum theory was shown to be correct.

The binding energy that keeps all the parts of the nucleus together and contained inside the nucleus is an uncertain thing. It varies constantly at the whim of chance. The cosmic croupier spins his wheel of chance and the ball falls into one of many quantum numbered pockets. Then, inside the nucleus, a random quantum of energy pops into existence from the fabric of space for a short time, this is called virtual energy. [7] In this way, the energy that keeps the nucleus together goes up and down at the whim of quantum mechanics. This nuclear binding energy is comprised of two parts: a real energy that never changes and a virtual energy that always changes. It is this virtual energy that can vary widely and is not constrained by the laws of energy and momentum.

When constrained inside the nucleus and when this nuclear energy is composed of the sum of these two parts get strong enough, it spills over the top of the coulomb barrier and forms a real particle outside the nucleus. This is called quantum mechanical tunneling. [8] The virtual part of this spillover energy only lasts for the briefest of instants and immediately goes back to the vacuum from whence it came and only the real part remains to congeal into the newly formed particle that has tunneled through the barrier. This process is called radioactive decay (AKA tunneling through the coulomb barrier) and these congealed quanta of energy are called real particles and/or ionizing radiation.

After this nuclear relaxation process has completed, if the energy level inside the nucleus has been lowered enough so that it can never again surmount the coulomb barrier no matter how much virtual energy may appear, the element is said to be stable.

In regards to LENR, we can draw an amazing and informative conclusion from this behavior of accelerated nuclear decay.

The fact that no radioactive isotopes are found in the ash of the cold fusion reaction is unequivocal proof that LENR is caused by the fantastically accelerated rate at which the cosmic croupier of chance spins his wheel in the LENR casino.

 I have described in the previous article here at Ego Out that an anapole beam of magnetic force is projected into the atoms within the nuclear active environment (NAE). So it must be this beam of magnetism that accelerates virtual energy formation.

How magnetism increases radioactive decay is not yet determined, but I have a few ideas on this subject.

Simply stated, magnetism is just another form of charge as a reflection of the need to adjust the effects of charge in moving frames of reference. A magnetic field is a relativistic manifestation of charge as seen moving in the relativistic reference frame. [9, 10,11]  A large ensemble of moving charge carriers will produce a strong magnetic field that in turn will produce a large flux of virtual photons in the frame of reference in which the charges are moving. A magnetic field will be produced by the movement of electrons in the relativistic frame of reference where the electrons are moving in a circle or more rightly a vortex. This magnetic field which is really a stream of charge carrying virtual photons will reach into a stationary frame of reference and impart into that stationary frame (our frame) a large flux of virtual photons generated in the frame of the relativistic moving charges.

To keep everything in balance the rate of virtual photon production will be the same in both the relativistic frame and the stationary frame to carry the effects of charge transmission and reception between the two frames of reference. LENR is a process where action at a distance is manifest, and that mode of causality is the result of the nature of magnetism where virtual photons project into a distant frame of reference.

To give you a sneak preview of what is to come as an example, the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) soliton is the frame in which a large number of charges are moving at relativistic speed. The quark zone inside the proton is where the three quarks orbit. This zone is the stationary frame of reference that is affected by the magnetic field produced by the soliton. The magnetic field will generate a large flux of virtual photons in the stationary frame of the quark zone inside the proton. It is the large infusion of virtual photons that catalyze the production of a virtual quark which is the beginning of the formation of a meson.

A SPP soliton is a magnetic mechanism that concentrates and focuses charge to a huge degree. One of the energy amplification mechanisms found in LENR is energy beaming. Like a gamma ray burst [12] where an intense pulse of energy can be seen from one far corner of the universe clear across to the other side of the cosmos, a soliton can focus charge into a tight atomic sized beam that is not subject to the inverse square law that usually dilutes charge interaction with distance as usually happens in the spherical distribution described by the inverse square law.

All of the virtual photons that carry charge is focused in a tight beam which is very tight indeed; in fact so tight and concentrated that charge is constrained to interact within a very small angstrom sized volume of space/time.[14]

The magnetic field that projects into the nucleus not only accelerates virtual particle creation; it also adds some real energy to those virtual particles.[17]

To a large degree, in LENR the projection of charge through magnetism is so intense, that it literally removes chance from the virtual particle game and makes it a near certainty that a virtual particle with a huge amount of energy will be created inside the nucleus.  When the energy level is so high in the nucleus during this LENR moment, the virtual particle will carry away the extra energy that was exciting the radioactive nucleus and then the energy in the nucleus is stabilized at its lowest nuclear energy level.  By removing excitation energy, the coulomb barrier is now high enough to always hold this reduced binding energy. Now when the virtual particle gives its energy back to the vacuum from which it came the binding energy contained in the newly relaxed nucleus is completely contained by the confinement power of the coulomb barrier.

Here is an analog from the real world to help explain this principle.

If we take a glass of water filled to the brim on a leisurely car trip over a bumpy road, when you eventually hit some large bumps in the road the water will splash over the brim until water reaches a maximum level where the water does not splash out of the glass anymore. The time that it takes to remove this excess water is random but related to the pattern of the bumps encountered when the car passes over the bumpy road.

Now suppose we press the gas pedal to the floor and the speed of the car increases to breakneck levels hitting those large bumps more often and harder, reaching the no spill level of the glass in short order as the water flies out of the glass at a great rate. When we resume our leisurely pace, no water will ever spill out of the glass again no matter how bumpy the road gets. We hit all the worse bumps in our race and we hit those bumps very hard. The water level in the glass is now forever stable.

This LENR mechanism of accelerated tunneling is central to the way LENR can produce energy through extreme ranges of power output from megawatts to milliwatts.

One of the toughest LENR riddles to answer is as follows: ‘how can the meltdown of a Ni/H reactor be caused by the same process that can produce one watt of output in the Dennis Cravens' golden ball.’[16]

The mechanism that provides this vast range of power generation intensity is tunneling.[14]

It is clear that the application of a magnetic field can increase the rate of radioactive decay in isotopes by many orders of magnitude. A radioactive isotope that might normally take a few hundred years to cut its radioactive rate in half might take a microsecond during a LENR moment.

Meson Production

This same quantum mechanical tunneling mechanism can work inside of protons and neutrons to increase the production of virtual mesons.

To set the stage for this next phase of our description, the three quarks inside a proton live inside a very small volume. This quantum confinement box is the volume that the quarks rattle around in inside the proton. This minuscule volume defines the constraints imposed on the uncertainty of this trio of quarks by limiting the range in their position to a high degree. Through the uncertainty principle, this means that the variable maximum virtual energy that this fixed position produces is very large.

The virtual quark inside the proton is jumping around inside its tunneling confinement box with great vigor.

But the energy level to produce a meson is also very high at 140 MeV. So without some help from the vacuum,  a meson is not produced by virtual particle production.

But when a magnetic field is applied to the proton, it adds some kinetic energy to the quark dance and a whole lot of virtual photons. This pushes up the floor of the tunneling confinement box. The degree in which this floor is raised is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field applied to the proton. The magnetic field also increases the rate of virtual particle production proportional to the strength of the magnetic field.

In a very strong magnetic field, a new quark is formed out of the added magnetic and virtual energy and that quark jumps out of the proton. An anti-quark is formed to mate up with the expelled quark since no quark can exist on its own.  This pair of new quarks now forms a virtual meson that has tunneled out of the proton. These virtual mesons will jump out of the proton confinement box very often because LENR has raised the floor of the box very high and the associated rate of virtual meson production is then very high. Their energy levels are a lot greater because the virtual energy has been supplemented by magnetic energy. In this way, very many mesons are produced that will eventually decay to muons; [15, 20] and muons catalyzed hydrogen fusion. [18]

The protons derived from ionized hydrogen that floats into the magnetically irradiated NAE will produce muons via tunneling and that muon attracts another proton through coulomb attraction. This proton pair that is formed from muon attraction will fuse together after they are brought very close together by the muon. This is called proton proton (PP) fusion. These pairs of protons are seen in Piantelli’s experiments.

The theory of muon catalyzed fusion (MCF) is similar in concept to the negative ion mechanism that Piantelli proposes. But MCF will result in PP fusion. [19] The end reaction products of PP fusion are primarily light elements like boron and beryllium. These light elements have been seen in the ash assay results from DGT.

PP fusion will also explain why Piantelli sees proton pairs in his reaction cycle combining with nickel to produce copper.

Another pleasing idea is that there is a great energy gain mechanism at play associated with muon catalyzed fusion. An investment of just a few MeV of magnetic energy can produce an average fusion yield of 150 reactions per emitted muon.

From one LENR system to another, these muons are composed of a varied mixture of virtual energy and real energy based on the strength of the magnetic beam that produced them. A muon that contains mostly virtual energy doesn’t last long (4.88x10^^−24 s). In this brief lifetime that muon will only cause a small number of fusions. A muon which contains mostly real magnetic energy lasts a very long time (2.6×10^^−8 s). In this very long lifetime that muon will produce large numbers of fusions.

Particles are all the same. Some last a very long time and some endure but for an instant. Lifespan is relative in the world of particles.

At this juncture, it is not clear how much magnetic energy is required to keep a gainful fusion reaction going. The number of muon catalyzed fusion reactions that occur is proportional to the decay time of the muon. A muon that has a long delay time because of the amount of its high kinetic energy content may catalyze many hundreds of fusion reactions on the average before it decays.

In the case of the Dennis Cravens' golden ball together with the other milliwatt level systems when the magnetic field is very weak, very few mesons tunnel out of the proton confinement box and the muon catalyzed fusion level is very small. But fusion still goes on because that small amount of extra magnetic energy is just enough to produce some small amounts of fusion.

Finally, one of the big challenges of any LENR nuclear reaction theory is conformance with a boatload of particle physics conservation laws. The Meson theory has been under development for just under a century now and particle physics has developed an associated experimentally verified system that conforms strictly to all of these many conservation laws.

This meson theory can be verified by the detection of a large increase in the numbers of muon neutrinos exiting an active Ni/H reactor.

1 - http://coldfusionnow.org/navy-lenr-patent-granted-transmutes-radioactive-waste/

2 – Ken  Shoulders' basic process is been shown as a solution the remediation of nuclear waste. By bombarding radioactive nuclei with charge clusters, the induced nuclear reactions (primarily fissioning of the heavier elements) result in a reduction of harmful radiation. Laboratory experiments show a dramatic transmutation of radioactive thorium into smaller-mass elements with the marked reduction of the naturally radioactive thorium.

3 - http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/XperDecRat.html

4 - http://www.projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discovery-strange-emissions-by-sun-are-suddenly-mutating-matter/

5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_decay

6 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decay

7 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

8 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanical_tunneling

9 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity

10 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism

11 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0

12 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

13 - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

14 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanical_tunneling

15 - The P and A mesons in strong abelian magnetic field in SU(2) lattice gauge theory.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5699.pdf

16 -http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf

17 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

18 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

19 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-proton_chain_reaction

20 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

LENR WANTS TO GROW UP

“Most people don't grow up. Most people age.” (Maya Angelou)

“Growing up is hard, love. Otherwise everyone would do it.” 
(Kim Harrison)

THE MOST WICKED PROBLEM IS PROBLETENCE.

The worldwide epidemic of Probletence is hundreds times more dangerous than Ebola and where it hits- disasters come fast.

For the lovers of definitions: the word is formed by combining ‘problem ‘ and ‘impotence’ and means chronic inability for solving problems, including the really vital ones.  Probletence is not in the dictionaries, is not popular, not a meme; however combating it is a condition of survival.

Probletence- has more rules, here are the first three ones:

First Rule “A problem will NOT be solved if the number, influence or power of the people living, taking profit from the problem is greater than the same characteristics of the people who want solve the problem." 

(when the rulers oppose to the solving of a problem in order to protect their privileges or interests, the problems persist and can become permanent)

Second Rule: “A problem will NOT be solved in the great majority of the cases not because people do not see the solution,

but because they do not see the problem itself.”

(any form of ignorance and illiteracy is deadly danger for problem solving, however the cult of ignorance and the practice of arrogant illiteracy are fatal; in most cases the problem solving does not start at all- it is ejaculation ante portas)

Third Rule: “A problem will NOT be solved when the methods used for solving it become more important and valuable than the solution itself and the same inefficient methods continue to be used in vain for “solving” the problem.  

(this is a specific case of “means replace aims” and …it is impossible to solve problems with inadequate tools or worst practices)

So, problems are not solved- when a solution is not desired, when the problem is not recognized and when the tools used are not good. Oppressed, ignored and tool-less problems have no

chances.

The first rule refers to problem killers but the second and the third to the problem solvers.

Many combinations and stages of these laws appear in practice...

If you believe these rules have value, please combine them with the Rules of real life problem solving, attached to this paper.

When you analyze these rules, please take in consideration that in Western modern cultures “solving the problems” is an obligation, therefore many unsolved problems get replacement solutions, pseudo-solutions, sometimes solutions that are worse

than the initial problem or solutions generating new problems.

The realm of probletence is vast and varied.

THE CASE OF LENR.

Is LENR impacted by probletence, now? Everybody will be agree that LENR was/is a victim of the First rule – the field has a broad range of oppressors- hot fusionists enjoying their own long range huge cost probletence, fossil fuels profiteers, renewable energy workers with problems of development, neophobic and dogmatic theoreticians, sadistic bullies in search of a vulnerable cause. Lack of funding, ostracization by high rank journals, bad press are efficient forms of oppression; research in LENR is risky for careers. Terribly bad, only a very fast victory of (then) cold fusion in the first stage after the Fleischmann-Pons conference could change this. However the great strategic error of searching for neutrons and then the

dreadful calamity called “irreproducibility” combined with weak signals in the few successful experiments lead to a long time existential crisis. The accumulated results can give the certainty that the phenomenon exists. However, in 25 years of heroic work it had been slow progress and the perspective of creating a new energy source is – as it is. By the way, I have written a lot of blog papers saying what I will repeat now here- however my ideas have limited success and only LENR is more probletent than me, in this respect. I will mention here only this obvious loser: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/09/everything-i-knew-about-cold-fusion-was.html

I will now re-write the history of LENR in this spirit of the fight with probletence; it is here about the second law- LENR is not understood well.

LENR HAS TO GROW UP!

The second law of probletence is dominating the field- the basics of the LENR problem are not understood.

What has happened in 1989? A phenomenon of paramount importance was discovered before its time, in the worst place possible in an undeveloped form-as a newborn infant weak, sick, vulnerable, with serious birth defects, needing intensive care.

Because Fleischmann and Pons who have discovered it have achieved a status of heroes, the cradle of the infant was considered the place where the infant will develop, grow up.

The wet electrochemical PdD model has achieved many horizontal, incremental successes and has continued to be popular Actually, it can be seen that the cradle has converted CF/LENR in a kind of unhappy bonsai-cat and the cradle can become a coffin too.

I dislike these forced analogies; they have good doses of idiocy in them however they help us to define the root problem:

LENR HAS TO GROW UP!  So much about confronting the first two laws of probletence and applying problem solving rule no.3. However it comes the great war with the terrible third law of probletence – it needs courageous decisions, radical changes a and a lot of blood, toil, tears, and sweat- to cite my favorite politician

The inner myths and memes and labels of the field are “we take no prisoners” type enemies in this war.

HELPING LENR TO GROW UP

If you misunderstand the problem, how could you know what the solution has to be? LENR has to grow up, and this means

more, a lot more then growing greater and stronger, it implies

deep radical quality changes as the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly, the creeping “creature” from the electrolysis cell has to become a different, high “flying” and a high temperature energy source everybody wants in his/her house snd/or factory.
In the spirit of the third law of probletence-actually against it- new tools are needed, new approaches, improved thinking, and a paradigm shift.

About the “tools”- old and new- worn-out and created now:

-From the start CF was considered to be a scientific problem. it was believed Science will solve the LENR problem and all we have to do is to find the scientific explanation of the phenomenon and to use it for development. It was supposed that this is a relatively easy and fast way. There will be used probably more tools but the handle for all will be a good theory.

There is no other way than that of the Scientific Method and for

building a technology, it is necessary to understand well LENR.

-The search for the Theory was very successful quantitatively but, optimistically speaking, a complete failure qualitatively no usable theory for guiding experiments was found. This is a sad reality not some vision based on depression. We know the phenomenon is existent, it is manifested by excess heat- but where, when, how, why this heat appears is not known. And why (XXX) it does not appear so many times?  What have we to do in order to obtain more heat, regularly? Is this possible or just a dream or unfulfilled promise? I judge the situation is intolerable and has to be changed. Many of my friends tend to be less wary, LENR is such an interesting and fine mystery!

No good theory yet- this has to be explained- what I think:

-CF/LENR was discovered prematurely and science still has not discovered the adequate theory- it has to be created. (Do not dismiss this nasty idea, better take a look to this: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists-nature-high-temperature-superconductivity.html

It says that HTSC –a non-probletent phenomenon, 3 years older then LENR was explained only very recently. In Condensed Matter Science, nuclear or not nuclear, theories still are not realistic and cannot be used for applications. It is developing fast- nanosciences are leading- however for our case/problem new theories re necessary. (missing theory)

-The birthplace of Cold Fusion has determined the kinds of theories tried- electrochemistry, palladium-hydrogen interaction, nuclear physics. The catalytic model proposed by me for investigation in 1991 was ignored however it partially entered the field as NAE (active sites)

It is much disagreement regarding the topology, nature and mechanism of the reaction that generates the desired excess heat, the secondary and the parasitic reactions.

Chemistry cannot explain LENR therefore LENR MUST be nuclear, and if it is nuclear it is only nuclear and nothing else.  

(bad choice of theory model)

-LENR does not need one theory, but many- it is more complex and complicated than thought- it is a combination of sequences;

DGT has formulated this as: “dynamic system of the multi-stage set of reactions” a very bright definition, IMHO. No single theory can explain LENR. Some of these steps are nuclear, others are pre- and post-nuclear. (multiple theories necessary)

HOWEVER: the solution seems to be in a way prior to theory, the primary task is not to explain LENR but to transform it in a productive system. The CF device was just a start- whispering an “it is possible” message, we have to build reliable, powerful working device. The issue is much more about “to do” then about “to know”, action and knowledge have to work together.

For many of our colleagues this seems to be not a “scientific” way- but, you will see, no other way leads to success.

Technology is the way, engineering is the key, and science is both means and aim, not the panaceum. We must choose the way less known and be aware that it is obstacled even dangerous.

The E-cat and Hyperion sagas, still in development, allow us to learn a few things about engineering and technology. Gas phase dry and clean, degassed metal –micro and nano mixed as it has to be (?) in contact with hydrogen in an activated form, at high temperatures. 200 C seems to be a practical lower limit. The system is dynamic, in more senses. Materials science is vital, control is difficult, heat transfer is critical. Changing, improving, understanding, trying and retrying, making errors and correcting them, surprises and delays, tests and other tests, standardizing the tests – the unique beauty of industrial research. A wave of bitter-sweet nostalgia hits me, once I was a player now just a passionate sunset-stage kibitz always in search of broken, scarce information.

Eventually, LENR technologies will be created, Fleischmann’s and Pons’ magnificent dream becoming real, very far from the cradle in some sophisticated heavy metal boxes...

It will be demonstrated that probletence is not a fatal curse and it is not invincible. If Homo sapiens cannot find the answer, Homo faber- a denier of the Impossible- will save him. Technology is the domain of human activity where probletence cannot rule.

Only new good ideas and very hard development work can save LENR!

Comments are NOT welcome- they lead to dialogues and these are only one step from the ”You are wrong, I am right” trap. Let us use fertile parallel monologs- so please send only additions and/or subtractions to this paper. Thank you!

Peter

ADDENDA

RULES OF REAL LIFE PROBLEM SOLVING

Motto:

“I think, I exist. I decide, I live. I solve the problems, I live with a purpose.”

1. There are NO isolated problems, they always come in dynamic bunches.

2. There are NO final solutions for the really great problems, these have to be solved again and again.

3. NOT solving the problem, but defining it is the critical step.

4. NOT the unknown data, but those known and untrue are the greatest obstacles to the solution.

5. .NOT what we know, but what we don’t know is more important for solving the problem.

6. NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented.

7. NOT all problems have a complete, genuine solution.

8. NOT the solutions that seem perfect from the start, but those which are very perfectible are the best in many cases.

9. NOT the bright, shiny, spectacular solutions but those elaborated, worked out with difficulty and effort and patience are more valuable and have a larger area of applicability.

10. NOT the solutions that are logical and perfectly rational, but those that are adequate for the feelings of the potential users, even if they are ilogical, have the greatest chances of fast implementation.

11. NOT the quality of the solution but the speed of its implementation is the decisive factor in many cases. It can be better to have a partial solution applied fast than a slower almost perfect solution.

12. NOT always long hours of hard work and great efforts, but (sometimes) relaxation and fun is the best way to obtain solutions for (awfully) difficult problems.

13. NOT our own problems, but the problems of other people are usually more boldly and creatively solved by us

14. NOT the solutions worked out by us, but those borrowed. bought or stolen from others are more easily accepted and implemented.

15. NOT the enhancement of human strengths but the limitation of human weaknesses is more useful for efficient problem solving.

16. NOT the very careful perfect planning, but the smart assuming of risks and firm decision taking are the practical keys to successful problem solving.

17. NOT always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.

18. Do NOT accept the premises of the problem, but change them as necessary and possible.

19. Do NOT stop at the first solution, but seek for alternatives.

–

RULE- the most important of all;

20. NOT the wise application of these rules but the finding of the specific exceptions to these, is the real high art of problem solving.

The rules are inherently perfectible. Despite their broad applicability

including the most wicked problems and their availability in 20 languages the rules are till not taught in schools and are far from the stage of epidemic dissemination. This results in Humanity terrorized by myriads of unsolved, painful problems of all kind, by worldwide epidemics of Probletence.

Translations of the Rules

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/05/17-th-translation-of-my-problem-solving.html DANISH

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/03/16-th-translation-of-my-problem-solving.html SLOVAK

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/15-th-translation-of-my-rules-in_28.html CHINESE

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/14-th-translation-of-my-rules-in-malay.html MALAY

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/13-th-translation-of-my-rules-in.html TAGALOG

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/12-th-translation-of-my-rules-in-dutch.html DUTCH

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/translation-no-1-of-my-rules-in-greek.html GREEK

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/tenth-translation-of-my-rules-in.html SPANISH

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/ninth-translation-of-my-rules-in-german.html GERMAN

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/eighth-translation-of-my-rules-in.html RUSSIAN

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/seventh-translation-of-my-rules-in.html UKRAINIAN

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/sixth-translation-of-my-rules-in.html HUNGARIAN

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/fifth-translation-of-my-rules-in-polish.html POLISH

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/fourth-translation-of-my-rules-in.html ITALIAN

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/third-translation-of-rules-in.html PORTUGUESE

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/second-translation-of-rules-in-french.html FRENCH

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/02/first-translation-of-rules-in-swedish.html SWEDISH

AN UPTODATED SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE E-CAT

For a new, growing company that tries to develop a novel energy source- S (Strengths) W (weaknesses) and O (Opportunities) determine future life, from beaten to prosperous; however T (threats) is about survival, about continuation or disappearance.

I have performed a SWOT analysis – quite preliminary- of the

E-cat years ago, I want to repeat the action now.

.

SWO- depends on the performances of the energy generation process: intensity, reproducibility, constancy, reliability, continuity (long term), efficiency (COP!), safety, cleanness,

cheapness, possibilities to further scale up and diversification of applications, no risks and low maintenance, acceptance by the bureaucracy. To not forget the real possibility to convert lowly thermal energy in high currency electric energy. Plus other things that can be discovered/revealed only by hands-on thinking beyond the limits- practice – hidden Black Swans.

As told, these are ideal conditions and all the known energy sources that had been, are, or will be used, fossil, renewable, old, new, existent or just imagined- fulfill these requirements- more or less. The real performances determine Rossi’s necessarily hybrid answer- positive and (not or) negative results and the directions of future research. We can only hope the positive things- as intense long term enhanced excess heat well tempered at high temperatures–will be dominant.

Obviously, Rossi plus Industrial Heat surely are aware that T from SWOT is vital today. T is about terrible things as treason, takeover, theft- these can be very dangerous. The company must protect its intellectual property. This is now a critical task, not easy at all.

Alas, gone are the good ugly days when detractors like Steve Krivit, Gary Wright, Mary Yugo, Joshua Cude etc- all writing well and convincingly and full of hatred like the snake’s teeth of venom, have been so helpful in keeping industrial espionage away- almost for free. With detractors gone, tired, lazy, retired or converted to LENR+ believers- who knows?  - good bye free protection!

Other means have to be used- silence is the most handy. Go in dark, communicate only with those who can help, temporarily eliminate mass-media and kibitzes, postpone scientific communications and let people asking in vain what happens.

Be invisible for the time till your generator is fully operational.

Let news - highly exaggerated news regarding the imminent death of the company circulate freely; do not care. In this stage the network of your partners, customers, true friends, is already woven and can serve as life net- in case.

Silence is not made for Rossi- ha can be far from perfect but he likes people and is structurally, a showman, likes his blog and needs communication. Or the illusion of it.

We can take for sure that both Rossi and IH like nice, curious,

Ecatphiliacs and Ecat fans- however not so much  as creating problems for themselves; these friends will receive, interesting, even captivating news but nothing essential till the much expected Report of the Professors regarding the long term functioning of the Hot Cat (not the 1MW Warm Cat). In meantime –as an ‘Apage Satanas’ formula it is obsessively repeated that the results can be positive or negative, without

defining what does this mean. By the way, only poor masochists

are able to continue chasing negative results for months.

For me the big question is how much will this Report say about ash, about the real reactions that generate heat. In which extent will be the old cold fusion paradigm shattered? It is normal that no know-how elements will be disclosed.

Rossi has not revealed his technological principles, has patented processes very loosely connected to what he really does and knows, and has made a disproportionately great fuss around the unpatentable stuff- very wise, and 99% of his fans believe his patenting strategy is unjustly oppressed.

.

ADDENDA- an other means of protection- patents.

(take care please this part is not very important and what I say can hurt your feelings, read it at your own responsibility.)

In 1980 after some 10 fine (I don’t dare to say ‘glorious”) years

of work as research leader at OLTCHIM see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oltchim_S.A. we were forced to move to a big city, Cluj where the parents of my wife took

care of our son, incurably ill. It was no choice; our new workplace is shown here: http://institute.ubbcluj.ro/iccrr/

The institute was specialized mainly in syntheses at the lab level

and because I did not accepted to lose contact with industrial

research, I have established a long term collaboration with OLTCHIM to study the trends and improvements in their technologies. In great part, this was based on reading, understanding, evaluating and classifying a lot of patents for processes. I am emphasizing “processes’ because for “product patents” the things are different.

My main source of patent info was the Referativnyi Zhurnal Khimia- the Russian equivalent – really good- of Chemical Abstracts. I had to read a lot of patents found lots of ideas; some were compared with offers of the companies, tested in lab,

pilot plants, or compared with what the competition says, converted in research projects etc., etc. The list of translated and analyzed patent abstracts and patents in extenso became very long, we had many failures and a few successes. I am workaholic and I enjoyed this activity. I think it gave me the possibility to learn a lot about creativity, inventiveness and problem solving. However some of my conclusions seem negative; actually they are just realistic:

“By studying the patent literature of a process, you learn the mythology, not the history of that process.”

Now I will add this in a new form- more adapted to the “protection by fantasy patents” issue

Paraphrasing this quote: “One great use of words is to hide our thoughts.” (Voltaire)

we can say:

“A good use of (some) process patents is to hide our real processes”

You will decide if these principles are relevant for the subject of this writing.

Notice: my patent search and other activities were brutally interrupted by an event that has changed my life for ever.

It is so well described by the tenor part of my all favorite opera duet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QHoksdErk

It has happened on March 24, 1989- the start of a great, and till now, rather unhappy, love.

Un dì, felice, eterea,    One day, you, happy, ethereal,
Mi balenaste innante,   appeared in front of me
E da quel dì tremante   and ever since, trembling,
Vissi d'ignoto amor.    I lived from unknown love.

Peter