Thursday, August 21, 2014



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?)



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!)


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!)



 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!)


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?)



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 keyor 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 Rossis 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?”



  1. Peter alas one key problem with cold fusion is that it has been woefully infected at an early stage by what we now call a social media virus. That virus while more or less benign is raging through and through and is revealed by the endless eruption of troll instigated pimples some of which have become aggrevated boils or even carbuncles. The ratio of experimentalists who do the real work compared to those who are idea tossers and trolls has to be at least 10,000:1

    There is no doubt amongst credible experimentalists that Fleischman's ideas and instincts were correct and that deuterium inside palladium or like metals would yield cold fusion yielding heat and helium, this has been shown in many variations on the theme..

    Whether common hydrogen + nickle does something nuclear ought to be easily and indisputably observable in some form of nuclear ash. I've never seen any mention of an experiment with isotopically pure H, as opposed to simple hydrogen containing its ordinary ample fraction of deuterium.

    What every pioneer discovers is that they find more arrows in their backs than in their chests.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. You still support DGT bluff, no one more.