Saturday, September 27, 2014


This is just a short introduction to the parameter problems in LENR; more has to come when we will study the Report No 2 of Rossi’s Professors.

The most frightening statement from the long Cold Fusion-LENR- new name(s) to come- multi-saga is, probably this:
"not only are the anomalous fusion reactions found to take place in only a very few chips (obtained from the same piece of titanium) but even in those chips, tritium production is restricted to a small number of selected localized 'hot spots' (by Mahadeva Srinivasan in "Nuclear fusion in an atomic lattice: An update on the international status of cold fusion research," Current Science, vol 60, no 7, April 10, 1991, p 417.)

It is absolutely irrelevant that it is about Ti and tritium, the same is painfully true also for palladium; heat and helium on the cathodes of electrolytic cells- this is the very spirit of cold fusion, where uncertainty is the rule- both globally and locally.

Recently I was very much interested in the heroic efforts of our best men to show that wet PdD is not unmanageable scientifically and dead technologically. See please:
The stakes for me are high, I have decided irreversibly that if a team will obtain 100% long term reproducibility with a PdD cell without deep degassing or covering the degassed cathode with a membrane permeable only for hydrogen and impermeable for all other gases, I will retire from the field, playing chess or activating in some anti-vegan movement (“The cruel veganists are killing plants, let’s eat ham and eggs!”)
I will be 77 years old soon, this will happen probably in my late 80’s so I am still not so scared just now.
(When I just wrote this, the Internet has sent me a message: “Hey you narrow-vision-old-boy, do you really think that only LENR is complex- give a look to this: True, but is it a consolation? No, but I think it is something to be learned from this.

Also, I have developed a good habit to discuss important LENR problems with people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me. I am listening to what they say with care and openness- and if they say things in accordance with my own ideas, usually I consider and apply their teachings.

OK, I have discussed about PdD with Ed Storms. Many people think he is the most advanced in the study of LENR and his merits are obvious even to a computer.
The discussion has started with my question if the nanocracks- nuclearly active sites in Ed’s new theory are- an “actionable parameter” i.e a variable that can be changed thus that you obtain the desired effect (more or less in practice). Ed who has studied the problem thoroughly says: Yes! “Nanocracks can be created on purpose”
I, less educated in the subjects of fragility and fragilization of palladium and of other metals, plus because I have developed a kind of nanocrackophobia bound to the long term integrity of the metal – cathode or in other form, - I have serious doubts that nanocracks of the optimum sizes can be manufactured at will for long time. For short time too. Ed Storms knows t methods and thinks that Andrea Rossi has found a good method
for making plenty of productive nanocracks...
“So have done other people occasionally but they have unfortunately misunderstood their findings and were unable to discover the truth. The formation of cracks is a complex subject-says Ed Storms we ( the other people) still have to understand correctly) The problem, thinks Storms, can be solved for both Pd that forms large cracks too easily and nickel, that forms cracks with too much difficulty.

Ed Storms has also emphasized the decisive role of impurities- contaminants. Even small concentrations of impurities will have large effects on the ability to form cracks.
“Consequently, finding the relationship between the material properties and LENR has been difficult. As McKubre and others discovered, slightly impure Pd works better than very pure Pd.  When electrolysis is used, the surface is changed by the slow deposition of Li, Si, O, and Pt. That slow change to produce a brittle surface is the reason why electrolysis has to be applied for a long time before LENR starts. This effect has been completely overlooked. (citing Ed Storms)

About the role of the contaminants: “The reproducibility is low because the role of impurity is not correctly identified. None of the efforts focus on the critical variables.  Yes, the impurity content is variable both locally and as an average. This fact is ignored.  When people actually take the critical variables into account, reproducibility will improve.  Most people have not looked at the surface using SEM and have not considered that the effect is very local where the impurity content is very different from the average.” For me this raises the problems how the impurities or contaminants can be “made” into an
actionable parameter. Say I have the responsibility to manufacture 1000 functional F&P Cells per day- how will I manage the impurities- in-Pd problem? How will I select and treat the assortments and batches of this metal? How can I select the lots with the same composition but with some batches having a random distribution from those in which the contaminants are grouped in islands of different sizes? I fear I will lose my job and cursing the purity parameter will not make me happy.
We also have discussed about the gaseous impurities or contaminants; Ed Storms thinks they have a secondary role and I am obsessed with them. He is right; I indeed think they are the main cause of the Reproducibility problem.

However it seems we have hit a hornet’s nest- and we have to start professional discussions about the LENR parameters; they can perhaps help us to understand better the problem and much later even to solve it.

Making our bureaucrats happy: the definitions

Words are excellent to hide our thoughts; however with a bit of care they can also be used to express thoughts, ore or less precisely. English is quite difficult being poly-semantic- so many words have a broad range of senses. I am reminded about this daily by and other inspiring sites I am subscribed to – from my web-searcher journalist period (1999-2010)

Now I want to speak about those measurable variables of the LENR processes that have to be changed in controlled and coordinated ways in order to get lot of excess energy and limited harmful side effects. I will emphasize the great difficulties due to extreme complexity and fuzziness.

Definitions used from Web dictionaries:

PARAMETERa measurable factor forming one of a set that defines conditions of operation.

ACTIONABLE: able to be done or acted on; having practical value; also goes: adjustable, controllable.

The other sense of “actionable: giving sufficient reason to take legal action” is not relevant for our case.

The first condition of a parameter is to be measurable with a good precision and I remember values of trivial parameters as temperature, pressure, flow, pH, mixing speed etc. in combination with so many non-culinary recipes. Including tens of sorts of functional additives.

My constructive discussion with Ed Storms has revealed me the sad fact that some parameters –as contaminants can be measured only with great difficulty –especially in LENR- purity control with its local effects and temperature differences too small sometimes due to weak heat excess effects.

We can move parameters upward and downward in many combinations and we can find the optimal values both for continuous and discontinuous processes- in some rational and practical limits. Myriads of possibilities in the technologies.

For the wet electrolytic PdD systems even the ‘simplest’ parameter, temperature is limited by the presence of the liquid to max. 100 C. Recent advances show that promising CF activity starts above 200 C. Fleischmann and Pons have built cells with boiling and refluxed heavy water in the glorious IMRA France days. The results were good but have not matched the experimental effort and complications. High pressure, high temperature closed electrolytic cells are rather dangerous but see what I wrote about the Cincinnati Cell in the final part of this paper. .
Therefore temperature is an actionable parameter only for the dry gas-phase LENR systems as those of Piantelli, Case, Rossi,

Parameter Paralysis.

This essay is not intended as/for a complete study of LENR parameters; however I want to call your attention to a situation
I have met in practice: sometimes a system is conceived and built in such an auto-limiting way, that almost all the parameters have a restricted variability and are not well actionable.
I remember without details (because I could not test it) a cavitation device somewhat similar with James Griggs’ Hydrosonic Pump on which nothing could be adjusted.
An interesting and tragic case is that of the Cincinnati Cell  
see please it in some detail:
The authors, Stan Gleeson and Don Holloman, were my friends because they were good men, idealists and have tried to do good things. They were Charismatic Christians and have worked from divine inspiration. They wanted to clean the Planet of radioactive wastes and have built their fine zirconium Cell. They have worked first with Thorium but later with Americium and both have died young by leukemia, more than probable due to being exposed to radiations.

We met, became friends and they have donated me one of their Cells and I was very grateful and proud, however a bit confused about their choice. As you can see here
we had some warm- human, cultural and scientific discussions. (It was the worse period of my life I already knew about the cancer of my son)

At my Institute ITIM, my younger friend Manu Surducan and I have tested the cell and the first impression was: “it works as it will and you cannot change much” You connect the cell to current it starts to heat up, the resistance increases rapidly and in short time it behaves as having distilled, pure high resistance water in it. You can change only the speed of increasing the voltage but not much. An unique scenario.”
If you open the Cell after the test the liquid phase is not more radioactive, however significant quantities of a white grey precipitate are formed and the radioactivity is there. 
The two electrodes (see the first Infinite Energy link) are damaged, eroded in more and more places.
The worst thing- if you measure the radioactivity of the entire
Cell before and after the high pressure electrolysis- it remains unchanged: no measurable transmutation takes place. The radioactivity is just relocated inside the cell.
But what happens actually, why has the test such a rigid evolution? Why is the zirconium “consumed”?
Then I suddenly remembered an English newspaper article
about a Russian guy who added a good quantity of cyanide to water, put the mixture in a similar electrolysis cell with electrodes of iron made a lot of sparking, filters the water then could drink it without any health problem. The trick is spark erosion due to the current drops of molten metal (zirconium for the Cinci Cell ns iron for water cleaning) fall in the water and embed, englobe, include strongly any substance except H2O- water is demineralized.

I had great practice with bad news so I solved the problem to communicate these results too and have collaborated many years
with the chemist of the Cincinnati Group, Rob Liversage and we have tried many variants of the process e.g. alkaline solutions.

It seems there is something malefic in, around about or with Cold Fusion. Something that causes unique problems. A far analogy- we chemists have a saying:

"God created 91 elements, man a little more than a dozen and the devil one - chlorine"

I had the chance to work many years with chlorine and its compounds, my favorite stuff, polyvinyl chloride contains 56.5 % in weight chlorine. I agree with the saying of above taking in account that Cl is overall.

Sometimes I don’t understand well my own ideas, what can I do with this analogy? Let’s try, Fleischmann and Pons have discovered cold fusion and this was a miracle because they have found it in the most improbable circumstances- and the worst. 

But, indeed, Who has created it?

No answer is necessary, Man will re-create it and it will be GOOD!


Monday, September 22, 2014


Actually, this is not exactly about LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS, because this concept is too open and too broad; plus quite fuzzy- which energy is so low? Probably the energy used to trigger the desired heat generating –then the good name would tell be ‘nuclear reactions at/due to low energies’, NRALE.
It is unfortunate that the total heat energy obtained is also quite low. At low reproducibility, L from LENR can mean an other adjective too, quite impolite; can you guess it?
I am speaking about energy from Hydrogen Metal Deep Interaction, HMDI, here are at play all the 3 isotopes of hydrogen and a lot of noble and transition, plebeian, metals- Nickel had  a historical chance to take the lead thanks to Francesco Piantelli.

In essence, today we have three species of HMDI:
PdD, NiH, and NiD. I think they are really different species, with different answers to the fundamental questions: WHERE?
WHAT? HOW? WHY? WHY NOT? - about the energy generation reactions.
Each species or way has its specific science and its chance from 0 to 1 to become a technology.
I have completed this taxonomy based the idea that some species can have an enhanced, dynamic, intensified form (+)

Rossi and DGT have elaborated variants or NiH MHDI+
Rossi says he will say what he understands about the process
after the publication of the second independent Report; he is quite opaque- very rarely and only in part, translucid for me.

The newcomer NiD – created by an insider of the LENR community, Tadahiko Mizuno and his collaborators from

NiD seemingly is aware of its enhanced form, the research
and development plan includes 3 prototypes with feminine names:
Dorothy- 75 W
Scarlett- 1kW

We have to understand this taxonomy, but the real task is to discover the 4th, the 5th and so on…variants of Useful Energy generating MHDIs. The field needs diversity and will enter an era of accelerated progress (think about Moore’s Law!) only by

This is not a natural taxonomy; we don’t speak about species of ants, rabbits or cabbage. No, it is a human made scientific and technological taxonomy. More than discussing, it has to be re-created extended, and optimized by us.
Long live the UEMHDIs!


Sunday, September 21, 2014


It is about the death for technology, not science.

As you perhaps remember, I did not liked the idea of Scottish independence- because I thought it could be imitated in much more harming ways in Europe and worldwide and this could lead to conflicts and… blood.
Therefore I wanted to celebrate the NO with a Motto of an author with a typical old Scottish name. I found:

The death of what's dead is the birth of what's living. (Arlo Guthrie)

The name is 100% Scottish the author not- he belongs to an American mixture mirabilis of nationalities and religions.
Being obsessed –but sanely I hope- by LENR I am applying the Motto to wet PdD – for me it became an axiomatic truth , certainty that that LENR system is dead for technology, unable to technological progress that necessarily comprises Reproducibility, Scale up and Control. I stubbornly continue to claim that because LENR is similar to catalysis, poisons can kill
reproducibility- and any gases except hydrogen isotopes will act as poisons- inactivating the active sites; therefore deep and relatively long time degassing is a must for functional LENR systems.
My idea can be proven to be false (and it is justified to use “stupid” too) only by experiment. A wet PdD experiment giving perfectly reproducible results will be a stake in heart (much used nowadays in LENR circles) for my idea.

Now positive gossip is circulated that the Italian ENEA Group has now a method to achieve 100% reproducibility in this system. My inerrancy goes to the guillotine?

To put this in context and in perspective:


ICCF 18 organized by Missouri U. and SKINR had as leading idea of applying the Scientific Method to Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges.”

ICCF 19 with ENEA as ideological leader will use “New Approach on Material Investigation”

ICCF-18’s way was noble, scientific 100% but (I think so) idealistic, incomplete and actually impossible. I know I will make angry some of my best friend, but I consider that accepting LENR is anomalous is a fatal error scientifically, psychologically, diplomatically – LENR is aimed to be a new source of energy not some weird , anarchic, unusual phenomenon. Everybody who thinks the Building of Science – Physics is finished, we know what is important- and any surprise coming is not scientific- should make only routine research and should eliminate immediately any new facts and ideas. LENR is normal science, prematurely discovered.

ICCF-19 – my unique remark that approaches would be more effective and realistic because it is about a broad range of old and new methods- the slogan is smartly open for any method. It is again based on the Scientific Method. Material changes, transformations are the key to useful energy- I am convinced that engineering is the key.

Back to the news re 100% reproducibility –it seems that the ICCF’s leaders are in the frontline of the war for what I interpret as technological and scientific survival of PdD. They probably think differently- discovering truth, most advanced research, progress. Life is complicated, research is more complicated so it is possible they are right but me too.

There are two seminal research reports regarding this subject:

Excellent, scientific, high level publications; what makes them especially enjoyable to me is that they are both in great part about “morphology” I have published on this Blog; “Technology- on amour” and “Taxonomy - mon amour:; not yet “Morphology- mon amour” My PhD thesis finished in 1982 after 11 years of hard work is about the correlation of the morphology of a polymer- suspension poly-vinyl chloride and its processing ability. This polymer has an uniquely complex many staged morphology. Morphogenesis is also captivating.

I will now try to extract the essence of the first paper by ENEA.
Excess power is obtained as known – at high loading D/Pd > 0.9) and good (rather slow) loading speed but only if materials are showing specific characteristics There were samples (experiments) with high excess heat, low excess heat and lack of excess heat and the results can be correlated with some contaminants that seem to have direct or indirect effect on the excess heat.
Contaminants: a lot of Pd having as impurities Zn, Zr, Pt, Rh, Bi, Si, Sn gave over 60% reproducibility, excess power>100% while an other, unhappy lot with Pt, Rh, Sn as impurities gave only <20% reproducibility and <20% excess heat. No causal relationship seems possible- other factors of great interests are: grain size, grain boundary surface morphology.
All these parameters have one thing in common, they cannot be changed easily in a difficult to define, describe and measure direction. We can invoke the example of transistors- success attained by transistors- purification plus smart doping, but it is not very relevant: the Know How and Know Why of transistors were more advanced in the 1950s than it is for LENR in 2014.
(If you disagree please use facts)
What are the roles or effects of those impurities that depend mainly on the composition of the source and extraction and purification methods of palladium but also on the setup-cell
It is quite difficult to predict or obtain specific trace impurities. Impurities can be important but their presence is clearly a non-actionable parameter. In the case of transistors doping with some impurities determined by theory and experiment helps. This can be tried for the Pd cathodes too, but will it be effective? The influence of all the parameters tried in this study seems to be limited, there will be progress but I guess it will have a strongly asymptotic character, never intersecting the target but stopping at lower values.
The last sentence of this fine study sounds demoralizing to me:

By applying the scientific method future work should be oriented towards the definition of the effect rather than its demonstration
 It is elegantly formulated but it is definitely not encouraging for a technologist.

The SKINR work is about similar factors and includes a professional scientific study of a real miracle the cathode 64 of Energetics (Israel) 2004 that gave 2500% excess heat for 17 hours and at repletion 1500% heat excess for 80 hours- a performance that could be not repeated, unfortunately.
It is possible that the “success” has changed the parameters that made it possible.
It is a most remarkable study and it analyses similar factors as the first work- contaminants again, morphological features, grain orientation but also black spots and inductive resonances.
Admirably professional work however my impression was that there are other hidden, still unknown parameters with a more decisive influence over the reproducibility of the excess heat.

For the time given, I don’t think that full reproducibility will be obtained for wet PdD electrolytic cells.
I think it is impossible …and because I am old this leads to the following revelation:

Technology is not like science – e.g. physics. Let’s consider:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is   possible, he is almost certainly right.  When he states that something   is impossible, he is very probably wrong."  (Arthur C. Clarke's First Law)
This is NOT true for technology. Why?
The old scientist says “This is impossible. (full point)”
The old technologist says: “This is impossible, (comma)”
and continues “in this way, but must be made possible in an other,
better, smarter way! We have to find it!”


There is no serenity prayer for technology- including LENR technology.

I think everybody knows the Serenity Prayer of Reinhold Niebuhr:

O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed,
The courage to change what can be changed,
And the wisdom to know the one from the other

In technology everything can be changed, if something cannot be changed then it has to be changed completely and an other way has to be used. The wisdom has to be used to change the things well.


Thursday, September 18, 2014


“Truth is a river, not a lake.” (n.d. Scottish Proverb)

Recently, vivid discussions regarding the correlation of excess heat to helium formed- take place on the LENR forums.

Generally seen it is a case of Defrostitis – an old theme/subject is taken from the refrigerator of the LENR past, defrosted heated up and discussed as if it was something new. Defrostitis is followed by Disputitis and when everything was said the problem goes back to the refrigerator supported by Dilutitis- it fades gradually away and hibernates till its next resurrection.

Personally seen it has not much reason in it, I am perfectly convinced that the 1991 paper of Melvin Miles is an unassailable proof that this correlation exist- it was confirmed by other LENR researchers- fast memory shows me first Mike McKubre and Russ George. This correlation- as such- is for me an axiomatic truth. What does it really reveal, what is its significance for the development of our field and how can this truth be used efficiently for convincing newcomers or honest investigators about the truth of cold  fusion/LENR- all these make up a different, complex story.

Introducing the concept of unsolving problems.

Beyond Defrostitis –as a professional problem solver I am remarking an other side of this discussion- “unsolving problems” In the past a solution was found  for a problem, then the solution is re-converted in a problem again- this was done with heat/he now. It is not a perfect solution, it is not an easily actionable solution, but it is NOT a problem.

Actually the problem is solved as my discussion partner Abs shows it so well and other colleagues help him.

Unfortunately a solution is accepted- outside the circle of experimenters who are creating it-- NOT based on scientific
criteria. I was amazed to discover that this “ unsolving the problems” is something so viral and important that you can find it in the lyrics of a song belonging to rock music a very recent one-see please        
It is about unsolving problems at the level of our species.

I have stated many times that the lyrics of non-classic music are mysteriously very highly placed on the DIKW scale- sometimes. It is much wisdom in this text- I am speaking quite seriously. I will ask these Sweet Empire guys (probably via my young friend Dr. Bob) to write a song about the World Wide Epidemics of Probletence. I also have noted that any time I am trying to invent a new concept or new name, immediately I will find a rock band already owning that name.

Back to the heat/helium problem.

Heat/helium is truth but not of the kind you can convert in a meme that everybody accepts. There are more reasons for it and I will try to show you these- you will not like my arguments- I also don’t like them at all but they are stronger than me.

Heat/Helium is not exactly the kind of truth people want

An Italian skeptic let’s call him Guido whom I met at ICCF-2 Como (where I also met Fleischmann, Pons, Miles< Gerrischer
Morrison and other important CF people)- Guido was a believer then. Now he has written about what he would consider a convincing Heat/Helium experiment:

He advises me:

a) to read again with activated critical thinking- this 

b) to accept as a reasonable condition that at the end of a successful experiment the concentration of helium has to be at least 10 times greater inside the cell than outside

c) Says- make 10 tests within +/- 20% difference of He final content.

It can be easily seen that he wants actually not a heat/Helium correlation but intense and reproducible heat.
If LENR has a technological future, then Guido is right. Heat/Helium is scientifically fine, but how relevant it is?

Heat Helium is not a simple experiment.

The point b) in Guido’s requirements is kind of a trap, actually in the Miles’ successful experiments the concentration of Helium inside the Cell is ~ 10 ppb, while in the air outside the cell it is the natural 5,240ppb, much greater. A non-motivated newcomer will not accept this beyond all proofs. The public
always believes much easier a simple lie than a complex truth.
It is highly unfair in this case, even not smart at all but difficult to change. See the text of the song above.

LENR truth is now so strongly associated with LENR value that it’s not 
more accepted separately.
This was demonstrated in my essay of yesterday at the end with these words: You do not need to be a prophet when it is about LENR, it will be accepted by science and public only when it will demonstrate both its TRUTH (Science) and itsVALUE (as practical source of energy) - this was the original promise and people have good memory.”  It is about LENR in toto but it is true especially for this seminal Heat/Helium Truth.

However a fifth condition also exists for the truths- the non-religious truths to be accepted:

Static stagnant truths have low chances to be accepted.

It is nothing special in this, I had the intuition of the dynamicity of the world in an incipient stage of my education when I started to collect wise quotations and to write some- probably less wise, one of them that I have not forgotten was:
“The existence is inexistence in movement” an idea pre-existent in many ancient philosophies. Movement, dynamics in both science and in technology is vectorial- and the name of its direction is progress. Tomorrow it has to be more, better, cheaper, safer than today.

says if something is not progressing it decays- in the world of technology there is never just stagnation. Think about Moore’s Law, about your PCs, mobile phones but also about your first car and your newest one and about all the products of technology you are using.
By extension and by psychological transmission, by the research culture a significant truth must also be dynamic and progressive.
Heat/helium seems to be a rather static truth – were its further confirmations been more impressive, more complete or more understandable good for theories- than Miles’ masterwork of 1991?
Can we imagine a better experiment now?

LENR will be dynamic or not at all (it is not by Malraux)




Re my pessimistic paper of yesterday- I have received some moral support – this paper:


 The Upside of Pessimism

The theory of defensive pessimism suggests that imagining—and planning for—worst-case scenarios can be more effective than trying to think positively.
It is not so counter productive to be a pessimist, isn’t it?
It also confirms my negativist approach to problem solving.

Now when I am finishing this essay- it is 03: 45 at Glasgow and the results of the referendum are not known. It depends if the Scotch will listen to their heads or their hearts- says a wise journalist on Google News. I think he uses one euphemism.

Rossi’s Blog dominated by the theoretician Wladimir Guglinski for the moment- nothing about the Report.

E-Cat World of Frank Acland – some positive rumor not very reliable- COP over 10. It can be true.

The day of Sept. 18, 2014 is still not over in many regions of Terra.


Wednesday, September 17, 2014



In matters of PREDICTION- the Everest of the DIKW scale, only one thing is worse than the Cassandra Syndrome (you make perfect predictions but nobody believes you) – the Malraux Syndrome (you predict very improbable, even impossible very dangerous things and they become reality).
Andre Malraux has told (or is this an urban legend?):
 The 21st century will be religious or it will not be at all”

He declared (or not, but this not more relevant) this in a time of relative reason when human intelligence seemed to follow Flynn’s Law slowly but constantly increasing... A terrible prediction- now, some 45 years later “the spectre of fundamentalism seizes the world” And there are more forms of fundamentalism of all colors and shades – what is common in all is that they are entwined with political extremisms and all preach death of the infidels or of those thinking differently.
“Who is not with us, is against us; and who is against us, has no right to live” “we own the Unique Truth and who denies it MUST die!”- simple, direct, deeply felt, righteous slogans calling to action. This was your idea, mon cher Andre?

But I have to shut up- I am not an iota better. See my Septoe:
The 21st Century is the 12th, resurrected”
is this the cause that today we have a caliphate?
It was ignored as a few similar sad ones as:

Intolerance kills people, tolerance destroys the Society. (Being honest, I will not deny that I liked the idea of multiculturalism as so many other pathologically naïve people. Never, and inclusive in LENR –never forget that: Things are NOT what they seem!

Dumbing down people is the greatest megabusiness.

People will believe anything except the truth. (See the Heat/Helium discussion)

Schooling helps grown-up, while media forces grown-down.

Kleptocracy is the most natural form of government. (or is it theocracy?)
The world economy- a myriapode with Achilles Heels

Why all these 7 word predictions-in-part which all are now more than real, hadn’t had not the slightest echo? Probably because:
“In my life, obstacle was usually a verb”

Clearly I have no success- after the downvoting by peers of my essay yesterday again my perfectly idealistic, vitally necessary and completely impossible science, Scipiology (search on the web and you will find it) has missed to receive the IgNobel Prize it deserves more than anything else in this word,, nothing is more improbable than Scipiology
. I protested furiously, I understand meritocracy is not healthy but why should we kill it completely?

As you well know, I am dialoging with the Internet. Perhaps the reason of my very bad mood now is that the very first news- local for Cluj-  I read this morning was that at a soccer championship here for children 9 years old a terrible violent incident , general fighting erupted and one parent was almost killed due to concussion of the brain. It is symptomatic that my writer friend Valeriu Butulescu has said:
today I am not more scared night-time in the cemetery, I am scared daytime on the football arena!”
And who has taken seriously the warning of Goddess Athena who told me clearly that the gods of violence, greed and stupidity will conquer and rule the entire world if we will not stop them, less than 20 people have read my interview:

It is dreadful that so many bad predictions have shaped our present and future based on the Malraux syndrome.

We have seen enough I think about how dangerous a job can Prediction be- good prediction is so high on the DIKWP scale that only gods a few humans have access to it. How should we dare to make predictions for our LENR?  I am sure Cassandra is much more at home there than Malraux.
One prediction appeared here at noon:

“Which organization(s) will publish the first paper describing a net energy positive Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (also known as cold fusion) device or process in a journal indexed on Thomson Reuters Web of Science?”

The author and the readers are smart- so no direct answer can be detected.

I cannot abstain from making a LENR prediction. You well remember (if you are my age) that at the discovery of cold fusion the Law of Accumulation of Events has been active, The first day after the Fleischmann Pons announcement the Exxon Valdez catastrophic oil spill has happened.
Tomorrow we will receive the first relevant information regarding the Rossi Report simultaneously with Scotland’s vote for independence.
It will be a terrible political catastrophe – not “per se” but creating a frightening bad example  and symbol– tens of European groups ethnical, and religious and even political or cultural will start fight for useless independence and the European Union will be in deadly danger. I am a recidivist in making prophecies.

You do not need to be a prophet when it is about LENR, it will be accepted  by science and public only when it will demonstrate both its TRUTH (b Science) and its VALUE (as practical source of energy)- this was the original promise and people have good memory.
Exactly as predicting, making promises is a risky job.


Monday, September 15, 2014


Writing LENR miniatures is habit-forming it seems, this will be number 8. This morning my Muse has kissed me on my forefront, not problem for her, the surface is almost 1sq.m and now I am writing about two gentlemen called Aristoteles.
What they have in common is that I have learned very important thing from them and now I want to share these with
you. One of them says things I forgot to tell you when I wrote about experts.

The first Aristoteles was an ancient Greek philosopher the first true thinker, scientists, logician, researcher, theoretician, educator, pragmatist, worldwide and life long learner. A man who lived a few thousand years before his age. He had the intuition of natural laws; he understood that it is some natural order in the world. Admirably open-minded – his post mortem tragedy was described here:
“(If you can bear to hear) the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,” (Kipling, “If”)

Poor Aristoteles’ lively ideas were dreadfully dogmatized and used to punish heretics by the Church; you know well which one especially... He could do nothing to change this, being dead for more than 1000 years then.
This is a serious warning to my future colleagues who will change the paradigm of LENR please keep the New Paradigm fresh, open, plastic, future oriented, undogmatizable.

The second Aristoteles, also Greek a businessman of genius. Actually I am not especially fond of him due to the bad things he has made to the soprano goddess Maria Callas but Onassis was remarkable- it is great loss that he did not became  a scientist or an inventor and has wasted his exceptional  talents as magnate.

This is one of the brightest things Onassis could have told:
“The secret of LENR is to know something that nobody else knows.” And also:

I am using “LENR” but  many of our colleagues would use “science”- Onassis himself spoke about “business” but his sayings here are universally true and they seem made for LENR

Very few LENRists will agree with the first quote: we have lots of common knowledge but we will solve our existential problems by what an X knows now and nobody else. I bet.

The second quote is well known and applied on large scale many battles of opinions, ideas and theories.

While waiting for the saviors with unique knowledge may I call your attention to an aspect of the expert I forgot to mention in

I have read it in the “You and your job” column of “Chemical Engineering” thirty and something years ago.
“People will accept the status of true expert only for a few categories of people who have the following in common:
a)      they know something you don’t, they have decisively superior knowledge;
b)      you go to them only in case of extreme necessity, you depend on them,
c)       they establish how much you will pay them for their services and you surely will pay!
Real experts are the dentist you will visit when you can no more bear the pain; the surgeon who will fix your broken leg, the lawyer- your son has caused a car accident and the jail is waiting for him. Just of few trivial cases of genuine experts.
There are no such experts in LENR, any amateur who can write and has an Internet connection can tell anything on a non-moderated forum.
There is no more respect or decency. I just was informed that one of my most shameless blogtrolls, Anonymous is a 13 years old school girl from Sweden, crazy like hell. She was expelled from all schools due to her pathological passion (shared only with the tsar Ivan the Terrible) to throw out cats on the windows of high buildings. I am old, I was never called
liar or scammer, little psychopath Bjorg does it on a daily basis.

I also have learned from Chemical Engineering:
”Beyond history, geography and education and culture, everywhere and for ever there are 3 categories of people: Nice, Difficult and Wimps. It is a pleasure to discuss with nice people; with the difficult ones a dialogue is possible but needs some effort; it is outright stupidity even to try to speak with the wimps.”
Not much psychology here, direct contradiction to what you will learn in the school of management- but this is the reality.
If you dare to not agree with this, we can discuss but take note that I belong to the difficult people. Or, I hope so.


Sunday, September 14, 2014


UEHMDI does not appear even in the greatest acronym searcher but it will be there in 2016. UEHMDI is ‘USEFUL ENERGY FROM HYDROGEN –METAL DEEP INTERACTION” the title of a book I have started to compose. I know for sure that at the gate of the LENR Heaven it is a saint bureaucrat (not my name-sake!) who decides about your admission there and his first question is: “How many books about cold fusion have you published?”
This can be one of the reasons that recently, Ed Storms, Jean Paul Biberian and Mats Lewan have published LENR (or LENR+) related books- and I know that other of our best men have almost finished their books. LENR Heaven is connected to Internet plus has some very good labs. Theoreticians with few exceptions have to go first in the LENR Purgatory. To make this complete- the gate of LENR Hell is wide open and due to the imperishable prestige of Dante Alighieri, the inscription is in Italian:
“Lasciate ogni speranze voi che LENRate con aqua pesante e palladio! ”

I have created the expression “obstacled way” as an antonym of “shortcut” in part for describing my biography and explaining why I have not published a single book in the first 76 years of my life.
Take note- I am not complaining, not carping about bad luck just explaining.
When I was 14 years I actually wrote a book it was about the adventures of my alter ego named Raul Fibiego – in English it would be Phybiego) an interdisciplinary scientist – Physics- Biology – Egology (psychology of the individual) in the world of the insects.
Fibiego and his lover Nildy (Swanilda see Leo Delibes’ballet Coppelia) invent a method to turn themselves to very small dimensions, linearly decreasing 100 to 1000 times and so they can study Nature quite directly. A great part of the book was about Fibiego and his fiancée inside the anthill- this is one of the reasons that I was able to give AXIL a documented answer in:
Now my grandson Rudolf is interested in myrmecology.
The book was also very romantic; Fibiego was a supporter of monogamy-seen as a superior ability to make good choices.

Unfortunately this book got lost I have moved 9 times in my life and could not carry much stuff with me.

My PhD thesis about the technology of suspension polyvinylchloride- morphology-processability correlations- is like a book, has 524 references, is in the library of the Jassy University but is in part obsolete. From 1982 the progress of the PVC technology was incremental and the main problem in principle – converting polymerization from batch in a continuous one has NO solution. From the 4 criteria defining the technology: productivity, quality, cost and ecology- quality is the determinant one and a distribution of reaction times destroys uniformity of polymer particle to particle quality. (I have remarked that Randy Mills has a somewhat similar discontinuous-converted-to-continuous wicked problem.

An other insoluble problem was my son’s health- I had to earn all time extra money for his treatments – mainly with translations and consultancy, no time and motivation for writing books.

For Cold Fusion and LENR there are a lot of excellent books by people who are writing better than me.
I will ignore the books that try to kill CF, written by dogmatists or sadists.
The other books describe the facts but the predictions made- if they are there- are not confirmed by the reality. Still not confirmed.
Books cannot be better than reality so even the best ones:

a) are emphasizing too much the role and power of the big bad cruel unjust and uninformed skeptics especially those who can decide about funding, publishing and patenting and, in the same time do not take in consideration the severe birth defects of cold fusion;

b) are mainly descriptive – but not explanatory or integrative;
Ed Storms’ new book is an exception, it aims to EXPLAIN LENR and presents a new, original theory. My problem with this theory is that I think very differently about how LENR and Mother Nature work.

I have learned something important from Ed Storms:
when ignorant or “not-with-the sharpest-tool-in- the- box” people (as Mary Yugo said I am) are unable to understand your ideas from papers or presentations, the best thing is to write a book. Probably books are creating a better vision and are believed to be higher on the DIKW scale. It will be much easier to make a Synthesis in the frame of a book.

I have to write my book for the sake of a much better and convincing taxonomy and understanding, convincing the readers that:
-        LENR is only a provisional name, the useful form of the deep interaction of hydrogen with transition metals is a group of phenomena very different from what we think now about PdD generated LENR,
-        The initially discovered form of LENR is not adequate for scientific study in depth nor for technological development;
-        The presence of alien gases (not hydrogen) poisons the active sites and kills or stifles the process of generating excess heat; deep degassing is vital,
-        The problems of LENR can be solved only by radical changes of both hydrogen and metal interacting and this is
    possible only by cooperation of science and technology,
-        In the case of LENR theory has no singular – it is about a
multistage process and each stage needs a theory;
    -    Only technologies, working commercial technologies can,
          save, resurrect, and make prosperous LENR;  
-        Plus many other ideas I have presented in almost 50 
papers this year, all about a vitally necessary but painful paradigm shift... My ideas are difficult to accept even for
me and I am telling always only what I sincerely think. Therefore those who are attacking me because I think differently than them about DGT or Rossi make a big error- my stupidity is a possible explanation but I am honest. To err is human to lie is a dirty thing. The UEHMDI book will be absolutely sincere.

Will it have success; will it convince people including my friends?

I have no idea; my blog papers have moderate success. If I ask the Internet I find this paper published today:

Will you write a great business book?

It is by Wally Bock, one of my favorite gurus in matter of leadership. He speaks about business books here- my book will be addressed to the LENR leaders of the future. Wally asks three fundamental questions:


Do you have a passion for the topic?

Yes I have a passion that survived many cycles of great expectations-deep disappointment and is still intense and warming my soul.


How will you add value to what’s already out there?

I will try both to add to what is here and to subtract and discard what I think it is not good for the future.

How do you know that people will buy your book?

It is OK, I am sure -open minded good people trying to convert LENR in a fine source of energy- all these people will buy my book. I need only 500,000 $ to buy a villa for my family. Money in excess of this will go to graduate students wiling to master and do PhDs in LENR- worldwide.