Wednesday, October 29, 2014




I have learned throughout my life as a scientist and inventor chiefly through my mistakes and pursuits of false assumptions, not by my exposure to founts of wisdom and knowledge.
(Igor Stravinsky)

(Actually, Stravinsky wrote “composer” but knew well that this assertion is true for scientists, inventors, engineers, innovators and leaders – in even greater extent. The keyword is “false assumptions”- the deep, dangerous roots of errors!)

It could be interesting to compare the world premiere of “Rite of Spring” by Stravinsky with the Fleischmann-Pons press conference or the first E-Cat experiment at Bologna, January 14, 2011Interesting yes, but not of much use, events and ideas  (as books) have their own, specific and unconfoundable fate.

In medias res:
I hope we have now a femur of the beast (Lugano test) and it is not just a small phalanx of its left foot. I have eventually chosen the metaphor of the dinosaur and not that of the elephant (the initial title of this essay was” Theory of the Elephant. More precisely of the Elephant’s Ear” but I have abandoned it because the elephant is real, living and can be studied much too directly and easily in comparison of LENR+ i.e. potentially useful LENR.

The Lugano Rossi test has generated a great quantity of data and of questions; unfortunately even the most benevolent and constructive ones – my questions from the Open Letter to the 6 professors remain unanswered – and I have to confess that their silence hurts me and I take it as a personal defeat. It has happened that the Internet has helped me by defining beautiful questions. It is here:

 Beautiful questions- are questions more important than answers?

“A beautiful question is an ambitious yet actionable question that can begin to shift the way we perceive or think about something -- and that might serve as a catalyst to bring about change.” 

You remember I have tried to find the actionable parameters of LENR, now I have tried to find the actionable questions to the Authors and have failed to get answers.

An aside Do not think I am kind of favorite of the Web, it is true it helps me many times however I also get highly unpleasant messages too. Two days before my 77th birthday last week, I was hit with this one:


75 Years of Life Is Quite Enough, Says U.S. Health Authority

I have mined for special words in my personal dictionary, however what they say is right both statistically and theoretically. I am not a typical case, as Koba Dzhugashvili would have said.

The new theory of C.O. Gullstrom

Not impressed by the open question if the analytical results of the Lugano Test represent a femur or just a fragment of a finger of the HotCat Dino, graduate student Carl Oscar Gullstrom has created this theory paper:                                                                                                                Low radiation fusion through bound neutron tunneling

My friend and colleague in grandfathership, Doug Marker has announced me immediately about it. I have read it but could not decide what to think. Up to today the Gullstrom paper became popular, Andrea Rossi himself has congratulated the author and has invited him to discuss about LENR. Details at the leading e-Catology site:                                    

I am not a theorist and also not omniscient. Google Scholar is both, and it does not answer to the search: “bound neutrons tunneling” I have read tens of Cold Fusion/LENR theories in the era of B.E.S.Th. (Before Ed Storms’ Theory) and many of them include some imaginary creature- as a purple invisible unicorn plus the claim that this is a part of the Solution. The problem is if “bound neutron tunneling” is something real or just a new unicorn. The answer is in the future, but beyond any doubt this is an impressive A.E.S.Th.                                          (I am just reading Ed Storms’ great book and I am convinced he is sure about the truth of his theory so B.E.S.Th and A.E.S.Th. can be good names of LENR eras.
I have told many times that I think LENR needs a bunch of different theories being a multi-stage process, if the Gullstrom theory will be a part of the winner  combination - I don’t know; are Nickel and Lithium the only participants in the heat generating process? Experiments could decide so we must invest even more in the MFMP group ‘who’ will investigate this.
Questions regarding- this time- an Elephant.
I have asked questions not only from the HotCat drivers but also from the authors of this abstract- a work to be presented during the coming weekend in Japan:
Analysis of Heat Generation using Pd and Ni Fine Wires 
Tadahiko Mizuno and Hideki Yoshino Hydrogen Engineering Application & Developing Company,Sapporo Japan
See please the abstract here-
Previously I was almost shocked, in the most positive sense by this new seemingly fruitful branch of LENR, see this: 
How can nickel react in this case with deuterium - in direct opposition with Piantelli’s studies? And what are the reactions here? Is this an entirely new development of LENR?  Very credible being given the impeccable prestige of Tadahiko Mizuno! However I did not get any supplementary information regarding it despite of trying hard.
Will this mystery be solved at the presentation of the paper? The reactor has an on-line mass spectroscopy system that is not able to identify the species present. It is some information circulating that there had not been performed the necessary off-line analyses either. (???) I hope this is not true and we will know what we want. If no helium is formed, this system will not be popular and some colleagues will consider it as a trunkless elephant. However it works!


Monday, October 27, 2014



There are no problems of understanding with negative definitions and with negative discoveries. What something is NOT and what’s absence was discovered are crystal clear concepts and I have written a lot about them on this blog.
It has started with Mihail Ralea’s negative definition of intelligence: and you can search for the seminal book “The Age of Negative Discovery” by Daniel Boorstin.
Negative information is less obvious, what we consider so does not subtract from existing positive information- it is actually
zero, nothing, nihil information we receive. Sometimes it is illuminating to see that some information is missing as in the classic 4 hats puzzle: here one prisoner has no information cannot say anything and this leads an other to the solution.  But this zero information is worthy only in special conditions.
one of the Professors has answered As you know I will not respond to any questions in an open forum. I communicate with the science community via scientific papers.”
It is his right, however the Report is only on the Internet and was not published by any known scientific journal so this forumophobia is not justified, I dare to think.
On his turn, Andrea Rossi independently from the authors has said: “The Professors of the ITP will answer to all the questions in periodical updates of the report published on:

It will be not easy- “all” means hundreds of questions, however let’s see the first update.
I could insist for answers to my Open Letter, however due to aging I have decided to reduce the number of impossible things I am trying to half...

Today Rossi has answered to one of the most important questions I had- and he was rational see please:       

The Lugano test was quite special- HotCat and long duration
It seems at Industrial Heat such tests coupled with thorough analytical studies are not usual:

 “As a matter of fact, the enrichment system is the process made by means of the ECat. Nevertheless, the results from the test have gone well Beyond what we found before during our internal R&D. As I said, now we are studying how to reconcile, but during these last days we arrived to understand possible explications; much more study is necessary, though.

Sooner or later, we (to be defined!) will know the complete story of elements and all their changing isotopes and it will be unexpected, I bet. It will be first of all, a negative discovery, LENR is not fusion but something much more complicated and different.

To illustrate the situation I want to use an analogy because we think with analogies, but this analogy must be fixed, it is known in a deeply erroneous variant. I know everything about it including all corrections, you all were told only about the highly idealized form of the story trying to make the poor ugly duckling an ideal hero, see
Hans Christian Andersen wanted to show that he is actually the ugly duckling, but being the illegitimate son of an aristocrat his noble, swan like nature will eventually prevail.

The true story of the Ugly Duckling.

For swan ladies wanting intense sexual life or being feminists, the equivalent of abortion is laying an egg in the nest of ducks.
They further don’t care for the fate of their children. Swan babies are ugly and clumsy and strange, they will receive lots of insults and will grow up in a crippling world dominated by hostility and nastiness both psychological and physical. Very soon the young swans will lose completely their self respect and will suffer personality collapse under the terrible stress, oppression and continuous humiliation. Evolution depends 80% on education and only 20% on genetics, therefore the poor unhappy creatures will be soon deprived of their swan nature/essence, in most cases irreversibly. The end of story is tragic the demoralized, depressed, desperate, hopeless ugly little duckling will become a mature but underdeveloped ugly duck for the rest of his/her short wasted life. C’est la vie… de la pauvre cygne).

You can easily guess that I have not told you this deeply pessimistic tale as a member of the Swan Protection Society. No, I have informed you because it opposes realism to the false Andersen story.

It is kind of metaphor of LENR that was raised as a cold fusion duckling however its real nature is superior, a more interesting process both nuclear and non nuclear but not simple primitive brutal fusion –at least for the swan like rich energy source.

Yiannis Hadjichristos describes/defines HENI In this way:

"Besides of the dominant definitions of LENR, all mixing cause and effect and unproven hypotheses of nuclear nature, a more sophisticated (but yet to be proved) definition of the observed phenomena under the name HENI recognizes the non linear multi-phase process towards excess heat energy production as triggered by excited Hydrogen atoms and metal surface excitations within a controlled and clean environment, where all its supportive elements and active materials (gas and solid) define a Nanoplasmonics Active Environment dynamically rebuilt in situ

With reference to N.N. Taleb- this will be the whitest Black Swan from the history of Technology.


Saturday, October 25, 2014




A pandemic more dangerous than hundred Ebolas threatens humanity: Probletence.  The word is derived from “problem” and “impotence”; it describes the continuous decrease in ability to solve our most important, critical, painful problems in all the domains of human activity from politics to science and from education to economy. The unique partial exception is technology and this shows that Homo faber is our unique great hope, nobody else cares for us. If we cannot stop probletence, our future will be drowned in insoluble problems.
The roots and causes of Probletence are complex and in a dynamic evolution from bad to worse.

In so many cases the strong majorities are on the part of the Problem and the weak minorities only fight for the Solution.

Many people have realized that it is so much easier to live from the problems and make them permanent than creating change and building solutions

More frequently even the problem goes unrecognized or is misunderstood not the solution.

In too many cases in problem solving the means become more important than the aims and the attention is focused on the methods and not on the solution itself.

The memes of the problems are stronger and faster tan the memes of the solution and dominate; we live in a memecracy of problems.

Counterculture with its myriads of forms is more damaging than even the terrible weaknesses of the education system that
does not support critical and independent thinking, problem solving, change, creativity.

Incremental progress is more encouraged than genuine breakthroughs

Extreme specialization dominates over the great syntheses, deep understanding and creating a holistic and holographic vision for the most important problems.

Typically, urgent problems eat important problems for breakfast.
All these are not new things however the problems as such become increasingly difficult inherently and many of them are already chronic petrified or unbelievably sticky- so probletence is constantly aggravating.

Then how can we stop Probletence? I am offering you thereby a solution for the problem Mother of all problems – an infallible set of 20 rules created by me as a modest contribution to the saving of the World.


“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 illogical, 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 a worldwide epidemic of Probletence.


Translations of the Rules

Friday, October 24, 2014


Giuseppe Levi
Evelyn Foschi: unknown, please convey
Tornbjorn Hartman:
Roland Petterson:
Lars Tegner:
Hanno Essen:

Dear Authors,

For the sake of Science and especially for the New Paradigm
of the energy source called in present Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, it is necessary to get more essential scientific data
regarding the very important experiment made by you.
This is possible only via a collegial and mutually respectful
dialogue with you.
I have elaborated and described the principles for organizing such a dialogue here: 

The impact of my proposition was minor and I have received too many thorny and Krivitized  questions, unusable - therefore I have decided to write you in my own name and in the name of my Blog and to ask you the following questions:


1- Can you tell us more about the design of the Cell and the planning of the Test?

2- On which thermal and optical characteristics of the alumina used for the vessel, was the test based?

3- Can you give more data regarding the internal structure and the transport, transfer and transformation of matter and energy in the Cell?

4- What methods of stimulation (EM etc.) have you used to trigger the reactions?

5- In which extent the cell/process tolerates the presence of air and water?

Please remove any and all the doubts regarding the temperature of 1400C on the Cell ergo question 6 and 7:

6- How do you explain the survival (?) of Ni nanostructures in the close proximity of the melting temperature of nickel?

7- Is the device “calorimetrable” i.e. what is the effect of cooling, partial removal of excess heat?

8- Based on your two tests including the analyses of both fuel and ash what do you think about the reactions taking place?

9- Is there a complete set of analyses bound to the test- that can be used to work out understanding and theory/ies of the process?

10- -With whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?

11- What your attitude toward replication of the test, new tests other actions in collaboration?

Please send the answers to the Blog (comments) or to
Thank you in advance,

Peter Gluck

Wednesday, October 22, 2014



Dear Readers,

The publication of the new Rossi report is an important event for our scientific-technical field. My expectations from this research project were:
 a) the proof of massive excess heat and
b) scientific data usable for the building of the new paradigm of LENR (or what it actually is) – implicitly for the necessary replacement of the old paradigm that does not work neither toward understanding, nor toward a new source of energy.

The Report supports both expectations however not completely. The reason is that I am not a know-it-all; I do not understand some principles, subtleties and details of the Report. This is a problem and problems must be solved. The most straightforward solution is to initiate a productive high quality dialogue with the Authors. Clearly this has to be a multi-staged dialogue going from the essentials to the details, however not by-passing the critical issues, if any.
I make an appeal to the empathy of the Authors: remember that “It is the question that illuminates, not the answer” (Eugene Ionesco) Their task is easier, they know the answers while we have to create quality questions able to pass all the natural barriers and to stimulate the positive attitude of those who have made this great work.


On our turn, we have to feel sincere empathy for all the Authors who took great risks by supporting an idea that is oppressed and an individual who is demonized by merci- and shame-less critics and bravos who all have made a passion and credo for attacking everything connected to Rossi. The authors have received tons of insults, offenses, are ridiculed both by dogmatic professionals and sadistic amateurs. It is no exaggeration in this, I have read all those personal attacks; they are personal because almost all the trolls have high degrees of technical and scientific illiteracy and have not written a single research report in their lives. The Authors are right to avoid any contact with ill-willed ignorance, dominant arrogance, incurable prejudices and loquacious incompetence. Lack of respect for the work and the authors are not excusable.
We have to demonstrate them that we are different, we sincerely and professionally motivated want to understand how the process works, how this experiment was organized – and what open problems- if any- are left. We are in the same boat as they.


I have watched the Internet for long years and I have to say that very rarely I have seen a dialogue that wasn’t actually a set of parallel monologs- we have to try very hard now. We have to practice the high art of asking answerable questions in the most consistent logically way. Obviously this will be a multi-stage – process- and within the stages – going step by step.
It will help, I hope, the authors to write the promised updates to the Report here:

If we want a bad example, how to NOT ask here is a horrible one, venomous:

Which kind of questions to NOT ask:
1-     idiotic inquisitorial question as in the document above;
2-     “I know you don’t know” arrogant questions
3-     curious kibitz questions style “I am just asking”
4-     obviously ill-willed, you will fall in my trap questions
5-     unprofessional, badly formulated unclear questions
6-     mixed questions- combining more incompatible ideas
7-     more questions jumping from on idea to other
8-     any questions linked to Rossi +IH’s industrial secrets, however we have to let the authors to decide which ones belong to this category.  

 Which kind of questions to be asked:
1-     short, condensed, clearly formulated, generative questions
2-     "first-things- first questions
3-     MAXIMUM 10-12 essential questions in the first stage

Sources for questions- are many: forums as Vortex- a lot of threads, some abandoned, some still open, E-Cat World – for good questions.
There are some 50 unanswered questions at the LENR Forum, unfortunately this did not worked- no wonder it is an olla podrida of very different questions- no taxonomy there.
But we have to use the most natural one.
When I have had the task to analyze hundreds of patents for the technologies of OLTCHIM, the natural order was: chronologically (in time), logically (type of technical solution) and technologically (according to the owner company, grouped as solutions) – so it was possible to use the patents to get the visions of technologies (obviously in combination with book, papers, grey literature and many other sources)
For the Report- the basis is chronological: before, during and after the Test, design, execution, interpretation.

In this case we have an excellent model-in-principle for questions (implicit ones) - the prompt analysis of Mike McKubre:

I am asking for your help – for the best choice and presentation
of the (say) First Dozen of questions. See, but take only as preliminary- my choices- what I consider as prioritary.


Research strategy, working hypothesis in the Test
- how have you contributed to the design of the cell?

The structure and functionality of the E-cat
- thermal, optical properties of alumina vessel?
- internal structure and materials dynamics in the cell?
- have you used EM or other form of stimulation?
- in which extent the cell tolerates presence of air and water?

Heat measurement balance details problems
- remove please any doubts re 1400 C!?
- how do you explain Ni nanostructures survival at 1400C?
- is the device calorimetrable- effect of cooling?

Analytical problems
- progress in understanding reactions in Hot Cat?
- is there a complete set of analyses for foundation of Theory?

Conclusions for present and future
- with whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?
- your attitude toward replication of the test, new test?

Each question can be explained and its motivation will be presented.


Sunday, October 19, 2014


“The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously”
                                                                  (Henry Kissinger)

As a former citizen (captive) of a communist regime I am very indebted to the author of this popular quote for his political activity. The authoritarian regimes have collapsed and I am free today and he has contributed to this.
The Kissinger quote is appreciated as something wise – and, in many circumstances- as life or death situations it indeed is.
However in more normal and less stringent situations, exactly the contrary of what he has told is true:

The absence of alternatives blocks the mind completely”
                                                             (Hostile Pragmatic Reality)

Later in retrospective, after the disaster, many times, you will see that actually there were alternatives but you had no idea about their existence. You had no proper information about the possibilities, about the ways to escape, the saving solution or, simply the correct explanation; the circumstances have forced you to act or answer what you could - and you lost or failed. The response was a forced error due to lack of information- or knowledge, wisdom.

This has happened in 1989 with the Fleischmann Pons discovery: lots of excess energy- it cannot be chemical being too great – than it MUST BE nuclear. Due to our inherited love of certainty and simplicity- we (the collective mind, a splinter of Zeitgeist actually) have called the new source of energy Cold Fusion. In a sense it was both a blessed and a cursed moment of the history of science and technology. I still consider justified calling Cold Fusion a “miscovery” - and a misname. Only now so many years later we start to see and understand that the process is nuclear only partially and it is nuclear of a special kind- a new reality appears, it is much more than a new theory.

However Cold Fusion gave the creative opportunity to Ethan Siegel to write a third cold fusion paper- I have dis/miscovered it today:
Throwback Thursday: the Foolish Fallacy of Cold fusion

Nasty, aggressive title the content is very similar with the other two Siegel papers presented here recently…
Probably to suggest that Rossi is a scammer, Siegel re-tells us the story of the chess automaton of Kempelen  Farkas (1734-1804) Hungarian inventor and scientist, kind of Dean Kamen of his age. The chess automaton- with a very talented dwarf player inside was more a joke, a challenge however this player inside was a formidable talent. See his games:

 Siegel re-demonstrates that Cold Fusion cannot be fusion.
I don’t remember when exactly has told Arthur C Clarke “it is probably not cold and not fusion” The founding fathers have also spoken about an “unknown nuclear process” quite early.

Speaking about the Sun- as a model for fusion energy we are not warned that it is a lousy weak source of energy- very low energy density- we cannot use such weaklings. Our patent specialist, David French has written an intellectually enchanting paper about this:

Our Universe is the most interesting of all possible Universes but it is not a model of efficiency. For long time I have complained that the speed of light, the absolute maximum is snail-like if we take in consideration the huge distances between the material formations, galaxies stars, whatever. Not a model of promptness, not in the spirit of “bis dat qui cito dat”
But Siegel will not give; in the name of Science he will take our new source of energy away. Dear Ethan, you are right that cold fusion of the productive sort is not fusion, so please join the efforts to find out what it is. Learn together with those who have started the job.


Saturday, October 18, 2014


An overanalyzed victory is indistinguishable from defeat;\
and the test described by the Rossi Report is only a bit different- can it be called a victory? It is a difficult problem of definition. As usual, all the parts involved in the confrontations claim victory. Judging realistically, it wasn’t a breakthrough, a game changer event. (Note: in this essay I am speaking about a victory for science)

As a professional problem solver (see and use my problem solving rules!) my approach is this:  I see the solution- the test is what it is, but it can and must be converted in a full victory! Opportunity lost has to be made opportunity re-gained.

It could have been done by parallel experiments in the same place or more places. It also could it be done by repeating it
in improved, anyway smartly chosen different - conditions.
The sampling procedure was a horrible Waterloo battle for science. I still hope that a second – everything goes to analysis- sampling was indeed done. The results of the grand analysis are accessible probably only to Rossi, Industrial Heat and a few insiders- but does this sanalysis+multi-disciplinar investigation exist or is it only a product of my wishful thinking?)

Rossi says he is now fully committed to the 1MW plans and the customers will decide if these multi-Ecat heat generators bring profit or not; if Yes! the new energy source is here and everything is OK, technologically and economically. It is sad and quite symptomatically: Rossi is not more speaking about the promised Theory.

He speaks about the Standard Model and other classical theoretical physics issues, while this new energy source
is actually new physics- added to old physics- extending it, not contradicting it. Who knows what is the philosophy of scientific progress of Andrea Rossi? Is he able to understand and to control well his own invention?  I don’t know him, I cannot communicate with him but I still hope. I know from many examples from history- human nature does not change essentially- that the relationship of all kind of creators and their creations can be complex and paradoxical. (For me, given my personal cultural example the most impressive example is described in Stefan Zweig’s book: “Decisive Moments in History”
chapter 9: “Genius of a single night- Rouget de Lisle writes La Marseillese”. The most revolutionary song was written and composed by a rather reactionary person. I know all analogies are flawed but our brains are programmed to use them.
It was very na├»ve to hope that the great dream of Cold Fusion will be saved by a Knight with no fear and beyond reproach”
Rossi is perhaps too real, too human to be a new Bayard in science and energy. He has problems to solve. How could he combine a technological financial victory with the victory of science? More probably other researchers will do it for him.

The lack of a theory of LENR became something intolerable.
One of my reader friends, whom I consider a brother in life experience based non-idealism, Doug Marker from Australia writes about these fundamental realities:

- No one has yet come up with a published theory or set of theories that full explain all the LENR / HENI reactions that have been demonstrated up to now.
- Without a widely accepted theoretical base for the devices, some scientists can 'fairly' (in a fashion) argue that they 
 don't really exist or worse are deceptions.
- The biggest opposition to Rossi and others is from scientists who argue that the devices violate fundamental laws of
science, BUT that is NOT and can NEVER BE absolute proof such devices don't exist, only that they can't be explained
using known rules/laws.
Doug is so right wit this requirement of capturing LENR by the accepted theories; I will illustrate this with two papers of a mainstream scientist fiercely fighting for the orthodoxy of Physics.
Ethan Siegel has published a new anti-CF, “I do not believe (in) Rossi” paper at the elite

The E-cat: cold fusion or scientific fraud? (Synopsis)

in Science Blog Channel Physical Science
It is highly similar with his first paper discussed in my “Learning from a confrontationalist” paper
I take only the final sentences of these papers

The first one ended with:
Given everything that we know, as others also demonstrate (thanks, Steven B. Krivit), it’s time to set aside the mirage of Nickel + Hydrogen fusion and get back to work finding real solutions to our energy and environmental problems.”
The great problem here is the order of words- actually this has to be read- “we know everything and it is no place for Nickel + Hydrogen fusion” But, dear Ethan, is this Report speaking about this impossible fusion? It says, despite its mutilated analytical part that we have to deal with a complex dance of interactions and isotopes, something DGT started to assert very soon after its divorce from Rossi in 2011.

 Siegel’s new paper ends with a superior and arrogant: I will hold up the torch of what scrupulous science would look like, and challenge the participants to live up to it. Until then, this isn’t meritorious enough to be interesting.”
Doug, like me, has much understanding and empathy for Rossi’s secrecy ( I am more contrariated by what he has said about all Ni going to the isotope 63- was or wasn’t this a huge surprise for him?)
Doug says:
“If I were Rossi and dealing big problems he has, I would NEVER let anyone have full access to my fuel or all the ash. That fuel and the ash are Rossi's crown jewels and if Rossi knows his device works but that he can't explain it nor get a good patent for it, then he could well feel fully justified in tampering with his 'crown jewels' knowing that once he allows full access to them in all their detail, he has given away his achievements and still can't explain how it works. That glory would go to the next person who could use Rossi's fuel - process and ash to figure out the science. I have no difficulty stepping in to Rossi's shoes and behaving as he does while grappling with his dilemmas. If Rossi knows his device works (just ask Defkalion) then any trick or lie or sleight of hand can be justified if it is protecting his position”
 Point being that the core of Rossi's problem assuming no fraud, is that what his device does is impossible because no known laws explain it.

It is sad, but I must agree with Doug- we cannot wait complete analytics or theory from Rossi just small fragments of truth or partial truth.
The solution can come from Defkalion when they will finish launching Hyperion 6 and this includes the bureaucratic legal part
for this household generator (Rossi will try to solve this only after the customer experience with the industrial 1 MW gathering of E-cats.)

But a faster solution became also possible due to our true –and young knights with no fear and reproach – the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Group. These researchers have courage and despite many warnings that CF/LENR is bad for your career, despite seeing slow progress , open problems, non usable theories, chronic and deep lack of funding plus extreme heterogeneity, confrontations, conflicts, failures predicting new failures- lots of unhappy things- these admirable boys believe in the Fleischmann-Ponsian bold dream of an energy source at the  far right side of the Ragone plot accessible only from the very far right side of the Medawar Zone and they have decided to replicate the Lugano experiment. Bravissimo, this is the best news we had after the publication of the Report:

Design MFMP Plans E-Cat Replication Attempt Starting in 6 Days, Posted

I have read what and how they want to do and I like it sincerely, good strategic thinking.


I wish so much to be younger with 40 years and join them but this is not possible due to my limitations, and all I can do depends on you, dear readers. 
I hope they will embrace the new paradigm and will succeed converting the test in a scientific victory.


Thursday, October 16, 2014


 I am still confused about the analyses made/not made by Rossi. He helps/does not help- paradoxical style; nobody has tried to console or help me and I do not know what to think...

Yesterday in an interview with John McGuire Rossi said:
This report is no doubt very interesting and we are studying it because, as you probably know, there is a surprising result regarding the Nickel-62 in particular, and we are studying it because we are strongly directed, under a theoretical point of view, to understand these kinds of results that was unexpected.

Today, answering on his blog to Italo R.:
No doubt about the increase of 62Ni, which we found many times, about the entity measured a strong work is in the making

It seems to be a contradiction here, I dare to think but I am not sure.

The brightest comment of this day was made at this very positive and encouraging paper:


The comment of Christopher Calder:
“There are many exciting players in the race to bring Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) to the marketplace. There are also several competing hot fusion nuclear reactor designs that could be very cost effective and compact. The main thing is we have to replace fossil fuels and end the renewable energy fad-fiasco. For details and the BIG PICTURE, please Google *The Renewable Energy Disaster*. We need solutions that do not cause far more problems than they solve.”

The last sentence seems to be general but also an allusion to Rossi and to the Report- but this is my opinion, not Christopher’s.
I am still waiting the authors of the Report will answer to the doubts regarding energy measurement (because I KNOW Rossi’s feline creatures are able to generate huge quantities of excess energy. I say and sign this, Mary Yugo and her companions trolls can call me as they wish)  The problem of sampling is more difficult, does a complete analysis exists and is this in harmony with the former analyses made. I still hope he has told the truth today and not yesterday.

Calder is right: progress is when the number of the problems decreases and the number of solutions increases, when each problem is replaced by an other one, as tricky as the original we have stagnation; when we are overwhelmed by problems
it is decay – and if always the same old problems hit us- it is probletence.

I will start a list of Solved Problems in LENR. Can you suggest some examples?


Wednesday, October 15, 2014


A week after the publication of the Rossi Report, the turmoil continues but we already can start to build a vision of the general situation, asking: who confronts whom and what.

Let’s start with the worse one; at first sight you surely do not realize the horror of it.
Rossi confronts real problems, enemies, competition and this is natural for such a difficult and challenging research project like his- but now also belonging to Industrial Heat and, in part to Elforsk.

Now I find it shocking thatRossi Working Hard to Understand the Physics behind the E-Cat in Light of New Report  It is mainly about the isotopic changes. What can this mean?

a)     The professors have obtained unique surprising results now, for the first time;

b)     Rossi has worked for some 3+ years and has never analyzed the ash, or has obtained different results;

c)      Here it is some big lie- the unique good variant is the results of the Test were actually expected but Rossi still cannot or will not explain them.

I am totally confused by this problem.


This is a crucial problem; for the time given- as far as I know- the authors have not answered a single question at a special forum organized for this.

Rossi declares very clearly on his blog that he will NOT answer any question regarding the reactor and the test- niente! So he does not confront more the questions of those curious people discontented with some aspects or details of the test.

 So many questions will remain unanswered. But this still is not so troubling as Rossi amazement with those isotopic changes.


Rossi gives us (the public) fragments of information, as pieces of a puzzle. Those who have other pieces of the puzzle (supposedly Industrial Heat, Elforsk) can reconstitute  a bigger piece and understand the situation we remain with half-truths or in the best case with Pareto truths- and this is endemic for LENR, see:                          


The Report confronts: many angry attackers and the assertion it was a remarkable achievementagain is a Pareto Truth. One test, one reactor (as I commented yesterday) calorimetry in rather unusual conditions, no more alternative methods used for calorimetry, no verification, re-verification and cross verification. I know two colleagues who are unable to swallow the 1400 C temperature- plus red glowing plus nickel melted for sure in some places. Reality is not homogeneous; there are hot spots in many places. It smells of disaster.

We are a family of chemists- my wife and my daughter are specialized in analytical chemistry, I am a chemical engineer

We know from practice that sampling and sample preparation is the most difficult part of the analysis and it is so easy to obtain non-relevant and non-representative samples and results. And what has happened with the sampling after the test? I may not use 4-letter words here. The problem is – and Rossi will not let us know- was a correct sample taken too, analyzed and evaluated? And are there insides who know the complete results?

Rossi and his new nuclear physicist collaborator need his information for the TRUE THEORY promised by Rossi

And for a patent if he really wants one


People who invested hopes this new source of energy are confronted with this situation:

No absolute certainty of getting this energy, the test indicates with high probability (taking in account the first test too) good excess heat- Rossi is right that only the commercial generators will bring certainty;


It is a VUCA situation (Volatile (changing, Uncertain (not much predictable things and evolutions), Complex (positive and negative as Siamese Twins), Ambiguous (friends and enemies both claiming victory). The VUCAWorld of what is now LENR will last more than we wish.

Interesting: a reader called Amos- I believe he is from South Africa commented on my blog (thanks!):

Either way, the next few months in the LENR space will be quite interesting thanks to this report. Remember I told you 2014 will not be the year of LENR as you had postulated. I still maintain that 2015 / 2016 will be the year. Wonder what Randall Mills thinks of the E-Cat now.

He can be right, I have my reasons (77 of them) to be in hurry. As regarding Randy, I can ask him but it is just a formality. Who believed in the functionality of the E-cat continues to believe after this test and is happier but this 32 days test not converted many -skeptics in E-cat lovers.


Do not ignore competition- it comes! There are scientists able to understand even those mysterious isotopic shifts and know the complete scenario and are adept in controlling the energy release


No more scientific experiments like this one says Rossi but even in his camp surprises are possible. What will do Elforsk?

I have full empathy for he testers who have risked much, get tons of insults, I wait for an opportunity to express it to them directly.