Thursday, December 18, 2014


It seems many LENR colleagues were impressed by the sorrows of the Lugano tester professors- to obtain so huge excess heat and to do not be able to explain how and why it has happened.
I think the very pleasant surprise this morning: Russ George publishes 


was also motivated by the noble desire to help the world to eventually comprehend what LENR is, how useful and decisively important it can be. Russ is an excellent personified example for the thesis that INITIATIVE is the great differentiator of the people- read "Without initiative, leaders are simply workers in leadership positions." (Bo Bennett)- Russ has a soul of leader- please look at his website to see what he is doing.  I am trying to teach this to my grandsons.
Initiatives- in this case an gastronomy-inspired search for the essence of LENR are ideas first. 
I don't want to hurt the elegance and logical consistency of Russ' s paper by trying to explain it, please read it and be inspired. I envy Russ especially for his many enemies.
It is in harmony with my Credo that LENR's best metaphor is Life, both being results of synergies. This was the first event; then see who was the first to comment my yesterday's Info: my young Vortex colleague Bob COOK - I hoep to meet him in person next Fall. Nomen est omen. Bob's message is intended actually to Bo Hoistadt as suggestion and help. Then third- my wife has annaounced me that today's episode of Columbo is about a gourmet killer (in English "Murder under Glass") Too many coincidences and seemingly no real LENR news (?) today we must think about the connections and correlations of LENR and cooking.
The quasi patents of cooking are named recipes and there are millions of them.
The ladies and the publishers of cooking books of know that when you give  recipe to somebody it must be real, detailed and complete with all the necessary details.
First of all you have to tell what are all the ingredients;  as both Bob Cook and Axil show in their comments at Lugano "the fuel had some C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash." Now e know that the sample remained at the testers
but we know only the results coming from 10 mgrs- is the sample so homogeneous?
Not a good cooking book this Report.

In the good old Web search days when your search ability depended on the knowledge of the best sources, I wrote the most voluminous weekly newsletter
INFO KAPPA, 437 issues (2002-2010). The part dedicated to current information had the following columns:

SEARCH: (Internet, What and where to search, Blogs, Google), Words, books, libraries, Science,  Technology, Education, culture, art, Business, Medicine and health, Gastronomy and food, Miscellanea- about dangerous things on the Web  

Between 150 and 200 new links per issue, then I was really well informed. To search about news in the world of food and cooking was quite captivating.
Now  random search - resulted in the flowing link: Presented as: "To cook well ia  science, to cook excellent is an art" I always thought life on Earth will be the best when gastronomy will be the most important science. A bright and realistic idea, however my best classic scientist friend has explained me that Gastronomy is NOT  a science! Perhaps it isn't but it is one of the greatest blessings of Mankind. I am tired today(due to shopping) and unable to write an ode to it.
I just will remember you a special encounter of cold  fusion and high level cooking.
At one memorable Asti Workshop organized by Bill Collis a Great Contributor to the scientific field- the TRuffle Prize was instituted see please
for me this is a precious memory. Truffle prizes were received by Piantelli and 
At the gala dinner the participants had eaten this exquisite food - its variant from Piemont. 
Truffle- the diamond of the kitchen (Brillat Savarin) 
Truffle - the Mozart of the mushrooms. (Gioacchino Rossini)
I have forgotten its taste, however I remember well the events from the Workshop.
No more Ati workshops, addio sogni delle gloria! 
We were then very optimistic regarding the future if Cold fusion and i am so regarding the future of LENR. My problem is that I am extremely pessimistic now, regarding LENR's present. 




  1. Russ George is an entertaining writer, but his understanding of cold fusion is appallingly poor. First of all, for some history, see

    Krivit is a yellow journalist, one must factor for that. However, I do know that Russ George became persona non grata in at least one major lab. And then I see this today on the page you linked, Peter:

    "Hydrogen readily enters into palladium and in fact there can be upwards of 1000 times more hydrogen inside a bit of palladium as there is palladium!"

    No way. The palladium loading of Pons and Fleischmann was state-of-the-art. It approached a 1:1 ratio, i.e., where there would be as many deuterium atoms as palladium. Not 1000:1.

    Then he has:

    "Martin’s forte was ultra density and by following his recipes the hydrogen broth achieves a density far in excess of metallic hydrogen and indeed may reach the density of hydrogen quark soup that is thought to exist in the center of some stars."

    Martin (Fleischmann) loaded palladium more intensely than had apparently been done before, going from sixty or seventy atom percent to more than ninety. It is possible to think of highly loaded palladium deuteride as a metallic alloy. But it is not as dense in hydrogen as metallic hydrogen. Skeptics often made the point that the interatomic distance between deuterons in palladium deuteride is greater than the average distance in liquid deuterium.

    The idea that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect was due to very high pressure was an error that dogged the field; it resulted in a belief that the effect took place in the interior of the metal, whereas the bulk of the evidence is that it is a surface effect. It is still a very unusual material, palladium deuteride, that's true. But this stuff about quark soup is pure fluff.

    The core of the sun has a density of about 150 g/cm^3, which is not high density as stars go. Palladium metal has a density of about 12 g/cm^3. Palladium deuteride would have a density in the same ballpark. The deuterium would add a little weight, but it's only 2% of the atomic weight of palladium, and the palladium expands a bit when highly loaded.

    A neutron star may have a density of roughly 7 x 10^14 g/cm^3, if I did the math right. That is more like quark soup, which is *not* thought to exist at the center of any stars. Rather, quark soup is a hypothesized stage of the Big Bang, perhaps up to the first few milliseconds, when the entire mass of the universe was concentrated at the Singularity and exploded.

    Peter, I'm amazed that you were taken in by this.

    1. Over his long and productive career, Peter has asserted correctly, IMHO, that LENR is always a surface based reaction. Hydrogen loading of palladium is a type of surface preparation that can be alternately replicated by electric arc treatment of a transition metal as invented by Mizuno, or vapor disposition as used by Piantelli.

      Furthermore, some of the transmutation patterns seen in LENR can best be explained by the formation of quark soup, but how that state of matter is produced is a major theoretical challenge. But when we see the production in some LENR experiments of elements such as lead and even more mind boggling, transuranic elements transmuted from bushel load of very light atomic elements, we must admit that there is something going on beyond the ability of our current science to explain. It hard enough to understand LENR let alone correct the misimpressions rampant in orthodox science. At a minimum, these types of extreme LENR experiments point to the inadequacy of currently accepted scientific theory.

      It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

      Richard P. Feynman

  2. "Quark soup" is very unlikely to be a part of any LENR explanation, for reasons I gave. The term is used to refer to a condition of extremely high pressure and temperature, such that not even atomic nuclei can have any existence. Quark soup would explode and spread rapidly, cooling and expanding, and then subatomic particles would condense as the quarks combine to form them. This would not form transuranic elements nor anything particularly complicated. Those elements are formed by further nucleosynthesis in stellar plasma. Cold fusion requires condensed matter. The nature of the reactions remains a mystery, in spite of various "believers" who assert this or that theory.

    Pater has the right to be inspired by anything. However, the kind of breathless effusions that were promoted by Russ George in the past and present have damaged the field, making it appear that it is supported by pseudoscience.

    There is direct experimental evidence that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, popularly called cold fusion, taking place in electrochemical experiments with palladium deuteride, is a nuclear effect, producing helium proportionate to the heat, and the observed ratio is consistent with the ratio expected from the conversion of deuterium to helium, with all the energy being ultimately dissipated as heat. There is no observed product that is remotely comparable to helium. Tritium is the most reported, and it is a million times down from helium. Neutrons are a million times down from tritium. Other transmutations are observed, with less apparent level than tritium. There are no gammas to speak of. There may be X-rays, which might technically be low-energy gammas, i.e., nuclear emissions.

    1. Once we know that helium is being produced, as we do, then many possibilities exist for rare branches and secondary reactions. However, they are far from the main show, and because these reports are often scattered and can represent even further mysteries than the primary mystery of helium-producing cold fusion, focusing on them creates confusion and resistance.

      Feynman was right on. I learned my approach to science from him, at Cal Tech in 1961-63. So, Axil, what theory are you talking about?

      I have seen no evidence for the reduction of nuclear-condensed matter to quarks. I often suggest, as a thought experiment, that some gremlin can decompose matter into quarks and then reassemble it, to make a point. Any reaction that starts with deuterium and ends with helium must release 23.8 MeV/4He, by the laws of thermodynamics, whether by "fusion" or by gremlin quark reassembly.

      There is no contrary experimental evidence on the deuterium -> helium "theory," and there are many confirmations. At this point, additional theory without any experimental support, only ad hoc assembly of pseudoscientific word salad, is harmful, where it is mixed into community outreach. There is a place for speculations, it's an element in theory formation, but at this point there is a great paucity of experimental data on which to base theory.

      While it appears clear that the FPHE is a surface effect, that remains controversial among many researchers who are attached to this or that theory that requires bulk reactions. So, what is it? The helium evidence is clear: it is only found in the outgas or trapped very close to the surface, and relatively easily released, whereas helium formed in the bulk would remain trapped unless the material is heated to near melting or is heavily loaded with helium (to above 0.2 atomic ratio with palladium.) If that is in doubt, it should be confirmed or disconfirmed.

      The ratio is "consistent with" the theoretical value of 23.8 MeV/4He, when the figure of roughly 40% being sequestered is considered and only outgas helium is measured. There have been only two attempts to measure the rest of the helium, SRI M4 and Laser-3 in Apicella et al (2005). They used anodic stripping, which would remove a very thin layer of palladium, and both efforts moved the measured Q close to the theoretical value, easily within experimental error.

      So an obvious move forward would be to do this work again with increased accuracy. In the Apicella et al work, the only experiment that used anodic stripping was Laser-3. Yet Laser-2 and Laser-4 had almost ten times as much heat generated. Laser-3 was close to the noise, so the result was rough. (Good enough to see that more helium was recovered, close to that expected, but still not very accurate.) Had this been done with Laser-2 and Laser-3, we would already have, from that work, a more accurate result, likely, than SRI M4.

  3. Abd ulRahman Lomax is fixated by a narrow view of a very large and intricate subject, LENR. The inventory of experimental data has grown large over a quarter of a century and this data has led to formulation of theory that is far outside the narrow confines of palladium based LENR. The quark soup idea comes out of the cluster fusion branch of LENR research. Dr. Gorge Miley discovered that nano clusters of hydrogen were trapped in between the grain structure of transition metals. These nano-particles produced a astounding variety of transmutation products including some very heavy elements.

    This type of cluster fusion based LENR is explained by Miley here:
    Cluster Reactions in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)

    The fans of palladium LENR usually reject experimental data outside of their narrow range of interests. As a physiological shield, they say that such data is not LENR or is experimentally flawed or is pseudoscience. They assume the same closed minded thinking patterns that are almost always demonstrated in orthodox science and chafe in their discomfiture at experimental evidence that does not fit into their narrow mental infrastructure.

  4. Nice ad hominem there, Axil. I have indeed taken a narrow *position* within LENR, focusing on what we can know with clarity, rather than what can be imagined, which is vast, and I do this for a very practical reason, to penetrate the noise and to propose rigorous experimental work that is highly likely to produce scientifically useful results, which can lead later to practical utility.

    I assume that the full acceptance of PdD nuclear reactions will lead to much higher investment in research, which would include NiH and other approaches.

    It would be ridiculous to say that transmutation as reported by Miley and others is "not LENR," and I have never asserted experimental flaw as a general condition for transmutation results, so that was also a straw man argument.

    "Fusion," transmutation, and elements themselves are meaningless in a quark soup, and clusters involve very weak bonding, requiring low local temperature rather than the superhot, fantastically hot, trillions of degrees hot quark soup. So Miles is a red herring as well.

    That's a trifecta. Ad hominem, straw man, and red herring, all in a few words.

    Cluster fusion is one of the theoretical possibilities for cold fusion, in particular, Bose-Einstein Condensates or the like, which could be neutrally charged, small, and therefore possibly agents of transmutation. Nothing to do with quark soup, except that "quark" is a neat word if you want to look "scientific."