Friday, January 2, 2015

SHARED LENR IDEAS January 2, 2015


"Doing science inside the dog bone can be like doing science inside another universe. There is no certainty that physics or chemistry works that same inside the dog bone as it does in the real world. Maybe different physical rules apply."


Yesterday I wrote about the necessity of Leadership in LENR- global. Later I had a very bad revelation- it is missing what to lead...actually for LENR+ there is not organized activity our community, while our Russian colleagues have both.

Surely we have our heroic MFMP working on the experimental front but not organized activity re thinking beyond the classic PdD, Rossi, DGT, Brillouin, whatever technologies are seen as something outside the main interest and sometimes are treated as intruders..

Strange things have happened- one of our best scientists- has tried to show, based on experimental data for power-temperature that Parkhomov 's results are NOT what we can expect on basis of our experience in cold fusion. I am not expecting just watching how temperature in/on cell will increase as a function of power if we have three surfaces for heat transfer reactor/air, metallic vessel/ water, water vessel /air and we have no idea if they work in equilibrium or dis-equilibrium. What is for sure 500W are evaporating 1800 grams of water not the theoretical 800- there must be excess heat and thermometry is not relevant,

I have asked my LENR colleagues to look with attention to the recent global activity of the Russian group "Cold Nuclear Transmutations and Globular Lightning" but I had no echo, no answer despite the efficiency of Google Translate. The site is:

At this site you can find many interesting documents as:

a) the description of the seminary: "Cold Fusion and Globular Lightning" from December 25, 2014 on which the Parkhomov test was presented at the Russian University of Friendship of People:
16.00 - 16.30 A.A Prosvirnov: The Evolution of the reactors of A.Rossi. Engineering aspect.
16.30 - 17.00 S. F. Timashev: "Nuclear chemical processes in the environment of low temperaturea plasma"
17.00-17.30 A. Parkhomenko, Iu. N. Bazhutov: :Testing the Rossi cell"

These papers in extenso:
b) "No doubts remain, LENR exists." by Alexandr Prosvirnov, L. Ratis
c) The same authors as above:
"Low energy nuclear reactions and the perspectives of alternative nuclear energetics"
d) AG Parkhomov: "Cold transmutation of the nuclei, strange results and attempt to speak about these"
I have already mentioned this opus of Parkhomov.
e)Yu. N Bazhutov: "Experimental confirmation of the Rossi Effect with metallic hydrides"

and many other documents/ Which of our institutions is doing or is able to do something similar, is able to lead a dialogue on these subjects- bound to commercial level LENR coming?

MFMP will do it regarding the experimental part- but we have to create the theoretical, conceptual strategic dialog.
LENR Cities, Kresenn, ELFORSK, etc. what do you think/plan.?

The possible role of ICCF-19.
As for political parties, congresses have to be the supreme authority for a scientific-technological field.
It is not easy being given an inherent weakness of many congresses they are focused on and determined by the participants ( those which pay) So any ICCF is actually an abbreviation of International Cold Fusioneers' Congress no....Not Cold Fusion, but Cold Fusioneers. Not the science, not the technology, not the problems , just the paying participants. This is a Pareto truth not an absolute truth but will it possible at ICF-19 to discuss thoroughly how could be organized a sustained LENR+ research activity if there are many Pd D contributions from rather exotic countries?
I hope the organizers will be wise and ICCF-19 will help the future. Thr future is LENR+. Technology
. ICCF-19 has made a good start for this, so I am optimist.

Stop Being So Positive by Gabriele Oettinger

This is the essence of my philosophical system too, as presented in :
I apply this to LENR/LENR+ too.


  1. This LENR+, with very high temperatures, and high COP, will only be trusted if they self sustain. I don't know why that is not done. If it runs a way, let the controls of the system and other expensive parts be located far way from the experiment themselves.

    1. Why they don't make it self-sustaining? Because they don't know how to do it, establishing an equilibrium of heat out from the reactor and heat removed by cooling is surely not easy for this system

    2. My current opinion is that there is no significant XP in the Parkhomov system (though I cannot rule out low XP), based on the temperature behavior, which indicates strongly that there is some error in the steam calorimetry.

      However, if there were XP as described, it would be easy to design a self-sustaining system. It would use a number of the cylinders,so that they heat each other. It could be regulated by variable cooling, and there would need to be heating available to start it up. However, it's moot at this point if there is no major XP.

    3. So it is a conflict between thermometry thta depends on heating, excess heat and cooling- on one side and calorimetry- heat -> steam formed.
      New experiments will show which one is right.
      And they will come.


  2. The Parkhomov report is based on a single measure. There is accessory data reported, basically reactor temperature vs time and radiation vs time, but the only data used in COP calculation is input power for three periods, which are not accurately specified, and water lost, which is reported in multiples of 0.2 Kg, and the first of these periods, the loss is 0.2 Kg. The actual weight measurements are not given, nor are the measurement times nor how the samples were taken. Parkhomov looked very good. However, when it was examined closely -- first by that "best scientist" and then by me -- problems appeared. That scientist framed some of these in terms of how the behavior might not resemble other cold fusion reports. But there was something much more solid than that, and I have not seen that Peter understands it. Contrary to not behaving like expectations, the experiment, in the temperature data provided, behaves *exactly* as would be expected from no XP. This is strong, and would require some very odd coincidences to be consistent with XP. But the steam evaporation data shows substantial XP. The scientist then looked at that, and it also shows a sign that it's artifact (I have not verified that, beyond the suspiciously linear nature of the COP vs input power). At this point, we have what appears to be error, somewhere. Experimental fact is experimental fact, but what were the experimental facts? When we look at Parkhomov closely, which took me days to understand, the missing data becomes obvious. Parkhomov did not actually calibrate, in spite of saying that he did. I don't know all the facts, for sure, but what he reports is inconsistent with an actual calibration of the experiment. He calibrated something *else,* and the most likely error would be lost water that is not evaporated, which will vary greatly with exact boiler conditions, and a non-exact calibration will not reproduce those conditions.

    Self-sustain should be possible with the Parkhomov approach, if the XP is real. But that is *not* the first step. The first step would be to actually calibrate Parkhomov, by running the exact same conditions as the experiment, as to materials, arrangement, etc., with only the LiAlH4 missing from the fuel, and using the same input power protocol. Suppose Parkhomov did this and reported it. If this calibration showed that not only is water being evaporated at such and such a rate, but the reactor is getting much hotter with fuel than without, Parkhomov would be *conclusive,* not merely an indication. Two independent measures.

    We'd still want to see confirmation, but at that point, if I were involved, I'd be planning for self-sustain. Very simple, it should be. At worst, with multiple reactors, which can be just the "fuel tubes," a small input power would leverage a far, far larger output power. These tubes have very high hydrogen pressure in them, but only a small actual quantity, 100 mg of hydrogen. One wants to be prepared for container failure, but that's pretty simple. These are not going to produce a huge explosion if they run away. Just a small amount of relatively low-velocity shrapnel, if it doesn't just crack and fizzle, and some fire hazard, I presume that the released hydrogen would immediately burn at operating temperature when it hits the air. It would not explode unless it accumulated in a space without burning and was then ignited.

    Parkhomov fuel tubes should be very cheap. MFMP should be making them, ASAP. There are assembly details so that the resulting ceramic is completely gas-tight, able to withstand high pressure. They know that now!

    1. Abd, I think you agree with me. I was talking just about trust, to end up endless talks about measurement methods.

    2. Parkhomov indicates that with 498W of input power continuously applied for 40 minutes, 1.2 Kg of water were vaporized. If there was an error in the water mass loss measurement, it must have been *huge* (ie many times larger than 0.2 Kg) in order to bring the COP calculation down to 1. Same for input power measurement or step duration.

      In my opinion either the data were completely made up or this was the result of one of the most extraordinary cases of sloppiness mixed with incompetence, with gross errors on multiple measurements.

    3. The most plausible is no error, he obtained; the next tests will show it. Speculation is counterproductive. 1 test is no test.

    4. @Peter: do you know if he (besides attempts by the MFMP) will build more replications and document the process / testing protocol more in detail?

    5. Trying to find out. These days were holydays mainly except for workaholoics

    6. @ecco remind me a quote from Huizenga book

      "Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat."

      in dayly justice one can translate as :
      "since your innocence is impossible and you have an alibi, sure someone lied or you paid the police."

      this reasoning is quite common in fact when theory and evidences disagree, and sometime it is even true. sometime.

      cold fusion denial is a good registry of all tactic to deny a reality with scientific arguments :
      - increase the uncertainty of measurement to make success disappear.
      - recalibrate data that dissent. bend the past if required.
      - use absence of evidence as evidence of absence
      - invoke undetermined artifacts to deny evidences. never be precise enough on artifacts, and sure never try to challenge them with data or other experts.
      - invoke theoretical impossibility when you cannot find a theory
      - invoke conspiracy (without considering the motive in details) to explain what cannot be by undetermined artifacts
      - criticize as conspiracy theorist those who don't accept conspiracy theories of artifacts or malice.
      - invoke consensus when in despair.
      - fire those who dissent when consensus is not enough.
      - reject competent experts competence when you cannot fire them, saying they don't have the same (in)competence as yourself who is right
      - use their opinion as evidence of their incompetence if claiming incompetence is not credible

      basically there is various recurent scheme I found :
      1- recursive reasoning (I am right, thus any other opinion is wrong, thus it proves I am right)
      2- use absence of data/theory as evidence itself (inverted popper)
      3- attack the person/opinion/expertise when attacked on your lack of evidence. install terror to organize consensus and prevent reasoning or data to be considered

      the most funny is that those who organize that tragic groupthink are totally aware of those fallacies, and even blame opponents

      now the game is to find the handful of case of those manipulation, sometime in science community against science, sometime in media/politics against science community (not for long often as community join the funding).

      sorry to generalize, it was too funny claim.

      this does not even say Parkhomov is right, just that science have to investigate.

    7. @AlainCo: for clarity, I meant that in case the reported results are wrong ("if there is really an error, then..."). The error would be too large for *not* being deliberate or the result of several unlikely huge mishaps occurring at the same time.

      This being said, I currently believe it could be possible that the reactor he used made the power metering instrumentation underestimate input power at a high power level compared to his dummy load.

    8. Very good presentation/list of tactics to obstruct cf by denial


  3. On positive thinking, the page linked. The excellent article relies on what is called "positive thinking" that is not actually positive, and then what she describes that works is a form of positive thinking. The so-called positive thinking that is not positive imagines two kinds of realities, positive and negative, and then attempts to exclude the negative. The positive thinking that works actually assumes that reality itself is positive. Period. Regardless of conditions. Then it looks at possibilities. Possibilities are not "real," except that we make them real. They do not actually exist, beyond our declaration of them as "possible." The process makes up a possibility and dwells on it. Is this an *inspiring possibility*. What if it happened? Then the process turns to what is called in my training, "what is missing, the presence of which would make a difference?" And, in practice, answers to that question that involve some *condition* are deprecated. I.e., perhaps the person says, "If I had a million dollars, that would make a difference!" The leader will say, "What is it that you really want and what can *you* supply, now or immediately, that will make a difference? Generally, it's a state of being, that, maintained, then leads to correlated actions, that then realize the possibility. It is often a reframe that defines the existing situation as an opportunity rather than a problem. When we have problems, the brain does not work well. It's basic brain science.... When we have an opportunity to hit the ball, when we have the preparation, we just hit the ball! OMG! Hole-in-one! What a miracle!

    When we are upset, we often miss, get more upset, and are even less likely to hit it!