Wednesday, February 11, 2015



To attain knowledge, add things every day. To attain wisdom, subtract things every day" (Lao Tzu)
borrowed from Tanmay Vora's paper see far below

What can we subtract from LENR to make it move faster? Myths?


What is with the gossipromise regarding Lugano testers publishing a scientific extension of their report? This would help the action of obtaining certainty re the Hot Cat effect? 


Reading about Mats Lewan story about the scarry vision of a post-runaway reactor  
of Giuseppe Levi, showing that very high temperatures were attained inside, Prof. Francesco Piantelli has written me about an analogous case in his NiH line of research. He spoke about a photography made by Steve Krivit of one of Piantelii's rods- 10 cm long, 5mm diameter having a portion of 3 mm approx. that shows as molten and  in part evaporated; a sensor attache to it was completely destroyed and the ceramic on it fused. This runaway has happened in  in 1994. Piantelli warns that high temperatures and pressures can intensify the parasitic secondary processes that lead the reactions out of control. Very good protection is necessary.


Brian writes what follows and, between other things shows that my LENR djinn idea of yesterday was anticipated. 

"It seems painfully obvious to me that lithium is the unsuspected parameter for LENR.  Rossi, Parkhomov, Ikegami and Wallace all suggest that liquid lithium is the key. Other liquid metals may work just as well.

Perhaps it is the time for shift away from the quite small energies obtained by PdD electrolysis.For some of us, it is not easy to switch to NiH and this is only the start.
I can now add Edward Esko to the top of the LENR list along with Dennis Cravens and Atomic Ordered Materials.  Cravens is using liquid sodium and Atomic Ordered Materials in Fall River is using liquid copper. Liquid metals that dissolve hydrogen isotopes are incredibly active in a nuclear sense that is still largely undefined.
Wallace pointed out the improved defect structure in liquids as opposed to solid lattices. In solids the all important defects anneal out as the power  and temperature is increased. This explains in part why it is so difficult to get useful power out of palladium and nickel
Edward Esko of Pittsfield MA has written a book  published several months ago (October 2014) entitled:
He creates liquid metals by arcing between two electrodes and observes significant transmutations by both fusion and fission.Esko seems to have opened a new region of nuclear science that will generate much activity.

Thanks, Brian! Waiting for the first results of your replication test.


Role of Russian scientists in cold nuclear fusion and transmutation

BlackRock, Inc — World’s Largest Asset Management Company — ‘Closely Following’ LENR

Gary Wright does not change his mind and opinions:
Conclusions Drawn from the N. C. Radiation Protection Report


The Standard Model has worked beautifully to predict what high energy experiments have shown so far about the basic building blocks of matter, but just about all physicists recognize that it is incomplete.

This backbone theory of physics requires new particles to solve a major problem with the Standard Model – fixing the mass of the Higgs boson. If the theory is correct, current physics says that supersymmetric particles should appear in collisions at the LHC.

So now Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a required make or break extension of the Standard Model that aims to fill those nasty theoretical gaps. SYSY now predicts a partner particle for each particle in the Standard Model.

In its early days, the Standard Model seemed to predict that all particles should be massless, an idea at odds with what we observe around us. So theorists have come up with a mechanism to give particles masses that requires the existence of a new particle, the Higgs boson. However, it is a puzzle why the Higgs boson should be so light, as interactions between it and Standard-Model particles would tend to make it very heavy. The extra force carrying particles(Bosons) predicted by supersymmetry would cancel out the contributions to the Higgs mass from their Standard-Model partners, making a light Higgs boson possible. The new particles would interact through the same forces as Standard-Model particles, but they would have different masses.

But most importantly, supersymmetric particles would unite  both electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces together to form a new fundimental force all at  the exact same strength and at very high energies, as in the early universe. A theory that unites the forces mathematically is called a grand unified theory, a dream of physicists including Einstein.

Supersymmetry would also link the two different classes of particles known as fermions and bosons. Particles like those in the Standard Model are classified as fermions or bosons based on a property known as spin.

Fermions all have half of a unit of spin, while the bosons have 0, 1 or 2 units of spin. Supersymmetry predicts that each of the particles in the Standard Model has a partner with a spin that differs by half of a unit. So bosons are accompanied by fermions and vice versa. Linked to their differences in spin are differences in their collective properties. Fermions are very standoffish; every one must be in a quantum different state. On the other hand, bosons are very clannish; they prefer to be in the same state. Fermions and bosons seem as different as could be, yet supersymmetry brings the two types together.

Finally, in many theories scientists predict the lighest supersymmetric particle to be stable and electrically neutral and to interact weakly with the particles of the Standard Model. These are exactly the characteristics required for dark matter, thought to make up most of the matter in the universe and to hold galaxies together. The cosmological constant that we have now also requires a boson that has a very small mass.

Physics have not found this cosmological constant particle or the dark matter particle yet even though its mass range  would be easily detected in any modern particle accelerator. The Standard Model alone does not provide an explanation for dark matter. Supersymmetry is a framework that builds upon the Standard Model’s strong foundation to create a more comprehensive picture of our world. Perhaps the reason we still have some of these questions about the inner workings of the universe is because we have so far only seen half of the picture. CERN and the remainder of standard science is ignoring LENR to their great peril and pain.

Here is the scientific dilemma in a nutshell. The May issue of Scientific American has a very good cover story by Joe Lykken and Maria Spiropulu, entitled Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics

Here are some excerpts:

"It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling. These physicists’ long-term hope has been that the LHC would finally discover these superpartners, providing hard evidence that supersymmetry is a real description of the universe…

Indeed, results from the first run of the LHC have ruled out almost all the best-studied versions of supersymmetry. The negative results are beginning to produce if not a full-blown crisis in particle physics, then at least a widespread panic. The LHC will be starting its next run in early 2015, at the highest energies it was designed for, allowing researchers at the ATLAS and CMS experiments to uncover (or rule out) even more massive superpartners. If at the end of that run nothing new shows up, fundamental physics will face a crossroads: either abandon the work of a generation for want of evidence that na­­ture plays by our rules, or press on and hope that an even larger collider will someday, somewhere, find evidence that we were right all along…

During a talk at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Nima Arkani-Hamed, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., paced to and fro in front of the blackboard, addressing a packed room about the future of supersymmetry. What if supersymmetry is not found at the LHC, he asked, before answering his own question: then we will make new supersymmetry models that put the superpartners just beyond the reach of the experiments. But wouldn’t that mean that we would be changing our story? That’s okay; theorists don’t need to be consistent—only their theories do.

This unshakable fidelity to supersymmetry is widely shared. Particle theorists do admit, however, that the idea of natural supersymmetry is already in trouble and is headed for the dustbin of history unless superpartners are discovered soon…"

The authors go on to describe possible responses to this crisis. One is the multiverse, which they contrast to supersymmetry as not providing an answer to why the SM parameters are what they are, although this isn’t something that supersymmetry ever was able to do. Another is large extra dimensions as in Randall-Sundrum, but that’s also something the LHC is not finding, with few ever thinking it would. Finally there’s the “dimensional transmutation” idea about the Higgs.

If this approach is to keep the useful virtual particle effects while avoiding the disastrous ones—a role otherwise played by supersymmetry—we will have to abandon popular speculations about how the laws of physics may become unified at superhigh energies. It also makes the long-sought connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity even more mysterious. Yet the approach has other advantages. Such models can generate mass for dark matter particles. They also predict that dark matter interacts with ordinary matter via a force mediated by the Higgs boson. This dramatic prediction will be tested over the next few years both at the LHC and in underground dark matter detection experiments.

A report from the APS spring meeting includes the following about Spiropulu’s talk there:

Supersymmetry and dark matter have become so important to particle physicists that “we have cornered ourselves experimentally,” said Spiropulu. If neither is detected in the next few years, radical new ideas will be required. Spiropulu compared the situation to the era before 1905, when the concept of ether as the medium for all electromagnetic waves could not be verified.

Their conceptual  ROAD BLOCK is LENR. It is joyful to see particle physicists and Cosmologists  squirm.

There is more than one way to build a particle. We don't need a particle accelerator to build a particle, we can do it using quantum mechanics. Condensed matter and nano physics have done so already and are building new particles by the day. They have discovered that light and matter can come together because of the duality of particles and waves in quantum mechanics. These hybrid waveforms called polaritons are bosons with spins of 1 (bright) or 2(dark). They form under special conditions when the energies of the particles: both electrons and protons and photons of light merge together under special plasmonic engineering.

They can be nearly massless in their ground state or become massive as they gain energy as a collective soliton forms. Polaritons are an ideal candidate for the SUSY particles.

Physcists has a hard time with predicting energy levels and particle masses.

The energy needed to unite  electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces into a primordial fundamental force all at  the exact same strength is a matter of opinion. This force may not need be at very high energies if the nearly massless electron polariton is involved or the super massive dark mode polariton soliton that involves protons may supply all that energy needed to get to all the forces of nature unified.

The many miracles of LENR point to the operation of a single all purpose fundamental unified force at work in many types of LENR experiments and transmutations. Why is physics ignoring this wonderful clue about how the universe works?

Doug Marker adds to the perspective of SUSY:Are Physicists Ready To Give Up The Chase For SUSY?


Tanmay Vora's new - learn to think well- pleasant surprise:
On Simplifying Through Subtraction

This is an other example, besides LENR of how wicked a problem can become:            'Stressed' young bees could be the cause of colony collapse


  1. I disagree with Axil. There is no physical evidence to suggest that what is detected in high energy particle collisions are actually bosons that do what the standard model claims they do. It is a postulate only.

    Obviously the experimental data detected something. A much more realistic prediction based on Dr. Randell Mill's GUTCP is over energy resonances of particle creation energy arising from the extreme release of energy in high energy particle accelerator collisions (see pages 1573-1574 of the book).

    The theory and calculations demonstrate that the Z^0, W^+ and the Higgs are simply high energy particle creation resonances and are not the effectors of nuclear forces. The close match between the experimentally derived Z^0, W^+ and the Higgs by GUTCP's calculations are well within the bounds of error .

    GUTCP: 91.16 GeV
    Z^0: 91.1876 GeV

    GUTCP: 128.75 GeV
    Higgs: 125 GeV

    GUTCP: 80.51 GeV
    W^+: 80.423 GeV

    The standard model would therefore appear to be unnecessary, completely erroneous and have cost taxpayers billions of dollars to complicate something that should have been quite simple.