Tuesday, February 10, 2015


The work of the individual still remains the spark that moves mankind forward.
(Igor Sikorski)


The 6th edition of Mats Lewan's book: " An Impossible Invention" (2019) will be subtitled, probably "The tortuous way to triumph"- however even its first and second editions are excellent. 
Now  a discussion about Mats book has triggered Doug Marker's interest in the great Einstein vs Bohr debates over Quantum Physics.
My Australian friend wrote the following, wisely helping us to understand better why so many things and ideas in LENR are still so disputed.

Doug Marker writes:

"Despite any negatives in regard to Andrea Rossi and his many claims, this author remains hopeful, and believes, that replication of LENR & LENR+ projects should be encouraged and promoted. 

The opposite of Rossi's more challenging claims, is extreme skepticism put up by many quite intelligent people the worst of who bluntly claim that LENR/LENR+ is a fantasy despite the available evidence. This kind of 'logic' is unfortunate.

The current LENR/LENR+ arguments bring to mind the famous debates of the late 1920s between Einstein and Nils Bohr when Bohr repeatedly countered Einstein's carefully thought out objections to aspects of quantum theory. Interestingly, aspects initially theorized by Einstein himself. 

Those debates serve to remind us that logical thinkers (even Einstein) could at times become too logical.  Bohr once said to his son in a discussion about physics "You are not thinking, you are merely logical.". That was a very insightful remark from a brilliant mind. It appears it could have been fairly applied to Einstein back during the Quantum Physics debates (see Omega article extract below), and, seemingly if applied today, might be directed at some LENR/LENR+ skeptics who can often offer very seductive logic to claim LENR/LENR+ is impossible. Some of these opponents of LENR/LENR+ deal with opponents by swamping them with 'logic diarrhoea' (a variation on  'verbal diarrhoea').  There are well known science/LENR blogs that illustrate this and the e tactics. No links are needed.

Below is a selection of paragraphs that highlight the challenge between one of our brightest logical minds Einstein, vs the creative thinking of Nils Bohr.So it includes two of the perceived great minds of our era.
The quotes are excerpted from Australia's Omega Science Digest - Nov/Dec 1983. What makes them so compelling is the time gap from when they were published in 1983 (over 30 years ago), to today when experiments have validated some of the wildest aspects of Quantum Physics such as 'Quantum Entanglement'. We even have 'Quantum Computers' that exploit this phenomenon.

Page 72:
Einstein "I cannot bear the thought that an electron exposed to a ray of light should by its own free decision choose the moment and the direction in which it wants to jump away. If so, I'd rather be a cobbler or even an employee in a gambling house than a physicist" - Said in a letter written to a friend in 1924.

Page 72:
"Quantum mechanics is most awe-inspiring. But an inner voice tells me that this is not the real thing after all. The theory gives much, but it scarcely brings us nearer to the secret of the old man (meaning God)". From a letter to a friend in 1926.

Page 72:
'At the 5th Solvay Congress on Physics held in Brussels in 1927,  Bohr recalls that at an informal dinner attended by the conference participants, Einstein mockingly asked if his colleague (Bohr) really believed "the good Lord plays dice", with reality. So began the most boisterous scientific debate of the century'.

The above remark marked the start of the public debates between Einstein and Bohr that eventually left Einstein isolated from more general acceptance of the theories of Quantum Mechanics. It should be noted that Einstein and Bohr were good friends at a personal level despite the intensity of the debates and the eventual outcome.

Page 72:
 'Never before -- and never since -- has a scientist who played a major role in the creation of a revolutionary  new theory abandoned that theory when it was on the threshold of widespread acceptance. This assault on Quantum  theory was also a battle for the soul of physics'.
'Frustrated in his aim, the greatest physicist since Newton would withdraw into semi-exile, the seeming loser in his titanic struggle with Bohr' (modern experiments have since proven the reality of 'quantum entanglement' and the complexity of 'wave particle duality'). 

Page 74:
'In Bohr's view, Einstein erred by judging the results of atomic experiments by the same logical standards that prevailed elsewhere in physics, he was trying to think logically about phenomena that resist ordinary logic. One can almost hear Bohr saying to Einstein what he once said to his son in a discussion about physics: "You are not thinking, you are merely logical."'.

What can be learned from the above 'clash of giants' is that even for the greatest of
thinkers, time moves on and new theories and discoveries emerge that can be difficult if not impossible for some former great minds to adapt to. This is truly the story of scientific progress.

Thanks, dear Doug and I promise you that disputes around LENR/LENR+ will continue. Till I am at the steer wheel of Ego Out, it will not be a yes-blog


This is not a dispute between young diplomats who know that a compromise can be a solution or it is sometimes a sign of intellectual superiority to go from A to A minus. No, these disputes have deeper roots than the wild fig tree or the winter rye plant (Wikipedia dixit) - the opinions are based on dissimilar careers and confronting scientific positions and personal philosophies of Nature.
I will develop a few points in the form "1 or 2" where 2 is what I think and fight for.

- In order to become accepted LENR has to demonstrate that it is real or it must be both real and and useful, fast?

- Is research aiming intensification of heat release a deviation from the main task i.e. scientific understanding the LENR phenomenon, or, on the contrary, a very necessary shortcut, due to a hostile and dim reality?

- The solution of the LENR problem must start from and will be based on thiswhat we already know or we will be forced to discover surprisingly new ideas and facts?

- The basic facts discovered for the primordial PdD system are valid for the entire range of temperatures at which generation of excess heat was demonstrated or increasing the temperature leads to more transformative and disruptive qualitative leaps?

- Is the NiH LENR system mirroring the PdD LENR system or is it a different species, scientifically and technologically?

- Can a single theory describe comprehensively both the Fleischmann Pons phenomenon and 
everything that was discovered later or, due to the complexity of LENR, its multiple stages- pre-nuclear, nuclear, post- nuclear- LENR needs a combination of different theories?

Re the philosophical basis of this Exploration:

-  Does Nature always take the simplest path and uses the fewest mechanisms possible., or on the contrary is Nature narcissistic trying  to be as interesting as possible, because Nature has no problems just only solutions?

These are not questions with immediate or even fast answers possible and it is useless to make appeal to the wisdom of crowds so I have accepted, serenely but not gladly the idea to be proved right at each and all points of above postmortem.
Remember: "i prefer the Hell, if it is connected to the Internet" (Valeriu Butulescu)


When I taught Romanian managers "Management of Technology" I tried very hard to make them to understand the functional theory of processes and products .
One recurrent example was the control of rate of polymerization of vinyl chloride- what is used to make it as uniform as possible:  an optimized mixture of two initiators, one facts and one slow ,additives with function of accelerator and of moderator, increasing the temperature in the lst stage, a stopper for the instantaneous interruption of the reaction in case of emergency- this substance is injected in the reactor shock wise from a container with rupture disc with high pressure nitrogen. The "recipe" has to be adjusted to the leading quality parameters desired- a fine, complex but pragmatic technological subject.

Obviously our main preoccupation remains these days the replication campaign. there are some signs that this would be even more difficult than we thought. See please this discussion thread- we know the LENR Djinn is in the hot bottle but it seems he will do quite ugly and violent things to get out from there
Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR

Mats Lewan cites from his book here- and probably he refers to a less savage djinn:

"When they disassembled the reactor they found that the ceramic shield containing the reactor had melted, and it should withstand up to 2,700 degrees Celsius. The steel tube containing the fuel had a large hole in it and Levi saw on the edges of the hole that it had not melted—it must have been so hot that the steel boiled or burned up, indicating a temperature around 3,000 degrees.
(An Impossible Invention, chapter 19)".

Thanks to my wise Vortex colleagues I had a satori- a moment of illumination:
We were so mesmerised, so amazed by Rossi's magic catalyst- and we still not know if it is, what it is at different temperatures. However now, working at the highest temperatures, trying to use this great opportunity to obtain certainty - we will not need Rossi's Catalyst but Rossis's Inhibitor that calms the LENR djinn in those hellish circumstances.


Piantelli : European Patent Office signal an Intent to grant the patent
Piantelli's patents are so well written, so wise! Gems of the patent literature.

Registration Open for LENR-Cities Event for Industrialists in Milan, Feb 27http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/02/10/registration-open-for-lenr-cities-event-for-industrialists-in-milan-feb-27/
This must be a great success, a step forward for our community. P.R-ly speaking.

New Experiment by Jack Cole Indicates Possible 16 Percent Excess Heat

New Replication Attempt by Benoit Schillings; 
Waiting for the first test.

Some limits of Gullström’s theory for the E-Cat:
For any theory the great question is: if it is 100% true, what then? What problems are solved?

Time to dispel the streetlight paradox of energy:


Earth's surprise inside: Geologists unlock mysteries of the planet's inner core:
Actually whta is the source of the earth internal heat? For sure?

Exploring the energy landscape:
Forgets to say about LENR- LENR is still hidden for so many.



  1. There are multiple factors (catalysts) that allow the E-Cat to produce massive output. What people need to realize is that some of the catalysts are geometric and others are elemental. For example, Rossi has made it clear that using nickel powder of a few microns in diameter with spike like tubercules are vital towards producing excess power. Also, we now know that lithium plays a critical role as a fuel and a hydrogen carrier. Ikegami's paper about chemonuclear reactions explains how proton lithium interactions are a million times more probable when lithium is in the molten state.

    We should also remember what Cures has said on the Cobraf forum. He worked with Rossi on hundreds of hot cats, and everyone of them would race towards meltdown. He discusses how they tested hundreds of variations of the recipe until a more stable mix was found.

    Also, I think we may be over looking the importance of iron in the mix. It may help stabilize the reactions, protect the surface features of the nickel, and prevent the powder from sintering. If there was an inhibitor-catalyst I think it couId be iron.

    Now what we need are a series of tests perforned with great seals, thick walls, and different mixes. What we don't need are one off tests. If anyone is going to test, they need to be prepared to do a series of them.

    1. Hank,

      You provide very valuable insights that are important in support of Andrea who on his own can invoke serial incredulity.

      Am still reading Mats Lewan's book and while Mats at times shows remarkable tolerance of some of what Andrea claims, it is crucial to read intelligent and thoughtful material that balances Andrea's often extremes, especially if it supports his fascinating devices and claims.

      Thanks for yet more thought provoking input. It is really appreciated.

      In balance we can all say, "we live in interesting times"

      Doug Marker

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.