Tuesday, March 31, 2015



If you are not willing to risk the unusual, you will have to settle for the ordinary.
 (Jim Rohn)

There will be presented many other interesting- some important and influential too papers at ICCF-19. 


The Center to study Anomalous Heat Effects at Texas Tech University
In principle, this paper is about an action rivaling as significance with that of the Tohoku University just going viral on the web. I don't know the author and could not find anything about him/her? by a fast search. This is the Center created by Prof. Robert Duncan (former SKINR Director) see:
I am waiting this presentation with ardent interest: what is the orientation, strategy, philosophy
of this center, think Rob Duncan that there is no other way than the Scientific Method in its pure form? Palladium or transition metals?  

2.Francesco Celani
Observation of Macroscopic Current and Thermal Anomalies, at HT,by Hetero-structures on thin and long Constantan wires under H2 gas.
The very interesting and original idea of Celani - a new LENR (not LENR+) method has not been a great success per se (I think because deeply degassing of the systems is a must) but was very inspiring and had a lot of beneficial collateral effects.
We will also know the final word of the SKINR Lab about these Constantan wires.
3. El-Boher
Final Report on calorimetry-based excess heat trials using Celani treated NiCuMn Constantan Wires

4. Mitchell Swartz
Impact of Electrical Avalanche through ZrO2-NiD Nanostructured CF/LANR Component on its Incremental Excess Power Gain
As far I understand this will be about the way for intensification and, scale up
and optimization of the well working NANORs.

5.Emanuele Castagna
The Significance of a Properly Conceived and Instrumented Calorimetry
It is a sad reality that so much creative energy must be spent for the calorimetry in LENR. Calorimetry is for measurement, not for proof. It answers to "less or more?
not to "no or yes?"

6. Vladimir Vysotskii
Observation and study of undamped thermal waves in LENR-related systems
Vysotskii is the leader of an genuine  LENR school in Kiev.

7. F. Marano
Synthesis and Characterization of Pd-Ni-ZrO2 composite materials for LENR investigations

8. Iraj Parchamazad
Optimization of Zeolites in Cold Fusion Systems

9. Jacques Ruer: Lifetime of Hot Spots
This can be anything, hopefully interesting.
10. Wettin  Unknown matter in Cold Fusion
A puzzle?!

Comments to my ICCF-19 papers comments

a) Jones Beene, on the Palladium shining bright papers; ongoing discusxion, developing opinions on Vortex group (thanks, dear Jones!)

Palladium may be still “shining” at a few conferences, but the glow has tarnished considerably in the race for commercial viability. “Classic LENR” in general is:
1)      Low power – typically subwatt
2)      Based on electrolysis of heavy water at low temperature
3)      Poor to very poor reproducibility
4)      Expensive electrodes - $1000/gram range
5)      High COP – but only if the experiment is kept well below one watt
6)      Inverted economy of scale – lower COP at higher temperature

In contrast, nouveau LENR (aka dogbone) version is
1)      Three to four orders of magnitude higher power output
2)      Based on solid state -> gas phase at elevated temperature
3)      (Apparently) more reproducible, even without precisely following earlier work
4)      Low cost materials
5)      Modest, but usable COP
6)      Threshold for maximum gain appearing near 1300k-1400k.

It is easy to see why “Classic LENR” is essentially on its last legs as far as commercial relevance goes – and yet there are a few lessons, generally overlooked, which can be applied to the newer efforts.

Of significant but controversial importance is the one common denominator in both technologies: lithium.

It is arguable, in retrospect, that the classic LENR of the P&F is a lithium reaction which is triggered by deuterium… instead of deuterium fusion. Of course, it could be a little of both, and thermal gain can happen with other electrolytes and with protium. But lithium is preferred, and the interlocking parameters suggest that the reaction is more complex than we have ever imagined, since there is little high energy radiation.

Plus, if and when helium is seen in the ash – it could as easily derive from lithium, as opposed to deuterium fission. In fact, deuterium fusion should produce tritium, so when that isotope is not seen, the best evidence for the key to the reaction shifts to lithium – instead of D+D fusion.

This failure to understand that LENR is primarily a lithium reaction could relate to 3) above which the poor reproducibility of classic LENR.

The reason for this relates to weapons, National Labs, and the need to extract the important isotope – lithium-6 which is only 6-7% of natural lithium. Natural lithium is rare and expensive, and if the US Military had to pay the true price of enrichment of the needed lithium-6 – by writing off the entire inventory of Li-7, then it would have put the country at a great disadvantage against our enemies.

Therefore, and given that lithium which is depleted in lithium-6 works just fine for the main present use of the element - which is in advanced batteries, then what we see is that all of this gigantic inventory of lithium, which was depleted to extract Li-6 – went out on the lithium market for batteries. No one was the wiser, until recently.

Consequently, until recently, when a researcher bought the common electrolyte – lithium hydroxide, and did not specifically order and pay for natural isotopic balance – then there was little assurance that he was not getting a product which had already been depleted of the active isotope for LENR.

The result is poor reproducibility – to the extent that the reaction is a lithium-6 fueled reaction.

This is one explanation for the poor historic reproducibility, but there are others.

b) Unknown- to the theory papers
From the title it sounds like the Godes paper is an attempt to validate their theory rather than a report on improved performance. I guess that we'll see.



a) It is very probable that we will hear about new results from Parkhomov only at ICF-19;

b) The Parkhomov replications by Brian Ahern and MFMP are ongoing and we have the best chances to get good or even extraordinarily good news from there

c) The Great news disseminating rapidly on the Web in many languages is the Tohoku Univ.- CLEAN-PLANET 5 years plan- it is again essential to know which way will they say they are going and which way will they go? Are they aware of the difference between LENr and LENR+? Palladium loyalists or Ni- transition metals investigators?

d) Lets hope that the LENR CITIES Meeting with Industrialist at Milano will be fruitful.

e)! Yesterday I have read for the first time that Rossi is publishing a scientific paper about the explanation of enhanced excess heat in his devices- see the link with discussions below.
Which scientific journal, who will be the bold scientists to do the peer review? This event could have a great impact. Rossi saays it can appra in May, I read this as as August the soonest.

Will the world wake up with a peer review for the Rossi effect

Cold Fusion Breakthroughs

Google Translate of a very interesting paper, not excessively realistic, but forward-looking:
Development of the Arctic is impossible without a breakthrough in nuclear technology
Alexander Prosvirnov 

Writes about Parkhomov


Axil has left a new comment on your post "GOOD NEWS AND THEORY PAPERS AT ICCF-19": 

Magnetic control of LENR.

Rossi has stated that the input power to his reactor must be supplied using an AC source in order for the LENR reactor to be viable. Putting this together with the revelation from Piantelli that pressure change is required to fire up the LENR reaction can lead us to speculate about the reaction mechanisms involved connecting these seemingly unrelated revelation. But these tidbit of clues can be conceded within a theoretical context.

To start with, nanoparticle production in a supercritical medium is activated by a pressure and/or temperature change. Hydrogen is a supercritical medium in which hydrides of lithium and/or aluminum are dissolved. A change in pressure will produce nanoparticles of lithium and/or aluminum if a pressure wave of sufficient strength is broadcast through the hydrogen gas.

Nanoparticles are the mainstay of the LENR reaction since they produce SPPs within any aggregation of nanoparticles. An alienating current will produce a magnetic pressure wave in the hydrogen gas that will result the formation of a sound wave in the hydrogen with a wave length equal to the wavelength of the AC current that generates the sound wave pulse.

Parkhomov currently uses a 50 cycle sine wave. Rossi uses a more complicated pulsed waveform with a more rapid rise in voltage that would produce a more powerful acoustic wave.

This speculation regarding the shape of the input current waveform and the production of nanoparticles raises the possibility to allow a intelligent control circuit to control the LENR reaction by adjusting the production of hydride nanoparticles so that these nanoparticles are either stopped from forming to slow the reaction or to increase the strength of the reaction by adjusting the shape of the pulse to produce a more powerful acoustic wave in the hydrogen gas. This reaction control to support the power of the LENR reaction can be carried out while keeping the input power constant using an intelligent alternating current waveform generator.

To this, our Vortex colleague Bob Cook (who, I hope will visit me the coming Fall) has answered:

Axil makes good points. Also the magnetic field changes the allowable energy states in a coherent system, which the nano particles may well constitute. Thus low energy states which are in change may allow resonant nuclear changes that would not normally be observed. 

I think Norman Cook's nuclear structure and how it is influenced by magnetic field strength will be of great interest in predicting conditions favorable for LENR to occur. 

Calculation of the spin states of nuclei, which have relatively small differential energies,may allow correlation with observed soft x-rays and other EM radiation observed in LENR and other phenomena without theoretical explanation. 

With these ideas I look forward to the presentations of Peter Hagelstein, Meulenberg, Vysotskii, Cook and Dallacasa. Others that involve the prediction of magnetic fields, such as Axil suggests is associated with SPP's of nano particles, are also of interest. 

The whole lineup of papers is significant. I would like to see some that address spin coupling of the nuclei and electrons in nano particles. Meulenberg's paper may come closest to this area of small energy transitions and be consistent with the nature of the LENR without its gammas or energetic particles.




I am addicted to it, this is the reason to offer you this writing about caffeine. You?:

b)The secret history of caffeine: Starbucks science and the back story of everyone’s favorite morning habit.

Caffeine doesn't give you energy. Here's the amazing, real story of its discovery -- and how it works on your brain by THOR HANSON


  1. "Rossi has stated that the input power to his reactor must be supplied using an AC source in order for the LENR reactor to be viable."

    This is hilarious. What is the "reactor"? In the meaning of Rossi's response to a question, he answered with the input power of the "reactor system," which includes the control system. The reactor system is not designed for DC input; and the system heaters almost certainly use AC. Why not? Plug the reactor into 110V DC, it probably blows a fuse. And that means nothing about the actual reactor core. It's just about a control box and heating; it's likely that the heating could be gas-fired, if the system were designed that way. It's not.

  2. Page 6 of the Lagano document shows the waveform downstrean of the control unit that Rossi uses to power the input heater. It is not the waveform that is provided by the AC outlet. It looks like a modified square waveform. Stop laughing and take a look!