Tuesday, June 2, 2015


"The zeroth rule of problem solving is that the problems have to be solved. If this is impossible, the respective problem must be transformed, rebuilt till it is possible." (Unknown Technologist)

For scientific problems this means to use methods  that are not strictly scientific till the problem per se becomes adequate for the use of the scientific method.
Sometimes this is a very drastic metamorphosis

My sacrilege of yesterday- no Scientific Method for LENR now- (I am a recidivist) has generated only two contrary reactions- from two very good friends. All I hope is that after the discussions they will still be very good friends. If they will demonstrate to me that the Scientific Method can be applied for LENR and how, I will change my opinion, I am still elastic in thinking (I hope)


Diego Veneziano 
Hydrogen embrittlement, microcracking and piezonuclear reactions in the metal electrodes of an electrolytic cell 
Ph Thesis, Ist. Politecnico di Torino, 2015  Mentor Prof Alberto Carpinteri

Cold Fusion: A Study in Scientific Controversy
Dongwoo Chung
March 14, 2015
Submitted as coursework for PH241, Stanford University, Winter 2015
It is the duty of the friends of LENR to show where this study is in deep error!

Thanks to Jim Rovnak who has recommended this up-to-dated slideshare of Lew Larsen:
Even if I do not agree with everything he says, the slideshare is a masterpiece and a proof that Lew is able to diversify, enrich and improve his thinking. Perhaps he has to concentrate more on NiH than on PdD. with or without "theory" Pd D is unmanageable and non-actionable.

Here's Rossi's one megawatt [cold fusion] plant

It is Andrea Rossi's 65th birthday. I wish him all well including clearly positive results and many very fast followers.

Thanks to Orionworks- this is about and from BlackLightPower - thta was so silent for long:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2015/06/01/warning-signs-for-energy-technology-investors-3-yes-they-can-be-that-stupid/   and


An especially well written issue of one of my favorite  artistic newsletters:
The problem of order:


  1. The Dongwoo Chung report is unfortunate. Shallow. Focuses on theory. Cold fusion is a mystery, but the experimental evidence is strong. He does not seem to be aware of the evidence, at all. It's all very vague. The report emphasizes negative comments from the 2004 DoE review, and does not present the positive. That review was almost evenly split. He doesn't seem to have read the review itself, but quotes it from Science, a hostile journal.

    He focuses on the neutron mistake of Pons and Fleischmann, which is relevant to the atmosphere of rejection, but which is long-term irrelevant. He gives what is commonly known as the "dead graduate student argument," that if there were reaction levels as claimed by Pons and Fleischmann, radiation would be fatal. Yet Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed "unknown nuclear reaction," not "fusion," and specifically not the known fusion reaction (which is the basis for the radiation prediction). It was immediately obvious that if this was real, it was not your grandfather's fusion. Yet most rejection focused on the impossibility of that known reaction at room temperature.

    The scientific question: is there a heat anomaly? The 2004 review: half the expert panel considered that the evidence for it was conclusive.

    And then, is it nuclear in origin? One-third of that panel thought that the evidence was convincing (one) or (somewhat convincing) ( the rest of the third.)

    And here is the kicker: the panel and the summarizing bureaucrat misread the submitted paper, it's obvious, they did not understand the helium evidence presented, and it's obvious as well that they did not ask the presenters about it. They just assumed that it was as they interpreted it. That error turned what is, in confirmed work, a clear correlation between helium and heat, into an anti-correlation. Of course they weren't convinced! The heat/helium ratio is the only *direct* evidence that cold fusion is a nuclear reaction.

  2. Much weaker in facts invoked and argumentation than was Ethan Siegel.

    However it is a sad fact that classic LENR is vunerable due to many weaknesses and converting a mystery as you call it- in an everyday household technology is a more than difficult job.