Tuesday, December 8, 2015



In order to have progress, one must have a clear picture, at least phenomenologically, not necessarily theoretically 
(Jean-Paul Biberian, here on Dec 6, 2015)


a) From phenomenological approach to the central secret of LENR

I am inspired by the wisdom of Jean-Paul, the researcher of ALL forms of LENR.

Phenomenological means in our case a lot of things from: more descriptive than explicative a good answer to What?, incomplete to How? and a bit rudimentary to Why?; knowing more general principles than specific laws; understanding grafted on the experimental data but having still timid imagination.

In more ways, we researchers are doing experimental phenomenology all the time
as Moliere's Monsieur Jourdain has been speaking prose all his life without knowing. it: Phenomenology is also performing the task, even if you do not have have all the tools or the best tools. This will be much better understood by my colleagues who lived the communist experience - they have responded positively to my classic:


(Who has not read this is unable to understand what drives me, who I am (not great loss, just for the sake of the Info!) I will ask my Russian colleagues to translate the essay, this time for the sake of the bad old times when we were young.

It was a phenomenological approach in a recent paper, unfortunately still before its time and forward looking:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/leonid-urutskoev-phenomenological-model.html  I sincerely believe it is a paper of paramount impotance.

The Edisonian method of partially compensating quality of research with quantity of research, replacing the smart planning with the number of experiments- can be a way to success because quantitative accumulations are ennobled to quality leaps and this is not only dialectic but work practice too.

The situation of Rossi-Lugano-Parkhomov replications is simply poor and bad
Actually there is no known genuine replication yet- Rossi has discovered the secret- how to accelerate the formation of functional active sites- a mixture of surface dynamics, catalysis and smart nanotechnology- I refuse to call it a "trick" it is essential know how- and he has not told us what it can be. It seems without this knowledge it is not possible to match his results.
The way, in principle is to make hydrogen more reactive and the metal more receptive- and for this new ideas are necessary. Inspired probably from heterogeneous catalysis- usually there is some hidden inhibitor in the system and it has to be removed up to the last traces.
By the way, I think that Rossi's approach is almost 100% phenomenological-technological, he speaks about Theory because so is scientifically correct and a must for prestige- I doubt theories have helped him much till now. If this is not true, I will apologize.
I missed to ask an essential question yesterday when I was in a a hyper-interrogative mode: 
"How has - precisely- happened Andrea Rossi's AHA moment, when LENR's 
Muse has kissed him on the forehead?"

I don't think he has described this illumination- it can be something connected to his catalyst research and thinking, surely he and his biographers, Vessela Nikolova and
Mats Lewan know more about this.
AHA moments are not contagious and each replicator has to live his own, after an experimental ordeal.
I believe that a sine qua non component of this creative event MUST be realizing that: "To accelerate or not to accelerate,this is the question!
The replicator has to develop an original, personal practical guide vision of how to generate active sites and make them functional

My prediction: as long as researchers will not be able to distinguish LENR+ from LENR they will not able to achieve LENR+

b) Retrospective- seemingly no reason for happiness and optimism 

 I do not like to use writings from the past, however I came upon this searching for other things. On Dec 7, 2012 three years ago exactly, I wrote this to Ed Storms)

Perhaps given your prestige and CF achievements you could organize a serious discussion about the Paradigm Change in Cold Fusion.
Some points- from our present exchange of ideas:

a) Does there exist 2 forms of CF, one classic and one enhanced?

b) Essential!- does CF really take place in and only in NAE? are these NAE demonstrably of Stormsian origin i.e. proper voids (this deserves
a special discussion, you consider the voids as the place and their walls non-participant) Defkalion's analytical results results contradict this; the NAE is both the arena and the toreador. I don't believe that those H+H reaction are real or unique.

c) Natural NAE are rare and unpredictable and weak and ephemeral- so we are in deep trouble and you have described this very realistically.
You say: "The more NAE is created in a sample, the greater the amount of extra energy." 
I say that what Rossi has quasi-discovered is very probably a method to generate many NAE at higher temperature dynamically, a lot are generated, some react, some are destroyed but this is a process in some equilibrium. Short lifetime of NAE is not more a problem! It is continuous renewal and replacement. The system is never NAE-less!  Some additives help (the support-metal interaction from heterogeneous catalysis is well known),
Defkalion has modified the crystalline structure of nickel . In order to make these NAE more efficient hydrogen must be converted to a reactive form, molecular H2 being lazy and relatively inert.
I consider this is at least logically consistent.

d) My bet  is that yes, two forms of LENR exist,
one interesting and one enhanced, useful that will become great energy source.
My other bet is that I am not able to convince you that this is the Solution of our problem, however I thank you- for what you have done for CF (the first kind of) and for inspiring me in writing the "Is CF natural? " article.

This was it, and my opinion had absolutely no success. Can we explain Rossi's success?

The lack of progress in accepting my ideas makes my LENR+ writings similar to the action of and of an ancient  Greek gentleman who was sentenced to roll a huge boulder uphill in the Hades. However:
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy" (Albert Camus)

I am rather happily blogging too because I feel I am right.

I think Fulvio Fabiani's story shows that LENR+ is genuinely phenomenal.


1) First Bay Area Cold Fusion--(LENR) meeting
Jeff Morriss: Celani-type experiments and results
Robert Ellefson: Experiment designs in progress
EugeneThiers: Experiences at SRI and measurement/ instrumentation for Cold Fusion experiments

2) Tokamak Energy Claims Fusion Reactor By 2020:

3) Edmund Storms confirms that the main reason of hostility toward LENR is the fear that Hot Fusion will lose funds:

Эдмунд Шторм утверждает, что основная причина неприятия LENR учеными - боязнь потери ассигнований на "горячий" термояд

From Tanmay Vora's Blog
Disciplines of a Learning Organization: Peter Senge


  1. One revealing aspect of the record of failures of the attempts to replicate Rossi's e-cats is that this makes it clear that his patents do NOT teach. At the heart of every patent there is a requirement that the patent MUST teach a person skilled in the art how to replicate the claims. If a patent is found to be too obtuse or lacking in details such that it cannot be successfully reproduced, as it now seems well demonstrated, then the patent and its claims whether issued or pending, derivitive, or dependent all become collectively worthless. Worse than worthless as likely they have formed some basis for investment in the inventors work/business and it is his fidicuciary responsibilty to have not been party to patents made worthless by either error or omission.

    1. Fuel preprocessing and the proper simulative square wave format are the details missing from the replicators' game plan. These are the critical details that are glanced over in passing references under Rossi's patent process descriptions.

  2. Physicists investigate unusual form of quantum mechanics


    "Nonassociative quantum mechanics has been of mathematical interest for some time (and has recently shown up in certain models of String Theory), but it has been impossible to obtain a physical understanding,"

    The rabbit hole that is LENR might have gotten a lot deeper. A new field of study may now have revealed itself. LENR may not follow the rules of standard quantum mechanics; it might be described by a new form of quantum mechanics called nonassociative quantum mechanics. In this new breed of QM, the uncertainty principle is expanded to include many variables simultaneously. Both momentum and position could all be squeezed as a method of amplification. But it doesn't stop there, quantum uncertainty can take on N variables. In such a world, it is impossible to know what would happen in states where NQM ruled.

    LENR is a candidate for NQM application since its causation might involve monopole magnetic particles. The Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP)is such a particle.

    NQM is currently under study in string theory, a field that we may be required to go to understand LENR. Likewise, LENR may help the string theorist understand what sting theory really means physically.

    The SPP will be a future tool of research into NQM.

    "Fundamental monopoles are hypothetical, but there has recently been much research on constructing condensed matter systems consisting of quasi-particles which have properties similar to monopoles," said coauthor Suddhasattwa Brahma. "In this setting, our new predictions may well be testable. Our equations have to be analyzed in more detail in order to see what should happen in the presence of magnetic fields realized in this context, and how strong the new effects would then be. This process may take a few years, but not much longer".

    As LENR theorists, now once again we are faced with some new and obscure esoteric field to understand. When will we hit the bottom of the LENR endless LENR rabbit hole?

    The AIRBUS and Ball Lightning theorists might be well served to look into NQM to support their LENR concepts.