Saturday, January 16, 2016



Discontent is the first necessity of progress (Thomas A. Edison)

The essence of man is, discontent, divine discontent; a sort of love without a beloved, the ache we feel in a member we no longer have.
(Jose Ortega y Gasset)


A.The metaphor of yesterday- cont'

I am perfectly aware that the Winged Horse LENR metaphor of yesterday is a bit idiotic , however  I also well know that for many jobs- and for metaphors this is actually not a real drawback. The metaphor is expressive.
Please put your imagination to work. It is January 14, 2011 and Piros comes with his first flying horse; there are two possibilities:

a) the horse is an good flyer fully trained and perfectly healthy, without any problems of control, orientation launching and landing at will

b) the horse is not able and not skilled to fly flawlessly- sometimes it moves like a pigeon who just escaped from a barrel of whisky nothing anomalous with this, horses are not made to fly and even birds need flying short courses.

I have full empathy for Piros he has to fight on multiple fronts- training the horse, consulting veterinarians specialized in wing muscles and equilibrium problems, paying for medicines, food supplements, stimulants. He has to progress and to solve multiple problems. Within some limits he can try Io convince the public that the horse flies faster, higher and stronger (Citius, Altius, Fortius( -as in athletics than it actually flies. We will be happier then, too and will be ready to contribute to the intensive flying school of all the horses. 
II really wanted to help Piros offering him an infallible flying evaluation method:
but he has not used it.

Due to what is called euphemistically -my nasty Alpha character-, I got angry.
However  it seems Piros has made heroic efforts and a Herculean work in order to improve the flying system of the horses and says his giant Shire Horse,weighing 1 million HG (horse grams)- is flying well and we will see this- soon!

B. Brian Ahern's opinion about the chances of the E-Cat (or E-Horse if you take the metaphor seriously)

Now complete, with predictions:

I predict:

1. The 'customer' will not be identified.

2. No INDEPENDENT REPORT will be issued

3. He will extend the period for data sharing by about one year

4. No excess energy above 50 watts will be found

5. The 1 MW unit will not be showcased or qualified
Quite well formulated, easily verifiable or falsifiable. If true, the subject/object of predictions will be made accountable; if not, then the predictor. Win-lose OR lose-win.

As a total aside, it is difficult to understand, in the era of Google Maps
how the Customer is not already known except if it using the 1MW for evil purposes and is located underground. (nothing to do with Brian's predictions)


I was kindly asked if Brian's (and an another real scientist's whom I am not allowed to cite) opinion is depressing me? No, it is not- I do not believe them (but I must explore the full opinion spectrum re LENR and LENR+ problems. I am absolutely convinced that LENR+ will eventually prevail- I would regret if it will be too ate for me- to be a witness but this has happened to good people more meritous than me.. The field had bad luck, lots of uninvited fairies from its start.

Depressed not- but deeply discontented with so many things: lack of vision, lack of Leadership, no known access to the Great Funding, disunity, infight, stagnation, no replications, VUCA overall. inexorable tadpoleing, and surely many other things.But I am speaking here about the roots of my discontent, I belong to the species Homo discontentus extrovertus. (blogariensis too!)


1) Reminder: Mats Lewan to Present at Energy 2.0 Society Webinar, Saturday January 16th

2) Glowstick 5.2 - hopefully begin this weekend

3) LENR is a Nano Effect Jamal S. Shrair and Cold Fusion by Gregory Goble
It is about this paper: Green Nanoenergy Resources in the Age of Nanoscience Technologies 
Jamal S. Shrair* Dec. 27, 2010

Nanoscience technology is the ability to arrange, control and combine atoms and molecules at the nanoscale. This ability can equip us with the know-how to build electrical, biological and mechanical nano-micromachines that can replace most of today’s manufacturing processes and tools. The impact of nanotechnology on scientific progress, economic and social development is going to be enormous. If we look towards the domain of health care, nanomedicine can reduce existing costs substantially and cure most, if not all, currently incurable diseases. Nanotechnology products that are being developed in a number of industries can have great benefits for space applications and deep space exploration missions. In the energy sector, which is the biggest and the most challenging issue facing us, advances in nanotechnology can solve certain issues successfully; fossil fuels can become cleaner, safer and cheaper to produce, in a more environmentally friendly manner. Renewable resources can become cheaper to produce and easier to implement. In the domain of nuclear energy, Uranium-based reactors would be safer, smaller in size, and more cost effective, while their radioactive byproducts can be recycled. More importantly, nanostructured material and new laser devices can be developed that will allow us to extract nuclear energy without resorting to brute-force methods and radioactive byproducts. Furthermore, as we approach the limits of Moore's Law, nanotechnology breakthroughs are vital for constructing faster computers that will allow artificial intelligence to develop rapidly. Integrated nano-microsystems would benefit researchers in the field of human biology. A correlation between mind-body connection and other communications external to the body can be found and the field of biological morphogenesis and telepathy would take great leap forward. But, the idea of singularity and that an algorithmically-programmed computer can develop human-like consciousness can be considered as ludicrous. The human brain is not only a neurological machine. Even on the arithmetic level, the processing power of the human brain is unknown. While on the one hand

4)  Sent by Jack Cole on Vortex Russian experiment, Thanks!:

There are English subtitles.
1.5 COP noted at one point.
TiH2 used for hydrogen production.  2 to 2.5 COP noted later.  It would be nice to get more details.  Maybe they are not using powder, but attribute the excess heat to the nickel wire used?


Nanoparticles can do a lot of miraculous things and surely they play an important role in LENR:
Researchers show how mother-of-pearl is formed from nanoparticles

How Corporations and Politicians Use Numbers to Lie — and How Not to Be Fooled
Do 8 out of 10 dentists really prefer Colgate?
And not only them, numbers are used for manipulation, sometimes even in peer reviwied scientific papers


  1. Brian Ahern's notions are important as they come from a man very engaged and competent in experiments as opposed to those whose armchair thoughts don't compare. He is not at all alone in his experimental experience. Ahern's speculation on Rossi's "results" are at least very consistent with AR's history and ongoing blogtrolling behaviour.

    The real question that Peter might face up to and share is "what if Ahern is correct?" The many many failed experiments at replicating e-cats must be viewed as a substantial building description of e-cats as being non-functional.

    How about it Peter, care to posit on this 'what if' question?

  2. Peter,
    I like you would love to see Rossi (despite his circus antics) 'produce a rabbit out of his hat' but like Brian Ahern, I too can find few if any redeeming qualities in Andrea Rossi's claims, methods, approaches and results.

    In the volumes of data I have gathered since 2011, there is too much evidence of 'bad behavior' and less than honest statements and claims by Andrea Rossi.

    I still do hope (beyond any rational assessment) that he has what he claims, but like Brian Ahern, am not afraid to say that the probability of a 'positive' proof in March (or anytime in 2016) is IMHO going to be no more likely than a 'positive' result in 2015.

    IMHO Andrea Rossi's circus is more likely do harm to LENR in 2016.

    Hope is a wonderful characteristic we humans posses. It can allow us to survive if tough circumstances. But it can get complicated by our motives behind the hope. Hope at worst can be nothing more than wishful thinking or dreaming.

    Andrea Rossi is no more honest today than he has been in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,2014 and 2015. The most damning evidence I have on file (IMHO) is the letter from Piantelli that bitterly tells of how Rossi used Piantelli's prior friendship and LENR work with the aging Sergio Focardi, to milk information from Piantelli on NiH experiments they (Rossi & Focardi) were conducting but couldn't resolve. Once Piantelli was alerted that Focardi's enquiries were actually on behalf of Rossi Piantelli ended forever his friendship with Focardi. Rossi the opportunist, was in effect leaching expertise from Piantelli the scientist.

    Rossi's tactic of forever producing a new brighter, cleaner,faster hotter, better, more wondrous (produces electricity directly), eCats, has to be the great hallmark of fraudulent intent and behavior.

    The 'hope' that drives us who dare to hope, is the snare being used so effectively by Rossi.

    IMHO, Brian Ahern has a far greater probability of being right in what he says, than Andrea Rossi has of producing a 'positive' result in 2016.

    Doug Marker (DSM)