Saturday, January 23, 2016



What is the difference between a living thing and a dead thing? In the medical world, a clinical definition of death is a body that does not change. Change is life. Stagnation is death. If you don't change, you die. It's that simple. It's that scary. (Leonard Sweet)

Iron rusts from disuse; water loses its purity from stagnation... even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind. (Leonardo da Vinci)

Change is fearsome, but stagnation is lethal. (Debasish Mridha)


PdD eats NiH for lunch- is this realistic or suicidal wishful thinking?

The core of classic Cold Fusion- Fleischmann and Pons style- is the PdD wet electrolytic system- still dominating the entire field. Beyond of a rather aggressive imposing of primogeniture
it is claimed to be the "genuine" cold fusion/LENR all the other forms just being variants with the same identity of what is created/happens in PdD. 
It is not possible to know what experimental results are obtained just these days at the great players in the "PdD wet" game however we have seen how intractable and unpredictable is the role of metallic impurities - at ENEA, how difficult it is to explain the semi-miracle of Energetics's cathode 64- at SKINR. We could understand that there are no actionable parameters in the system- and no trick or spell had been found to make it viable, reproducible and able to grow up. The discovery of a mysterious EM emission- cause or effect of the successful PdD tests does not open the way to any solution- better reproducibility, more intense heat excess, heat after death effects.
We all know well the global histogram of excess heat effects:

This is from Edmund Storms first book- level year 2007; question how much better would be an up-to-dated - start 2016 histogram? If not, then the word "stagnation" comes to mind. However I have lived and worked enough to know with certainty that "stagnation" is impossible being static while existence is dynamic- the opposite of progress is not stagnation but decay, regress (Prum' Second Law)
Last year we have invested some hopes in the experiments of Edmund Storms- a
potential equivalent of the Michelson Morley experiment. We could suppose thatwell and increasingly stressed palladium will develop more and more nano-cracks and so-
due to the idea of the author- that the number of the NAE (as Ed calls the active sites) is determinant for the level of excess heat obtained. Ed Storms has discovered some new features of the system as the role of temperature is more direct and importantthan usually considered (his 6 reports are a must read at Cold Fusion Now)
However no intensification of the effect was observed- and it is sad that this important action had no general support. Solidarity is forgotten? The sub-field of LENR PdD is very much fragmented, theories do not help experiment and there are no serious actions to combine theories, the possibilities of the cradle cell seem to be exhausted and I cannot imagine how - for example- very advanced instrumental methods as those described at the CERN Event of Oct 14, 2015 in this report:
"The anomalous heat effect on D/H loaded Palladium: Exploration at an atomic level, preliminary perturbed angular correlations studies"
by Juliana Schell, Vittorio Violante, Graham K. Hubler
As far I can see, it is not published yet.

Dedicated PdD watchers were also disappointed because in 2016 there was not organized the traditional MIT School of LENR- by Mitchell Swartz and Peter  Hagelstein, an opportunity to attract young researchers to the field.
This is the stronghold of "lattice" Party  of LENR while Ed Storms leads the N.A.E.
nano-cracks- hydroton Party and the conflict between them is unsolvable, it seems.
Actually in order to "win" - a theory explaining LENR and -yes! a way to a competitive energy source must be created. Is this possible?
The great question is if PdD still can offer something like that or is only a first discovered form of LENR unable to grow up due to its inner, inherent weaknesses that are incurable (as sub-optimal working temperature, impurities that block active sites) 
I am trying to get direct information from a great PdD hot-dry researcher.


From the historical point of view, the NiH system discovered by Francesco Piantelli is only 146 days younger the PdD but was less researched so today we have certain but weak (see the histogram) results from PdD and a great variety of results in the NiH realm including Piantelli's scientifically fundamented  papers and patents and Rossi's belonging to an other league, is heavy-weight- but for the time given not certain.

I think the PdD specialists have no justification to try to dominate the whole field due to the certainty of their results (much weakened due to the unsolved reproducibility problem) I know it is an unorthodox opinion but NiH is an other LENR family and the Rossi effect is a different species.
"Sparrows should not invite albatrosses to their flight schools"-  says a proverb from the Easter Island. 
We need enlightened LENR researchers.


1) Ottawa LENR Meetup

2) the physics of why the e cat s cold fusion claims
1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #34 — Future Plants Will Need Major Redesign]

Andrea Rossi Daily Report; E-Cat X will be sacrificed?!
January 23rd, 2016 at 8:19 AM

David Crumedy:
At 08.20 a.m. of Saturday January 23 2016:
1 MW E-Cat: stable
E-Cat X: in operation, in good standing too. Now, after 2 months of normal operation, we go into destructive tests and see what happens.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
January 23rd, 2016 at 8:21 AM

Good point. Leakages have been an issue during this test. The hydraulic system too has to be improved.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi about the place of the 1MW plant- well protected!
January 23rd, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Tonia Naylor:
Windows are amenities we cannot condone to us…the place reserved to the plant is completely closed and blind; the circulation of air is made by a fan system from the roof. The warm air is extracted from the roof. Obviously we have conditioned air inside the container of the computers.
We cannot see outside if not with the cameras installed by the security staff.
The place is maintained pretty clean, though. It couldn’t be otherwise, since I am strongly allergic to powder: a small bunch od powder can unleash an astma attack, so I need to stay always in the clean.
Warm Regards,

4) Pandora's Battery nice and easily googletranslatableБатарейка Пандоры

5) Brian Albiston- Parkhomov replication:


Seeing the big picture in photosynthetic light harvesting

How to read a scientific paper
By Adam Ruben Jan. 20, 2016


Intelligence Isn't Black-and-White. There Are Actually 8 Different Kinds.

LENR is so difficult it needs even more, at least a dozen inteligences!


  1. The ability for Andrea Rossi and Randall Mills to attract and maintain support may have a common thread. They may share some of the abilities employed by Donald Trump in his book, The Art of the Deal'. Trump attributes his success to practices employed during hypnosis. There are ways to assure compliance.

    LENR folks have been baffled by the poor performance of the scientists in the Lugano testing. How could they fail to use thermocouples? Why are they silent about the report?

    We can advance the concept that Andrea and Randall are very persuasive and they cull their audience to keep only the 'most suggestible people. Once selected they can be cajoled into behaving in a manner pleasing to Rossi and/or Mills.

    The scientists would be unaware of the undue influence and their actions wqere not devious; they were unduly influenced by the impressarios.

    Many of the E-cat followers may have already succumbed to this phenomenon.

    1. Stop "Krivitizing". If you really are Brian Ahern, shame on you for your unprofessional behavior.

  2. I support the theory and experiments of Dr. Randell Mills but I doubt it is because I am susceptible. It is a lot of hard work. It involves reading Mills' 2000 page Grand United Theory of Classical Physics many, many times. It involves reading Mills' papers and experimental data, whether officially published or not and seeing if what is claimed therein is reasonable and logical. It involves testing Mills conclusions by widely studying non Mills papers and research to see if they can definitely reject and rule out Mills experiments and observations. It involves studying the claims of any critic of Mills and determining if there is any validity to the criticism or whether it is simply mindless assertion based on the personal prejudices of that critic.

    People support Mills because he has openly published everything he has done and what he claims can be tested. His proposal that hydrogen can be induced to decay to lower energy states with the emission of significant energy and that these states are the long sought identity of dark matter is consistent with observation. the theory is incredibly powerful in terms of its predictions, accuracy and simplicity. It heralds the end of the Quantum Mechanical era of statistical probability, alive/dead cats, multiple Universes, time travel and teleportation and replaces it with a new age where physics is deterministic and makes sense, is consistent across all scales of the Universe and where maths can be used to solve all problems exactly.

    I hold much less hope for cold fusion or LENR. While it may occur, it is likely that the majority of energy release is hydrino based with trace fusion events arising from very small collapsed deuterium. However if Rossi releases any reliable data that proves that he has achieved widespread transmutation of one metal into another then I will review that too if it becomes available.

    Mills demo of his work will occur on 28 Jan 2016. The videos I have seen to date look very impressive but are still just evidence of a very bright energy source being produced. It is not clear if the electrical production using solar cells will be coupled to the energy source to provide a clear ratio of power out and in.

  3. I could wish you would stop promoting the "meme" that there is some kind of warfare between those researching the PdD system vs the NiH system. There is not. And your constant harping that there is one is counterproductive, and possibly even damaging. I am sure that any and all active researchers and those who follow the field are just as interested in both. But if a lab is already set up to do experimentation in "wet PdD", they are unlikely to totally retool and start doing "gaseous NiH". What the field needs is more funding and more researchers.