Monday, May 2, 2016



 a Mu answer means:
un-ask the question,
indicate the question is fundamentally flawed, or
reject the premise that a dualistic answer can or will be given.


Or the Answer is so much greater than the Question.


Everybody knows that FAQ means Frequently Answered Questions
Less known is the not-so-good sounding acronym FUQ meaning Fundamentally Unanswerable 
Questions- that is more or less inherent for LENR. As you know, a special category of questions that are  not answered are those that need Mu answers- a Zen concept  my generation has learnt from Robert Pirsig's stellar book which had a determining influence on my thinking. When I have read then my basic preoccupation was the Quality of Polyvinyl Chloride and the book's central issue is Quality.

I have accepted and embraced the "mu" answers in my everyday and professional thinking- after demystification. I think now we have a case where the concept could help better understanding of why we are not understanding some vital issues

There are problems with important questions  asked in the frame of LENR.
Yesterday at my request, Ed Storms has accepted to publish his ideas here including this:


1. Do you accept production of  helium as the source of energy from a fusion reaction? If not, what is the source of the measured energy?
2. Do you accept that this helium-heat relationship has been obtained using both electrolytic and gas loading of Pd? If not, why not?
3. Do you accept that this fusion reaction does not occur in the lattice structure, such as in vacancies or dislocations?  If not, where do you propose the source of heat originates in a material?
4. Do you accept that formation of unique nuclear active site is required to host the fusion reaction? If not, where does the reaction occur?
5. Do you accept that tritium is a nuclear product from the same mechanism that produces helium?  If not, what mechanism produces tritium?
6. Do you accept that LENR is produced by a universal mechanism that operates in all materials and involves all isotopes of hydrogen? If not, please identify the nature of the different mechanisms. 

Clearly formulated, accepting Yes/No- based on Ed's premise that a LENR explanation MUST be based 
on known experimental facts- and ..unanswered, See the replicas of Axil, Michel Vanderberghe, Fedyr Mykhaylov - after Daily News.
I hope eventually there will be more harmony between the questions and the answers. I think ED has an explanation why the specificity of his questions based on a reality derived from 27+ years of experiments is challenged.

 I have the same problem with my LENR ideas- at a lower scientific level. Anyway I have no hopes  regarding to convince anybody that my heretic (last week a good friend called them radical)- except Mother Nature.
See please, just FYI my LENR FUQ list:


1. What exactly is and what is not LENR- definition, delimitation,?
2. The extent of the field?
3. How much of the LENR territories are known and how much still expects to be conquered?
4. What is the ratio between the already known and the still unknown in the field and  which ones are more important for the progress i.e. transforming LENR in great science and a rich source of energy?
5. Is LENR dominated by unity- the same mechanisms everywhere or by a spectacular diversity, many alternative possibilities?
6. Are the LENR processes relatively simple or on the contrary, very complex, having more stages- as pre-nuclear, nuclear and post-nuclear.
7. Do you hope that a single bright theory will explain and guide all forms of LENR or there is necessary to develop specific theories, some outside of nuclear physics?
8. Do you agree that the initially discovered PdD electrolytic cold fuson is an incomplete form of LENR and that research for energy has to be continued in systems developed by engineering and technology?
9. Do you accept that the LENR systems that are able to release intense, usable excess energy are functioning due to a dynamic process of generation of active sites?
10. Do you accept that the aim of LENR technologies is to use nuclear enrgy but with zero harmful radiations?

So much for today, nothing new or surprising here. these questions have a glorious history of unanswerability.


1) From Hank Mills
Question List for All Successful Replicators

2) From Me 356

Reactor A melted, excess heat was present! - Lenr Forum

3) Rossi/Leonardo vs. Industrial Heat et al. (Update #3: Rossi Makes Statement on ‘Partial’ ERV Reports)

5) The most important and difficult question
The answer is too vague yet:
Cold Fusion is a technology that can use water to create Energy. But who has a better one, just now?

6)  Estimation #LENR #ECAT Knowledge and Interest; 1k hard core, 15k lurkers, 200k Interest, 2M awareness

7) From Frank Grimer:
Clays - possible environments for COLD FUSION

8) Andrea Rossi answers at JONP:

May 1, 2016 at 9:11 PM

Dr Rossi,
Now, after this first month of litigation with IH, you can have an idea if it is going to damage your work to develope the E-Cat.
Has this work been slowed down ?

Andrea Rossi
May 2, 2016 at 6:45 AM

On the contrary, our R&D has been accelerated.
Warm Regards,


With the greatest of respect I offer an opinion of Ed Storms request for dialog based on the evidentiary ground rules that Ed has dictated. Ed Storms is stuck in a rut. Ed has been looking for the same LENR indicators for decades and this stagnation in expectations has calcified Ed’s theoretical though processes.

These ground rules include as follows:

1. The production of Helium
2. The production of Tritium
3. The production of excess heat
4. The helium-heat relationship

The experiments of Holmlid has shown us that there is another way to look at the LENR experimental landscape, that being subatomic particle production. If Ed Storms would modify his experimental expectations, he would see a completely new perspective on the ways and means of the LENR reaction. 

The production of mesons, pions, Kaon, muons, and electrons leave little room in the interpretation of these experimental results.
The production of Kaons, indicated that strange matter is produced in the LENR reaction. This can only happen when quark/gluon plasma is produced when quarks are deconfined in the nucleus. This also means that the monopole flux tubes that connect quarks together are being screened. This in turn implies that monopole flex tubes are being produced by chemical means.

The production of LENR through magnetism also implies that intense RF radiation will be produced in active LENR experiments. Such RF radiation has been seen in the experimental results produced by me356 who has verified that the LENR reaction is producing this EMF radiation. The experimental results from Defkalion also show powerful magnetics and RF production.

Ed Storms should modify his experimental procedures, methods, and expectations to detect subatomic particles, specifically muons. This could be done by using a cloud chamber. An RF and magnetic detection method should also be a part of Ed’s experimental setup.

The experimental data that an experiment produces colors the theory that is derived from that data.

My 2 cents contribution (I'm not a Physicist - System architect background) 

A simple framework for LENR
Nanoscale:  Their defining characteristic is a very small feature size in the range of 1–100 nanometers (nm). It is not miniaturization; the nanoworld lies midway between the scale of atomic and quantum phenomena, and the scale of bulk materials.  It occurs in solid, plasma, liquid.
At the nanoscale level, some material properties (Thermal, Electrical, Magnetic, Optical, and Chemical) are affected by the laws of atomic physics, rather than behaving as traditional bulk materials do. 
A nanostructure, Geometry and asymmetry, a nanoscale assembly used to apply effects, Thermal, Electrical, magnetic, Optical and Chemical using the properties of its constituents, on some of them to trigger Reactions.
Thermal, Electrical, Magnetic, Optical and chemical effects change the properties of these nanostructure. Physical effects are applied to activate and control the set of effects which are applied to some constituents.
At some stage, there’s a coherence or condition of equilibrium where applied effects and properties effects create a stable global effect which can be thermal, electrical, magnetic, Optical or Chemical (or a set of).
Depending on the constituents, a sequence of effects need to be applied, activation, to reach a coherent state. LENR is systemic and there are many solutions.  Such nanostructure can be considered as ‘alive’ material. LENR can be considered as a discrete state of matter. QED applies.
Hypothesis:  there’s always a transformation of some constituents to exit from the coherent state.
There’s native solutions where such systemic behavior occur.  A single effect or set of effects on an existing nanostructure trigger the reaction.
Non-native solutions are engineered solutions. An external sequence of effects need to be applied on a well-defined constituents first to create the nanostructure.
Where the additional energy comes from:   Physics "as usual"

How to use the framework 

To model behaviors  (& build simulation tools at some stage)

Materials properties, Properties dynamic behavior/ effects,  Assembly and assembly of assemblies, geometry and Asymmetry / effects,  Interaction model/ required effects.
Effects / Constituants Interaction and so on...
Michel Vandenberghe
LENR-Cities SA 

1. For the reaction of Li + H.
2. At low energies, the priority will be without neutron channel.
3.The reaction is in the octahedral voids lattice Ni.
4.This area called cloud Cottrell. There is its isotope enrichment D in diffusion.
5.The reaction D + D = T + P. The reaction between the partially shielded deuteron are in octopore lattice Ni and accelerated incident deuteron.
6. Continuous production of neutrons with a low pulse of the proton plasmon interaction with the conduction electrons. 


Researchers list 'seven chemical separations to change the world'


  1. Unless a LENR theory can explain the miracles of LENR in a fashion that fits seamlessly into the workings of the structure of the theory, then the theory is just word soup. The explanation of the miracles comes first because their explanation in the context of existing science is a prerequisite for the acceptance of LENR by the world as a valid science. Theoretical hand waving is not sufficient.

    No theorist has attempted to understand the miracles of LENR let alone explain them in the context of existing science, let alone attempting the grueling task of fitting them seamlessly into his theory.

    Some LENR theorists even avoid using data from experiments where these miracles are manifest because they don’t believe that they are even possible. Some theorists say that deuterium hot fusion is occurring without the production of gamma rays.

    Some theorists ask where others stand on this deuterium fusion issue without explaining how gamma radiation and unstable by-products are not present. Such theories are a joke.

    1. thanks goes directly to AXIL DIXIT


  2. One fundamental Question is missing:

    "Do we need scientific theories and dozens of questions and speculations to use LENR energy to rescue our climate and progress the development of mankind?"

    Hundert of tausend of years even the smartest human beings where not able to explain what we today call the 'Standard Model of particle physics' They had no idea what electromagnetic is, or weak and strong nuclear interactions, and certainly they know nothing about subatomic particles. But some of them made fantastic inventions, inventions that brought us to where we are today and now we have another fantastic invention, why not use it first and try to solve the theory problem later?

    Concerning LENR I am pretty much sure, that it is a kind of an exothermic stripping reaction like the Oppenheimer–Phillips process but that is only speculation.

    1. liebrr Felix,

      it is a pity to let this as a simple comment
      will go in the editorial, it si wise OK?

    2. Dear Peter, of course, my comments can be used by you, no problem! Best regards Felix

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Hey Peter,

    Why do you publish those stupid obscene remarks attributed to me. You know me well enough to know I would not write things like that.

    I do not write any more as Mary Yugo on your blog and I have no plans to do so. I rarely make a contribution as "anonymous".


    Anyone wanting to check if this message is really from me can email maryyugo [at symbol] yahoo [dot] com.

    1. Dear Friend

      do you think i am publishing those? I have no idea who sends them they just appear peter

      I am a serious old man.
      OK I will cut those comments

    2. Thanks Peter. You're a nice guy. You should join us at ecatnews for a proper circle jerk.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Thanks for deleting that post from Roger Barker. He has been hounding me for a long time. Says nasty things like making love to my wig etc. Don't even know what that means. Might be interesting to try though ...

    Thanks again.

  6. Peter. Some cowardly as*hole has been using my sign on name on your blog.

    I never write on your blog using maryyugo or any version of it. And that includes the circle jerk reference which, on Roger’s part, is simply wishful thinking. What a defective piece of protoplasm that person must be!

    1. Peter, may I have your email address please.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. my e-mail address I am a pioneer of using Google
      is easily accessible anyway

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. I think we all need to calm down a little here boys, Roger, you know your innuendo gets Big G a bit hot and frisky, and Joshua, I fear that what you wrote could be considered a threat when looked at in a certain light.

    And whilst that might be technically true, perhaps my desire to convince you perhaps is not quite as strong as you think?

    It used to be much more fun when it was just our circle on ECN - before it became populated with pseudo-skeptics and other whackjobs.

      MOVE IT! BYE!

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.