Saturday, July 9, 2016



Image result for quotations limitsImage result for quotations limits


In the frame of a discussion with Ed Storms the expression "to set limits" had appeared naturally - for explanations of LENR. However I want to discuss about limit-setting in a more extended sense. but specifically for LENR. As I have shown it many times, I think that the unknown/known ratio in LENR is still very high and that the majority of the known data come from the original Cold Fusion LENR system- that, in my opinion is not representative for the all other warm and hot systems in peculiar statu nascendi.  So my slogan is: "Do not set yet many strict limits to anything in LENR!" Ed does not agree wit this but we are discussing.

Yesterday it was a discussion re some isotopic shifts results- as Lugano and some new data and Ed has written this:

Peter, isotope shifts in Li are common and ordinary.  In addition, the test was poorly done. We have no way of knowing whether the detected shift was typical of the entire sample or only occurred because of normal isotopes shifts produced by local chemical processes.  In any case, the proposed source of energy is in total conflict with chemical and nuclear understanding. 

Basing any conclusion on such a poor test is nonsense and is one more example of how poorly science is done and applied in this field.  Yes, LENR is unusual, but this does not give permission to apply any kind of conclusion to the observed behavior. Yes, conventional science rejects LENR. So In response, the people in LENR accept every crazy idea without judgment being used at all.  

It is possible to set limits about how LENR needs to be explained. These limits are ignored. Every crazy idea is accepted as possible. In the process, the claim is made that people can not agree about an explanation and this is used as an excuse for the failure . LENR can be explained if rational and logical evaluations are made. But, this approach is ignored. As result, the field wonders aimlessly while repeatedly shooting itself in the foot.  Frankly, I fed up with the entire process. 

My comments and questions to this:

I am longing for a constructive dialogue, however you do not help in this case.
Your approach is total negative with two killer statements- but please do not forget it is about experimental results- not new because they are very similar to those of Lugano.

you say: 
1- isotope shifts in Li are common and ordinary; however what does this mean? the isotope shifts in Ni are also common and ordinary? If both are real this means an heat effect that can be evaluated- most probably it is about nuclear interactions not reactions because the nuclei keep their identity  i.e. number of protons. If these exists, then we have to take them in consideration not dismiss as common and ordinary two adjectives that I do not understand well in this case; many common and ordinary things are vital: why should we reject these from start?

2- the test was poorly done- poorly in which sense and in which extent? 
It is about the 1 year test, we do not much about the set-up and about execution, how could we judge the operative quality of the Test? Can we be sure as Jed, Abd, Dewey and Co tries to convince us that it was so poorly done that nothing good was possible, excess heat was excluded from start up to finish? They are quite contrary opinions  too- 4 ERV Reports. 3 f them had positive financial effects. So what certainty we have about "poorly done"?
Again it is about experimental results, it is alot of ash resulted from this Test and tens of such analyses will be done can we ay hat the isotopes are of bad quality, inadequate? What do you mean by nonsense of any results coming from  poor test? If the nonsense is analysable measurable, repeatable?

How do you define crazy ideas in LENR? Who is the author of these crazy ideas? Is the analysis crazy, is Nature crazy?
We have to set limits to LENR? Which limits- those given us by clasic Pd D? 
It must  happen in nano-cracks, it must result from hydroton, it must be H + H
fusion, we have to set these limits to any nd all forms of LENR?
Does logical and rational set limits to the possibilities?  If reality contradicts us then we should put limits on reality? It is logical and rational that at 650C Must happen with NiH exactly what happens with PdD at 50C? 
Are these inexorable Rules of Nature?
What do you mean in this context, by shooting itself in foot?

I am trying but I am unable to understand your logic here but I respect your work and ideals.

However, the truth is that Ed has strong arguments for his staements. see please:: 

Peter, I'm sorry to be negative but mistakes keep being made in this field that do not change over time. The same errors in fact and logic just keep being made no matter what I say.  These errors keep people plodding along the same wrong path. You and other people do not like to be told  you are wrong, especially by me. But, I have spent a great deal of time studying this subject and have opinions that are more justified than the opinions of people who have not made this effort. Yet, all opinions appear to beare

about isotopic shifts: 

It means that because Li is a light element, it can easily experience changes in isotopic ratio as result of chemical interaction. Heavier elements, like Ni, do not show a large enough effect for this change to be normally detected.  Nevertheless, any proposed change in isotopic ratio in Ni must be treated with a great deal of skepticism for the reason I state below. 

You need to read the literature on which the commercial concentration of certain isotopes of the elements is based. Many elements can be separated into their individual isotopes with very high isotope purity. This is done using only chemical reactions. The separation of D from H2O is the example we know best. 

about the connection of heat excess and isotopic shifts:

Yes, if both are real, your conclusion is correct. I'm saying that both are not real and never were.

I have another reason to question the isotope change. Science has a great deal of evidence, both from theory and experiment, showing that nuclear reactions, of the kind being suggested here, are impossible. They simply do not happen. People in the LENR field seem to think that because fusion of hydrogen can occur in a material, any other kind of nuclear reaction can also occur. Although a few very special kinds of transmutation are detected, this does not mean that any kind of transmutation is possible.  Rules and limitations apply and these must not be ignored. Just because hydrogen fusion is possible does not mean that all imagined nuclear reactions are also possible as many people seem to believe.

 I get the impression that some people are so desperate to prove the Rossi results that they will believe anything he says. On the other hand, we have people who think Rossi has nothing.  The middle ground has ceased to exist.  I see no benefit to discussing what Rossi is doing or what he claims. He has become a waste of time and distraction for everyone;

about nuclear interactions:

We should reject certain ideas from the start if they are in conflict with well known behavior and with well understood theory. Just because LENR seems to violate known behavior and theory does not justify accepting every idea. Some ideas are simply too far out to be considered, at least initially. To make progress, a method of triage needs to be applied to the ideas based on some agreed upon principles. This is not being done. As I said, any crazy idea is accepted. 

And so that you and  XXX understand the meaning of the word "crazy" in this context, I mean an explanation that violates well established chemical and nuclear concepts. An explanation that proposes that neutrons can be created in a chemical structure when a proton and electron combine is an example of what I call a "crazy" idea.  Any violation of the Second Law is a "crazy" idea. I have listed other examples in my book. 

about why was the test "poor"

The test we are discussing involves measuring the isotopic ratios of Li and Ni. These test were based on a very small fraction of the material  and were not described with the detail normally required of an extraordinary claim. 

( to discuss -or not- about the 1 year Test- now about Ed's own explanation of LENR- essence of his teachings)

 I went to a great deal of effort to show the limits required to explain LENR in my book and in a paper I sent to everyone on the CMNS discussion group. Apparently, neither you nor any one else is interested in reading what I write about the subject. I have provided the answer to your question. Why not read what I have written? 

and about limits: 

These limits have no relationship to my theory. I have only provided an explanation that is consistent with these limits. My explanation might be wrong, but at least it is consistent with the limits. I would hope that other people would fit their explanations to these limits and, thereby, make their explanation more effective. 
Putting limits on reality is the role and nature of science. THAT IS WHAT WE DO.  All the laws we have discovered place limits on reality. We no longer use the supernatural to explain behavior because we have these limits. For example, the laws of thermodynamics place limits on how chemical reactions can behave.  We can now place limits on how LENR must behave.  Unfortunately, this is not being done.

about PdD vs NiH

You are free to believe anything you want. I choose to believe that Nature has one and only one mechanism for producing LENR. Being a single and therefore the most efficient mechanism, it is used when LENR takes place in any material.  Of course, Ni and Pd will behave differently. After all they behave differently in every other way even though their behaviors each follow the same known laws of nature. 



1) Gregory Goble: Discovery and more LENR links

! 2) A peak moment in the early history of Cold Fusion (video)
 by Ruby Carat

Sam North sends:
nteresting interview with Dr Mallove from 2004.

video not available here; thanks anyway dear Sam!


New clues could help scientists harness the power of photosynthesis

Atomic bits despite zero-point energy?
Scientists explore novel ways of developing stable nanomagnets

Date:July 8, 2016
Source:Forschungszentrum Juelich
Scientists have found out that zero-point energy plays an important role in the stability of nanomagnets. These are of great technical interest for the magnetic storage of data, but so far have never been sufficiently stable. Researchers are now pointing the way to making it possible to produce nanomagnets with low zero-point energy and thus a higher degree of stability.


  1. Peter
    You and ED should get this young man
    on the job.


  2. Gas phase LENR and water phase LENR are the same. But the water phase LENR occurs on the microscopic level as witnessed by the microscopic melting events seen on the surface of palladium electrodes. Water remove the heat from the LENR reaction as steam and the high heat is required for the LENR reaction to continue.

    In the gas phase, the LENR reaction is insulated and the heat of the reaction is retained. In this condition, the LENR reaction can expand throughout the gaseous medium and is not confined to monetary microscopic hot spots.

  3. Has anyone ventured to discuss the isotopic variations in terms of possible reactions? Are they compatible with any existing models?

    OK...The puzzle is:

    How can neutrons increase and decrease in these various nuclei types and yet not be seen in the reaction. The LENR reaction is completely without FREE neutrons seen in the space outside of the nucleus.

    Is there movement of neutrons through space taking place in an invisible dimension? Is there a beta decay occurring inside the nucleus both to add and remove neutrons? What could be causing this beta decay gone amuck? This strange Neutron behavior seems to only occur inside the nucleus.

    Whatever is happening is stopping at Ni62 the most stable of all nuclei. The unexplained LENR reaction just seems to not be able to get over the Ni62 energy barrier. Adding neutrons to nickel to get to Ni62 cost a ton of energy. Where is that energy coming from. how is that energy passed around?

    Please explain this situation based on your favorite LENR theory.

    Let us change are way of thinking from reality as particles to reality as energy.

    There are vigorous neutron release from Ni64, so much so, that Ni64 seems to nearly vanish from the fuel. All roads upon which neutrons travel, either increase or decrease, seem to stop at Ni62.

    Whatever is happening it seems to be enabling nucleons to seek their lowest energy wells.

    Everything is getting ample energy supply and that is enabling nature to reconfigure to minimal energy states (all while releasing excess energy in the process).

    Yeah, it seems like what is being passed around is energy. When the energy arrives inside the nucleus, it condenses into a neutron. Ni 58 keeps on receiving energy until it hits the NI62 limit.

    As far as energy is concerned, all the energy is shared between all the atoms. It seems like there is a common energy blanket covering the fuel.

    The KIM BEC model...

    This sounds like a Bose condinsate is involved, whereby all the fuel atoms share energy among themselves.

    The particle mindset does not seem to fit this situation in the least.

    But many will say that a BEC cannot exist at 1500C, even though the transmutation results imply that the BEC must exist at extreme temperatures and make the kinds of energy movement possible without any constraints that the coulomb barrier brings with it.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Ovidiu Herlea
    July 8, 2016 at 3:59 PM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    It seems that a commercial development of the QuarkX for lighting will be closer than for electricity.
    Can you tell your followers if you made progress in selecting a phosphor, like a YAG working at high temperatures,
    to convert the mostly blue light to broadband light?

    Also, if have considered the use of a high precision 3D printer to experiment with different shapes for the QuarkX “core”?

    Best Regards,
    Ovidiu Herlea

    Andrea Rossi
    July 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM
    Ovidiou Herlea:
    Thank you for your suggestion. The blue halo has nothing to do with the illumination produced by the QuarkX. Besides: light, electricity will be produced at the same time, without particular privilege.
    Warm Regards,
    The cause of the Quark light emission and the blue light emission come from two separate and distinct mechanisms.

    This Rossi reveal implies to me that the blue light is coming from a halo of light the surrounds the Quark and is caused by some sort of charged particle emission that is energizing nitrogen atoms in the air to emit blue light.

    The sub atomic particle cannot be neutrons, so the charges particles must be electrons. High energy electron excitation are the most probable way that nitrogen can become excited enough to fluoresce in blue light. This is aurora like light.

    High energy electrons are coming off the Quark in such high numbers that the air is glowing blue. The metal cover of the core collectes these electrons. This may be where the practical electrical production of the Quark comes from.

  6. As long as thinkers like Axil are involved and even regarded as some sorts of experts, LENR research can never be accepted as legitimate science.

  7. As long as thinkers like Axil are involved and even regarded as some sorts of experts, LENR research can never be accepted as legitimate science.

    1. Can you give an advice to LENR how to become legitimate science - in more than 1 sentence? Say something constructive please! Do you know what uis an angry kibbitz? Can you tell what is kibbitz in your beautiful language?


    2. Tyy
      In all sincerity, I enjoy axil's posts a great deal more that yours, by a significant order of magnitude. And, it is vastly more probable that I may learn something from what he says.