Saturday, October 1, 2016



Geniuses are unpredictable, fools are unforeseeable therefore you have no idea what I am preparing for. (unknown) 

Image result for pragmatism quotationsImage result for pragmatism quotations

A fine selection of quotes for my readers thanks to 'Alternative Energy' who sent them.


It is weekend, no great events expected so I am reading, slowly but systematically the SSICCF20 Abstracts in search of surprises, breakthroughs and achievements.

Discussing with Ed Storms- patience can generate miracles but, by definition- not fast

Peter, a useful discussion normally has two important parts. The first involves sharing opinions and conclusions. Areas of agreement are then identified, This allows the discussion to continue as the agreements are expanded and new ideas are explored based on the initial agreement. Unfortunately, after sharing our opinions, I see no areas of agreement that can be explored and expanded.  Therefore, I see nothing to accomplish by further discussion.  We simply look at reality through entirely different lenses.  Unfortunately, I find this problem is universal in the LENR field. A starting point for exploring new ideas by discussion simply does not exist.  Even basic laws and common sense interpretation of behavior cannot lead to agreement. This is why I believe LENR will make no progress until it is taught in university where some agreement can be achieved.

Anyway, thanks for your patience, which has exceeded that of anyone else in this field.


Dear Ed,
Thanks! It seems we are still in the first part of our discussion. Not a trace of hostility or anger from my part but disagreement remains in issues as: on LENR or LENRs,  Rossi has triggered a goose wild chase when started working with LiAlH4 (take a look please to the second SSICCF20 abstract by Ping Chen, and because we are speaking about the abstracts, Peter Hagelstein has used "active site" perhaps you could discuss with them (Peter and Mitchel- they have crypto-NAE?)- plus I disagree with my harmfully selective reading of literature- I am open minded. Also we disagree strongly re. the relation between Science and Technology; Technology is not based on application of old, established scientific Laws only, it has newness, creative pragmatism, original solutions.

It happens that just today, Alain Coetmeur- who as far I know is a follower and admirer  of you has stated: "I've discovered that nothing can be done without a theory"  and adds optimistically:
My intuition is that we are not far from a breakthrough, all is hidden in plain sight
 Perhaps we could discuss what must we do when it is very difficult to have a verifiable theory-  and in which extent- principles, recipes best practices,  and other pragmatical things can, temporarily, replace a COMPLETE Theory. Let's search for solution not immediately agreement, OK?


1) Remarkable SSICCF20 Abstracts

Anomalous Heat Generation and Nuclear Transmutation Experiments at Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction Division of Tohoku University 

# Yasuhiro Iwamura 1 Research Center for Electron Photon Science, Tohoku University, Japan, 
A new division devoted to Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction (CMNR) was established at the Research Center for Electron Photon Science of Tohoku University in April, 2015. In this division, experiments on anomalous heat generation and nuclear transmutation have been conducted. Following research items will be presented. 1) Anomalous excess heat generated by the interaction between nano-structured Pd/Ni surface and D2/H2 gas was observed. These experiments are based on Mizuno’s experiments [1]-[2]. Recently, our experimental set-ups have been improved to be able to make experiments under high pressure D2/H2 gas up to 0.3Mpa. 2) Replication Experiments based on Kitamura and Takahashi’s work [3] were performed at Tohoku University. Anomalous heat generation using Nickel-based binary nanocomposites and hydrogen isotope gas was reproduced. 3) 141Pr was confirmed by Rutherford Backscattering Spectroscopy with the statistical significance of about 2.5. 141Pr is supposed to be a transmuted isotope from Cs using Pd/CaO multi-layer foil with D2 gas permeation [4]-[5]. RBS has never been applied to detection of 141Pr, although 141Pr we detected by XPS, ICP-MS, SIMS, TOF-SIMS and XRF [4]-[5]. 4) Transmutation experiments of stable Se, Zr and Pd were performed. The aim of these experiments is to transmute long lived radioisotopes (107Pd, 79Se, 93Zr and 135Cs) into stable ones. 
Acknowledgment  see please the original

Validation of Brillouin Energy Corporation Hydrogen Hot Tube Experiments 5 September 2015

 #Michael A. Halem 1 1 LENR-Invest LLC, Grand Rapids, MI, USA 
The author conducted an independent validation of the power output of the Brillouin EnergyHydrogen Hot Tube (“HHT”) experiments at both SRI and the company’s Berkeley facility. Theresults show with very high confidence excess energy output above chemical and likely due to anuclear interaction of 12 to 20 watts over an 18 to 24 hour period several times during the spring andsummer of 2015. This power level was above the amount of energy that could be produced by known chemical reactions within the system. Further work can be done to eliminate the remaining uncertainty factors and to demonstrate enhanced controllability using Brillouin’s Q-Pulse Technology. Keywords: LENR, CECR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, Controlled Electron Capture, Hydrogen, Nickel, Cold Fusion PACS: 25.10.+ (c) 2015 LENR-Invest LLC, All Rights Reserved

Another Approach to Reproducing Reported LENR Excess Heat

David J. Nagel Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reactions Energy and Spectroscopy Laboratory The George Washington University 725 23rd Street NW, Washington DC 20052 USA 
Replication of experimental results is certainly fundamental to experimental science. That basic requirement has been a chronic problem for LENR, since the beginning of the field in 1989. It remains a challenge to the entire field, despite progress by some experimenters. There are only a few different approaches to reproducing the results documented in published papers or other reports. One is simply reading the documents, and trying to redo what was published. That has been done very often in the field. In some cases, scientists have obtained equipment from the earlier experimenters to improve the chances of successful replication [1]. Yet another way to achieve reproduction is to invite the initial scientists with their equipment into a second laboratory, and then have the home scientists attempt replication [2]. These approaches have resulted in much valuable information about LENR, despite less than perfect success. We seek replication of experiments, which have been reported to produce excess heat, by using a wider array of diagnostics than normally employed in LENR experiments. Eventually, we will try to reproduce experiments with palladium and heavy water using both the original Fleischmann-Pons loading method and the co-deposition of those two elements. But, initially, we have been performing experiments with nickel and light water, which were reported to produce heat in multiple early papers [3-6]. Those experiments have not been reproduced. Currently, we are using thermometry, and will switch to calorimetry, if our data indicate that we have achieved significant heat production. Our tools include Impedance Spectroscopy, Noise Spectroscopy, Optical Spectroscopy, Radio-Frequency Spectroscopy and Acoustic Spectroscopy, each over broad frequency ranges. While the eventual goal is to understand LENR, the first target is to understand our experiments quantitatively. This paper will report on the methods and spectroscopic and other tools being used and on the status of our work. 
J. E. Thompson, M. E. Weintraub, G. P. Roque, A. Mehrabian and M. A. Imam contributed to this research. Their efforts and results are gratefully acknowledged.
 [1] G. Lonchampt, L. Bonnetain and P. Hicter, “Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiments”, Proc. of Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen Energy. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan. (1996).
[2] M. C. H. McKubre, “Cold Fusion – CMNS – LENR; Past, Present and Projected Future Status”, J. Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Vol 19, pp. 183–191, (2016) 
[3] R. L. Mills and P. Kneizys, “Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion”, Fusion Tech., Vol. 20, p. 65 (1991) 
[4] V. C. Noninski, V.C. and C.I. Noninski, “Determination of the excess energy obtained during the electrolysis of heavy water”, Fusion Technology, Vol. 19, p. 364 (1991) [5] R. T. Bush, “A Light Water Excess Heat Reaction Suggests that ‘Cold Fusion’ May Be ‘Alkali-Hydrogen Fusion’”, Fusion Technology. Vol. 22, pp. 301 – 322 (1992). [6] R. Natoya and M. Enyo, “Excess Heat Production in Electrolysis of Potassium Carbonate Solution with Nickel Electrodes” in “Frontiers of Cold Fusion”, Universal Academic Press, Inc., Tokyo, pp. 421-426 

2) Rossi Reports Recent “Tremendous Progress” with E-Cat QuarkX

3) New patent applications by Airbus DS GmbH related to UDH
Two new Airbus patent applications were recently published.
Inventor Bernhard Kotzias.
Both are related to the use of Ultra Dense Hydrogen (UDH).…20160921&DB=&locale=en_EP
Both are in German language.

4) Jean Paul Biberian, on his Blog (in French) reports about SSICCF20
First Day

5) From Uwe Doms
#LENR Rossi vs. Darden - New Document - Very Strong Motion to Dismiss of Leonardo Corp.


Speaking of LENR examples, here is the list of Abstracts for the Satellite Symposium of 20th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science September 28-30, 2016 Xiamen, China:

Regarding electric arc discharge with graphite (wood charcoal equivalent) producing transmutation.

When a magnetic field passes through and is modified by a hexagonal crystal structure such as that of graphite, the LENR reaction is catalyzed. The modulated magnetic field produces nucleon decay and associated meson production.

See post below for theory


  1. Regarding point 2. above:-
    "2) Rossi Reports Recent “Tremendous Progress” with E-Cat QuarkX"

    Many times over more than the last six months he has reported tremendous progress and advances. However, he has just now announced the output of the amazing new Quack Ecat X as being just 20 watts. Yes, 20 Watts!
    I thought it must have been a typo but when I read again his blog, he mentions the same figure twice. It is indeed 20 watts.
    Do I need to remind anyone, the original ecat was supposed to be 5000 watts? Well, actually it was more than that but by the time it was offered for sale by way of 'pre-orders' it had been refined down to 5000 watts, ( for safety reasons of course, but still a very worthwhile and useful output), and "ready for market" no less, five years ago!
    After all this time I hardly think an output of 20 watts warrants the continual description of "tremendous progress" as has been reported for so long.
    The description of "tremendous progress" would fit the situation if we had five years ago started with an output of 20 watts and arrived at the position today of announcing a device of 5000 watt output. That would be 'tremendous progress', even if it didn't actually work, bearing in mind that none of them seem to have been reliably proven to work, even to the latest rendition of the technology. Still (f9) apparently, by Mr Rossi's own description.
    If it's the same (f9) that applied to all the earlier versions I think we can now be more confident in what that actually means in practical terms.
    So far, after more than five years of trying, nothing has been proven to work. That is the inescapable fact.

    It is also obvious that the drastically reduced output of 20 watts now makes it possible to run the device in a supposed self sustain mode for many hours by way of easily concealed lithium batteries similar to the 8,000mah batteries now being sold cheaply as portable jump start packs for cars. They are very small and also very light. They could easily be concealed in the control box or test equipment without much trouble.
    It is very possible that the decreasing output of the ecat devices is more to do with the ability to lose the reality of whether it works or not in experimental error and measurement artifacts when they are in the lower power range. It's much easier to produce an imaginary 20 watts excess power rather than an imaginary 2000 watts. That's why so many people are able to produce supposedly positive results but only in the low wattage range.

  2. Uh, pweet....the "original E-cat" to which you refer was just a bit larger than the QuarkX. If the QuarkX is producing 20W of electricity directly from a device the size of a pencil eraser, "I",at least, "would" consider that "tremendous progress."

    1. Yes, and if it were true I would probably consider that to be progress even though we have seen nothing so far. But I think you will find the quoted output of 20 watts is 20 watts of heat energy with very little electrical output. The previous talk of direct electrical output seems to be falling by the wayside lately and from what I can see, the generation of electricity is now to be made by way of the long established conversion of heat energy to steam and then electricity via normal methods. This would need an awful lot of 20 watt ecat cells to generate a meaningful amount of steam energy, sort of like powering a Tesla electric car by way of watch battery button cells. While technically not impossible, this would require every cell to have at least two connections and at the temperatures mentioned, this would be a practically impossible task to keep all cells connected and functioning reliably. Even at room temperature it would be a maintenance nightmare in the long term.

      To be fair, even at this late stage, if it turns out that a small lenr device has now finally been invented which can produce a provable output of 20 watts with a COP of 50 I would consider that to fit the description of a 'tremendous progress'. However, against the background of more than five years of previous tremendous announcements that have so far amounted to nothing, some of which are now provably false, and the remainder most probably false, I am not at this stage taking the latest 'tremendous progress' to be any more factual than all the earlier works.
      And in case anyone needs reminding, they have all so far resulted in no products in any market, no happy customers to sing their praises, and no happy partners enthusiastically promoting sales of the ecat in any shape or form.

  3. Assumption after assumption, speculation after speculation, all presented as fact. FYI, as far as calorimetric measurements go, twenty watts is actually quite a large signal to work with. Look at the calibration graphs and limits of detection of the calorimeters used by Ed Storms or Pons and Fleischmann.

  4. Assumption after assumption?
    I think my assumptions over the last five years have been far better predictors of the ongoing reality of the ecat progress than those based on what Rossi says. So I might just continue on that basis until such time as things change. I am not expecting that to be any time soon. Well, probably not in my lifetime really.

    As to the speculation, everything associated with the ecat and Mr Rossi is nothing but speculation, from start to finish. Almost nothing is based on known facts.
    Whose fault is that? Everything is always covered by NDA's or subject to legal dispute, or the customer want's his privacy respected, or, anything at all really so long as the whole thing remains a complete mystery.
    Here is a fact.
    Five years after the ecat was said to be ready for market and offered to the market to lodge pre-sale orders, no ecat in any of it's numerous versions is known to be in commercial use by anyone anywhere on the planet, and none have been offered for sale to any home users who lodged their 500,000 orders. Even the photo of the suppose mythical home ecat on the official website is an artists impression.
    After five years of tremendous progress, that's the state of development? An artists impression of what one might look like? I think that's really funny.
    I don't think that is either speculation or an assumption. I'm pretty sure it's a fact.
    Also, I think you must have missed the irony of your references above; "Look at the calibration graphs and limits of detection of the calorimeters used by Ed Storms or Pons and Fleischmann." For over 25 years in the case of Pons and Fleischmann most people are still arguing whether they saw anything at all, other than a classic example of experimental error being mistaken for real results.
    I make no claim either way other to make the point that the examples you quote support my statement that it is much easier to produce an imaginary power output of 20 watts than an imaginary power output of 2000 watts, or 5000 watts for the original ecat.
    By extrapolation of that logic, it is even easier to produce an imaginary output power of one or two watts.
    Stand by for the next miniaturization if it becomes too difficult to produce an imaginary 20 watts.
    Is that impossible?
    I recall a few months back, when it was announced that the output of the new Quack ecat X was only 100 watts.
    Someone on the Rossiblog noted that the power was getting unacceptably low.
    Mr Rossi promised that 100 watts was the lowest it would go. And yet here we are a few months later, with no prior announcement of any power reduction, and many days of 'tremendous success', all resulting in a drop in power output of 80 percent. Is that consistent with any of the prior hype? I don't think so.

  5. Sorry, pweet, but you're just ignorant in both small and large. Five years is a very FAST time to market with a high-tech device. My own company developed a (non-LENR related) biowarfare detection instrument which was superior to all competitors, proven so in field tests. After seven years, we were forced to abandon the technology due to internal agency politics, and we couldn't afford to pursue further (small firm). This sort of thing happens all the time. Anyone who has actually read the published research papers has no doubts about the reality of the P&F work (done in France and supported by Toyota). The whole "we couldn't reproduce it" meme was shown to be wrong...the Cal Tech (and Brit lab) were shown to have never reached the necessary degree of loading. The MIT work was proven after the fact to have actually shown excess heat, but some "unknown party" CHANGED THE DATA to eliminate the shown effect. Unfortunately for them, they didn't destroy the raw data, so Eugene Mallove was able to demonstrate the sole proven case of actual fraud known in the field of LENR. I will continue to reserve judgement as evidence comes in. And based on the whole universe of evidence, the balance of hard data is still in Rossi's favor. But you press right ahead with your pathological skepticism, which is based entirely on speculation and misinterpretation. I'll stick to data.

  6. As I have said many times before in a number of places, my so called "pathological skepticism" which you refer to can be negated by just ONE simple and convincing test or report. In over five years Mr Rossi has been either unwilling or unable to manage this, even though it be such a simple task. He can't even manage to convince most of his previously enthusiastic investors and supporters who have had a much closer association with the technology than I have had. And yet you label me and others as 'pathological skeptics' for not being convinced on the flimsy evidence we have been fed from mostly one source; that source being the inventor? That might be appropriate for the first year or so, but after a complete inability to present a working device for so long, while saying he had products 'ready for market' and operating for some years already, would have to break the bounds of belief in all but the most blindly forgiving supporters.
    At this point, everything scientific and psychological, points to just one thing, and that is, whatever Mr Rossi has, it does not work.
    I have no problem in others believing whatever they like, but I think the hundreds of pages of blather singing the praises of a so far non operational device for which there is no scientific evidence or theory as to why such a device should actually work, should have that blather balanced by a bit of realism, and so far that realism is that the spectacular claims for ecat device have never been proven, not even to it's own many investors over the years. And the spectacular claims of 'products ready for market have not only not been demonstrated, but appear to be no closer now than they were when first announced. In fact, going on the current news of the amazing new ecat now under development, the specifications seem to be diminishing into practical insignificance. From the original ecat of 10 kilowatts, reduced to 5 kilowatts for safety reasons, to 1 kilowatt for the hot cat, then down to 100 watts for the light emitting and direct electrical energy generation quack ecat X not to be reduced any further, but in a matter of months now reduced to 20 watts of heat energy.
    I find it impossible to see how that is the result of five years of tremendous progress, specially since even this latest amazing claim is still only that, an amazing claim of the same ethereal nature as all the previous and unfulfilled amazing claims.
    To regard those who find all these so far unfulfilled claims as being beyond the bounds of belief as being 'patholgical skeptics' is in itself, beyond belief and I find it quite laughable.

  7. See first overnight test with Levi and Rossi. Debunk that.

  8. It involves Mr Rossi who undoubtedly set up and orchestrated the whole event.
    On that basis I consider it debunked in the same way that his presence and involvement in the Lugano test critically tainted that event. Specially after he continually claimed he had no involvement at all in it.
    Nothing further required.

  9. Which illustrates your total ignorance. The Levi-Rossi overnight test was an "off-the-cuff" experiment done immediately after the first group demo, in which Levi himself raised the issue of "steam-not-dry", and asked Rossi to allow him to do a different test in which no steam was involved. The SAME ECAT used was disconnected from the pump-driven circulation system and hooked to the building water supply through a commercial totalizing flowmeter (identical to those used by the local water utility to measure water usage) to operate at the higher flow rates necessary. Rossi was worried that he the higher flow would quench the LENR reaction...but it did not.

    The test was a complete ad hoc one, with no opportunity for Rossi to figure out a way to "fake it".

    But your comments display your complete prejudice and unwillingness to actually examine hard data...exactly typical of every other pathological skeptic I have ever tried to have a data-based discussion with.


    1. "No opportunity to figure out a way to fake it" you say. Are you serious? He had years to figure out many ways and he has probably used them all.
      A magician does not need prior notice to perform one of his previously perfected magic tricks. He has a standard bag of tricks that he can select from for the one most appropriate to the circumstance. The same trick (excess energy) can be performed a number of ways, and it doesn't have to be done the same way each time.
      More than five years history has shown the tests only produce excess energy when Mr Rossi is present at the test. That factor alone should be a serious warning that something is not right.

      About my "total ignorance" that you mentioned; you said that the latest Quack eact X has a direct electrical energy output of 20 watts in your first reply on this thread. You used that to justify your opinion of 'tremendous progress'. Mr Rossi has repeatedly said it is 20 watts of heat energy and very little electrical output, meaning probably almost none at all. How is it with all your careful study and great wisdom and understanding you can hold the belief that the present Quack X is producing 20 watts of electrical energy? It wasn't from some throw away line dropped By the resident blogger genius was it? and long since forgotten by him?

  10. Typical skeptopath reply....don't address the comment or the data behind it....change the subject. Bye, pweet, it hasn't been pleasant. Been here before with other kneejerk pathological skeptics, and there is no possibility of rational,data-based discussion with your sort.

  11. There is no rational 'data behind it' to address.
    All we have is what 'Rossi says'.
    When there is some real provable data to argue about, your case might be a bit easier to prosecute, but until then your only argument can be based on how great things would be if any of it turns out to be real. But let's face it, so far non of it is. It's all just amazing claims this week superseding the amazing claims of last month, which superseded the amazing claims of the month before that, and so on and so on for the last five years. But alas, in spite of all the amazing claims, any of which would have taken the world by storm if real and proven, have all been dumped and abandoned on the side of the road to nowhere.
    Might I remind people that the device which you referred to which was supposedly tested by Rossi and Levi is the basis for the home ecat for which half a million pre-orders were taken. It still has a worldwide and ready customer list but to this date it is highly improbable one has even been submitted for certification, even though the constant excuse for non delivery is that it's tied up in certification.
    If it was awaiting certification then there would have to be a finished article ready for sale, and yet all we have is an artists impression on the official ecat web site of what one might look like if it ever gets to be made.
    You cannot get a certification of any sort on an artists impression of what one might look like.
    I firmly believe the home ecat is dead and buried and will never be sold as a working device to anybody. Nothing in the last five years has occurred to make this conclusion invalid.

  12. So, getting right back to my original point about whether we are making "tremendous progress",
    Straight off the Rossi blog;-

    October 4, 2016 at 10:53 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    So basically you said that the QuarkX will produce heat, with which, where electric power and not heat is wanted, electric power will be produced by means of the Carnot cycle, since the efficiency of the direct electricity production is too low. Is this correct ?

    Andrea Rossi
    October 5, 2016 at 9:29 AM
    Substantially yes.
    Warm Regards

    So in five years of 'tremendous progress' we have gone from the original 5kw ecat operating at a temperature which was suitable for a huge array of applications, down to the present 20 watt Quack ecat X which in it's singular form is suitable for,. ummm. ? And worse still, it's still under development with the ubiquitous Rossi proviso of (f9), or is it now (f8)? Whereas the original ecat was intrinsically safe and ready for market. Now we know that for a fact because we were told so many times by Mr Rossi.