Friday, December 9, 2016



Image result for danger quotationsImage result for danger quotations


VUCAplosion - is now a dangerous moment in the LENR history?

Acronyms are part of any professional jargon, but not everybody likes them
and not everybody is a professional. Now I will use two- 
SWOT- Strengths-Weaknesses- Opportunities- Threats and
VUCA- Volatlity- Uncertainties-Complexity-Ambiguity\,_uncertainty,_complexity_and_ambiguity

Based on my experience Vulnerability goes better for "V" than voltatility

OK, actually we are doing all the time SWOT analysis - even if implicitly not explicitly
for LENR- and only very rarely we are happy with it; I think you agree?
Recently we could state the arrival or enhancement of more threats for our field and we can state that now it is a dangerous moment in the LENR history. The field has survived with difficulty in hostile conditions and the danger is that the conditions' hostile character will be enhanced. 
 Some signs: eventually there is progress possibly real in Hot Fusion; the most recent ICCF was actually breakthroughless, hydrino energy- our competitor is showing more and more interesting things- it is soon indistinguishable from a technology, it seems. To not forget fossil energy- the richest ever oil-natural gas field was discovered these days in the US, oil is still cheap.
It is said the most generous funder of LENR is Industrial Heat but this company is focused on a very expensive legal battle with the inventor of LENR+, Andrea Rossi 
and therefore IH has to ponder even relatively not costly decisions as the organizing of the next ICCF- not a positive message for its supporters. 
Many members of the LENR community tend to negate the very existence of the 
Rossi technology, but then what are the chances to create a real technology? Say in the next 5-10 years?
A paper claiming CF/LENR died 25 years ago was published in he important journal Chemical and Engineering News- no high rank member of the LENR community has reacted. Then the W-L theory promoting heretic Steven Krivit has entered the battle and C&EN has accepted that old fusion is something but not fusion. 
Actaull Krivit has published a provocative- anti LENR orthodoxy book, "Hacking the Atom" 
An today, surprisingly or not so...we got information about an other Krivit book - its presentation by Lewis Larsen at 1) below.
Do you like it or not, do you think W-L theory is flawed and impossible from the start
the truth is that this 1) is a very provocative publication- it's a VUCAplosion or VUCAbomb that hows how vulnerable/volatile, uncertain, full of complexities and ambiguities our LENR is. As long as it politically/scientifically correct to sayLENR is just a fantasy (my one, e.g.)
Do not forget that Krivit can be as he is but only his LENR  site is cited in Google news.
Do not ignore that Krivit claims that our reputed colleague from China, Xing Zhong Li is now a believer in the W-L theory.
Will the blasphemious "Fusion Fiasco" remain ignored and unanswered?
For LENR it is really time of danger.

I have tried to opt for a wiser "heretics management:" long time ago, see please:

but both the "good" people and the heretics have ignored this. Larsen has attacked EGO OUT twice for absolutely non-relevant issues.

I can predict very exactly what will happen now: nothing.


1) Synopsis of the new book "Fusion Fiasco" by Steven Krivit link to this:

Резюме новой книги Стивена Кривита Фиаско синтеза.


3) Brilliant Light Power Goes on the Road  by Tom Whiple

4) Rossi: US Military Engineer Performing Third Party Testing on the QuarkX


Pioneering nanotechnology captures energy from people
Date:December 8, 2016
Source:Michigan State University
The day of charging cellphones with finger swipes and powering Bluetooth headsets simply by walking is now much closer, say investigators.

Observing crystallization at the molecular level for the first time
Date:December 8, 2016
Source:Weizmann Institute of Science
We watch crystallization take place every winter when ice crystals form on our windows. But no one had ever seen it happen at the molecular level – until now. Scientists have created a way to observe this phase of crystallization, verifying long-held theories.


Trying not to Lose is Different than Trying to Win


  1. Peter
    You said this on your blog.
    A paper claiming CF/LENR died 25 years ago was published in he important journal Chemical and Engineering News- no high rank member of the LENR community has reacted

    This is a comment to the article from ECW.

    Steve Swatman Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
    a month ago
    All publicity is good publicity, in the end.

    This article does sound negative and poorly researched, it is meant to be so, it is meant to manipulate in a negative manner, and your comment enforces the negative side just for good measure,

    But, if it brings LENr to just one scientist in the right place, one manufacturer, one inventor, then it may yet prove to be good publicity, if the right person, at the right time, in the right place, sees it, reads it and gets involved, well that is all we really need isnt it.

    Here is a comment by Alan Smith related
    to the previous comment.

    I have spent time with Alexander Parkhomov. Quiet, modest, as one of my friends described him, 'almost saintly' he had the benifit of the usual very good Russian scientific education. But his LENR work has from the start been hampered by limited resources both financial and physical. Not a wealthy man, he lives (I am sure) on an academic pension and state supplements. Which is not a lot of money in Eastern Europe/Russia. So, although a full Professor in his working life he is now pretty much one of us garage/kitchen table researchers. Which is to be admired
    I guess what I am trying too say is LENR
    will succeed somehow.

    Stay Positive

  2. Re: Point 4 above;

    "Hank Mills
    December 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    3 – Will a control or “dummy” Quark be utilized in the testing as a real time comparison?

    "Andrea Rossi
    December 8, 2016 at 8:19 PM
    Hank Mills:
    3- useless: every system with a COP = 1 or less is comparable
    Warm Regards,

    I see Mr Rossi still doesn't appreciate the value of performing a control run on a 'dummy' reactor in identical circumstances to the final test run, to establish valid parameters which can be relied upon to assess the performance of the final device under test.
    Isn't this where the Lugano test fell in a heap? No proper temperature calibration done in a 'dummy' run.
    I suppose the question is then, whether Mr Rossi appreciates this point or not.
    I think most would say that he does, and that's why he astutely avoids doing it.
    Using the results of a proper control run would in all probability ruin the COP of the whole test, so best to avoid doing one.
    That was certainly the case in the Lugano test.
    Much easier to say that such a test would be useless.

    If it is useless, why not run a repeat of the Lugano test using the emissivity values given from control runs at the higher temperatures used in the final test? The same results using the correct emissivity values would give that test considerable credibility that it presently does not have.

    I suppose it's because we've moved on from there now, because we've got the Quack ecatX.

    Hmmm,.. new dangling carrot, same old stick.

    A few days ago this site listed a few things which were holding back lenr acceptance and development.
    I think the main factor responsible was not mentioned. I will add it here.

    6/. Some glaringly bad basic science being used against all convention to produce supposedly amazing results.

  3. Testosterone facilitates the frame to construct muscle so it takes a woman longer and they need to work more difficult to gain the equal form of muscular tissues that a man can effortlessly get.