Sunday, December 11, 2016



Dedicated to Ed Storms.

Solutions for really difficult, complex and wicked problems cannot be found or discovered, they have to be built, created, invented. (Problem solving truism)


To iinvent you need a good imagination and a pile of stuff. (Thomas  Edison)

LEGO has essentially taken the concrete block, the building block of the world, and made it into the building block of our imagination. (Ayah Bdeir)


a) Discussing LENR essentials with Ed Storms.Ed Storms

Ed Storms wrote the followings two days ago- re. heat released in LENR systems and generously gave me the permission to answer/comment

LENR will not be made at high rate and with reliability until the process is better understood. Wishful thinking and imagination will not do the job.  Two different and separate process must be mastered. These are creation of certain required and unique conditions in the material, i.e. the NAE.  The second process requiring mastery involves the nuclear mechanism that can occur ONLY in the NAE.   Acknowledging this sequence is important.  Once the NAE is produced, the nuclear process occurs automatically without any need to understand its mechanism.  Therefore, we must first focus on the material and not on the nuclear process.   Nevertheless, we now know that the nuclear process involves a novel kind of slow fusion and some novel kinds of  transmutation at a very small rare.  We do not yet understand the mechanism.

The first step is to acknowledge the existence of a NAE.  The second step is to identify the nature of the NAE. And the third step is to discover ways to create the NAE in high concentration on demand.  Each of these steps must be taken in this order and each conclusion must be largely correct before progress can be made.   How can these requirement be accomplished?

Both Ni and Pd are known to form the required NAE. Of these two metals, the most detailed information is known about how Pd behaves.  Therefore, Pd provides the best platform for gaining this understanding.  The next discussion has to focus on just how Pd can be used.  If people show interest  in this approach, I will go into more detail in later e-mails.

Yes, Rossi and other people have shown that Ni can form the NAE. However, this work is poorly described and can not be used to guide research.  Therefore, I choose not to focus on use of Ni.

MY answer:
 Re the first sentence "LENR will not be made at high rate and with reliability until the process is better understood."- I created the ante-Motto
Ed says - and is scientifically perfectly correct- science finds the explanation, ctrsyrd thr understanding and then based on this understanding, technology will be able to enhance/scale up/stabilize/optimize the heat release- and a new energy technology will be born.
I think differently- science cannot give he desired explanation, in any case not in the cradle system-the P&F Cell because there LENR is not fully grown up, not complete, deeply sub-optimal.  My formulation is that actionable parameters are missing in the fundamental, simplistic system and LENR has to be moved in an advanced system created by technology. Explanation and accomplishment of high energy will be quasi-simultaneous, there is no other way! And explanation will be a mixture of principles, good practice rules and genuine Theory. Details were discussed many times.  

Further Ed knows it well,  I was strongly pro-NAE starting from 1992. Just we define differently the structure and functionality of NAE.
Ed does not agree with my idea that strongly dynamic NAE-genesis is the KEY to LENR.
I fully agree with Ed's idea that it is necessary to organize systematic gathering of know-what, know-how and know-why for the Ni-H system and all the transition metals- hydrogen systems to come. 
Just take a look to the initiative 1) please.

b) Simon Derricut's alternative and inspiring metaphor

A collateral and positive effect of the W-L theory's invasion over classic LENRis the calming down of the useless and unproductive disputes around the Rossi -Darden Trial; actually what is relevant happens in the Court ; hatred, envy and hostile imagination cannot replace  real dat that are what they are and will generate the decision.
So, Simon Derricutt with whom I had more disputes (but decent ones) re the trial wrote now a comment re the W-L theory and continued with an idea for which I am grateful to him.

For LENR, I prefer the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle, where the pieces may not be all there and in any case they are scattered around. The Thermacore meltdown tells us that Ni/H is valid, and the P+F meltdown does the same for Pd/D with the backup of Miles' heat/Helium correlation. Piantelli put his Nickel in a cloud-chamber and saw radioactivity - something people tend to ignore since it's against the "no radiation" story. 

Given the jigsaw pieces we have from the history so far, can we fit them together to get a consistent picture? Such a picture would predict that if we do this we'll measure that. We then test the predictions, and if they don't match then the explanation isn't right yet. It's how science is done. 

. I opted for the kaleidoscope because it is so dynamic, but Simon is right because the puzzle is associated wuth  problem solving.
This can and has to be discussed.
My 10 years old granddaughter, Nora has advised me to replace the jigsaw puzzle with LEGO- it has volume, she says. So her 3D argument has convinced me to use Mottoes for LEGO and to think about a LENR LEGO

(see please also Greg Goble's comment below)


1) A great initiative:
Mr Self Sustain at the LENR Forum:
The Nickel-Hydrogen Brain Trust

2) An answer to Krivit's Fusion Fiasco:
Scientific American hoaxed by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

3) Experiments Prove the Transmutation of Cesium 137 into Stable Barium Isotope

4) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Frank Acland
December 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM

Dear Andrea,

Congratulations on the successful test with the engineer, you must be very gratified. Can you say what you will do with the results of this test?

Best wishes,

Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi
December 10, 2016 at 10:16 PM

Frank Acland:
End of the test now, at 10.10 P.M. of Saturday December 12th.
The results are confirmed. I was afraid that my results were too good to be true, so I said to the third party engineer that I was paying him to find my measurements’ errors. He is saying my measurements were not wrong, basically, with exception of minor errors, so the results are confirmed. I am very encouraged. We go to close for the 5Sigma.
Warm Regards,
5) 'When it rains, it pours'- an other new book by Steve Krivit
Lost History: Explorations in Nuclear Research, Vol. 3

6) LENR Cold Fusion is real!


I consider both schism and deep cognitive chasm to be a result of LENR being a wide bandset of phenomena. Also a result of how system complexity troubles understanding and development of a clear working theoretical model.

Fascinating puzzle, as Simon says, both Pd and Ni meltdowns. LENR is all the puzzle pieces; I know coherence lies within that pile. Theories flourish, as they should. 

I like to creatively think of a few 'golden threads'… gas is within the wet cell bubbles… nano particles are within the cracks… excitation… fractal harmonics… superfluidity… dampening frequencies… control...

Kaleidoscopic reading helps… thanks Peter

"Spontaneous alpha particle emitting metal alloys and method for reaction of deuterides" Publication date: 2016-10-27

"System and method for generating particles" Grant 2013-05-13

"A hybrid fusion fast fission reactor" Publication date Dec 30, 2009

"System for electrolysis"
Grant 1996-02-27

"LENR: Superfluids, Self-Trapping and Non-Self-Trapping States"
Talbot A. Chubb 2003

Off topic yet relevant…
From a 'sister field' to LENR which is the 'low energy' branch of 'high energy' nuclear physics.

"Novel Role of Superfluidity in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions"
Magierski, Piotr 2016-01-01

We demonstrate, within symmetry unrestricted time dependent density functional theory, the existence of new effects in low-energy nuclear reactions which originate from superfluidity. The dynamics of the pairing field induces solitonic excitations in the colliding nuclear systems, leading to qualitative changes in the reaction dynamics. The solitonic excitation prevents collective energy dissipation and effectively suppresses capture cross section. We demonstrate how the variations of the total kinetic energy of the fragments can be traced back to the energy stored in the superfluid junction of colliding nuclei. Both contact time and scattering angle in non-central collisions are significantly affected. The modification of the capture cross section and possibilities for its experimental detection are discussed. 


Thanks to Sam North who sends 2 videos about hope for Fusion Energy

Fusion: How to Put the Sun in a Magnetic Bottle - with Ian Chapman

Nuclear Fusion: Has Its Time Finally Arrived?


Design Thinking as a Disruptive Force in Higher Education.


  1. Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM
    Dr Irina and Vitaly Uzikov:
    Thank you for your continue and very important attention. You will be surely invited to the presentation.
    Warm Regards,

    Frank Acland
    December 11, 2016 at 3:57 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    I recall you once paid Sergio Focardi to find the errors in your measurements for the early E-Cat. Now you hired another expert to do the same — don’t you trust what you see for yourself?


    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    Frank Acland:
    You are right, I made the same as with Prof. Focardi. No, I do not trust myself when I am too enthusiast.
    Warm Regards,

    A Goumy
    December 11, 2016 at 4:02 AM
    Dear Mr Rossi,

    Did the engineer use the same calorimetry technique as yours, or another one? If not confidential, can you tell us more, without going into details, about it?

    Warm regards,

    A. Goumy

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    A. Goumy:
    Another one, that now I adopt. Datails will be disclosed in the public presentation.
    Warm Regards,

    Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 11:28 AM
    You mean a dummy? I already answered to this issue: the dummy is any sistem with COP < 1. Warm Regards, A.R.

    December 11, 2016 at 9:07 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I assume calibration was performed using a control reactor as is normal scientific practice.

    Irina and Vitaly Uzikov
    December 11, 2016 at 3:48 AM
    Dear Andrea!

    The most sincere congratulations on the successful conclusion of a very important stage of your great work! You’re too much work, so watch out your health! We look forward to the presentation in February

  2. The big challenge in science is to find out what is fundamental and what is emergent. It's the chicken and the egg problem. The theories of LENR are filled with this chicken and the egg problem.

    As an example, let's look at the "Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR"

    The Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENR is a theory that requires exceptional behavior on the part of the weak force. Normally, heavy electrons, that is, electrons that have a kinetic energy over the threshold that makes amalgamation of the electron and proton together to form a neutron in a beta decay requires the formation of a weak force mediation particle, the W or Z boson.

    W bosons, and Z bosons, excitations of the electroweak gauge fields are required to produce the Widom-Larsen effect.

    Weak Force boson Mass

    W: 80.385±0.015 GeV/c2

    Z: 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2

    the weak force bosons are very short-lived, with a half-life of about 3×10e−25 sec.

    That weak force mediation effect requires a huge amount of energy to be formed, close to a giga electron volts of the proton mass out of the vacuum.

    IF the Widom-Larsen effect is occurring, it is because the is an exceptional condition in place where the weak force is greatly amplified. The Widom-Larsen effect can be considered a emergent weak force process that is being produced by a special environment in which the weak force is operating. To the best of my understanding, the description of the special environment that the weak force is operating under is not described by the WL effect. The WL effect is describing what may be happening by not why it is happening.

    Furthermore, the production of low energy neutrons may not be the only thing that the modified weak force is causing. The decay of the proton may be also occurring as witnessed in the Holmlid experiments. Another effect of weak force amplification may be rapid decay of radioactive isotopes that leave only stable isotopes on the ash after the LENR reaction occurs.

    The chicken and egg structure produces a treelike pattern of causation where one cause results in many emergent results. For example based on the same cause, LENR can occur in a plasma, a transition metal lattice, or a microbe.

    The next post is an attempt to climb down the causation tree and find as a next step, to find the tap root of what might amplify the weak force.

  3. Peter, This probably relates more to what you discussed a few days ago, regarding what is holding back LENR today.
    I added one item to your list of things which are holding back the acceptance of LENR today, which I copy and paste to here.

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

    And now, a few days later we have the perfect example of exactly what I refer to.

    From the Rossi-blog;-

    "Patrick Ellul
    December 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM
    Dear Andrea.
    With “control”/”dummy”, it is meant to be a quarkX without one of its crucial elements (like fuel) that is fed the same input and whose output is measured in the same way as your fueled quarkX.
    This will cross check your calculations against another reference.
    Do you still think such experiment is useless at this stage?

    Rossi replied;-

    "Andrea Rossi
    December 11, 2016 at 4:45 PM
    Patrick Ellul:
    Of course it is useless.
    The COP is what counts.
    Warm Regards

    Really? It's the COP that counts and it's useless to check the validity of the results by way a doing a control run on an un-fueled or known inert reactor?
    No wonder there is such a reluctance by almost everyone to accept the Rossi results at face value.

    It's equally amazing that some people keep referring to lenr+ as though it was a proven truth, when in fact it is so far from it. The main support for lenr+ are the claimed results of Mr Rossi.

    Can you imaging where science and engineering would be if scientific theories were accepted as proven fact on the same basis as Mr Rossi uses. ?

  4. Peter - it's nice that you found my post useful for a change. The problem with Lego, though, is that it's designed such that any one piece will fit with any other piece, so the construct is only limited by perseverance. If you want a better 3D analogy, then maybe go for dry-stone walling (with field-stones that aren't worked to be nice rectangular shapes). It's said that each such stone has but one place to fit in the wall, and also that it always takes two people to build a wall - one remains holding it up while the other goes off to get paid for the completed wall.

    If you follow the consequences of having ultra-low momentum neutrons loose in a collection of atoms, you'll see that we can predict that all species present will have extra neutrons and that such isotopes (even if not radioactive/unstable) would be measurable. There's not thus really much point in trying to fit the W-L hypothesis into the wall, and the wall will fall over.

    Holmlid's results should fit, though maybe his explanation doesn't. It's sad that his experiments haven't been replicated so we'd have a bit more confidence that there isn't a systematic error in there.

    Currently we have the three foundation-stones I mentioned, with the Thermacore meltdown evidence being somewhat lost leaving only reports behind. That Dewar might however turn up at some point in some scrap-yard, not having been recycled. Slim chance....

    Note that the W-L hypothesis may to a large extent be true, except that when that happens we get both radiation and a radioactive residue. It won't explain the production of heat without nuclear radiation.

    Whereas a master waller only needs to handle each stone once, and can see where it fits, we're stuck with a lot of bits that don't seem to fit. Greg's examples give us something more to think about.

    1. dear Simon,

      Your metaphor is simply excellent
      What you say about LEGO is correct, however all metaphors are approximate, fuzzy, imprecise a bit like humour..

      But see what I wrote about metaphors:

      I taught managers Management of Technology (locl Eco_management US-Romania Univ) and I have expleined that models, metaphors, paradoxes have to taken cum grano salis not with total seriousness Evan the best as Windowa...Anyway o=please read my essay..

      I have today difficulties writing here sall letters.. ut no problem, excuse my typos


    2. Peter - since we can't actually see or handle atoms with our eyes or hands, and we infer all the properties of them by the effects seen, the metaphors come thick and fast in our theories. We can see waves in the oceans, and interferences, and so we can take that metaphor and apply it to all sorts of other situations and talk of the DeBroglie wavelength of an electron. The answers fit what we experience at a human scale, and so we build a whole structure of properties and reasons for why things happen.

      Despite that seeming-applicability, the reality may be something else altogether and may not be able to be even thought of since we don't have the reference-points in daily life to even have the words to describe things. If we don't have the right words or concepts, we can't even think the thought. Metaphors are thus pretty important, and trying to get more exact ones is useful.

      I suspect being multi-lingual helps in flexibility of thinking, in that some languages have particular structures that allow different thinking than others. In English, the meaning of a sentence gradually develops so that you can see where it's heading; in German the meaning is only complete at the end. It's much harder to get double-entendres in German, too.

      Your opera metaphor may not be the best. That was around 3.7 years ago when Defkalion were promising a lot but, in retrospect, lying about their data and observations.

      So, in another metaphor, how can we tell what is Gold and what is Pyrites? For LENR theories, we look for a comparison between what is predicted and what is measured. For claims of success, we look for other experimenters having done the same things and getting the same results, and also that the methods used for measurements have no loopholes for systematic errors. If we're talking about muons being produced, then really I want to see cloud-chamber analysis or similar that definitively tells us the mass, speed and charge of the particles. If we're talking neutrons then I want to see activation of, for example, Aluminium and again analysis of the particles generated as a result. A Geiger counter or neutron counter are pretty imprecise as to what particles they'll respond to, after all.

      Given our problems with getting a theory that predicts what we actually see as results (including the essential non-repeatability of the results) then maybe getting a better metaphor could be the key task in understanding the process.

  5. It's miles better to discover the solutions of those questions earlier than clearly start hunting for the proper product. you could additionally take recommendations and advices from the physicians or health experts.