Saturday, January 21, 2017



Image result for quotes buridan ass

I have to confess you what happened today. I wanted to offer you quotes about what I call "the old of still alive roots of my discontent"- I read yesterday about some meeting organized by APQC 
American Productivity & Quality Center. During my PVC years I succeeded to  get many APQC publications- e.g. the Deming-Juran-Crosby teachings about quality helping me to create a kind of technologal spirituality- Quality, productivity, Ecology, Effectveness Efficiency are sacred things for a technologist. And i have so many dear professional remembrances linked to quality as the process of discovering 
that "the quality of Quality itself is constancy" An other name for constancy is reproducibility
You know my slogan: " I think, I exist. I decide, I live. I solve problems, I live with purpose" however this time when I had to choose Mottoes re Quality I decided to be like Buridan's ass- not decisions now! and as you see I respected my decision.
Anyway I think quality has to be applied to the results of the research works too and for the case of LENR classic system as you will see below.


a) Discussion re progress, quality of research in the PdD electrolytic LENR system.

Actually this has started with my question to our scientists regarding the progress in these investigation- long term. 
How much have you progressed - as results and as understanding from your first Test to the most recent one?

I have received a fast and nice answer from Ed Storms; today Melvin Miles has answered:

My cold fusion progress began in March, 1989 with trying to find if I could observe any F-P excess heat effect.  After six months of failures, I finally observed a reproducible excess power effect using JM palladium electrodes. My next question was about observing any nuclear products or radiation.  The answer in late 1990 was that helium-4 was present in the  gas phase when excess heat was present.  I also observed fogging of X-ray film in these same experiments. Further experiments showed high Geiger-Mueller counts when Pd/D2O + LiOD experiments were running (counts up to 73 sigma) but always only normal counts (within 3 sigma) when no experiments were running.  Also, an experiment in Japan in 1997 showed "thermal spikes" tor the thermistor used in an active cell likely caused by radiation.  I did not know until later that F-P observed very large excess power effects only at cell temperatures above 60 C.  My experiments were always at cell  temperatures well below this threshold temperature,  and my largest excess power effect was about 37 %  larger than the  electrochemical power input.

A major finding was that only certain palladium materials were likely to exhibit excess power effects such as  JM palladium or NRL Pd-B.  Most palladium materials would never show any signs of excess power no matter what you tried.

I only had U.S. government funding for cold fusion from 1992 to 1995 and then again briefly (6 months) in 2010.  In fact, my reporting of cold fusion effects basically ended my career as a Navy research scientist.  My research has always been on the Pd/D2O electrochemical system. I have never found any electrochemical system that is 100 % reproducible or that showed any easy pathway to commercialization.  Anyway, this is a brief summary of my cold fusion progress.  

My answer to Melvin Miles

Thank you very much, you have nicely answered a rather 'bad' question.
I well remember meeting you at Como ICCF-2--1991.

The problem is NOT with you, you made great things with scarce funding.
But please take  a look to the results and outcome at IMRA France with Martin and Stanley working there, or now to SKINR and ENEA with funding and the results not much better than at the start or as yours.
What i try to convince people ere is that there is inherently impossible with the cradle system to obtain higher levels of excess heat, reproduciblity.
The system is the problem, not the researchers. We can add Ed Storms to this list, excellent work but limited results, and scale-up or intensification.

I am a technologist not interested in weaknesses of a system but more in where and how these weaknesses can be converted in strengths.

However Ed Storms, whom I mentioned in my above answer has given now a consistent answer:

Peter, you keep ignoring the important point people keep making. We are not at the level of technology yet. We do not know how to apply the LENR effect. Even Rossi does not know how to do this even though he is trying. We are at the scientific stage where the effort is to understand the phenomenon. We are trying to find out what causes LENR, not how to make useful energy. Useful energy will be easy to make once we understand the process.  In fact, once the process is understood, I expect none of the generator designs being explored will be used and neither Pd-D nor Ni-H will be used as the site of the NAE. 

The Pd-D system is the easiest system to study in order to obtain the required information.  Yes, the Pd system does not make as much energy as Rossi claims, assuming the Rossi claims are correct. Nevertheless, we are gradually understanding how LENR works and this understanding is being published, unlike what Ross does with the information. It would be helpful if you supported the effort to understand rather than keep complaining about how people keep focusing on the Pd-D system.  The Ni-H system might be useful some day but right now it is only a claim made by Rossi without proof or understanding and it is a distraction.  

You say you are a technologest. But you also do not have the understanding required to apply the effect. You accept what Rossi claims without having any idea what he is actually doing to make the claimed energy.  He is not telling you what you need to know because it is not in his self interest to do this, even if he actually knows what is required, which is doubtful.  Technology can not advance without basic knowledge about the process.  LENR is too complex for the process to be applied using trial and error.  We need understanding. This information can only be obtained using careful and focused research to which effective evaluation is applied.  Instead, we have people trying this or that and then arguing about what the results mean without bothering to study the extensive literature about the subject and master the basic science that applies.   We have most of the focus being applied to the physics of the process when chemical conditions actually control the mechanism.  The skeptics are not our only problem.  The basic problem lies in the field itself. I would ask you to help solve this problem. 

My answer to Ed Storms

a) I am not ignoring, I am regretting bitterly that we are not discussing- for the cradle system technology after almost 28 years.

b) What I am regretting even more and it hurts me saying it but I must, is that we well, in my opinion, never discuss technology for the cradle system. I am unhappily convinced that as it is, it is not technologizable.

c) For some linearity and order in thinking let's now ignore Rossi and even the NIH systems just now, let's see what can be done (if) for the cradle system, and what can we hope from it. As understanding of LENR first

d) You speak about the progress in understanding and this is Your theory- NAE- nanocracks-hydroton- slow  energy release the problem is that applying it what can we really understand better and then DO better? More nanocracks of optimal size and structure, how? More efficient hydrotons?  Are there serious proofs of accumulating knowledge? Your relatively recent tests were followed with much empathy-expectation and you have indeed said some interesting things as those about the role of temperature and of about the real role of Pd/D ratio. But how to use this knowledge?

e) I have told that the main problem lies in the problem itself, you say that it lies in the field itself. I say that the problem is not solvable, you seem to say that the researchers do not accept the facts- as you accept and judge them (cort recct?)
therefore the knowledge necessary for progress is wasted.
I fear that the problem has to be moved in a better place to become solvable.

f) As regarding in which extent what we will learn from the PdD electrolytic system
will be transferable to other, more technologizable systems (surely working at temperatures >400C) - the verdict is still in the future as in the case of of the Rossi vs Darden litigation. 

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

b) Other concepts from's Annual Contest

Frank Wilczek

Complementarity is the idea that there can be different ways of describing a system, each useful and internally consistent, which are mutually incompatible. It first emerged as a surprising feature of quantum theory, but I, following Niels Bohr, believe it contains wisdom that is much more widely applicable.

Understanding the importance of complementarity stimulates imagination, because it gives us license to think different. It also suggests engaged tolerance, as we try to appreciate apparently strange perspectives that other people have come up with. We can take them seriously without compromising our own understandings, scientific and otherwise

Lisa Randall

People can disagree about many deep and fundamental questions, but we are all pretty confident that when we sit on a hard wooden chair it will support us, and that when we take a breath on the surface of the Earth we will take in the oxygen we need to survive.

This notion is practical and valuable. But we should be wary since it also makes us miss things in the world—and in science. What’s obvious is what’s in our effective theory. What lies beyond might be the more fundamental truth. Sometimes it’s only a little prodding that takes us to a richer, more inclusive understanding. Getting outside our comfort zone is how science and ideas advance and what ultimately yields a richer understanding of the world.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

Has science discovered the existence of protons and proteins, neurons and neutrinos? Have we learned that particles are excitations of underlying quantum fields and that the transmission of inherited characteristics is accomplished by way of information-encoding genes? Those who answer no(as opposed to dunno) probably aren’t unsophisticated science deniers. More likely they’re sophisticated deniers of scientific realism.

What then could be more central to the scientific mindset than the questions that swirl around scientific realism, since without confronting these questions we can’t even begin to say what the scientific mindset amounts to.

1) Now discussed on E-Catworld
Announcing the Development of $20 Million+ XPrize for Abundant Clean Energy Technologies (David Niebauer)

2) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Jude Rabalais
January 20, 2017 at 6:36 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi
Is it confirmed your demo in the next couple if months?
Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 5:00 PM

Jude Rabalais:
It depends from the amount of work to make for the litigation, that in these last days has escalated enormously. The organization of a demo well done takes a lot of time and work.
Probably we will have to delay the presentation of the QuarkX after the verdict of the litigation, that is expected by July. I matured this thought today returning from Raleigh, where work for the litigation has been made.
The presentation of the QuarkX must be perfect and to make it perfect I have to work on it with maximum focus, that now I have not. I am under too much pressure. I must first win one battle, then make the next and the litigation is now.
Probably we will start in March to receive visits of experts to make together with them closed doors measurements and tests.
This is the idea I formulated today examining the situation.
Warm Regards,

Steve L.
January 20, 2017 at 12:13 AM

Dr Rossi

Is this a possibility, that Industrial Heat seems to be set up to be patent trolls.

could you comment?

Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 4:43 PM

Steve L.:
No comment about issues to be disclosed in Court. I can only say that we are convinced that there are bases for us to be very optimist, due to the evidence we have collected.
Warm Regards,


Patrick Ellul
January 20, 2017 at 11:01 PM

Dear Andrea,
What impact would a loss in the court proceedings have on you and the e-cat QuarkX?
Best regards,
Andrea Rossi
January 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM

Patrick Ellul:
It depends on many factors, but, honestly, the evidence we have collected puts us in a positive mood. I cannot say more at this point.
Warm Regards,
3) From Gregory Goble:
LENR/Electric… An interesting patent granted


5) Video signalled at Andrea Ross's JONP:
Paolo Accomazzi
Atomi Binucleari Fusione Fredda Rossi Ecat

6) Krivit continues con-fusion


Science can lead us to the fundamental questions, andsometimes, in some extent to the fundamental answers. The arch-enemy of Cold Fusion says the following:
Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

Icelandic Study Suggests That Maybe We Are Getting Dumber

Humanity Has A Massive Trust Problem, But We Can Fix It


  1. Peter, In answer to Ed's comment to you, "We are not at the technology stage yet," such is spoken from his perspective as one of the many who have anointed themselves as the "royal we". HE IS SIMPLY WRONG! He speaks accurately for that 'almost picayune' cabal which if anything over the past nearly 30 years has proven that they are most certainly NOT at the technology stage. They remain there with determination as they refuse and refute all interlopers to their rarified cabal even while feigning not to do so.

    There are two or three cold fusion modalities that are so near to the technology stage that such technology could arrive in a year or two with ordinary technology development funding. The making of 'cold fusion' into a pariah science has been done with the intent to prevent any such ordinary development funding. The demands of the 'cold fusion' 'lenr' followers that the miracle of cold fusion be accompanied by a second miracle of being able to be converted to technology for next to nothing and in full public view is of course symptomatic of those who would have us believe in angels not science and technology. The rule that governs cold fusion technology is "Good, Fast, or Cheap - choose any two!" Alas nothing but good can ever succeed which means the latter two choices reveal the path(s).

    This is clearly why the likes of Mills, Rossi, and perhaps others have chosen to stay out of the cabals zone of poisonous influence. Doing so they knowingly get on with their work taking the slings and arrows that are thrust upon them. Like all pioneers, cold fusion pioneers find more arrows in their backs than in their fronts. It is those who reside in apparent friendly territory to their rear that they suffer most from. The malicious idiots like Huizenga and Park and Morrison and their ilk of whom we all know their names are also effective in slowing progress to protect their dogma but it is easier to become psychologically immune to the arrows of such malevolent idiots than it is the arrows of "friends."

    What seems most likely from my perspective of having spent nearly 30 years at the experimental technology development bench is that many of us are very near deliverable mass technology. Some may be well advanced over others but the energy marketplace on this blue planet is very very large and most assuredly 'a rising tide will lift all boats.'

    1. Dear Russ,
      I will cite this today in the frme of; "LENR technology or not technology this is the question"

  2. I know this is not an appropriate place to submit the following but events lead me to this. "submit a post to ECW" is a little dubious of effect. Anyway I think we all ought to send recommendations to the new WH website (which has big time interest in energy) to encourage looking into Dr. Rossi's E-Cat and LENR generally. I submitted the following to the site:

    Yeah President Trump!
    New tech in energy is the solution. Get someone on the E-Cat that Doctor Andrea Rossi down in Florida is making. It already has a US Patent on this process that produces more energy out than in. It's called LENR (Low energy nano-scale/nuclear reaction) and it'll revolutionize energy for the American citizen worker/investor/patriot. If you want to kick start our greatness, as I do, then get somebody on this NOW!
    best regards
    Al S
    CMS, USAF, Ret

    From Ecat World

  3. Well Rossi has once again fulfilled my prediction of his behavior. In November I predicted that his QuarkX demo will be delayed. It is now extended until at least July. What a surprise!
    Since 2009 I have observed his 'data vacations' where he gives himself an additional six months to perform.
    This behavior often gives him time to control experiments and prevent critical analysis.

    1. Perhaps he can use the delay to release information as to what the test setup will be, and then take advice from his adoring fans regarding how to remove any perceived errors. Matters such as where any thermocouples will be placedand how they will be mounted, and where the output water from the test rig will be dumped. I hope the heated water will not be dumped down a drain hole somewhere. It would really help his case if the water was dumped in an insulated container where everyone could see the total volume of cooling water and also do simple measurements of its temperature to confirm it is roughly consistent with what is claimed. All simple stuff which you would expect to be done as a matter of course, but so far, it has not been.
      Anyway, another six months should give him lots of time to perfect the test rig by giving out a few details and then taking advice from his adoring fans. After all, the test setup is hardly part of the IP is it? It's all hundred year old technology plus.

    2. The best way to convince a jury that your system works is to prove it in public before the trial begins. Delaying proof of performance just improves the case for the defence. Put up now Rossi or face the eventual consequences. Nothing succeeds more than success. Success breeds more success.

  4. The significance of the theory that the Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde offers as an alternative to the dark matter particle idea has great import and application to the LENR paradigm.

    The basic idea behind Erik Verlinde theory is the gravity can be weakened when ambient matter in galaxies disrupts the entanglement that holds space time together. Impacting LENR, This Verlinde idea might well be extended to include the other fundamental forces.

    This ability for entanglement to affect the basic forces of nature is disruptive to the current science theories such as supersymmetry and general relativity. Science currently considers that the four fundamental forces only change in strength if substantial energy is added to those forces.

    In a nutshell, Erik Verlinde idea implies that when entanglement is added to space time, the forces of nature weaken, and when entanglement is increased, the fundamental forces are strengthened.

    The new theories of science attempting to unify general relativity to quantum mechanics develop the idea that entanglement is the basic mechanism in which space/time is built.

    “Among the enthusiasts was Van Raamsdonk, who started his sabbatical by pondering one of the central unsolved questions posed by Maldacena’s discovery: exactly how does a quantum field on the boundary produce gravity in the bulk? There had already been hints that the answer might involve some sort of relation between geometry and entanglement”.

    From the standpoint of engineering, Superconductivity/Bose condensation enforces a state of maximum entanglement and when this state of Superconductivity is disrupted, then entanglement is reduced.

    A possible consequence for LENR engineering of this idea is that the strong force can be weakened if the superconductive state inside the proton and neutron is disrupted. Most everybody knows that magnetism and superconductivity do not mix. The mechanism can disrupt this condensed state in the space/time inside the nucleon is substantive magnetism. As the experiments of Holmlid shows, when the proton falls apart, energy and sub atomic particle creation will result. The laser light excited ultra-dense hydrogen that Holmlid creates is a concentrator of highly focused atomic level anisotropic magnetism that can enter the nucleon and rip it apart.

  5. The "potassium-doped iron oxides" are not inert to hydrogen. They're the active component in the hydrogen abstraction catalysts widely used in the petrochemical industry and are capable of easily dissociating molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. Holmlid observed that these surfaces (including the inner surfaces in the pores of the material) can also easily form excited atoms (Rydberg atoms), mainly thanks to the alkali promoter that they include. If conditions are just right these excited atoms can condense into a low density, long-lived state of matter composed of Rydberg atoms, called Rydberg matter.

    Finally, in recent years he also observed that this can spontaneously further condense into a much denser form that he dubs "ultra-dense hydrogen", which has several unusual, exotic properties.

    Holmlid makes hydrogen (protium or deuterium) flow through a tube containing samples of these catalysts (in the form of pellets) and ultra-dense hydrogen comes on the other end. If disturbed, the produced material can undergo a change of state which makes nuclear reactions occur rather easily. Holmlid uses a focused laser for this.

    IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or platinum. What this metal is made of is important because that collection foil metal has a special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP), a boson that is the entangled combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra-dense hydrogen spin wave and the photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge amounts of energy that the ultra-dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence (or shelf life) of the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not recharge with more nuclear energy.

  6. I seem to remember a old LENR truism that has come down over the years which remarks about how a shock is required before the LENR reaction starts. When I first began my studies of the LENR reaction so very long ago, I may have read this in regards to the work from perhaps the most famous Japanese cold fusion researcher: Yoshiaki Arata, from Osaka University, who claimed in a demonstration to produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide. But the LENR reaction did not begin unless the cell was shocked in any number of ways.

    Also from Brian S. Ahern patent (Amplification of energetic reactions
    US 20110233061 A1)


    "Useful energy production can be obtained when deuterated/hydrated nanoparticles suspended in a dielectric medium are positioned interior to collapsing bubbles or dielectric discharges and their attendant shock waves. Highly self-focused shock waves have a sufficiently high energy density to induce a range of energetic reactions."

    This leads me to the conclusion that Ultra-dense hydrogen right out of the nanocavity is not LENR capable until it is initially charged with any variety of EMF energy. Once the SPP has been charged up and it has acquired enough magnetic power to initiate the positive feedback loop between the nucleons within it range of interaction does the LENR reaction begin. The SPP just needs a slight push to get the process going. Oftentimes a spark is enough to get the LENR reaction off the ground. But unless that energy spike is provided with enough power to get going, that UDH just sits there and waits.

    And that energy need not be provided in a onetime spike. In the famous F&P meltdown where their reactor was feed 1 watt of power over months, one day when enough charge was accumulated in those Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPPs) formed on the surface of the UDH, the LENR reaction took off with a vengeance and burned through a lab bench and then through the reinforced concrete floor in their lab rebar and all.

    We may think of the case of a pile of logs just waiting there in the fireplace waiting for the match to get their fire going, so too LENR waits for the spark that gets that energy feedback loop rolling.

  7. c program languageperiod education additionally breaks the equal dull recurring concerned with ordinary steady state workouts with the addition of a good deal greater range and depth for your work outs.

  8. Simple trick to cut your power bill up to 75% - DIY HOME ENERGY.