Sunday, January 29, 2017



Image result for outlast quotationsImage result for outlast quotations



i. Yuri Bazhutov has announced the new, no 24 All Russian Conference
On Cold Nuclear Transmutations and Ball Lightning (Sept. 17-24) -see below. So this Summer-Fall there will be two important LENR meetings; the other being 
12th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals
5-9 June 2017

Somewhere between the two meetings, will be the verdict in the Rossi Darden Trial
decisive for the fate of LENR in the coming next 10 years-  at least.

ii. The news and comments re this Trial seem to show an intensification of the battles- IH's voice says: " Rumor (from Dewey Weaver) is that Rossi provided massive discovery recently." That means his proofs.The discussion on LENR Forum is really interesting but not so much on the Trial as for the psychology and methods
of the combatants. Paraphrasing Winston Churchill:
"Never, in the field of human conflict was discussed so much, so loudly and angrily by so many who know so little about the reality of the situation" ( I forgot to add: "so (un)wisely'
The Web combined with a good dosis of self-trust and - perhaps- with a few $ can create such a possibility- the discussion is frequently quite passionate.

iii. I regret that I still do not know if the Stanford Energy Club Meeting of Jan 25 was an important event i.e. there will some follow up, a strong viable creative organization and/or movement created/started- something in the style of what I described for EDITNMH and NiHEXIT. But I will insist- still i can. 

iv. - Life long learning is fine- this morning I was informed about the Atir-Rozenzweig-Dunning Effect. (I knew Dunnung Kruger well). Please read about it and tell me if it has something to do with the situations in LENR

V. Eventually I remain convinced about the outermost importance of SYSTEM THINKING for the development of LENR. (iv. and v. at LENR IN CONTEXT-2)


Yesterday I have communicated my disappointment to Simon Derricut for inadvertently combining- in an almost causal mode of my rejection  of Ed Storms' theory with my confidence in Andrea Rossi's technology- an nonexistent correlation.
Simon justified his idea now:"

"Peter - at least I'm making you think about why. That's important, since it's too easy to forget the reasons Fleischmann started this in the first place." 
(Simon continues with his usual anti-Rossi arguments- see my Churchill style quote above- he really does not seem an IH or Rossi insider)

What is really relevant here is the "why Fleischmann and Pons have started this isssue" Surely they knew that the energy future of the Mankind is not good and nuclear energy is not the Solution (Chernobyl accident, April 26, 1986!) and Hot Fusion is stagnating while eating billions of research dollars. So their discovery-unexpected excess heat plus some nuclear ashes made them very happy. Historians (and Stanley Pons) can tell if they thought on "unknown nuclear reactions' or on "fusion"- things are complicated and cold fusion a curse hybridized with a blessing.
OK, I knew their names well and with admiration they have published inter alia a great paper about the analytical uses of the micro electrodes that i have read at the Library of the Babes-Bolyai University.
As regarding Hot Fusion its insuccess was an offense for my technological optimism  ideology- all the technological problems will be solved in a way /form ( or other sooner or later. If Hot Fusion does not work it MUST be an other solution, even better. Many seasons of discontent have followed, Cold Fusion stubbornly resisted to grow up in a technology. For the original F&P system this lasts for almost 28 years.
In 1997 at Asti I had the opportunity to discuss with Martin Fleischmann about the 
lost opportunity  of solving the problems of Cold fusion at IMRA France with good funding from Toyota and I could not resist to the idea- and if THIS does not work? 
Martin does not seemed happy or optimist, Stanley Pons has retired from the CF battlefield. However many other researchers have somewhere, somehow  "out- F&P F&P" that is continued to believe in their idea and dream. A part of these started to think that
the idea is good, however it must be accomplished in other place, with a different device, other reactants than deuterium and palladium. 
However the simplest and most rational system, NiH discovered by Piantelli at 16 Aug 1989 had also a s low grow up. Andrea Rossi has changed the situation- his system is based on catalysis at high temperature and his research approach was technological. I had the intuition- Cold Fusion, now LENR is catalytic and the problem will be solved only with the help of technology. Yes, I believe Rossi's system works and he will win the Trial with IH and in meantime other researchers will out-Rossi (out-LENR+_to be more exactly Rossi. His system is technologically rational viable and has fantastic possibilities. 
The dream of Fleischmann and Pons will outlast their device, Rossi's technology will outlast triumphantly all its enemies, detractors, potential (and impotential) killers.



Dear colleagues!
We inform you about coordination with administration of  Olympic - Dagomys Hotel of terms and the cost of accommodation of the next anual 24th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning (see attachments) during our traditional period (an early autumn season). The cost of the Registration fee and hotel accommodation in comparison with last year didn't change, and the term of carrying out conference moved for 2 weeks earlier, on the middle of September. We wait for your abstract of reports for timely introduction them in the RCCNT&BL-24 program and publications.
On behalf of  RCCNT&BL-24 Organizing Committee, 
Chairman - Bazhutov Yu.N. and 
Executive Secretary - Gerasimova A.I.
Russian Physical Society
Nuclear Society of Russia
Mendeleyev Chemical Society of Russia
Physical Department of Moscow Lomonosov State University
Russian Peoples’ Friendship State University
Committee on Ball Lightning Problems at
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Dear Colleagues,
The 24th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning (RCCNT&BL-24) is to be held during September 17–24, 2017.  The place of the Conference is Olympic (Dagomys) Hotel in the city of Sochi that is the best recreation and holiday place on the Black See shore of Russia.
The program of the Conference includes the following subjects:
·       Experimental research in Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning;
·       Theoretical models with respect to Cold Nuclear Transmutation and
      Ball-Lightning effects;
·       Applied to these problems technologies and devices.
The Organizing Committee of the Conference is pleased to invite you to attend the Conference (RCCNT&BL-24).  The terms of your participation are as follows:
The registration fee is $300/150 for Delegates / Students or Accompanying Persons, which will include visa support, conference Program & Proceedings, hotel reservation, social dinner and special excursion, must be transferred before April 30 to the account of the Organizing Committee.
If you make a decision to take part in the Conference please let us know before April 15 by E-mail sending the abstract of your report.

Hotel living cost with three daily buffet meals is ~ $300-450 (500-750) for 7 days in double (single) room (
The languages of the Conference are Russian and English.

Contact telephones: (7) (916) 627-4969 (ask Prof. Nikolay Samsonenko),
                                 (7) (499) 124-3036 (ask Prof. Vladimir Bychkov).
(7) (905) 742-7163 (for Dr. Yury Bazhutov).

Chairman of the RCCNT&BL-24 Organizing Committee Yury Bazhutov,
Vice-Chairmen Vladimir Bychkov, Nikolai Samsonenko

2) Now discussed here:


4) Bill Gates on Opportunities in Energy

5) A nasty dispute between Steve Krivit and Abd ulRahman Lomax
Critique of articles – copyright issues

6) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

January 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM

Dear Andrea,

Now that the presentation has been postponed to the late summer or early fall, could the trial outcome have any effect on its demise, format and/or content verses having it before the trial? If possible could you explain?
Thank you for your attention to all of our questions. You have been very generous in sharing this journey.
Warm regards.

Andrea Rossi
January 28, 2017 at 3:38 PM

It will be much better, because I will have total focus on it.
Warm Regards,
Bernard Koppenhofer
January 28, 2017 at 4:01 AM

Dr Rossi: What feed back are you getting from the company you sold three reactors to after the year long test? Thanks for answering our questions.
Andrea Rossi
January 28, 2017 at 3:38 PM

Bernard Koppenhofer:
None yet.
Warm Regards,

January 29, 2017 at 8:31 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi
All the papers deposited in Court recently are very difficult to be understood: can you explain what is going on?
Andrea Rossi
January 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM

I strongly suggest not to lose time reading documents produced in this preliminar period, because it is like to understand a big painting observing one square centimeter of it here and there across the canvas, abstract from the global context that gives the meaning to every particular. What is really going on and the related situation will be understandable only at the end of the trial. Persons talking of it now are just displacing air with their tongues.
Warm Regards,

A rule for LENR

Nuclear energy transfer from a nucleus to a Bose condensate quasiparticle ensemble member(BCQEM) happens without radiation because its energy storage capacity is large enough to hold enough energy to reach the meson creation level without an EMF overflow. The BCQEM acts like a big energy holding tank. When the BCQEM does overflow, the BCQEM produces mesons through Hadronization. The BCQEM is a BEC of SPPs. The BEC lives on the surface of the UDH.

When the quasiparticle is not a member of a Bose condensate, it releases stored nuclear energy less than or equal to 300,000 electron volts. This is a single SPP.

Energy transfer from the nucleus to the individual or collective SPP is via entanglement. The SPP becomes the same particle as the nucleus and shares energy.

Holmlid states: 


"More recently, another form of Rydberg matter has been detected and studied, where the electron orbital angular momentum l is zero. The Rydberg matter structure is in this case instead given by the spin angular momentum s > 0. This quantum number was identified experimentally to have values s = 1, 2 or 3, giving an interatomic distance of only 0.57 pm in level s = 1.3This type of matter is usually called ultra-dense hydrogen with notation as H(0) for simplicity, with most studies concerned with the level s = 2 with experimental H-H bond distance of 2.3 ± 0.1 pm."

In UDH, the electrons form a stationary spin wave on the surface of the UDH, the electrons sit still and don't orbit (electron orbital angular momentum l is zero). In this state, electrons will become entangled with photons and become SPPs. All the SPPs become entangled and form a BEC. Thus the UDH effectively produces a huge SPP with huge energy storage capacity. This SPP is quasi stable and continually releases energy as mesons when its meson energy limit is reached.

In a non BEC state, single SPPs on nanowire have a small energy storage capacity and will release stored energy as XUV light when they decay. (10 to 100 picoseconds) 


Nordic countries are bringing about an energy transition worth copying
Date:January 27, 2017
Source:University of Sussex
Summary:What can we learn from the Nordic low-carbon energy transition given the new US leadership vacuum on climate change? A new study offers some important lessons.

Steven Krivit against Hot Fusion
Unfulfilled Fusion Promise – Cartoon From 1975



  2. Post 1 of 2

    The question comes down to “who can you believe”? The proper theory that describes LENR seems to be balanced on a single point. That point being the proper characterization of the true exotic form of hydrogen that drives the LENR reaction.

    There are a number of theories out there about exotic hydrogen espoused by leading LENR theorists including Ed Storms, Piantelli, George Miley, and Leif Holmlid among others; how to choose: who to accept? Which idea is the true cornerstone upon which to build a proper LENR theory?

    It only takes one unanswered question to kill a false theory. I discount Piantelli’s negative ion hydrogen theory because it cannot explain why mixing hydrogen isotopes kills the LENR reaction. A LENR theory must explain why a pure hydrogen isotope must be used to support the LENR reaction. This theory also does not explain why gamma rays are not produced by the purported fusion reaction catalyzed by the negative hydrogen ions.

    Ed storms has looked at hundreds of LENR experiments and found that cracks in the lattice were almost always a factor in an active LENR reaction. Ed then concluded that something happens to hydrogen in those cracks to fire up the LENR reaction. Through Imagineering, Ed came up with an imaginative hydrogen behavior mechanism that supports the fusion of hydrogen. In Ed’s theory, the crack pushes the hydrogen close enough together through compression so that the deuterium will eventually fuse. The hydrogen must be deuterium because protium fusion is too ethereal to support the high rates of fusion required to generate huge amounts of power needed to be detectable in a vigorous LENR reaction.

    Deuterium is a boson that can be forced together to occupy the same space whereas protium is a fermion that cannot occupy the same space as defined by the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This is the root of why Ed and many other deuterium fusion proponents do not accept the nickel hydrogen reaction even though Rossi has shown that such protium based LENR reactions may work. In addition to the theoretical flaws that Piantelli suffers in his theory, Ed’s suffers even more contradictions that we will get more into below.

    The Miley/Holmlid idea is essentially the same thing which comes from the fact that they both participated in a joint multiyear experimental program that both have cooperated in and drawn theoretical inspiration from.

    Holmlid’s theory of Ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) contains enough quantum mechanical complexity to really explain many of the mysteries that LENR demonstrates. The quantum mechanical nature of the Holmlid UDH theory is what I like.

    IMHO, when all is said and done, there are just two authoritative sources the describe UDH that one can go to that have advanced this UDH characterization. How UHD behaves in those cracks and tubercles tells the tale about how LENR acts.

    The two sources are Leif Holmlid and Ed Storms. They both have a story to tell about how UDH works. How can one tell whose story is the correct one? I have made my choice; I like Holmlid’s explanation of UHD; yes, I am a disciple of the Holmlid flavor of science.

    Holmlid has spent decades of research coming up with a layout for the structure of UHD. But it is not just Holmlid; there are scores of others in the field of high pressure physics who have been working alongside Holmlid. In addition, Holmlid’s theory is based on the superconductor model put forward in a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch. Beside Hirsch, there are a score of other contributors to this model of type II superconductivity who have developed a vibrant school of theory.

  3. Post 2 of 2

    It is this superconductivity that opens the door to so many answers to the perplexing nature of the LENR reaction. Bose condensation explains why no gamma rays are seen in LENR; why light feeds the LENR reaction, why mesons are produced by LENR, why a mixing of isotopes kill the reaction, why lithium can replace hydrogen inside the cracks and still produce the LENR reaction, why LENR produces neutrons when the NAE is compressed via explosion, how life after death can persist for hours after all stimulation is terminated, how both light and electrons can be produced by LENR, how all radioactive isotopes are stabilized through the LENR reaction, why no neutrons are produced in the LENR reaction, how LENR can catalyze fission of heavy elements, how LENR can exist in a plasma, how LENR can support nuclear reactions at a distance away from the crack…how Rossi’s Cat/Mouse reaction works, and how isotopes of any type of element can shift, not just helium.

    The theory that Ed Storms has come up with is inspired by billiard ball thinking, not proper thinking informed by quantum mechanics. If we want to know how LENR can do erstwhile unexplainable things and more, we need to understand how UDH works through it structure and how quantum mechanics uses this weird and unearthly structure fathered by the Meissner effect to do miracles.

    1. "The theory that Ed Storms has come up with is inspired by billiard ball thinking, not proper thinking informed by quantum mechanics."

      I judge this remark unfair.

      Edmund Storms is promoting the key idea that hydroton is a collective object, and that the way energy is dissipated is coherent (he refers to X-rayx laser)...

      Of course he does not propose an hamiltonian to explain all, but at least unlike most theory I hear it is not just billard ball with few bodies.

      The problems as I understand it is that this point is simply not understood.

      I've never seen someone answer multi-body when I talk of this vision...

      Most of the theorist focus on breaking the coulomb barrier and not on dissipating the energy, which is much more challenging.
      and worst of all, most consider classical trajectories, and few body interactions.

      I will again repeat in the desert what I inderstand of hydroton...
      In fact hydroton is just a proposal, and key conclusion of Ed is NAE.

      NAE is a structure containing a object, made of many bodies (hydrogen probably), which is insulated from chemical environment.

      This object contains much potential energy caused by the separation of deuterium nucleus, waiting to be fused, only blocked usually by coulomb barrier and quantum effects (spin, momentum conservation).

      Since it is quite insulated, but have much potential energy to release, like a radioactive nucleus, an excited nuclear-isomer, or an excited atom

      it dissipates through coherent X-rays, or coherent charged particle kinetic energy, the energy accumulated.
      The mild energy quanta show that the NAE have many energy states, separated by keV transition.
      The mechanism, the states, the transitions, is still unknown, but it cannot be else some collective effects involving the many bodies.
      The LENR secret is how the NAE quantum structure allows this energy leaking, usually well contained into the coulombian usually tight-proof bunker. the bunker is leaking ? this is probably something like resonance, interference, which make hole in the barrier.
      It is not anti-tank attack like most hot-fusion inspired theories were saying. it is allowing holes in the barrier, not breaking it with energy.

      Naively I see those quantum transitions probably as quantum permutations , hidden in a schoedinger-cat box.

      At one moment the NAE-protecte object state is a classical state with DD fused into He4 (Ed says as d-e-d fusion).

      Maybe the NAE is not a 1D hydroton but something else, but it is insulated and manybody (2D plane of H in twin crystal?).

      One possibility linked to this theory is if coherent X-rays are emitted. Is it possible to make those LASER X-rays interfere and detect a pattern ?
      The energy seems variable, so I'm afraid no... and making X-rays interfere is hard ?

      For the hypothesis of the kinetic energy of charged particles, ed propose to test for a current... and thus a magnetic field...

      I remember the 80GHz RF experiment of ENEA, which may be interesting to connect...

    2. Good comment, Alain. The precise energy levels and resonances do seem to be important, and the specific size and shape of a crack will affect those. There's however no obvious reason why Pd/D and Ni/H should use the same mechanism, other than conservation of miracles. The idea of a 2D Hydroton (or maybe 3D) could be useful.

      Peter - no I'm not aligned with either Rossi or IH, but simply looking at the evidence presented. Where the evidence hangs together and mutually supports itself, I'll cautiously accept it, but where 1MW or so disappears without leaving a physical trace of where it went I can't accept that. Still, I've stressed that point in the past and it remains unanswered. Until there is an explanation that is logically consistent I'll hold my position that the Doral test did not produce the claimed power.

      My opinions are always subject to change when there's new data. Should Rossi's customers release data on their purchases of the 1MW reactors, there will be a re-assessment. Similarly if any of the previous incarnations of Rossi's devices are shown to be in use and working to specifications. Currently, there seems to be no evidence of such, even though it should be easy to produce and would aid Rossi's case.

      Nuclear power stations have in the past been valued for their products rather than just the power they produce. If we instead built reactors that burnt all the fuel rather than around 3% (molten salt types) then the meltdown problem and the waste problem would both be addressed. Of course, that would also mean that the nuclear products would be unsuitable for making bombs. I'd consider that a good trade. People are also looking at alternative methods of gaining the fission energy with small units, and ditto for small-scale hot fusion. LENR would be nice, but within a decade I expect several alternatives that will be as cheap and for the most part almost as safe, with some being safer. Though it would be nice if Rossi was telling the truth, therefore, we will advance anyway.

    3. Both Alain Coetmeur and Ed Storms are under the misconception that fusion is the primary LENR reaction. This assumption is false. In his latest paper, Leif Holmlid proves that LENR is not the source of energy in the LENR reaction. This LENR energy comes from the breakup of two protons. The primary assumption that Ed Storms uses to frame his theory is wrong. The penetration of the Coulomb barrier is wrong.

      Fusion might happen in LENR because of all the pions and muons produced by proton breakup.

      This revelation is described here below:

      Published (Jan 12, 2017) on --

      "Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)" - Leif Holmlid

      Holmlid Quote:

      "The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found with this assumption [21–23] is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and protons with 14.7 MeV [57]. The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14]. Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments. Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities. Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4, 6 and 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than ordinary fusion."

      Sorry my good fellows; forget fusion. Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of fusion as the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words, LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons. Kaon production points to a amplified weak force decay process working to decay protons and neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga electron volts per reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted to mesons. There is a huge amount of energy consumed in meson production, and a trifling amount to heat.



  4. Re: point 6. above;
    quote "Bernard Koppenhofer
    January 28, 2017 at 4:01 AM

    Dr Rossi: What feed back are you getting from the company you sold three reactors to after the year long test? Thanks for answering our questions.
    Andrea Rossi
    January 28, 2017 at 3:38 PM

    Bernard Koppenhofer:
    None yet.
    Warm Regards,

    You would really expect some sort of feedback on such a novel new energy source wouldn't you? Well I would, and if I didn't get any I would call in and ask for it.
    However, the reply makes perfect sense if nothing has been delivered. That would make the reply all very logical, truthful and believable so I will take that as the explanation. Otherwise it means Mr Rossi manufactured, tested, delivered and installed 3 X 1 Megawatt plants without so much as a word to his adoring fans at any point in the process other than the announcement of the sale.
    I think that would make them very similar to the 13 plants supposedly delivered to the secret military customer.
    I don't think he got any feedback on those either.

  5. Хорошее продолжение, надо приехать....

    1. spasivo a ia nie ponimaiu tochno chto ty hocish skazati, moi drug.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.