Peter Gluck on the Differences Between LENR and LENR+

Romanian technologist, chemical engineer and publisher of the Ego Out website, Peter Gluck, is a long-time supporter of cold fusion/LENR, and more recently of what he often refers to as LENR+ — the new generation of high-energy output LENR which has been pioneered by Andrea Rossi.

Gluck has recently published a post on his site in which he responds to, and comments on Edmund Storms’ recent book, The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. He praises Storms’ facts and style in the book, while at the same time criticizing his theoretical position. Here is a key excerpt from the post:

“Ed’s theory does not show the difference between classic LENR and enhanced excess heat as obtained by Rossi and DGT. It is about going from tens of Watts to kWatts, can this be hundred times more good cracks or is it something more fundamental and more smart?

“My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites (Ed calls them NAE [Nuclear Active Environments], but I disagree — see here. Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continuous generation of new active sites — it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear; the trick is to have many of these doing their task — a sequence of processes and reactions. The constructive side of the high temperature must be added to its destructive effect and this is the clue of the LENR+’s exceptionality and progress. This is something more sophisticated than crack management.

“The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes and the generation of active sites can begin. In my opinion the active sites are at the very surface of a specific metal or alloy. I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago; see please my Surfdyn paper.

“I hope that the coming LENR+ crucial events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to practice and, simultaneously to theories.”

I think Gluck’s point about the vast difference between LENR and LENR+ is well taken. In classic LENR there has always been a struggle to first to achieve any effect at all, and when it does occur to control it or ramp it up power levels that are usable. What Andrea Rossi has done is to somehow find a way to consistently achieve a reaction at much higher power levels — and there has to be some major underlying difference in the mechanisms at work.

The idea of a ‘dynamic equilibrium’ where NEA sites are simultaneously created and destroyed is an interesting one — and it will be interesting to see if anything that is eventually revealed by Rossi matches Gluck’s hypothesis here.

  • Gerard McEk

    I think you are right. See also my answer to George. Ten Haaf was able to show that people could communicate with each other separated and at distance in a not very clear way, but well above on what one could expect on the statistics. Some people (mediums) were significantly better than others (non mediums).

  • peter gluck

    This has to be seen, complexity is of many kinds.
    Peter

  • Gerard McEk

    Peter, I enjoy the discussions below. It reminds me at the times of Einstein when he and many other other scientist discussed the consequences of the Quantum theory emerging, where I read about. Still I believe we do not understand matter. Why does an rotating electron not lose energy? Is Bohr’s model is not fully right? Anyway, P&F did have extreme heat development in a solid peace of palladium, a runaway effect explosion. I guess that (Rossi’s idea of using?) nano Nickel particles is a major step in a stable LENR+. The use of small particles avoids that these NAE limitless expand through a large peace of material, forced by the nano explosions of transmutation and leading to runaway. At the same time enhance the nano particles the probability of NAE and the relatively quick full loading of hydrogen into nickel. Do you believe that other materials like lithium is being used to increase the probability of LENR?
    In contrast to Rossi’s temperature controlled E-Cat, I see much more advantage to electrically controlled devices of Brillouin and the Hyperion device (if that works). At the same time that seems a different way to start a LENR process, leading to the conclusion that electric, magnetic, mechanical force and temperature are all parameters influencing LENR and that much research is needed to understand LENR fully.

    • peter gluck

      Dear Gerard,

      I hope you will enjoy such discussions even more if you will gain power from accepting reality (quotation from what I have published today, becoming aware of the VUCA status
      of LENR and considering my Problem Solving rule 5. .NOT what we know, but what we don‟t know is more important for solving the problem.

      The correlation between nano-structures and LENR is awfully complex, please include Piantelli in your lectures.

      peter

      • georgehants

        Peter, I mentioned the other day that a little problem known as the Ultraviolet Catastrophe led to the discovery of the Quantum reality.
        Much of science tries to make things fit the theory and not see the that the slightest inconsistency is the Jewel that a Real scientist is praying for.
        Well done Mr. Plank

        • peter gluck

          True. However please consider that when we go to applications,
          we want to put quantum world to make our existence, life better,
          we hsve to learn that technology is more than just applied science
          there great differences in technologies for information, energy and matter
          would you be so kind to read “technology, mon amour” or my FQXI essay

          It is a high art of using analogies, historical examples and correct associations. LENR is quite unique- i think it has appeared much too early
          and in the worst place possible.- the story of the wicked fairy godmother.

          When the problem will be solved we will be able to state that it could not been worse a cradle like a coffin
          peter

          • georgehants

            Peter if in essence you are saying the Quantum is where all our Future knowledge will be found, I could not agree more.
            Now add the Real science of the ridiculously called Paranormal and one great scientist said —-
            “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make
            more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its
            existence.”


            Nikola Tesla

            • peter gluck

              dear George ( I have a paranormal trend to call you Gyuri),

              Personal opinion about the quote;
              a) I have zero talent for post-logical thinking and i consider that the
              dirtiest F-word in English is “fan”,
              b) Tesla was a victim of the merciless second Law of Carlo Cipolla

              peter

              • georgehants

                Peter after a little Research by myself please —–
                Give a link for “Gyuri”, as all I can find is a reference to a South Korean pop group.
                Being totally unaware of the “second Law of Carlo Cipolla” it seems to say that people are born unequal, I would agree but miss the connection to Tesla.
                —-
                Please give a answer to if you would consider “non-physical phenomena” as important in the science of this World.
                Best

                • peter gluck

                  Gyuri is Georgie in Hungarian (diminutive from Gyorgy)- I have a cousin Gyuri.

                  see http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

                  even a genius can be stupid sometimes, I have some experience with
                  Nobelists

                  sincerely, I don’t care much for non-physical phenomena in science.
                  They are outside science.
                  I have limits.
                  Peter

                • georgehants

                  Many thanks, I wish you the best of Luck in your future work with Cold Fusion, as I am a Fan of everybody who has an open-mind on that subject.
                  Best wishes
                  George

                • peter gluck

                  Thank you, I think the problem has to be solved and it will be
                  -with new ideas
                  peter

                • bachcole

                  If one of the unexamined assumptions of science is materiality or physicality, that only physical things are real, then, absolutely, non-physical phenomena are outside of science. But the unexamined life is not worth living and unexamined science is very limiting. I prefer not to be limited.

            • Gerard McEk

              George, do I read it right here that you think science should also investigate non-physical phenomena the Paranormal?

              • georgehants

                Gerard, I think Science is the study and open-minded investigation of all phenomenon of the Natural World.
                I believe that any attempt to exclude or deny any area, such as Cold Fusion, Telepathy etc. against the proven Evidence, is clearly incompetent to the extreme.

                • Gerard McEk

                  About 50 years ago Prof. ten Haaf in the Netherlands had an official sub faculty ‘Parapsychology’. He investigated in a scientific way especially telepathy and found remarkable results, but was never able to reproduce results consistently. I read several books of his tests with media and non-media. His faculty was closed because Parapsychology wasn’t considered a ‘serious science’. Sounds similar to LENR doesn’t it?

                • georgehants

                  Gerard, many of these subjects are like Cold Fusion, difficult to study, being transitory and unreliable in effect.
                  There is of course a mass of modern Evidence that makes the subject beyond reasonable doubt.
                  Interesting that the CIA have awarded a medal to one of their remote viewers for services rendered to America.
                  http://www.trvnews.com/tmn/062503/truehistory.html

            • jousterusa

              Quantum mechanics w2ill never yield certainty because, unlike Maxwellian mathematics, it cannot provide exact solutions. This is where I believe Mills wil have his greatest influence in the future. However, I am not qualified to argue this further.

              • georgehants

                If as according to known knowledge, the Quantum World is uncertain then clearly “uncertainty” is the reality that we must learn to live with.

      • Gerard McEk

        Peter, after having read you VUCA story I agree with you: Dum spiro, spero. I hope the prove of the pudding comes fast and within my life. I am sure it will not come from the academic world, but from the of experimentalists like Rossi. Still the real foundation was made by you, Piantelli, Pons and Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Miley Ahern and many others who actively researched, supported and promoted CF: The Real Scientists!

        • peter gluck

          Dear Gerard,

          I just have tried to understand, to make a synthesis- I knew the real heroes. I have 3 wrings “my cold fusion history” on my blog and an unpublished document Ordeal about my awakening with the help of Piantelli, Rossi and Hadjichristos.
          When you think about the really important scientists, please do not forget
          Patterson and Case.
          In my publication of today, i have tried to apply the principles of management to the wicked problem of LENR- than CF.

          My idea regarding the poisoning hypothesis of LENR- only surfaces free
          of any gas being not hydrogen or deuterium cannot work was unfortunately rejected by the classic LENR scientists as Storms but demonstarted by Piantelli and DGT. The curse of irreproducibility
          makes LENR science a mess and LENR technology an impossibility
          Peter

          • peter gluck

            excus writings not wrings

          • Gerard McEk

            Dear Peter,
            Thanks for your kind answers. I hope you will be proven to be wrong with regards to the problems to reproduce LENR and the resulting impossibility of using the technology. At least Rossi does less frequently encounter difficulties to reproduce LENR in his E-cats.
            I do not know Patterson and Case in relation to LENR; I will Google on them.
            Gerard

            • peter gluck

              Dear Gerard,
              I also hope that the reproducibility problem will be solved- I say it is quasi-impossible for the classic wet electrochemistry PdD.systems.
              About James Patterson and Les Case the best is to start at lenr-canr.org
              but you can search in my blog too. You could also buy Ed Storms new book
              it is excellent, my problems is only with his new theory.
              peter

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Piantelli sees copper being created in his hydrogen nickel system.
          https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1
          It will be interesting to see in the final E-Cat report if transmutations are taking place. Although they are both hydrogen nickel systems perhaps the mechanisms will turn out to be completely different.

    • jousterusa

      In Mills’ theory, the rotating electron doesn’t so much lose power as transfer it. He has a rather interesting riff on that in his latest video, about 45 minutes in. He says that this transfer, with the electron moving approximately 75% closer to the proton, enables the lower state of hydrogen called hydrino. Ultimately, the electron recovers that transferred energy.

      • Gerard McEk

        I agree in principle with Mills’ idea that if it would be possible to move the electron to a lower orbit, energy will be released. Whether or not that is possible is another thing, I guess not according the quantum mechanical laws.
        The issue I was referring to is the fact that according to the classic electromechanical laws the electron should emit light, while rotating around the core and so lose energy. Quantum mechanics seems to solve this and also if the electron is assumed to be a wave. I believe it has never been explained why that must be done if the electron orbits the atom. I have seen interesting theories where the electron is rotating in a 8 shaped orbit by which ‘no loss of energy’ can be explained, but this requires a total new view on matter….

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        That’s strange: how does an electron “recover” its orbit? Were does the energy come from that enables the electron to reestablish its orbit?

  • timycelyn

    A little more information about the current 1Mw device that Rossi is fine tuning. Some basic performance requirements from his blog:

    “Andrea Rossi
    July 29th, 2014 at 4:44 PM
    DTravchenko:
    The plant has to work 24 hours/ day for 350 days/year, producing 1 MWh/h of heat in the form of steam.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    DTravchenko
    July 29th, 2014 at 2:01 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Another question: the 1 MW plant that is going in operation in the factory of a US customer how many hours per year will work?
    Warm Regards,
    D.T.

  • Foks0904 .

    Peter is a very intelligent man, who along with Ed, predicted the idea of active topologies long before anyone else “got it”. He is a credit to the community. With that said, I will say that I think his distinction between LENR and LENR+ is a false dichotomy. Just my opinion. We have no idea what the mechanism of NiH is. Peter think it’s “nano-plasmonic”, but that is based largely on the work of DGT, work that is still in the realm of “highly speculative” to say the very least. We have no reliable ash data to confirm or disconfirm anything really. Atleast in PdD we have heat/helium — that is linchpin of any theory. Unless we know the products we’re idling time really. It’s all speculation and people want to draw battle lines. I think this is a mistake. Can’t wait to see what the ELFORSK evaluations of Rossi’s ash have to say. They will be critical.

    • Ophelia Rump

      There was that evaluation which showed no change in in the ash.

      • Foks0904 .

        I think that was done by the Swedes right? That’s when the reactor broke down halfway through. The reaction never reached full ignition. There was no reaction, thus no potential ash of any substance. That was the conclusion of all involved — if we’re thinking about the same thing.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Thank you for clearing that up, I thought it was a strange result.

          • Foks0904 .

            Yup, no problem.

      • LuFong

        A prior paper showed transmutation. A followup paper showed that the ratio of Ni isotopes did not change.

    • peter gluck

      Dear Foks,

      You are really too kind… i owe more to my excellent memory. For intelligence i recommend
      to all LENR-ists the use of the following definition by a Romanian philosopher, Mihail Ralea:

      “To be intelligent means to NOT mix (confuse) the points of view”

      it is awfully difficult to be intelligent in this sense, in LENR especially! Re theories it is almsot impossible.

      Re active sites in CF it happens i have a passion for catalysis, including human catalysts
      and for he sake of historical truth only, because the idea was so obvious and natural-
      it is my priority

      Ed has huge merits, he and Chino Srinivasan have written the first CF reviews and he
      continued writing the best ones till today, and had fine achievements in CF experiments.
      He is the most knowledgeable in the Field.
      See please an extract from my paper: “Why Technology First” from 1995- it has some naiveties but it is relevant for not “going along”:

      Occam’s Razor

      The systems are very diversified, and it seems that what they have in common is the
      inhibition of the positive effects and the immediateness of the negative effects; excess heat generation can be triggered with great difficulty but can be easily interrupted. It
      is obvious that the cold fusion effect is based on some entities which are very difficult
      to breed, but easy to destroy. In other words, they are hypersensitive and
      determine a chaotic behavior of the systems if these are in a suboptimal condition.
      However there are striking differences regarding the practical means of
      managing the different CF systems. Storms calls the entities’ a Special
      Condition of Matter (SCM) and states that this condition can appear in
      different chemical environments. He states: “ The challenge for a theoretician
      is to find what these SCM’s have in common.”

      In my opinion all the CF systems described are based on methods of activation: electro-chemical, ultrasonic, and others specific for gas/solid interfaces, that is, on creation of catalytic active sites.

      As seen from the practice, both in the chemical industry and in case of cold fusion,
      this isn’t an easy job. Working by cavitation, the process is quite powerful
      and unperturbed, in contrast with the “classical”Fleischmann-Pons cell where
      the active centers are created long after all diffusional processes have attained a state of equilibrium.
      This suggests another criterion, yet not well defined, for ordering the CF
      systems from the most tough and efficient to the most sluggish and delicate.
      Catalysis is inherently economical given the processes are very localized
      and only an extremely small fraction of the matter has to be in the productive “Special Condition.’ And this condition isn’t bound to a special composition but
      it is actually a quantum state determined by the topology and the dynamics of
      the atoms placed in the active sites. For this reason, I am using the name
      “surfdyn concept” for my working hypothesis. Quantum confinement, quantum
      corrals, and quantum cavities are the probable scene for the unexpected
      processes. (I don’t like the wording “anomalous,” the anomalous of today is the
      trivial of tomorrow.)

      Please look to plasmons now, still in the very context of VUCA-iness pf LENR
      Peter

      • georgehants

        Peter, I would agree that many people who believe they are intelligent simply have a good memory that assists them to pass exams etc.
        They are dwarfed by the only True geniuses, that science tries to hide, the Savants, especially those that develop extraordinary intelligence after an accident or even spontaneously.
        Many people hide their fear of these Wonderful people by just looking at their disabilities in other areas and like Cold Fusion dismiss this Miracle.
        I would disagree in concentrating on one subject as that in effect means linear thinking that would not allow for the mixing of information from one theory with that of another.
        Too much of science is faulty because people in one area are unaware of Facts from another.
        Bring on the Polymath.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Peter, excuse me for asking this question when I have only read page one chapter one of plasmonics, but If I understand the concept at all the electronic fluid must be disturbed to produce a differential. If you are suggesting that LENR is harnessing a plasmonic differential, what is ringing the bell?

  • Hope4DBest

    I don’t know if this is related to LENR, but just in case:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28543990

  • Man

    DGT has nothing of functioning as proved by this final Report written by Luca Gamberale CTO of DGT Europe:
    http://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dgt-faulty-demo-140502-english.pdf

    Franco Cappiello (CEO of DGT EU) also said [Google translation]:
    “I would say that we could talk about bad faith. We can talk about activities that will surely have legal aftermath, in the courts of the countries where Defkalion Green Technology has operated”

    Absolutely clear.

    • peter gluck

      and false- just FYI. Read again the Gamberale report and then go to the July 23 demo for ICCF-18 video ( 9 hours long) as presented by Yiannis Hadjichristos and then decide if this for real or is kind of rhapsody for two valves and one flowmeter. Can you make a test with a similar flowmeter.
      The results of the Demo have logical consistency- see the Protocol I have published two days before the demo.
      Peter

  • peter gluck

    No, it was not a cheat- you will see. but we cannot solve this hic et nunc just by discussions.
    peter

    • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

      We all know the history of F&P and we don’t want it to repeat.

      It a situation where word stands against word it makes sense to make an investigation before making a verdict. Especially considered what it on stake.

      The accusation against Defkalion is very well defined.
      Not be very hard to address during tests.

  • Man

    “Ed’s theory does not show the difference between classic LENR and enhanced excess heat as obtained by Rossi and DGT.”
    Obtained also by DGT? What?
    Did you not still understood that it was a cheat?

    • Bernie777

      The quote below is from the 11/29/2011 article in Ny Teknik
      written by Mats Lewan. This proves to me whatever Defkalion has it was stolen from
      Rossi. The above article quotes Alexandros Xanthoulis, President of
      Defkalion:

      “- Let’s say I have Rossi’s formula, but I do not say it officially. My scientists have found a way to accomplish it. They need three months. I know what is in the reactor. I know
      everything. It was done with spectroscopy at Siena University of Padova (…)
      They tested the reactor without [Rossi] knew what they were doing, he
      continued.”

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yes, he claimed more boldly somewhere to have outright stolen Rossi’s secret.

        I think Rossi saw it coming, and left some tainted cheese for the rat.
        The trap was empty and Rossi parted company.

        Defkalion’s digestion has not been the same since then. They seem to be staggering.

        • peter gluck

          Dear Ophelia
          you remind me my good friend Mary Yugo, she is for sure a 1st class specialist in calorimetry.
          yu will see that DGT has not stolen the technology but has create a new one. i bet.
          Peter

          • Ophelia Rump

            I only know that they have claimed to have stolen the catalyst.
            This is enough for me. What they have I neither know nor care.

            When you shake hands with these gentlemen, count your rings afterward.

      • peter gluck

        Their method is different, I have 17 papers about it on my blog. When Rosi will go commercil and DGT will go commercil you wil staart to learn about the difference.
        peter

        • Christopher Calder

          Right. Defkalion is a good company with new and original technology that they themselves created.

        • Hope4DBest

          Mr. Gluck, to say that “DGT will go commercial” when their website has been suspended for lack of payment shows some serious wishful thinking.

        • Bernie777

          I remember a friend telling me the same about Richard Nixon, “you will see history will exonerate him”. Not.

    • Hope4DBest

      Amen!

  • Ophelia Rump

    It is refreshing to see someone treat these things as dynamic rather than static systems.

    I expect that the more one envisions the dynamics of the system the more insight can be had into what variables are at play.

    Perhaps the real action lies just beneath the surface. There has been much attention to the delivery of the correct component to the correct site. What makes a site prepared? What are the variables?

    We know that the reactions can be violent and tumultuous. We know the metal heats and it cools. We could speculate that once delivered to the site the hydrogen might become trapped. Would cooling condense the site around the trapped hydrogen squeezing it into a tiny prison?

    I wonder what performance might be gotten from nickel which was liquified and then hardened inside a high pressure pure hydrogen gas environment. Could it be saturated with reaction sites to a new level? I suppose it might be a matter of how many atoms of hydrogen can fit in the interstices.

    • bitplayer

      Good point on chemists. The intersection of the sciences and scientists is a little mind-boggling though. “Nuclear reactions in THIS corner. Chemical reactions in THAT corner”.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Boggling indeed! I think that if there is an ultimate understanding of the structure, it will come from chemists, not physicists. It is their playground. It comes down to experience visualizing systems and dynamics in my opinion. I would like to think the Vegas odds makers would back the chemists. They have experience engineering complex chemical structures, respect is knowing when to step back and get out of the way.

        • peter gluck

          not Shakespeare: “Ophelia, go to..nanoplasmonics!” it is a place for the NEW!
          Peter

          • Ophelia Rump

            Get thee to a nanoplasmonistery!

          • bitplayer

            http://phys.org/news/2014-01-nanoplasmonics-efficient-harvesting.html

            “In plasmonics, metallic structures with sharp corners can trap light into nanometric volumes, thus giving rise to strong near-field enhancements.”

            Ouch! Just after I stocked up on styrofoam spheres and wooden dowels!

            • Ophelia Rump

              This is a delightful subject. I found a nice introduction to the concept of plasmons here.

              http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-plasmon.html

              • bitplayer

                Thanks Ophelia, nice article. Though I fear (or alternatively, delight) that it causes me to suspect plasmons of being in places that scientists might not look, as a basis for ephemeral phenomena of many types.

            • Fortyniner

              You’ll be all right if you add some different coloured Christmas tree lights to the kit …

      • peter gluck

        right! you will see it is even more complicated
        peter

  • Christopher Calder

    The Solar Hydrogen Trends reactor is claimed to break water into hydrogen gas at very low temperatures, thus avoiding the damaging effects of high temperatures. Is that LENR plus X? Separating the heat reaction (when your burn the hydrogen gas to make energy) from the LENR reaction (when you break the water into H2 gas) has tremendous advantages if you can really do it.

  • georgehants

    It is to me very sad that so many more technically capable scientists find themselves through reasons of fear or incompetence, to not be able to join this historic endeavour with Cold Fusion and many other equally denied subjects.

    • peter gluck

      Dear George. please read my paper “message from the right side of the Medawar Zone’ easy to find, it shows how research subjects are chosen
      peter

      • georgehants

        Peter, it is good to have just a few True scientists willing to speak the Truth.
        As with most of society, science is led into terrible errors of thinking by those with the most to gain from the deceit and corruption.
        Most people unfortunate seem to have an inbuilt fear of looking clearly and with good sense at anything that goes against authority or mass thinking, a remnant from a survival process, I suppose.
        ONE DAY if more people begin to look for just Truth and Caring and Welfare for all and not just themselves then perhaps science and all of society will change for the better.
        Best

  • bitplayer

    Following the rule that the obvious is not obvious until it’s obvious, the possibility of dynamic reaction sites adds a new dimension to the debate on how it works, and suggests why LENR is tricky to initiate and why LENR+ may take multiple forms. Very cool!

    • peter gluck

      thank you, well said
      peter

  • peter gluck

    Thanks, Frank, however I am not physicist- but chemical engineer as studies and career and a technologist as thinking- see the blog Ego Out.
    Peter

    • BroKeeper

      Peter, I want to express my gratitude to you as well as Frank and others for contributing to the welfare of humanities future by providing not only current informative technological and insightful LENR/alternative energy articles but also applying competitive pressure between the established known LENR groups. Rossi recently acknowledged the implications these external force has expedited further driving force for the ultimate prize for them and for humanity.

      This is certainly not a subject one should lightly observe when millions-billions of lives are affected. I personally am interested in providing this new technology to provide needed energy and clean water to remote desperate third world areas. Many excellent responses from very knowledgeable commenters and commentators within these blogs and JoNP have reflected those concerns on desalination breakthroughs. This goes to show how near we are to resolve much of those life necessities once these technologies work together.

      Will all this bring on a utopian world? Not quite, perhaps even an uncertain one with
      many disruptions predicted. However it will help provide opportunities to eliminate
      ignorance and false notions that hold people back from bettering themselves. So thank you all for contributing to these ends. God bless you.

      • peter gluck

        Dear Friend,

        Frank is now by far the best blogger in New Energy.

        Very fast and high quality writings, high denisity

        ideas/words.

        Actually the new sources of energy have an insatiable market it is childish to speak about competition.

        LENR needs new ideas, anew paradigm, awakening.

        Utopian world? see please my essay written especially for Mankind- what should do Mankind for a better future:
        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2015

        The essence is problem solving and globalized probletence. Even with plenty of energy, cheap and healthy, human creativity will supply many wicked problems.
        Peter

        • BroKeeper

          Thanks Peter. Competition can also be within oneself.

        • georgehants

          Peter, your thinking in the essay is very interesting.
          Many thanks for sharing that thinking.
          Best

          • peter gluck

            my pleasure, dear George- you can find many similar things on my blog

            peter

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          For me the LENR/LENR+ difference is like between lighning induced forest fire and barbecue.

          I don’t feel that Peter and Edmund disagree seriously.
          Maybe peter think more of engineering question, like the necessity to refresh the NAE in a stabilized system that both prevent extinction and burnout…

          Assuming that the NAE is a topological outlier near the metal surface is not at all incompatible with the analysis that to build a good reactor you need to design a self-stabilized system that maintain NAE population, fuel and conditions around a working point.

          for me it is not so different to designing a bio-reactor. hydroton is the bacteria, and we need to feed and control those animal (whatever they are).

          maybe Peter point is that it is more interesting to learn how to maintain a good population of NAE without necessarily understanding what it is and how it works in detail.

          My best compliment to Ed theory is that it is not very detailed and just proposing constraints on what it can be, or cannot be…
          I appreciated in his previous paper his engineering consideration about self-catalytic reaction and working point.

          I see that Peter and Ed push LENR on the good direction, toward phenomenology and engineering, with different styles and focus.

          • georgehants

            Would just add that it not so important who is correct in the final analysis, but to be sure that we thank and appreciate everybody who has put in time and effort trying to discover the answer.
            Being wrong is no crime or bad reflection or bad science.
            Only corruption and incompetence and closed-mindedness fall into scientific crimes.

            • peter gluck

              just for this case, George it is time to get a solution, a good working hypothesis and to put brakes to fantasy. If a reputed scientist says for example that H and D work in the same manner just for the sake of some Occam’s Razor and due to his reputation and charm many researchers believe him… we have a good recipe for disaster
              we still have the reproducibility problem and if it will not be solved no energy source possible. Pure science is only a part of the problem however the basic problems of LENR have to be solved- ASAP.
              Peter

              • georgehants

                Of course, but after 24 years of wasted time I suppose we must feel grateful that progress is being made.
                The most important thing is a general acceptance that the phenomenon is True.
                Then I agree, a working theory will help, if shown to cover all of Cold Fusion, but as you say if the religious scientific fanatics come up with some false theory that they wish to indoctrinate our students with then good scientists should riot.
                To me reading of the progress being made by yourself and the little gang of true scientific Rebels is truly heartening.
                Keep up the good work.

          • peter gluck

            Dear Alain,
            Sorry to disappoint a friend like you- however I cannot speak for Edmund
            whom I like very much, however if LENR takes place in cracks…only the devil can create a LENR energy source – i disagree totally with his new theory. Thanks God, I am not infallible, inerrant. Please read with attention the paper from which the segment was extracted. Thanks
            peter

          • Ophelia Rump

            Whatever they might be, it will be easier to identify them when there is a growing population. Finding one flea is difficult, an infestation, not so much.

        • GreenWin

          Peter, “human creativity will supply many wicked problems.” Those problems descend from the human “Creator.” What we are working to resolve is… these differences.

          • peter gluck

            Dear Greenwin,
            can you please tell this in some relevant detail/ Thanks
            Peter

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          about absurdity of competition in LENR, you are totally right.
          this market is too big even for the big corps to cover it with the help of all startups. It is however terribly risky for everyone business.

          all companies should work together, at least in groups of people who share some values and interest.
          LENR is like the wild wild west and the LENR startup are like the pioneer, the settlers, who should rather gather in convoy against the coyotes, the incumbent (sorry for the native) and the outlaws, sharing, money, water tools and seeds, protecting each others, rather that battling for an infinite territory they cannot even cultivate completely

      • mytakeis

        What beautiful thoughts and achievable realities you lay out, my gratitude.

        • BroKeeper

          That is very appreciated mytakeis, Thanks!