Saturday, August 31, 2013

FOR THE FUTURE OF LENR by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

Peter has asked me to write a “guest editorial in which you tell what YOU suggest as he best ideas and most recommended modes of thinking- for the future you wish to LENR.”

I'm tempted to dismantle this, so I'll get that out of the way first:

The Best Ideas are the Correct Ones. Get rid of all the others immediately. The Most Recommended modes of thinking are, of course, the Clear ones. Especially the ones where you think like me.

Ahem. It's a fair request, and I take it as a sincere one.

There are two approaches here. The first is totally generic; it's not just about LENR. It is about every aspect of life. I do talk about this, but instead of doing that here, I'm simply going to recommend The Curriculum for Living, Landmark Education, and, to the extent practical, advanced training, and I'll be happy to communicate personally with anyone who wants a conversation over this.

So the second approach is to talk about LERN, what is happening and what might be missing.

It's easy to go back and identify "errors" in the past, but the present and future are not only built from the past, they are a new creation that is not limited by the past. However, it can be useful to identify what was missing, in situations in the past, that led to what happened.

We cannot change what happened, but we can change what it *means*, because that is an ongoing creation of ours.

So, I’ve been pointing out that the announcement of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 contained claims that, in hindsight, at least, were premature. They were presented as if they overturned accepted physics, yet the evidence presented was circumstantial. An established paradigm, established based on long success in predictive power, will not be overturned merely because an anomaly appears. Pons and Fleischmann were the worlds' foremost electrochemists, perhaps, and were eminently qualified to do accurate calorimetry, but the physicists were not impressed. Claims were being made that were, they perceived, *in their territory.* And they immediately recognized every error. At the same time, there was a perceived threat to a billion dollars a year in hot fusion research, which heavily employs physicists. That's nothing to sniff at.

(It's likely that, as Peter Hagelstein wrote earlier this year in Infinite Energy, that cold fusion will not, when the mystery is resolved, overturn physics, just some inadequately considered approximations and assumptions.)

So, derived principle: don't claim the overthrow of an established paradigm, on which many careers and reputations depend, without *first* establishing the necessary evidence, beyond doubt. I can imagine exceptions. Don't try them at home. They would be exceptions like, you have unlimited funding and you have no concerns about career and public acceptance. Even then, watch your back!

So here we are, almost 25 years later. Now what? Well, what we think about this might not be all that important. I consider it a good possibility that Defkalion will have a product, or at least be arranging for independent testing, before the end of next year. Rossi, it's possible, but less likely, in my judgment. That will make what I have to say about progress in LENR moot, it will blow the lid off. So what I write now is Plan B. And LENR is so important, as to the possibility of effectively limitless green energy for humanity, that we cannot wait and simply hope. Commercial enterprises fail, for lots of reasons. We don't yet know how reliable these NiH products will be.

So Plan B. We do not need to wait for LENR to appear at Home Depot. The scientific evidence is clear that LENR is real. However, that fact is not particularly well known. LENR research is still somewhat suppressed. For over two decades, it was a career killer to be involved in LENR research, and we still see signs of lingering effects.

So my proposal is fairly simple. What it would mean, in practice, may vary from nation to nation, but for the
United States, where I live, I've been saying it this way: we are going back to the United Sates Department of Energy. Our activity will not be limited to that, for there are other sources for funding research, but, here, we have a leg up, if we use it.

Both U.S. DoE reviews recommended "modest funding" to answer open research issues. The second review, in particular, showed substantial recognition of the reality of the heat effect, and far more recognition of the possibility of it being nuclear in nature than was the case in 1989. We would be asking the DoE to follow their own recommendations.

We can look at the second review and can see why it was as successful as it was, and why it was as unsuccessful as it was. We will learn from this. This time, we will go back prepared, and on our terms. We will not mix weak evidence with strong, or circumstantial evidence with direct evidence. We will not present a confusing farrago of anomalies, unexplained effects, but focus on *one mystery*. What is happening in the PF Heat Effect?

And we will have specific recommendations, with budgets, ready. We will propose two avenues of research.

First, we will suggest that leaving the question of the reality of cold fusion open, unresolved, maintains massive uncertainty. The direct evidence for cold fusion reality is clear, but funding limitations have limited the accuracy of those measurements. Nailing this down is thus essential. We will request support or direct funding for definitive and accurate measurement of the heat/helium ratio.

Second, we will propose support for research into the character of the Nuclear Active Environment, what conditions, precisely, facilitate this reaction? Part of this involves exploring the parameter space around existing protocols.

The first avenue of research establishes reality. (Theoretically, it's possible that heat/helium could turn out to be artifact. I can't imagine it, but failure of imagination isn't proof of anything. Remember 1989? *We need to know,* and the "we" here includes physicists, policy-makers, genuine skeptics, etc.)

The second avenue of research will open up the possibility of reliability. Success in this avenue could create massive opportunity for practical applications.

There are other avenues to be explored. I'd mention NiH work, except that, at this point, it is not scientifically established, as is PdD work. That may shift at any time, and if the first two avenues are explored, we can be quite sure that others will be, as well.

We will recommend, to the Department of Energy, a systematic approach to the research.

We will do the same with other possible funding agencies. Again, this is too important to place all our eggs in one basket. The same presentations that we will develop will be useful for other venues.

What can individuals do?

Well, all these activities require some level of funding. For me to go to ICCF-18 cost about $700. I was able to keep costs down by taking the bus, and by not registering for the Conference and instead obtaining a press pass. I have received $350 so far in donations to support this. I'm living on a fixed income, and I'm still out of pocket.

So ... support the people working in the field. Ruby Carat has herself been funding her public work, for years, and it's a drain and a strain for her.

Take a look at . That's me, so far. Volunteer to create web resources, edit, report. As the project I'm creating gains steam, there will be funding, but we aren't there yet.

Encourage students to learn about cold fusion. We will need a whole new generation of researchers. It will happen rapidly if the commercial efforts break though, but if not, we will *still* need those fresh faces and minds.

I'm doing this work because I'm told, by the scientists and others, that I'm useful. I can explain things in a way that communicates. If I'm supported, I can do it better.

Commit yourself! Throw your hat over the fence! Are we going to make this happen? I want to hear a thousand people shout, Yes!

Friday, August 30, 2013


After writing the pilot paper of this series deliberately in a playful, forced humor mode, something strange has happened and I became really deeply motivated to discover ideas that can serve to solve the LENR problem and to find out which modes of thinking could be used for this problem solving action.
I have decided to make all the possible efforts and to ask for help from everybody who can contribute to a solution. Simultaneously I also realized that my campaign is marked by error- actually it is much better and efficient to use negative thinking first and reject all the harmful ideas and abandon all the misleading thinking practices from the field. A first example will show how necessary is this indeed, however I will try to go toward the Solution and in the same time to try to eliminate counter solutions.

It is about denying other people’s reality, or vision of reality. It is a radical method saying “you see a problem where it is no problem at all”, so if it you see a problem, it is YOUR problem. No problem as such exists, just you see it so. For example it is not realism considering that LENR has problems just because after almost 25 years it has not delivered the promised energy technology. Objectively thinking, considers Abd:
What you call "realism," Peter, is, from my point of view a dream, a fantasy, something made up. That is, "deep trouble" is not a reality. It's an interpretation coming out of standards created by the mind, whether individually or collectively. LENR is not a thing that can be "in trouble," it doesn't care, it's just a concept; underneath it may be a reality -- we think so -- but reality is never in trouble. I haven't notice that reality varies from day to day, have you?
He is right from the general point of view of philosophy, or of Nature herself. I know that my position would be equally weak if I consider that poverty, hunger, AIDS, drugs, hatred groups, greenhouse gases, increasing inequality, arsenic poisoned water or illiteracy would be my problem not a problem per se. Superior thinking has more elevated criteria. LENR produces interesting science after all.                                                                                    My myopic judgment determines me to also consider that it is a ‘problem” if only one experiment from six gives measurable excess heat- actually it is a fact not a problem and scientific method can and has to be applied to LENR; parameter studies can be performed and the science thus obtained will be applied to develop even a technology- on serious scientific bases not via engineering and/or empirical methods. Furthermore my false reality pushes me to search for explanations of the natural low reproducibility of excess heat when any real scientist knows that this is inherent to such a noble but complex metal. It seems I am not familiar with probabilities and my reality, additionally of being primitively dualistic is overly deterministic. I love my limits and I am dedicated to LENR beyond any limits, I know well that humankind has an energy problem, needs more energy, cheaper, greener healthier and LENR could become a Great Solution. Unfortunately not scientifically odorized rhetoric and even not the fierce opposition by LENR deniers (a.k.a. skeptics) are the greatest obstacles to its transformation in a techno-progressive energy source. No, it is its premature discovery – science was not prepared for it, theories have explained only some aspects of it; from the multitude of forms in which it can appear it was found in the worst, weakest and most inert. Bad luck! Now with the application of systems theory to the problem and the use of nanoplasmonics this will change. One historical merit of the CF/LENR problem is its contribution to micro-calorimetry. As this essay shows, it has also helped the high art of scientific excuses; however telling that a problem is not existent is not a high performance. Presenting a problem as a solution is; reality reversal is better than reality denial and it is standard in politics. In science it is more difficult to ignore facts. You can explain away reality or substitute it with a “better” one but this does not help solving problems.


Wednesday, August 28, 2013


When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in black and white, you photograph their souls! (Ted Grant) 

In a controversy, the instant we feel anger; we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. (Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha)
I have many controversies with some of my LENR colleagues, however the Buddha has no reasons to worry for me. I succeeded to develop a positive habit, as higher is my repulsion toward the erroneous  and even harmful ideas (in LENR only!) of somebody as stronger is my empathy toward the person, the poor fallible, falsely informed, intellectually limited, pathologically motivated, sinful person (they consider me so too and I have to agree some times).. In most cases the history of our science field will excuse them by oblivion. This positive attitude cannot be changed even by my opponents mental manipulation practices or deliberate misinterpretation of what I have told. I accept their rather childish trials to replace my thinking that want to be free and independent with their memefied mental maneuvers I well know that: “To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)” This statement is very valid for the labyrinthic art of LENR thinking.

It is not entirely true that: Lord protect me from my friends, I can take care of my enemies (Voltaire) because my very best friends are the best friends of the genuine, productive LENR+ too.

Some changes can be seen these days in the evil infrastructure- the way to Hell is not more paved with good intentions. Crowded buses are circulating there one-way and good intentions are used as fuel.


In the following I will discuss about some of the many accusations against my LENR ideas.


This is the most common argument- due to my limited mental resources I am unable to comprehend the amazing richness of the existence (the LENR fragment of it), for me the situations are good or bad, LENR is a complete disaster, LENR + is a total triumph, Pd is good for nothing while Ni is the metal of future. For me gray or colored thinking is inaccessible, air poisoning is fatal for LENR in all the cases and independently of any circumstances. I ignore alternatives, I am blind to other possibilities, cannot use probabilities, will never imagine something marvelous as a reversal of effect. I am sure that, even the undeniable fact that I have invented-created scipiology, the art of directly converting disasters in triumphs (see please and this blog) will not change a bit their certainty that I am thinking in black and/or white with a strong focus and preference for what black signifies. I cannot go beyond true or not true and I am a hopeless prisoner of my self-imposed limits. I don’t take these tragically however when my surrender to complexity is invoked by people who really exhibit this fatal flaw- I am amazed.

These things are not new, on the contrary. A few days ago when I have received a message of 6738 words from Abd systematically dissecting my LENR ideas I had a sudden illumination moment: I remembered in the clairvoyant mode that Abd has told me the same words almost, 101+ years ago! You would not believe at once this but please listen.

It is well known that in case your have difficulties in accepting your mortality- then you have only 3 practical solutions:

a) be deeply religious and eternal life comes as a primary reward for many religions (attention- sex is allowed only in few Paradises!);

b) follow exactly the teachings of the gerontologist Aubrey de Grey;

c) learn the practice of metempsychosis, with some efforts you will
be able to reincarnate in a person from the categories you like with an over 90% probability

Anyway Abd (then with the name Damian) and I (Harry) met in April 1912 on a great modern ship- due to my Alz in statu-nascendi I have forgotten its name, but it was about something very big, I am sure.
We both were very rich young boys, not very nice. He had more money but I was nastier (read about "Accidents in metempsychosis". Both passionate for the card game contract bridge, soon we formed a team. We won quite easily the Ship's Bridge Championship organized on April 14 afternoon and we were just celebrating our victory with a few bottles of Veuve Clicqout champagne. Going to the bathroom I overheard people from the staff speaking about possible icebergs on our way and how dangerous these can be. Damian -Abd was not impressed, he was a fanatical optimist laughed and has accused me of alarmism and even of cowardice:

“You have no idea how many good, perfect alternatives there are to our ship hitting a pesky iceberg! We have our way, the iceberg its own way the probability of collision is negligible. Haven't you read that this ship has the most modern navigation system in the world, haven't you learned that our Captain Edward Smith is an infallible expert?
And it is not about hitting an iceberg or not, please do not think in black or white- only in the sense that the hulls of the ship are made from black metal are so resistant that white ice- that is only ordinary lowly plain water cannot damage them seriously. The ship has many compartments and even if it happens that 1-2-3 are broken, the rest will keeps us afloat perfectly.
The bad chance of a catastrophe is a real minimum; I have traveled more than 100,000 miles with ships, not so good than this and never had serious problems. Always think about good alternatives.”
I have to reckon he was very convincing.
The following day however, Damian was already fully engaged in the next metempsychosis campaign, while I, taking care to become an excellent swimmer in all my consecutive lives, was traveling with Carpathia and I succeeded to happily survive till 1919 when I got the flue. .. et puis bonjour!

Unfortunately for Abd, existence, reality, life, science, research is full of simplistic Yes/No options and any situation, however relative has to be compared to what it was planned, desired, promised to be.

You can learn a lot from the card game we played on that unlucky ship: unfulfilled promises are punished with cruelty; doing a bit more than you have bid gets a modest reward- many times so is in life too. Words can be misused, phrases can be crippled or manipulated, however still there is no source of energy having its direct roots in the Fleischmann Pons Cell so I will continue to tell with sadness that LENR classic is in deep trouble.
If somebody can tell us about marvelous scientific facts, clearly understood and constantly demonstrable by more different methods- than I will immediately retract “in deep trouble”
And existence is full of Yes/No questions. You cannot avoid them.
Have you already forgotten Kirill Duhanov’s existential teachings: “What is, is! What isn’t, isn’t!”?

(Next part:”Denying reality”)


Thursday, August 22, 2013



“Eppur si fissure” (Edmund Storms)

There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.

My second paper about active sites and N.A.E. had 328 pageviews in two days compared with 254 for the first; this shows the subject is of some interest for my readers and I have decided to continue the up-hill battle against the theory of cracks being the Nuclear Active Environment created and developed by Dr. Edmund Storms. He does not abandon this theory on the contrary – as the first Motto shows he defends it valiantly
Actually, he was the very first reader to help me with criticizing my paper i.e. my ideas. He has started  by asking me with a shade of reproach: Peter, why do you write about subjects that you know nothing about?” Being given that I have published the first paper ever about CF taking place in catalytic active sites when everybody was still convinced that the Pd lattice does the trick, I have considered the question just a figure of speech, however in no case an ad hominem attack used only by confused people lacking scientific arguments.  He has not answered directly to my anti-crack arguments (I will repeat and clarify them later) and is very upset for the low standards in the field that make possible such unnecessary disputes. Yes, cracks are able to do all those wonderful things from Fleischmann and Pons and all the users of their cells to Arata and Piantelli and Ahern and Kidwell and to Rossi and Defkalion (the list was compiled by me) He says:
“The NAE in my theory are cracks of a especially small gap size that are generated by stress relief in the material. They permit formation of a structure that is able to lower the Coulomb barrier and dissipate the energy by emission of low energy photons from the nucleus. The theory shows how helium, tritium and deuterium are made by the fusion process, what conditions are required for the process to work, and identifies engineering variables that are needed to control the process.  Many details are descried in the papers I have already sent to CMNS and more will be provided in …his coming papers” 

Ed has written repeatedly that ‘N.A.E is a very simple concept’ and I have found this very disquieting  till I have understood that he refers to the principle, the raison d’etre of these NAE- special places where interesting things happen (something already well known from catalysis or from pilgrimage places) and NOT to the structure and function of the N.A.E.

As expected my opponent friend Abd has given fast a documented pro-crack answer, please read it at:  It is an illuminating paper in more senses.

First- quite unusual for Abd, his answer has 732 words compared to 531 in my article; typically his writings are at least 5 times more loquacious than what he criticizes or contradict. This is in part because he knows amazingly many facts but also a question of style and of tactic. Many words are or seem always smarter and stronger than few in disputes...

A blog paper is not strictly scientific; there are also personal feelings and even fears in it. As all old cold fusionists I was also educated (read culturalized, memefied) in the spirit of cult of palladium and of the FP Cell- however due to some personal traits and experience I became very discontented with the situation, have discovered myself and have learned from people more knowledgeable than me- that CF/LENR has to get out of its cradle and must find entirely new ways. And it had done this! It is not pleasant to be a dissident to have ideas in direct opposition with those of my more disciplined and less speculative comrades. In this case I have made a diplomatic suggestion that my idea re cracks
should be considered only as wishful thinking and I am just an inoffensive heretic. However I know that speaking about the Pdisaster I went already too far.
Being my friend and, I dare to think knowing that I am right in a much greater extent as he will ever state, Abd  has accepted this game. Yes it is mainly childish wishful thinking I simply want that cracks are the N.A.E. but cannot prove it in any rational and/or scientific way

Abd explains:
“Storms is not writing about a limit to possibilities, he's writing 
about the LENR that is known and confirmed and replicated all over the world, and specifically, about palladium deuteride, 
electrochemically loaded. The Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect.”

Abd is frequently using the argument that because we know so much about the PdD system, so much more than e.g. about the NiH system we have to get our LENR truths from the FP system. Here I disagree- we do not know so much about PdD! What we know is in low position on the DIKW scale (please read about this scale on my blog) It is tragic that the theory of cracks as NAE comes from the PdD experience. We know the defining conditions for PdD starting with the high saturation ratio but we have only one certainty, it is true wonderful as such, 3 words: SOMETIMES IT WORKS i.e. it gives excess heat. Why it does it, why other times it does not work, how exactly this happens we simply still don’t know. At the Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology where I retired from in 1999 there are all the pre-CF books and papers re the metallurgy of palladium and the palladium – hydrogen system; there are cracks in this metal in such conditions but the morphology and metallurgy are much too complex to be controllable. Old stuff.

If NAE is cracks theory is valid for the Pd system that means for the experiments: “if Pd cracks well, it will work well’ –the opposite is true too. Is this an alternative to my ait-poisoning hypothesis of irreproducibility? It reminds me the joke from the Ceausescu era:
“What is small, crippled  and black and knocks at the door?” “Answer “The future!” Dear Abd, what is the future of PdD LENR if cracks are NAE? It is about the future of both the science and the technology of LENR.

My mental reception is not perfect here, but I have a hazy impression about Abd‘s minor doubts re crack orthodoxy.

When it was about holes, micro- or nano-cavities Ed’s theory was more attractive for me.

Back to the fight of ideas: actually has not confronted my arguments directly and attacks on the periphery not at the core of the things. I repeat my arguments in amore aggressive mode:

“Cracks as NAE” is in direct opposition with:
- the reality of existence of almost-technological intense LENR processes as Rossi and DGT, you cannot build a technology on inherently incontrollable cracking;

- the knowledge coming from outside re. catalytic active sites that are complex not simple cracks;

- the knowledge coming from inside the field re the determinant role of the nanostructures that are sophisticated and smart not something primitive like a crack;

- if cracking is the key of success, CF/LENR will remain irreproducible and uncontrollable forever,

- cracking cannot explain why two forms, levels of LENR exist-LENR+ with enhanced excess heat is the way to useful energy.

Suppose PdD  really functions in/with cracks- why should nanostructures- based and nanoplasmonics based forms of LENR use the same cheap, primitive, anti-technological anarchic and inefficient trick?
For a start, please read what says Piantelli about nanostructures and re-read Defkalion’s ICCF-17 paper.

Eventually a point seemingly outside this dispute but essential to understand the difference between the thinking of Abd and me.

Abd writes: We are successful with Nature when we respect What Happens more than we demand to have what we want. Nature, in fact, in my experience, often has a Better Idea.”
Homo sapiens speaks so. Homo faber, homo technologicus thinks differently he goes mercilessly for what he wants; he uses the laws of Nature to achieve what he needs. He has a disrespectful respect for Nature; sometimes he makes fatal errors but makes a sometimes very hostile world better for him. Nature knows it better has followed a long and smooth learning curve, had eons to elaborate solutions but never had what we perceive as problems.
We can perhaps understand now better the difference between the Scientific Method and the Technological Method. Both are based on questions we put to Nature. The scientific questions are perhaps more polite, more smarter while the technological ones are rude, even inquisitorial. Mother Nature was much to secretive sod even a bit perverse with the answers regarding LENR. The time is ripe for putting new questions and forcing her to answer. Otherwise She will send us to search for productive cracks.


COMMENTS BY ABD- you will see we are still light years from consensus but that's no problem; LENR starts to cope with its situation:

Let's see if we make a blog publication of this exchange of ideas.

>First- quite unusual for you, your answer has 732 worda compared
>to 531 in my article, typically your writings are 5 times more wordy
>than what you criticize or contradict.; this is in part because you know
>many facts
>but also a question of style and of tactic. Many words are or seem
>smarter and stronger than few.
Well, my writing varies with purpose. Most of what I write is as if 
it were a conversation. Because you may read at leisure, or not at 
all, someone else may read, I don't pay attention to the relative 
number of words, at all.

I'm *not* contradicting or criticizing. I'm *responding*. I do happen 
to be a dialectical thinker, so if you say A, I may say not-A, but 
that doesn't meant that I think not-A is better than A, but I want to 
compare them.

But that's just a general principle, what I actually do may be different.

>A blog paper is not strictly scientific there are also personal feelings
>and even fears in it.
Yes, of course. Same with much e-mail.

> As all old cold fusionists I was also educated >(read culturalized, memefied) in the spirit of cult of palladium and of the
>FP Cell-
Do remember that I'm *not* an "old cold fusionist."

> however due to some personal traits and experience I became very
>discontented with the situation, have discovered myself and have learned
>from people more knowledgeable than me- that CF/LENR has to get out of its
>cradle and find entirely new ways.
Of course. But you don't just grab children and demand they grow up. 

Strictly speaking, you are not writing about CF/LENR, but about the 
community. It seems you do get them mixed up sometimes.

> And it had done this! It is not pleasant to be a dissident.
>In this case I have made a diplomatic suggestion that my idea re cracks
>should be considered only as wishful thinking and I am just an inoffensive
Peter, you have some ideas about yourself that I'd challenge, but I'd 
prefer to do it in person. I hope you will be at ICCF-19 in Venice.

>Being my friend and, I dare to think knowing that I am right in a much
>greater >extent (and being an old fox even if not so old as me) you have accepted
>this game.
We talk, we play with words.

>Actually you have not confronted my arguments directly and you attack on
>the periphery not the core of he things
If you say so.

>Cracks as NAE is in direct opposition with:- the reality of existence of almost-technological intense LENR processes >as Rossi and DGT, you cannot build a technology on inherently
>incontrollable cracking;
You have confused cracks as an *explanation* of the FP Heat Effect, 
and an *attempted explanation* by Storms of NiH results, with a 
*recommendation* of cracks as an approach. Storms in asserting cracks 
as universal is weak. But in asserting cracks as an explanation of 
the variability of the FPHE, he's pretty likely to be correct.

Now, with cracks in mind, he proposes the hydroton. That's a linear 
structure and would be fostered by linear structures in the host 
metal. How long are these structures? We don't know. My own guess is 
that the active structures are *not* linear, or, if they are, it's not long.

But we *start* with cracks, as something that *works* -- sometimes -- 
in the FPHE. But that doesn't mean that we will engineer devices with 
cracking. Or we could, it's one approach to creating small 
structures, and cracking can be engineered to be quite precise. You 
have in mind something very limited, uncontrolled.

Yes, the original work was *very* uncontrolled, nobody had a clue.

Peter, understand the idea of "crack" by comparison with "bulk." Not 
by comparison with engineered cavities and similar organized, 
designed structures.

What you call LENR+ is just LENR, engineered.  Peter: But engineered to a huge quality jump, density of NAE in LENR+ is at least 100 times greater than in LENR classic! New mechanisms of NAE-genesis.

>- the knowledge coming from outside re. catalytic active sites that are
>complex not simple cracks;
We don't know the characteristics of the active sites. Defkalion is 
attempting to engineer them, but we don't know how sophisticated they 
have gotten with this. I wish you could have been along with us, 
visiting SKINR and the labs they have access to, and seeing the kind 
of nanotech work they are doing.

>- the knowledge coming from inside the field re the determinant role of the
>nanostructures that are sophisticated and smart not something primitive like
>a crack;
A crack is just a separation of two pieces of material. Nanocracks 
may be very controlled, it's possible. You'd call them "cracks" based 
on how they were formed. It's simply an approach. The fuel doesn't 
care how the structure was built, whether it was assembled from 
pieces with a controlled separation, or made from a single piece 
broken apart, separated. The key is design of the structures, that's 
where the field will go, it's obvious.

We have a pretty good idea of the gross structure of the Hyperion. 
What we don't have is the details of the active nanoparticles. We 
have some rough ideas.

What's your point, Peter? Do you think that I'm saying that we should 
reject these attempts and just take some palladium and stress it? 
That there is only one way to get LENR, the Holy Fleischmann Method?

No, Peter. PdD is useful for the science, as a fairly well-known 
example of LENR, rather easily accessible for study, with a large 
body of work. Hardly anyone thinks that PdD LENR will ever be 
practical for power, though I just learned about a design from 
Fleischmann that was never built, with very high density predicted. 
So maybe. But I'm certainly not holding my breath for it, nor should anyone.

I'm proposing going back to verify heat/helium with higher accuracy. 
The only thing that has to do with practical applications is that, if 
heat/helium is confirmed with higher accuracy, it might shake loose 
some serious funding, but I'd expect most of that funding, by the 
time this happens, will go into NiH research -- including identifying 
the fuel/ash relationship for NiH.

It's about politics and science.

>- if cracking is the key of success, CF/LENR will remain irreproducible and
>uncontrollable forever,
Straw man argument, Peter. I certainly did not argue that. But LENR 
is already reproducible. You've bought that old canard.

You've been fighting ghosts. Wake up, Bad Dream, Peter. It's over, 
the sun is rising.

Are coin tosses reproducible? Have I told you what I did with my 
daughter the other day? I told her I would toss a coin, "Heads."

And then I did. Of course, as luck (?) would have it, it wasn't until 
the eighth toss. And I filled the space with negative self-talk, 
like, "I must be doing something wrong."

The next day, I said the same thing and then tossed a Head the first 
time. "See! I'm getting better at this!"

She laughed and laughed.

But we are like that.

Very nice story thanks; due to my limits I am unable to get the correlation
between coin tosses and reproducibility. "Should your car, personal airplane,
PC, smartphone, pressure cooker etc. work so reproducible as a PdD experiment!
Is this a blessing or a curse?
Do not ask superior understanding from a technologist, please.

Monday, August 19, 2013


The nature of N.A.E.  is a problem of vital importance for the future of LENR and I hope that what I will say now, will not be ignored as my poisoning hypothesis continues to be.

Actually, the present paper is a continuation in part of:
that had a rather low impact 250 readers and only 3 friendly comments by my friends Axil, Abd and Doug. That paper has included a metaphor for the poisoning hypothesis and, most remarkable. the idea of Defkalion that the reactor itself is the true nuclear active environment, including the active sites...

The problem of NAE has been recently discussed vividly on our forums and the refrain remained the same: N.A.E is lowly cracks,
an idea I cannot accept. N.A.E is derived from catalytic (chemical) active sites based on “special things take place in special sites” developed a step further: “extraordinary things take place in very special places”- see please my old paper in at page 86.

Cracks are voids, badly defined, of many possible sizes and forms, unstructured, uncontrollable. They really do not seem able to trigger such unexpected events as nuclear reactions and/or nuclear interactions.

Cracking is by definition a destructive and auto destructive process
that cannot last (except if/when) by some contrary process of rebuilding the metal lattice. This auto destruction is contradicted
by many cases/forms of LENR that have functioned well for long times at intensities of Watts (Piantelli, Arata, Ahern) or kilowatts (Rossi, Defkalion). Cracks are technologically hopeless.

 The idea of cracks is simplistic and in direct contradiction with the experience regarding he elaborate structures of the chemical active sites in catalysis

The idea of NAE being just cracks is retrograde in opposition to the trend of using smart, ever smarter complex nanostructures in LENR please re-read what Piantelli says about this on my blog but this is only an example of many. Cracks would be an anti-complex solution. 

The idea of NAE being cracks does not support my poisoning theory i.e. the great sensitivity of the heat release to the presence of alien (no hydrogen) gases on the active surfaces. And then the essential role of deep degassing as shown here is not more justified.

Cracks as NAE do not works with advanced nanotechnology in its static variant but it is also incompatible with the highly dynamic nanoplasmonics –the science-technology that defines LENR+

Eventually if this form of new energy really comes  from cracks, then we cannot distinguish between, low intensity, static, transient LENR classic and high intensity, dynamic high density NAE, enhanced excess heat LENR +. A crack is a crack is a crack, As shown I believe cracks have no positive role in LENR, this concept tells me less than nothing in this case. I think N.A.E are very sophisticated high tech structures not simply nano-voids.

I have never observed the people with whom I am discussing now this cracks non-issue, in flagranti of changing an opinion. Therefore, especially for them, the title of this essay is “Why I hope that NAE are NOT cracks.” Let them accuse me of wishful thinking and technological reality of being anti-scientific and hostile to poor cracks.


Friday, August 16, 2013


Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to   the following paper, a real double rara avis:
- it is published in a peer reviewed journal;
- it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach.

It is 
"Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative
Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain
Reaction Mechanism
Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China

International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43

Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance of nuclear reaction. Based on the standard quantum
mechanics, we propose the physical-chemical-nuclear multistage chain reaction theory,which may explain cold fusion. Since cold fusion is an open system, synergetics and laser theory can be applied, and the Fokker-Planck equation is obtained. Using the corresponding Schrödinger equation and the nonlinear Dirac equation, and combining the multistage chain reaction theory, the quantitative results agree completely with some experiments on cold fusion. Finally, we discuss some new researches, for example, the
nonlinear quantum theory, catalyzer and nanomaterial, etc., and propose the three laws of cold fusion: 
(1) The time accumulate law, 
(2) The area direct ratio law, and 
(3) The
multistage chain reaction law.

There are some striking similarities with the DGT-AXIL approach
to understand LENR+/HENI as:
1. Open system definition of the NAE
2. Complexity of multistage fusion fission process
3. The 3 laws, indicating a path to plasmonics

Eppur si muove - it is progress in Cold Fusion- marching away from its Cradle!

Thursday, August 15, 2013


Lasciate ogni speranze voi che LENRate! (Dante)

Those working in the field of LENR- in a way or other have discouragingly few certainties and, what’s worse their certainties are disturbingly different. My own basic certainty to which I have arrived to around 1991, is that the reactions generating excess heat are very local taking place in active sites as heterogeneous catalysis does.
I am sharing this idea with more colleagues; our perhaps most influential scientist and thinker, Dr. Edmund Storms has developed the idea to the level of a theory- of NAE –nuclear active environment. See please his presentation at ICCF-18, “Explaining Cold Fusion.” - the abstracts is at:
Dr. Storms and I agree that the role of these active sites in LENR is vital; however there is no agreement between us regarding the “life” or activity inside the active sites/NAE. It would be interesting to know how many LENR-ists, experimentalists and theorists think these active sites are the key and how many think differently. This question is related to n other idea about which I wrote recently: can a mono-theory explain LENR or it is necessary and interdisciplinary approach- combinations of different theories? Mono-theories vs. pluri-theories? This division is still greatly naïve wishful thinking from my part, searching for an unique theory explaining everything
is still the dominant philosophy, one smart concept, one universal solution.
However my disagreement re. active sites with Dr. Storms and many other colleagues has an other aspect, much more pragmatic: I have hypothesized long ago that CF/LENR’s endemic destructive sickness, weakness, curse whatever- d(r)eadfully bad reproducibility of the results is caused by the competition of gas  molecules with the reactive deuterium for the active sites- and deuterium is the loser. First I thought that only the very polar impurities, containing C, S or N are the culprit but later I conclude that any gas, including inert nitrogen or noble gases can act as invaders letting poor hydrogen isotopes – homeless.
The absolute lack of success of my poisoning hypothesis- nobody took it seriously was very probably my greatest failure ever and an extremal case of Cassandra Syndrome generating even the necessity
of creating a verbal antinomy of “to persuade”. The idea is childish, primitive, simplistic, is too mundane, lacks elegance and mathematics, is dirty, non-demonstrable (you cannot see a nitrogen molecule keeping away a deuterium molecule on a potential active site), has no practical solution for the classic PdD electrolysis cell- this cannot be made anaerobic. And if say some very rare circumstances as a cathode protected by  monomolecular layer of tensioactive substance, then comes the next trouble- small density of active sites. The genius of our best scientists was not able to solve the reproducibility problem for LENR classic.

I have learned from professor Francesco Piantelli the essential importance of deep degassing- before putting nickel in contact with hydrogen, the surface of the metal must be absolutely free

of any molecules of gas. This is so well described in  EP2368252. (search please for my “odes” dedicated to WO 2010/058288 in this blog.)

For some time I have believed that that the LENR+ systems due to the in-situ mechanism of NAE-genesis are more tolerant toward alien gases. From Rossi no data can be obtained, however very recently Defkalion has described the importance of degassing for their well working technological process. Describing what has happened at the Demo of July 23, Yiannis Hadjichristos wrote, by the way to our colleague Abd:

Answering in advance to your next question on controllability please note:
Before running the demo of 23rd we had sent a protocol that we were to follow to ICCF and we conducted a shorter demo with H2 at 22nd in parallel with a general discussion on "CF" with Italian journalists, broadcasted also to the public. The later was following the same protocol and gave a COP approx 3.5 at the level of 7.5kW output. After this short demo we degassed the reactor over night pumping out all H2 in order to run the next day a control run using Ar.
This degassing procedure is crucial and must be followed every time we have to open the reactor (which we did not in this case) or when we have to change gas i.e. from Ar to H2 or vice versa.
Any "alien" gas remaining in the reactor affects the objective of the test as far as active sites might be occupied by the wrong gas.
At 23rd we pumped Ar into the reactor and run a control test resulting to COP 0.82, using the same main input parameters (gas pressure, input currents and coolant flow) as in the demo of 22nd. Even with max input currents the reactor's internal or surface temperatures and coolant’s temperature could not exceed, as expected, the demonstrated values.
We stop that run and we had available about 45min to degas Ar in order to synchronize the demo with the broadcasting program and ICCF18 scheduled activities EVEN THOUGH WE WERE VIOLATING A TYPICAL PROTOCOL that requires at least 8h of degassing in order to remove Ar properly. During this degassing procedure Mats Lewan blew up the main fuse of the building trying to connect an oscilloscope to the electric board. This event reduced the degassing time available to about 30min.
At the beginning of the second part of the demo using H2 I warned the audience that we might expect a negative effect to the performance of the reactor because of that partial degassing of Ar. I had to do this as we have witnessed several times in the past the results of the presence of wrong gases in the performance as they block the active sites to be turned to NAEs. You can see the results in the videos still available in the internet both in the performance and the temperature signals that raised, as expected, to much higher levels than the Ar test even though the input power was gradually reduced compared with the Ar test and the coolant flow was the same as in the Ar run.  We calculated later that the R5 performance was reduced by aprox 40% in that second test because of the limited Ar degassing.”

Yiannis has also told me that based on their technological experience they have standardized the conditions of deep degassing for the three possible cases: a) when a reactor was opened for inspection; b) degassing to remove Ar after a control test and c) degassing H2 to prepare a control test. As he has mentioned during the test case c) needs the most drastic conditions because even very small quantities of residual hydrogen can generate heat and lead to a false positive in a control test.   These data, seen in the context of hat we have already learned show us that DGT’s technology is remarkably mature, however in the same time this is also a warning for LENR classic: “no deep degassing, no reliable excess heat, story finished, dura lex sed lex!”

While there can be some hope  for systems with preformed nanostructures to be converted in LENR+ with NAE formed continuously in situ (the unique way to success), the classic electrochemical Pd D system will remain only …"scientific". However the impossibility to degas it will perturb any Pd D     LENR investigation; I will not say “for ever” because it sounds so sensationalist. The Motto suggests that PdD, LENR classic-classic will remain captive in the Irreproducibility Hell. However the author of the Motto has stated “The path to paradise begins in hell.” (Dante Alighieri) As the Italians would tell “Andiamo!” Let’s go!

It is possible this essay will convince some colleagues that alien gas molecules are destroying the chances of PdD to function reproducibly or, even better to stimulate them to demonstrate by triumphal experiments, brightly that I am, in this case for sure, in deep stupid error. And the gas poisoning hypothesis deserves its sad fate.


PS In my fantasy LENR world the PdD system is so passé. I hear the voice of future. Our friend and collaborator of my blog, Axil whom I consider the Father of the New Wave Thinking n LENR+ has written this miniature these days- it is the voice of the near future:

In Kim's ICCF 18 paper. there are two references to nanoplasmonic papers [16, 17]. Also, DGT has been famously quoted as stating that LENR should stand for nanoplasmonics: 

However, readers who are aware of nanoplasmonics—a new area of science dealing with the interaction of photons with matter including nuclei or sub-nuclear particles—will be interested to read how scientists at the Defkalion Green Technologies (DGT) lab now describe phenomena that they see happening in DGT’s excess-heat-producing Hyperion product. Instead of using the term low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), DGT has been calling the process HENI—heat energy from nuclear interactions. A recent breakthrough resulted in a change; instead of the “N” standing for nuclear, it now stands for nanoplasmonics. I expect that this simpler interpretation of the phenomena could help with the public image of this field and its products. Could it also build alliances with other academic fields

Sunday, August 11, 2013


Cold fusion is here! Greek researchers give evidence for the most incredulously ears.
TO VIMA, Sunday Newspaper, August 4th, 2013, Athens, Greece

Our readers who had read the last episode of the "cold fusion in Greece” thriller (see article /? aid = 486578) had taken two notes: First, that Defkalion Green Technologies (DGT internationally) moved the headquarters to Vancouver, Canada. Second, that by the end of the summer they would present us with concrete proof their reactor can turn from a controversial experiment into a product capable of supporting a completely new energy era.
I was thinking intensely what exactly happened during the eight months of 'emigration' and what would the current product be when, late July, came the first bizarre information: Defkalion was negotiating the opening of new offices at Syngrou avenue, in Athens, and they had "close contact" with Fasmatech, a company manufacturing spectrographs-to order, at "Democritos" Research Institute technology hub. What had actually happened? I requested an interview with Defkalion`s CEO Alexandros Xanthoulis and his reply confirmed the information I had received: he was back in Athens-Greece and he would meet me at their new offices which are now the headquarters for Greece, the Balkans, and the Middle East.

But before I refer to the questions I asked him and the responses I received it is necessary to inform you of what else happened on this "hot July” to the field of Cold fusion. So many things happened that Cold Fusion is anything but “cold “since...

Battleship Missouri
As all physics students know by now, the famous announcement by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, in 1989, that they had produced nuclear fusion in room temperature, was eventually called "the biggest fiasco in the history of physics”.A group of physics professors which was formed by the U.S. President ruled that the announcement was based on a bunch of errors of the two researchers, their careers were destroyed, the U.S. Office of Patent and Trademark refused hereafter to accept similar patents and many books were written that ridiculed Cold Fusion scientists calling them "dreamers”. However, the way which the two scientists were silenced as well as some unexplained results of similar experiments, rallied many of researchers who insisted on pursuing cold fusion to an annual conference, called ICCF.
This year the 18th ICCF took place in University of Missouri, between 21 and 27 of July. There were 83 speakers and was attended by scientists from 26 countries. What the scientists of “Physics Orthodoxy" were expecting from this conference was one more attempt of the "unorthodox” to offer another theoretical foundation on their unfounded fantasies. Instead they were surprised when two well-known Japanese researchers offered scientific explanations to the mysteries associated to Defkalion`s technology.

Akito Takahashi supported that the key was the unique formation of a Tetrahedral Symmetric Cluster of four deuterons, which then fuse to Be8 before fissioning to alpha particles (two neutrons and two protons as in nuclei of stellar helium He2+).

On his side, Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno said that " when heavy electrons enter the outer shell of a proton, the radius of the hydrogen atom becomes exponentially smaller with respect to the weight of the heavy electrons, bringing the protons closer together. When this happens, the probability of tunneling fusion increases exponentially The nuclear reaction can be controlled with this energy production method of bringing protons
and heavy electrons together inside nanoparticles. This brings within reach the goal of developing a practical nanoparticle energy reactor. Dr. Mizuno`s measurements also confirmed last year's announcement at the ICCF by John Hatzichristos, Defkalion`s Director of Technology, of the existence of isotope pairs in their reaction.

Even more monstrous for the "Physics Orthodoxy though was the thesis of Yeong E. Kim, a highly qualified U.S. Professor of Physics at the Purdue University. His thesis was co-signed by DGT’s John Hadjichristos. Under the title "Theoretical analysis and mechanisms of reaction for experimental results of hydrogen-nickel systems”, their work explained what might be happening in Defkalion`s reactor in order to get "unreasonably multiplied” energy output than that consumed.

Kim explained to the conference that Hyperion (Defkalion’s reactor) contains a core of metallic nickel foam that is heated from 180 ° C to 849 ° C, with a plasma arch. After that, you observe a sharp increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1,6 Tesla. This according to Kim indicates that "the reaction results in very strong electric fields E, currents I and magnetic fields B”. He also reported that at the Defkalion tests that he attended, excess heat  was produced only from the even isotopes of nickel (Ni 58, 60, 62 and 64), while odd isotopes (Ni 61) do not produce excess heat.Completing his presentation on the reaction, Kim reported that he did not detect any other gamma radiation other than that between 50 keV and 300 keV and presented graphs indicating excess heat output and a control system that could start, stop and control the reaction at will. 

Then he proceeded to a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon: He described his theory of Boson Cluster-State Nuclear Fusion (BCSNF), which he extended to include hydrogen–metal systems, and said that the predicted values of the reaction can be compared  with the experimental values measured during of the Defkalion`s reaction. In his opinion, what happens is that the magnetic fields created enforce the magnetic alignment of the nickel atoms, which in turn create ​​local magnetic traps (LMT) of bosons on the surface of nickel dust, although these traps have a short lifespan. And he summed up: "The report of the mixture of hydrogen and nickel dust to the plasma arch generates a magnetic field that leads atoms in Rydberg state and allows to create magnetic traps at the nanoscale. The fusion of the captive bosons on the nickel surface produces excess heat and local discharge sparks ".

According to Kim, this self-sustained reaction could be improved by increasing the density of reactant gas. This must be tested in the next generation of Defkalion`s reactor (code named Hyperion R-6). This will happen after a on-line real-time mass spectrometer - which has been already ordered from the Greek company Fasmatech and it is been currently manufactured - becomes operational.The problem has been solved," Kim concluded with enthusiasm and he declared eager to speak to any other theorist of physics in order to convince them. And, as he stated in an interview ( at Vancouver I witnessed a protocoled successful test with results leaving no doubt about plenty of heat in excess and good control of the device. I am an optimist regarding the principles, but also for discovering and or creating the details which I plan to work on very hard in collaboration with my DGTG friends.

The striptease dare
Scientifically speaking, the cold fusion arsenal had now been increased dramatically. However, for the skeptics of the experimental reaction the question remained as to how the measurements and the theoretical explanations were the results of a controlled environment and the ability of the reactor to repeat the process over and over again.
And then... something unexpected happened: On Tuesday 23 of July Defkalion broadcasted to the ICCF conference (and around the world through the Internet) an eight hour long live experimental running of the reactor.The experiment took a place at Defkalion`s laboratories in Milan, under the supervision of Mats Lewan, an independent observer (editor of the Swedish energy magazine «NyTeknik» and electrical engineer).
This broadcast was preceded by another broadcast the previous day, for an Italian TV channel and a radio station. During the eight-hour experiment Defkalion`s technicians emptied all the hydrogen from the Hyperion chambers and they filled it up with argon. Then they refilled with hydrogen and put it into operation. Although the process of filling with argon was sped up (normally would require many more hours) resulting in reduction of the system`s output performance, at the end they managed to prove that by consuming 2.7 KW of power the reactor produced 5.5 kW of heat. The approximately 1,000 online viewers of the experiment remained largely mystified by the results. Most of them were wondering if there were any hidden cables that were secretly powering the system. However an oversight of the observer, Mats Lewan, as he was franticly checking the set up blew a fuse and sank the rest of the building in the dark!  After that it was rather obvious that Hyperion`s electric circuit was a closed one and free of any mischief.
The impact of this live demonstration was extremely positive. Everybody applauded Defkalion`s courage to "open its cards" in such a bold way. Physicist Steven E. Jones - who fought against Pons and Fleischmann, back in 1989 and who participated in the conference, said: " From my observations, this is a project well worth paying attention to - interesting work and the team is showing admirable courage to open the project to scientific scrutiny in this manner.”. He also said that "the fact that they have observed a huge magnetic anomaly (in the reactor) does not surprise me. I expect it”. After 24 years ...  he was expecting it. But where are Pons and Fleischmann now, who were so harshly ridiculed?
The reaction of the Forbes magazine to the noise that the broadcast of the experiment generated was especially characteristic: When the special columnist Marc Gibbs wrote an article titled "Defkalion broadcasts live cold fusion experiment- now "(see /defkalion demonstrates-lenrlive-right-now /) ...he lost his job! Trying to figure out why he was dismissed brings a lot of thoughts to mind. But most important was the earth shuttering reply that came next day: The famous Nobel prize laureate of the eponymous Josephson effect - Professor of Cambridge, Brian David Josephson- posted to YouTube the experiment (see ), noting: " Will this be the event that finally leads to acceptance of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (cold fusion)?”

Interview: Top of FormAlexandros Xanthoulis

I went up to the new offices of Defkalion via an elevator that needed a special security code to operate. "Does this mean that you returned to Greece and abandoned Vancouver? I asked the CEO and economist Alexandros Xanthoulis.

"We always said that we would be back, although we were not sure that we could accomplish it that soon. We are not abandoning Vancouver though, as we similarly maintaining our other research center in Milan also. Our Athens office is a subsidiary of the Canadian company and covers the Middle East and the Balkans, as Milan covers Europe. The main partner of the R&D center and all companies is the Canadian Entity which carries out the administration also. Things evolve so rapidly that local presence at various points of the planet is vital."
"But is it not reasonable that someone might ask where would your assembly line be? I insisted.

"You should not look at us as an entity that would build Hyperion reactors. Defkalions prime role is research and development.Our technology has been tested by 12 different companies so far, out of which ten are part of the top companies in the world. Each one of these companies like some of the1300 other ones, from 78 countries, that we are dealing would be buying the rights of developing reactors for specific sectors and specific markets/countries. Defkalion will only develop reactors in Greece, in Xanthi, Greece, to be more specific, and for two sectors only: one would be for marine propulsion, heating and refrigeration (with 50% investor participation) and the second in providing energy for desalination factories (from a non-profit subsidiary of Defkalion). This second area is part of our humanitarian commitment to our planet, in the sense that we would not only provide cheap water solutions to our islands but also to poor countries on the planet that face severe water problems, as in Africa etc.
I smiled as I was multiplying in my mind 1300 companies times the $40 million dollars that is rumored the average cost to buy rights from Defkalion... But how real is all that? I pressed him for company names and proofs. He refused, saying that he is bound by confidentiality agreements that were requested and signed with businesses that already purchased rights.
Our meeting continued with a kind of arm wrestling match of information: I kept of bringing up company names that rumor had it they bought the rights already and him politely refusing to verify. So I cannot tell you who has already invested in Defkalions Cold-Fusion technology, but I can surely bet that: before it comes to the point that you will be able to buy  a small cold fusion engine for your house, certain car, motorcycle, stove, train and airplane makers/manufacturers would be already using them on their models. Even huge IT companies energy hungry farms of  servers.Maybe even Space Vehicle/Rocket manufacturers.
"And all this even before you formally introduced some non-experimental model of the Hyperion,,,», I commented. And then? What will your next step be? ".
"Our next step has already begun. Scientifically, it is the vast improvement of the engine, with the exploitation of the unique spectrometer that is manufactured for us by Fasmatech, right here in Greece. Business wise is our listing at the Toronto Stock Market. We are working on our paperwork and we believe that we would be able to negotiate after  October 15th, 2013. Starting November 1st, we will hold a Road Show from city to city to promote our share. "

"Listing in the Stock Market means that by October you will reveal your secret partners?"

"Yes, of course."
"And you will not have been acquired until then, by anyone? Rumor has it that there has been close business flirting by a female representative of China ... ".

"At times weve had many flirts from many countries. I could easily say from every continent. "

"Are there any of the big countries that havent shown any interest so far?".

"Yes. Russia ".

A recently published report related to cold fusion developments from Ukraine came to my mind.
Maybe because they have their own solution in their hat "I added.
For a moment he seemed to be counting the possibilities. I thought of grabbing the opportunity to surprise him.

"How about the check with seven zeros that was given to you by a consortium of Spanish bankers, businessmen and politicians so they can acquire a 21% share of Defkalion?  Wasnt this the beginning to sell even more pieces of the pie? '.
He laughed.  "I don`t know what you are talking about, but if someone is willing to add another zero to the number you said...maybe, "he replied.

P.S: While the rest will be waiting for October, all the scientifically sceptical take a look at Professor Yeong E. Kims theory that explains  Defkalions cold fusion technology: