Thursday, October 24, 2013

A SEMINAL NEW PAPER ABOUT NEW ENERGY.

The ICCF-18 paper:
"Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for 
Experimental Results of Hydrogen-Nickel Systems" by Yeong E. Kim and John Hadjichristos can be accessed from now at
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-1.pdf

I consider this paper of paramount importance, both by what it says and by the
new ways it opens, trends it suggests- it is a (the) genuine New Wave in New Energy opus.
I hope you will approach it with a positive/open minded attitude; your questions
and comments focused on the paper are welcome.
Peter

Thursday, October 17, 2013

About the secret catalyzer used by Andrea Rossi in his E-cat reactor.

Guest Editorial by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, York University, Canada


The analysis of some LENR experiments provided in my article in General Science Magazine [1] and in my recent book, Physics of Nuclear Fusion [2], leads to the suggestion what could be the Rossi catalyzer used in his E-cat reactor. In the E-cat reactor of Andrea Rossi and Hyperion reactor of Defkalion [3] one and a same nuclear reaction Ni + H -> Cu is reported. Despite some differences in the technical approach, the analysis unveils that one and a same physical phenomenon takes place in both rectors. In Hyperion reactor the high voltage discharge firstly causes a dissociation of the molecular to atomic hydrogen and then obtaining of a proper Rydberg state of the hydrogen. According to the source [4], Strongly magnetized Rydberg atoms and plasmas continue to attract interest for several reasons; they represent a well-known paradigm for quantum-chaos, exhibit interesting collective and collisional properties and may provide a superior route towards simultaneous atom-plasma confinement and control.
My theoretical work [1,2,5] and experimental research on cold plasma [2] reveals the existence of a specific state of the Rydberg atom of hydrogen in which the orbiting electron does not emits optical spectrum, while its magnetic moment becomes detectable. This is a new distinguishable feature of this state, so it is called ion-electron pair. The stability of this ion-electron pair is kept by the attractive Coulomb forces, while the electron rotating around the heavier ion (proton in case of hydrogen) drives the pair due to its anomalous magnetic moment. The electron has 658 times greater magnetic moment than the proton, so the magnetic fields from a large number of ion-electron pairs combine constructively in clusters creating a much stronger magnetic field. The strong magnetic field detected during the live test of Hyperion reactor broadcasted on 22-23 July 2013 might be a signature of this effect. The magnetic field of some ion-electron pair interacts with the nuclear magnetic moment of the nucleus that is in a proper nuclear spin state. As a result the Coulomb barrier is overcome, so the proton from the hydrogen ion-electron pair is fused to the nickel nucleus converted it to a copper. The proper nuclear spin facilitates the cold fusion process, according to Ruggero Santilli, as discussed in [2]. In the Hyperion reactor, the creation of ion-electron pairs (Rydberg atoms) is caused by the high voltage plasma discharge. In the E-cat reactor, this phenomenon might be invoked by beta particles emitted by some radioactive isotopes. This could be the secret catalyzer used by Rossi in his E-cat device. Practically it is not convenient to mix the radioactive beta emitters with the nickel powder. It is more appropriate to place them at the outside wall of the container holding the powder. Then the external shield of beryllium used in the E-cat reactor might play a double role: shielding the external environments from the beta particles and shielding from some radiation obtained due to nuclear reactions. In provided public test Rossi did not allow close examination of the E-cat device by sensitive detectors.
The process of ion-electron pair formation, its properties and interaction with the proper nuclear spin is described in the book [2]. Additionally a new method was suggested for estimation of the position of the proton prior to the nuclear fusion. The analysis and the new method suggest also a possibility for other nuclear reactions using chromium and hydrogen. It is shown that the right selection of heavier element isotope is important for successful cold fusion reaction with minimum radioactive by-products.
In conclusion, the Rossi secret could be uncovered by experimenting with beta emitters.  There is a large variety of such isotopes produced for medical purpose and defectoscopy.

References:
1.     Stoyan Sarg, Physics of Cold Fusion with BSM-SG Atomic Models, http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4805
2.     Stoyan Sarg, Structural Physics of Nuclear Fusion, Amazon.com, (2013)

5.     Stoyan Sarg, Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory (2002), Amazon.com

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

HOW “COLD FUSION” FITS IN MY GRAND VISION OF EXISTENCE..AND A MIRACLE.



Because we are living in It, it is quite interesting and even useful to understand how this World is functioning, how it does work.
I have tried to understand what, how and why happens, and how long. Actually I have worked out an original system described in my papers and editorials and Septoes.

The very core of it is the inherent, inexhaustible, infinite interestingness of our Universe.  Both Freeman Dyson and I have concluded that our Universe is most interesting of all the possible universes. This means there are myriads of alternative universes with no life, no sex, no conscience, no stupidity, no evil appearing there at all, and some of these are still privileged if you compare them with most rudimentary universes missing molecules, atoms, quarks whatever down to those primitive ones in which space and time are unable to become distinct, annoying beyond any imaginable limits. However we live in a fine interesting Universe and:
The Universe feeds our insatiable curiosity forever
The Universe is obsessed to be interesting.

The problem is how can things be really interesting- first of all surprising? The answer is … a brand new Septoe:
Interesting: things are not what they seem.
In order to know the differences between what seems to be and what really is, humans have created Science and Research, these have to use thinking
The idea of this new Septoe is quite negative; it is known we, humans have many problems to solve all the time, it is not difficult to guess that the problems can be solved only starting from the correct premises and if we have usually the wrong, unrealistic premises- we are in trouble before starting to solve the problems.
This explains Rule no 3 here:


that is dreadful; you must to waste a lot of time, energy, effort, creativity just for defining the problems (to understand them) instead of effectively solving them. The great task of human thinking is to differentiate what the things seem from what the things really are.
This is a continuous, inexorable, unavoidable, destructive-constructive, difficult process in all fields of knowledge; it is evolution and progress the unique way of improvement. I hope you have guessed: cold fusion is no exception! However it is in a sense an extreme case because it was discovered so much before its time and in such a wrong place, I have repeatedly told you about this unhappy start- the most clearly probably when I have confessed that everything I knew about cold fusion was wrong. The best euphemism would be to say that my writings had a very limited impact: palladium is still “glowrious”, the F& P electrolytic cell went to the European Commission, and very few colleagues think there is a qualitative essential difference between LENR classic and the enhanced excess heat generating LENR+ and its advanced form, HENI... If at least the title of this series is true:

then CF/LENR is still an immature field and it makes no sense for me to continue, I will have zero success anyway. Obviously it is saison morte for publishing now, serious work is acousticophobic/ligyrophobic (see the list of phobias) - and the chances of be more convincing now are low. However this morning something strange and unbelievable has happened this morning- Kurt Harden the editor of the wonderful Cultural Offering- a daily enchantment for me has published a perfect description of the impossible, as defined for our field. I have asked Kurt’s permission to reproduce it for you, and this time, I am sure you will confirm me honestly that this has never happened in our solid basic memecracy, and it never will:


A change of mind

He changed his mind.  He altered his course.  He reversed his position.  He advocated a new path. 

The decision had been made.  The course established.  The plan was set in motion.  Details were mapped.

But then new information came in.  It was good data and it showed something new.  Something different from the old data.  The savings weren't there.  The results would not be as expected.  He recognized this, tilted his head back and chuckled.  

A new plan was made.  

It was that simple.  New data.  New conclusion.  An altered path.  

No ego.  Just a change of mind.
Posted by KH at 10/15/2013 9:57 PM 
Categories: Business

 I am very impressed, even shocked by such a never met possibility for “us”. Did something even a bit similar happened with a leading cold fusion theorist? I cannot remember; as far I know all theories are born via spontaneous generation, increase in complexity but do not change. Any and all disputes re LENR go a way of exactly 360 degree i.e return, sometimes very tired, to the very starting point- I have seen a few thousands of examples. 
Detailitis, Dilutitis, Disputitis- An Eternal Palladium Braid.
What can we do? I have always told that initiative is the great differentiator between people – so I have to start the action. I will write down 100 times: “Palladium is the future! It is NOT an unmanageable expensive metal!! The cradle is the best vehicle!!!” 
Using autosuggestion well I will succeed to believe that CF is what everybody knows it is and not was those bad New Wave people try to convince us.                                                                                                     Who will follow my example of making such a Harden type miracle- in the inverse direction?

Peter

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

REVERSE ENGINEERING IS NOT FOR TECHNO-SISSIES.



A great lady whom I will ever admire, has stated a sad and merciless truth: “ Old age is no place for sissies”(Bette Davis)
It is a nice exercise to translate ‘sissies’ in more languages, but anyway it is about weak people. On the contrary, it is not nice at all to state in practice how painfully real is this sentence. OK, we all have to learn to ignore with some elegance the inconvenient things; LENR is no exception especially if we have pet ideas, personal theories and recurrent slogan-memes.
Bette Davis is right and many other things are no place for sissies; an example is technology, creating new revolutionary technologies.
Today I want to tell you about a special area of technology, not simple, not easy to define, describe and to do; full of contradictions and with some moral implications. My original expertise is in chemical industry- seemingly is not the best place for using reverse engineering. Taking a simple product as ethanol or dioctylphtalate, usually quality = purity and even the most advanced analytical instrumental methods cannot reveal how it was manufactured. Except perhaps some significant trace impurities. However, it happens I have worked with a product having a really complex morphology and structure. I can say today suspension PVC was for me what mathematics was for Yiannis Hadjichristos- a long tough school of complexity.
I remember well when I have spoken for the first time about the concept of reverse engineering.
A sympathetic and agile radio reporter from radio Craiova, Mr. Tantaru (Mosquito in   Romanian) has discovered that the research lab of OLTCHIM that I was leading, could be a source of news- and has made a habit to visit us each Sunday morning and make interviews with me- about global and, local technological progress. He was a real mosquito, coming early and asking much.
Once I told him about the necessity of total documentation-information something I have discovered independently from the then popular idea of total football (soccer).

Mosquito: So you consider that if somebody works for the technology of PVC he has to read and learn everything it was
published about the technology of PVC?

Gluck:  If you are a serious professional, this is actually a minimum. It is just the tip of the iceberg- read all papers and all patents and all available technical leaflets and even advertisements. You can learn much about how to manufacture the product from these, however the real truth- why to do what you do, why NOT to do some things…this deep truth is at the people and hidden in the products. You have to communicate with the people and to analyze the best products from the market.

Such statements were not in accordance with the politics of the communist Party claiming we are more advanced than the moribund capitalism; I could tell everything non-political at that radio from the simplest reason- it was obvious that it has exactly zero audience, nobody was interested to listen it. It was an exercise of rhetoric and an illusion of some freedom. Paradox. However PVC-S being a strategic product and its market competitivity essential, I was allowed to communicate with colleagues, to ask papers and conference reports, and even samples of products. Surely everything I wrote was supervised and censored by some incompetent people but the laziness of the censors and the laissez faire spirit were my most powerful allies- I dare to say I was very well informed. I have lead an extended program of analyzing and characterization of many (around 100) samples of leading high quality PVC assortments, from many companies. Kind of multiple parallel sui generis reverse engineering. Take a sample, analyze it
by a dozen of specific analytical methods, combine the results with what you know from the patents and the papers of the experts working at that company, try to determine correlations, compare, think and think again. Apply the scientific method, directly or in steps, more or less primitively and continue to work for a few years incessantly with almost unlimited patience.
Process or harmonize contradictory data, manage surprises, swallow series of failures, enjoy complexity and make the conclusions understandable for your collaborators. Apply them creatively in practice. Is this a job for technological sissies?  How can be judged such a program in the light of professional ethics?
Is it just an extension of documentation, a special method of gathering vital information? Or is it an incipient form of industrial
espionage? You are not cheating anybody, not stealing intellectual property, it is very hard work.
It is known that the really good salesman knows the products of the competition better than his own. The competition is free to take your product and analyze it at will. Patents protecting a product have to be respected; patents protecting a process are vulnerable anyway. I think that reverse engineering is an exam for the expert
and an implicit threat for every manufacturer.

However industrial espionage is a dirty affair and I want to illustrate this with a spectacular case: that of the hyper fuel MG- microencapsulated gasoline. For more than 30 years tens of the best companies of the world have failed to make an usable product and were not able to build an engine working with it- decently. The idea of MG seemed to be a complete failure when a Romanian
Company Energie Arcal Uinoe – (Noah’s Ark Energies, NAE) has solved the problem and has presented prototypes of working MG machines Due to the too strict Romanian tax laws and to overwhelming bureaucracy, NAE has moved to Alaska. Quite recently the CTO of NAE, Ioan Santulescu has made a demo of half a day duration at the Iceland branch at Reykjavik of the company showing how well the MG generator works. Unfortunately the Icelandic Officer, of the company, Loftur Gretson has tried to steal and to send to the US competition, LEDOM Theorcomp, a few grams of NAE’s proprietary microencapsulated gasoline. It is not easy to cheat smart Romanians they have guessed this evil plan and have replaced the good product with an inactive one, with no traces of gasoline in it, so our Icelandic guy proved that industrial espionage is not for sissies, too.
However he made a lot of trouble and eventually the Icelandic branch of NAE has frozen; nothing to wonder in that cold climate. But do not worry, Romanians are inborn problem solvers and Ioan Santulescu is a great one, everything will be OK.


Thursday, October 3, 2013

WAYS 6 – THE TEACHER

Motto: In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Albert Einstein (attributed)

Twenty-one years ago, on a nice October day, I stepped into the big festivity room of the Academy of Economic Science, where the official opening of the university year was held. I was a fresh(wo)man. After the usual opening words from the Academy officials, Professor Doctor Anghel Rugina was introduced to the audience, as a prominent American Economist of Romanian origin. He was 79-years-young back then (he died in 2008, at the age of 95).

It was the first time I have heard about this guy, however after I listened to his very short speech, I knew I would remember him for the rest of my life. He told us to value every moment of the university years ahead and to pay attention to all our teachers, no matter how we judge them – good or bad, strong or weak. He said we should always have in mind that there is much to learn also from the bad teachers; from them, we learn how we should NOT be in our future life. And sometimes such learning may prove more valuable than the positive one.

Later on, I discovered during a Six Sigma training that one of the most powerful methods of brainstorming is practicing the negative thinking. It is very useful especially when you hit a dead end in terms of solutions. You challenge the participants to think of anything which can make the situation worse than it is. Negative creativity is far more imaginative than positive one. And then, you identify those actions which, by reversing the idea, have potential to become constructive solutions.

My dear friend Peter (the ‘owner’ of this English blog who is generous enough to host my postings here), is another fervent supporter of the constructive power of the word ‘NO’.  He has developed a sensational set of rules for problem solving. Most of those rules I apply in my day to day life. Peter had found supporters of his ideas worldwide and thus they helped him translate those rules in many languages. You can look for a version in your own language here.

I come back to the learning process now. That October day in 1992 marked one of the most important lessons for me, even thou Prof. Dr. Rugina was never on my university curriculum. Another memorable day was when I realized that the ‘Golden Rule’ which was instilled to me as a child would be better applied in its ‘Platinum’ version. More exactly, not only you should not do to others what you would not like them do to you, but you should basically do to others what they would like to be done to them (something like first observe, then empathize and only in the end actually deliver).

I would stop here with examples of my past learning, as it would be totally unfair to mention some great teachers from my life and omit others. Therefore I will mention none. It suffices to say that I consider myself extremely lucky, as I have had the opportunity to learn from everyone and everything that surrounds me. I have been learning from family and school, work place and nature, friends and foes, dreams and reality alike.

Why do I consider ‘the teacher’ as one of the ways we have to focus on, so that we can get ahead? I believe no extensive arguments are needed. It is obvious for most of the people that the current worldwide situation (which I am not sure we should even call ‘crisis’ any more) is deeply rooted in the moral hazard that has gradually swamped most of the inhabitants of this world.

I do not believe that we will solve our moral dilemmas by splitting the world into 99% vs. 1% - the poor and pure vs. the rich and rotten. No one is free from moral hazard. Almost any man or woman in this world is exposed daily to temptation, corruption and sin. The difference between the 99% and the 1% is the type of temptation they face – more or less expensive. Mankind is full of sinners and saints, liars and truth-holders, with a rather reasonable distribution on all regions, religions, professions and income levels.

There is of course one significant difference, which is that the 1% decides on taxes and laws, respectively distribution of wealth and punishment. And they do so, basically as they please. But in this respect we should wake up and see reality for what it is. It was always like this. There were always kings and servants, nobles and peasants, generals and troopers, priests and sinners. There was always a reasonable middle class, providing services to whoever could afford them, and there were always taxes and duties.

What got really complicated in the past decades was the increasing interdependence between democratic systems (which need electors to legitimate their rulers) and financial systems. In theory, each democratic system is based on separation of powers. In practice, they are all interconnected and fueled by one circulatory system, which is the financial system – the blood that irrigates all the state organs in the contemporary society. And also in practice, there is no humanly operated system which is immune to moral hazard. Everyone started to bend moral rules in order to get what they targeted – some wanted power, other wanted profit, most of them wanted both.

I believe everybody has heard of the little Golden Fish (you know… the one who can make dreams come true!) or of Aladdin’s lamp. In the past decades, the financial system assumed this fairy-tale role for whoever wanted to make a wish come true. Car, house, political or legal power, and so on. Some had smaller and other had bigger dreams. As you know, some things cannot be bought… for everything else there is xxxx (will not mention the credit card provider, but you get the point).

Therefore, we have nice theoretical separation of powers and nice theoretically functional macroeconomics and nice theoretically working financial systems. Practically, informal systems were born from the interaction of the initially planned theoretical ones. And they started to grow and lead a life of their own, just like tumors in an apparently healthy body. Doctors only noticed when it was too late. It is metastatic already.

It is hard to tell which system has sinned more and who is to blame for what. All the ‘systems’ which should be theoretically functional are practically as good as their human operators. Just as it happens with machines and company – their lives depend on the quality of the people behind them.

And thus I finally get to the point of this Way edition: why do we need to redefine our Teachers? 

Because we cannot kill our systems. It would be like a mass suicide, as they are actually our working places, our source of income, our future education and health service systems. We need to re-adapt them to a practically functional reality, in a way which is acceptable to our moral standards.

Communities cry out nowadays that their educational systems are failing. Unfortunately, they seem to refer purely to the organized school, college and university education; however I would like to go one step further. I would also blame it on what Peter likes to call it the new religion – Moneyteism. 

And specifically on one of its Gods - the Career God. It is killing most of our teachers. Families are dying because of lack of focus on personal time (while home education is crucial for a successful school impact). A large number of managers do not follow a teaching path because of the perceived competition. They are afraid to lose power and thus they keep information and prevent knowledge sharing. They are afraid that their own people may learn too fast and shine too much when (alas!), they should know that people reflect their light upon their teachers. By suffocating talent within a team, managers are basically getting in the way of their own future development. Good managers should spot talents and encourage them to learn as much as possible, regard them not as threats but as opportunities. The talent pool can either provide successor ship (and thus set their manager free, to further expand their own career) or can become peers in other important areas of the organization and create an ideal network for their former teachers and colleagues. A manager, who treats the people as potential future stars, is on the way to own personal growth.

Is then the Career God a bad God for us? I believe not. I believe that if we start seeing It as a Teacher we can improve our life as a whole – both professional and personal side. And the same goes for other Moneyteistic Gods. If we learn good things from them and not let them rule us, we can live a fulfilling life.

I will end my post today with a common sense question: WHO should be the Teacher of tomorrow?
The short answer is: me, you, us together. And we should be also pupils at the same time, all our lives. Because we have to walk before we can run, we have to learn before we can teach, and we have to be proud to have lived before we can die in peace.

We are the teachers of our families (husbands and wives, kids, parents, other relatives), of our work places (colleagues and bosses), of our friends and our enemies equally. We are good teachers and bad teachers in one and the same body, because we cannot be saints all the time - we are merely humans. We should not be afraid of this but embrace our nature, while remembering all the time that WE ARE THE TEACHERS. 

The people around us will learn both from the good stuff and the bad, how they should and how they should not be - every day! Sometimes they will get it wrong, misunderstand our ways and misjudge our actions. But we should never give up being ourselves, with the permanent knowledge that we are the masters of our life and the teachers of our fellow people. And as such, we need to live our life so we can smile when we see ourselves in the mirror – every day.

All the best,

Georgina Popescu

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Active sites vs. NAE, is there a priority?

In 2005, Steve Krivit and I have published a Survey based on 4 essential questions about cold fusion. You can compare the answers of Ed Storms and my answers to be able to judge if the Stormsian concept of NAE adds (or subtracts?) something to/from my original 1992 description of active sites and if I have the moral obligation to cite Ed whenever I write about NAE; or “Environment” is just a sophisticated renaming of “site” Please consider that I disagree with Ed’s ideas regarding both the structure and the function of HISNAE-now..See please:http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/2005GluckKrivitSurvey.shtml  

WHAT IS COLD FUSION (LENR, CANR, CMNS)? 

Cold fusion, or LENR, is the initiation of various nuclear reactions within special solid structures without the need to apply an amount of energy normally required to overcome the Coulomb barrier. - E. Storms  

CF is a quasi catalytic, surface, local, dynamic (SURFDYN) class of phenomena. Hypersensitive and complex. Nanoscience at its best and worst. The active sites are very difficult to be visualized, measured… and generated.- P. Gluck  

HOW DOES IT WORK? 

An unknown process can occur in a unique structure of a suitable small size that can neutralize the Coulomb barrier between atoms. This process involves a collective interaction between electrons and/or between hydrogen isotopes when either are present in sufficient amounts.The process involves a resonance interaction that is controlled by the size of the solid structure. For fusion between deuterons to occur or if a hydrogen isotope is added to another element, the structure must dissolve a critical quantity of the required hydrogen isotope. When the amount of energy applied to the structure is small, the condition of the structure is very important to achieving anomalous results. However, as applied energy is increased, the nature of the structure becomes less important, until at a sufficiently high energy, behavior becomes completely conventional.- E. Storms  

This is actually a three part question: where, what, how-i.e. topology, nature mechanism and the answers will lead us to why it works? The first question is determinant i.e. "topology is the key".It is a deep mystery for me why my paper was ignored and why Ed Storm's concept and solid ideas re "nuclear active environment" was not seriously considered. Both are based on facts and are logical- in the frame of the experimental situation.There are many theories and part of them have elements of a very fragmented truth, but no one is complete. In my personal opinion, Akito Takahashi's theory is the closest to reality.My late friend, Chris Tinsley, had a bright intuition when he told : “Cold Fusion is for Hot Fusion what biochemistry is for chemistry” This means that: “Cold Fusion needs a complex, multi-level, multi-step, multi-center, theory as has, for example photosynthesis”HOWEVER- in this case "what does NOT work is as important as what does work" and the problem of reproducibility is vital, seemingly endemic for CF. The curse of it. If we understand why, we understand how CF works. Therefore any theory that is not explaining this R-problem is not good and if it used too dominantly, a bad theory can be an impediment to progress. It generates bad answers and what's more dangerous, bad questions.Speaking about reproducibility the good question is- what to reproduce?My taxonomy of the experimental results is based on technological reproducibility. During the 16+ years of CF history we had three category of experiments, or generators or cathodes:HEALTHY- they gave over 1000% excess and heat after death.There were less than 10 such events- F&P, Mizuno (the most powerful,see his book, introduction), Piantelli, Patterson, Szpak and now, Energetics Technologies (cathode 64). Very rare events.THESE HAVE TO BE REPRODUCED! Only these have technological significance.ILL- usually weak, 10-30% heat excess- good to keep hope in better results alive. Some 10exp3 results during the whole history of CF.

DEAD- no measurable heat excess some 10exp4 experiments.The situation of technological reproducibility is dreadful and I think perhaps we are doing systematically something extremely wrong, an unknown fatal error and we kill sistematically the cathodes- after a laborious empirical process of building nuclearly active sites. I think about a serious possibility that any contact with the air is killing irreversibly the active sites, ergo we need perhaps anaerobic cathodes. Perhaps otherwise protected cathodes.The possible culprit is pollution, those traces of impurities from air that - everybody believes it- can change the climate of Earth, but cannot do harm to CF.?It seems the nuclearly active sites (they give a special electronic environment that catalyses the birth of neutral entities) is very difficult to obtain but extremely easy to destroy. Up to now we have worked probably in the manner of Ulysses (correct Sisyphus!!!) and the clue is to protect the cathodes, in a smart way. In any case, there is a deep dark secret of the R-problem and till this is not revealed, CF will be in trouble, as it is now.- P. Gluck  

WHAT CHANCES DOES IT HAVE TO BE SCALED UP TO A TECHNOLOGY? 

So far, no reason has been found that would prevent the process from being scaled to any level required. The only challenge is to identify the unique structure and make it in a large amount. In addition, the energy producing process appears to be very safe, free of significant radiation, and self limiting.- E. Storms  

If the reproducibility problem/conundrum can be solved- the way to many technologies generating energy and transmuting elements is wide open. My guess is that these will be based on gas-phase and not on electrolysis or other wet processes.- P. Gluck  

WHAT MUST WE DO IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THIS? 

Two issues must be investigated. We need to know the characteristics of the unique structure and we need to know the mechanism that operates within that structure. So far, most workers have assumed the structure is PdD and have applied various mechanisms to this simple structure. In fact, many observations show that the real structure is much more complex. As a result, the proposed mechanisms may not have any relationship to the real world. E. Storms

 First of all we have to convert the huge volume of negativeinformation from the field in positive knowledge. That means understanding CF by the R-problem."We" are in the same boat and we have to cooperate if we want the field to survive and even prosper. In principle, that's simple: let's be serious, organized, intelligent, and lucky! Coopetition is essential – the problem is too difficult for small teams"Serious"- was defined by the Romanian thinker Mihail Ralea- "to be focused on essential,important things and not on the halo of less significant events and ideas around them"Let's focus on reproducibility!Let's focus on enhancement and not on measurement! (Till we will need good, sensitive calorimetry to show the effect, CF is not good for engineers and entrepreneurs and we have to wait for good money as for Godot)Let's focus on high(er) temperature processes!(these are good for thermodynamics)Let's include the R-problem in the future theories! We need first class, i.e. preduictive theories."Organized" means real exchange of ideas, using well the opportunities given by meetings, symposia, congresses for real dialogue and not parallel monologs.ICCF’s and other gatherings were fine but the system they work is not good for real exchange of ideas re. the essentials.“Intelligent”- let’s use Mihail Ralea’s negative definition: “to be intelligent means to NOT mistake the points of view”. I think that – for example, it is not intelligent to ignore Storm’s ideas because they contradict our pet theory. It is also not intelligentto reject completely Randy Mills hydrino concept, because that is heterodoxia. There are great chances that deuterium collapse is a phase of the CF process. And even Paolo Correa had some promising ideas – and at least he is aware of the complexity of the phenomena, this has nothing to do with other aspects of his behavior. And to discard the valuable negative results as xperimental errors that’s … very bad.To be intelligent means to be very open to alternative ideas and approaches."Lucky" - we clearly need luck- in different form: a solid breakthrough now, good ideas, a billionaire CF lover, a David Sarnoff or Jack Welch, an open minded young theorist, many creative experimenters, new ideas and brains. Let’s hope, CF deserves great luck.- P. Gluck