Longtime LENR researcher, now LENR+ advocate (read further to know the difference) operating from Cluj, Romania, Peter Gluck has published an interesting sequence of observations and suggestions on the process of bringing a newly discovered phenomenon into a usable technology for the betterment of humankind, and how those involved in that process may operate to the best, and worst, possible outcomes.

While we don’t always agree, the problems associated with bringing a revolutionary new technology into human civilization are, in part, outlined here with a pointed direction towards solutions, and with sensitivity.

The full essay is here.

A lengthy excerpt follows:

Researcher and Author Peter Gluck

Problem solving is a great art, and, modesty apart, I am a guru of it- (see my 20 Rules of Problem Solving in this Blog.) A practical principle is that a very good solution is applicable for surprisingly broad range of things.

Take in consideration that: “The Good and Evil are Siamese twins”- ergo the Manual, in an adapted form. can be used for other problems too even if these are essentially good, positive, constructive.

In my former writing it was stated that LENR needs a Definition.

At the Panel of LENR theory at ICCF-17 it was minimum of superposition or concordance between the basic ideas of the brightest 5 theorists, their assumptions are different and their logic and mathematics do not intersect. I conclude that prior to a definition, for LENR it will be necessary to have a lot of more mutual understanding, less Babelization, a bit of conceptual harmony, a good inner taxonomy. and even standards. The standards have to be accessible and acceptable for the LENR people but also for those outside the field who take the decisions.

The Modern Mass Manipulation Manual (MMMM) can be used to help to make these tasks more clear…

DIVIDE and Solve
Divide- and the other two basic MMMM verbs/actions are poly-semantic here.

Even huge works, plans, tasks (says the science of Project Management and also the common sense) can be fulfilled if they are divided, in small sub-tasks. Sometimes, this is the unique possibility to make a mega-task manageable. Other times it is a trick to get time till the task becomes obsolete or ceases to be interesting or important.

Wicked problems must be split in small steps, actions and tasks. Tasks have to be smartly segmented. Logical schemes with alternative ways have to be created; careful good planning is essential.

We have to divide the great field of LENR in sub-domains, select those with the best scientific and technological (if!) perspectives and focus on those with the highest expectations. I am using a rather simple approach; when I speak about dividing, the “knife” I am using is technology. I repeat- the main criteria for dividing is: what is good for technology and is potentially commercially valuable, from what cannot lead to a technology and is merely a lab curiosity.

But this thinking too must avoid logical rigidity. Divide ideas in those that are possible, those that can be made possible and those that are not possible. These three categories are overlapping dynamically, will remain in evolution.

If, in LERN you try to divide the things in simple and complicated, then in practice you will state soon that actually they are very complex and amazingly complex.

Everything I know in LENR I have learned from my colleagues via their writings and messages, however today it is a sharp division between my opinion and the LENR opinions of other people. This is due to my focusing on technology and on the future – perhaps most people will consider I am anticipating some facts. Only the future can show if I am too optimistic regarding the present situation of the field. It will also show if I am too pessimistic regarding the technological future (lack of it, actually) of the classic, pre-revolutionary part of LENR.

Yes, when it is about dividing the entire LENR field, it seems only I am speaking about LENR and LENR+ following a technical and scientific revelation caused by the Defkalion process. It is described as:

LENR – unexpected, not controllable nuclear reactions in a hydrogen isotope plus transition metal system.

LENR+ – designed and controllable nuclear reactions in a hydrogen plus transition metal system enhanced by making hydrogen reactive and the metal more receptive.

If this division/classification will be ever accepted, this depends on the industrial success of the Hyperions and of the E-cats– if they become heaters as usual and are sold as other older energy generators.

It is a great pity and delay that this simple and powerful principle “make hydrogen reactive and nickel more receptive” is not recognized; this is in a way present in Piantelli’s process (hydrogen negative ion and nano-clusters of nickel). I bet that Rossi’s E-cats – he had more variants of them thin and fat, are all also based on this generic “best practice” or “core understanding”.Rossi speaks so many times about the necessity to use atomic hydrogen and to apply some special proprietary treatments to the micrometric Ni powder, that this is a case where we can believe him.

It is also regrettable that in the present time, the LENR+ deniers and LENR+ ignoranti are so predominant, the qualitative difference between the classical LENR systems and the fledgling LENR+ technologies remain merely unknown.

By the way, my Open Letter [read] was accepted very politely by the organizers of the ICCF-17, but as far I could state its impact on the participants was zero or less. It could be worse.

However despite the fact that I have predicted the technological failure of palladium and deuterium in wet systems these are continuing to be popular and the pre-formed nanometric complex powders are participating in many scientific orgies with both deuterium and hydrogen.

So it is a sharp division between my opinion and the opinions of my colleagues and friends, however one of the first slogans I created says; “Differences in opinions attract smart people and repel only those who are not so” Sometimes this is almost true, however it sounds fine, isn’t it?

I have now the typical behavior of a theorist speaking my own language, own concepts and very personal presumptions and specific approach; and I am not the fan of anybody, even not of myself because I do not claim my inerrancy.

For a standard we have to analyze the similarities and the differences between LENR and LENR+. In practice only LENR+ as Defkalion says- needs a standard and a definition, and only LENR+ has to be and can be standardized.

CONNECT and Understand
First of all, LENR has to be connected to reality, this is usually a painful and shocking experience and it is especially difficult when it is about the technological reality. Defkalion’s experience (see their paper at ICCF-17) shows that even if LENR is the cause of many natural phenomena, hydrogen and nickel in their “almost” natural-technological state are very far from being ready to initiate/enter a low energy nuclear reaction, have no real chances, and their physico-chemical status has to be radically and deeply transformed.

This explains the extreme difficulty of experimental LENR and shows the way to LENR+ as an energy source.

Connect with pragmatism and disconnect from theoretical idealism, re-connect theory and experiment. Connect as strongly possible, LENR and the Scientific Method (principles of Galileo).

Without this connection any progress in understanding and in making LENR useful, is illusory.

Few people will agree with me that the time is ripe for LENR’s weaning from palladium, therefore I will not say that perhaps it is time to invest less (money, time, hopes) in wet systems (yes I know about Brillouin!), electrolysis, deuterium. The great LENR community is free and democratic, everybody does something resulting from what he/she has already done, likes to do and affords to do. Global LENR management and strategy are inexistent, or, just happen. Perhaps a better connection between the teams could help.

Connect in stronger and more powerful networks of researchers, but include good engineers and materials scientists. Connect to the essence and disconnect from the fuzzy halo of ideas around it. This is a problem of subjectivity and of definitions.

Connect with more and more remote scientific and technical ideas trying to create creative bisociations.

Connect better- smarter, more diplomatically with the press, develop empathy for their points of view and try to convince the journalists that a working LENR is a better source of interesting sellable information than a failed LENR.

Special- National Instruments has connected with the best LENR warriors and has established a very valuable model.

In the near future, the place where LENR+ Truth can be revealed is Defkalion’s on-line real time mass spectrometry plus the other systematic and instrumental analyses- a unique window of opportunity. I hope DGTG will connect with an excellent strategic partner as good in instrumental analysis as National Instruments is in instrumental measurements, for this task of paramount importance. Goddess Athena, help us!

May I add some highly desirable but rather idealistic connections?

Develop more connected professional networks, include engineers, managers, specialists in materials science, IT people, clever businessmen, nice politicians…

Make friends, make demos, make positive noise. Develop empathy for skeptics. Stop infighting. Develop strong solidarity in the LENR community and do not let it to degrade to liquidarity or even gasidarity.
Disconnect from the cursed word “anomalous”; use ‘unexpected’ or ‘surprising’ instead.

LENR is at least as natural as combustion, nuclear fission or hot fusion but much more environmentally friendly as these.

LENR is more concentrated, practical and reliable as solar or wind energy. It has to be developed in harmony with the other forms of energy, connected with these by complementarity not by senseless rivalry.

COMBINE and Enhance
First of all, combine the best modes of thinking for understanding the generative essence and spirit of LENR+.

Combine and unite the good things and eliminate the bad things.

Combine the best theories, more precisely the fragments of truth from these to develop real understanding and ideas for the technological development of this science. Accept that theories if not combined and confronted with solid experimental data are uselessly incomplete…

Accept that only combinations of theories are able to explain LENR that is a very puzzling combination of a broad range of branches of physics and chemistry.

LENR+ uses secret combinations of chemicals that enhance some of the critical (bottleneck) stages of the set of reactions that lead to LENR+. Rossi calls in a populistic manner these combinations “Catalyst” and calls his generator E-cats– a misnomer taking profit from the general sympathy toward the household felines.

The combination of words “cold fusion” is an other misnomer. (for ‘fusion’- ask Steve Krivit) , ‘cold’ is also not true/real. LENR+ is not as hot as Hot Fusion (at millions of degrees) but it is very hot for earthly conditions. It seems that as Defkalion says, LENR+ takes place only in the dynamic vacancies – miniature workshops of Hephaistos with Hell- like conditions.

Conclusion: for the success of LENR, we have to divide it in LENR+ that is both interesting and valuable and LENR classic that is only interesting, we have connect it to good things and disconnect it from harmful things; and, eventually we have to combine what we already know with what we still have to discover- all these in order to create the best energy source of the near future. –Peter Gluck


  1. Thanks Ruby for presenting Peter’s interesting observations. It triggered a thought that brought my attention to the left margin of this page. Specifically, Tadahiko Mizuno’s wonderful book Nuclear Transmutation:The Reality of Cold Fusion. This is what real science is. First determine what is actually going on (get a full analytical package of what products are being created) before you come up with theories. In my opinion, there seems to be a real disconnect between the proposed theories and reality. I would think that a theory would have to explain these transmutations (and the ISOTOPIC SHIFTS of palladium) in D-Pd systems and some of them don’t (unless I’ve missed something).

    1. P.S.
      I understand that working with pure isotopes and getting full analytical packages require a lot of MONEY and this in many cases forces theorists to make best guesses

      1. That book is awesome. It’s so compelling with the personal feel, and yet the science carries the story forward. That’s why I have it on the side there, so people may be inclined to read that, cause you don’t even have to be a nuclear scientist to get it either.

        “There is no reality beyond the experimental data”, says Edmund Storms.

        I wish all these folks would gather round the pile of experiments and go one-by-one through it all. There is plenty of data available – to start with.

        I guess I have my own fantasies….!

        1. And not to give away too much of the story, Mizuno did this all in a closet sized lab with a leaky ceiling (he had a little less funding than the hot fusion boys).

Comments are closed.