Sunday, January 22, 2017



Image result for technology quotationsImage result for technology quotations

The author and I have stated                        The reverse is also true, in part
independently "Our world is the most 
interesting of all possible worlds"

Image result for technology quotations

I have promised him that LENR will become a technology. It was not in his lifetime
How about my lifetime? Andrea Rossi says he has a real LENR technology that worked well for a year but his licensees started to say he has nothing- sfter that
year when Rossi started a trial for the money they owe him and have not paid-- if the plant has worked as it was ERVised in 3 (4)  reports.The litigation is in full development now.
Technology or not technology, this is the question!?


a) Ed Storms accuses me that I am a pessimist

Well Peter, your pessimism seems to be getting worse. First you thought that only Ni-H was useful to study, with the Pd-D system being a lesser phenomenon having no usefulness. Now you seem to think that no form of LENR can be understood well enough for it to be applied.  Apparently, you think we all are wasting our time if the goal is a practical energy source. I think you will grant that interesting behavior is happening, but you seem to think the behavior will never be useful.   Do I understand you correctly?

In my case, I believe LENR will be the energy of the future, it will save mankind from the ravages of carbon-based and uranium-based fuels, and it will allow the terriforming and occupation of Mars.  In addition, the process will reveal new and important understanding of how nuclei can interact.  This information will make transmutation possible as the Alchemists had claimed long ago was possible.  Nevertheless, right now mankind has to get through some tough times and conventional science has to take an interest.  Meanwhile, exploring LENR is a way to have fun without needing much money.   We can even gloat about hot fusion needing billions of dollars to produce very little success while we use much less money and have growing success.  It is reassuring to know that the future belongs to LENR.

My answer to Ed

Re. what I think, you are in error sorry. I remarked we think very differently starting with what we imagine about Mother Nature.  Now I definitely have not said that only NiH is worth of study- NiH is only a pioneer of a great broad category of transition metal-hydrogen deep interactions. 
"Now you seem to think that no form of LENR can be understood well enough for it to be applied." How have you arrived to this conclusion about my thinking?
On the contrary, I think there are good, useful, kinds of LENR that can be converted in technologies and almost simultaneously understood. We have not yet discussed about the Rossi technology applied in the 1MW plant.
Reason: I wanted to focus the discussion about what it actually is- the lack/unbearable slowness of progress very specifically in the cradle system, the specific INCOMPLETENESS of the PdD electrolytic cell/process.
Further, I think there has already started the process of understating useful LENR
- an active understanding of what must be done with the help of engineering and technology- making hydrogen active, making metal (Ni- first) receptive, creating actionable parameters- making the process of NAE genesis dynamic and sustained, 
using combination of stimuli (here is still a secret part) thus obtaining LENR+ of the technological sort i.e. multiplicative not additive. 
You place emphasis only on the first of LENR+ 6 Pillars:
Difficulty, Diversity, Difference, Dynamicity, Deep-change, Discovery- you say 
LENR takes place in NAE (i called them active sites) and NAE are very difficult to be 
created. Here is a kind of paradox- the Storms kind of NAE have a simple structure- nanovoids of standard dimension and in principle they could be created at very high density by smart fracturing of palladium perhaps by 3D printing (?)

If we are wasting time with PdD classic system? This is more a rhetoric question- it is firmly established that the Siren or Lorelei song of PdD is still irresistible. But the real question is what usable knowledge can it generate? Let's watch the issue together as long we have time here downstairs.

The opinion of Russ George

Peter, In answer to Ed's comment to you, "We are not at the technology stage yet," such is spoken from his perspective as one of the many who have anointed themselves as the "royal we". HE IS SIMPLY WRONG! He speaks accurately for that 'almost picayune' cabal which if anything over the past nearly 30 years has proven that they are most certainly NOT at the technology stage. They remain there with determination as they refuse and refute all interlopers to their rarified cabal even while feigning not to do so.

There are two or three cold fusion modalities that are so near to the technology stage that such technology could arrive in a year or two with ordinary technology development funding. The making of 'cold fusion' into a pariah science has been done with the intent to prevent any such ordinary development funding. The demands of the 'cold fusion' 'lenr' followers that the miracle of cold fusion be accompanied by a second miracle of being able to be converted to technology for next to nothing and in full public view is of course symptomatic of those who would have us believe in angels not science and technology. The rule that governs cold fusion technology is "Good, Fast, or Cheap - choose any two!" Alas nothing but good can ever succeed which means the latter two choices reveal the path(s).

This is clearly why the likes of Mills, Rossi, and perhaps others have chosen to stay out of the cabals zone of poisonous influence. Doing so they knowingly get on with their work taking the slings and arrows that are thrust upon them. Like all pioneers, cold fusion pioneers find more arrows in their backs than in their fronts. It is those who reside in apparent friendly territory to their rear that they suffer most from. The malicious idiots like Huizenga and Park and Morrison and their ilk of whom we all know their names are also effective in slowing progress to protect their dogma but it is easier to become psychologically immune to the arrows of such malevolent idiots than it is the arrows of "friends."

What seems most likely from my perspective of having spent nearly 30 years at the experimental technology development bench is that many of us are very near deliverable mass technology. Some may be well advanced over others but the energy marketplace on this blue planet is very very large and most assuredly 'a rising tide will lift all boats.'

b) Inspiring cocepts from's yearly contest

Lawrence M. Kraus

Nothing feels better than being certain, but science has taught us over the years that certainty is largely an illusion. In science, we don’t "believe" in things, or claim to know the absolute truth. Something is either likely or unlikely, and we quantify how likely or unlikely. That is perhaps the greatest gift that science can give.

Pasteur once said, “Fortune favors the prepared mind.” Incorporating uncertainties prepares us to make more informed decisions about the future. This does not obviate our ability to draw rational and quantitatively reliable conclusions on which to base our actions—especially when our health and security may depend on them.

Jared Diamond

COMMON SENSE’re much more likely to hear “common sense” invoked as a concept at a cocktail party than at a scientific discussion. In fact, common sense should be invoked more often in scientific discussions, where it is sometimes deficient and scorned. Scientists may string out a detailed argument that reaches an implausible conclusion contradicting common sense. But many other scientists nevertheless accept the implausible conclusion, because they get caught up in the details of the argument.
As Mr. Bridgess told us plane geometry students, “Use common sense, and don’t be seduced by the details. Eventually, someone will discover the errors in those details.” That advice is as true in modern science as it is in plane geometry.

Gordon Kane


Spontaneous symmetry breaking is widespread and fundamental in physics and science. The most famous occurrence is that it is the mechanism responsible for the importance of Higgs physics, the reason quarks and electrons are allowed to have mass, and for the vacuum of our universe not being nothing. The notion is widespread in condensed matter physics, and indeed was first understood there. But it is much broader, potentially leading to confusion between theories and solutions in many areas.

In many fields we make theories to describe and explain phenomena. But the behavior of systems is described by the solutions to the theories, not by the theories alone. We saw here that trying to deduce the properties of the solutions, and the behavior of phenomena in sciences and social sciences, and the world in general from the form of the theory can be completely misleading. Another way to view the situation is the reverse perspective: the properties of the theory (such as its symmetries) may be hidden when we only observe the non-symmetric solutions. If it’s described by equations it’s easy to see this, but it’s true much more generally. These ideas should be much better known.


1) Lenr - KiekendiefPerspectief

2)LENR- and if Columb's Egg has two yolks?
LENR: e se l'uovo di Colombo avesse due tuorli?
About GianFranco Cerofolini's Binuclear atoms hypothesis

3) Revived THREAD at LENR Forum
Trump and Energy Policy

3)  New THREAD on LENR Forum Successful repetition of the experiments Bazhutov

4) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Alessandro Coppi- about verdict and IP
January 22, 2017 at 5:12 AM

Hi Andrea,
I have a question: if you will win in Court, will you lose the ip on e-cat?

Best regards
Alessandro Coppi
Andrea Rossi
January 22, 2017 at 8:21 AM

Alessandro Coppi:
No: the IP has always been of Leonardo Corporation. IH was a licensee.
Warm Regards,

Steven N. Karels (about a public demonstration
January 22, 2017 at 7:25 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Good luck on the planning, implementation of the Demonstration. It takes a lot of work to make a smooth, predictable public demonstration. Some thoughts and things to consider for such a demonstration:

a. Repeatability: During my 48 years as an engineer, when I presented a radical new idea or product to Management or to a customer, I would practice run the complete demonstration around 10 times, to refine it, detect any unusual results, and to make sure the demonstration “behaved” properly.
b. Numerosity: I understand you have up to three QuarkX units. If so, a decision needs to be made how many do you simultaneously run for the demonstration? More than one adds validity to the demonstration, but then the results will likely be different so you will need to address the differences. If the results are exactly the same, that may decrease the audience’s perception of validity.
c. Accuracy: All input, output and measurements must be calibrated. The calibration data must be made available and preformed in a manner that is simple, yet highly accurate. Since you are proposing a water-based demonstration (heating water without a phase transition), you will need to calibrate the electrical input measurement system, the temperature measurement devices (each one), the water flow instrumentation, and any other measurement devices I may have failed to mention.
d. Enclosure: The experiment should be a closed system that is visible so the viewers can see that no hidden (cheats) are in use. Plus no external energy transfer devices are affecting the experiment.
e. Dummy or Unfueled system: You need to decide if a simultaneous “dummy” or unfueled unit is run under the same conditions to demonstrate the difference. The positives are that it presents a clearer image of the excess energy that actual unit is producing. The downsides are more likelihood of errors and unforeseen differences that need to be explained.
f. Environment: The demonstration area needs to be large, clean, with chairs for the attendees, a single source of input power (an extension cord running from the wall, etc. Attendees should be able to walk around the demonstration unit. It should not have the “feel” of a laboratory experiment or a garage project.
g. Documentation: professional quality handouts should be available in sufficient quantities for more than the number of attendees. USB drives should be provided for the calibration and other pre-demonstration tests that will be released.
h. Legal: Your lawyers need to review all documents and statements for public release.
i. Oral presentation: Prepared and practiced many, many times so the presentation is viewed as professional and may be clearly understood. This takes a lot of time and practice. Practice in front of an actual audience, preferably trusted outsiders who can critically advise as to what is not working in the presentation.
j. Personnel Depth: Have an alternative presenter prepared in case the primary presenter becomes sick or not available.
k. Attendees: Invite them early with a fixed date for the demonstration. Try not to “slip” the date. Invite persons of importance to gain credibility for the demonstration. Trained and well-recognized industry leaders (e.g., SRI, professors involved with LENR). Request RSVP. Have some small, but adequate meal or food and drink (non-alcoholic), especially if the length of the demonstration is over 30 minutes.
l. Duration: Consider how long a demonstration is appropriate. 8 hours is way too long for the attendees to observe. A few minutes is not credible. Be long enough to capture the effect without being boring.
m. Automation: If possible, automate the demonstration to smoothly run the demonstration. Consider multiple startups, operation and shutdowns if possible, although it adds more risk that something unusual will occur. The operation time length should be of sufficient duration to demonstrate the effect.
n. COP Selection: Don’t run the demonstration at an unusually high COP (i.e. 200) or too low a COP (e.g. 2). Choose some target value that clearly demonstrates excess energy even assuming worst case calibration errors but ‘feels” adequate. I would suggest a COP range of 5 to 20.
o. Water: Consider using a clear water container using store-bought distilled water that you periodically pour into the container to keep the supply of water both visible and observable. Using tap water, critics might suggest you used something another fluid and dispute the results. Allow a random participant to taste the water and to pour it into the source tank. On the input and output side, weigh and record the water weights as a secondary check on the flow rate measurements, as you did in the 2010 demonstration.

A successful public demonstration takes a lot of work and time (months to properly prepare) but will be invaluable. Do all that you can do to quash the inevitable critics.

My thoughts. Good luck on a successful demonstration. You get one chance to make a good first impression.

Andrea Rossi
January 22, 2017 at 8:18 AM

Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for the suggestions,
Warm Regards,

5) Japan: next JCF17 conference will be on march 19-20th 2017 in National Institute of Technology, Tokyo College​

7) Strange- but sbout Cold Fusion
Cold fusion and Scientism


NEW THREAD on LENR Forum: Antihydrogen Atoms Trapped

Saturday, January 21, 2017



Image result for quotes buridan ass

I have to confess you what happened today. I wanted to offer you quotes about what I call "the old of still alive roots of my discontent"- I read yesterday about some meeting organized by APQC 
American Productivity & Quality Center. During my PVC years I succeeded to  get many APQC publications- e.g. the Deming-Juran-Crosby teachings about quality helping me to create a kind of technologal spirituality- Quality, productivity, Ecology, Effectveness Efficiency are sacred things for a technologist. And i have so many dear professional remembrances linked to quality as the process of discovering 
that "the quality of Quality itself is constancy" An other name for constancy is reproducibility
You know my slogan: " I think, I exist. I decide, I live. I solve problems, I live with purpose" however this time when I had to choose Mottoes re Quality I decided to be like Buridan's ass- not decisions now! and as you see I respected my decision.
Anyway I think quality has to be applied to the results of the research works too and for the case of LENR classic system as you will see below.


a) Discussion re progress, quality of research in the PdD electrolytic LENR system.

Actually this has started with my question to our scientists regarding the progress in these investigation- long term. 
How much have you progressed - as results and as understanding from your first Test to the most recent one?

I have received a fast and nice answer from Ed Storms; today Melvin Miles has answered:

My cold fusion progress began in March, 1989 with trying to find if I could observe any F-P excess heat effect.  After six months of failures, I finally observed a reproducible excess power effect using JM palladium electrodes. My next question was about observing any nuclear products or radiation.  The answer in late 1990 was that helium-4 was present in the  gas phase when excess heat was present.  I also observed fogging of X-ray film in these same experiments. Further experiments showed high Geiger-Mueller counts when Pd/D2O + LiOD experiments were running (counts up to 73 sigma) but always only normal counts (within 3 sigma) when no experiments were running.  Also, an experiment in Japan in 1997 showed "thermal spikes" tor the thermistor used in an active cell likely caused by radiation.  I did not know until later that F-P observed very large excess power effects only at cell temperatures above 60 C.  My experiments were always at cell  temperatures well below this threshold temperature,  and my largest excess power effect was about 37 %  larger than the  electrochemical power input.

A major finding was that only certain palladium materials were likely to exhibit excess power effects such as  JM palladium or NRL Pd-B.  Most palladium materials would never show any signs of excess power no matter what you tried.

I only had U.S. government funding for cold fusion from 1992 to 1995 and then again briefly (6 months) in 2010.  In fact, my reporting of cold fusion effects basically ended my career as a Navy research scientist.  My research has always been on the Pd/D2O electrochemical system. I have never found any electrochemical system that is 100 % reproducible or that showed any easy pathway to commercialization.  Anyway, this is a brief summary of my cold fusion progress.  

My answer to Melvin Miles

Thank you very much, you have nicely answered a rather 'bad' question.
I well remember meeting you at Como ICCF-2--1991.

The problem is NOT with you, you made great things with scarce funding.
But please take  a look to the results and outcome at IMRA France with Martin and Stanley working there, or now to SKINR and ENEA with funding and the results not much better than at the start or as yours.
What i try to convince people ere is that there is inherently impossible with the cradle system to obtain higher levels of excess heat, reproduciblity.
The system is the problem, not the researchers. We can add Ed Storms to this list, excellent work but limited results, and scale-up or intensification.

I am a technologist not interested in weaknesses of a system but more in where and how these weaknesses can be converted in strengths.

However Ed Storms, whom I mentioned in my above answer has given now a consistent answer:

Peter, you keep ignoring the important point people keep making. We are not at the level of technology yet. We do not know how to apply the LENR effect. Even Rossi does not know how to do this even though he is trying. We are at the scientific stage where the effort is to understand the phenomenon. We are trying to find out what causes LENR, not how to make useful energy. Useful energy will be easy to make once we understand the process.  In fact, once the process is understood, I expect none of the generator designs being explored will be used and neither Pd-D nor Ni-H will be used as the site of the NAE. 

The Pd-D system is the easiest system to study in order to obtain the required information.  Yes, the Pd system does not make as much energy as Rossi claims, assuming the Rossi claims are correct. Nevertheless, we are gradually understanding how LENR works and this understanding is being published, unlike what Ross does with the information. It would be helpful if you supported the effort to understand rather than keep complaining about how people keep focusing on the Pd-D system.  The Ni-H system might be useful some day but right now it is only a claim made by Rossi without proof or understanding and it is a distraction.  

You say you are a technologest. But you also do not have the understanding required to apply the effect. You accept what Rossi claims without having any idea what he is actually doing to make the claimed energy.  He is not telling you what you need to know because it is not in his self interest to do this, even if he actually knows what is required, which is doubtful.  Technology can not advance without basic knowledge about the process.  LENR is too complex for the process to be applied using trial and error.  We need understanding. This information can only be obtained using careful and focused research to which effective evaluation is applied.  Instead, we have people trying this or that and then arguing about what the results mean without bothering to study the extensive literature about the subject and master the basic science that applies.   We have most of the focus being applied to the physics of the process when chemical conditions actually control the mechanism.  The skeptics are not our only problem.  The basic problem lies in the field itself. I would ask you to help solve this problem. 

My answer to Ed Storms

a) I am not ignoring, I am regretting bitterly that we are not discussing- for the cradle system technology after almost 28 years.

b) What I am regretting even more and it hurts me saying it but I must, is that we well, in my opinion, never discuss technology for the cradle system. I am unhappily convinced that as it is, it is not technologizable.

c) For some linearity and order in thinking let's now ignore Rossi and even the NIH systems just now, let's see what can be done (if) for the cradle system, and what can we hope from it. As understanding of LENR first

d) You speak about the progress in understanding and this is Your theory- NAE- nanocracks-hydroton- slow  energy release the problem is that applying it what can we really understand better and then DO better? More nanocracks of optimal size and structure, how? More efficient hydrotons?  Are there serious proofs of accumulating knowledge? Your relatively recent tests were followed with much empathy-expectation and you have indeed said some interesting things as those about the role of temperature and of about the real role of Pd/D ratio. But how to use this knowledge?

e) I have told that the main problem lies in the problem itself, you say that it lies in the field itself. I say that the problem is not solvable, you seem to say that the researchers do not accept the facts- as you accept and judge them (cort recct?)
therefore the knowledge necessary for progress is wasted.
I fear that the problem has to be moved in a better place to become solvable.

f) As regarding in which extent what we will learn from the PdD electrolytic system
will be transferable to other, more technologizable systems (surely working at temperatures >400C) - the verdict is still in the future as in the case of of the Rossi vs Darden litigation. 

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

b) Other concepts from's Annual Contest

Frank Wilczek

Complementarity is the idea that there can be different ways of describing a system, each useful and internally consistent, which are mutually incompatible. It first emerged as a surprising feature of quantum theory, but I, following Niels Bohr, believe it contains wisdom that is much more widely applicable.

Understanding the importance of complementarity stimulates imagination, because it gives us license to think different. It also suggests engaged tolerance, as we try to appreciate apparently strange perspectives that other people have come up with. We can take them seriously without compromising our own understandings, scientific and otherwise

Lisa Randall

People can disagree about many deep and fundamental questions, but we are all pretty confident that when we sit on a hard wooden chair it will support us, and that when we take a breath on the surface of the Earth we will take in the oxygen we need to survive.

This notion is practical and valuable. But we should be wary since it also makes us miss things in the world—and in science. What’s obvious is what’s in our effective theory. What lies beyond might be the more fundamental truth. Sometimes it’s only a little prodding that takes us to a richer, more inclusive understanding. Getting outside our comfort zone is how science and ideas advance and what ultimately yields a richer understanding of the world.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

Has science discovered the existence of protons and proteins, neurons and neutrinos? Have we learned that particles are excitations of underlying quantum fields and that the transmission of inherited characteristics is accomplished by way of information-encoding genes? Those who answer no(as opposed to dunno) probably aren’t unsophisticated science deniers. More likely they’re sophisticated deniers of scientific realism.

What then could be more central to the scientific mindset than the questions that swirl around scientific realism, since without confronting these questions we can’t even begin to say what the scientific mindset amounts to.

1) Now discussed on E-Catworld
Announcing the Development of $20 Million+ XPrize for Abundant Clean Energy Technologies (David Niebauer)

2) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Jude Rabalais
January 20, 2017 at 6:36 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi
Is it confirmed your demo in the next couple if months?
Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 5:00 PM

Jude Rabalais:
It depends from the amount of work to make for the litigation, that in these last days has escalated enormously. The organization of a demo well done takes a lot of time and work.
Probably we will have to delay the presentation of the QuarkX after the verdict of the litigation, that is expected by July. I matured this thought today returning from Raleigh, where work for the litigation has been made.
The presentation of the QuarkX must be perfect and to make it perfect I have to work on it with maximum focus, that now I have not. I am under too much pressure. I must first win one battle, then make the next and the litigation is now.
Probably we will start in March to receive visits of experts to make together with them closed doors measurements and tests.
This is the idea I formulated today examining the situation.
Warm Regards,

Steve L.
January 20, 2017 at 12:13 AM

Dr Rossi

Is this a possibility, that Industrial Heat seems to be set up to be patent trolls.

could you comment?

Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 4:43 PM

Steve L.:
No comment about issues to be disclosed in Court. I can only say that we are convinced that there are bases for us to be very optimist, due to the evidence we have collected.
Warm Regards,


Patrick Ellul
January 20, 2017 at 11:01 PM

Dear Andrea,
What impact would a loss in the court proceedings have on you and the e-cat QuarkX?
Best regards,
Andrea Rossi
January 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM

Patrick Ellul:
It depends on many factors, but, honestly, the evidence we have collected puts us in a positive mood. I cannot say more at this point.
Warm Regards,
3) From Gregory Goble:
LENR/Electric… An interesting patent granted


5) Video signalled at Andrea Ross's JONP:
Paolo Accomazzi
Atomi Binucleari Fusione Fredda Rossi Ecat

6) Krivit continues con-fusion


Science can lead us to the fundamental questions, andsometimes, in some extent to the fundamental answers. The arch-enemy of Cold Fusion says the following:
Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

Icelandic Study Suggests That Maybe We Are Getting Dumber

Humanity Has A Massive Trust Problem, But We Can Fix It

Friday, January 20, 2017



Image result for vilfredo pareto quotes

Image result for vilfredo pareto quotesImage result for vilfredo pareto quotes



EGO OUT wishes all well to the new President of USA asking him to 
contribute in the highest degree to stop the epidemics of Probletence
in his Country and worldwide. Success!

a) About the MOTTOes

I wrote many times about the ideas especially the 80/20 law of the Italian  
mathematician  and economist , Vilfredo Pareto- he has described a =an essential Law of Nature. 
This morning I came about an opus of an other Italian mathematician, Vittorio 
Loreto- a very inspiring model of Inovation- vital for the future of LENR too.
It is at LENR IN CONTEXT-2. A bit about the Author see please:
Vittorio Loreto, Sapienza Univ. Rome,Google Scholar Citations
I hope this scientist will support LENR in the most direct way,
And perhaps we will have one day a mathematical model of how the Universe works via Incessantly Increasing Interestingness... 

b) Inspiring concepts  from Edge .org the Annual contest

James Geary
Bisociation is a form of improvised, recombinant intelligence that integrates knowledge and experience, fuses divided worlds, and links the like with the unlike—a model and a metaphor for the process of discovery itself. The pun is at once the most profound and the most pedestrian example of bisociation at work.

NIgel Goldenfeld
It ought to be more widely known that the truth is indeed out there, but only if one knows how to ask sharp and good questions. This is the unifying aspect of the scientific method and perhaps its most enduring contribution.

Michael Shermer
Why is negativity stronger than positivity? Evolution. In the environment of our evolutionary ancestry there was an asymmetry of payoffs in which the fitness cost of overreacting to a threat was less than the fitness cost of underreacting, so we err on the side of overreaction to negative events. The world was more dangerous in our evolutionary past, so it paid to be risk averse and highly sensitive to threats, and if things were good then taking a gamble to improve them a little bit more was not perceived to be worth the risk of things turning south for the worst.


1) Designing An Abundant Clean Energy XPRIZE Competition

2) Secrets of China’s Renewable Energy Success

3) A LENR Bibliography

4) Former ITER Spokesman Confirms Accuracy of New Energy Times Story


Stanford engineers develop state-by-state plan to convert U.S. to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050
(LENR not considered)

Meeting the challenges of nanotechnology: Nanoscale catalytic effects for nanotechnology
Date:January 19, 2017
Source:Swansea University
Summary:Scientists show nanoscale modifications to the edge region of nanocontacts to nanowires can be used to engineer the electrical function of the interfaces.


Ambidextrous Innovation:
How Can Leaders’ Best Explore and Exploit both Disruptive and Incremental Approaches to Innovation?