Applications of Galileo’s Rules in TM-LENR (from Piantelli’s messages)
His experimental facts gathered in 20+ years of work in the most orthodox mode possible and following the 4 rules of Galileo- still not completed…have shown him a way (he has arrived to the 4th rule verification)
Note: When our intensive and , for me, very instructive and enjoyable correspondence has started- March 2010, he wrote about the state of facts in his own LENR research- in his laboratory from
Colle di Val d’Elsa: .
We are in the preindustrial phase.
The reproducibility is 100%
There are possible modulations of power of 50%
We have already determined the primary reactions
We have determined some of the secondary reactions
We have made tests with other transition metals (besides Ni) and the results are excellent, in special for one of the metals used.
The theory is in course of publication and I have sent you the abstracts.
One of our cells has now worked in our lab at Colle diVal d’Elsa with good stability (fluctuations less than 5%)
We have evidenced emissions of photons of high energy, continuously
It is put in evidence a non-electrostatic potential difference between the extremities of the rod on which the metal clusters are deposited.
In meantime, he made great advances and is working, in the spirit and the practice of the scientific method – on scale-up. (in 2010 he was on the intensity level of tens of Watts energy gain)
A statement of Piantelli.
I am a scientist and first of all I have to understand all the developments, positive, negative and dangerous (as it always happens) with an industrial devices and technology.
And a warning:
“To start engineering without complete knowledge of the phenomena can be dangerous; Galileo’s rule helps us to formulate the laws engineers can use for the design functional prototypes... A terrible counter-example is atomic energy obtained in fission reactors/plants, where unknown and/or under-evaluated parameters have lead to disasters” An industrial product has to be verified in all senses including all the aspects of controllability, reliability and safety.
He uses any opportunity to emphasize that if you don’t know all the parameters and laws that control a process, you are exposed to risks- accidents can happen.
“A theory must consider the judgment of the 4th rule of Galileo, if the experiment does not give the expected answer/results, then the theory is NOT the explanation of the phenomenon/ Mathematical perfection is great, is impressive, but a good, correct physical answer is something else.”
A physicist, even with limited knowledge cannot accept statements that have no proof- this is not a problem of skepticism, just of common good sense (and of the rules of Galileo)
\
As seen, his Project comprises theoretical explanation, verified by experiments.
Now there are missing true researchers who know and apply systematically the Rules of Galileo; there are many over-specialized physicists who know methods, techniques and instruments, make experiments but not judge them well.
This Da Vinci type technological thinking is valid only for very simple, riskless systems. But obviously it not goes for nuclear reactions (LENR included!)- there are many applications possible therefore the laws have to be well known- for all the possible cases. And you have to be extremely careful at scale-up! It is, metaphorically speaking not about making a smaller or greater fire, but also about to know how to extinguish it when it tends to escape under control. Only complete knowledge of the phenomena and the laws governing them helps us to avoid the worst things. LENR is nuclear and it is not allowed to perform such experiment in the garage (or in the kitchen as has tried some naïve or crazy guy in Sweden
Science vs. technology- very different philosophies are necessary. The scientist searches something completely new and goes on a way that starts with an initial experiment and tries to arrive to a description of the unknown phenomena going through mathematical working, thus elaborating hypotheses that need experimental verification. Truth is substituted with certainty.
A term deeply understood by Piantelli is “internal consistency” of a theory or vision of a process- this is kind of harmony between theory and praxis, a perfect dynamic combination between the parts and the whole. He has repeatedly demonstrated to me that he owns a “holistic and holographic view” of LENR.
And- essential! he is aware of what is still missing from this Vision.
Scientific results when obtained correctly, respecting the scientific method from adequate observation and description to perfect confirmatory experiments- do not need so called independent reproduction; that could be very difficult sometimes from objective (specialized labs necessary) or subjective (undisciplined, falsely creative and dominant “I know it better” style experimenters) His personal experience with independent reproduction of his work, is, till now, very disappointing.
A sensitive point in this story is Cold Fusion (Pd-D, D+D =He variant) and the scientific experimental method,. How rigorously was it applied here? I will use a euphemism telling that Piantelli is not truly enthusiastic about how mainstream CF has developed. (he, having a good industrial experience is especially skeptic regarding electrolysis). The truth is that due to some still not fully known weaknesses of the system as unfavorable electronic conformation of palladium- the experimental results were plagued by over-difficult reproducibility and, what’s perhaps worse, very low intensity of the phenomena.
The first Rule of Galileo- the stage of observation and description was so difficult and has consumed so many resources and creativity- reward less- that CF remained practically stucked here. The trend to compensate and overcome this by many bold, fantastic, disruptive theories (some 160?) sometimes based on absurd hypotheses, but without a trace of experimental proof, including reactions with an astronomically low probability –was definitely non-Galileian.
Unfortunately no theory can explain the myriads of valuable data gathered in many prestigious laboratories.
It is not allowed for professional researchers to negate the acquired and verified Galileian certainties.
Mathematical splendor and the beauty of perfect logic starting from imaginary premises cannot replace the lack of confirmatory experiments. And we still need to know the fundamental parameters necessary for triggering, keeping in function
and enhancing the phenomena. Till then, classic CF will remain a theoretical source of energy- and this is an oxymoron (mine, not Piantelli’s) ,
It is very unfortunate that commercial competition, rush for big money tries to control, dictate, accelerate (by shortcutting the Rules of Galileo) scientific research. This is a source of losses of values, of un-discoveries and great risks (failure being the smallest). We have to stop poisoning the scientific community
with commercial criteria, thus short term gains kill long term progress. An example, connected in a way with this problem: the Bologna
We will not discuss here about Rossi’s E-cat except Piantelli’s expert opinion that no mythical catalyst exists and that multiplicative scale-up is contrary to the engineering’s common sense. Basta! (Enough) Piantelli has no time for polemics or for the mass-media
Francesco Piantelli is not only strictly respecting Galileo’s Rules- but his new ideas are based on and rooted in well established scientific facts; he calls this orthodoxy. Solid State Physics including advanced nanotechnology, Quantum Mechanics, Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, the sacrosanct teachings of Nuclear Physics, as well as Metallurgy and above all, the Principles of Energy Conservation..
However, he is non-conformist and heretic the other way, by resisting to postlogical, i.e. authority based scientific thinking, e.g. by not using Giuliano Preparata’s bright but not universal theory- so popular in the community of Italian cold fusionists.
Special- contribution of Piantelli to the LENR-specific nanotechnology.
As in many cases, Piantelli’s research lime has a central issue, a core problem and a Pareto share of the experimental effort and this is the preparation of the crystalline nanostructures. These are a sine qua non condition for the system to work. The properties of nanostructures are very different from those of the bulk material, it is both a science and an art to know what these differences are and how to make them useful for your specific scientific technological task- in this case energy generation.
This was a supplementary task for Piantelli because the know how necessary to solve his problem was not available and had to be created from scratch. And has consumed years of research plus sourccs, adding to other delays as due to lacking of funding, staff, reorganizations etc..
The commercial assortments of nanoNickel (e.g. from Alfa Aesar in Europe ) are mot optimal for the FASEC process.
To realize the extent of this experimental effort, please consider that Piantelli has perfected 3 physical methods for manufacturing of the proper nanostructure.
AMBE- atomic and molecular epitaxy a high vacuum technique seems to be the standard. In principle the secret is simple, it is necessary to have proper conditioning for the maximum availability of the suitable nanostructures. This can be verified with a scanning electron microscope- with some experience. Even a good optical microscope magnifying some 1800X can be helpful.
For this crucial point of his research Piantelli was helped by an illuminating discussion with Professor Giuseppe Franco Bassani then the President of the Italian Society of Physicists- see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Bassani
It was providential for progress regarding the 3rd Rule of Galileo- how to use mathematics for deep understanding.
The discussion was about the possible explanation of the anomalous phenomenon. Bassani has shown that the best methodology to use is DFT (Density Functional Theory) of Kohn Sham- for the study of interaction between H- and the crystalline clusters. Nanostructures is more a generic term that does not describe the exact structure for obtaining discrete energy levels and not energy bands- better also for showing the exchange and correlation energies. More simply told, the structures’s behavior has to be thus of giant atoms.
Piantelli says Bassani was an extraordinary generous man and scientist and his contributions to physics are unforgettable – just look to his books about Solid State Physics;
1) F.Bassani, .U.M. Grassano- “Fisica dello stato solido”, ed. Bollati Boringhieri 2000
2] F.Bassani, P. Parravicini –Electronics States Oxford
Highest price, time...
To understand the conditioning of the surfaces for creating the good nanostructure with crystalline clusters is essential for a functional process but also for avoiding the dangers of unreasonable, simpli(ci)stically empirical scale-up.
Obtaining plenty of energy is only the necessary condition of a usable energy source, but for getting something really useful and usable- there are many other conditions- control, safety, reliability, etc.
My conclusions.
First of all, Piantelli understands what he does and knows what he has to do, how he has to continue his work in the new discipline of transition metals LENR
He is a genuine expert, has developed a global vision of his field- both holistic (to see the whole) and holographic (to see the exact place and function of the details in the whole) – that makes his Opus internally consistent.
Energy generation- what Piantelli calls the FASEC process (from “fusione anarmonica stimolata con emisione di calore”) is only a first stage of the creation of a new broad area of Science and Technology.
He has made a systematic and bold ascension on the DIKWP scale (data- information- knowledge- wisdom- prediction scale) and that allows him to prepare a great future for this young field of Science and Technology. May I just mention Piantelli’s formidable idea of the hybrid, neutron and proton reactor.
Piantelli has unique creative advantages due to his multidisciplinarity (physics, biology, metallurgy, self-made nanotechnologist) and transdiciplinarity (advanced cancer cure research).
Piantelli despite of being a purist of Science, perfectionist and maximalist in Science is far from being an ivory tower researcher- he has a vast experience in technological studies. (e.g. Eridania, Techint Engeeniring, Olivetti, many manufacturers of industrial catalysts and has worked at many projects for companies and institutions, .Has absolutely NO attraction to become a press conference/mass media star, he is kind of claustrophile who prefers the life in his laboratory, with his research, problems, successes and failures. (it is a dispersion in which successes are the continuous phase.
And there are some other things, perhaps somewhat more subtle. May I (mis)quote a bit my colleague (chemist):
“Being a professional is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (Margaret Thatcher ).
I believe in professionalism and seriousness but I know well that not everybody does.
Francesco Piantelli is a genuine professional researcher. He uses to say that he is a “manovale” i.e. a laborer, actually he is a front-line fighter with the Unknown, who has to focus on the fight, not on things less important.
The extension, importance and the perspectives of his field of work (TM-LENR) have to be supported by many international, multidisciplinary collaborations and …the creation of an entire INSTITUTE.
PS Take a look to this, I would not use:”good old times”:
you will see- those times are just now.
No comments:
Post a Comment