ANSWERING TO RUBY CARAT”S “WHAT IF?” QUESTION

Ruby Carat is a really nice lady & editor- she has not ignored-as-usual my idea regarding the alternative utopistically positive optimist history of Cold Fusion LENR. See please: http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=18725

Ruby is receiving many interesting comments. Some like comments hot, but I prefer a calm cold comment supporting a
point of view opposite to mine over a comment at a too high temperature coming from the same side of the barricade on which I am fighting. Facts-yes, opinions-OK, strong negative feelings- NO!
A LENR colleague wrote: “Instead of science being shown as the incompetent and ridiculous slaves of religious, dogmatic, “opinion experts”, who deny anything out side of a steam engine, they could have restored some of the respect lost through their closed-minded, 19th. century reductionist philosophy that is falling apart around their ears.”
I have learned to be more tolerant with people who think differently.
My long years friendship with the skeptic author of the Cold Fusion Bibliography, Dieter Britz is an example.
I also had some empathy for Prof. S. (9 days younger than me, R.I.P.!) who used to say he will believe that Cold Fusion exists when he will see a boiler for 2 eggs using it. This is a logical fallacy- “things exist only if they can be used”- an error with some practical reason in it.
The impact of the enemies of cold fusion on the evolution of the field was not quite so fatally bad and there had been short periods when some cold fusion teams had plenty of funding. However the progress has remained slow and hesitant- the way to commercialization did not become visible.
What could change 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times more funding?- is a fine Question.
And really high quality professionals had worked for LENR worldwide despite its lack of popularity.

I opt for a more balanced answer.
“What if?” is an information rich question and we well know that: "The question illuminates, not the answer" (Eugene Ionesco) “
However, the complete question- “what if Cold Fusion/LENR would have been embraced and gladly supported by the entire scientific community and by the society as a whole, everywhere?” is clearly a hellishly iffy, unanswerable question.
We can learn a lot from unanswerable questions. Perhaps.
“What?” “How?” I cannot answer!
But based on my Problem Solving Rules- the solution is to convert the unanswerable questions in more answerable questions.
In our case – could the success and spoiling of LENR change everything-  or only accelerate the development- in the same direction as it has happened in the real history marked by oppression and financial plus resource-starvation of the field?
I think acceleration could be more likely- a prehistory of say only 5 years,  superior cradle management*, Piantelli with hundreds of follower-competitors, a less enigmatic and exotic Rossi coming from inside the field, LENR+ replacing LENR easier and in much shorter time. a wonderful spirit of coopetition, fast industrialization, continuous communication between the researchers, ICCFs every 6 months. Some well known players would have been missing from the equation as Defkalion and myself. Defkalion because the field is going well and does not need a savior. I have joined the Cold fusion movement because hot fusion was contradicting  my principle of continuous technological progress, however I became irreversibly dedicated to it only when almost everybody started telling it is a lost cause and I knew it isn’t and wanted to demonstrate this.

Appendix: What is cradle management?
During their first months of life, while helpless the cradle (largo sensu) is the home of the babies. When they grow and became more and more independent, the cradle is abandoned, kept in the attic or the basement, sold or donated whatever. It is too small for the child –forget it!
Something very similar happens in science on more planes- the original set-up in which the phenomenon was discovered, and the initial thinking, proto-theory used give a first theory have to be replaced with better one. This action can be painful but it is unavoidable. Cold Fusion had a very strange cradle- a wet electrolysis cell with palladium cathode, electrochemist fathers- not a good combination for a supposedly nuclear baby science. 
More generally, cradle management is a part of maturization.
LENR was slow in this process- due to the lack of resources, it remained addicted to palladium- a precious metal per se, but one of the worst for the development of LENR, inadequate for
a new energy source and a trap for the poor theorists.
The alternative triumph scenario could have been avoided the problem of prolonged maturization of LENR.

A few quotations re CRADLE.
“The Past: Our cradle, not our prison; there is danger as well as appeal in its glamour. The past is for inspiration, not imitation, for continuation, not repetition.” (Unknown)

Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave” (Muhammad)

“Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin” ( Robert Green Ingersoll)

The Earth is the Cradle of the Mind -- but one cannot eternally live in a cradle.”
 Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky (a similar case- the Pd-D Cell)

Peter