I have tried to initiate a discussion re. THE FUTURE OF LENR. I have received some very interesting messages, however about a problem of detail- correlation with a neighboring field.
My intention was different, I wanted to get a variety of ideas regarding trends and possible developments, to learn about the paradigm change in the field *. When Rossi has made his first experiment in Bologna, it has seemed that everything will change,
Ed Storms has found the proper word: stampede. However the things have slowed down and Rossi was able to generate as much informational chaos as technological hopes. I consider a historical chance that Defkalion has not surrendered after the divorce from Rossi and has solved the problems as serious professionals (scientists, engineers, and managers) do. This was like some compensation made by the Moirae for the bad luck at the birth and christening with many fairies uninvited, of Cold Fusion:
effect found in the almost worst metal with a closed electronic conformation, by an inherently dirty method- electrolysis, by people of genius but having an inadequate profession. A bad start as for a runner with fetters.
If the Fleischmann Pons Press Conference was a blunder or a great act of publicity- we well never know because the alternatives as traditional peer-reviewing or presentation at a symposium have not been tried. It was interesting- even with an unusually long period of wait and of try everything you can- with modest founding. But now it is the case that LENR should become useful too. Useful on a planetary scale- and fast. This is my motivation to discuss about the future of LENR.
I firmly believe in the individual wisdom(s) of my friends and colleagues at the CMNS and Vortex discussion groups. The readers of my blog know well that I dislike the Wisdom of Crowds (collective?) and I know that it is not more and not less than the Power of Diversity. For LENR the best example is the Survey http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/2005GluckKrivitSurvey.shtml
This document actually is tragic, describes a very bad situation and… not much has changed in the following 7 years.
The experimental results give the scientific certainty of LENR/Cold Fusion- however the results seem to have some inborn, inherent weaknesses (are ‘small’, happen only when they want and disappear fast). Theories are painfully diverse, theorists are much more uniform- all are convinced that their theory is the α and ώ, kind of local orthodoxy and TOE.
Commercial applications is a subject reserved more for LENR books. Nobody really cares for the scarcity of palladium. How many Watts can you get with maximum 2.10 exp 8 grams palladium- if it works impeccably?
Our world needs now some 1.5 10 exp 13 W power. How many watts will be able to deliver 1 g of palladium when everything will go very well?
OK, actually I have no right to complain re. my failure to initiate discussions about essential, basic LENR subjects- when Ed Storms’ great Guide has generated mainly a long dispute with a theorist- and not about the mode of thinking, taxonomy or conclusions of the Guide.
The root of the problem is a chronic illness of our forums: detailitis people prefer to discuss about details, both experimental and theoretical, than about problems having major impact on the development of the field. Detailitis is well known
in management. I am convinced that the science of management can partially replace or complete philosophy in scientific and technological research and I have enjoyed teaching the managers Management of Technology.
However managerial detailitis can be cured; see for example:
Managerial detailitis is an erroneous over-confidence in the possibilities of planning even the finest details- it is harmful because it ignores the complexity dynamics and unpredictability of the reality. A form of over-planning.
LENR detailitis on the contrary is a subconscious lack of confidence in the possibility of solving the fundamental problems and is channeling of the creative energies to the minor yet challenging details. Instead of a healthy equilibrium of these two aspects of research.
I have lived many years in a society based on planned economy in which the 5Years Plans were dogmas, the Party was inerrant and infallible and the Leader was more than omniscient; everything was planned in detail. However toward the end, the socialist kind of detailitis was tempered by chaos, corruption and generalized institutional mythomania. All data were false and nobody cared
therefore it became easy to predict any detail.
LENR detailitis is an old problem for me – my obsession- bad reproducibility was never discussed up to the last detail, my poisoning hypothesis was repeatedly rejected, but no real alternative was offered.
The discussion re future of LENR can be divided in more subsections as the future of Pd-D systems, the future of nanometric systems, new ideas.
I am realistic, this will be a slow, step by step process. The first
commercial LENR system will be a positive shock with a high impact. Even if focusing on details will remain, there will be other
details. Sometimes reality is so strong that it can even change
But it would be fine to start a few weeks before the Event.
With or without our discussions, LENR will change a lot, fast and will get rid, in great extent, of detailitis.
What do you think about the future of LENR?
• Cold Fusion Now has written about the paradigm change in energy, from scarcity to abundance http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=17388 but this is a different subject
The last decade of the 20th century accumulated sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that LENR is real, and that behind it is very likely some form of fusion, but the mistakes that were made in 1989-1990 still persist.ReplyDelete
From the beginning, the primary research issue should have been identifying the causes of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, and thoroughly characterizing the necessary experimental conditions and identifying correlations between conditions and results.
Instead the focus was trying to make the effect more "reliable." Great goal, but it was putting the cart before the horse. To make it more reliable, unless we get very lucky (was Rossi lucky? I don't know), we need to know what is happening!
I can can see, in the history of cold fusion, situation after situation where promising leads were abandoned because they did not seem to be leading to increased power. Some basic issues have never been resolved. For example, what is the correlation between increased tritium and the hydrogen/deuterium ratio in the heavy water used in an FP experiment? Is there a correlation between tritium and overall heat?
Tritium is a minor product, but the tritium abundance among reaction products, and the conditions under which tritium is formed, could be a major clue as to the mechanism.
Even the crucial heat/helium ratio has never been measured with precision, Storms (2007, 2010) gives 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, but his judgment isn't actually based on calculations, but is a seat-of-the-pants estimate, based on what must be seen as a certain level of assumption about helium fraction capture.
It's about time that we give priority to the science of this, instead of the rush to power.
Thanks for your analysis. I am in the field from the second dayReplyDelete
and I have"lived" all those hopes and disappointments.
Actually not much could be done for mking the effect more reliable- the focus was on measurement- metrologomania especially in calorimetry.
It was not found a causal explanation why the heat release is so wek, unreliable and ephemeral. If the results are so low quality
how can we develop a solid theory? The field is in a trap. Pd D
has extremely low chances both to get a good predictive theory and also will not get applications.
I would be very indebted to you, if you could explain what do you intend to tell with: "to give priority of science of this" suppose you have a founding of 50 millions US$?
Plus the best csientists.