LENR AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The subject of this essay is so complex and contains so many contradictions that I have to combine the presentation with implicit questions to my potential readers. I hope the following
discussions will help us all to solve this problem.

The champion of the Scientific Experimental Method in our field, is Prof. Francesco Piantelli, see please:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/how-does-apply-prof-piantelli-rules-of.html
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/scientific-values-of-professor.html
Piantelli does not agree with the use of many unverified and unverifiable theories, with the many fantastic hypotheses that actually are only retarding the progress in the field. The 4 Rules of Galileo are actually not applied, or are applied not completely or not adequately. So we continue to be in a dark room and we don’t succeed to illuminate it.
I cannot remember who, when, in which context has said that the
Pd- D electrolytic system is inconclusive but I was terribly shocked. It was many years ago and he (pr she?) has also added that for cold fusion, palladium is a cradle but also a 4-letter word if you want to get real energy. Please contradict this with facts; however it seems that this system can generate only one certainty- LENR exists but not much more.
Back to Prof. Piantelli- he considers that the electrochemical LENR systems are much too complex to give reliable results and all they do is to prepare a veil/layer of gas around the active electrode. The fact that it is not possible (actually without dreadful experimental complications) to use temperatures over 100 C in the wet LENR systems. This is a suicidal limitation of the experiments especially when the aim is massive energy generation.
Piantelli has also shown that a major impediment in applying the scientific method to the classic LENR system(s)- the 4-th rule of Galileo cannot be applied.

Regarding the application of the scientific method to LENR, Prof Robert Duncan from the Missouri Univ. has learned some essential lessons: see please:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2009/2009DuncanUMSummit.pdf and
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/06/robert-duncan-on-cold-fusion-and-the-scientific-method/

I agree 120% with everything he says. 100% is obvious; all I want is to comment about the 20% added

There is a huge gap between new science discovery and useful engineered systems.
Yes it is much to go and Herculean work to do in order to arrive from science to a commercial application. Scientific truth can be known by the really smart application of the scientific method but technology and management also have their specific rules and new dimensions are added to science. It is clear gap = distance, however reality geometry is not identical to mathematical geometry; the distance from the science discovery to application is much greater than the distance from application to science. I will explain this in forthcoming blog writing.

Mass media needs to approach new discoveries in light of the above point (the media should not be overspeculative and create false expectations, but rather engage the public in the scientific process)
Very true, all good scientists will agree. I fear the mass media will find the idea- idealistic. There are notable and noble exceptions but in the strongly moneytheistic environment of today a non-sensationalist press is the equivalent of odorless garlic- non-saleable. Sometimes it is possible to engage a part of the public in the scientific process however anti-intellectualism and anti-scienceism have strong, deep roots.

Research funding needs to become less dependent on the common assumptions within the culture of scientific communities, and much more courageous and objective.
Those who are distributing the research funds must be courageous, generous and should have a perfect predictive power and a great capacity to distinguish the really great discoveries hidden at the right side of the Medawar Zone. Sometimes they have to forget that “success breeds success” and support even seemingly chanceless research. I wonder if cases of “negative corruption” aren’t possible?

The scientific method is a wonderful thing. Use it always — no exceptions.
Oh yes! Here I can only ask- specifically for LENR is the scientific method used, in which forms and in which extent?
For the time given, there are problems with the use of the Scientific Method for LENR- in part due to the weakness and unreliability of the experimental results, in part due to the lack of realism and to excess of imagination of the LENR theories. I wonder if thus is a unique specific status of CF/LENR or something more general.
I am trying to respect the rules of good Thinking and I avoid stubbornly both analogies-too-far and forced correlations that actually do not exist. I have always been near-sighted in such things- I will now compare LENR with a neighbor, high temperature super-conductivity that also belongs to solid state physics and was discovered three years earlier. HTSC has no problems of reproducibility, has some practical applications however has no perfect theory just “possible explanations”. It is- in a sense also a step-daughter of the scientific method, cannot be explained very precisely in a cause-effect manner. Not only LENR is in a difficult gnoseological situation, but this is no consolation.

By the way- I have to tell you about the success of my Survey re LENR launched a week ago: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/06/new-lenr-survey.html
It has absolutely no success and I know that many friends want to help me- but cannot. I have received an answer from Brian Ahern who says: “LENR is primarily not a nuclear process. It is energy derived from a new form of asymmetric magnetic vortex interactions that has some nuclear reactions as a secondary process”.
Ed Storms has generously given a very condensed formulation of his new, leading and plausible theory…do you surely remember I have discussed about it on my blog

1. LENR is caused by a single mechanism and a single NAE regardless of the method used or hydrogen isotope involved.
2. Tritium is produced from the d+e+p fusion reaction.
3. Helium is the major source of energy when deuterium is used, which results from d+d+e fusion.
4. Deuterium is the source of energy when protium is used, which results from p+e+p fusion.
5. A LENR reaction can be initiated within a chemical lattice, such as PdD or NiH, no matter how high the d or p concentration.
6. Cracks of suitable size are a possible NAE.
7. The energy resulting from the fusion reactions is dissipated as photons.
8. The mechanism of fusion involves a coherent resonance with laser-like characteristics that occurs within the NAE.
9. Transmutation results at atoms located at the ends of the cracks.

It seems that a rigorous application of the scientific method to
Ed’s theory will be possible only in rather far future, it needs instruments and methods not invented yet and sub-theories still not conceived or formulated.
Ed has received remarks and critics, and that’s all about the 2012 Survey for now! I don’t take it as something personal, however my sad conclusion, comparing the new Survey with that of 2005
is that now the confusion and uncertainty in the LENR community is even greater and deeper than it was 7 years ago. Please contradict me with courage & facts!

I think that I understand the situation in its historical context- and it is described by this old Irish proverb:“The darkest hour of all. is the hour before day.”