(Comments regarding Defkalion’s ICCF presentation-2)
In anticipation of Theory Panel Discussion lead by Michael McKubre at ICCF-17, Wednesday August 15.
Defkalion’s preoccupation with a proper definition of LENR- the useful kind of it- is obvious. See please the first part of their National Instruments Week technical presentation and also the part entitled “Towards an industrialization path of LENR products” of their ICCF-17 paper. Their motivation is not curiosity – they are in a very close contact with reality, they have a marketing problem and are facing even more obstacles due to their planned manufacture and selling of a product with a functionality and potential risks- still unknown- in part.
John Hadjichristos says: “The lack of any common defined definition is an obstacle (which we face already) towards LENR Industrialization”
Undefined, unknown, unexplained- all these sound badly and generate fear, suspicion, and rejection.
Please do not ignore my problem solving rule no. 17:
“NOT always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.”
Imagination beats reality when it is about producing bad problems.(An other dreadful example for that is the phobia of genetically engineered food, but I will not enter any polemics on this).
LENR has nuclear in it and nuclear is a very negative anti-catchword today. One of the tasks of our community is to demonstrate that LENR is an almost completely harmless nuclear process, much more eco-friendly than nuclear fission or hot fusion. - as it really is. The definition has to tell how and why it is so.
While the other LENR scientists are seeking, searching, studying LENR, industrialists as DGTG have to sell it and they must tell the customers what the product/process is, what it does (good) and what it will not do. (bad).
A definition, in our case is a proto-theory! The problems of definition and of theories cannot be separated for LENR.
See please what I have told about theory in my Open letter to ICCF-17 http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/open-letter-to-iccf-17.html
Simple theories do not work, all the systems of LENR are complex and those LENR+ that give energy in useful amounts are surely overly complex. They are actually “prefix theories” and the prefixes can be; hyper-, trans-, multi-, trans-, pragma- or as Defkalion’s theory is: -active, -interactive. Resembling more “How Stuff Works” http://www.howstuffworks.com/ than a simple or simplified theory based, say, on an elegant Hamiltonian treated in a bright way. Theorists can afford to focus on a single barrier, a real and effective explanation comprises a lot of barriers that have to be penetrated, overcome, removed or even cheated in some way.
When we eventually will have a good theory, it will be a fine and noble and essential task to condense it in a definition acceptable and understandable for any user of the LENR generators- Hyperion, E-Cat or else.
It is not easy to discuss with theorists, they usually are very dedicated to their mental products, “married “to it, defend it fiercely and want to apply it much beyond the normal area of validity. They are not playing God, but are frequently playing Nature- they try to tell Mother/Stepmother Nature what to do.
An example, if a theorist has decided that what happens in the Pd-D system is D + D, than he extends this to the Ni-H system, it is surely H + H- it must be so. Defkalion’s results show that this is not true, or it is a side-reaction (what about nucleosynthesys, it has to be found out!?).
A theorist can decide that the explanation must be straight and simple, but the experiment will contradict him/her- so many compounds, parameters, isotopes etc. are present and so many of these are (inter)active. Who offers a guarantee that the same things happen at 250 and at 650 C?
I am not a theorist but I am a very bad example of theoretical closed-mindedness. I have postulated in 1991-1992 that the surface dynamics of the metal (Pd mainly) is a decisive factor in Cold Fusion:
It stimulates the appearance of “active sites”- later renamed more specifically Nuclear Active Environment. I still consider “environment’ not the best word here but NAE became a meme-
Unfortunately it is not a universal LENR meme.
With the advent of the “some like it hot” LENR+ - the process is seen to be enhanced orders of magnitude at very high temperatures, I have concluded quite ‘linearly’- it is normal, the dynamics of surface atoms is much greater at 400-800 C than at room temperature, surface dynamics is a part of the story.
Now, Defkalion shows that “the common nuclear active environment in which LENR occurs is proposed to be the vacancies in the crystal lattice of a heavy metal of a critical size and geometry where excited atoms of hydrogen interact” However they also say: “nothing happens unless the vacancies “open and close” changing their dimensions” An easy tasks for a subjective, prejudiced mind- it is possible to say that the vacancies performing LENR are dynamic inner surfaces ‘sui generis’. This does not change much for anybody else than me. However I am thinking that I was kind of prophet but that’s just imagination.
What kind of theory (prefix-theory) needs LENR in order to work?
Classic science distinguishes 3 categories:
Third class theories are Explicative- they explain what has happened after the experiment.
Second class theories are Prohibitive- they say what is not allowed or cannot be done.
First class theories are Predictive they say what has to be done for the success of the experiment, process whatever.
It is a sad truth that LENR had no first class theories and even the other theories were of limited use for the experimenters who had many troubles.
However now this is changing quite surprisingly, Defkalion’s theory defines a new class:
Premium class theories are Productive they are effectively part of a new process and make scale-up, improvements and development possible.
OK, let’s the theory of LENR theories for other occasions and try to not forget an other very fundamental issue: bureaucracy: the definition of LENR has to be standardized and legally accepted.
I have lived a half of century in an idiotic oppressive bureaucracy; one of my most stupid and sadistic bosses used to say “A good researcher is first of all a good bureaucrat” And still I am convinced that in context, bureaucracy is a great thing, is order is rules, is discipline, standards; intelligent bureaucracy is not an oxymoron.
The Definition has to become official and universally accepted and used to protect the generators that will change the situation of energy worldwide.
Today (Aug 14) at ICCF-17 Lawrence P.G. Forsley has presented a very interesting and documented paper re. official and legal issues of LENR. Unfortunately I still do not have the text but I have listened at Skype to it…and it is a part of the solution, inclusive the bureaucratic solution.
Defkalion has a strategy for solving the definition- bureaucracy problem. Quoting John Hadjichristos:
We think that a new International Independent Institution, as the main body on standards and industrial support references, is the best we can expect at the moment. This could play a serious role against using Nuclear/Atomic agencies for licensing LENR products, which are not nuclear (following the old definitions) but related with energy from nuclei interactions. An Organization, with similar structure as IAEA, is yet not possible, as far as it will require national formation of relevant bodies and multinational agreements. So an Institution could be a helpful interim solution.
Important clues for the definition will come from the analytical works of DGTG – especially the on-line mass spectrometer and this needs collaboration and cooperation. But it is a problem of the LENR community.
In order to enter the Industrial Era, the LENR army- has to pass the Definition Barrier too. Together.