Peter has asked me to write a “guest editorial
in which you tell what YOU suggest as he best ideas and most recommended modes
of thinking- for the future you wish to LENR.”
I'm tempted to dismantle this, so I'll get that out of the way first:
The Best Ideas are the Correct Ones. Get rid of all the others immediately. The Most Recommended modes of thinking are, of course, the Clear ones. Especially the ones where you think like me.
Ahem. It's a fair request, and I take it as a sincere one.
There are two approaches here. The first is totally generic; it's not just about LENR. It is about every aspect of life. I do talk about this, but instead of doing that here, I'm simply going to recommend The Curriculum for Living, Landmark Education, and, to the extent practical, advanced training, and I'll be happy to communicate personally with anyone who wants a conversation over this.
So the second approach is to talk about LERN, what is happening and what might be missing.
It's easy to go back and identify "errors" in the past, but the present and future are not only built from the past, they are a new creation that is not limited by the past. However, it can be useful to identify what was missing, in situations in the past, that led to what happened.
We cannot change what happened, but we can change what it *means*, because that is an ongoing creation of ours.
So, I’ve been pointing out that the announcement of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989 contained claims that, in hindsight, at least, were premature. They were presented as if they overturned accepted physics, yet the evidence presented was circumstantial. An established paradigm, established based on long success in predictive power, will not be overturned merely because an anomaly appears. Pons and Fleischmann were the worlds' foremost electrochemists, perhaps, and were eminently qualified to do accurate calorimetry, but the physicists were not impressed. Claims were being made that were, they perceived, *in their territory.* And they immediately recognized every error. At the same time, there was a perceived threat to a billion dollars a year in hot fusion research, which heavily employs physicists. That's nothing to sniff at.
(It's likely that, as Peter Hagelstein wrote earlier this year in Infinite Energy, that cold fusion will not, when the mystery is resolved, overturn physics, just some inadequately considered approximations and assumptions.)
So, derived principle: don't claim the overthrow of an established paradigm, on which many careers and reputations depend, without *first* establishing the necessary evidence, beyond doubt. I can imagine exceptions. Don't try them at home. They would be exceptions like, you have unlimited funding and you have no concerns about career and public acceptance. Even then, watch your back!
So here we are, almost 25 years later. Now what? Well, what we think about this might not be all that important. I consider it a good possibility that Defkalion will have a product, or at least be arranging for independent testing, before the end of next year. Rossi, it's possible, but less likely, in my judgment. That will make what I have to say about progress in LENR moot, it will blow the lid off. So what I write now is Plan B. And LENR is so important, as to the possibility of effectively limitless green energy for humanity, that we cannot wait and simply hope. Commercial enterprises fail, for lots of reasons. We don't yet know how reliable these NiH products will be.
So Plan B. We do not need to wait for LENR to appear at Home Depot. The scientific evidence is clear that LENR is real. However, that fact is not particularly well known. LENR research is still somewhat suppressed. For over two decades, it was a career killer to be involved in LENR research, and we still see signs of lingering effects.
So my proposal is fairly simple. What it would mean, in practice, may vary from nation to nation, but for the
Both U.S. DoE reviews recommended "modest funding" to answer open research issues. The second review, in particular, showed substantial recognition of the reality of the heat effect, and far more recognition of the possibility of it being nuclear in nature than was the case in 1989. We would be asking the DoE to follow their own recommendations.
We can look at the second review and can see why it was as successful as it was, and why it was as unsuccessful as it was. We will learn from this. This time, we will go back prepared, and on our terms. We will not mix weak evidence with strong, or circumstantial evidence with direct evidence. We will not present a confusing farrago of anomalies, unexplained effects, but focus on *one mystery*. What is happening in the PF Heat Effect?
And we will have specific recommendations, with budgets, ready. We will propose two avenues of research.
First, we will suggest that leaving the question of the reality of cold fusion open, unresolved, maintains massive uncertainty. The direct evidence for cold fusion reality is clear, but funding limitations have limited the accuracy of those measurements. Nailing this down is thus essential. We will request support or direct funding for definitive and accurate measurement of the heat/helium ratio.
Second, we will propose support for research into the character of the Nuclear Active Environment, what conditions, precisely, facilitate this reaction? Part of this involves exploring the parameter space around existing protocols.
The first avenue of research establishes reality. (Theoretically, it's possible that heat/helium could turn out to be artifact. I can't imagine it, but failure of imagination isn't proof of anything. Remember 1989? *We need to know,* and the "we" here includes physicists, policy-makers, genuine skeptics, etc.)
The second avenue of research will open up the possibility of reliability. Success in this avenue could create massive opportunity for practical applications.
There are other avenues to be explored. I'd mention NiH work, except that, at this point, it is not scientifically established, as is PdD work. That may shift at any time, and if the first two avenues are explored, we can be quite sure that others will be, as well.
We will recommend, to the Department of Energy, a systematic approach to the research.
We will do the same with other possible funding agencies. Again, this is too important to place all our eggs in one basket. The same presentations that we will develop will be useful for other venues.
What can individuals do?
Well, all these activities require some level of funding. For me to go to ICCF-18 cost about $700. I was able to keep costs down by taking the bus, and by not registering for the Conference and instead obtaining a press pass. I have received $350 so far in donations to support this. I'm living on a fixed income, and I'm still out of pocket.
So ... support the people working in the field. Ruby Carat has herself been funding her public work, for years, and it's a drain and a strain for her.http://coldfusionnow.org/
Take a look at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/ . That's me, so far. Volunteer to create web resources, edit, report. As the project I'm creating gains steam, there will be funding, but we aren't there yet.
Encourage students to learn about cold fusion. We will need a whole new generation of researchers. It will happen rapidly if the commercial efforts break though, but if not, we will *still* need those fresh faces and minds.
I'm doing this work because I'm told, by the scientists and others, that I'm useful. I can explain things in a way that communicates. If I'm supported, I can do it better.
Commit yourself! Throw your hat over the fence! Are we going to make this happen? I want to hear a thousand people shout, Yes!
