LENR- VERY NECESSARY CHANGES

Motto:

Things would be so much easier if we could change the past

http://jeshikadawn.weebly.com/life-quotes.html

Our field, LENR, has some problems, a part of them serious and these have to be resolved. Without them, the things would be so much easier; the scientific-technological progress would be very fast, continuous, harmonious and diversified...

A short and extendable list of the most necessary changes.

As the quote says it. things would be so much easier if we could change the past- and the good alternative follows: LENR had been discovered in 2003 by Martin Veganis, materials scientist and Stanley Varoli, physicist both working at LANL while testing Ni/support industrial catalysts in extreme conditions- at much higher temperatures than usual. Later they were joined by Prof. Gustav Erdelieder, the great guru of Nanoplasmonics and a group of engineers. The Group has obtained more than a dozen US patents and this alternative history continues; recently the commercial HATM generator No 10 million was sold (HATM- means Hydrogen and Transition Metals).

Some days ago at the 5^th Congress of Hydrogen Metal Energy some very important scientific discoveries and technical innovations were announced. Fine, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, the real history of the field was indeed highly anomalous and as far I remember we cannot change the past: God also cannot; only the historians can- but they too are limited to the political past.

However, things would be so much easier if we will be able to accept that LENR classic a la Fleischmann and Pons and/or with preformed nano-structures, at one part, and LENR+ - enhanced excess heat, at the other part, are very different and have to be treated separately. They are animals that belong to the same family but are different species (are not hybridizable). The former is scientific but not technologizable- the later is technology based on a vast combination of many scientific disciplines.

Also things would be so much easier if

we make many other necessary distinctions,

we don't the try to do the impossible,

don't search for the inexistent and

don't insist stubbornly on what does not work

Examples:

distinction between the tolerable and the intolerable- as bad reproducibility, between means and aims; the Scientific Method \is just a means that works only in combination with other methods,

impossible a good Pd based LENR system,

inexistent- a mono-theory that explains this complex, multi-step

set of phenomena,

what does not work: wet or dry, at low temperatures- under say, 200 C

Even more, things would be so much easier if we do not put constrains and set limits on the methods and tools used for solve

the problems of research and development just in name of some

ideals as the Scientific Method.

However, things will go so much easier if we limit drastically the use of thinking based on historical analogies because these do not explain much and solve nothing, history just rhymes but offers specific cases, and cold fusion is the most specific of all I ever met, .first of all due to the strength of its weaknesses. Learning from history, in this case is limited because the LENR+ story has new features, never seen before.

Nobody can deny that the things will go so much easier if the number of know-it-alls in the field will be reduced to one-tenth of the present value. (this is a more general truth)

Please allow me to cite here one of my favorite pragmatic philosophers.

Failure is simply a few errors in judgment, repeated every day.  (Jim Rohn)

Errors, as NOT trying hard to make things to go so much easier are effective only if repeated for long time and I think this became obvious after more than 24 years for Cold Fusion/LENR that it is time for Changes.

The target of this writing – you could easily guess  is the recent ICCF-18. I have followed with great interest the presentations- with great thanks to Ruby Csrat and her team on Cold Fusion Now, who have made really good journalism. The congress has not generated surprises as shown here:                 http://coldfusion3.com/blog/iccf-doesn%E2%80%99t-lead-to-any-big-surprises 
and that’s regrettable, however it was much better than it’s unhappy (my opinion) slogan.

There were no great events- except the DGT Demo

that was a great but outside achievement, a guest and not yet a member of the family. 

What regards future of LENR as discussed here:

http://coldfusionnow.org/iccf-18-day-6-the-way-forward/

I was very pleasantly impressed by the realism of the founder of the Sydney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance learning that “SKINR’s objective, as tasked by philanthropist Sidney Kimmel, is a practical technology in his lifetime. We owe it to all of us to move this field forward to a useful technological objective.” A wise billionaire!

That signifies, the Scientific Method and all the scientific investigations are seen as means and not aims per se. I hope that the hybrid approach, scientific and technological, by theory and by engineering will become a standard in LENR research.

A very inspiring report was published by David French with whom I had a very friendly correspondence, whom I admire and who is a true “technologist”

http://coldfusionnow.org/concluding-observations-on-iccf-18-by-david-french/

I will not cite from this report because it is a must read and is a more elevated, more elegant, more convincing invitation to smart changes than the present paper.

Eventually, things will go so much easier if we accept that the following months will be an Armageddon with Defkalion in the position of spearhead and leader.

 LENR+ will be the Great Winner becoming an infinite source of energy. LENR classic a la ICCF-18 will be a smaller winner because LENR+ will provide it with plenty of funds for many interesting studies.

The Loser will be the reactionary, closed-minded, skeptical. Ill-willed sons and daughters of Koalemos.

Peter