Because we are living in It, it is quite interesting and
even useful to understand how this World is functioning, how it does work.
I have tried to understand what, how and why happens, and
how long. Actually I have worked out an original system described in my papers
and editorials and Septoes.
The very core of it is the inherent, inexhaustible, infinite
interestingness of our Universe.
Both Freeman Dyson and I have concluded that our Universe is most interesting
of all the possible universes. This means there are myriads of
alternative universes with no life, no sex, no conscience, no stupidity, no
evil appearing there at all, and some of these are still privileged if you compare
them with most rudimentary universes missing molecules, atoms, quarks whatever down
to those primitive ones in which space and time are unable to become distinct,
annoying beyond any imaginable limits. However we live in a fine interesting
Universe and:
The Universe feeds our insatiable curiosity
forever
The Universe is obsessed to be interesting.
The Universe is obsessed to be interesting.
The problem is how can things be really interesting-
first of all surprising? The answer is … a brand new Septoe:
Interesting: things are not what they seem.
In order to know the differences between
what seems to be and what really is, humans have created Science and Research,
these have to use thinking
The idea of this new Septoe is quite
negative; it is known we, humans have many problems to solve all the time, it
is not difficult to guess that the problems can be solved only starting from
the correct premises and if we have usually the wrong, unrealistic premises- we
are in trouble before starting to solve the problems.
This explains Rule no 3 here:
that is dreadful; you must to waste a lot of time, energy, effort, creativity just for defining the problems (to understand them) instead of effectively solving them. The great task of human thinking is to differentiate what the things seem from what the things really are.
This is a continuous, inexorable,
unavoidable, destructive-constructive, difficult process in all fields of knowledge;
it is evolution and progress the unique way of improvement. I hope you have
guessed: cold fusion is no exception! However it is in a sense an extreme case
because it was discovered so much before its time and in such a wrong place, I
have repeatedly told you about this unhappy start- the most clearly probably
when I have confessed that everything I knew about cold fusion was wrong.
The best euphemism would be to say that my writings had a very limited impact:
palladium is still “glowrious”, the F& P electrolytic cell went to the
European Commission, and very few colleagues think there is a qualitative
essential difference between LENR classic and the enhanced excess heat
generating LENR+ and its advanced form, HENI... If at least the title of this
series is true:
then CF/LENR is still an immature field and it makes no sense for me to continue, I will have zero success anyway. Obviously it is saison morte for publishing now, serious work is acousticophobic/ligyrophobic (see the list of phobias) - and the chances of be more convincing now are low. However this morning something strange and unbelievable has happened this morning- Kurt Harden the editor of the wonderful Cultural Offering- a daily enchantment for me has published a perfect description of the impossible, as defined for our field. I have asked Kurt’s permission to reproduce it for you, and this time, I am sure you will confirm me honestly that this has never happened in our solid basic memecracy, and it never will:
A
change of mind
He changed his mind. He altered his course. He
reversed his position. He advocated a new path.
The decision had been made. The course established. The plan was set in motion. Details were mapped.
But then new information came in. It was good data and it showed something new. Something different from the old data. The savings weren't there. The results would not be as expected. He recognized this, tilted his head back and chuckled.
A new plan was made.
It was that simple. New data. New conclusion. An altered path.
No ego. Just a change of mind.
The decision had been made. The course established. The plan was set in motion. Details were mapped.
But then new information came in. It was good data and it showed something new. Something different from the old data. The savings weren't there. The results would not be as expected. He recognized this, tilted his head back and chuckled.
A new plan was made.
It was that simple. New data. New conclusion. An altered path.
No ego. Just a change of mind.
Posted by KH at 10/15/2013 9:57 PM 
Categories: Business
Categories: Business
I am very impressed, even shocked by such a never met possibility for “us”. Did something even a bit similar happened with a leading cold fusion theorist? I cannot remember; as far I know all theories are born via spontaneous generation, increase in complexity but do not change. Any and all disputes re LENR go a way of exactly 360 degree i.e return, sometimes very tired, to the very starting point- I have seen a few thousands of examples.
Detailitis, Dilutitis, Disputitis- An Eternal Palladium Braid.
What can we do? I have always told that
initiative is the great differentiator between people – so I have to
start the action. I will write down 100 times: “Palladium is the future!
It is NOT an unmanageable expensive metal!! The cradle is the best vehicle!!!”
Using autosuggestion well I will succeed to
believe that CF is what everybody knows it is and not was those bad New Wave
people try to convince us. Who will follow my
example of making such a Harden type miracle- in the inverse direction?
Peter
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteThe problem today, if you can call it a problem, (problem - still waiting for the initial promise of cold fusion – i.e., unlimited free energy from a clean safe tabletop device), with the whole cold fusion/LENR field, as I see it is this:
-
Everyone is afraid to clearly point to and throw out “bad data.”
-
Everyone is after, not giving the gift of cold fusion/LENR to the world but, let’s incorporate, get patents, hide most of our data, both good and bad, because someone else might get their $$$ millions first.
-
It seems that most people forget that:
-
The Universe is a source of unlimited – energy, knowledge, truth, abundance, etc., and is the great multiplier -- “The more you give the more you receive.”
-
Peter, please keep your eye on the ball, your home run is just one pitch away.
-
Your Friend,
Gary Wright
shutdownrossi.com
Thanks dear Gary
Deleteand please translate your very last sentence in Europenese- and, what does it say more exactly?
Peter
Peter,
DeleteUsing the metaphor of the game of baseball, and from your point of view –
In the game of life, you are at bat, and to reach the ultimate goal – a home run (find the holy grail of cold fusion/LENR – a working usable device), you must keep your eye on the ball. When you are at the plate and it is your turn to play, any pitch (cold fusion/LENR experiment) could theoretically be the one that would allow you to hit the ball for a homerun, (promote that device and/or experiment).
I am being optimistic for you, hoping that when you swing at the next pitch – (help to promote the next viable cold fusion/LENR device and/or experiment), it will be the one that passes all true independent 3rd party tests, and brings into reality a working and usable cold fusion/LENR reactor.
Gary Wright
It is not generally known that Martin Fleischmann founded two directly related branches of science: LENR and Nanoplasmonics.
DeleteThese two sciences have since diverged with one in disrepute(LENR) and one highly regarded as a cutting edge science(Nanoplasmonics).
I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974.
But basically they both deal with the same zoo of quantum mechanical phenomena.
These days as an optical science, mainstream academic Nanoplasmonics does not involve itself in the catalyzation of nuclear activity, but there is a family of easily replicated third party crossover Nanoplasmonic experiments that show how Nanoplasmonics can produce unexplained nuclear activity as follows:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf
Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.
A.V. Simakin and G.A. Shafeev
Abstract
Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 10^^11 -10^^13 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 um were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 10^^10 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed.
Here is another paper in the same vein:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.6276.pdf
Accelerated alpha-decay of 232U isotope achieved by exposure of its aqueous solution with gold nanoparticles to laser radiation
A.V. Simakin, G.A. Shafeev
This paper shows how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.
It is hard for me to understand how this type of crossover Nanoplasmonic experiment cannot be accepted by a fair and impartial observer as a true and independent 3rd party test(s), which can support the starting point in understanding the reality of a working and usable cold fusion/LENR Ni/H reactor.
There is direct connection between nuclear activity and LENR which is a Nanoplasmonic science. The E-Cat is a Nanoplasmonic device.
What I told here for CF is well known for politics, see please:
ReplyDeletehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect
Peter
Hi Peter, you state.
ReplyDelete“Palladium is the future! It is NOT an unmanageable expensive metal!! The cradle is the best vehicle!!!”
Did you change your mind or are you being Ironic?
On 15 July 2013 Mark Gibbs wrote in forbes.com the article Why “Cold Fusion” Has to Dye, making a conclusion that any attempt for obtaining a patent of a device with mentioning either a Cold Fusion or a LENR will fail, because it does not fit to the definition of main stream science. My opinion is that we live in time of paradigms that twist our logical thinking and freedom of expression. We are forced not to tell the things with their true names. Then our discussion with pro & con arguments about cold fusion, LENR or whatsoever other word for naming the experimentally observed phenomenon may go forever. The only way to exit from such fruitless situation is to address the main cause of the problem. It is in the current physical understanding of the nuclear fusion that is proclaimed as a final true. The problem is that the established authority of the doctrine called modern physics does not allow any discussion and correction of its concepts and rules, adopted hundred years ago, no matter if they are right or wrong. To be clearer, the problem is in the adopted planetary model of the atom called Rutherford-Bohr model that despite of his large number of unsolved problems and illogical inconsistencies is accepted as a quantum mechanical model of all atoms. The deeper buried problem is that we must follow the old adopted assumption that all elementary particles are spherical and structureless. Then the resulting problem is that the quantum mechanical models of atoms deals only with energy levels. Quantum mechanics explicitly excludes to deal with the physical size because going into unsolvable problems. THEREFORE, QUANTUM MECHANICAL MODELS OF ATOMS ARE ONLY MATHEMATICAL. THEY ARE NOT REAL PHYSICAL MODELS. Based on the assumption of spherical structureless particles, the interpretation of earlier scattering experiments leads to a wrong small size of the atomic nuclei. The later more advanced scattering experiment, while providing unexplainable results, introduced a large number of adjustable parameters in order to match the adopted older concept. Finally, based on these consequences from wrong assumptions, the size of the atomic nucleus is estimated wrongly to be in the order of one femptometer. Then a simple calculation using Coulomb law provides so strong Coulomb barrier that in order to obtain a nuclear fusion the nucleus must be hit by a particle or atomic nucleus with energy corresponding to a temperature of million of degrees. However, if the elementary particles are not spherical but with a shape of a very thin toroid or twisted or folded toroid, the same data from scattering experiment provide a quite different picture of the atomic nucleus. Then the nucleus is a much larger fractal structure with a fractal shape of Coulomb field but with a thousand times of weaker Coulomb barrier.
ReplyDeleteThe above-presented arguments are result of my lifetime research and investigation of the history of physics and reinterpretation of the experimental data presented in my articles and books. For more details, please, see my recent article in tne General Science Journal. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4805
If you read le backlog of scientific denial of anomalies
Deletehttp://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
it is tclear there is nothing new in LENr denial.
What is funny is how Thomas Kuhn, and his axaggeration, are neutralized by mainstream... either by softening it, or by strawman radicalization (like focussing on pretended objective relativism).
what seems new for me is that there is planet-wide "too big to fail"/"too big to save" monopolty of truth in science.
1 century ago, there was war of ideas between school of thinking...
5 century's ago there was thousands of islands of ideas communicating but without hierarchy...
no APS to control SciAm who control WikiPravda, who control the mind of 97% of the minds.
anyway I exaggerate, in japan wikipedia rejected the mindguards of wikipedia US/EU. You can publish in peer reviewed magazine article on Cold Fusion.
In china the chinese academy of science, in chinese, is not shy to talk of LENR conferences, neither to present EmDrive at IAC13.
I think, following the vision of Taleb, that todays problems is not anything new about the human mindset (imperfect as usual).
It is a question of size of the island of consensus, which is now a too big contident from which there is no way to escape...
Dear Stoyan,
DeleteThanks for this analysis; it inspires me to write an editorial
about the diagnosis of the illness of cold fusion and the recommended cure, similar with yours but based on a somewhat different paradigm shift.
Peter
Dr. Starg,
DeleteWhy don't you interrupt the theorizing briefly and volunteer yourself and your colleagues to do a precise and uncompromising test of the legitimacy of Rossi's or Defkalion's technology? I think you will find that they won't allow an expertly done test that they can't control. Why do you think that is, if they have what they say?
It will be useless because any positive result will be claimed as being a fraud, an artifact, a manipulation.
DeleteAny sucess is an arytifact
If artifact is impossible it is thus a fraud
onlu failures are good evidence
that is what Huizenga the wize have told us.
It remind me the guy of MFMP who are happy because they found gamma...
many scientist found gamma...
Some people are happy because Toyota confirmed Mitsubishi, but transmutation to tritium or He4 are proven since long.
the problem is not the evidence, it is the brains of the observers.