ABOUT SLOW PROGRESS AND CRAZY PREDICTIONS.

Slow progress is in LENR, the predictionss were mine.

I have re-read my paper: “Why technology first?’ automatically remembering one of the favorite books of my childhood ‘Twenty years after.” by Alexandre Dumas.

The paper is attached to this essay, perhaps it is too long, has a rather low ideas/words density, has much too many quotations and embarrassingly naïve concepts- however, I dare to hope, it can be used to illustrate the progress  made in the field and

proves some predictions made by me in illo tempore.

I have used much stuff from my course of “Management of Technology”- presented at the local university of Eco Management.

I wonder if somebody will have the angelic patience to read it,

but it can happen. I will use the comments to up-to-date this text, Blogger allows me to do that.

Let’s remember the old battles (lost) prior to going in new battles we must win- if we will not accept to perish.

However this is just nostalgia, the victory and the solution is in new ideas not in old books and papers, not in the past.

Peter

FROM THE GOOD/BAD OLD TIMES

(with special thanks to Christy Frazier)

Why Technology First

by Dr. Peter Glück

The Problem

“We are very good at making and talking about the bricks of the temple of science,but most of us are shy about the mortar or

about the speculative blueprint of the whole design” — Gerald Holton

“The great menace to progress is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge” —(Author unknown, quoted after Daniel Boorstin)

I will present here my vision about Cold Fusion, an offer for a strategy in this field, and a theory. These are as subjective as possible because I have learned well that an “objective analysis”

is both a contradiction in terms and a symptom of fear of responsibilityor of inadequate knowledge. I don’t aim to compete with the many other theories which try to explain the puzzles of Cold Fusion; obviously there is a state of crisis which requires

a radical change of rules in the contest, that is what Edward de Bono has called surpetition, creatively replacing the usual “competition” [1]. The trick is not how to defeat the “rival” theories

but how to assimilate selectively their valuable elements, the fragments of truth they hold. In short range, this has some drawbacks such as hostility and a success similar to that of

Cassandra’s predictions, as it results from the citation rate of my papers which are politely and systematically ignored [2-5].

“When truth is discovered by someone else, it loses something of its attractiveness” A.Solzhenitsyn

In the longer range, after the recognition of the theory, after its metamorphosis from an “ugly duckling” into a swan, hopefully laying golden eggs, it has to be adequately extended and

developed, in order to cure its inborn mathematical debility. But now we need a theory which can be used as a solid working hypothesis and we have to follow one of the advises of the

Father of Scientific Management:

“Quantification without adequate logic is worse than no quantification at all.”—Peter F. Drucker

In my opinion, we have to create first a very general and not precisely defined frame useful for the commercial development of new energy sources; real, profound understanding and impressive formulas will come later.

“In science the primary duty of the ideas is to be useful and interesting more than to be true” —Wilfred Totter

If we are pragmatic enough, we have to accept this, and if are not, it doesn’t matter: the situation cannot be changed. However I am not fanatical about my opinion or my theory:

“When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because

these dogmas or goals are in doubt”—Robert Pirsig

And a general acceptance is neither possible nor desirable:

“It is time to understand that consensus in the scientific community is not a good sign,but rather a symptom of crisis. The polarization of views is normal” —V. Koliadin

To generate a viable mental tool, I have used both scientific data and basic principles of action and management:this is justified by the extreme difficulty and novelty of the problem [6].

“Problems worthy of attack, Show their worth by hitting back.” —Piet Hein

The Perils of Neophobia (and Its Justification)

A very great part of the problems faced by Cold Fusion are due to the normal, self-protecting, neophobic reaction of the scientific community.

“All great truths begin as blasphemies”—G.B. Shaw

“The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resistsit with similar energy. If we watch ourselves

with honesty, we shall often find that we begin to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated”—Wilfred Totter

“One of the marvels of creation is the infinite capacity of the human brain to withstand the introduction of knowledge” —

Theodore Roosevelt

“When you don’t understand something,you are against it”

—Grigore Moisil, Romanian mathematician

My dear Cold Fusion fellows, you have to understand that:

“What men really want is not knowledge but certainty”—Bertrand Russell

Cold Fusion was discovered by chemists, but the physicists are convinced that real or not, CF is their field and has to be treated their way. This generates some trouble as it can be concluded from an editorial entitled “Are there limits of scientific knowledge?” [7]

“..there is a difference in the way that physicists and chemists regard science, and I sincerely hope my physicist colleagues

are not unduly offended. Many physicists hope they can understand EVERYTHING and they manage to pronounce

this hope with great regularity to the public. There’s a certain arrogance there, but also an ambition one must respect. Chemists seem to have no such problem. The complexity of molecular

behavior- the origin, phase state, dynamic structure and, above all bond making and bond breaking reactions of molecules amounts

to a complexity equivalent to that of a decent sized universe. Yes, physicists, a universe. Chemists appreciate the enormity of molecular complexity very well and they regularly say, “We don’t

long time before we do.” Contemplating molecular complexity is a good mental exercise in humility. Chemists appear to be quite content with this well adjusted,honest attitude even though as scientists we are sometimes less well regarded for our admitted lack of complete understanding of our subject.” —Royce W. Murray

Whether cold fusion belongs to the physicists, to the chemists, to both, or demands new specialists is an open question. Any kind of combined solution is possible. Being a chemical engineer, my expertise in complexity includes elements of know-how and

direct experience in hypersensitivity, chaotic behavior of real systems, and unpredictability. I know that complexity, chaos, change, and paradox cannot be solved, but have to be managed.

It is time to recognize the immense difficulty of the field, as

well as the impossibility of finding or guessing solutions by starting from a particular aspect or from wishful, beautiful, but unfounded analogies (‘miniature hot fusion,’ ‘room temperature fusion,’ ‘piezonuclear processes,’ etc.) It is time to accept with joy that complexity is our mode of existence: “The World is constructed designedly in order to fulfill the interest of the scientist, being infinitely complex and perfectible,providing an endless and eternal field of thinking and action for him” —Y.H. Prum

It is time to understand that such a problem will get a solution only if we use adequate heuristic principles.[6,8].

The Way of Strategy

A strategy is essential because: “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will take you there”—Theodore Levitt

My offer is a logical strategy based on the following five modes of confronting the problems

Global Approach

Consider the entirety of the available data, information, knowledge, all the systems, results, isotopes of hydrogen Only a cooperative combination between reduction and holism, analysis and synthesis, depth- and breadthoriented methods will help us to achieve an integrative vision of the intricate problem: what is actually Cold Fusion?

Open Approach

Supply and use a continuous influx of information from the neighboring fields (no good fences!) and even from more remote areas of the human thinking and action. We are not permitted

to forget that Koestler has proved that creativity works with

‘bisociations,’ i.e. associations between seemingly unrelated or even

mutually alien concepts.[9]. And Goedel’s theorem shows that it is

never possible to solve all the problems of a system by using only inner data, information, and knowledge.

Even a hasty investigation demonstrates that the neighboring fields of solid state science are lacking theoretical underpinning[10], and therefore an idea such as “cold fusion has no theory,therefore doesn’t exist” or “only theory can support the advancement

of CF” are completely false regardless of who issues them: a skeptic or an adept. The best method to stop progress in any science was stated by a skeptic, whose fervor, negative enthusiasm, and continuous combat against cold fusion has helped him to be quoted in a rather esoteric society of participants:

“Let’s get the theory sorted out before we make claims about practicality”—Alan M. Dunsmuir on the Internet, Fusion Digest No.3103, January 1995

Focused Approach

Concentrate on the essential aspects, on the core of the problem. This core is excess heat, because cold fusion is oppressed and needs a quick final victory in order to flourish; there are many more chances that the savior of the field will be the Invincible Cold

Fusion Demo— demonstrating that the energy source of the future has been found— rather than the Absolutely Convincing CF theory.

Nuclear ashes obtained in small quantities in some of the CF systems have only scientific significance and it is more and more obvious that these are secondary products; ‘Focused’ and

‘Global’ are thus complementary.

Positive Approach

Accept both the positive and the negative results, that is, be positive

toward both, and to make use of both. I have used the plethora of negative results to deduce the catalytic nature of cold fusion, i.e. I have used negative data to obtain positive, and possibly essential information. The extreme case of this approach is my claim to

have founded Scipiology (the science of converting disasters in triumphs) [11]. Managers know well the importance

of positive thinking:

“Here is one secret of success. Avoid being against some-thing.Instead be for something.Examples. Instead of being against

illiteracy, be for literacy and you will help to improve literacy. Instead of being against your company’s policy, be for an

improved policy. What happens: Whateveryou are against, works against you. You begin fighting it and become a part of the

problem. But when you state what are you for, you begin focusing on the potential for the positive change” —Wayne W.Dyer[12].

Here I have to confess that it is quite difficult to apply this doctrine in one’s attitude toward the militant, active skeptics. Perhaps one of my cold fusion friends is right when he states that ‘a 99% skeptic is better than a 200% believer’ but this is also open to interpretation. I have many good friends among the skeptics, however they have taught me that the next statement, which demonstrates the

existence and power of the negative thinking, is not a metaphor:

“If you don’t think at all, you think more than the average of the people.”—Jules Renard

During writing this piece I came across an essay of Daniel Boorstin

dedicated to the virtues of the so called ”negative discovery,” i.e. paradigm changes which prove that “some long-admired fixture of the imagination does not exist”[13]. It is clear that cold fusion is also a “negative discovery” in the most positive interpretation of this wording. This shows once again its progressive character:

“Perhaps the modern realm of discovery isno longer a realm of answers but only ofquestions, which we are beginning to feel

at home in and enjoy. Perhaps our modern discoverer is not a discoverer at all but rather a quester in an Age of Negative

Discovery, where achievements are measured not in the finality of the answers,but in the fertility of the questions.”—Daniel Boorstin

Our case illustrates the conceptual richness of the positive-negative

dichotomy.

Realistic Approach

Admit the limits of the present understanding and realize the present stage of development. The following advice is many thousand years old but very rarely understood:

“Gain power by accepting reality.” —Chinese proverb

It isn’t easy to accept that:

“Truth is never pure and rarely simple”—Oscar Wilde

“Knowledge is but a struggle for knowledge.And we are always equally far and equally near it.” —Ramon Sender

“Science, at the bottom, is really antiintellectual.It always distrusts pure reasonand demands the production of the

objective fact” —H.L.Mencken

“Truth is perfectible at the most, only lies

can be perfect.”—Y. H. Prum

Or the worst of all:

“ Theories are ways of thinking which determine the choice of the experiment —Mary Migley

Theory and know-how have to be in equilibrium because

“When the cobbler became a shoe specialist,comfortable shoes could no longer be found” —Erwin Chargaff

We can learn from the great managers; a single quote is convincing:

“Past wisdom must not be a constraint but something to be challenged. Yesterday’s success formula is often today’s obsolete dogma. My challenge is to have [the organization] continually questioning the past so we can renew ourselves every day.”

—

Yoshio Maruta, chairman of Kao

Skeptics and cold fusioneers unable to think beyond the basic Pd/D2O system, please take note!

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

“I hate quotations! Tell me what do you know!”—B.Disraeli

O.K., Ben, you are right, no more quotations, and I’ll tell you because I am looking back with pleasure. However, I am quite busy looking forward.

Cold Fusion Systems

After more than 25 years practice in the systematization of patents and elements of know-how for chemical technologies,taxonomy is my baby. I have learned how to classify —chronologically, in order to comprehend the evolution —logically, i.e. according to the kind of the solution, trying to get a global vision of the possibilities —

technologically, that is by the companies owing the patents, correlating the data aiming to a realistic view of the technologies worked out by the leading companies. For my specialty (suspension polyvinyl chloride) I had processed more than 12,500 patents

and, obviously, had no computer.Then I joined the Cold Fusion movement (actually it happened a few years before the F & P press conference; hot fusion seemed to contradict my theory of unstoppable technological progress and I knew that an alternative solution must exist) and when very soon the great stumbling block of irreproducibility came in sight, I immediately identified the stigma of catalytic processes. To be catalytic is a blessing

in the case of a well-tempered process, but is a curse when it’s beyond control.All CF systems discovered are cases of catalysis [2-4] and using this criterion they can be classified in the following logical way, using as criteria the location of the active sites and the

method used for raising them:

1. WET SYSTEMS (gas/liquid/solid interfaces)

1.1. Electrochemical:

1.1.1. Pd/D2O

1.1.2. Ni/H2O

1.1.3. Pd/ molten salts

1.2. Ultrasonic:

1.2.1. Pd/ D2O

1.2.2. Metal/H2O

2. DRY SYSTEMS (gas/solid interfaces)

2.1. gas loading/unloading

2.2. gas discharge

2.3. gas sparking

2.4. gas/solid, stimulated

2.5. gas/ proton conductors

2.6. ionic implantation

Only systems in which excess heat was obtained are included here. Who knows, there may be others! Details regarding these systems can be found in the reviews of Storms[14,15] and hundreds of other papers and patents.

Occam’s Razor

The systems are very diversified, and it seems that what they have in common is the inhibition of the positive effects and the immediateness of the negative effects; excess heat generation

can be triggered with great difficulty but can be easily interrupted. It

is obvious that the cold fusion effect is based on some entities hich are very difficult to breed, but easy to destroy. In other words, they are hypersensitive and determine a chaotic behavior of the systems if these are in a suboptimal condition. However there are striking differences regarding the practical means of managing the different

CF systems. Storms calls the entities’ a Special Condition of Matter

(SCM) and states that this condition can appear in different chemical environments. He states: “ The challenge for a theoretician is to find what these SCM’s have in common.” In my opinion

all the CF systems described are based on methods of activation: electrochemical, ultrasonic, and others specific for gas/solid interfaces, that is, on creation of catalytic active sites.

As seen from the practice, both in the chemical industry and in case of cold fusion, this isn’t an easy job. Working by cavitation, the process is quite powerful and unperturbed, in contrast with the “classical”Fleischmann-Pons cell where the active centers are

created long after all diffusional processes have attained a state of

equilibrium. This suggests another criterion, yet not well defined, for ordering the CF systems from the most tough and efficient to the most sluggish and delicate. Catalysis is inherently economical given the processes are very localized and only an extremely small fraction of the matter has to be in the productive “Special Condition.’ And this condition isn’t bound to a special composition

but it is actually a quantum state determined by the topology and the dynamics of the atoms placed in the active sites. For this reason, I am using the name “surfdyn concept” for my working hypothesis. Quantum confinement, quantum corrals, and quantum cavities are the probable scene for the unexpected processes. (I don’t like the wording “anomalous,” the anomalous of today is the trivial of

tomorrow.)

Isotopic Democracy

The participants in the Cold Fusion drama are as surprising as the scene. At the very beginning of the story it seemed that only deuterium could play a role, and D+D fusion was the name of the game. Now we know that in at least 5 systems (1.1.2., 1.2.2., 2.1.,

2.3., and 2.4.), light water (or hydrogen) has an excess heat producing potential similar to that of deuterium.

A recent “surprise” the very first bastion of deuterium has fallen: using palladium-coated beads with very high surface area (that is with enhanced catalytic activity), Patterson [16], was able to obtain excess heat with a H2O-based electrolyte.

Reifenschweiler [17] has published data about the temperature dependence of the radioactivity of tritium embedded in titanium soot, having nanometric particles. The myth of inaccessibility of the nucleus by low energy processes has fallen. Where does this miracle

happen? In a catalytic environment, of course! With another isotope of hydrogen. As far we know, there are no essential differences

between deuterium and protium regarding the level of excess heat. A kind of Isotopic Democracy is working, possibly in all the systems. However, this proves that Cold Fusion has a component which is not nuclear.Who cares as long as it is a reliable source of energy?

The Cold Fusion Scenario

A simple scenario, hiding a treasure of complexity can thus be imagined:Cold Fusion” is actually a combination between: a Catalytic Quantum Effect, providing the capture of the zero-point energy, and more Catalytic Nuclear Effects, leading to nuclear

ashes.

Obviously the nuclear particles are able to induce secondary reactions. The quantum non-nuclear and the nuclear effects have different ratios in the systems described and this is a

kind of mark of each system. The nuclear contribution to the excess heat is significant only in the deuterium based systems when helium-4 is formed; the maximum “nuclearity” appears in the palladium-heavy water ultrasonic system. According to my guess, even the Fleischmann and Pons cell is only 20-25% nuclear. (Yes,

my reputation is at stake!) Eventually let’s imagine a very simple play, based on the concept of pairing postulated by Reifenschweiler. Two atoms of hydrogen isotopes, confined in a quantum well, can form a pair (lots of theories describe aspects and forms of this idea). Beyond a degree of pairing they are able to tap ZPE, and excess

heat is emitted. At higher degrees of pairing and if deuterium is present, the nuclei are fused and a new source of heat is at work. An analogy can be found: the nuclear events are like marriages,

while the quantum events are like pairings, both intra- and extramarital.

This gives an idea of the relative frequency. Obviously, the real situation, (of cold fusion) is much more complicated. I don’t know when my theory will be accepted. In the worst case the final victory will be semantic: the catalysis jargon will invade and

conquer the field.

References

[1] E. de Bono: “Six Action Shoes”, Harper Collins Publishers, 1994.

[2] P. Gluck: “Understanding reproducibility:topology is the key”; Fusion Facts 3, 11, May 1992 pp 19-23.

[3] P. Gluck: “The Surfdyn concept, an attempt to solve or rename the puzzles of cold nuclear fusion”; Fusion Technology 24, 1, Aug 1993 pp 122-126.

[4] P. Gluck: “Cold Fusion- a logical network approach” Cold Fusion Source Book, InternationalSymposium on Cold Fusion and Advanced Energy Sources, Minsk, May 24-26, 1994, Hal Fox, Editor pp 79-83.

[5] P. Gluck: “A paradigm too far?” Fusion Facts 6, 7, Jan 1995 pp 19-21

[6] S.H. Kim:”Essence of Creativity: a Guide to Tackling Difficult Problems,” Oxford University Press, 1990.

[7] W. Royce Murray: “Are there limits of scientific knowledge?” Analytical Chemistry, 66, no.17, Sep 1, 1995 (Editorial).

[8] E. de Bono: “Serious Creativity” (Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas), Harper Business Publishers 1992.

[9] A. Koestler: “The Act of Creation”, Laurel Ed., 1965

[10] P. Gluck: “ The Neighbor’s Goat”,Fusion Facts 5, 9, March 1994, p 13-14.

[11] P. Gluck: “Cold Fusion-a case of Scipiology”, Cold Fusion No.6, 1995

[12] Wayne W. Dyer: You’ll See It When You Believe It, William Morrow and Co.,N.Y. 1993, quoted from:Communication Briefings, Oct 1994.

[13] D. Boorstin: “The Age of Negative Discovery”, The American Enterprise ,Vol 5, No 6, Nov/Dec 1994 p 28.

[14] E. Storms: “How to Produce the Pons-Fleischmann Effect” to be published in Fusion Technology, 1995

[15] E. Storms: “A Critical Review of the ‘Cold Fusion’Effect,” January 30, 1995, preprint received from the author.

[16] J. Patterson: US Pat. No.5,318,675 and 5,372,688 cited after ref. No 15.

[17] O. Reifenschweiler: “Reduced Radioactivity in Small Titanium Particles”,Physics Letters A, 184, 1994, pp149-153.