Motto:
“Truth is a river, not a lake.” (n.d. Scottish Proverb)
Recently, vivid discussions regarding the correlation of
excess heat to helium formed- take place on the LENR forums.
Generally seen it is a case of Defrostitis – an old
theme/subject is taken from the refrigerator of the LENR past, defrosted heated
up and discussed as if it was something new. Defrostitis is followed by
Disputitis and when everything was said the problem goes back to the
refrigerator supported by Dilutitis- it fades gradually away and hibernates
till its next resurrection.
Personally seen it has not much reason in it, I am
perfectly convinced that the 1991 paper of Melvin Miles is an unassailable
proof that this correlation exist- it was confirmed by other LENR researchers-
fast memory shows me first Mike McKubre and Russ George. This correlation- as
such- is for me an axiomatic truth. What does it really reveal, what is its
significance for the development of our field and how can this truth be used efficiently
for convincing newcomers or honest investigators about the truth of cold fusion/LENR- all these make up a different,
complex story.
Introducing the concept of unsolving problems.
Beyond Defrostitis –as a professional problem solver I am
remarking an other side of this discussion- “unsolving problems” In the
past a solution was found for a problem,
then the solution is re-converted in a problem again- this was done with
heat/he now. It is not a perfect solution, it is not an easily actionable
solution, but it is NOT a problem.
Actually the problem is solved as my discussion partner
Abs shows it so well and other colleagues help him.
Unfortunately a solution is accepted- outside the circle
of experimenters who are creating it-- NOT based on scientific
criteria. I was amazed to discover that this “ unsolving
the problems” is something so viral and important that you can find it in the
lyrics of a song belonging to rock music a very recent one-see please
http://sweetempire.bandcamp.com/track/unsolving-problems-in-the-animal-kingdom-2
http://sweetempire.bandcamp.com/track/unsolving-problems-in-the-animal-kingdom-2
It is about unsolving problems at the level of our
species.
I have stated many times that the lyrics of non-classic
music are mysteriously very highly placed on the DIKW scale- sometimes. It is
much wisdom in this text- I am speaking quite seriously. I will ask these Sweet
Empire guys (probably via my young friend Dr. Bob) to write a song about the
World Wide Epidemics of Probletence. I also have noted that any time I am
trying to invent a new concept or new name, immediately I will find a rock band
already owning that name.
Back to the heat/helium problem.
Heat/helium is truth but not of the kind you can convert
in a meme that everybody accepts. There are more reasons for it and I will try
to show you these- you will not like my arguments- I also don’t like them at
all but they are stronger than me.
Heat/Helium is not exactly the kind of truth people
want
An Italian skeptic let’s call him Guido whom I met at
ICCF-2 Como
Morrison and other important CF people)- Guido was a
believer then. Now he has written about what he would consider a convincing
Heat/Helium experiment:
He advises me:
a) to read again with activated critical
thinking- this
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf
(done
and found it OK)
b) to accept as a reasonable condition that at
the end of a successful experiment the concentration of helium has
to be at least 10 times greater inside the cell than outside
c) Says- make 10 tests within +/- 20%
difference of He final content.
It can be easily seen that he wants actually
not a heat/Helium correlation but intense and reproducible heat.
If LENR has a technological future, then Guido
is right. Heat/Helium is scientifically fine, but how relevant it is?
Heat Helium is not a simple experiment.
The point b) in Guido’s requirements is kind
of a trap, actually in the Miles’ successful experiments the concentration of
Helium inside the Cell is ~ 10 ppb, while in the air outside the cell it is the
natural 5,240ppb, much greater. A non-motivated newcomer will not accept this
beyond all proofs. The public
always believes much easier a simple lie than
a complex truth.
It is highly unfair in this case, even not
smart at all but difficult to change. See the text of the song above.
LENR truth is now so strongly associated with LENR value that it’s
not
more accepted separately.
more accepted separately.
This
was demonstrated in my essay of yesterday at the end with these words: “You do not need to be a prophet when it is about LENR,
it will be accepted by science and public only when it will demonstrate
both its TRUTH (Science) and itsVALUE (as practical source of energy) - this
was the original promise and people have good memory.” It is about
LENR in toto but it is true especially for this seminal Heat/Helium Truth.
However a fifth condition also exists for the truths- the
non-religious truths to be accepted:
Static stagnant truths have low chances to be
accepted.
It is nothing special in this, I had the intuition of the
dynamicity of the world in an incipient stage of my education when I started to
collect wise quotations and to write some- probably less wise, one of them that
I have not forgotten was:
“The existence is inexistence in movement” an
idea pre-existent in many ancient philosophies. Movement, dynamics in both science
and in technology is vectorial- and the name of its direction is progress.
Tomorrow it has to be more, better, cheaper, safer than today.
Prum’s Second Law- see here- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/02/25-th-anniversary-of-yves-henry-prum.html
says if something is not
progressing it decays- in the world of technology there is never just
stagnation. Think about Moore
By extension and by
psychological transmission, by the research culture a significant truth must also
be dynamic and progressive.
Heat/helium seems to be a
rather static truth – were its further confirmations been more impressive, more
complete or more understandable good for theories- than Miles’ masterwork of
1991?
Can we imagine a better
experiment now?
LENR will be dynamic or not at all (it is not by Malraux)
ADDENDA
Re my pessimistic paper of yesterday- I have received
some moral support – this paper:
The Upside of
Pessimism
The theory
of defensive pessimism suggests that imagining—and planning for—worst-case
scenarios can be more effective than trying to think positively.
It is not so counter productive to be a pessimist, isn’t
it?
It also confirms my negativist approach to problem
solving.
Now when I am finishing this essay- it is 03: 45 at Glasgow
Rossi’s Blog dominated by the theoretician Wladimir
Guglinski for the moment- nothing about the Report.
E-Cat World of Frank Acland – some positive rumor not
very reliable- COP over 10. It can be true.
The day of Sept. 18, 2014 is still not over in many regions of
Terra.
Peter
The problem with stagnant truth is something I observe whil trying to face the groupthink.
ReplyDeleteMany time I had the answer "your article are 20 years old, you have nothing new"...
See that most stupid scicast
https://scicast.org/#!/questions/152/safe
"Which organization(s) will publish the first paper describing a net energy positive Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (also known as cold fusion) device or process in a journal indexed on Thomson Reuters Web of Science?"
I had to comment that it is not a forecast , since it is long time that excess heat is measured.
Electrolysis is until recently quire unrelieble (ENEA reached 100% by controling surface metallurgy), but some protocols are 100% reliable, like codeposition, thin film...
but for those scientists, old claims are without value.
neomania says taleb.