An overanalyzed victory is indistinguishable from defeat;\
and the test described by the Rossi Report is only a bit different- can it be called a victory? It is a difficult problem of definition. As usual, all the parts involved in the confrontations claim victory. Judging realistically, it wasn’t a breakthrough, a game changer event. (Note: in this essay I am speaking about a victory for science)
As a professional problem solver (see and use my problem solving rules!) my approach is this: I see the solution- the test is what it is, but it can and must be converted in a full victory!
Opportunity lost has to be
made opportunity re-gained.
It could have been done by parallel experiments in the same place or more places. It also could it be done by repeating it
in improved, anyway smartly chosen different - conditions.
The sampling procedure was a horrible
battle for science. I still hope that a second – everything goes to analysis-
sampling was indeed done. The results of the grand analysis are accessible
probably only to Rossi, Industrial Heat and a few insiders- but does this sanalysis+multi-disciplinar
investigation exist or is it only a product of my wishful thinking?) Waterloo
Rossi says he is now fully committed to the 1MW plans and the customers will decide if these multi-Ecat heat generators bring profit or not; if Yes! the new energy source is here and everything is OK, technologically and economically. It is sad and quite symptomatically: Rossi is not more speaking about the promised Theory.
He speaks about the Standard Model and other classical theoretical physics issues, while this new energy source
is actually new physics- added to old physics- extending it, not contradicting it. Who knows what is the philosophy of scientific progress of Andrea Rossi? Is he able to understand and to control well his own invention? I don’t know him, I cannot communicate with him but I still hope. I know from many examples from history- human nature does not change essentially- that the relationship of all kind of creators and their creations can be complex and paradoxical. (For me, given my personal cultural example the most impressive example is described in Stefan Zweig’s book: “Decisive Moments in History” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decisive_Moments_in_History
chapter 9: “Genius of a single night- Rouget de Lisle writes La Marseillese”. The most revolutionary song was written and composed by a rather reactionary person. I know all analogies are flawed but our brains are programmed to use them.
It was very naïve to hope that the great dream of Cold Fusion will be saved by a Knight with no fear and beyond reproach”
Rossi is perhaps too real, too human to be a new Bayard in science and energy. He has problems to solve. How could he combine a technological financial victory with the victory of science? More probably other researchers will do it for him.
The lack of a theory of LENR became something intolerable.
One of my reader friends, whom I consider a brother in life experience based non-idealism, Doug Marker from
writes about these fundamental realities: Australia
- No one has yet come up with a published theory or set of theories that full explain all the LENR / HENI reactions that have been demonstrated up to now.
- Without a widely accepted theoretical base for the devices, some scientists can 'fairly' (in a fashion) argue that they
don't really exist or worse are deceptions.
- The biggest opposition to Rossi and others is from scientists who argue that the devices violate fundamental laws of
science, BUT that is NOT and can NEVER BE absolute proof such devices don't exist, only that they can't be explained
using known rules/laws.
Doug is so right wit this requirement of capturing LENR by the accepted theories; I will illustrate this with two papers of a mainstream scientist fiercely fighting for the orthodoxy of Physics.
Ethan Siegel has published a new anti-CF, “I do not believe (in) Rossi” paper at the elite
in Science Blog Channel Physical Science
It is highly similar with his first paper discussed in my “Learning from a confrontationalist” paper
I take only the final sentences of these papers
The first one ended with:
“Given everything that we know, (thanks, Steven B. Krivit), it’s time to set aside the mirage of Nickel + Hydrogen fusion and get back to work finding solutions to our energy and environmental problems.”
The great problem here is the order of words- actually this has to be read- “we know everything and it is no place for Nickel + Hydrogen fusion” But, dear Ethan, is this Report speaking about this impossible fusion? It says, despite its mutilated analytical part that we have to deal with a complex dance of interactions and isotopes, something DGT started to assert very soon after its divorce from Rossi in 2011.
Siegel’s new paper ends with a superior and arrogant: “I will hold up the torch of what scrupulous science would look like, and challenge the participants to live up to it. Until then, this isn’t meritorious enough to be interesting.”
Doug, like me, has much understanding and empathy for Rossi’s secrecy ( I am more contrariated by what he has said about all Ni going to the isotope 63- was or wasn’t this a huge surprise for him?)
“If I were Rossi and dealing big problems he has, I would NEVER let anyone have full access to my fuel or all the ash. That fuel and the ash are Rossi's crown jewels and if Rossi knows his device works but that he can't explain it nor get a good patent for it, then he could well feel fully justified in tampering with his 'crown jewels' knowing that once he allows full access to them in all their detail, he has given away his achievements and still can't explain how it works. That glory would go to the next person who could use Rossi's fuel - process and ash to figure out the science. I have no difficulty stepping in to Rossi's shoes and behaving as he does while grappling with his dilemmas. If Rossi knows his device works (just ask Defkalion) then any trick or lie or sleight of hand can be justified if it is protecting his position”
Point being that the core of Rossi's problem assuming no fraud, is that what his device does is impossible because no known laws explain it.
It is sad, but I must agree with Doug- we cannot wait complete analytics or theory from Rossi just small fragments of truth or partial truth.
The solution can come from Defkalion when they will finish launching Hyperion 6 and this includes the bureaucratic legal part
for this household generator (Rossi will try to solve this only after the customer experience with the industrial 1 MW gathering of E-cats.)
But a faster solution became also possible due to our true –and young knights with no fear and reproach – the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project Group. These researchers have courage and despite many warnings that CF/LENR is bad for your career, despite seeing slow progress , open problems, non usable theories, chronic and deep lack of funding plus extreme heterogeneity, confrontations, conflicts, failures predicting new failures- lots of unhappy things- these admirable boys believe in the Fleischmann-Ponsian bold dream of an energy source at the far right side of the Ragone plot accessible only from the very far right side of the Medawar Zone and they have decided to replicate the Lugano experiment. Bravissimo, this is the best news we had after the publication of the Report:
Design MFMP Plans E-Cat Replication Attempt Starting in 6 Days, Posted http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/17/mfmp-plan-e-cat-replication-attempt-starting-in-6-days-post-design/
I have read what and how they want to do and I like it sincerely, good strategic thinking.
MY APPEAL TO ALL MY READERS, WHEREEVER THEY ARE IS TO HELP BY ANY MEANS THE MFMP GROUP TO REPLICATE THE LUGANO EXPERIMENT! ASK ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO SUPPORT THEM FINANCIALLY, WITH INSTRUMENTS, MATERIALS, CHEMICALS, CRITICAL INFORMATION, EVERYTHING THEY MAY NEED!
I wish so much to be younger with 40 years and join them but this is not possible due to my limitations, and all I can do depends on you, dear readers.
I hope they will embrace the new paradigm and will succeed converting the test in a scientific victory.