Tuesday, May 12, 2015


Today I am writing about a quite strange LENR dispute, this time an internal one.


Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. (Voltaire)

I am very grateful to this author who indeed tries to help us in our difficult mission to lead you forward on a meandering path. However, based on personal sympathy I will add a locally and globally true one:

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. (Bertrand Russell)
How long can survive a scientific idea without experimental certainties? 
The answer is perhaps a bit surprising - a very long time if the idea is charming and elegant and corresponds to some popular, desired principles. It is perhaps something borrowed from the non-scientific ideas- for example astrology absolutely false and in-demonstrable has thrived for millenia- because it is so fine to know that the stars care for us 
In classic LENR a.k.a Cold Fusion we have the basic certainty it EXISTS, excess heat appears sometimes and we have some basic ideas how to make it more probable (see for example the recent 6-minutes video by Jed Rothwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjvL4zNLOGw An other certainty still disputed as mechanism is that the reaction gives Helium-4, but if this comes simply from D +D is not so sure

After of history of, say the first 3 year cold fusion, my enthusiasm was indestructible
but it became clear that the experimental situation is a terrible mess and nobody understand what happens- or does not tell it (naively we thought that the Founding Fathers know how to make the phenomenon useful but keep it secret for intellectual property and become-very-rich- reasons)
As a seeker of hidden order in things- as shown in: 

I have tried to get the fundamentals:what happens, where, how and why. My also classic, also a bit naive unpardonably linear but essentially goodwilled paper:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf concludes that we have to understand first where the CF reaction take place ( these places are very special as the catalytic active sites or even more special), then the nature of the reactions and eventually their mechanism.
The scientists have to answer these fundamental problems and ...agree about the answers, that fundamental, elementary- a sine qua non condition.
Terrible to say- and that has caused this sad editorial- up to today the leading thinkers, doers and leaders i.e. the CF gurus do not agree if the reactions take place 
in the BULK or on the SURFACE. 
The significance of this still dispute cannot be evaluated, it goes betther with an absurd play than with a scientific problem. What can be more simpler, more natural that where does the scientific miracle happen?
In over twenty-something years I have reduced linearity in thinking so I can imagine good answers- and thanks you God of Progress! there are possibly many answers  quite complex, necessary for different LENRs- from lukewarm to incandescent.


EXCITING!!! Me356 re-started test, he flies again:

Rossi opines on Solar:

Calorimetry System for Joule Heating Driven Reactor

Method for triggering nuclear reactions in titanium: 
A remarkable website, please take a look with Google Translate

Andrea Rossi also says:

Andrea Rossi
May 12th, 2015 at 6:54 AM

Marco Serra:
SSM are made longer by a synergy between the reactors for what concerns the “drive” they need. I cannot deepen in more particulars.
The drive will be always necessary, due to safety issues.
Warm Regards,
 It does not have excessively much sense, but it sounds fine. ssm is good!


How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

Something we need very much in LENR too:\
knowledge catalysts

No comments:

Post a Comment