Thursday, January 21, 2016

JAN 21 2016 HOW TO REFRAME THE LENR PROBLEM?


DAILY NOTES

Actually, EGO OUT is a problem solving Blog and therefore my vision of LENR is that of an overly complex problem with two entwined core aspects: understanding and technologization. No doubt, it is a chronically ill problem and the status  of the field is of deep crisis. What I am offering here as possible solution including the LENR+ idea and the 6 pillars of it. is rejected now.
This fiasco is just a special sub-case of the failure of my problem solving ideas to become real Rules taught at schools, universities and management courses- it is probably my fault I had to write a book about them. The rules are her in many languages- ignored in many languages.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BcUF6SF9uRlA2eU0/view?usp=sharing
Statistic data show that due to NOT solving problems the per capita loss is of 5643 US $ and we are here well over 7 billion humans! The truth is that the same loss due to problems created by humans is 7.1 times greater than the former value!
However problem solving is important, stopping probletence is  essential
But let's return to LENR-  I am reading the new problem solving literature each day being aware that my rules can solve 85-88%of all real life problems, but are not the last word in the problem of problem solving. 
Today I got a smart paper that uses an effective term:

The Solutions You Need Before You Solve the Problem

Here are the first four things to do in your problem solving process: 
Reframe the situation. 
Believe the solution will come. 
Remove the blame. 
Focus on the remedy. 


I recommend you to read the paper is ell thought and written clearly with style. This REFRAMING is actually what my Rule no 18 says- do NOT accept the premises change them- but sounds much better- and is a first step- after changing the fram it will be easier to change the picture.

A natural question follows- how can, how must we reframe LENR?
Waiting for your creative ideas! Thank you!

DAILY NEWS

1) Gregory Goble shows us a lot of German language videos about Cold Fusion: https://plus.google.com/explore/kaltefusion


2) An other German language video about Cold Fusion in kitchen pot- electrolysis with Wolfram electrodes
LENR - Kalte Fusion im Kochtopf?

3) All Russian Physics seminar" Nuclear Cold Fusion and Ball Lightning will take place Thursday Jan 28, 2016 at 16:00 room 1 at the People Friendship University of Russia
Всероссийский физический семинар «Холодный ядерный синтез и шаровая молния» в РУДН состоится в четверг 28 января 2016 г. в 16:00 в зале № 1


Program of the day:

1. 16.00 – 16.15 N.V. Samsonenko, (PFUR )"Science News"

  
2. 16.15 – 17.00 D.S. Baranov,(The High Temperatures Institute of the Russian Academy), V.N. Zatelepin INLIS, Moscow: "Investigation of the temperature regimes
of the system "Ni+H2" by external influences. Experiment.

3. 17.00– 18.00 Г.И. Шипов, Institute of the physics of vacuum, Moscow:" The quantum mechanics wanted by Einstein/ Theory and expert.


4. 18.00 – 18.15 Meeting of the redaction college

4) Good news coming- but not too fast from Andrea Rossi


Rossi Leonardo Corp. Gathers Scientific Committee of ‘Top Level Scientists and Engineers:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/01/21/rossi-leonardo-corp-gathers-scientific-committee-of-top-level-scientists-and-engineers/
Andrea Rossi answering re the assertion that the E-Cat produces chemical energy
January 21st, 2016 at 9:52 AM

On the blog of Rossi:
Ricky Henrik:
Let’s return to the Lugano report: the charge of a reactor contains several hundred milligrams of hydride: let’s assume 1 gram.
The chemical calorific value of such amount of hydride is worth about 10 Wh (to be generous).
The charge in 1 month of test has produced hundreds of kWh of excess heat, versus a total of 10 Wh allowed by the chemical calorific value of the hydride contained in the charge.
You can have a deeper information about this issue if you check the Ragone diagram published in the same report.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi says he is well
January 21st, 2016 at 9:30 AM

Latashia:
Your care is delighting. Well, yes, also my team guys say I am continuing to appear slimmer, but I am very well. I work 18 hours per day and I am always very nervous, for obvious reasons: every minute I do not know what will happen the next minute, every signal from the plant can be interpreted as an alarm to be checked, but, thanks God, I am well. When the test will have been completed I will take more care of this issue, now I have not time for it and, most of all, I want not to hear about this issue: I have to stay focused on the plant.
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.


18 comments:

  1. Hello Peter,
    Yes, there is a need to think about the solution. I tried to help that by having a sign on my desk which I pointed at when employees wanted me to help them solve a problem DNCWP-CWS. They always asked what they meant t, the first time, then they knew. Do not come with problems - come with solutions. Rather effective.
    So to add on to your article (which I liked); there is a basic thing missing in LENR.
    We all know What to accomplish, many tells How to do it. There is absolutely no commonality in WHY.
    Rossi's response that he is so focused that his health have to take a backseat is typical of someone who knows why. (I like that about him regardless of his E-cat and the success.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. LENR problem?

    I fail to see one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sit down and wait for a few months, the LENR problem will be reframed from the current chain of events going on. It will turn into a very different question I think.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The suggestion that he has formed a scientific team is just another act in the Rossi playbook.

    No new data, no mention of COP levels and regular statements that say'it might not work' are meddening. All of these conditions cause dismay to the LENR community that is hoping against hope that Rossi is not defrauding us this time.

    Rossi, Godes and Mills are all using the same playbook. Mills' 'open demo for 28 January is far from open. Knowledgeable folks are not allowed to attend.

    Robert Godes requires NDAs before discussing any data however harmless.

    The unholy triumvirate of Rossi, Godes and Mills will likely doom LENR research for the future even though there is a real effect in operation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unknown says that all players are fraudulent and uses Rossi's lack of data as a reason.
    A simple question, Why would Rossi, or anyone else who knows How tell you either How or Why?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Reframing is not so difficult. When experiments by capable physicists prove there is an unknown phenomenon, theoretic physicists have to construct a reliable model. Unfortunately, nearly all the theoretical physicists refuse this task. Only because the current models cannot clarify the phenomenon. So their arguments are: "This cannot be true". But that is the argument of a layman. The outcome of an experiment is the holy grail of modern physics, so there is no problem about cold fusion. There is a foundational problem about the reliability of the present models. And the majority of the theoretical physicists refuse to admit "there is a serious foundational problem".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most people in science get their world view from years of school and countless TV documentaries and conversations. If that world view is wrong, then experiments that show conflicting ideas are considered pseudoscience. Once a world view is set in place in a person’s brain it is near impossible to change. The world view of current science is wrong and that is the reason why many unanswered questions about the cosmos go unanswered. Randel Mills is a prototypical example. He has constructed a world view that bars him from making progress in his inventions. Holmlid is another guy that is convinced that his reaction is hot fusion. I fear that unless the data that Holmlid collects changes his views underlying assumptions that underpin his experiments that he performs, he is driving toward a dead end. Problem solving requires some flexibility in how we view the world at its deepest level.

      Many people think that the world is just 6,000 years old. Science is difficult for these people to understand.

      As another example, if our view of how the sun works can be changed to look in it as a ball of liquid rather than a ball of hot gas, then many enlightening ideas spring from the new opinion. Problems like the solar neutrino problem might be solved correctly.

      As neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of neutrinos from the Sun, it became clear that the number detected was lower than that predicted by models of the solar interior. In various experiments, the number of detected neutrinos was between one third and one half of the predicted number. This came to be known as the solar neutrino problem.

      If the sun is viewed as a cold fusion reactor, then all kinds of fusion reactions can take place all throughout the entire volume of the sun and not just in the hot gas in the core involving just PP hot fusion. This bad hot fusion assumption gums up neutrino science and the standard model. In general, unless science takes cold fusion seriously, it is headed for disaster. Problem solving needs to be based on the understanding about the correct foundation of the structure of the universe. Some flexibility in the way we think can help greatly.

      Delete
    2. @Axil,
      I have searched for “Holmlid”. I found his page at the website of Gotenburg University (Leif Holmlid). Unfortunately, there are only a couple of links to his publications and all are behind the paywall of Elsevier and Springer. Nevertheless, there is a picture to “the initial laser process in ultra dense deuterium” so I can confirm his claim about cold fusion is correct from the theoretical point of view. It is the same mechanism like the cold fusion of Fleissmann and Pons (and some other scientists who discovered the phenomenon around 1927). I don't think that Leif Holmlid is aware of the fact that free quanta transfer is conserved, so I presume that his theoretical explanation is quite different.

      Delete
    3. See
      http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf

      This presentation explains 12 billion k-meson production per 33 millijoule laser shot and loads of neutral particle production.

      Delete
    4. Also see

      http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/5/8/10.1063/1.4928572

      Delete
    5. @Axil,
      Thanks for the links! I was a bit too fast when I searched for Leif Holmlid. There showed to be a lot of scientific publications at arXiv.org. I have read 2 publications and what I stated before is right: Leif Holmlid describes the mechanism behind cold fusion. But don't underpret this wrong: fusion at the surface of a palladium lattice isn't a form of Rydberg matter. The similarity is the confinement of the H-nuclei. Therefore, stimulation by free electrons or laser pulses force the nuclei to drop the Coulomb force.

      Delete
  7. Yes, Axil. I think your analysis are correct.
    Can you then understand how we continue to stuff data and old believes into the head of the next generation? Instead of let them look around and learn. Instead we continue stubbornly to award (grades) those, who manage to remember most of the data we give them. Afterward one can complain and say that scientists that think outside the box are punished although they maybe correct. What else do you expect when you awarded to do whatever everybody else do - but more of it (even if it is totally incorrect!)- whoa. DCWP-CWS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Axil does not analyse. He analises.

      Delete
  8. How Physics Lost Its Fizz

    Physics, which decades ago seemed capable of answering the deepest mysteries of existence, is now just recycling once-exciting ideas

    By John Horgan on January 18, 2016

    To recapture its fizz, physics desperately needs not new ideas but new facts. Discoveries, not inventions. Ideally, physicists will stumble on something so startling that they abandon their pursuit of multiverses, strings and other fantasies and return to reality.

    In the late 1990s, astronomers studying supernovas deduced to their astonishment that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. But this discovery, the most exciting since I became a science writer, has not forced radical revisions of the big-bang paradigm.

    Similarly, the Higgs boson, detected a few years ago by the Large Hadron Collider, merely confirmed the standard model of particle physics. Ho hum.

    Things have gotten so bad that physicists are openly fretting about the future of their field. In a recent TED Talk, “Have we reached the end of physics?”, Harry Cliff states that “for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer, not because we don't have the brains or technology, but because the laws of physics themselves forbid it.”

    I still keep an eye on physics, but I doubt it will ever thrill me as it once did. My go-to source for fizzy ideas now is research into the brain and mind. Science’s wildest frontier is inside our heads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad you wrote that. Your journey to fantasy land seems to be complete.

      Delete
    2. I am glad you wrote that. Your journey to fantasy land seems to be complete.

      Delete
    3. Note:

      By John Horgan on January 18, 2016

      this means that John Horgan wrote that. Understand?

      Delete
  9. All those still awaiting Rossi's data in MArch might as well be waiting for Godot. When the energy outlookis bleak we naturally look for a saving grace and Rossi is filling that need.

    LENRers suspend disbelief in hope of a better future through Andea. It will not happen, but Andrea is the best con man who ever lived and he will come out as a hero in spite of no success.

    ReplyDelete