AUG 28, 2016 VISION OF LENR MIRRORS IMAGE OF MOTHER NATURE

MOTTO

Mother Nature has only Solutions but no Problems (real life problem solving truism)

People need to be cautious because anything built by man can be destroyed by Mother Nature. (Russel Honore)

If you can't be in awe of Mother Nature, there's something wrong with you. (Alex Trebek)

Mother Nature is not sweet. (John Shelby Spong)

Mother nature is a fickle and forgetful bitch," she snapped. "She needs a helping hand and I am trying to hurry her along for their sake.” (Sabrina Jeffries) 

Mother Nature," he murdered half aloud and grinned, "we think of her as a benevolent old lady. Maybe instead she's the wantonest kind of whore.” (Harold Sinclair)

Nature speaks clearly to him who knows how to understand her, and has no need of interpretation. (Antonio Vallisneri)

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic.  (Albert Einstein)

• 
  

Thus, I love nature primarily for the puzzles and intellectual delights that she offers to the first organ capable of such curious contemplation. (Stephen Jay Gould) 

DAILY NOTES

a) The status of the Srorms-Gluck discussion about the essence of LENR

Ed: I know of only one way to reduce chaos, which is to apply what is known about what is real. That is, use what is observed in the lab to guide the imagination. I attempted to provide this information in several books and in many review papers. Chaos reigns because people in the field ignore most of this information. 

Peter: However if PdD cool on which this information is based is not genuine LENR or is not as say NiH at >1250C, the the value of what we know is questionable and we must discover new things. 

Ed: No believable evidence supports the claim that LENR can  occur >1250°C. What little evidence exists has not showed that the apparent extra energy results from a nuclear reaction rather than from an unexpected chemical reaction.  No extra energy reported by Rossi  was obtained at this temperature.  His devices have always worked at much lower temperatures. Even these examples are in serious doubt.  

In contrast, PdD has been explored by hundreds of studies and shown to produce nuclear products by many replications.  Yet, you ignore this huge body of work and favor a few poorly done studies. Why??  You ignore simple explanations and favor complex explanations having very little relationship to what is observed. Why?  You add to the chaos that is characteristic of the LENR field.  Why?
Ed Storms also says: 

Ed: Also, a good way to get knowledge about what someone else knows is to ask questions. I have found that this approach is very rare in this field. Everyone has an opinion that is unmoved by any argument.

Peter: However again if new forms of LENR need new science than we have to ask Mother Nature  by experiment, helping her by technology to give clearer, louder smarter answers.

Ed: We have asked Nature and Nature has given an answer to a few people. You need to ask these people what Nature said. Instead, these people are ignored. What questions would you ask instead of the ones that have been clearly answered? Why would your answers be accepted any more than those provided by anyone else?   In fact, who can be believed in this field?
Peter: My final word about the question: which sort is the genuine lENR? - is that we have actually to decisively de- ask this question. Reason there is no LENR, but LENRs each genuine in its own specific way and mode. Howgh!

Ed: Are you willing to believe that a collection of very unusual phenomenon has been discovered, each unrelated to the others?  If so, you clearly can not be trusted to contribute any useful insight about LENR. 

Ed

My answer to this

A- what I strongly dislike is the last paragraph- I never told that the phenomena are unrelated to each other, they have common features and specific features, yes each needs  specific treatments and investigations to be understood and ways to be developed toward applications- but why is Ed using the poisoned, alien word "unrelated"? A fair exegesis excludes the use of false citations and additions to what the opponent writes...

B-  It is no problem that Ed and I are using radically different modes of thinking especially regarding the relative value of the Known and the Unknown,unfortunately  there are great differences in our starting suppositions. This discussion becomes semi-impossible due to some selective data half-denial by Ed. The Ni systems- Piantelli, Rossi, Defkalion,  and around Rossi as Bondeno, Lugano, Parkhomov, MFMP  and many replicators are not fully accepted- in corpore- due to lack of believability or weak calorimetry. With this premise- we are at a dead point and have to wait till NIH will be confirmed even for those who do not take it in consideration. The most radical way will be if/when the COP of 50-60 obtained in the 1 year/1 MW experiment will be confirmed. Obviously Ed does not think about the Quark that works at 1400 C and rejects the idea of accelerated massive genesis of NAEs  at high temperatures he is convinced that NAE is a nano-crack and nothing else. I do not understand why he excludes heat over 1250 C, however cracks will not be stable at high temperatures?!

C- Ed says:  We have asked Nature and Nature has given an answer to a few people.

It is relevant what have asked these people- and we know they have limited the questions mainly to the classic PdD LENR system; we also know that the answers were- LENR surely exists, it is not reproducible at will , it depends on hidden or immeasurable parameters too. I interpret these results also that Pd D is not a complete LENR system, the dynamism due to high temperature enhancement is missing from it. Reading these papers with attention is not an equivalent of a good question?  What can learn a goatherd from a shepherd?  A lot, but goats and sheeps are sufficiently different to need separate strategies. By the way, it is not correct to say my sheeps know all, while you have only zombie goats- not real ones.

I remark and I do not like it Ed uses again the lazy and arrogant "ignore" instead of the active and brave "reject"

There is a great and significant difference between the vision/opinion of Ed and mine about Mother Nature (please  read now the Mottoes, yes it is a diversity of opinions there!)
For Ed, Mother Nature is a nice lady who loves and respects the Great Laws and tries to help us to understand Her. She adores simplicity and common sense logic, her favorite tool is Occam's Razor. 
I think Mother Nature is a narcissistic person, trying to be interesting at any price (sometimes even low price) playing with complexity, diversity, strangeness, fast and deep change, secrets and especially surprises.  She thinks that many times the most complicated answer is the best one. She respects her own Laws but she chooses what Law to respect, when and why. She cares for us, but in a very special way. Ed's LENR ideology and mine are actually mirroring our images of Mother Nature.
DAILY NEWS

The E-Cat is neither CHEMICAL, FISSION nor FUSION. It is a MACHINE!” (Chapman)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/28/the-e-cat-is-neither-chemical-fission-nor-fusion-it-is-a-machine-chapman/

Aneutronic Fusion – the QuarkX Explained (Steve H)

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/28/aneutronic-fusion-the-quarkx-explained-steve-h/

Cold Fusion Is Real Fire From Water Part 2 Of 4 Mp3 Download

http://mediarockz.info/cold-fusion-is-real-fire-from-water-part-2-of-4.html

LENR IN CONTEXT-1

Is blue the new green? Wave power could revolutionize the renewable-energy game http://www.salon.com/2016/08/27/is-blue-the-new-green-wave-power-could-revolutionize-the-renewable-energy-game/

Scientists stunned by huge MIT discovery

http://www.morningticker.com/2016/08/scientists-stunned-by-huge-mit-discovery/

LENR IN CONTEXT-2

Learning to forget the past
http://innovationexcellence.com/blog/2016/08/22/learning-to-forget-the-past/