A fast answer to the title question refers to this weekend.
Beyond any doubt, the JCF14 Meeting of
the Japan CF-Research Society is an important meeting; see
please the program and the abstracts of the papers:
I was especially impressed – very positively, by one of the
presentations: “Discussion about the quality of the experiments in cold fusion” by E. Igari and T. Mizuno
The title of the paper is even more comprehensive than “about the
reproducibility of cold fusion experiments.” All my faithful readers know that
reproducibility is my obsession. However quality sounds even better- a dear technological concept making me
nostalgic – my passionate reading the opuses of the great quality gurus:
Deming, Juran, Crosby and others and my own Gladwellian Ten Thousand Hours work
for the quality of suspension polyvinyl chloride- sweet glory of yesterday! One
of the authors is a really great cold fusionist and the first author is the CEO
of a Japanese ecology company, also a very important personality. The vital
importance of reproducibility is clearly described in the abstract. The origin
of the problem is systematically investigated using the very principles of
scientific research. They find more contributors to the wicked problem: “"the lack of clear hypothesis",
"difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and
"uncertainty of information" What else could be considered and how could we improve
the situation? I hope the in-extenso
paper will give some- at least incipient answers. However the prestige of the
authors will hopefully stimulate the total intolerance toward bad
reproducibility and the problem solving abilities of our community. We have to
wake up from this reproducibility nightmare.
So far, so good but we
also need a strategic, long range answer to the “what now, cold fusion”
question.
A fine Motto is
this:
The secret of life is to have a task, something you devote your entire
life to, something you bring everything to, every minute of the day for the
rest of your life. And the most important thing is, it must be something you
cannot possibly do. (Henry Moore)
Henry Moore was a
sculptor; for non-artistic professions in which reality and rules are brutally imposed,
his dictum becomes true and applicable mainly for the period of life which
starts with retirement and ends with death- physical or intellectual, whichever
comes first. The Task you try to accomplish must be important, infinite,
impossible and in order to attain the highest peak experiences, unpopular too. Heresy
is the best. You can see I am fighting for truly unpopular views, both outside
and inside the cold fusion field. I am not doing it for seeming different, but
because I sincerely think I have discovered some nasty inconvenient truths that
happen to confront standard views and memes.
I have discovered the
Motto after a professional career in which I had to solve well, as many
problems as possible; I needed successes in order to remain a researcher- as
almost anybody else I could not afford too many great failures. In 1989 when I
have joined the Cold Fusion movement irreversibly, I was convinced that the first
technologies will appear no later than in 5 years. My unique worries were the
scarcity of the magic metal palladium and the expected production of lower currency
energy that cannot be converted in electric energy. However the vision of a
world using cold fusion energy was quite natural and vivid.
The problem of bad
reproducibility became “a rich source of troubles, despair and skeptics from
the start of the cold fusion story” as I wrote during the third year of CF
history. Take care please, I was
speaking about ‘troubles” and not problems
(problems are solved, troubles, in the best case get old and fade away)
because I already was disappointed with the passive approach- advanced
calorimetric methods instead of radical measures for intensification of the
heat release. It was then an open question, in which extent the active,
creative method was THEN possible? Was THEN possible- in principle to
understand what happens scientifically, to build a working theory that can lead
to good, repeatable, controllable experiments? Was THEN feasible to start an
action of scale up and technological development? It is more important to answer today; so many
years later to the same question- can be the existential and developmental
problems of the classic CF/LENR systems solved? Are they actually solvable in
principle? According to my 20 Rules of
Problem Solving-appended to this for your convenience to this editorial, after
the Igari Mizuno abstract, Rule No. 18 is special for unsolvable problems. These
can be solved only if their premises are radically changed. In the same manner,
cold fusion has to be metamorphosed in such an extent that even its parents
could not more recognize it, in order to become productive indeed..
This metamorphoses can
be described in the style of the problem solving rules- by “complete
definition. An other quotation from Henry Moore wisely states:
To know one thing, you must know
the opposite. Therefore a good definition combines a negative one-
what the thing, concept is NOT with what it actually is, or has to be. The
list is still not complete. Usable, energy generating cold fusion is:
Accomplished NOT by Science First, BUT by Technology
first;
Created NOT
via Theory, BUT using smart Engineering,
Based NOT on wet (aqueous) systems BUT only in vapor
phase;
Working not at low temperatures (> 100 C), BUT at
higher ones (>200 C);
Using NOT palladium, BUT transition metals *e.g.) nickel:
Using NOT deuterium, BUT light hydrogen;
Being NOT simple, static, linear, BUT complex, dynamic,
Structured NOT as one step, BUT multi-step multi-phase;
Belonging NOT to electrochemistry, BUT to nanoplasmonics;
Incorporating NOT nuclear
reactions, BUT nuclear interactions;
Correctly called NOT LENR
BUT LENR+, HENI
I
make the most pernicious assertion include here explicit:
“The reproducibility problem and scale up
practically cannot be solved for WET cold fusion systems- as the FP Cell. Wet
systems are technologically dead."
This will not contribute much to my
popularity, but I would be very happy if somebody proves this is idiotic, with
data, solid data, and longer term. The simplest reasons for this:
First reason: it seems that deep degassing of the active surface is an absolute necessity;
the presence of any non hydrogen gas inactivates fatally the cathodes. Purely
electrochemical tricks as electrode inversion and co-deposition are not
effective to solve the dreadful reproducibility problem
Second reason the spatial density of the
places or zones where the reactions that generate heat, happens is much too low
and decreases fast in time
Third reason, due to the presence of a water
(heavy or light) phase the temperature is limited to ~100 C, high pressure
electrolysis cells are inconvenient. Recent discoveries converge to showing
that a higher temperature is able to accelerate the reactions considerably- a
sine qua non condition for scale up.
Fourth reason- it seems electrolysis cannot
deliver deuterium or hydrogen in the necessary active form.
ATTENTION PLEASE; this: “wet systems, no
technology” is my direct message too, for Eijiro Igari and
Tadahiko Mizuno- I hope one of my readers will let them know before they start
the presentation at JCF14.
Mizuno is the greatest specialist worldwide in
plasma electrolysis- and this is NOT a wet system because the active site of the
cathode is not in contact with water, but with plasma.
Strictly in principle plasma electrolysis is
NOT hopeless. I cannot do more; I am not able to communicate in Japanese. Help
us please!
Peter
PAPER ATTACHED:
Discussion about the quality of the experiments in
cold fusion
E. Igari and T Mizuno:
Hydrogen Engineering Application and Development
igari@cleanplanet.co.jp
After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by
Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers
and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues
to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this
situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either
reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of
the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or
not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper
is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of
experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility"
occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design,
(3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We
would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed
the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems
have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of
hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed
back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental
form (2) Experimental design: Each
experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions.
However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that
there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown
conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3)
Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as
nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very
difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly.
(4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the
various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write
specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore,
reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers.
In this study, we focused on
the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we
analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the
prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and
the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that
the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what
they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot
of noise were announced without peer-reviews.
In conclusion, "the lack of clear
hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions"
and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of
Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society
of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.
ATTACHED PROBLEM SOLVING RULES.
PROBLEM SOLVING RULES –INTERNATIONAL
by Peter Gluck
Motto:
“ I think, I exist. I
decide I live. I solve problems, I live with a purpose.”
1. There are NO isolated
problems, they always come in dynamic bunches
2. There are NO final
solutions for the really great problems, these have to be solved again and
again.
3. NOT solving
the problem, but defining it is the critical step.
4. NOT the
unknown data, but those known and untrue are the greatest obstacle to the
solution.
5. .NOT what we know, but what we don’t know
is more important for solving the problem.
6. NOT the
main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired
effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented.
7. NOT all
problems have a complete, genuine solution.
8. NOT the solutions that seem perfect from
the start, but those which are very perfectible are the best in many cases.
9. NOT the bright, shiny, spectacular
solutions but those elaborated, worked out with difficulty and effort and
patience are more valuable and have a larger area of applicability.
10. NOT the solutions that are logical and
perfectly rational, but those that are adequate for the feelings of the
potential users, even if they are ilogical, have the greatest chances of fast
implementation.
11. NOT the
quality of the solution but the speed
of its implementaion is the decisive factor in many cases. It can be better to
have a partial solution applied fast than a slower almost perfect solution.
12. NOT always long hours of hard work and great efforts, but
(sometimes) relaxation and fun is the best way to obtain solutions for
(awfully) difficult problems.
13. NOT our own
problems, but the problems of other people are usually more boldly and
creatively solved by us
14. NOT the solutions worked out by us, but those borrowed. bought or
stolen from others are more easily accepted and implemented.
15. NOT the enhancement of
human strengths but the limitation
of human weaknesses is
more useful for efficient problem solving
16. NOT the
very careful perfect planning, but the smart assuming of risks and firm
decision taking are the practical keys to successful problem solving.
17. NOT always
the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the
most difficult to be solved.
18. Do NOT accept
the premises of the problem, change them as necessary and possible.
19. Do NOT stop
at the first solution, seek for alternatives.
However, for the really
advanced problem solvers, there is a SUPER –RULE- the most important of all;
20. NOT the
wise application of these rules but the finding of the specific exceptions to
these, is the real high art of problem solving.
