The publication of the new Rossi report is an important event for our scientific-technical field. My expectations from this research project were:
a) the proof of massive excess heat and
b) scientific data usable for the building of the new paradigm of LENR (or what it actually is) – implicitly for the necessary replacement of the old paradigm that does not work neither toward understanding, nor toward a new source of energy.
The Report supports both expectations however not completely. The reason is that I am not a know-it-all; I do not understand some principles, subtleties and details of the Report. This is a problem and problems must be solved. The most straightforward solution is to initiate a productive high quality dialogue with the Authors. Clearly this has to be a multi-staged dialogue going from the essentials to the details, however not by-passing the critical issues, if any.
I make an appeal to the empathy of the Authors: remember that “It is the question that illuminates, not the answer” (Eugene Ionesco) Their task is easier, they know the answers while we have to create quality questions able to pass all the natural barriers and to stimulate the positive attitude of those who have made this great work.
EMPATHY FOR THE AUTHORS.
On our turn, we have to feel sincere empathy for all the Authors who took great risks by supporting an idea that is oppressed and an individual who is demonized by merci- and shame-less critics and bravos who all have made a passion and credo for attacking everything connected to Rossi. The authors have received tons of insults, offenses, are ridiculed both by dogmatic professionals and sadistic amateurs. It is no exaggeration in this, I have read all those personal attacks; they are personal because almost all the trolls have high degrees of technical and scientific illiteracy and have not written a single research report in their lives. The Authors are right to avoid any contact with ill-willed ignorance, dominant arrogance, incurable prejudices and loquacious incompetence. Lack of respect for the work and the authors are not excusable.
We have to demonstrate them that we are different, we sincerely and professionally motivated want to understand how the process works, how this experiment was organized – and what open problems- if any- are left. We are in the same boat as they.
THE AIM IS: ASKING ANSWERABLE QUESTIONS
I have watched the Internet for long years and I have to say that very rarely I have seen a dialogue that wasn’t actually a set of parallel monologs- we have to try very hard now. We have to practice the high art of asking answerable questions in the most consistent logically way. Obviously this will be a multi-stage – process- and within the stages – going step by step.
It will help, I hope, the authors to write the promised updates to the Report here: http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad/
If we want a bad example, how to NOT ask here is a horrible one, venomous:
Which kind of questions to NOT ask:
1- idiotic inquisitorial question as in the document above;
2- “I know you don’t know” arrogant questions
3- curious kibitz questions style “I am just asking”
4- obviously ill-willed, you will fall in my trap questions
5- unprofessional, badly formulated unclear questions
6- mixed questions- combining more incompatible ideas
7- more questions jumping from on idea to other
8- any questions linked to Rossi +IH’s industrial secrets, however we have to let the authors to decide which ones belong to this category.
Which kind of questions to be asked:
1- short, condensed, clearly formulated, generative questions
2- "first-things- first questions
3- MAXIMUM 10-12 essential questions in the first stage
Sources for questions- are many: forums as Vortex- a lot of threads, some abandoned, some still open, E-Cat World – for good questions.
There are some 50 unanswered questions at the LENR Forum, unfortunately this did not worked- no wonder it is an olla podrida of very different questions- no taxonomy there.
But we have to use the most natural one.
When I have had the task to analyze hundreds of patents for the technologies of OLTCHIM, the natural order was: chronologically (in time), logically (type of technical solution) and technologically (according to the owner company, grouped as solutions) – so it was possible to use the patents to get the visions of technologies (obviously in combination with book, papers, grey literature and many other sources)
For the Report- the basis is chronological: before, during and after the Test, design, execution, interpretation.
In this case we have an excellent model-in-principle for questions (implicit ones) - the prompt analysis of Mike McKubre:
I am asking for your help – for the best choice and presentation
of the (say) First Dozen of questions. See, but take only as preliminary- my choices- what I consider as prioritary.
THE TAXONOMY OF THE QUESTIONS
Research strategy, working hypothesis in the Test
- how have you contributed to the design of the cell?
The structure and functionality of the E-cat
- thermal, optical properties of alumina vessel?
- internal structure and materials dynamics in the cell?
- have you used EM or other form of stimulation?
- in which extent the cell tolerates presence of air and water?
Heat measurement balance details problems
- remove please any doubts re 1400 C!?
- how do you explain Ni nanostructures survival at 1400C?
- is the device calorimetrable- effect of cooling?
- progress in understanding reactions in Hot Cat?
- is there a complete set of analyses for foundation of Theory?
Conclusions for present and future
- with whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?
- your attitude toward replication of the test, new test?
Each question can be explained and its motivation will be presented.