Wednesday, June 3, 2015



Almost every major systematic error which has deluded men for thousands of years relied on practical experience. Horoscopes, incantations, oracles, magic, witchcraft, the cures of witch doctors and of medical practitioners before the advent of modern medicine, were all firmly established through the centuries in the eyes of the public by their supposed practical successes. The scientific method was devised precisely for the purpose of elucidating the nature of things under more carefully controlled conditions and by more rigorous criteria than are present in the situations created by practical problems. 
(Michael Polanyi)

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. (Lewis Carroll)

Humpty Dumpty is definitely NOT a scientist. Important concepts must be well defined and the definitions will become rules and laws. The Scientific Method is a serious matter that knows no compromises and no exceptions. I will repeat here the best, most precise description of the Scientific Method. Prof. Piantelli is the champion of the Scientific Method formulated in its original rules of Galileo.

Galileo’s Rules and the Science.
By Francesco Piantelli

The experimental method was used from the dawn of human civilization, much before Galileo lived.
Each and every phenomenon was simply experimented and that constituted a proof, even if unique and there was not considered necessary to ask about any particularity or to compare it with other experiments, therefore every phenomenon was considered- as it still happens in biology sometimes , a fact “per se,” independent from any other experimental data.
This has lead to consider the result of an experiment not as a true scientific fact, but more as simple curiosity, even if has some potential applications perhaps not convertible in some industrial product in the modern sense. Some of these experiments have resulted in practical devices used in the everyday life; starting from the far old ages (see the fire, the wheel, sailing, rowing, and the pump.) The empty ball filled with water that was heated to produce steam and started to rotate when the steam came out through four tubes placed at90 °and all bent in the same direction and so many other experiments. It remains famous the automatic system for opening the door of the Temple of the Delphi oracle driven by the pressure of heated water. (Heron). All these discoveries have not generated specific knowledge regarding the nature of the fact, only regarding their practical uses.
Then it was not search for scientific explanations (Science did not existed then) that could help to understand the phenomena taking place in order to extend the possible uses.
Some of these experiments have resulted in practices and devices used in the everyday life in the antiquity.
The great merit of Galileo is the introduction of the scientific experimental method, i.e. the foundation of Science. His method is based on 4 precise rules.

1. “sense-experiment”-comprises the reproducibility of the phenomena and the definition of the parameters that are framing the characteristics and the behaviors. It gives us a stimulus to study the phenomena, but does not show the natural law that rules them. (It is about observation and description, and is the high art of asking good questions from Nature)

2. - “intuition” and “axiom” constitute the working hypotheses that have to be confirmed by the reproducibility of the “sense experiment”. It is derived from the critical examination of the “sense experiment” and it is the peak moment of the discovery- being an equivalent of the act of an artist who creates his art-work. It is not a mathematical act but a physical creative process.

3.-“mathematical progress” –is formed from logical deductions. based on the working hypothesis, that can be preferably expressed in the formal and rigid language of the mathematics. It allows the continuation of the deductive moment
for getting new knowledge – to be verified from time to time experimentally (this opens the way to the inductive method that helps in finding new knowledge and applications.
However the mathematical conclusions must fit the sensible world.

4.”Experimental verification” is made of putting in practice the intuition for the final conclusive, definitive experiment of verification and this is final judgment regarding the validity of the phenomena and the knowledge. It generates complex possibilities of application. Incomplete, partial knowledge of the parameters is always a source of risks. Galileo’s conclusion was” our discussions (works) have to inside the sensible (real) world and not above it in the world of paper. (N.T- “sensible means “cognoscible by senses,but also real and having inner significance)
Galileo’s method of scientific experimentations starts with the initial experiment and ends with verification (final experiment)

For classic LENR the scientific method was never applied due to experimental weaknesses and lack of really testable, verifiable, falsifiable realistic theories. (I have explained the details and limits and constraints many times)
PdD is more prescience. For LENR+ the scientific method must be combined synergetically with engineering. Much later, in a LENR-ized world again the scientific method will say the last words- just there are never last words, nor in Science neither in Technology and what we call today LENR will remain open and very fertile and fast growing for centuries.

1)  What is TSEM doing with Industrial Heat? TSEM, the Company that has organized ICCF-19 and has  done it well- will collaborate soon with MIT, Texas Tech. Univ. and Industrial Heat. I hope it is about an unique, LENR+ oriented action, and if this is the case I am very happy especially for Texas Tech. Univ. about which I had the impression that it is a prisoner of the Pd D system and their Research Ideology stops at the Scientific Method.

2) Triangle Business Journal Names om Darden CEO of the year:

3) Confidential video of the inside of the 1MW Plant leaked?

4) LENR CITIES Flyers for the June 25 Event, Neuchatel

5) Songsheng  Jiang discovers the forgiving nature of the E-Cat by Hank Mills

6) Obviously MFMP's very promising and instructive experiment will continue, today too:


Thanks to Mark Iverson:

Editors of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals:
    “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue"...
I think we have to distinguish between Untruth and Lies


  1. Whethet even PdD elusive phenomenon respect Scientific method depends on the level of precision and theory you demand.

    PdD is va very young science, and the theory may not be better than :

    - if I choose a Pd that worked
    - if the loading is above 0.90
    - if it is not contaminated with.....
    - if the current density is above
    - if the Pd does not crack (checked by seing loading behavior)
    - if heat is above ...
    -it will produce some excess heat more than 50% of time...
    - He4 will be proportionate to heat
    - neutrons and tritium will be weaker if heat is big

    this is a phenomenological theory.

    I agree this is not the one we love in physics.
    it is more like what we find in 19th century biology, or in early material science like semiconductors.

    after McKubre found most of the known condition to trigger LENR, we were in science. in early science, without a upfront theory, but with a stone age theory...

    kid can make theory with cake. I have a theory for bread (in my machine), and even some refutation of my previous theories...

    the science of PdD is not prescience, it is just not yet as mature as particle physics.

  2. Physicist Albert Einstein, the author of the theory of relativity and the father of modern physics could never bring himself to believe in quantum mechanics. This inability to believe is common in science in regards to LENR. No matter what experiments are done that show LENR, science will just refuse to believe. The root of his behavior is centered on the quantum mechanical nature of the LENR reaction. LENR is from another world that is simply not acceptable to the common experience of people. There are dozens of versions of quantum mechanics, each describing worlds that are far beyond the experience of the “real” world.

    Can the future direct the past. There are QM experiments that show this, but people just don’t believe that this can happen. Are there endless worlds of alternate realities. Even I don’t believe in that idea. Galileo would have a hard time with his credibility if he lived today and was a quantum experimenter.

    1. Axil,
      Could not have said it better myself. Good summary.

      Having had a couple of years of stepping back and merely reading the opinions of others (such as in the Ecat News & Ecat World forums), it certainly seems to me that the anti-LENR comments are usually led by otherwise very smart people and who are often very good at 'logically' explaining why LENR believers are simply deluded people no matter if they are mature scientific researchers/pioneers or just interested followers (i.e. one of the better anti-LENR debaters is Joshua Schroeder aka Joshua Cude aka Popeye - promotes the 'deluded LENR believers' theme which is the heart of his raison d'etre in LENR forums). People like him who are clearly brilliant logicians, and he is, even if obsessive to a fault, can run rings around people who don't have his grasp of logic as applied to 'his world' of scientific 'facts' of which he is encyclopedic in knowledge.

      Using logic based on known laws and rules to ridicule LENR and its researchers, is falling into a classic trap.

      If we ask what is 'logic' it is in general applying thinking processes using known laws and rules (facts) to make deductions. By this, a discussion point can be called 'logical' if it can be shown to match accepted laws or rules. A discussion point can be called 'illogical' if it is shown to go against known laws or rules. Mr Schroeder to his credit has a wonderful grasp of accepted laws and known rules and thus can logically tear apart anyone who he deems is presenting illogical ideas, facts or comments, based on them violating his knowledge of the known laws & rules of science (at this time in history).

      But, as we know, even for brilliant physicists like Einstein, laws and rules change or are expanded on so what was illogical or invalid in 1905 (relativity) becomes brilliant new knowledge by 1916. What is weird in 1927 becomes QM when validated after Bell's theorem is eventually tested and proves 'non-locality' (spooky science at a distance - quantum entanglement).

      Even the very brilliant physicist Pauli (creator of the Pauli exclusion principle) was caught out ridiculing one of his students who had a smart new theory that later earned someone else a Nobel prize. Pauli's student was so crushed by brilliant Pauli's ridicule he dropped publishing his idea. Someone else wasn't so intimidated & did publish and was rewarded by the Nobel committee.

      What we can see again and again is that among the most brilliant minds such as the Einsteins, the Bohrs, the Paulis, and many others, is that as new ideas emerge, these famously brilliant minds were all guilty at some time of opposing the new ideas and sometimes quite harshly.

      As said many times here in Peter's blog, LENR does not fit into known laws or rules and is paying the price with much ridicule & derision from people who sit in their comfort zone mansion constructed out of known laws & rules, to point out the absurd and illogical claims of LENR scientific researchers and followers.

      Doug Marker

    2. I did not know Cude was popeye but I've did not notice they were especially competent in logic, beside the naive inference, some mastering of usual fallacies, and some technical knowledge.

      The basic lack of those seemingly smart people is that they lack the modesty to manage what they don't know, to manage tristate and fuzzy logic, to imagine they are in error. They attack so violently that people, by a cro-magnon heuristic, think they need to be right.
      This is the same logic that pushed Nathan Lewis to sell a later disproven and anyway upfront erroneous, theory of recombination, and to insults people 10x more competent in electrochemistry than he was.

      Pauli behaved like Lewis, or Cude, or Linus pauling

      what is shocking is not their error, that is very common, and there is structurally no way to reduce this kind of error during a paradigm change, it is the violence of their attack and the way IT WORKS...

      there is a very long history of such top scientists behaving like bulliers, and people seems to never have learned of those tragedy.

      Kuhn explain that common phenomenon, but also how it is hidden by history rewritting.
      In fact Physicist seems to ignore most of the history of their science, or at least not to be able to use it to be modest.

      I face similar armchair lords about EmDrive... they state it is impossible, not even trying to be precise (they use simplified assumption, not even using GR and cosmology), while there is experimental results and many more advanced (but dubious) theories.
      On strength is also the great usage of strawman, exploiting not only the worst claims, the worst results, but also their own speculation, as evidence of bad science.

      This behavior is a rule.

      Dissenters and journalists should just not be impressed. It is like kids who roll over the floors shouting... better laugh at them than worry.

      the real problem is that such attacks does not help to find artifacts and similar experimental errors in the results.
      young science like LENR or Emdrive, need good peer review, not armchair critics and bullying.