Monday, June 1, 2015

LENR FIGHTERS COMING, BUT WHAT IS THEIR RESEARCH IDEOLOGY?


MOTTO

In complex worlds, like the one we live in, things change very quickly, and things get very complicated very fast. What’s more, things make less and less common sense. Complexity and counter-intuition are twins. Advanced science and mathematics are crazy worlds of confounding ideas. (Gerry McGovern)
http://gerrymcgovern.newsweaver.ie/bv7ydh9yi6k132agb6dzwi?email=true&a=6&p=48823578&t=28444347

Epistemologically, how ‘we know’ and the truth of the world and reality is changing. In some sense we may be in a current intermediary ‘dark ages node’ where the multiplicity of future science methods can pull us into a new era of enlightenment just as surely as the traditional scientific method pulled us into modernity. (Melsnie Swan)
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/swan20150524


Sometimes I get wonderful encouragement from the Web. The Melanie Swan paper found yesterday evening confirms my own idea that the sacro-saint Scientific Method has limits and LENR- a field placed at the very fr right side of the Medawar Zone with so much more known and unknown unknowns than knowns is a striking example. Now Melanie Swan gives other examples, other causes of non-validity of the central truth of scientific investigation. I refuse to call it a dogma because in 99% of the real cases it still is the Tao. But NOT for LENR!

Accepting this surprising and unpleasant, quite painful reality is the first decisive step toward a working Research Ideology. My writings here try to define such a Research ideology. Each and every researcher has such one and I have asked very recently how does think, plan, act, evaluate LENR research a person placed in a very important position  as Songsheng Jian? (he has answered the technical questions anyway, see below, please) And all those LENR fighters who will arrive
on the scientific-technological battlefields in the near future?
I cannot make a complete list now, but I think there are some basic components of a potentially successful new energy technology.
LENR+ not LENR, more technology than science, more engineering than physics, more recipe than theory, more future than past, more new ideas than old ideas (paradigm shift very radical), more diversity than similarity, more man-made artificial than natural, more synergy and catalysis than electrochemistry and high gas loading, more hot chaos than cold chaos, LENR is not only and not entirely nuclear, etc., etc.


DAILY NEWS

Sonsheng Jian answers questions on lenr replication report
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/06/01/songsheng-jiang-answers-questions-on-lenr-replication-report/

Переломный момент в поисках экологически чистых источников энергии пhttp://geektimes.ru/post/251242/

An author with negative IQ and negative enthusiasm insulting LENR
Senile Science
http://pathoskeptic.com/2015/05/31/senile-science/


AXIL DIXIT


At 1:05 into the video near the end, National instruments states that they want to support the development of cold fusion by developing tools that researchers need to produce data from which theories can be developed. 

National instruments wants MFMP to tell them what tools they need to solve the cold fusion issue. It is time to reach out to National Instrument's to get everything required to make progress in MFMP experiments.

also


Dr Truchard the founder of National Instriments has supported cold fusion research for years, offering LabView software free to all researchers in the field. Last year, LENR featured prominently at NIWeek 2012, the National Instruments showcase of their new products and solutions for scientific research.

Its now time that MFMP enter into a partnership with National Instriments so that they might get their share of National instruments free experimental equipment and technical support.

Please see also what answers Bob Cook to this:

OTHER

The Scientific Method is a Scientific Idea that is Ready for Retirement
Melanie Swan

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/swan20150524

Problem-Solving: Do The Opposite Of What Comes Naturally




6 comments:

  1. Anout the pathoskeptic, Joshuah Cude is back online and motivating the gang.

    It will be nice to gather their arguments, all their logic, so we can burry those arguments as proven wrong when LENR get mainstream.

    very important work for epistemology. gathering all stupid argument is probably the best what we can do to protect future generations from functional stupidity and groupthink.

    about scientific method, I don't see any unknown problem...

    peer review are to be done by peers, not by clowns or outsiders.
    publications are to be done where you can publish.
    given that , LENr is the perfect example of repected scientific method...
    what failed is academic consensus, and academic publishers...

    what have succeeded is free market, even if it took time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Alain,

      Pathoskeptic is actually an idiot who enjoys insulting.

      Re the Scientific Method- how do you apply it to LENR classic? What i your hypothesis, locus, nture mechanism of the deired reactions? Are you not disturbed by facts as
      only one test in 4, 6, 10 gives excess heat all the conditions being the same as far it is humanly possible?
      which is you favorite explanation and how doe it help you to control, scale up the reactions?
      how can you convince closed minded nuclear physicists that CF is
      purely nuclear, how is it nuclear?
      there are no unknowns in LENRs?

      Are you really serious when you tell that LENR is respected scientific method?

      what about peer review? It is not by the kibitzes and amateurs on the Web, each reputed journal has professional reviewers- and they say what they think. It is true they are not open minded, but also not clowns. Translating from my native language, scientific methiod goes with PdD LENR like a tuxedo with a cow.
      Sorry but it hurts me that a nice, good, smart friend like you says there are no unknowns in LENR.
      Excuse me< I am a grumpy old man.
      Peter

      Delete
    2. Dear Alain,

      Pathoskeptic is actually an idiot who enjoys insulting.

      Re the Scientific Method- how do you apply it to LENR classic? What i your hypothesis, locus, nture mechanism of the deired reactions? Are you not disturbed by facts as
      only one test in 4, 6, 10 gives excess heat all the conditions being the same as far it is humanly possible?
      which is you favorite explanation and how doe it help you to control, scale up the reactions?
      how can you convince closed minded nuclear physicists that CF is
      purely nuclear, how is it nuclear?
      there are no unknowns in LENRs?

      Are you really serious when you tell that LENR is respected scientific method?

      what about peer review? It is not by the kibitzes and amateurs on the Web, each reputed journal has professional reviewers- and they say what they think. It is true they are not open minded, but also not clowns. Translating from my native language, scientific methiod goes with PdD LENR like a tuxedo with a cow.
      Sorry but it hurts me that a nice, good, smart friend like you says there are no unknowns in LENR.
      Excuse me< I am a grumpy old man.
      Peter

      Delete
    3. maybe having professional reviewer is not what scientific method is.
      It is to be done by peers. and it does not guarantee good result, just result respected by people who do the same.

      It have become a bureaucracy.

      Another point is that LENR is at an early stage, like early steam engine, and peers are tinkering with the steam...

      It is fascinating how people try to apply the standard of established science to a now coherent sequence of anomalies sharing many commonalities.

      we are far from a nuclear explanation, but there is evidences that "out of equilibrium", "hydrides", "heat", increase chance to have an anomaly...

      it is a work in progress, and it is science.

      what people expect is like the finished cake out of the oven on the table, cut in 12 shares...

      they don't want to see that it started by reading a cookbook with dirty glasses, putting flour all over the kitchen table, dropping eggs on the floor, carbonizing the first proptotype, vomiting on the second prototype test, and finally making something pleasant for the guest, and just trying to write what you did so you can redo it, with some luck...

      that is science. it is not yet industry.

      Delete
    4. Dear Alain,

      Peer review is a very disputed subjects- see e.g. the journal Scientometrics. For CF/LENR it is difficult to define what a peer can be- as long as elementary things remain incognoscible

      The problem is not early stage the problem is lack of oprogress. What is the essentila progress in Pd D from say 1991 to today (facts, mon ami)

      Because we do not know so many things and cannot control the phenomena LENR classic is clearly pre-science not science. You cannot create realistic hypotheses and you cannot do reliable experiments so you cannot apply the Scientific Method to it. I am speaking about now, not in principle.

      The metaphor of the cake...do you like it? Tells it something to you?
      Science purists say gastronomy is not a genuine science.

      Ok, if you can, please explain us how the Scientific Methode well known and described can be applied to LENR.
      See please my comment re this in my editorial Zerith.. published an hour ago.

      Peter

      Delete
    5. Our gap is probably is what we consider as the scientific method.
      You sure know better how usual science consider "scientific method".

      I agree that probably I deform a little that conception, because it is hard for me to imagine people can be so far from real world complexity... say I'm naive...

      Gastronomy is an art, but making good food by tons, 24x7, at stable quality, is engineering.

      sure is if focussing hugely on full theory is the scientific method, we probably agree. I have seen that often, but I imagined it was dogmatism not science.

      Delete