JAN 21, 2017 DSCUSSING QUALITY AND PROGRESS OF CLASSIC LENR, INFO

MOTTO




I have to confess you what happened today. I wanted to offer you quotes about what I call "the old of still alive roots of my discontent"- I read yesterday about some meeting organized by APQC https://www.apqc.org/about 
American Productivity & Quality Center. During my PVC years I succeeded to  get many APQC publications- e.g. the Deming-Juran-Crosby teachings about quality helping me to create a kind of technologal spirituality- Quality, productivity, Ecology, Effectveness Efficiency are sacred things for a technologist. And i have so many dear professional remembrances linked to quality as the process of discovering 

that "the quality of Quality itself is constancy" An other name for constancy is reproducibility

You know my slogan: " I think, I exist. I decide, I live. I solve problems, I live with purpose" however this time when I had to choose Mottoes re Quality I decided to be like Buridan's ass- not decisions now! and as you see I respected my decision.

Anyway I think quality has to be applied to the results of the research works too and for the case of LENR classic system as you will see below.

DAILY NOTES

a) Discussion re progress, quality of research in the PdD electrolytic LENR system.

Actually this has started with my question to our scientists regarding the progress in these investigation- long term. 

How much have you progressed - as results and as understanding from your first Test to the most recent one?

I have received a fast and nice answer from Ed Storms; today Melvin Miles has answered:

My cold fusion progress began in March, 1989 with trying to find if I could observe any F-P excess heat effect.  After six months of failures, I finally observed a reproducible excess power effect using JM palladium electrodes. My next question was about observing any nuclear products or radiation.  The answer in late 1990 was that helium-4 was present in the  gas phase when excess heat was present.  I also observed fogging of X-ray film in these same experiments. Further experiments showed high Geiger-Mueller counts when Pd/D2O + LiOD experiments were running (counts up to 73 sigma) but always only normal counts (within 3 sigma) when no experiments were running.  Also, an experiment in Japan in 1997 showed "thermal spikes" tor the thermistor used in an active cell likely caused by radiation.  I did not know until later that F-P observed very large excess power effects only at cell temperatures above 60 C.  My experiments were always at cell  temperatures well below this threshold temperature,  and my largest excess power effect was about 37 %  larger than the  electrochemical power input.

A major finding was that only certain palladium materials were likely to exhibit excess power effects such as  JM palladium or NRL Pd-B.  Most palladium materials would never show any signs of excess power no matter what you tried.

I only had U.S. government funding for cold fusion from 1992 to 1995 and then again briefly (6 months) in 2010.  In fact, my reporting of cold fusion effects basically ended my career as a Navy research scientist.  My research has always been on the Pd/D2O electrochemical system. I have never found any electrochemical system that is 100 % reproducible or that showed any easy pathway to commercialization.  Anyway, this is a brief summary of my cold fusion progress.  

My answer to Melvin Miles

Thank you very much, you have nicely answered a rather 'bad' question.

I well remember meeting you at Como ICCF-2--1991.

The problem is NOT with you, you made great things with scarce funding.

But please take  a look to the results and outcome at IMRA France with Martin and Stanley working there, or now to SKINR and ENEA with funding and the results not much better than at the start or as yours.

What i try to convince people ere is that there is inherently impossible with the cradle system to obtain higher levels of excess heat, reproduciblity.

The system is the problem, not the researchers. We can add Ed Storms to this list, excellent work but limited results, and scale-up or intensification.

I am a technologist not interested in weaknesses of a system but more in where and how these weaknesses can be converted in strengths.

----------

However Ed Storms, whom I mentioned in my above answer has given now a consistent answer:

Peter, you keep ignoring the important point people keep making. We are not at the level of technology yet. We do not know how to apply the LENR effect. Even Rossi does not know how to do this even though he is trying. We are at the scientific stage where the effort is to understand the phenomenon. We are trying to find out what causes LENR, not how to make useful energy. Useful energy will be easy to make once we understand the process.  In fact, once the process is understood, I expect none of the generator designs being explored will be used and neither Pd-D nor Ni-H will be used as the site of the NAE. 

The Pd-D system is the easiest system to study in order to obtain the required information.  Yes, the Pd system does not make as much energy as Rossi claims, assuming the Rossi claims are correct. Nevertheless, we are gradually understanding how LENR works and this understanding is being published, unlike what Ross does with the information. It would be helpful if you supported the effort to understand rather than keep complaining about how people keep focusing on the Pd-D system.  The Ni-H system might be useful some day but right now it is only a claim made by Rossi without proof or understanding and it is a distraction.  

You say you are a technologest. But you also do not have the understanding required to apply the effect. You accept what Rossi claims without having any idea what he is actually doing to make the claimed energy.  He is not telling you what you need to know because it is not in his self interest to do this, even if he actually knows what is required, which is doubtful.  Technology can not advance without basic knowledge about the process.  LENR is too complex for the process to be applied using trial and error.  We need understanding. This information can only be obtained using careful and focused research to which effective evaluation is applied.  Instead, we have people trying this or that and then arguing about what the results mean without bothering to study the extensive literature about the subject and master the basic science that applies.   We have most of the focus being applied to the physics of the process when chemical conditions actually control the mechanism.  The skeptics are not our only problem.  The basic problem lies in the field itself. I would ask you to help solve this problem. 

My answer to Ed Storms

a) I am not ignoring, I am regretting bitterly that we are not discussing- for the cradle system technology after almost 28 years.

b) What I am regretting even more and it hurts me saying it but I must, is that we well, in my opinion, never discuss technology for the cradle system. I am unhappily convinced that as it is, it is not technologizable.

c) For some linearity and order in thinking let's now ignore Rossi and even the NIH systems just now, let's see what can be done (if) for the cradle system, and what can we hope from it. As understanding of LENR first

d) You speak about the progress in understanding and this is Your theory- NAE- nanocracks-hydroton- slow  energy release the problem is that applying it what can we really understand better and then DO better? More nanocracks of optimal size and structure, how? More efficient hydrotons?  Are there serious proofs of accumulating knowledge? Your relatively recent tests were followed with much empathy-expectation and you have indeed said some interesting things as those about the role of temperature and of about the real role of Pd/D ratio. But how to use this knowledge?

e) I have told that the main problem lies in the problem itself, you say that it lies in the field itself. I say that the problem is not solvable, you seem to say that the researchers do not accept the facts- as you accept and judge them (cort recct?)

therefore the knowledge necessary for progress is wasted.

I fear that the problem has to be moved in a better place to become solvable.

f) As regarding in which extent what we will learn from the PdD electrolytic system

will be transferable to other, more technologizable systems (surely working at temperatures >400C) - the verdict is still in the future as in the case of of the Rossi vs Darden litigation. 

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

b) Other concepts from EDGE.org's Annual Contest

Frank Wilczek
COMPLEMENTARITYhttps://www.edge.org/response-detail/27095


Complementarity is the idea that there can be different ways of describing a system, each useful and internally consistent, which are mutually incompatible. It first emerged as a surprising feature of quantum theory, but I, following Niels Bohr, believe it contains wisdom that is much more widely applicable.

Understanding the importance of complementarity stimulates imagination, because it gives us license to think different. It also suggests engaged tolerance, as we try to appreciate apparently strange perspectives that other people have come up with. We can take them seriously without compromising our own understandings, scientific and otherwise
Lisa Randall
EFFECTIVE THEORY
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27044

People can disagree about many deep and fundamental questions, but we are all pretty confident that when we sit on a hard wooden chair it will support us, and that when we take a breath on the surface of the Earth we will take in the oxygen we need to survive.

This notion is practical and valuable. But we should be wary since it also makes us miss things in the world—and in science. What’s obvious is what’s in our effective theory. What lies beyond might be the more fundamental truth. Sometimes it’s only a little prodding that takes us to a richer, more inclusive understanding. Getting outside our comfort zone is how science and ideas advance and what ultimately yields a richer understanding of the world.
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
SCIENTIFIC REALISM
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27113

Has science discovered the existence of protons and proteins, neurons and neutrinos? Have we learned that particles are excitations of underlying quantum fields and that the transmission of inherited characteristics is accomplished by way of information-encoding genes? Those who answer no(as opposed to dunno) probably aren’t unsophisticated science deniers. More likely they’re sophisticated deniers of scientific realism.

What then could be more central to the scientific mindset than the questions that swirl around scientific realism, since without confronting these questions we can’t even begin to say what the scientific mindset amounts to.DAILY NEWS

1) Now discussed on E-Catworld
Announcing the Development of $20 Million+ XPrize for Abundant Clean Energy Technologies (David Niebauer)
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/01/21/announcing-the-development-of-20-million-xprize-for-abundant-clean-energy-technologies-david-niebauer/

2) From Andrea Rossi's JONP

Jude Rabalais
January 20, 2017 at 6:36 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi
Is it confirmed your demo in the next couple if months?
Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 5:00 PM

Jude Rabalais:
It depends from the amount of work to make for the litigation, that in these last days has escalated enormously. The organization of a demo well done takes a lot of time and work.
Probably we will have to delay the presentation of the QuarkX after the verdict of the litigation, that is expected by July. I matured this thought today returning from Raleigh, where work for the litigation has been made.
The presentation of the QuarkX must be perfect and to make it perfect I have to work on it with maximum focus, that now I have not. I am under too much pressure. I must first win one battle, then make the next and the litigation is now.
Probably we will start in March to receive visits of experts to make together with them closed doors measurements and tests.
This is the idea I formulated today examining the situation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steve L.
January 20, 2017 at 12:13 AM

Dr Rossi

Is this a possibility, that Industrial Heat seems to be set up to be patent trolls.

could you comment?

Steve
Andrea Rossi
January 20, 2017 at 4:43 PM

Steve L.:
No comment about issues to be disclosed in Court. I can only say that we are convinced that there are bases for us to be very optimist, due to the evidence we have collected.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

and

Patrick Ellul
January 20, 2017 at 11:01 PM

Dear Andrea,
What impact would a loss in the court proceedings have on you and the e-cat QuarkX?
Best regards,
Patrick
Andrea Rossi
January 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM

Patrick Ellul:
It depends on many factors, but, honestly, the evidence we have collected puts us in a positive mood. I cannot say more at this point.
Warm Regards,
A.R.3) From Gregory Goble:
LENR/Electric… An interesting patent granted
https://plus.google.com/107190105791959392745/posts/LzadvfWPeZj
4) Updated COLDFUSIONCONNECTIONS by Doktor Bob;
http://cfconnection.leapforwardlab.com/

5) Video signalled at Andrea Ross's JONP:
Paolo Accomazzi
Atomi Binucleari Fusione Fredda Rossi Ecat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XBG68Kgd_0

6) Krivit continues con-fusion
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/krivit-continues-con-fusion/#more-1376

LENR IN CONTEXT-1

Science can lead us to the fundamental questions, andsometimes, in some extent to the fundamental answers. The arch-enemy of Cold Fusion says the following:
Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god-synopsis-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsPhysicalScience+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Physical+Science%29
LENR IN CONTEXT-2

Icelandic Study Suggests That Maybe We Are Getting Dumberhttp://bigthink.com/robby-berman/icelandic-study-suggests-that-maybe-we-are-getting-dumber?utm_source=Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b9eb126a35-DailyNewsletter_+012017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_625217e121-b9eb126a35-40538314

Humanity Has A Massive Trust Problem, But We Can Fix Ithttps://futurism.com/humanity-has-a-massive-trust-problem-but-we-can-fix-it/