NOT A LESSON BUT A DISCUSSION WITH YOUNG LENR FIGHTERS ABOUT LOGIC AND SYNTHESIS.

Motto:                                                                                                                                                 This field has a lot of brilliant people with excellent analytic capabilities. The problem, as always, is in synthesis. (Yiannis Hadjichristos)

The main means.

Dear young LENR researcher! Suppose you will access my blog; if this happens I dare to ask you, that before taking any decision, please read these two papers: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/modes-of-thinking-my-taxonomy.html and                      http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/11/80-of-all-truths-are-pareto-truths.html.                                                                         I don’t want to brag that I have really understood what has happened with me during my career/life or that I have a good ability to learn. However, so many things have happened to me and I have so desperately tried to understand things, that eventually perhaps I have discovered “something” about our world and have described it on my blog. These two writings are at least as useful as my pragmatic 20 problem solving rules- that are already everywhere – in some 20 languages. Therefore I have ceased to popularize them. Solving too many great problems worldwide, too fast, could have unexpected consequences.            I have – grosso modo- the same ambition as the creator of the Muppets -My hope still is to leave the world a bit better than when I got here. (Jim Henson) 
but I don’t want to exaggerate so please use my problem solving in moderation. Personal warning: a problem-less existence would be boring. Let a few problems for the future generations, please!

Anyway, from the Logic paper you can learn how multi-facetted human thinking can be, and has to be for helping you to cope with the tasks in profession and life. The Pareto-truth paper will show you that what you are searching for, truth, is far from being something ideal, simple and absolute and that it will not be easy to convince and make it to work for you. And, ‘cause you have chosen LENR (or vice-versa) - you are an extreme case. Believe Uncle Peter, you are a winner case, the reward will be commensurate with the behemothiness of your task.

Alternative/complementary means

1) The first in  chronological order is to learn to protect yourself against the dark, dangerous, damaging aspects of thinking. A practical start is this list of evils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Euphemistics again, they call it fallacies i.e. a hybrid of an error with a delusion, but in real life all these appear as dirty tricks by which the users’ thinking is beating, humiliating and replacing your thinking. At some conferences and on many forums this is the main activity.

2) Truth is fragmented and fractalized, therefore short sentences with a very high idea/word ratio have a formidable effectiveness in learning- aphorisms, proverbs, quotations. I hope you already have a personal collection of them. On the Web you can find them all in a few minutes, however not in the best order or with the optimal taxonomy, you have to organize wisely you collection of quotations... For the present case, you can start with: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/logic.html and http://quote.robertgenn.com/getquotes.php?catid=317&numcats=368#.UVVcXRcwpCI  These quotations have a high dosis of creativity

3) Please, never forget that due to the rather perverse structure and weird functionality of truths, you will receive more “mu” answers to your questions than straight yes or no-s, I hope you have already understood the ubiquity of mu answers: from: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/12/is-cold-fusion-natural-essay-in.html. Even better would be for you to read the book: “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert Pirsig. One of the smartest books published during my intellectual life-time.

Note It happens that the Internet has just now (April 2, 2013) sent me the following good paper inspired by the Pirsig book:

Understanding Quality: Duty Towards Self: https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/13dc9ca35ea03afb

4) Learn all the time, but make much greater efforts to learn how to learn. Focusing is vital, and you have to focus on learning to think. I am trying to help you in this, but I am just an amateur and a late comer. Without the study of the ideas and techniques of the greatest living authority in this field, Edward de Bono you will not be really prepared for the task. Discover the world of de Bono. As a first step I advice you to subscribe to http://www.debonosociety.com/

I have learnt a lot from Edward de Bono, I am grateful to him; however I have decided ages ago to never be a “fan” of anybody, never! I have written about this is my most unpopular statement: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/07/dirtiest-f-word.html

De Bono is the best known for the “Six Thinking Hats” method a hugely successful thinking tool; however I prefer to use the 4 kinds of logic described in the first paper cited here. He has published over 30 books, I have read the 5 or 6 I was able to buy or borrow in the bad years, but later I have extensively studied his works on the Web. In some issues I do not agree 100% with him. For example human thinking has progressed slowly and is, in some respect, obsolete and not creative enough. De Bono has invented lateral thinking and this is a great possibility to progress. However read please this: http://www.debonogroup.com/parallel_thinking.php De Bono tries to convince us that the Gang of the Three Greeks- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are responsible for the predominant mode of thinking based on argument. Very correctly he says:                        “Then came the Renaissance. The Renaissance was brought about by the discovery of the classic thinking methods of the ancient Greek philosophers. This "new thinking" provided a breath of fresh air. Humanity was given a more central role in the universe. Thinkers were allowed to use reason to work things out. Logic was now allowed”.

He describes here the shortcomings and limitation of what I call Logic in my essay. However, no fault can be attributed to the three main Fathers of logic. First, because they were ahead of their age and could not predict the future. Ancient Greece was more progressive, free, creative, luminous and serene than the Dark Ages- that are continuing in some forms and places up to today. Second, and that’s more relevant, we cannot ignore that actually the thinkers/philosophers of the called Renaissance, instead of developing, diversifying and dynamizing the bright ideas of the antiquity have successfully dogmatized them. Even the best ideas degenerate and die due to dogmatitis. The treatment of the more “super-logic” pre-socratic ideas, say those of Heraclitus and Zeno was even more destructive. It is the fault of the epigones trained mainly in theological thinking, not of the originators.                                                                                          I dare to say that De Bono has to know that by dogmatization, the effectiveness of his own original, revolutionary thinking can be destroyed. Danger! The same applies to my more modest ideas, however I know it. This is the reason for adding Rule 20 to my system of problem solving.

5) I am not very apt in using classic philosophy for this case, but I think that for this special case of LENR, many smart ideas coming from the management and business literature are adequate. Suddenly I remembered an author and a book that I insistently recommend to my young friends. It was published in the same year when Cold Fusion has appeared; it is A MUST UNDERSTAND book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People by Stephen Covey.

6) Eventually, please accept that you are not doing art but science, technology, engineering and you will not attain perfection. Two of my septoes tell it:                                                    

Perfectionism is dangerous, we need sustained perfectibilism.
I am not perfectionist but maximalist-perfectibilist

While working at this essay, the Internet has reminded me this principle:            http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2013/03/28/bosss-tip-of-the-day-prompt-beats-perfect.aspx

The aim is Synthesis

I have started with the idea to analyze the situation of LENR but discussing with Yiannis and Axil, with my imaginary readers, with the Web and eventually with myself (my left-left brain hemisphere with my right-left brain hemisphere); I realized that actually a synthesis of the ideas is the aim of work for LENR.

The aim is to attain a broad and deep understanding of LENR and to develop it to a significant new source of energy. When the synthesis is accomplished, we (history will define this “we”!) will get a vision of the whole composed of parts and we will understand the place and function of each part in the whole.

A member of de Bono’s “gang of three” has explained the essence of the synthesis:                                                                        The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (Aristotle)

It is about how the parts work together; if they work well, we have a positive synergy. As a sad aside, our world today is hit by epidemics of negative synergies and there are so many tragic cases in which the whole is smaller than the sum of the parts.  Mainly national economies, These negative synergies define the Crisis that seems to last indefinitely…

May I note here that Covey’s book cited at 5) says the 6^th habit of effective people is Synergize:                                                  “Combine the strengths of people through positive teamwork, so as to achieve goals no one person could have done alone.”

Note: In the English language there are 271 words starting with the Greek prefix “syn”- meaning “together”: http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/syn/  or if you like Scrabble: http://www.scrabblefinder.com/starts-with/syn/

Looking at what Defkalion does and wants to achieve in the near future, it becomes obvious that there are de facto two kinds of syntheses for LENR+ (HENI)

-        a pragmatic one – putting together all the necessary parts by engineering at its best- the synthesis of the commercial Hyperion energy generator. Decisive factor=engineering                                                                                               - a theoretical one, combining “known knowledge” and knowledge to be newly created for this task thus that it gives the desired degree of understanding of the process. Decisive factors: wisdom, good thinking, positive synergy of theories.

Over 24 years were enough to demonstrate that LENR is a difficult case belonging to the category thus described by the main author of this double synthesis, Yiannis Hadjichristos:                “In complex (non linear open systems) like the ones we are dealing with in LENR+ SYSTEMS, synthesis is difficult as it assumes cultural jumps, overriding the mental barriers of established ideas organized linearly and hierarchicaly.”

(I don’t want any priorities in LENR ideas; however I am proud that I was able to state early that Coulomb’s is NOT the greatest Barrier to useful LENR.)

Yiannis emphasizes the crucial contribution of paradigm changing scientists as Prigogine and Margulis, but even more the necessity that similar high-impact personalities whose ideas should be able to terminate the Crisis and the dearth of ideas in physics.

Allow me please to repeat here a longer quotation from my Logic paper:                                                                                             “The Cartesian, rectiliniar, rationalistic thinking of the bi-univocal cause-effect type made us difficult to understand the interdependencies and the complexity and it has lead to the necessity to remake the thinking process backward- from the detail to the whole.

Understanding of complexity requires the acceptance of paradoxes, of the existence of contradictions, the possibility that there can be used different paradoxes. (I. Olteanu in his preface to the book “The Third Wave” by Alvin Toffler)

The synthesis of LENR+ is obviously based on a much encomprising, broad multi-, cross-, and trans-disciplinary approach...

Any successful LENR+ research needs therefore a great leader and an excellent team. And positive synergy- a lot! 

Yiannis considers the basic role of Time in the LENR synthesis.

In LENR “panta rhei” – all sequences flow. I have said ‘LENR is like an opera not a song’. Yiannis’s analogy is even more relevant:

The LENR meta-theory syntheses have to be like a movie not like a photography.

Very efficient analytical tools are needed in order to make such a

a mastery synthesis.

I think that despite all those frightening obstacles described in this paper, 2013 will be an excellent year for LENR syntheses- both real and mental.

Peter

ROOTS 9 – THE RISK TAKER

Motto: It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult. Seneca

For a long time, I did not consider myself a risk taker, but a rather conservative person with habits and expectations, reasonable fears and a prudential approach towards life. One day however it came to me that I was so used to taking small risks on daily basis, without actually paying attention to the fact that I was actually taking risks. I purely called them actions, decisions, choices … but not risks.

I started to see there is a distinction between treating personal and professional decisions.

More exactly, in my private life I have a tendency to take actions that can easily hurt me, for the sake of various arguments – basically connected to my feelings, preferences, personal comfort and moral principles. In my professional life I am more prudent and cautious, as most decisions will change other people lives. When comparing the two approaches, I see that they are basically built around the same principles (whoever said there is no business ethics but just ethics was right!), my approach being more conservative whenever the decisions impact other people – their money, career, life in general.

I was recently talking about this strange feature of my character with a friend, wondering whether this sounds normal or not. Lucky for me, he understood very well, as he admitted to (re)act basically the same. Maybe this is a joke played on us by nature. Darwin would turn in his grave seeing how we contradict his basic thesis. Humans are supposed to be self-protective and fight for survival under the most adverse conditions.

A couple of weeks ago I was watching BBC World, broadcasting a round table with successful turnaround managers (here is the audio version). They participants seemed to have had in common the same risk taking profile, respectively their own image or survival as managers did not matter for them more than doing the ‘right thing’ for their employer. Later on in the week another story, of yet another similar character. The famous turnaround cases (national post, national railway company) were similar - complex deeply troubled situations, which needed drastic and unpopular measures. Those men invited at the helm during the difficult times were hated by employees and trashed in the local media back in those days. But now, 10 years down the road, they are regarded as geniuses. A world in crisis is seeking their advice.

Their most important messages were that you first have to stop pretending everything is fine; then you should be enthusiastically curious and ask the right questions to the right people (which are usually not the ones at the top of the company), to get to the root of the problems; then you just need to correlate and act. One of the most interesting things one of them said was that usually the lower management levels knew exactly what was wrong within the organization, but could not give solutions for that. It was natural, as solutions can only come from the top, after all roots of the problem are correlated and a strategy is decided. Without knowing where you want to go, you cannot achieve a successful turnaround.

Today I was watching a CNN broadcast, again with some guest participants talking about the financial crisis. One of the participants started explaining her view about why banks should not be blamed for the excessive lending. She said that if the bank would offer financing for a house or a project which you as a borrower knew you could not afford to repay, it would have been your moral responsibility as a borrower to say “no” to that bank. She was saying that the guilt should be shared between the banks and the society, as it is not only about mistakes of some lender giving away too much money without proper assessment, but also about individuals and companies which were knowingly signing on loans they knew they would not be able to repay. The truth is, as always, probably somewhere in the middle. One should have not taken too much, the other should have not given. And the main trigger was most probably the changing perception of front office bankers about banking, which gradually became a reward-driven sales business, with a rather easy task - selling money to people who do not have...

Without further judging the 'blame' logic of the lady too much, I started to think of my last ‘roots’ edition (The Waste). I was writing then about our human nature, being inclined to buy more than we need and often even more than we can consume. Actually this is the basic and predictable behavior that sales and marketing are based upon. Marketing has scientifically gained such a manipulative power that can easily induce false needs nowadays. The approach is towards consumer-oriented lending in the last decades, which has less to do with financial advice and more to do with pure selling – products, promises, dreams… it has become not much different from the sale of clothing, energy drinks or electronics. And more than that, it has one intrinsic characteristic which makes it the most powerful and dangerous of all the consumer products – the lending ‘product’ can be associated with and exchanged for any other real ‘product’ already aggressively marketed, thus multiplying its penetration rate by thousands of times.

The aggressive sales of all types of products create an artificially inflated … need of money. And this is when the banking products come in the picture and they don’t even need to be too creative about it. Just link the loan to the idea of shopping or housing or exotic holiday or whatever is ‘trending’ on the market and … here you go! You have a loan. I remember one which was saying something like ‘if you cannot afford a house don’t be sad, we can lend you the money!’ Right! What about affording both the interest and the house price in this case? ...

And so I come back to the topic at hand today – the risk taking. In every decision we take in our life, risk assessment is involved. For every choice there are alternatives and for each alternative a risk-return (or risk-result) judgment must be passed. Every person has a unique decision-making mechanism which translates into lower or higher risk taking profiles.

I will use an over-simplified classification today, structured around two characteristics of a risk taker – the attitude towards risks affecting the self and risks affecting the others. More bluntly, people frequently pretend to ‘do the right things’, but they usually act as per their own interests and desires. Greed and social acceptance are the greatest drivers of excessive life styles and consequently, spending.

I would then group the people as per their self-protective vs. others-protective actions.

First, there are the genuine risk-adverse folks. They permanently think (if taken to the extreme - too much!) about protecting both themselves and others around them, sometimes passing good opportunities and ignoring basic needs, because of their fear of failure. They live their life apparently safe, away from the dangers of a nasty world. They are most likely not among those who triggered the crisis, but they may very well be a large part of the victims, as they most probably placed their life savings in some “safe” investments... One of the basic flaws of the current banking systems is that it uses the ‘multiplication’ approach on all types of financing sources, therefore at the same moment when the risk-adverse folks use banking services for managing their cash (salary, deposits etc.), they unknowingly become risk-takers, as their money are used to leverage the system.

Second, we have the self-protective folks which do not care much about protecting others. Those people ready and willing to take almost any risk as long as it does not negatively reflect on themselves (either in terms of money or other resources, image, comfort, or security…). If we look upon the outcome of their actions, on the positive side of the spectrum we may find some genius entrepreneurs or charismatic leaders, who manage to build exceptionally successful businesses. In the middle we have either silly day-dreamers who don't take much action because other do not entrust them with their resources, while on the negative side of the spectrum we find criminals or plain crooks. There are famous movies about this character profile, usually the story of success which came out of nothing (“don’t ask about the first one million…” kind of tales), but also a lot of bad-loan borrowers actually fit into this profile. And one of the most hazardous situations comes whenever this type of character benefits of a legitimate personal gain scheme directly connected to the level of risk taking he can advice. I believe this is also a strong point in the classical debate about misuse of bonuses in the financial world.

Third, we have the ‘hero’ profile, respectively the self-destructive (or self-careless or at the very best the self-neutral) people, who care about protecting other people. Some of them made history, others just died anonymously throughout our history. I read once a practical psychology book of F. Lelord & C. Andre (How to manage difficult personalities). I found one of their suppositions very interesting: we may be genetically predisposed towards paranoia, inherited from our ancestors. They were saying that the brave and fearless heroes usually died young with little time and chances to generate a succession line, while the prudent and paranoid ones lived longer life and had bigger families, with descendants in our days. Interesting, no?

Fourth, we have the absolute dummies, who do not care either about themselves or about others. I strongly hope this is a rare species, as they either hurt themselves really early in life and migrate to any of the other categories or become purely medical cases and we don't see them too often walking freely among us... so I will not insist on those guys.

Finally, we have a ‘reasonable mix’ risk-taking profile, stretching across all the above four categories, in a moderate manner. Here I include those people who combine a healthy self-protective profile with a good sense of responsibility for protecting others. People who fall in this category take decently calculated risks and assume the consequences of their decisions. Ideally, most of the active population should fit into this category. Practically, I still wonder on a daily basis...

Actually, there is a fine border between those over-simplified types of risk takers. The same person may present different types of reactions to different types of risks in different moments and in different positions (or relationships) in his or her life.

I believe that in today’s world too little importance is given to psychological profiling when people design their career plans, but also when companies recruit staff. From both sides (the employee and the employer) there is much more weight placed on education (watch out – I did not say knowledge, but education!...), monetary and status considerations, both on the side of the applicants and the recruiters. Education on the other hand is also frequently driven by family expectations, young students prepare themselves for jobs that pay better and offer quick growth prospects. Mature people become trapped between their own dreams and the social pressure, start making questionable compromise quite early in their professional life, in an attempt to fit into models that don’t even suit them.

Profiling should address many issues, from ethical principles and moral standards to aptitudes and talents. It should be encoded in our educational system and later on in our career planning. And for those professions that are highly exposed to risk taking and moral hazard, such tests should be a prerequisite not only on managerial, but even on entry level. I know it sounds like utopia, but we have to start thinking outside the box if we wish to change things for our children. Just because a young graduate is good with numbers does not guarantee he or she does not leave the University with the mindset of a crook. Technical background is not enough to succeed in a sustainable way, not if we want to redesign the financial sector and put some trust back into the system.

And the same conclusion applies to almost any industry, even if the financial world is currently the most covered by media. It is natural to be in the spotlight as it runs through the entire system and connects all other areas (just like the blood in our bodies). Still, it is definitely not the only one corrupted because of moral hazard. Food and drugs, sports and entertainment, politics and social service, research and education – if you search the news you will easily see that the ethical roots of the current crisis are spread throughout almost every area of our life.

If I was to put together what I have learned in the past few months (be it from industry turnaround managers, financial gurus, famous journalists or striving regulators), it seems that we are running in circles. The world is trying to put more technical rules into various systems which are actually sinking because of moral hazard and excessive risk taking, personal gain and creative number manipulation. The approach is partially correct, but unfortunately incomplete. Whenever new and more restrictive regulations come into any market, it takes that market probably around 6 to 12 months to re-adjust to those rules, by introducing new controls and adapt the statistics it generates. However the core (dis)functionality of that market will not be steered if intervention tools remain on paper and limited to technical standards. The way out of this crisis can only be paved if the intervention of the regulators will start focusing on the people. And to be honest now - we should not want to see a collapse in the current financial system before we have created something that can reasonably function in its place. Unless we are ready to go back several hundred years and fight some nasty wars in between.

How can we change then? Well... we will need lots of authentic turnaround managers to show us the way. I see now that with my ‘roots’ series I have been positioning myself in the category of lower management who can see parts of the problem but cannot solve it. I believe this is a good start ... for the time being!

Georgina Popescu

Rethinking (continuously) and understanding (deeply) LENR+- just a new episode.

Only in mathematics you can find a solution based only on the data of the problem; in real life you must search continuously for data, seemingly outside of the problem that can be relevant and useful for a solution. Take in account, please that the real solutions are rarely complete, unique and definitive.                     

In this spirit yesterday I have asked my forum colleagues to discuss about this paper:

Picking Apart Photosynthesis: New Insights Could Lead to Better Catalysts for Water Splitting:                                   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130329125305.htm

When I want to feel depressed I am just thinking that we humans still were not able to understand and reproduce- directly, indirectly or in sufficient extent, photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation that are very natural even for the humblest plants.,. An unpleasant question attacks me insidiously: isn’t our Science not much more primitive and underdeveloped than we are learned to think? Aren’t we actually an arrogant species?

My friend Axil, who has just worked out an advanced form of his theory based on the ideas first presented in, http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/03/guest-editorial-axil-about-how-lenr.html was now inspired by: the new Photosynthesis of paper see below.

AXIL’s thoughts for Easter

The first principle of our meta-theory about LENR is survival.

As I think about this principle and its importance, I am becoming preoccupied by it.

I have responded about this first principle on your blog recently. I have posted a response to your post on Photosynthesis about how this principle applies as follows…

 Easter is the day set aside for the contemplation of miracles. How can Photosynthesis come into being if not for miracles?

The world around us and in us is full of miracles: of blood and brain, of green sunlight and DNA.

How can the world we know exist, if not for miracles?

Cold fusion would be such a miracle, a miracle full of miracles.

If we want to study miracles, how does nature do it? What is the natural meta-theory of miracles?

If we take the religious view, we wait for a prophet who is inspired by the Holy Ghost to descend into our world and perform these miracles.

Does such a man exist? Has he built the Hot Cat for us?

Or do we take the agnostic view of natural selection: survival of the fittest where miracles evolve over eons of untiring trial and error; an endless cycle of countless deaths and rebirths bathed in boundless new beginnings; life, pain, death, rot and decay, hoping upon hope for that one sparkling instance of progress to be passed forward to the next. Where advancements are few and far between made in nano-steps without discouragement where automaton repetition and mindless replication leads to an endless march in a random walk toward something new with only the slightest chance for change but in the full light of faith that what replaces is bitter than what is replaced.

But what is revealed from our battle to understand is that survival is the key.

The meta-theory of life states that those systems that make a future possible are all important.

For all that we know locked in this eternal struggle;  the bacteria, plants, computing systems, and cold fusion reactors, take the square root of the interdependent components and you can find a small but all important number of key components that are so imperative that not a single other piece can get by without them.

This rule of survival applies equally to complex networks because they are all examples of open access systems with components that are independently installed. Bacteria are the ultimate BitTorrents of biology, referring to a popular file-sharing protocol.

In our study of life, bacteria have this enormous common pool of genes that they are freely sharing with each other. Bacterial systems can easily add or remove genes from their genomes through what's called horizontal gene transfer, a kind of file sharing between bacteria on the internet of adaptation.

This survival mechanism is central for plants as well as cold fusion reactors. To deal with energy without ill effects takes some doing; complexity is to be expected.

In the meta-approach of dreams on this day of days where miracles live again all will work out in this quest for understanding if the survival principle can be identified and appreciated.

For the cold fusion reactor, it is the mechanism that can produce extreme amounts of energy and still be able to survive and thrive.

This age old meta-principle of survival is true for the cold fusion reaction of every stripe as well as for the trees and grasses.

For those reactors that meet the test, they move forward into the future. For those who don’t, they are discarded into the dustbin of history.

At this juncture, I feel it is the quantum mechanical condensation of electron activity that keeps the cold fusion reaction from burning itself up; a fire that never consumes its fuel like a burning bush from which the word of God comes forth.

To get this principle right in our minds is all important.

Yiannis’ complementary ideas- a bit more secular and more positive

I was also following this "mainstream" perception of natural selection (reserving some skepticism based on intuition) till I read Margulis new revision on such "scientific dogma".
Margulis introduced the idea that evolution/natural selection is based on symbiosis and not antagonism. The first modern cell was created when environmental conditions have forced two pre-cariotic cells to cooperate to survive! The cell had no membrane to get protected (but an advanced based on DNA reproduction system) whilst a cell with no nucleus had what was missing from nucleus (but a primitive-still existing today-reproduction system). A new species was created when the previous two cooperated through their merge. (This is not the only symbiotic example governing evolution: The tiger helps rabbit to progress eating the weaker members).

Keeping the analogies, LENR/CF theories have no chance to survive unless merges ideas through cooperation with other neighboring area of ideas/theories. The new "species” has already been named as LENR+... Obviously this L and N in such name still need to be defined or proved as the "environment" out there is still toxic and hostile to such new ideas.

Conclusions

This is a writing and a dialogue that will remain open and with no definitive conclusions for a long time. The dialogue made me happy, last time I have told that useful LENR+ is man=made, artificial. However I knew this is the truth but not the unique truth; the contrary is also true because LENR is so similar to fundamental aspects of life. I am grateful to my friends for their

subtle and valuable ideas.

THE ROOT OF THE LENR PROBLEM and THE STEM OF THE SOLUTION.

Motto:

 “ I, like everyone, look at Nature and try to figure out how it works.” (Edmund Storms)

I think over 99.99% of the scientists agree completely with  Ed- this is their mission and mode of action. This is the essential scientific approach, the way to discoveries and to knowledge. It is about the scientific mentality and culture. A fast search will give definitions of the scientific mentality as the following:

“Science is a body of knowledge wherein the truths of physical world is ascertained or established on the basis of verifiable and testable methods. Authority and beliefs have no place in science. Scientific mentality is the mental process of thinking based on science as defined above. Scientific methods are strictly objective.”

However, the real relationship between Mother Nature and Homo discontentus ( a better name for Homo sapiens) is more complicated and it always was much initiative coming from us humans. We have survived not only because we are “wise”- “sapiens” without “faber” does not work.

Too long an introduction, you already knew this for ages at least outside LENR.

Back to LENR.  In: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/12/is-cold-fusion-natural-essay-in.html perhaps I have misunderstood a bit my own ideas perhaps under the pressure of the compulsory scientific approach. But I have opted for a hybrid approach in solving the problem of LENR:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/12/a-hybrid-approach-for-solving-lenr.html

And I have defined the problem here:

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/02/strategic-principles-of-lenr-and-their.html as a kind of counter-axiom complementing the scientific mentality:

LENR is in essence technology, a practical energy source.

The decisive factors for success include wisdom – understanding the phenomena but perhaps even more boldness, skill, creativity, patience, inventiveness, determination. Radical changes

LENR –the useful one, has to be invented, not discovered.

Here I remembered my favorite Bulgarian proverb, short in its original language “ne pitai starilo, pitai patilo”- but a bit longer in translation: “Don’t ask the old, but the one that has endured bad times.” Usually old people can give you good advise, but young people who have experienced the same difficulties as you may help better It is about real experts and authorities. If you want to solve a problem ask those who are solving it. It happens that yesterday somebody has told me that “senior” means more ‘authority’ than ‘old’.

We still are at home in the Balkan Peninsula; I have asked the opinion of Yiannis Hadjichristos the leading scientist of Defkalion. He has told about a  saying coming from ancient Greece  "Συν Αθηνά και χείρα κείνει"  do not expect everything from Athina (the goddess of wisdom) -the theory in our case- move your hands also. Wisdom and hard work go together’

Yiannis also has emphasized that they have highlighted natural HENI-like phenomena in their NIWeek and ICCF17 papers. However, all these natural phenomena- that have inspired them are not controllable! They had to use inventions (plural!) to create the controlled conditions within a specific limited space and its environment.

“So we have to trick (cheat) nature to harvest the benefits.  This is what engineering (μηχανικη)  literally means: trick the nature (or the gods in ancient tragedy) to reach a desired outcome (the catharsis).”

What impresses me is the broadness of the real problem, Nature has to be changed with due respect because we know Her bad temper and force, but without mercy. BTW, pantheist thinking: I had the privilege to make two interviews with my favorite Greek goddess  Athena, one of them is already published on this blog- it is about the causes of the Crisis. I also had the unique privilege to discuss by e-mail with Cold Fusion’s greatest supporter, Arthur C. Clarke his saying:”It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.” Perhaps the creative powers of the humans are not limited directly by their wisdom. In the case of LENR, this would be our salvation.

One issue more- if so many different inventions are necessary to make the system work, then it is the time to remember the Latin saying: “"hominem unius libri timeo" meaning "I fear the man of a single book” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_unius_libri

Now I fear the man of a single LENR theory if he/she thinks it is a complete explanation. Even the best theory explains only a part of the tamed process. Nature and technology alike will punish the crimes against complexity and interestingness.

In the very first issue of “Infinite Energy” (March-April 1995) I have published a paper entitled inquisitively “Why Technology First?” The answer is simple now: because there is no other way

for LENR.

My obituary will say, i.a.: “he had few ideas and limited answers, but he was consistent, the answers were always the same”.

Peter 

24 YEARS OF HEROIC HISTORY, MANY YEARS OF GLORIOUS FUTURE

The existence, world, nature, destiny, call it as you wish in the secular language or in the languages of religions wants mainly or even exclusively to be just interesting. In some cases, interesting is combined with what is good for us humans, in other cases it is obvious that all those super-entities do not care a bit about us.

Cold Fusion that celebrates today its 24^th birthday is a rather unhappy case and I have written really much about its negative side and unlucky birth recently. Therefore I will not write a state of the field report now I will just make a small exercise in positive thinking- asking you to join and support me with your ideas.

My leading axiom that will generate km³ of repulsion from many colleagues is this: the past and the future of LENR are very disconnected (and have to be so!); the future cannot learn much from the past and has to elaborate its own creative new solutions that do not appear in the experience of the past. We have to separate from the past not cheerfully as Karl Marx has suggested but professionally.

The correct vision of the field is mild myopia toward the past and to be long-sighted toward the future. I predict we will go on new ways soon. The past was great but sad; the future has to be pragmatic and very inventive and happy. I honor, admire and respect the heroes of yesterday, our martyrs, their wonderful altruism and idealism, the sacrifices, the great efforts the sometimes superhuman resistance in very hostile circumstances. But I also think that deep changes are necessary.

No more uphill battles! And, please no more infighting, we had seen enough of bald men fighting for an old comb.

I confess that when I wanted to listen to a musical illustration of the situation of our LENR usually I have used http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL4HuUUenoQ  In 1989 I could not imagine it will last so much and it will go so badly and the dreams created by Fleischmann and Pons will not be converted in an exiting reality in, say, 5-7 turbulent years.

The refrain of this “bye, dreams of glory, bye castles (built) in air” makes me very sad. The idea of castles built in air is a kind of metaphor of something that scares me, a dangerous departing

from of reality. But now, I know the dream of glory will come back. It’s true it will come back for a true generation of readers.

It is not about forgetting our past, it is about re-thinking it and adds to it what it was missing and to extract from it the values we have not well understood.

What has started as Cold Fusion and it is today LENR – mainly- has to suffer some metamorphoses in order to be viable indeed and to fulfill,, achieve its historical aim to be a standard source of energy for Mankind- perhaps the dominant one in, say, 15-20 years.

Let’s start a list of actions we have to make with courage and determination if we want that the future should be quite different from the past. I will ask you to add your ideas; this writing will remain open and will be completed. Please help poor little LENR to grow up and become a giant! Thank you!

Be very discontented with the situation of LENR, both the outer and the inner state of facts. Convert this discontent in changes.

Convert LENR in a total problem

Only problems get solutions, troubles generate just complains

and compromises.

Think about LENR as a technology not as a scientific curiosity

Focus on useful LENR+

Accept newness, reality, complexity, difficulty, diversity, conceptual broadness of LENR

Accept that LENR needs a meta-theory not a simple theory.

Eradicate harmful LENR memes from your thinking.

Use complete hybrid scientific and technological approach for solving the problems of development, scale-up, and control problems.

Apply Scipiology to LENR: convert the disaster(s) in triumph(s) by thinking actively and differently

The list is open for you!

Peter

WHY SO MUCH HOSTILITY AGAINST THE WIDOM LARSEN THEORY?

The number of successful theories in LENR is- for the

time given-is non-negative but also non-positive.

"Successful" means it is efectively helping the experimentalists to

understand (deeply) the LENR phenomena, to scale-up

heat release at a reasonable speed and eventually to develop working LENR based energy generators.

Actually there are many different and non-combinable LENR

theories that explain some partial aspects of an actually very

broad range of phenomena- components of LENR, all necessary

in order to make it productive.

We have the habit to think in absolute scientific truths, but reality

is in terms of Pareto truths- as I have described it in a note with

zero impact: 

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/11/80-of-all-truths-are-pareto-truths.html Actually this is a an essential idea, bright and

not I am its first author. Without it, you cannot understand reality.

Therefore theoretical disputes in LENR are more religious than scientific and only experiments can and have to! decide. In the real word imagination is more powerful than reality and the disputes are more intense than it can be justified with data coming from planned and organized experimental investigations.

Unfortunately the experimental situation in the field is highly unreliable. No paper without a metaphor- LENR is in a deep hole, stubbornly digging with shovels made of palladium.

One star in the constellation of LENR theories is the Widom Larsen theory; it is in a special situation being under ferocious attacks of the other, say, mainstream, LENR theorists.

For politicians and parties I have found the correct inequation:

“If B is worse than A, this does NOT mean that A is better than B”

More symbolically; [B<A ≠ A>B]

Can you deny that this relation has elements of truth for LENR theories too?

We have lists of LENR theories but no classifications from the best to the worst. Some try to be as conformist possible some are more exotic but no one till now is the True One accepted by everybody and applied in practice...

I have met Lew Larsen at the Marseille ICCF we both are shortsighted and not hearing very well, so we had our places in the first row. My impression about him was positive; anyway we have not discussed much. However I definitely remember Lew was rather discontented with the situation of LENR- like me. Discontent is the engine of problem solving and Lew has tried to explain the problem in his own way...

Later I have learned he has a LENR company and that his collaboration with Ed Storms did not went well- they know why.

Then the W-L theory has come with some new concepts but quite

familiar for me because my good friend Hideo Kozima has written many papers and two books about the role of neutrons in Cold Fusion.

Anyway I am not a theorist and not inerrant. (Who is?).

In my humble (really so) opinion the LENR community had an exaggerated negative over-reaction to this theory. However some scientists and researchers seem to like it and use develop and diversify it.

The journalist Steve Krivit became a convinced supporter of the theory. Unfortunately he is a man with strong certainties and he seems to consider the opponents of this theory (or even those who do not manifest enthusiasm for it) as his personal enemies. Krivit’s radicalism is not useful for the W-L theory. The same form of intolerance has damaged my 6+ years friendship and excellent collaboration with Krivit because I am not convinced that Andrea Rossi is just a total fraud who has invented nothing and his dozen demos were complete fakes engineered for inactive Ni cores. He cannot accept my doubts. The last thing LENR needs is internal conflicts. I have told this many times, we are in trouble we need solidarity not hostility...

If the Widom Larsen theory is the worst of all, history will show it and it will be forgotten. My guess is that it actually has its place in the complex sequence of phenomena that is LENR+ or New Wave LENR.

Our community of theorists will publish a special issue of Infinite Energy dedicated to LENR theories. I hope Jean-Paul Biberian the coordinator of this issue will invite Lew Larsen to tell what

he thinks about how LENR works- especially when it works as expected- expected for a very long time.

Peter

FIFTH LESSON FOR YOUNG LENR RESEARCHERS

My dear young friends,

Things change, that can be both excellent (e.g. when it is about progress (it is pleonastic to say “technological progress”; do you know other kind of real progress?) and a catastrophe e.g. when you realize that aging is not reversible. This time it is a change that simply makes me a bit sad.

My intention was to tell you about “reverse motivation” You are going to work in an awfully difficult field of research, I cannot convince you it will be fine and glory is waiting for you. On the contrary, just because it will be so bas, you who are special, a great personality in becoming, you will insist to work for LENR.

Please discover yourself reverse motivation. The best tools to explain this are the demotivational posters from http://www.despair.com really good managerial black humor and this site which I have used and admired for more than 10 years needs subscription now. I hope you will manage to do it.

I wanted to ask you, young colleague, to read first of all, the two most recent writings at this Blog. I am complaining about the past, but Axil shows the way to the future, your way.

I am also sending you three lists all coming from the fine Cultural Offering Blog to which I have subscribed with enthusiasm- it is really cultural in the best sense of this word. The author/owner Kurt Harden was so generous that he included Ego Out to the list of “25 Blogs Guaranteed to Make You Smarter” and I am reading the other 24 as much as I can. (I almost hear a whisper: “Alzheimer retardant, does it work?”

I advice you to discover the author of this writings, Nicholas Bate. The word excellent was created for him too.

Be bold 101: 

http://culturaloffering.com/files/93688-86434/Be_Bold_101_Poster.pdf

You need to be VERY bold!

Professionalism 101:

http://culturaloffering.com/files/93688-86434/Professionalism_101_Poster.pdf

Good professionals are the real noblemen of meritocracy!

The architects of progress.

Get Lucky:

http://culturaloffering.com/files/93688-86434/Get_Lucky_Poster.pdf

You will need plenty of luck too! Do you know it?

But I offer you a somewhat smaller supplement, too, in the spirit of reverse motivation:

51 ways to fail:

http://www.execupundit.com/2013/03/51-ways-to-fail.html#links

For LENR, No 19 and 10 are perhaps the most efficient