Motto:
Things would be so much easier if we could change the
past
Our field, LENR, has some problems, a part of them serious
and these have to be resolved. Without them, the things would be so much
easier; the scientific-technological progress would be very fast, continuous,
harmonious and diversified...
A short and extendable list of the most necessary changes.
As the quote says it. things would be so much easier
if we could change the past- and the good alternative follows: LENR had been
discovered in 2003 by Martin Veganis, materials scientist and Stanley Varoli,
physicist both working at LANL while testing Ni/support industrial catalysts in
extreme conditions- at much higher temperatures than usual. Later they were
joined by Prof. Gustav Erdelieder, the great guru of Nanoplasmonics and a group
of engineers. The Group has obtained more than a dozen US patents and this alternative
history continues; recently the commercial HATM generator No 10 million was
sold (HATM- means Hydrogen and Transition Metals).
Some days ago at the 5th Congress of Hydrogen
Metal Energy some very important scientific discoveries and technical
innovations were announced. Fine, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, the real history of the field was indeed highly
anomalous and as far I remember we cannot change the past: God also cannot;
only the historians can- but they too are limited to the political past.
However, things would be so much easier if we will be
able to accept that LENR classic a la Fleischmann and Pons and/or with
preformed nano-structures, at one part, and LENR+ - enhanced excess heat,
at the other part, are very different and have to be treated separately. They
are animals that belong to the same family but are different species (are not
hybridizable). The former is scientific but not technologizable- the later is
technology based on a vast combination of many scientific disciplines.
Also things
would be so much easier if
we make many
other necessary distinctions,
we don't the
try to do the impossible,
don't search
for the inexistent and
don't insist
stubbornly on what does not work
Examples:
distinction between the tolerable and the
intolerable- as bad reproducibility, between means and aims; the Scientific
Method \is just a means that works only in combination with other methods,
impossible
a good Pd based LENR system,
inexistent-
a mono-theory that explains this complex, multi-step
set of
phenomena,
what does not work: wet or dry, at low temperatures-
under say, 200 C
Even more, things would be so much easier if we do
not put constrains and set limits on the methods and tools used for solve
the problems of research and development just in name of
some
ideals as the Scientific Method.
However, things will go so much easier if we limit
drastically the use of thinking based on historical analogies because these do
not explain much and solve nothing, history just rhymes but offers specific
cases, and cold fusion is the most specific of all I ever met, .first of all
due to the strength of its weaknesses. Learning from history, in this case is
limited because the LENR+ story has new features, never seen before.
Nobody can deny that the things will go so much easier
if the number of know-it-alls in the field will be reduced to one-tenth of the
present value. (this is a more general truth)
Please allow me to cite here one of my favorite pragmatic
philosophers.
Failure is simply a few errors in judgment,
repeated every day. (Jim Rohn)
Errors, as NOT trying
hard to make things to go so much easier are effective only if
repeated for long time and I think this became obvious after more than 24 years
for Cold Fusion/LENR that it is time for Changes.
The target of this
writing – you could easily guess is the
recent ICCF-18. I have followed with great interest the presentations- with
great thanks to Ruby Csrat and her team on Cold Fusion Now, who have made
really good journalism. The congress has not generated surprises as shown
here: http://coldfusion3.com/blog/iccf-doesn%E2%80%99t-lead-to-any-big-surprises
and that’s regrettable, however it was much better than it’s unhappy (my opinion) slogan.
and that’s regrettable, however it was much better than it’s unhappy (my opinion) slogan.
There were no great events- except the DGT Demo
that was a great but outside achievement, a guest and not
yet a member of the family.
What regards future of LENR as discussed here:
I was very pleasantly impressed by the realism of the
founder of the Sydney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance learning that “SKINR’s
objective, as tasked by philanthropist Sidney Kimmel, is a practical
technology in his lifetime. We owe it to all of us to move this field
forward to a useful technological objective.” A wise
billionaire!
That signifies, the
Scientific Method and all the scientific investigations are seen as means and
not aims per se. I hope that the hybrid approach, scientific and technological,
by theory and by engineering will become a standard in LENR research.
A very inspiring report
was published by David French with whom I had a very friendly correspondence,
whom I admire and who is a true
“technologist”
I will not cite from this report because it is a must read
and is a more elevated, more elegant, more convincing invitation to smart changes
than the present paper.
Eventually, things will go so much easier if we
accept that the following months will be an Armageddon with Defkalion in the
position of spearhead and leader.
LENR+ will be the Great
Winner becoming an infinite source of energy. LENR classic a la ICCF-18 will be
a smaller winner because LENR+ will provide it with plenty of funds for many
interesting studies.
The Loser will be the reactionary, closed-minded, skeptical.
Ill-willed sons and daughters of Koalemos.
Peter
