How the Internet Became Boring. The Internet is both a utility and a medium. Only one of these things is exciting.: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428087/how-the-internet-became-boring/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-06-06
The Fleeting Nature Of Twitter: 17 Percent Of Top Searches Change Every Hour:
http://searchengineland.com/the-fleeting-nature-of-twitter-17-percent-of-top-searches-change-every-hour-123383
Translation Tools Could Save Less-Used Languages
Languages that aren't used online risk being left behind. New translation technology from Google and Microsoft could help them catch up:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428093/translation-tools-could-save-less-used-languages/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-06-06
8 Life Lessons From Yoga Workshop:
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/#inbox/137bf741215069f0
A wicked problem:
http://www.jarche.com/2012/06/a-wicked-problem/
How Religion Promotes Confidence About Paternity:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604182027.htm
South Korea surrenders to creationist demands
Publishers set to remove examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.
http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773
In Pictures: The World’s Largest Solar Thermal Power Plant
BrightSource’s 370-megawatt facility near Las Vegas is taking shape, but the future of solar thermal is much more fuzzy:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428009/in-pictures-the-worlds-largest-solar-thermal/?nlid=nlmat&nld=2012-06-07
Creative Cheating: The Link Between Creativity and Dishonesty:
http://bigthink.com/insights-of-genius/creative-cheating-the-link-between-creativity-and-dishonesty
Why Smart People Deny Climate Change:
http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/why-smart-people-deny-climate-change
The Responsiveness Trap: http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2012/06/the_responsiveness_trap.html
Why We Explore: Greed, Voyeurism, Curiosity:
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/#inbox/137c40ed9e3f02bb
How Quantum Mechanics Might Govern Life on Earth:
http://www.livescience.com/20753-quantum-physics-biology-life.html
This Is Your Brain On No Self-Control
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606142704.htm
The Joy of Language: http://languagehippie.blogspot.ca/
Photosynthesis: A New Way of Looking at Photosystem II:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606155808.htm
Complex World of Gut Microbes Fine-Tune Body Weight:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606102710.htm
How Plants Make Cocaine: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606102605.htm
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
DISCUSSING WITH MY COLLEAGUE ABD ABOUT RELIABILITY
I have to apologize again, my old age weaknesses allow me
to answer to Abd only step by step, in fragments to his so well
ordered arguments. I have to recognize that in our LENR circles, what he says is more happily/readily accepted than my ideas.
So, now about reliability.
Well, they *may be* inherent weaknesses of PdD LENR set up by known methods. A premature vision of an ultimate application can kill new discoveries, allowing them to be dismissed as worthless even if they are real, and if their reality is in question, it's a double whammy. What we need is Science, and it comes before Energy, if we need reliability for Energy. *We do not need reliability for Science.* It is desirable, that's all.
I think there definitely are inherent weaknesses, uncontrollable hidden parameters in the Pd-D cells and these are almost ubiquitous in this system. and difficultly curable. I have met similar things in my lab-pilot-plant practice, something that went fine 1000 times suddenly became impossible, a colorless product (as it has to be) coming out red or dirty grey with no obvious explanation first. Many times I was thinking to write a report about occult phenomena in technology, but then we found a simple straightforward causal explanation and we solved the problem by removing, killing that cause.
.
The weaknesses of the Pd D cells are unusually stubborn, I am firmly convinced that poisoning of the active centers (NAE) by adsorption of gases that are NOT deuterium (it seems everything goes not only the very polar gases as I thought) explains this long series of troubles. I will write a new paper about poisoning these days. Nobody will believe it- just the Pd-D cells.
Reality is really good if it is repeatable and it is bad when it plays
perfidiously hide and seek with us.
I agree with Abd re the premature vision- it is not good to focus only and immediately on applications and not explore the full richness of the phenomena, process, and product, whatever.
I do not get clearly and do not agree with what says Abd re
reliability in Science. It is about the experimental results, these are used in the very Scientific process as described here:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/how-does-apply-prof-piantelli-rules-of.html and here:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/scientific-values-of-professor.html
There are many other papers about the scientific method and
solid results are necessary for developing understanding/theory.
Say, in 3 identical experiments we obtain 5, 10 and 0 units of Helium and only the second gives measurable heat- what can we conclude? This is a practical example, does LENR have a genuine scientific theory?
This discussion has reminded me a paper I wrote some 6 years ago:http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2006/NET17.shtml it is about cold fusion as a wicked problem. You will see that my ideas have rater deep roots.
More accurately, we define, in Science, "reliability" in a different way than we will in engineering, it seems, statistically. (Sophisticated engineering actually does the same thing, looking at failure rates, not perfect reliability.)
I think reliability in Science, engineering, business, marriage, musical interpretation is, grosso modo, the same overall. Statistical reliability in engineering, production is about a small proportion of under-quality pieces. A minimum is say 98.5% good items.
However my personal professional experience comes from an extreme area where reliability = safety and unreliability was deadly danger. As an airplane pilot, I could not err two times- working with hydrogen cyanide, phosgene and vinyl chloride and other explosive or corrosive stuff we have used very reliable
vessels, pumps, gaskets, the gas masks and the fire extinguisher
systems were prepared for intervention. At one stage of my career I became an expert in dust explosions and have learned a lot from the terrible accidents investigated. In theory, many engineering systems are going asymptotically toward perfect reliability.
I also want to emphasize an important idea- engineering is based
on Science but comprises much more than Science. There are many empirical or empirical-in-part elements of Know-What, Know-How including Know How Not! And Know Why, rules and best practices- not all rational, quantitative and easy to get.
Technological reliability is a very complex and sometimes tricky issue. It has to be ingrained in the psychology of workers, users.
The reliability argument against cold fusion is a red herring as to the science of it. It's only truly important in the matter of practical applications. Even there, there can be ways to move around reliability issues. Under some conditions, many devices can be built into one. However, if the units work or fail to work together, then this approach can itself fail. However, if that is so, then it's likely that conditions can be found where all or most devices will work!
Cold Fusion is unreliable and has no usable, predictive explanation or theory. It is low intensity; low reliability and does not last, usually. It is more similar to a shark than a herring. I don’t understand this idea with many devices combined. Unreliable is unreliable in science too. I apologize for this painful tautology.
How long they work is a separate issue, and, again, might be addressed with engineering, once the science is understood. Until then, "engineering" is hit-and-miss, and could possibly take a very long time.
The system is ill, it exists but it is more a source of troubles than a source of knowledge and/or heat.
There never was a Cold Fusion Killer paper. Reviewing all the peer-reviewed literature, so far, I've noticed nothing that rises to this level, not even "wrong." What uncontroversially existed was rather widespread failure to replicate. However, there was not universal failure to replicate, and replications *of a kind,* in the end, have outnumbered, as to publication, the failures. That is, there are widespread reports of anomalous heat in PdD under some conditions.
Cold Fusion/LENR exists with certainty, is versatile and very diversified, supported by good scientists- a Killer Paper cannot be
conceived/written. Cold Fusion is not dead, however a good doses of reliability resurrection seems necessary.
If it is technologizable as such or only after conversion to LENR+,
is a 2 .10 exp 16 cents question
Peter
to answer to Abd only step by step, in fragments to his so well
ordered arguments. I have to recognize that in our LENR circles, what he says is more happily/readily accepted than my ideas.
So, now about reliability.
Well, they *may be* inherent weaknesses of PdD LENR set up by known methods. A premature vision of an ultimate application can kill new discoveries, allowing them to be dismissed as worthless even if they are real, and if their reality is in question, it's a double whammy. What we need is Science, and it comes before Energy, if we need reliability for Energy. *We do not need reliability for Science.* It is desirable, that's all.
I think there definitely are inherent weaknesses, uncontrollable hidden parameters in the Pd-D cells and these are almost ubiquitous in this system. and difficultly curable. I have met similar things in my lab-pilot-plant practice, something that went fine 1000 times suddenly became impossible, a colorless product (as it has to be) coming out red or dirty grey with no obvious explanation first. Many times I was thinking to write a report about occult phenomena in technology, but then we found a simple straightforward causal explanation and we solved the problem by removing, killing that cause.
.
The weaknesses of the Pd D cells are unusually stubborn, I am firmly convinced that poisoning of the active centers (NAE) by adsorption of gases that are NOT deuterium (it seems everything goes not only the very polar gases as I thought) explains this long series of troubles. I will write a new paper about poisoning these days. Nobody will believe it- just the Pd-D cells.
Reality is really good if it is repeatable and it is bad when it plays
perfidiously hide and seek with us.
I agree with Abd re the premature vision- it is not good to focus only and immediately on applications and not explore the full richness of the phenomena, process, and product, whatever.
I do not get clearly and do not agree with what says Abd re
reliability in Science. It is about the experimental results, these are used in the very Scientific process as described here:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/08/how-does-apply-prof-piantelli-rules-of.html and here:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/08/scientific-values-of-professor.html
There are many other papers about the scientific method and
solid results are necessary for developing understanding/theory.
Say, in 3 identical experiments we obtain 5, 10 and 0 units of Helium and only the second gives measurable heat- what can we conclude? This is a practical example, does LENR have a genuine scientific theory?
This discussion has reminded me a paper I wrote some 6 years ago:http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2006/NET17.shtml it is about cold fusion as a wicked problem. You will see that my ideas have rater deep roots.
More accurately, we define, in Science, "reliability" in a different way than we will in engineering, it seems, statistically. (Sophisticated engineering actually does the same thing, looking at failure rates, not perfect reliability.)
I think reliability in Science, engineering, business, marriage, musical interpretation is, grosso modo, the same overall. Statistical reliability in engineering, production is about a small proportion of under-quality pieces. A minimum is say 98.5% good items.
However my personal professional experience comes from an extreme area where reliability = safety and unreliability was deadly danger. As an airplane pilot, I could not err two times- working with hydrogen cyanide, phosgene and vinyl chloride and other explosive or corrosive stuff we have used very reliable
vessels, pumps, gaskets, the gas masks and the fire extinguisher
systems were prepared for intervention. At one stage of my career I became an expert in dust explosions and have learned a lot from the terrible accidents investigated. In theory, many engineering systems are going asymptotically toward perfect reliability.
I also want to emphasize an important idea- engineering is based
on Science but comprises much more than Science. There are many empirical or empirical-in-part elements of Know-What, Know-How including Know How Not! And Know Why, rules and best practices- not all rational, quantitative and easy to get.
Technological reliability is a very complex and sometimes tricky issue. It has to be ingrained in the psychology of workers, users.
The reliability argument against cold fusion is a red herring as to the science of it. It's only truly important in the matter of practical applications. Even there, there can be ways to move around reliability issues. Under some conditions, many devices can be built into one. However, if the units work or fail to work together, then this approach can itself fail. However, if that is so, then it's likely that conditions can be found where all or most devices will work!
Cold Fusion is unreliable and has no usable, predictive explanation or theory. It is low intensity; low reliability and does not last, usually. It is more similar to a shark than a herring. I don’t understand this idea with many devices combined. Unreliable is unreliable in science too. I apologize for this painful tautology.
How long they work is a separate issue, and, again, might be addressed with engineering, once the science is understood. Until then, "engineering" is hit-and-miss, and could possibly take a very long time.
The system is ill, it exists but it is more a source of troubles than a source of knowledge and/or heat.
There never was a Cold Fusion Killer paper. Reviewing all the peer-reviewed literature, so far, I've noticed nothing that rises to this level, not even "wrong." What uncontroversially existed was rather widespread failure to replicate. However, there was not universal failure to replicate, and replications *of a kind,* in the end, have outnumbered, as to publication, the failures. That is, there are widespread reports of anomalous heat in PdD under some conditions.
Cold Fusion/LENR exists with certainty, is versatile and very diversified, supported by good scientists- a Killer Paper cannot be
conceived/written. Cold Fusion is not dead, however a good doses of reliability resurrection seems necessary.
If it is technologizable as such or only after conversion to LENR+,
is a 2 .10 exp 16 cents question
Peter
QUI CITO 26
Complexity thinking:
http://www.jarche.com/2012/06/complexity-thinking/
Is The Human Brain Hardwired for God?:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/is-the-brain-hardwired-for-religion
What motivates Creativity: http://bigthink.com/insights-of-genius/what-motivates-creativity
Weekend Diversion: Best Worst Math Joke Ever?;
http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/posts/view/199142/
The Metaphorical Life:
http://www.999ideas.com/metaphorical.html
Why Google Isn’t Making Us Stupid…or Smart:
http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2012_Spring_Wellmon.php
In defense of the committee.
The brilliance of the individual and the stupidity of the group or committee is one of the most poisonous ideas in modern society:
http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2012/nt-2012-06-04-Defense-committee.htm
How Genius Is Linked to Madness:
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/how-genius-is-linked-to-madness
Why We All Cheat & Steal, If Just a Little Bit:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/why-we-all-cheat-steal-if-just-a-little-bit
People don't know what they want. . ."
until they experience it. Malcolm Gladwell explains variability:
http://culturaloffering.com/2012/06/03/people-dont-know-what-they-want--.aspx
As Google Tinkers with Search, Upstarts Gain Ground
Niche search engines Blekko and DuckDuckGo have exploded in popularity in recent months:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/40503/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-06-04
Nanotube fabric could let you charge your phone by walking:
http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/30/nanotube-fabric-could-let-you-charge-your-phone-by-walking/
New Tool to Attack the Mysteries of High-Temperature Superconductivity:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531145718.htm
32 Innovations That Will Change Your Tomorrow:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/03/magazine/innovations-issue.html?src=tp
8 demand-side KM principles:
http://www.nickmilton.com/2012/05/8-demand-side-km-principles.html
Fossil Discovery: More Evidence for Asia, Not Africa, as the Source of Earliest Anthropoid Primates: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604155705.htm
Search Engine for Social Networks Based On the Behavior of Ants: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604092854.htm
http://www.jarche.com/2012/06/complexity-thinking/
Is The Human Brain Hardwired for God?:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/is-the-brain-hardwired-for-religion
What motivates Creativity: http://bigthink.com/insights-of-genius/what-motivates-creativity
Weekend Diversion: Best Worst Math Joke Ever?;
http://www.portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/posts/view/199142/
The Metaphorical Life:
http://www.999ideas.com/metaphorical.html
Why Google Isn’t Making Us Stupid…or Smart:
http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2012_Spring_Wellmon.php
In defense of the committee.
The brilliance of the individual and the stupidity of the group or committee is one of the most poisonous ideas in modern society:
http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2012/nt-2012-06-04-Defense-committee.htm
How Genius Is Linked to Madness:
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/how-genius-is-linked-to-madness
Why We All Cheat & Steal, If Just a Little Bit:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/why-we-all-cheat-steal-if-just-a-little-bit
People don't know what they want. . ."
until they experience it. Malcolm Gladwell explains variability:
http://culturaloffering.com/2012/06/03/people-dont-know-what-they-want--.aspx
As Google Tinkers with Search, Upstarts Gain Ground
Niche search engines Blekko and DuckDuckGo have exploded in popularity in recent months:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/40503/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-06-04
Nanotube fabric could let you charge your phone by walking:
http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/30/nanotube-fabric-could-let-you-charge-your-phone-by-walking/
New Tool to Attack the Mysteries of High-Temperature Superconductivity:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531145718.htm
32 Innovations That Will Change Your Tomorrow:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/03/magazine/innovations-issue.html?src=tp
8 demand-side KM principles:
http://www.nickmilton.com/2012/05/8-demand-side-km-principles.html
Fossil Discovery: More Evidence for Asia, Not Africa, as the Source of Earliest Anthropoid Primates: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604155705.htm
Search Engine for Social Networks Based On the Behavior of Ants: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604092854.htm
Sunday, June 3, 2012
The Mother of Radames
Mottos
Conquer, but don't triumph. (Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach)
The important thing in life is not to triumph but to compete.
Pierre de Coubertin
A dream will always triumph over reality, once it is given the chance. (Stanislaw Lem)
You will win, but please do not forget that triumph management
is not a bit easier than disaster management (Peter Gluck – to Defkalion Green Energies)
THE MOTHER OF RADAMES
This is an old story from perhaps more than 3000 years ago,
sufficiently powerful to inspire a successful opera. It is about the fatal errors of a military man who was skilled on the battlefield but made the worst choices. Recently, a group of Egyptian archeologists has discovered a papyrus- the letter in which the mother of that man tries to convince her son to become rational and pragmatic and to NOT do those stupid things described in the scenario of the opera written by French Egyptologists. I hope the mother won.
My dear son,
It is so painful for a mother to see her beloved son stubbornly trying to destroy himself. I well remember you were by far not the smartest of my children, reading and math were not made for you and therefore we have decided that you will follow a career in the military. I hope you realize that this was not cheap. We cannot get our money spent with your education back but at least it should have not have been in vain!
Your insatiable triumph-thirstiness and your irresistible attraction
toward the enemy’s daughter is the deadliest, most idiotic self-destructive combination possible. The most devilish imagination couldn’t build a more horrific trap for you.
Your great luck and chance is that I, your Mamma was blessed or cursed by the Gods to see the future; I even know this aptitude will be called clairvoyance some millennia later. I will tell you what will happen to you- very bad things, but you still can choose an alternative way and be intelligent and happy.
First, you are completely mesmerized by that Ethiopian girl-
you are too young to realize that the differences between human females are highly exaggerated. Your love for Aida is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
I don’t know what should I do, weep or ROFL, I have clearly heard you calling her:”Heavenly Aida, divine form”. Are you nuts? She is a well fed strong woman, if she sits on a coconut she breaks it and she is happy that the bathroom scale was not yet invented. Perhaps only the troubadours will call a Lady; “mystical garland of light and flowers, queen of my thoughts, splendor of my life- these are metaphors but you take them seriously. It is a limit to everything, est modus in rebus –as will say some people who will conquer our poor country in the future. Testosterone has blocked your mind, please try to awake, open your eyes and look at Miss Aida with objectivity and realism and escape from her spell and sexual spider web. Get drunk, seduce her or not but help her to go home to her Daddy, balmy forests, verdant valleys, and golden temples
Be wise my son, not Aida, Amneris is the girl for you! Amnneris has an IQ higher with 15 points than Aida and comes from a much better family. And look how much swifter she moves than the Ethiopian girl. Is it so bad to you to be the next Pharaoh? Good job, a lot of annoying ceremonies but you are considered a God (God knows why).
Amneris is a nice girl ready to play Amnesis and forget completely your nasty mad adventure with Aida.
I seriously warn you if you insist stupidly in your passion, you will be named the commander of the army, you will defeat the Ethiopians (they are an undisciplined gang) you will get your portion of triumph but then comes the disaster. Aida’s father the king will deceive you, his daughter will convince you to disclose vital State secrets, the clerical police will get you and the great jury of priests will say you are a bloody traitor and …death!
Isn’t better to live happily with Amneris, my dear Rady?
I also ask you with all my heart to NOT seek triumph!
Many years from now, a fine writer will say in his poem:
“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same”
Triumph is volatile and ephemeral, those who adore you today will get you lynched tomorrow. Triumph is only a trap put by the moment for duration.
Please do not be impressed by that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_NRazjCiG4
It is only smoke and spectacle; you will get ten times more envy than glory. The priests will hate you and they are dangerous!
So Radames, stop saying:
If only I were that warrior!
If only my dream might come true!
An army of brave men with me as their leader
And victory and the applause of all Memphis!
And do not wish to return crowned with laurels, laurel is an edible plant at it is a pity to waste it on vanities that don’t last.
Let your rival, Ardames win! After thousands of wars and years from now nobody will remember exactly the name.
Marry Amneris, be happy! A saying will come once: “primo, vivere, dopo trionfare!”
P.S. Radames’ mother has forgotten to mention the once very successful triumph song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg4ojRlBJoo
Triumph, catastrophes, crimes, decay, oblivion, 45 poisoned years from my life….perhaps she was a rather myopic clairvoyante.
…………….
I have (re) invented Triumph Management in the 70-ties when we had to analyze many projects and feasibility studies for the OLTCHIM works. Our best best practice method become using for the first phase the supposition:
- if everything goes perfectly, with no problems and no obstacles, if it will be a true, complete Triumph…then what?
In many cases this was the last phase, we have discovered that even in the optimal case the best is to forget the idea.
Then we have discovered that everything that seems to be or claims to be perfect.
Outside Art, triumph and perfection are poisoned words- poisoned as the cathodes in the Pd-D cells.
It is much discussion bout the best cold fusion LENR theory these days on CMNS. Much more parallel monologs that real dialogues and confrontation of facts but constructive and polite.
If, suppose- one theory wins, triumphs…what then?
What will happen in our field during the next months? Probably LENR will fight with its chronic problems using disaster management while LENR+ will not appeal to triumph management just making remarkable progress- already in commercial applications. Let’s see!
Peter
Conquer, but don't triumph. (Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach)
The important thing in life is not to triumph but to compete.
Pierre de Coubertin
A dream will always triumph over reality, once it is given the chance. (Stanislaw Lem)
You will win, but please do not forget that triumph management
is not a bit easier than disaster management (Peter Gluck – to Defkalion Green Energies)
THE MOTHER OF RADAMES
This is an old story from perhaps more than 3000 years ago,
sufficiently powerful to inspire a successful opera. It is about the fatal errors of a military man who was skilled on the battlefield but made the worst choices. Recently, a group of Egyptian archeologists has discovered a papyrus- the letter in which the mother of that man tries to convince her son to become rational and pragmatic and to NOT do those stupid things described in the scenario of the opera written by French Egyptologists. I hope the mother won.
My dear son,
It is so painful for a mother to see her beloved son stubbornly trying to destroy himself. I well remember you were by far not the smartest of my children, reading and math were not made for you and therefore we have decided that you will follow a career in the military. I hope you realize that this was not cheap. We cannot get our money spent with your education back but at least it should have not have been in vain!
Your insatiable triumph-thirstiness and your irresistible attraction
toward the enemy’s daughter is the deadliest, most idiotic self-destructive combination possible. The most devilish imagination couldn’t build a more horrific trap for you.
Your great luck and chance is that I, your Mamma was blessed or cursed by the Gods to see the future; I even know this aptitude will be called clairvoyance some millennia later. I will tell you what will happen to you- very bad things, but you still can choose an alternative way and be intelligent and happy.
First, you are completely mesmerized by that Ethiopian girl-
you are too young to realize that the differences between human females are highly exaggerated. Your love for Aida is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
I don’t know what should I do, weep or ROFL, I have clearly heard you calling her:”Heavenly Aida, divine form”. Are you nuts? She is a well fed strong woman, if she sits on a coconut she breaks it and she is happy that the bathroom scale was not yet invented. Perhaps only the troubadours will call a Lady; “mystical garland of light and flowers, queen of my thoughts, splendor of my life- these are metaphors but you take them seriously. It is a limit to everything, est modus in rebus –as will say some people who will conquer our poor country in the future. Testosterone has blocked your mind, please try to awake, open your eyes and look at Miss Aida with objectivity and realism and escape from her spell and sexual spider web. Get drunk, seduce her or not but help her to go home to her Daddy, balmy forests, verdant valleys, and golden temples
Be wise my son, not Aida, Amneris is the girl for you! Amnneris has an IQ higher with 15 points than Aida and comes from a much better family. And look how much swifter she moves than the Ethiopian girl. Is it so bad to you to be the next Pharaoh? Good job, a lot of annoying ceremonies but you are considered a God (God knows why).
Amneris is a nice girl ready to play Amnesis and forget completely your nasty mad adventure with Aida.
I seriously warn you if you insist stupidly in your passion, you will be named the commander of the army, you will defeat the Ethiopians (they are an undisciplined gang) you will get your portion of triumph but then comes the disaster. Aida’s father the king will deceive you, his daughter will convince you to disclose vital State secrets, the clerical police will get you and the great jury of priests will say you are a bloody traitor and …death!
Isn’t better to live happily with Amneris, my dear Rady?
I also ask you with all my heart to NOT seek triumph!
Many years from now, a fine writer will say in his poem:
“If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same”
Triumph is volatile and ephemeral, those who adore you today will get you lynched tomorrow. Triumph is only a trap put by the moment for duration.
Please do not be impressed by that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_NRazjCiG4
It is only smoke and spectacle; you will get ten times more envy than glory. The priests will hate you and they are dangerous!
So Radames, stop saying:
If only I were that warrior!
If only my dream might come true!
An army of brave men with me as their leader
And victory and the applause of all Memphis!
And do not wish to return crowned with laurels, laurel is an edible plant at it is a pity to waste it on vanities that don’t last.
Let your rival, Ardames win! After thousands of wars and years from now nobody will remember exactly the name.
Marry Amneris, be happy! A saying will come once: “primo, vivere, dopo trionfare!”
P.S. Radames’ mother has forgotten to mention the once very successful triumph song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg4ojRlBJoo
Triumph, catastrophes, crimes, decay, oblivion, 45 poisoned years from my life….perhaps she was a rather myopic clairvoyante.
…………….
I have (re) invented Triumph Management in the 70-ties when we had to analyze many projects and feasibility studies for the OLTCHIM works. Our best best practice method become using for the first phase the supposition:
- if everything goes perfectly, with no problems and no obstacles, if it will be a true, complete Triumph…then what?
In many cases this was the last phase, we have discovered that even in the optimal case the best is to forget the idea.
Then we have discovered that everything that seems to be or claims to be perfect.
Outside Art, triumph and perfection are poisoned words- poisoned as the cathodes in the Pd-D cells.
It is much discussion bout the best cold fusion LENR theory these days on CMNS. Much more parallel monologs that real dialogues and confrontation of facts but constructive and polite.
If, suppose- one theory wins, triumphs…what then?
What will happen in our field during the next months? Probably LENR will fight with its chronic problems using disaster management while LENR+ will not appeal to triumph management just making remarkable progress- already in commercial applications. Let’s see!
Peter
Saturday, June 2, 2012
QUI CITO 25
.
Life Scientists View Biodiversity Through a Whole New Dimension: Body Size, Feeding Rates:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531160014.htm
Backup And Restore Your Entire Gmail Account with Gmvault:
http://www.blogsdna.com/18790/backup-and-restore-your-entire-gmail-account-with-gmvault.htm
Silkmoth Inspires Novel Explosive Detector:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601093453.htm
Is Chrome OS the Next Big Thing?
http://askbobrankin.com/is_chrome_os_the_next_big_thing.html#ixzz1wZKV9nMC
:
Saying "No" to Censorship: The Fight For a Free Internet is In Our Hands:
http://bigthink.com/humanizing-technology/how-the-internet-is-changing-politics-for-the-better
The Flame Virus: Spyware on an Unprecedented Scale:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the-flame-virus-spyware-on-an-unprecedented-scale.php
10 (+1) Dumb Leadership Mistakes from Recent Headlines:
http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2012/05/10-1-dumb-leadership-mistakes-from.html
New Compound Could Become 'Cool Blue' for Energy Efficiency in Buildings:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601120614.htm
Why Is It So Difficult to Trace the Origins of Food Poisoning Outbreaks?:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601103812.htm
The Age Of The $1,000 Genome:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1839134/your-genome-in-the-cloud?#
Alcohol, Temperance and Prohibition:
http://library.brown.edu/cds/temperance/
Neuroscientists Reach Major Milestone in Whole-Brain Circuit Mapping Project
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601093711.htm
Think you can spell? Take our Spelling Bee quiz!:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0531/Think-you-can-spell-Take-our-Spelling-Bee-quiz/1925
Instant Anatomy:
http://www.instantanatomy.net/
Living without Oil:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=4541
Map Of Life: Putting Every Living Thing In Its Place:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679936/map-of-life-putting-every-living-thing-in-its-place
How Serial Innovators Find The Best Problems To Solve:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1838924/how-serial-innovators-find-the-best-problems-to-solve
Human Evolution From Promiscuity to Monogamy: The Cycle That Repeats Itself: http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-evolution-of-monogamy-a-cycle-that-repeats-itself-with-a-twist
Life Scientists View Biodiversity Through a Whole New Dimension: Body Size, Feeding Rates:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531160014.htm
Backup And Restore Your Entire Gmail Account with Gmvault:
http://www.blogsdna.com/18790/backup-and-restore-your-entire-gmail-account-with-gmvault.htm
Silkmoth Inspires Novel Explosive Detector:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601093453.htm
Is Chrome OS the Next Big Thing?
http://askbobrankin.com/is_chrome_os_the_next_big_thing.html#ixzz1wZKV9nMC
:
Saying "No" to Censorship: The Fight For a Free Internet is In Our Hands:
http://bigthink.com/humanizing-technology/how-the-internet-is-changing-politics-for-the-better
The Flame Virus: Spyware on an Unprecedented Scale:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the-flame-virus-spyware-on-an-unprecedented-scale.php
10 (+1) Dumb Leadership Mistakes from Recent Headlines:
http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2012/05/10-1-dumb-leadership-mistakes-from.html
New Compound Could Become 'Cool Blue' for Energy Efficiency in Buildings:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601120614.htm
Why Is It So Difficult to Trace the Origins of Food Poisoning Outbreaks?:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601103812.htm
The Age Of The $1,000 Genome:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1839134/your-genome-in-the-cloud?#
Alcohol, Temperance and Prohibition:
http://library.brown.edu/cds/temperance/
Neuroscientists Reach Major Milestone in Whole-Brain Circuit Mapping Project
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120601093711.htm
Think you can spell? Take our Spelling Bee quiz!:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0531/Think-you-can-spell-Take-our-Spelling-Bee-quiz/1925
Instant Anatomy:
http://www.instantanatomy.net/
Living without Oil:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=4541
Map Of Life: Putting Every Living Thing In Its Place:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679936/map-of-life-putting-every-living-thing-in-its-place
How Serial Innovators Find The Best Problems To Solve:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1838924/how-serial-innovators-find-the-best-problems-to-solve
Human Evolution From Promiscuity to Monogamy: The Cycle That Repeats Itself: http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-evolution-of-monogamy-a-cycle-that-repeats-itself-with-a-twist
My answer to Abd’s analysis and plan.
I apologize for the delay, due to my vision problems I cannot work with long threads in Gmail. But this analysis of Abd deserves a documented answer at least for the main points.
The "What if" can be useful if it leads to a better understanding of how to approach the situation today.
Exactly! History is of no interest and use if not reported to the present and future situations. See please the Cradle quotations.
First of all, we must understand the quite strong reasons for skepticism. We cannot blame anyone for being skeptical, then, or even now.
Very wise, unfortunately we cannot ignore the inner component of the problem there are inherent weaknesses of all the LENR systems and these are the causes of the bad reproducibility plus the low intensity and short duration. Reproducibility is first of all a practical problem; humans need certainty, technical systems are destroyed by uncertainty.
When judging LENR people seek with priority Energy not Truth.
With each passing year, the skeptical position becomes both weaker and stronger.
Yes, this is both paradoxical and sad.
Weaker is obvious: the balance of publication in peer-reviewed journals long ago flipped to positive. The core experiment demonstrating the reality of cold fusion beyond reasonable doubt is the heat/helium work of Dr. Miles, and this has been confirmed, and most thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Storms in "Status of cold fusion (2010)" (Naturwissenschaften.) That is a peer-reviewed review, and the abstract is quite clear on the probable reality of cold fusion.
I think this is a bit more complex; there does not exist motivation to write Cold Fusion killer papers, too many non-informed scientists think it is already dead, was so from the start and will remain dead for a long time. I don’t know, dear Abd what do you think about Rossi and Defkalion (Brillouin is enigma for me) but they have done a lot for the publicity of LENR. And if the E-cat or the Hyperion will become commercial products, skepticism will
melt away. If!
So why does extreme skepticism persist? Well, first of all, what are the ways in which the skeptical position becomes stronger with time?
We cannot neglect the factor “time”- 24 years of development problems is interpreted as CF/LENR chronically ill, serious doubts re LENR became kind of a habit; from time to time when lacking subjects, the Press publishes something against LENR-as a bad example.
DOUBTS- can refer to the very existence of LENR as a phenomenon but also to its usability. And what’s the difference if the skeptics say “no, it is impossible according to the Laws of Nature and it was never observed, there were just bad measurements or other errors” or they say “something exists, appears quite rarely, cannot be scaled up and it is of no practical use”? Which one is better/worse?
Most of these ways are "logically defective." I'll note that, but it does not help us in "spreading the news" to call the extant arguments "logically defective." We need to either directly address them, with respect, or side-step them with something overwhelming.
You are right- the arguments are not based on correct logic, but how relevant is this in the practice? How will those people who think/say such things acknowledge their errors?
1. The absence of a practical application or readily-available reproducible demonstration that is not itself highly controversial, in spite of hundreds of groups around the world that have worked on CF. Logically defective.
…but understandable…they say it does not work, it cannot be demonstrated in the lab for 100% of the experiments from a good series.. then it is something rotten in LENR land, so they say.
2. The weakness of the heat/helium work. It is strong enough to be considered prima facie conclusive, we may say, but someone attached to the skeptical position will notice the weaknesses.
There is a very large spectrum of opinions in the field of LENR see please the 2005 Krivit Gluck Survey (on Krivit’s Website) Not for everybody the helium work (let’s include Arata there) is so central- the helium work is not so strongly visible. The correlations, I remember were good but not perfect. And the tests were not continued or repeated by an other team- they are quite difficult. So this work cannot serve as the Big Ace in the game with the skeptics.
3. The continued lack of a "plausible mechanism." We cannot even agree among ourselves as to the plausibility of any of the many proposed mechanisms. Logically defective.
Plausible mechanism, do you speak about a decent theoretical explanation, isn’t it? Perhaps an explanation that is not perfect or complete but logically consistent and not contradicted by facts.
Theory…I think this is the Achilles Heel of LENR, with Paris’arrow already deeply penetrated in it. No existing theory is first quality i.e predictive- a guide or source of inspiration for the experimentalist, the excess of theories is greater than the excess of energy, say the skeptics.
Hower two points are vital:
- a theory must explain first of all why the process works only sometimes – this is a persistent problem, this happens in 2012 too
- a theory must be…more theories, complete for more stages not only the Coulomb Barrier defloration- a good example is Piantelli’s Pontignano Poster 2010 or the Defkalion’s formulation : “a dynamic system of the multi-stage set of reactions”.
I have asked in 1992- description of the topology, nature and mechanism of the reactions. LENR is very complex, cannot be described by a few equations. It is similar to a theory of photosynthesis or nitrogen fixation with nuclear stages.
Notice that the only not-logically-defective criticism is about something remediable through further work on heat/helium, which can have value all of its own.
I hope so but it will be difficult to find a lab.team to work with
heat-helium at very low levels of both.
For more than twenty years, much experimental work in the field seems to have been aimed at finding ways to improve the reliability of the effect, or its amplitude. While that is quite understandable, it is not what the *science* needed. Miles' work was so important because he moved around the "unreliability," to a study of a correlated result. In such a study, "unreliability," through "dead cells," becomes a control.
It will be a problem to find funding and support for “pure” science- and let’s say, the correlation heat-helium will be demonstrated but he unreliability remains, what then? The “customers” are interested in a working, intense, usable, upscalable, technlogizable process.
Further, many have attempted to invent mechanisms. Dr. Storms, most recently, has proposed a mechanism that seems logical and plausible to him, but that is tantamount, at the core, to proposing an entirely unknown phenomenon, I could call it "gradual nuclear fusion." That simply postpones the mechanism issue, though in a narrow and testable way. Some of Dr. Storms' ideas can be tested, and what leaps out at me is that some of the tests are things that involve experimental data that well may have already existed, *but that was not published.* It was considered useless, or even, in the context of the attempt to convince the general physics community, "negative."
See please what I have told about theory. What do you think about speculation?
An example would be the production of tritium which was not strongly correlated with excess heat. Miles apparently collected tritium data for his cells, but because it was not correlated with excess heat, because the levels were way too low, at least, to allow tritium to be a part of the main reaction, Miles did not publish the data. Levels of tritium are a clue to the mechanism, likewise neutrons, even though the levels were *extremely* low to non-existent. Data on H/D ratio in experimental cells is scanty, yet the ratio is known to have a strong effect on results.
Tritium makes the problem more complex- when, how, why it appears? How important it is?
What is missing from the experimental record is thorough study of the already-discovered effect. Each group, with few exceptions, invented its own specific approach, so results cannot be easily compared across various reports. There seems to have been no widespread recognition of the value of a method that, with persistence, produces results a substantial percentage of the time, that such a protocol is quite adequate for the kind of work that was needed.
The reproducibility, success rate is still low- one recent exemple Missouri Univ says 20%. I would say the situation is catastrophic but usually I abstain from using euphemisms- reality has to be confronted if not as we wish it.
Dr. Storms has pointed out how even the simplest and cheapest experimental techniques were often not used. For example, it would seem that a careful investigation would include radioautography of the cathode or other materials from the cells. And, of course, complete work would include radiography of *all cathodes* in a series. Is a radioautograph showing radiation from a used cathode correlated with excess heat? With helium? With other effects?
Unfortunately measurement or analysis, even so smart as radioautography of cathodes does not improve directly the functionality of LENR cells. May I give you a personal, medical example- I have hypertension; if I measure it each day or anytime I fell the Lady with the Scythe is looking after me, I get in a state
of negative resonance or positive feedback and I focus on myself and not on so much interesting things- as LENR. Therefore I don’t measure my arterial tension…let’s be what will be.
Much work in the field represents little more than anecdotal evidence. That's great as a basis for further exploration, but it's lousy as a way of establishing a world-shaking effect. To be widely and readily convincing, in such a context, such an anecdotal effect must be wildly visible, not merely measurable.
Very true observation we have a great diversified databasis, a lot of solid good works, but also some of much lower quality, not only the results are not reliable but their interpretation too.
So, there are five ways to proceed, given the situation.
Your ideas are systematic and logical- a few questions first:
- you offer a strategy- who will be the strategist, the leader, coordinator of these plan(s), action(s)?
- how much will it cost (if everything goes fine) and when will it
be ready? (consider please two variants a) Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, whatever successful LENR+ goes commercial; b)
LENR+ does not go commercial- fails;
- in which extent your strategy is incremental? Can it be made more fast and radical?
- to which experimental systems do refer your Plan: Classic Pd-D cell, nanometric powders, other systems?
1. Encourage and support experimentation to develop full analytical data for methods known to work. This can be done, there is nothing speculative about this approach. This is the kind of work that was recommended by both DoE LENR reviews. This is also not expensive work, and political support should be developed to make graduate student labor available again. Discrimination against graduate students who did good work on cold fusion, in the early days, was an *outrageous* abuse and imposition of a kind of orthodoxy inimical to science itself. That must not be tolerated. It will take bold professors and bold graduate students, interested in real science, to break this. Cold Fusion Now may be of great help.
Encouragement is fine when associated with funding and when those encouraged are motivated to do the work, are ready for both work and sacrifices and search to solve the problems. The great question here is “interested in real science” It is very difficult science, science with a so-and-so reputation and do not forget how scientists choose their subjects of work (My old essay in the preface of Hideo Kozima’s book – see please “Medawar Zone”
on Wikipedia. What attractive rewards can these studies offer?
Truth vs Value- cold fusion, LENR is considered a new source of energy not a source of new knowledge.
2. Spread the news about what already exists with respect to cold fusion research. The experimental record is adequate to establish the reality of the effect by the preponderance of evidence. Most skeptical arguments have become mere assertions of some unlikely possibility without any experimental backing or confirmation. If cold fusion was a medicine, it would be approved and would be routinely prescribed. Cold Fusion Now, again, can help with this. However, I caution Ruby and CFN not to support *unsubtantiated* reports, merely because they know that LENR is possible. That LENR is possible does not mean that every report of LENR is valid. Further, reality of an effect does not equal commercial application, and an attempt to apply an effect commercially will run into major issues of reliability, and can fail for reasons not related to some underlying real effect. I understand that we are impatient to see a solution to the world's energy problems. But it was jumping the gun on this in 1989-1990 that led to widespread rejection and cynicism.
This is true, however the impact of the news regarding technology
are orders of magnitude greater than that of news regarding scientific advances, See Andrea Rossi- I still don’t know how you appreciate his contribution to the story. You are perfectly right that not all that claim to be Cold Fusion- glitters (is)
3. Increase awareness of the insanity of spending billions of dollars on hot fusion research, which remains a long shot in spite of sixty years of work, while denying even the smallest funding for LENR research, which, if a practical route to implementation can be found, could make hot fusion into a pile of very expensive but useless junk. Cold fusion has, many times, produced far more energy than was put in, the problem being that nobody has yet found a way to make this reliable. Hot fusion has produced mere breakeven, rarely, at enormous expense. Even if successful, it will almost certainly require enormously expensive and dangerous installations. This is nuts, and the insanity should be made very obvious to politicians. Use the DoE reports to establish the advisability of this research. Why have funding agencies ignored the recommendations of both DoE panels, clearly unanimous in 2004?
Hot Fusion is a waste of time and logic says- stop it. However billions had been already invested in it, there are great Institutes specialized in it, many experts, smart progress reports appear from time to time, hot fission is commercialized- then hot fusion must be feasible too. Waste of money is a habit-see military expenses, the pro-hot-fusion propaganda is good, changing is difficult.
See…the Sun works well, the hydrogen (fusion) bomb work so well- just a bit of patience and …Big Money, please.
Hot Fusionists cannot and are interested to not accept that in earthly conditions this source odes not work.
4. Support continued research into new approaches to LENR, while, at the same time, encouraging stronger standards for publication. There is much published work in this field that is of low quality. It's not that such work should not be published, it is that, when published under peer review, but with inadequate review and editing, it damages the reputation of the field. Preliminary reports, undigested results, all this, can and should be internet-published. Indeed, as anyone who attempts to replicate CF work will find, published articles typically contain inadequate data. Some journals now publish appendices with expanded data on-line. That practice should be encouraged.
Well told, and let’s hope it will be done!
5. Support extended peer review and criticism within the field. I find it appalling, myself, that Takahashi can publish a theory that might be a piece of an explanation of how CF might be happening, based on known quantum field theory, as far as I can tell, but his work is not reviewed and either confirmed or criticised by anyone sufficiently knowledgeable in that quite esoteric field. Indeed, I have no indication that the work was adequately reviewed before publication (but that would not necessarily be visible). Kim's somewhat-parallel, but, AFAIK, less-specific work was published by Naturwissenschaften, and I assume that does mean competent review. But Kim and Takahashi do not ordinarily reference each other.
This sounds fine however let’s suppose it is done as you (we) wish- a well known physicist reviews Akito’s theory and agrees with it completely. The theory is published in a good journal.
We are happy but what about experiment? Does the theory advice
the experimentalist how to obtain 100% reproducibility at higher level of enegy. Truth is welcome in work clothes.
And then, an idea: recruit physicists to review the theoretical work that has been published. Encourage them to submit such reviews for publication. What matters for choosing these physicists is their dedication to science and to the scientific method, not their position on cold fusion.
All the young physicists are thinking to their career. For example I have helped a bright young compatriot physicist to work in the US in one of the best labs specialized in cold fusion; he has donea good work, however has abandoned this field, he has a family and now is professor. Suppose I can find now an other physicist doing the same thing, will it be different? Is te answer in the field
or outside the field at LENR+?
The pseudo-skeptical position thrives in an atmosphere of incaution and inattention, of holding to assumptions while avoiding the hard work of actually examining evidence, not to mention setting up experimental demonstrations of artifact. If cold fusion had merely been a few isolated reports in 1989 and later, it's understandable that people would not want to waste time with it. However, it isn't that. It has been so extensively corroborated that an attempt at experimental refutation is very, very likely to fail. Such a clear refutation was never done.
However if something exists with certainty but cannot be shown at will, if the motivation is formulated negatively “surely you will not waste your time!” this sounds not as a successful siren song.
The early "negative replications" were entirely failures to replicate, not *successful replication* of what has been widely reported, with, then, demonstration of the artifact, as was done with N-rays and polywater.
What stood as if it were refutation were *corroborations* of the observed phenomenon, in a negative sense. I.e., a paper that showed neutron radiation in cold fusion experiments must be below some quite small threshold was considered a "blow" to cold fusion, but only because of an assumption that fusion must produce neutron radiation. The effect, per Storms (2010, produces no significant radiation of any kind, as to what has been detected. Reports from "reputable groups" that found no excess heat, and these reports were considered very important in 1989-1990, where they looked for helium, also found no helium. This *confirms* the heat/helium ratio, in part. No heat, no helium. That validates both the heat and helium measurements!
lThe story was much too complex and- on a causal basis successful replications are indistinguishable from successful ones, I remember how shocked I was by the results obtained in India: “not only are the anomalous fusion reactions found to take place in only a very few chips (obtained from the same piece of titanium) but even in those chips, tritium production is restricted to a small number of selected ocalized 'hot spots' only: This was not Pd-D but it was typical. Puzzling irreproducibility. Obtained by some of the best Cold Fusion Warriors. I cannot give you something similar for Heat plus He- few experiments.
It remains true that many approaches to cold fusion are difficult to replicate. Even for the same researcher, what has worked last year may not work this year, with the reasons being quite unclear. Great persistence and patience is needed, and "negative" results should not be deprecated. *All results should be published." Otherwise, the field remains wide open to a possible criticism that I did not mention above:
A question arises- who is the “culprit”- what is the cause? And how should we define experimental error? Can we dare to speak about some inherent weaknesses of the LENR systems per se.?
About some equivalent of a curse, perfectly rational but not understood, with unknown causes? Something very general but completely ignored that destroys results and reputation(s)? I have one answer- but it is only my answer- nobody “buys” it: my poisoning hypothesis- the nuclearly active sites are incontrollably blocked by the gases from air and thus deuterium or hydrogen
cannot go where it/they has. Who knows an other explanation?
4. Too often, only positive results are published. A research may run a dozen cells and, say, three show excess heat. The researcher only publishes the data for the three cells. But one of the crucial pieces of information we need about a protocol is the *rate* at which it shows results. Further, in such a series, if possible, helium should be sampled (if this is a PdD experiment), or other likely nuclear effects measured and correlated with the heat. All the data is important. Note: had Pons and Fleischmann published their full data, for their most recent protocol, in 1989, the whole field would very likely have gone in a very different direction. If, in their press conference, they had simply mentioned that only one out of six cells exhibited the effect, and that only after months of electrolysis, it would not have been possible to "refute" their announcement, as to political effect, by a feeble effort with a few cells for a month.
Dear Abd- actually this is not so, the unwritten standards of Cold Fusion publications say you have to tell about negative results, success rate and so on.
And this leads to another recommendation:
6. Researchers and those with access to analytical resources should cooperate. Standard analytical methods should be developed, and new experiments designed to allow efficient use of these resources. If any resource is overwhelmed with requests, the resource should be "commodified," i.e., analysis should be available for sale, at reasonable prices, but adequate to fully support the work (and the difference between for-profit and non-profit here is typically only a small margin). Then, those interested in supporting the field overall may wish to subsidize testing for qualified researchers. Or for students, the next generation.
Good idea, an example is the cooperation of Siena Univ,- Piantelli- cells and Bologna Univ. mainly analytics, many methods. It is an accident that Focardi from Bologna has had a revelation- he is the Father of Cold Fusion and has joined Rossi.
I
n historical perspective I'd love to be able to send a vial of heavy water somewhere, with a small sample, and get back an H/D ratio. I don't even know where to start with that. Sure, there might be some lab service available, but my guess is that there are institutional resources that could do it for free, or for a small fee, and if we, collectively, arrange something, even a for-profit service might offer this at a discount, with coordinated submission of samples. It could be anywhere in the world.
If you explore the journal Analytical Chemistry you will find immediately the nearest lab and the cost of analysis. I can help if you wish.
To resume your ideas/plans I understand you are seeking salvation inside the LENR field; that is you think this is possiblewith effort nad good practices.
Altermative- salvation can come only from outside, LENR+ can save LENR.
Peter
The "What if" can be useful if it leads to a better understanding of how to approach the situation today.
Exactly! History is of no interest and use if not reported to the present and future situations. See please the Cradle quotations.
First of all, we must understand the quite strong reasons for skepticism. We cannot blame anyone for being skeptical, then, or even now.
Very wise, unfortunately we cannot ignore the inner component of the problem there are inherent weaknesses of all the LENR systems and these are the causes of the bad reproducibility plus the low intensity and short duration. Reproducibility is first of all a practical problem; humans need certainty, technical systems are destroyed by uncertainty.
When judging LENR people seek with priority Energy not Truth.
With each passing year, the skeptical position becomes both weaker and stronger.
Yes, this is both paradoxical and sad.
Weaker is obvious: the balance of publication in peer-reviewed journals long ago flipped to positive. The core experiment demonstrating the reality of cold fusion beyond reasonable doubt is the heat/helium work of Dr. Miles, and this has been confirmed, and most thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Storms in "Status of cold fusion (2010)" (Naturwissenschaften.) That is a peer-reviewed review, and the abstract is quite clear on the probable reality of cold fusion.
I think this is a bit more complex; there does not exist motivation to write Cold Fusion killer papers, too many non-informed scientists think it is already dead, was so from the start and will remain dead for a long time. I don’t know, dear Abd what do you think about Rossi and Defkalion (Brillouin is enigma for me) but they have done a lot for the publicity of LENR. And if the E-cat or the Hyperion will become commercial products, skepticism will
melt away. If!
So why does extreme skepticism persist? Well, first of all, what are the ways in which the skeptical position becomes stronger with time?
We cannot neglect the factor “time”- 24 years of development problems is interpreted as CF/LENR chronically ill, serious doubts re LENR became kind of a habit; from time to time when lacking subjects, the Press publishes something against LENR-as a bad example.
DOUBTS- can refer to the very existence of LENR as a phenomenon but also to its usability. And what’s the difference if the skeptics say “no, it is impossible according to the Laws of Nature and it was never observed, there were just bad measurements or other errors” or they say “something exists, appears quite rarely, cannot be scaled up and it is of no practical use”? Which one is better/worse?
Most of these ways are "logically defective." I'll note that, but it does not help us in "spreading the news" to call the extant arguments "logically defective." We need to either directly address them, with respect, or side-step them with something overwhelming.
You are right- the arguments are not based on correct logic, but how relevant is this in the practice? How will those people who think/say such things acknowledge their errors?
1. The absence of a practical application or readily-available reproducible demonstration that is not itself highly controversial, in spite of hundreds of groups around the world that have worked on CF. Logically defective.
…but understandable…they say it does not work, it cannot be demonstrated in the lab for 100% of the experiments from a good series.. then it is something rotten in LENR land, so they say.
2. The weakness of the heat/helium work. It is strong enough to be considered prima facie conclusive, we may say, but someone attached to the skeptical position will notice the weaknesses.
There is a very large spectrum of opinions in the field of LENR see please the 2005 Krivit Gluck Survey (on Krivit’s Website) Not for everybody the helium work (let’s include Arata there) is so central- the helium work is not so strongly visible. The correlations, I remember were good but not perfect. And the tests were not continued or repeated by an other team- they are quite difficult. So this work cannot serve as the Big Ace in the game with the skeptics.
3. The continued lack of a "plausible mechanism." We cannot even agree among ourselves as to the plausibility of any of the many proposed mechanisms. Logically defective.
Plausible mechanism, do you speak about a decent theoretical explanation, isn’t it? Perhaps an explanation that is not perfect or complete but logically consistent and not contradicted by facts.
Theory…I think this is the Achilles Heel of LENR, with Paris’arrow already deeply penetrated in it. No existing theory is first quality i.e predictive- a guide or source of inspiration for the experimentalist, the excess of theories is greater than the excess of energy, say the skeptics.
Hower two points are vital:
- a theory must explain first of all why the process works only sometimes – this is a persistent problem, this happens in 2012 too
- a theory must be…more theories, complete for more stages not only the Coulomb Barrier defloration- a good example is Piantelli’s Pontignano Poster 2010 or the Defkalion’s formulation : “a dynamic system of the multi-stage set of reactions”.
I have asked in 1992- description of the topology, nature and mechanism of the reactions. LENR is very complex, cannot be described by a few equations. It is similar to a theory of photosynthesis or nitrogen fixation with nuclear stages.
Notice that the only not-logically-defective criticism is about something remediable through further work on heat/helium, which can have value all of its own.
I hope so but it will be difficult to find a lab.team to work with
heat-helium at very low levels of both.
For more than twenty years, much experimental work in the field seems to have been aimed at finding ways to improve the reliability of the effect, or its amplitude. While that is quite understandable, it is not what the *science* needed. Miles' work was so important because he moved around the "unreliability," to a study of a correlated result. In such a study, "unreliability," through "dead cells," becomes a control.
It will be a problem to find funding and support for “pure” science- and let’s say, the correlation heat-helium will be demonstrated but he unreliability remains, what then? The “customers” are interested in a working, intense, usable, upscalable, technlogizable process.
Further, many have attempted to invent mechanisms. Dr. Storms, most recently, has proposed a mechanism that seems logical and plausible to him, but that is tantamount, at the core, to proposing an entirely unknown phenomenon, I could call it "gradual nuclear fusion." That simply postpones the mechanism issue, though in a narrow and testable way. Some of Dr. Storms' ideas can be tested, and what leaps out at me is that some of the tests are things that involve experimental data that well may have already existed, *but that was not published.* It was considered useless, or even, in the context of the attempt to convince the general physics community, "negative."
See please what I have told about theory. What do you think about speculation?
An example would be the production of tritium which was not strongly correlated with excess heat. Miles apparently collected tritium data for his cells, but because it was not correlated with excess heat, because the levels were way too low, at least, to allow tritium to be a part of the main reaction, Miles did not publish the data. Levels of tritium are a clue to the mechanism, likewise neutrons, even though the levels were *extremely* low to non-existent. Data on H/D ratio in experimental cells is scanty, yet the ratio is known to have a strong effect on results.
Tritium makes the problem more complex- when, how, why it appears? How important it is?
What is missing from the experimental record is thorough study of the already-discovered effect. Each group, with few exceptions, invented its own specific approach, so results cannot be easily compared across various reports. There seems to have been no widespread recognition of the value of a method that, with persistence, produces results a substantial percentage of the time, that such a protocol is quite adequate for the kind of work that was needed.
The reproducibility, success rate is still low- one recent exemple Missouri Univ says 20%. I would say the situation is catastrophic but usually I abstain from using euphemisms- reality has to be confronted if not as we wish it.
Dr. Storms has pointed out how even the simplest and cheapest experimental techniques were often not used. For example, it would seem that a careful investigation would include radioautography of the cathode or other materials from the cells. And, of course, complete work would include radiography of *all cathodes* in a series. Is a radioautograph showing radiation from a used cathode correlated with excess heat? With helium? With other effects?
Unfortunately measurement or analysis, even so smart as radioautography of cathodes does not improve directly the functionality of LENR cells. May I give you a personal, medical example- I have hypertension; if I measure it each day or anytime I fell the Lady with the Scythe is looking after me, I get in a state
of negative resonance or positive feedback and I focus on myself and not on so much interesting things- as LENR. Therefore I don’t measure my arterial tension…let’s be what will be.
Much work in the field represents little more than anecdotal evidence. That's great as a basis for further exploration, but it's lousy as a way of establishing a world-shaking effect. To be widely and readily convincing, in such a context, such an anecdotal effect must be wildly visible, not merely measurable.
Very true observation we have a great diversified databasis, a lot of solid good works, but also some of much lower quality, not only the results are not reliable but their interpretation too.
So, there are five ways to proceed, given the situation.
Your ideas are systematic and logical- a few questions first:
- you offer a strategy- who will be the strategist, the leader, coordinator of these plan(s), action(s)?
- how much will it cost (if everything goes fine) and when will it
be ready? (consider please two variants a) Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, whatever successful LENR+ goes commercial; b)
LENR+ does not go commercial- fails;
- in which extent your strategy is incremental? Can it be made more fast and radical?
- to which experimental systems do refer your Plan: Classic Pd-D cell, nanometric powders, other systems?
1. Encourage and support experimentation to develop full analytical data for methods known to work. This can be done, there is nothing speculative about this approach. This is the kind of work that was recommended by both DoE LENR reviews. This is also not expensive work, and political support should be developed to make graduate student labor available again. Discrimination against graduate students who did good work on cold fusion, in the early days, was an *outrageous* abuse and imposition of a kind of orthodoxy inimical to science itself. That must not be tolerated. It will take bold professors and bold graduate students, interested in real science, to break this. Cold Fusion Now may be of great help.
Encouragement is fine when associated with funding and when those encouraged are motivated to do the work, are ready for both work and sacrifices and search to solve the problems. The great question here is “interested in real science” It is very difficult science, science with a so-and-so reputation and do not forget how scientists choose their subjects of work (My old essay in the preface of Hideo Kozima’s book – see please “Medawar Zone”
on Wikipedia. What attractive rewards can these studies offer?
Truth vs Value- cold fusion, LENR is considered a new source of energy not a source of new knowledge.
2. Spread the news about what already exists with respect to cold fusion research. The experimental record is adequate to establish the reality of the effect by the preponderance of evidence. Most skeptical arguments have become mere assertions of some unlikely possibility without any experimental backing or confirmation. If cold fusion was a medicine, it would be approved and would be routinely prescribed. Cold Fusion Now, again, can help with this. However, I caution Ruby and CFN not to support *unsubtantiated* reports, merely because they know that LENR is possible. That LENR is possible does not mean that every report of LENR is valid. Further, reality of an effect does not equal commercial application, and an attempt to apply an effect commercially will run into major issues of reliability, and can fail for reasons not related to some underlying real effect. I understand that we are impatient to see a solution to the world's energy problems. But it was jumping the gun on this in 1989-1990 that led to widespread rejection and cynicism.
This is true, however the impact of the news regarding technology
are orders of magnitude greater than that of news regarding scientific advances, See Andrea Rossi- I still don’t know how you appreciate his contribution to the story. You are perfectly right that not all that claim to be Cold Fusion- glitters (is)
3. Increase awareness of the insanity of spending billions of dollars on hot fusion research, which remains a long shot in spite of sixty years of work, while denying even the smallest funding for LENR research, which, if a practical route to implementation can be found, could make hot fusion into a pile of very expensive but useless junk. Cold fusion has, many times, produced far more energy than was put in, the problem being that nobody has yet found a way to make this reliable. Hot fusion has produced mere breakeven, rarely, at enormous expense. Even if successful, it will almost certainly require enormously expensive and dangerous installations. This is nuts, and the insanity should be made very obvious to politicians. Use the DoE reports to establish the advisability of this research. Why have funding agencies ignored the recommendations of both DoE panels, clearly unanimous in 2004?
Hot Fusion is a waste of time and logic says- stop it. However billions had been already invested in it, there are great Institutes specialized in it, many experts, smart progress reports appear from time to time, hot fission is commercialized- then hot fusion must be feasible too. Waste of money is a habit-see military expenses, the pro-hot-fusion propaganda is good, changing is difficult.
See…the Sun works well, the hydrogen (fusion) bomb work so well- just a bit of patience and …Big Money, please.
Hot Fusionists cannot and are interested to not accept that in earthly conditions this source odes not work.
4. Support continued research into new approaches to LENR, while, at the same time, encouraging stronger standards for publication. There is much published work in this field that is of low quality. It's not that such work should not be published, it is that, when published under peer review, but with inadequate review and editing, it damages the reputation of the field. Preliminary reports, undigested results, all this, can and should be internet-published. Indeed, as anyone who attempts to replicate CF work will find, published articles typically contain inadequate data. Some journals now publish appendices with expanded data on-line. That practice should be encouraged.
Well told, and let’s hope it will be done!
5. Support extended peer review and criticism within the field. I find it appalling, myself, that Takahashi can publish a theory that might be a piece of an explanation of how CF might be happening, based on known quantum field theory, as far as I can tell, but his work is not reviewed and either confirmed or criticised by anyone sufficiently knowledgeable in that quite esoteric field. Indeed, I have no indication that the work was adequately reviewed before publication (but that would not necessarily be visible). Kim's somewhat-parallel, but, AFAIK, less-specific work was published by Naturwissenschaften, and I assume that does mean competent review. But Kim and Takahashi do not ordinarily reference each other.
This sounds fine however let’s suppose it is done as you (we) wish- a well known physicist reviews Akito’s theory and agrees with it completely. The theory is published in a good journal.
We are happy but what about experiment? Does the theory advice
the experimentalist how to obtain 100% reproducibility at higher level of enegy. Truth is welcome in work clothes.
And then, an idea: recruit physicists to review the theoretical work that has been published. Encourage them to submit such reviews for publication. What matters for choosing these physicists is their dedication to science and to the scientific method, not their position on cold fusion.
All the young physicists are thinking to their career. For example I have helped a bright young compatriot physicist to work in the US in one of the best labs specialized in cold fusion; he has donea good work, however has abandoned this field, he has a family and now is professor. Suppose I can find now an other physicist doing the same thing, will it be different? Is te answer in the field
or outside the field at LENR+?
The pseudo-skeptical position thrives in an atmosphere of incaution and inattention, of holding to assumptions while avoiding the hard work of actually examining evidence, not to mention setting up experimental demonstrations of artifact. If cold fusion had merely been a few isolated reports in 1989 and later, it's understandable that people would not want to waste time with it. However, it isn't that. It has been so extensively corroborated that an attempt at experimental refutation is very, very likely to fail. Such a clear refutation was never done.
However if something exists with certainty but cannot be shown at will, if the motivation is formulated negatively “surely you will not waste your time!” this sounds not as a successful siren song.
The early "negative replications" were entirely failures to replicate, not *successful replication* of what has been widely reported, with, then, demonstration of the artifact, as was done with N-rays and polywater.
What stood as if it were refutation were *corroborations* of the observed phenomenon, in a negative sense. I.e., a paper that showed neutron radiation in cold fusion experiments must be below some quite small threshold was considered a "blow" to cold fusion, but only because of an assumption that fusion must produce neutron radiation. The effect, per Storms (2010, produces no significant radiation of any kind, as to what has been detected. Reports from "reputable groups" that found no excess heat, and these reports were considered very important in 1989-1990, where they looked for helium, also found no helium. This *confirms* the heat/helium ratio, in part. No heat, no helium. That validates both the heat and helium measurements!
lThe story was much too complex and- on a causal basis successful replications are indistinguishable from successful ones, I remember how shocked I was by the results obtained in India: “not only are the anomalous fusion reactions found to take place in only a very few chips (obtained from the same piece of titanium) but even in those chips, tritium production is restricted to a small number of selected ocalized 'hot spots' only: This was not Pd-D but it was typical. Puzzling irreproducibility. Obtained by some of the best Cold Fusion Warriors. I cannot give you something similar for Heat plus He- few experiments.
It remains true that many approaches to cold fusion are difficult to replicate. Even for the same researcher, what has worked last year may not work this year, with the reasons being quite unclear. Great persistence and patience is needed, and "negative" results should not be deprecated. *All results should be published." Otherwise, the field remains wide open to a possible criticism that I did not mention above:
A question arises- who is the “culprit”- what is the cause? And how should we define experimental error? Can we dare to speak about some inherent weaknesses of the LENR systems per se.?
About some equivalent of a curse, perfectly rational but not understood, with unknown causes? Something very general but completely ignored that destroys results and reputation(s)? I have one answer- but it is only my answer- nobody “buys” it: my poisoning hypothesis- the nuclearly active sites are incontrollably blocked by the gases from air and thus deuterium or hydrogen
cannot go where it/they has. Who knows an other explanation?
4. Too often, only positive results are published. A research may run a dozen cells and, say, three show excess heat. The researcher only publishes the data for the three cells. But one of the crucial pieces of information we need about a protocol is the *rate* at which it shows results. Further, in such a series, if possible, helium should be sampled (if this is a PdD experiment), or other likely nuclear effects measured and correlated with the heat. All the data is important. Note: had Pons and Fleischmann published their full data, for their most recent protocol, in 1989, the whole field would very likely have gone in a very different direction. If, in their press conference, they had simply mentioned that only one out of six cells exhibited the effect, and that only after months of electrolysis, it would not have been possible to "refute" their announcement, as to political effect, by a feeble effort with a few cells for a month.
Dear Abd- actually this is not so, the unwritten standards of Cold Fusion publications say you have to tell about negative results, success rate and so on.
And this leads to another recommendation:
6. Researchers and those with access to analytical resources should cooperate. Standard analytical methods should be developed, and new experiments designed to allow efficient use of these resources. If any resource is overwhelmed with requests, the resource should be "commodified," i.e., analysis should be available for sale, at reasonable prices, but adequate to fully support the work (and the difference between for-profit and non-profit here is typically only a small margin). Then, those interested in supporting the field overall may wish to subsidize testing for qualified researchers. Or for students, the next generation.
Good idea, an example is the cooperation of Siena Univ,- Piantelli- cells and Bologna Univ. mainly analytics, many methods. It is an accident that Focardi from Bologna has had a revelation- he is the Father of Cold Fusion and has joined Rossi.
I
n historical perspective I'd love to be able to send a vial of heavy water somewhere, with a small sample, and get back an H/D ratio. I don't even know where to start with that. Sure, there might be some lab service available, but my guess is that there are institutional resources that could do it for free, or for a small fee, and if we, collectively, arrange something, even a for-profit service might offer this at a discount, with coordinated submission of samples. It could be anywhere in the world.
If you explore the journal Analytical Chemistry you will find immediately the nearest lab and the cost of analysis. I can help if you wish.
To resume your ideas/plans I understand you are seeking salvation inside the LENR field; that is you think this is possiblewith effort nad good practices.
Altermative- salvation can come only from outside, LENR+ can save LENR.
Peter
Friday, June 1, 2012
QUI CITO 24.
Internet : The New Nominee For Basic Human Needs:
http://savedelete.com/internet-the-new-nominee-for-basic-human-needs.html
50-year cholera mystery solved by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin:
http://earthsky.org/science-wire/50-year-cholera-mystery-solved-by-scientists-at-the-university-of-texas-at-austin
Irish Mathematicians Solve The Guinness Sinking Bubble Problem
Bubbles sink in Guinness because of the peculiar geometry of pint glasses, say a dedicated group of researchers at the University of Limerick:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27880/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-05-30
Pretty profitable parrots
For businesses, being good at copying is at least as important as being innovative:
http://www.economist.com/node/21554500
Is This the Key to Vastly Better Batteries?
One company thinks it's solved a key problem that's been holding back new energy technology. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40480/
It’s time to focus on your LQ:
http://www.jarche.com/2012/05/its-time-to-focus-on-your-lq/
Try It!: An Experiment about Happiness:
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/try-it-an-experiment-about-happiness
Human Revolution: The Ethical Obligation to Technologically Improve Ourselves:
http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/human-revolution
Sugar makes you stupid
UCLA study shows high-fructose diet sabotages learning, memory
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/#inbox/137a19a4b7153d94
True or not true?
Managing the Information Avalanche:
http://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2012/03/manage-the-information-avalanc.html
Inequality Dates Back to Stone Age: Earliest Evidence Yet of Differential Access to Land:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/137a2319488f49ea
New Properties of Carbon Material Graphene Discovered:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530172436.htm
Cheaper Catalysts With the Finest Gold Dust in the World:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100244.htm
Are We Getting Smarter, Faster?:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/getting-smarter-faster
Your Hand Will Replace Your Wallet, and Paper Currency:
http://www.bigthink.com/ideafeed/your-hand-will-replace-your-wallet-and-paper-currency
One Sentence. True stories told in one sentence http://onesentence.org/
The learning organization: an often-described, but seldom-observed phenomenon:
http://www.jarche.com/2012/05/the-learning-organization-an-often-described-but-seldom-observed-phenomenon/
A Startup Hopes to Help Computers Understand Web Pages
Diffbot aims to make it easier for apps to read Web pages the way humans do:
http://www.technologyreview.com/web/40497/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-06-01
Now you can polish up Google’s translation of your website:
http://googletranslate.blogspot.ro/2012/05/now-you-can-polish-up-googles.html
Google Search Results Made More Relevant:
http://savedelete.com/google-search-results-made-more-relevant.html
http://savedelete.com/internet-the-new-nominee-for-basic-human-needs.html
50-year cholera mystery solved by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin:
http://earthsky.org/science-wire/50-year-cholera-mystery-solved-by-scientists-at-the-university-of-texas-at-austin
Irish Mathematicians Solve The Guinness Sinking Bubble Problem
Bubbles sink in Guinness because of the peculiar geometry of pint glasses, say a dedicated group of researchers at the University of Limerick:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27880/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-05-30
Pretty profitable parrots
For businesses, being good at copying is at least as important as being innovative:
http://www.economist.com/node/21554500
Is This the Key to Vastly Better Batteries?
One company thinks it's solved a key problem that's been holding back new energy technology. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/40480/
It’s time to focus on your LQ:
http://www.jarche.com/2012/05/its-time-to-focus-on-your-lq/
Try It!: An Experiment about Happiness:
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/try-it-an-experiment-about-happiness
Human Revolution: The Ethical Obligation to Technologically Improve Ourselves:
http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/human-revolution
Sugar makes you stupid
UCLA study shows high-fructose diet sabotages learning, memory
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/#inbox/137a19a4b7153d94
True or not true?
Managing the Information Avalanche:
http://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2012/03/manage-the-information-avalanc.html
Inequality Dates Back to Stone Age: Earliest Evidence Yet of Differential Access to Land:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/137a2319488f49ea
New Properties of Carbon Material Graphene Discovered:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530172436.htm
Cheaper Catalysts With the Finest Gold Dust in the World:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530100244.htm
Are We Getting Smarter, Faster?:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/getting-smarter-faster
Your Hand Will Replace Your Wallet, and Paper Currency:
http://www.bigthink.com/ideafeed/your-hand-will-replace-your-wallet-and-paper-currency
One Sentence. True stories told in one sentence http://onesentence.org/
The learning organization: an often-described, but seldom-observed phenomenon:
http://www.jarche.com/2012/05/the-learning-organization-an-often-described-but-seldom-observed-phenomenon/
A Startup Hopes to Help Computers Understand Web Pages
Diffbot aims to make it easier for apps to read Web pages the way humans do:
http://www.technologyreview.com/web/40497/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-06-01
Now you can polish up Google’s translation of your website:
http://googletranslate.blogspot.ro/2012/05/now-you-can-polish-up-googles.html
Google Search Results Made More Relevant:
http://savedelete.com/google-search-results-made-more-relevant.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)