Peter Gluck: A Questionless Survey (LENR ideology)...

Peter gluck launch a survey about LENR Ideology.

If I understand well, it is open to many people but should be done seriously.

Quote from Peter Gluck

TEXT OF THE SURVEY

Please, describe as you can, as you wish your LENR Ideology comprising; philosophy, strategy, vision of the present and the future, explanation, understanding, modes of thinking, approach, focus, priorities, actions, all your LENR ideas and initiatives..

Quote from Peter Gluck

WHO IS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE?

Dear Friends,
This Survey is for you, if you belong to one of these categories

• Leaders (of country programs, organizations, companies, teams, ad-hoc groups leaders of opinion and so on)
• Front line experimenters- professional and amateurs, working in teams and individually;
• LENR thinkers, authors of theories, explanations, speculations, schemes,ideas
• LENR investors- who have and want to invest in LENR- money or efforts sor simply hope;
• LENR journalists, my good colleagues and comrades;
• LENR lovers and kibitzes from everywhere- genius and solutions are independent from geography

Quote from Peter Gluck

MOTTO

If you do things well, do them better. Be daring, be first, be different, be just. (Anita Roddick)

I have the ambition to create the best possible LENR Survey now. In principle thid csn be accomplished by finding the smartest questions- we already have learned that
because the questions are more open than the answers, questions are more important and relevant and creative than the answers. However this Survey is a very special case just because LENR is, just now, still now so painfully vulnerable, uncertain, complex, ambiguous- so diversified and so unknown that any question could do harm by imposing limits and constraints to the answer. For example asking :

what is your favorite LENR theory we could suggest that 1 theory suffices to explain what happens, or that it exists one single theory good to explain all the forms of LENR, starting with the Fleischmann_Pons Cell- to the Piantelli Ni-H process to the E-Cats of various temperatures to geofusion- in crust and in core of the earth.

The Survey has only one question, mother of all questions: what have we to do in order to develop LENR to commercial applications and to real, deep, scientific understanding as fast as possible?

So I have opted for a questionless survey/questionnaire- a premiere

Oh, glory of yesterday what a success was this regular survey of 2005:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/r…05GluckKrivitSurvey.shtml

So many provocative and inspiring answers! In part, depressing too.

Display More

I answer myself
My LENR Ideology.

About theory my approach is conservative about basic physics, based on standard model. I support the approach described by Edmund Storms.
I support unity of the phenomenon, in a great diversity of expression, well described as "conservation of miracles".
I am convinced by the NAE concept of a quantum object, insulated from normal chemistry context.
I have a conviction that the reaction does not involve neutrons, at least free neutrons.
I have an intuition, inspired by a geometry philosophy, that the core reaction is symmetrical in space (p-e-p or bigger but symmetric).
From many domain of science, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, sociology, I support the philosophy that LENR is an emergent phenomenon from an entangled population of particle. I know emergence of collective behavior from individual behaviors, is a mental frontier for many profession, especially particle physicists and French politicians. In the same vein I believe that the structure of the NAE is not 3D, but 1D or 2D, or fractal, as it is another known frontier of quantum mechanic challenged by nanoscience.
I am conscious that no theory really works, but that some support very interesting concepts.
basically I have the intuition that LENR is not a challenge for the standard model, but for the standard 3D 2body free-space way of mind.

Edmund Storms Hydroton have my sympathy, even if I suspect that the Hydroton is not exactly the solution. I however suspect that Electroweak LENR theory about Born-Oppenheimer approximation breaking with coherent proton and electrons population, and evanescent waves, can propose mechanism. Finally the Discrete Breather mechanism presented by Dubinko complete the toolbox.
Something is missing, able to couple nucleus and electrons at the keV level instead of the eV level, allowing MeV level Discrete Breathers, on a NAE linear like Hydroton or planar like Electroweak. Maybe the evanescent field of Electroweak theory, or nanomagnetism...

For me what blocked LENR research was the academic world and it's subordinates (editors, media), and a desire to rationalize what cannot respect any planning nor rules, the black swan.

Another is that the dissenters, facing extreme attack, were selected to be strong temperaments, some with great individual hope in LENR, either initially or as revenge for aggressions, and that this slowed communications , sharing, collaboration, pushing more solitude and secrecy than usual.

Also the terror against LENR scientists in publishing and funding, slowed the research , the sharing of information but also the critics, and thus the recognition.

My epistemology is the one of great satanist Thomas Kuhn and his worst son, Feyerabend. Solution as says Kuhn will only came from practical advantage given by LENR.
Currently no theory gives an advantage, and hope is only in engineering the tinkering, as Rossi or Brillouin are doing.

Once LENR will be sold, I expect the market force to both oppose and fund LENR. This is where controlling the opponents, and fostering adoption, as LENRG or LENRIA propose in their respective ways, will be required to avoid delays as it always happen in revolutions.

I believe that science should be reformed, not toward more regulation, but toward less regulation, more freedom, more tolerance for (perceived) crazy dissidence.

There is no point in keeping scientific restriction for really crazy scientist, as the real discoverer of an anomaly in existing normal science will always be considered as criminal against science, a gullible crackpot scientists, a denier of reality, a paid troll, a scam artist .
And sure there will be case where the judgement will be founded, and even when real science will be pushed by bad scientists, like Kepler or Newton.

As says Benabou in his Groupthink theory paper, it is important to have an "ex-ante" rule for freedom of speech, that tolerate no ex-post exception.
the way to oppose bad scientists should be by critics, by experiments, not by defunding, TV conference bashing, and academic consensus.
I think that it is impossible, so my more realistic vision is that like in medieval Europe, there should be independent island of science (like are more or less China, Japan, India, Russia, Italy, US Navy, NASA, Lockheed martin) who don't respect, nor even values the same standards, the same journals, the same heroes, the same goals, the same methods, as the others... Some would be funded by competing superpowers, deluded dictators, manipulated democracies, by crazy tycoons, irresponsible companies, pathologically managed labs, all which are required for a sane science evolution.

We should enforce a total mess, but a mess that communicates. That is what made the success of Internet, standard allowing communication between entities of any size and practice, respecting very different internal procedures and standards, and each responsible of it's own perimeter.
One key idea is that the value of the network will grow with the number of participant who communicate, and because of the differences between participants. Perfectly identical agent, have nothing useful to exchange, and networking gives no value to perfect clones. The basic of communication is to have different state or behavior.

some says "no god no master", I say "no single master, no single method"