Should ideas concepts and theories behind LENR be discussed on Internet Forums?

In recent posts Andrea Rossi has mentioned his view that discussing LENR theory in particular ideas that are not well formed or incomplete, on the Internet may harm the public view of LENR.

I myself have raised views on theory and tried to raise discussion on a simple physics approach following an earlier post by Andrea Rossi regarding discussions in the community that in his view were focusing on new physics and ignoring traditional physics.

My very distant and old physics background touched more on space plasma magneto hydrodynamics behaviour in the solar corona and matching macroscopic and microscopic behaviour in the earths bow shock, but it is limited in nuclear physics. Since then my working career has been more of a system engineer. My personal view however is that some aspects of what we see in LENR maybe explained with simple traditional physics principles, but maybe more complicated at system level. Other people have other very interesting ideas that I enjoy reading and trying to understand.

I have great respect for Andrea Rossi, however and believe he already has a very good understanding of the processes involved in LENR from his current work with Norman Cook, his earlier work with Sergio Focardi and the data he has since obtained through experimentation. I also appreciate and respect his direct talking even though it can come across hard sometimes, it expresses his real concerns about how people view LENR.

In some ways we are all climbing the LENR mountain but Andrea Rossi and some others are amazingly already close to the peak. They do not need not theory to help him get there. Would it be best to wait for them to get there before discussing the theory? May be then we can look from the top of the mountain.

Can discussion about ideas and theory harm or help views on LENR?

Should discussions about LENR theory be discussed and if so should it be limited to certain forums?

Very poignent example and very true. Probably most great discoveries have been proceded this way ever since Archimedese took his bath... And even before when his and our distant ancestor tried to understand the wheel, fire and hammer he just made.

Quote from Pathoskeptic

Simple physics tells us, that lenr is simply bullshit.

And our dear dottore Rossi, the King of Scam, knows that very well.

I'm glad your here Pathoskeptic and keeping me in check. When you are convinced then it means they have really got there.

I have faith in people based on what I see and I do trust in some people and some results based on that... I'm not sure I believe in fairies though... but apparenty my cat does... Oh well.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Why, oh why? The guy is a convicted felon for horrible environmental crimes as well as money laundering. He has never produced a single thing except cons and lies. He cheated the DOD/CERL out of millions of dollars in the early 2000's and now, he's been lying and making idiotic claims for those pieces of old plumbing he calls e-cats and hot cats. Some accomplishment. You respect an aging con man? Please tell me you studied Krivit and Wright web sites, the stuff Thomas Clarke and Pomp wrote, the stuff I wrote, and you still believe Rossi? WHY?

Hello Mary Yugo, thanks for your reply. Your comment deserves a considered answer . I am relatively new to the LENR world but have been following it for a few months now. The very first link I saw about Andrea Rossi was a very negative piece on wiki, and my first impression is the language was too negative and aspiteful and opinion based to be a balanced view, I was drawn to look deeper into who he was and background and found counter arguments to those posed in that link I. I have since then seen different views in the media both positive and negative. But the language in the negative reviews has tended to push me towards the other side. i have formed my own view based on his interactions on the media and the way that I see and believe he works. I have met one or two people in my life who seem to have similar dedication and each one of them was remarkable in what they were able to achieve. I don't believe someone could be so dedicated to a con... If they continue doing what they are doing despite adversity they are remarkable to me.

If there is a con then I'm not sure if it is with the accusers or with the accused. That said the greatest of all con artists are able to get the victim to con them selves . I will read the web sites you mentioned to get the view from your side. It's true that I may not have read them yet but for now I tend to believe the other side of the story.

I believe you are well meaning and not acting out of spite so if you are correct I appreciate you trying to warn me but it seems an incredible amount of effort on his side for no benefit if that is the case.

Quote from Majorana

The fire was discovered by this unprepossessed thinking. Free of all the existing theories that taking a stick and carrying it from place to place will give you bad luck.

Was the discovery of fire unscientific? Yes, it was. But still it was somewhat important.

Is trying to heat and pressurize different material compositions unscientific.

Possibly! But still it can lead to the discovery of a physical effect.

Unscientific does not mean unimportant.

Display More

Hi Majorana, thanks for your post.
Isn't discovery also part of science? where would biology, geology and other sciences be if there were not people prepared to go out and explore off the established path with no pre conceptions, physics should be no different… why should Physics be dominated by a theoretical approach first then investigation after? Discovery and innovation is the impetus of scientific investigation. Astrophysics is full of examples of discoveries that have only found explanation much later and in fact these kinds of discoveries are much sought after. I would say most great break throughs have come form explorers, engineers and inventors who were prepared to look beyond preconceptions. Scientific investigation and theory only later served to refine and explain them. Theory has its place and can lead to great insights and useful technology but surely so unconstrained discovery has its place in Science too.

I had hoped that some theoretical investigation of what is currently known could help experimentation, but I fully see your point that unfettered experimentation with out preconception can lead to new discoveries and insights. This is especially so in an open science environment where all kinds of experiments can be run to see what comes up. I wish you well in your approach. I am very glad that inventors explorers and engineers with your unconstrained approach still exist.