This paper shows how LENR can win

  • Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate

    Styles of Thought on the Continental Drift Debate - Journal for General Philosophy of Science
    The continental drift controversy has been deeply analysed in terms of rationalist notions, which seem to find there a unique topic to describe the weight of…
    link.springer.com


    In this paper, we look at the history of events which finally led to the acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics. Interestingly, we normally attribute this theory to Alfred Wegener who published his theory of continental drift in 1912, however, there were multiple people who also published similar theories in the years just before him, and in fact, there is a long history of similar ideas having been published (the years of 1858, 1801, 1756, even 1596).


    The popular retelling is that the discovery of paleomagnetism provided the final nail in the coffin that convinced all the skeptics to accept the truth of continental drift. The author of the paper refutes this version of the story with survey evidence, shows that many geologists were unaware of the newest literature, and that continental drift prevailed simply because the demographics changed.



    Mobilists won by occupying positions of education and passing their ideas on to the new generations.


    There's a number of other wonderful parallels in this paper, so I encourage others to read it. To me, the battle over plate tectonics teaches us a valuable lesson: If we want LENR to become mainstream, we need to get LENR into school curricula.


    This finding came from my current project and I will be cementing this idea in video form. Through social media, I believe we can take our battle to the schools.

  • That sounds like the long version of what Max Plank is attributed to have written once:


    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”


    and that was popularized as the paraphrase: "Science advances one funeral at a time".

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • That sounds like the long version of what Max Plank is attributed to have written once:


    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”


    and that was popularized as the paraphrase: "Science advances one funeral at a time".

    Yes, exactly right. But this paper substantiates that idea with evidence, and shows that it was true in the events that gave us tectonic plate theory.

  • There's a number of other wonderful parallels in this paper, so I encourage others to read it. To me, the battle over plate tectonics teaches us a valuable lesson: If we want LENR to become mainstream, we need to get LENR into school curricula.


    This finding came from my current project and I will be cementing this idea in video form. Through social media, I believe we can take our battle to the schools.

    You have obviously given this much thought, so may I ask how you propose the field accomplish this? BTW, what you propose is not new. It has been thought of and tried many times before, with, at best, limited success.


    A couple of those notable successes being the Forsley/Pam Boss-Mosier STEM curriculum...delayed due the pandemic. And the other being George Miley's Scholarship Program at the University of Illinois, which has resulted in injecting a little fresh blood into the science. The latest being Erik Ziehm, who gave a great presentation of his work at ICCF24.


    I see the Wegener/Tectonic Plate story as an interesting analogy....to a point. It has been mentioned many times before you as more of an inspiration to keep up the good fight until we win, instead of a pathway forward.

  • I found a literate one, I write about it everywhere here, and you didn't notice me. I wrote the formation of oil from the standpoint of plate tectonics and they talked about it at ICCF 24, so don't forget your parents... https://yandex.kz/search/?text…lr=29575&src=suggest_Pers

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • It has been thought of and tried many times before, with, at best, limited success.

    Could you link me? Sorry I wasn't around before now.


    Quote from Shane D.

    You have obviously given this much thought, so may I ask how you propose the field accomplish this?

    I do have thoughts on this. I don't plan to detail all of it in the forum here, but I can share some. I'll be putting up a website to support the videos I'm making, and the website will provide an organized plan (a set of initiatives). My idea is to bring activists to the conversation so we can show up with a lot more voices.


    Any sort of teaching-oriented literature that the LENR experts can assemble and publish... I would recommend starting with that. Perhaps the CMNS journal could release an up-to-date curriculum for schools, periodically. I don't know the process for driving an agenda to change school materials, but I know we could find people who do.


    Aside from that, I think it's important that cold fusion researchers emphasize the importance of getting positions as professors and inspiring their students to do the same.


    I think Miley's work is proof that this approach can succeed.

  • The author of the paper refutes this version of the story with survey evidence, shows that many geologists were unaware of the newest literature, and that continental drift prevailed simply because the demographics changed.

    Interestingly, this seems to go against the conclusions of this 1988 study: Age Differences in the Reception of New Scientific Theories: The Case of Plate Tectonics Theory


    Quote


    Explanations as to why age and receptivity might co-vary have focused on motivational factors that reinforce attachments to existing knowledge, overlooking the possibility that the resources which scientists accrue during their careers may well buffer the increased intellectual risk taken in advocating speculative theories. Older scientists may therefore be better positioned than their younger colleagues to speak out earlier in support of new but controversial theories. Age may thus have contradictory effects on receptivity.


    If the example of CF research in the late 80s / early 90s is used - it is interesting to note that the main proponents were mostly elderly, and more experienced, researchers. They were certainly not the "eager young scientists, with radical new ideas" that is meant to be the progressive group implied in the often quoted aphorism by Max Planck.


    Personal anecdote:


    In the late 1990s, a young (online) acquaintance of mine was studying for a PhD in Condensed Matter Physics. During one week he came up to stay at the halls of a university near me, for a joint UK-wide gathering of graduate students in the field - so I arranged to meet up with him in a local pub one evening. As well as being generally sociable, I was also curious as to his attitude to "unconventional" nuclear theories, such as low energy transmutation, free proton/deuteron behaviour within metal latices, quantum tunnelling, nucleus excitation, etc (all standard LENR fare).


    To my utter amazement he seemed to be totally incapable of thinking beyond anything that he'd been taught, "as fact", whilst he'd been an undergraduate. This was someone who had a first class honours degree in Physics from Imperial College, London - and his pursuit of a PhD was meant to show that he could carry out original research, and was capable of applying original thought. Nice chap though he was, I could see no evidence that he was able to entertain any thoughts that might be beyond a narrow set of "learned rules". Nevertheless, he still subsequently obtained his PhD (although he later emigrated, to work in a totally non-science field altogether).


    If this chap had stayed within academia, he might well have been able to teach undergraduates all the things he had learned - and/or might also have been able to continue postdoc research in a conscientious and perfunctory manner, whilst climbing the seniority ladder. He could have very well ended up in a position where his opinion as an "expert witness" could have been called upon by politicians or industrialists. What answers would he have given if asked whether the claims of CF/LENR proponents should be taken seriously?

  • I like Frank Gordon's approach, encouraging the popularisation/replication of the LEC. More or less a completely new discovery, he has patented it so has some protection, and now he wants to use replicators and LENR forum to 'spread the word'. Come one, come all, as they say. Which was why my presentation was all about how simple it is to see the effect. Keeping secrets wrapped up in scientific jargon hasn't worked so far, maybe this approach will bear fruit.

  • Interestingly, this seems to go against the conclusions of this 1988 study: Age Differences in the Reception of New Scientific Theories: The Case of Plate Tectonics Theory

    It's complicated to parse, but Pellegrini cites that paper, by Messeri, as supportive. I think Pellegrini is pointing to this part of the chart and basically saying, "see right here, the senior, mobilist adopters from earlier brought more young scientists into the supporting group."



    Messeri's approach seems selective to me, he seems to be looking for adopters – people who have shown signs of conversion – rather than all supporters – both people showing as converted, and people who never needed to convert, they simply supported from the beginning. Correct me if I'm wrong.


    I think it's important to separate career factors from views. Having tenure obviously gives a scientist much more freedom to do and say whatever they choose, but it obviously doesn't shape their views. It only restricts the available data we can gather, as adopters with tenure are easier to find in the historical record than adopters without tenure.


    Clearly, the CF crowd had many senior and established scientists, but I don't think that's at odds what Pellegrini is saying. I think Pellegrini is arguing that young scientists will readily explore revolutionary ideas if there are senior scientists in teaching positions who inspire and encourage the younger scientists – IOW, create a low-judgement environment where controversial ideas can be explored without negative repercussions. And if this happens enough, revolutionary ideas can emerge in the majority after some time has passed.

  • I think Pellegrini is arguing that young scientists will readily explore revolutionary ideas

    Consider the dynamics.

    1988 Erik and his fellow students 2022

    Messeri's approach seems selective to me, he seems to be looking for adopters

    Young scientists. Target group would be those graduate students considering a Thesis to pursue in Condensed Matter Physics. Most speak the language of "spin tech" easily. The language and concepts of advanced 'cold fusion' i.e. Solid State Atomic Energy Technologies.

    Erik Ziehm's research while affiliated with University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and other places.

    https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Erik-P-Ziehm-2189212278


    Publications (4)

    Helicon Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket

    Article

    Jul 2022

    Rohan Puri

    George H. Miley

    Erik P. Ziehm[...]

    Raad Najam


    Performance Analysis of HIIPER MPD Thruster

    Conference Paper

    Aug 2021

    Rohan Puri

    George H. Miley

    Erik P. Ziehm[...]

    Raad S. Najam

    View Video https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3402.vid


    Helicon Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket (HIIPER) is an innovative magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster developed at the University of Illinois UC. It is considered a stepping stone towards nuclear fusion space propulsion system. It comprises of a two-stage mechanism...


    Magnetically Shielded RCIEC-Helicon Hybrid Space Propulsion System

    Conference Paper

    Jan 2020

    E. Ziehm

    Q. Cai

    Rehana Najam[...]

    G. Miley


    Advancements in the Semi-Automated CR-39 Imaging System for Energetic Charged Particle Detection

    Conference Paper

    Jan 2020

    G. Miley

    E. Ziehm


    Top co-authors (6)

    Raul Patiño

    Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías

    Rehana Najam

    Teerthanker Mahaveer University

    George H. Miley

    Rohan Puri

    Raad S. Najam

    Q. Cai


    Physics

    Topic

    Plasma Physics

    Experimental Physics

    Nuclear Physics

    Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics

    Computational Physics

    Accelerator Physics


    Consider this

    Erik Ziehm is working on Cold Fusion Space Drive Systems

  • https://core.ac.uk › pdfPDF

    © 2017 Erik Ziehm - CORE


    by E ZIEHM · 2017 — ERIK ZIEHM. THESIS. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements ... University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2017. Urbana, Illinois.

    141 pages·9 MB

    Source

    CORE is a service provided by the Knowledge Media Institute based at The Open University, United Kingdom.

    Thesis

    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/158324143.pdf

    Your connection to this site is secure

  • CleanHME

    Gregory and teppo are referring to these. Yes, these seem relevant, but...

    Educational Materials – CleanHME

    http://www.cleanhme.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/LENR_experiments_USZ.pdf


    ...these are only a starting point. Having educational material organized is great. Next we need to ensure it is included in the physics textbooks. Someone needs to determine which books are most used in schools and work to get these books updated if they're not current.


    How can we get more LENR experts into teaching positions? If we can get students to make demands for it, some teachers will be receptive. I think we can reach the student base though social media, so that's my plan.

  • Young scientists. Target group would be those graduate students considering a Thesis to pursue in Condensed Matter Physics. Most speak the language of "spin tech" easily. The language and concepts of advanced 'cold fusion' i.e. Solid State Atomic Energy Technologies.

    Unfortunately, this is the group that have already drunk gallons of the "special" Kool Aid. That was the point of my anecdote, above. I don't think that young graduate student was stupid - he was just very well-versed in the current dogma.


    Never forget that the CF wave of the late 80s came out of the work of electrochemists - and not from physicists.