THE ISCMNS AT ICCF-25, REORGANISATION PLANS, SOCIAL MEDIA,

  • Subject to agreement, it seems that we may be able to boost the numbers of society members. There are 3 different groups, the ISCMNS is the biggest, the SFNMC in France is the second largest and the Japanese group the smallest at around 50 members. By at some level forming an alliance, each society would be able to claim almost 400 members. I would like to remind LENR-forum members here that it would help the field if we were able to grow this number to 500, and perhaps Pete who is ISCMNS membership secretary could post details here. I will also create a thread with information about the new structure of the society.


    We had an 8AM meeting of the ISCMNS today, chaired by Lynn Bowen to discuss methods of increasing public and scientific community support for the field. One of the things that we discussed was 'objectives' and one of several suggestion for this came from Frank Gordon.


    Key Objective "To provide lowest-cost abundant and sustainable green energy to the world.


    This green energy:- Does not produce CO2.

    Does not produce hazardous waste.

    Does not produce dangerous radiation.

    Does not require exotic materials.

    It will supply green energy to the whole world.


    Part of this new strategy will involve paying increased attention to social media, which has aroused some disagreement. But for example, George Egely makes regular presentations on YouTube in Hungarian. He has somewhere between 50k and 200k regular viewers, uses the channel to raise micro-donations and it has created a pool of 20 or so volunteers who work in his lab -people with not only skills but who care for the future of our planet. So it is obvious that social media is important for increasing public awareness and acceptance of cold fusion.


    An old controversy reared it's head at this mornings meeting. What to call the science? There are those who are in favour of reverting to the use of 'cold fusion', those who like the Anthropocene tag 'solid state fusion' and those who want no change. I am proposing another meeting at 8 am tomorrow to discuss this topic, which certainly creates excess heat.


    For the

  • In addition to the things we've already communicated about, I have some other ideas that are perhaps germane to your above priorities. Specifically, about how the value proposition of society membership might be enhanced further. I had thought it better to hold off for a bit on putting them to you as they're probably more medium term possibilities, but if you'd like I can post them here or email them through.

  • The Egely proposal is good by Youtube using which is fashion... i should start in this way.

  • Subject to agreement, it seems that we may be able to boost the numbers of society members. There are 3 different groups, the ISCMNS is the biggest, the SFNMC in France is the second largest and the Japanese group the smallest at around 50 members. By at some level forming an alliance, each society would be able to claim almost 400 members. I would like to remind LENR-forum members here that it would help the field if we were able to grow this number to 500, and perhaps Pete who is ISCMNS membership secretary could post details here. I will also create a thread with information about the new structure of the society.

    Here is the URL to apply for membership:

    https://iscmns.org/membership

  • Key Objective "To provide lowest-cost abundant and sustainable green energy to the world.

    Certainly a laudable aim.


    An old controversy reared it's head at this mornings meeting. What to call the science?

    Surely this is putting the cart before the horse.


    Either you are studying a particular facet of science, to see where it will lead, or you are attempting to solve the human population's "energy problem". The end point of the two journeys might happen to coincide, if you are very lucky, but they will definitely not follow the exact same route.


    Unfortunately, deciding on the answer (whatever you want to name it), before fully understanding the question, is the very definition of pathological science.


    If the society is meant to be a collection of people who are studying a variety of experimentally anomalous "low energy" nuclear transmutations in matter - then surely the title should reflect that. I guess that reviving the CF term could be seen as thumbing a nose at three decades worth of detractors and naysayers - which might feel like a minor victory, on a purely emotional level. But isn't that just going to revive the old internecine squabbles between the fusion / fission / maybe both / maybe neither proponents?


    [edit: just thought I'd add a quote from something I wrote last year]

    Quote

    I do feel that the whole field of CF, LENR (and now QHE) has suffered from the "gold rush effect" - with "free heat!" being the modern equivalent of how the work of honest alchemists was continually hampered by people's obsession with the possible creation of "free gold!".


    It means that researchers (in any field) are pushed into trying to create the "big thing" that other people want - which becomes a distraction from the main purpose of their research, which is to get a better understanding of the way the world works. After all, once there is a more detailed understanding of the processes involved, then we should know if it is possible to create "the big thing" in a cost effective, and resource effective, manner.


    Alchemy got a very bad name - as there were alchemists who claimed to be able to make gold, and there were people willing to fund them to make it. And when it turned out that those particular alchemists were unable to create the promised gold, they were accused of fraud by their backers - whose greed had allowed themselves to be seduced. Of course I'm sure that some of the old alchemists definitely were fraudsters. But there were many more who were just honest researchers who allowed themselves to be drawn into business ventures that had nothing to do with real research - and everything to do with a bunch of rich crooks wanting to make themselves richer, by any means.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

  • orsova -please do post your thoughts here.

    There are a number of open source, cloud based software packages that, whilst free, require hosting. As a consequence, they are mostly deployed by institutions and limited to the memberships thereof. Thus, whilst free and open source, they’re not necessarily available publicly for an unaffiliated end user. Indeed, those I talk about below are mostly meant to be deployed by institutions, rather than made open to the public.


    The society could host some of these software packages and make them available to the membership, in order to provide useful tools to researchers in the field - and enhance the value of society membership. Some of these packages could also be useful for the society itself.


    There would be some financial cost involved with hosting them, as well as a learning curve and an administrative burden - maintaining hosting, updates, backups and software is not nothing. But a small team of suitable volunteers, delegating the work amongst themselves, could perhaps handle it without too much strain.


    Some ideas:


    DSpace

    DSpace Home - DSpace
    Public Demo Learn more Become a Member Join the DuraSpace Community to support the continued advancement of the DSpace open source software projects which…
    dspace.lyrasis.org


    DSpace is a repository web application that allows researchers and other parties to archive documents and files. It is designed as a digital archives system, and is meant for the long term storage, access and preservation of digital content. It was originally built by developers at MIT and HP Labs, but has since grown to be supported by its own foundation.


    DSpace is used by institutions and library systems across the world. Some names include: Cornell University Library, Texas Digital Library, Duke University, Georgia Tech, Johns Hopkins, the National Library of Finland, The University of Cambridge, ETH Zurich, Imperial College, the World Bank, Georgetown, and Gothenburg University Library.


    For an example installation, see: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/1


    The ISCMNS could host a DSpace server, and make it available as an open access archive for the field. Whilst reasonable minds can differ, the right to submit to the archive could be made conditional on membership of the society.


    Given that there is no centralised repository for those working in the field to archive their own files - slides, notes, logs, drafts, raw data, photos, informal memoirs, audio, video, oral history etc - then this could be a real perk of membership. And given that the ISCMNS, by dint of being member funded, is a perpetuity, then arguably, the ISCMNS is the right place for such a repository to exist.


    My understanding is that many funding sources require that data be placed in a repository of some sort, and so a DSpace server could also help researchers fulfil grant requirements.


    Having a DSpace server would also enhance the capacity of the ISCMNS to do things like make small grants to assist researchers (or their families) with the digitisation of historical paper materials that might otherwise be lost.


    It could also be a sister to the LENR Research Documentation Initiative.


    Moreover, an ISCMNS DSpace server could serve as the final home for all ICCF / IWAHLM related materials, and solve the problem of materials being scattered across various websites - of indeterminate lifespans.


    DSpace can also embargo content, or keep it hidden/private, meaning that even a group or organisation who is operating with commercial or other incentives could still archive their materials with the ISCMNS.


    DSpace is a permissioned system, and so each user is granted limited access to upload into their own collection - meaning that it does not require a central party to do all of the upload work.


    Indico

    Indico - Home


    Indico is an academic event management web application that manages workflows associated with seminars, lectures, meetings, workshops and conferences. It can handle a number of different things across the lifecycle of an event including: initial calls for abstracts, the sign up of attendees and the processing of payments, video conferencing for offsite attendees, scheduling and schedule publishing, document and presentation management, credential management and permanent archiving.


    Indico was developed by researchers at CERN, and is used to run all of their internal meetings. As a consequence, CERN has all of their meetings archived back into the 1990s. Indico is used by the UN, the WHO, the IAEA, Brookhaven, the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy, and ENEA, among others.


    An Indico installation could be used to streamline the organisation of ISCMNS events, and also be used by members and friends of the society to organise their own LENR related events - with the added bonus that their meeting materials can be archived with the ISCMNS Indico installation afterwards - in perpetuity.


    DMPTool

    DMPTool


    DMPTool is a tool created by the California Digital Library to assist researchers with the development of Data Management Plans that are often a requirement of funding applications. The tool maintains templates for different agencies (the DOE for example) and assists users with creating conforming data management plans.


    DMPTool is used in 386 different institutions by over 102,000 users.


    The ISCMNS could host the DMPTool and make it available to members.


    Researchers can access DMPTool directly from the DMPTool website, and so, strictly speaking, there's no need to host it at the ISCMNS. But there would still be value in hosting it directly. A hosted version would create a home for LENR DMPs, so that researchers could quickly see how their colleagues are using the tool - making it easier to share best practices. Another value would be the ability to customise templates with LENR specific advice. Also, custom DMP templates can be created for institutions that LENR researchers are applying to - this could be especially useful for European users, given that the OOTB templates are more aimed at North America. DMPs can also be submitted for feedback, meaning that if an ISCMNS DMPTool installation was administered by somebody with specific expertise in the space, then they could offer direct feedback on best practices to those using the tool.


    I'm sure there are plenty of other interesting applications and tools out there (elabFTW, JupyterHub and I, Librarian for example), but these are the three that I thought might be of most note. These kinds of ideas are probably more intermediate to long term in nature, but I suspect that there are probably lots of things like this that could be done to enhance the value of membership. I'm sure other forum members would have ideas / feedback, too.

  • I guess that reviving the CF term could be seen as thumbing a nose at three decades worth of detractors and naysayers - which might feel like a minor victory, on a purely emotional level. But isn't that just going to revive the old internecine squabbles between the fusion / fission / maybe both / maybe neither proponents?

    Years ago, somebody said something to me that has always stuck in my mind.


    Every job is a sales job.


    As unfortunate, brutal and unpalatable as it may be, it's also often true. There are occasions where nothing but the hardest pragmatism should obtain, and this might be one of them.


    One way to think about it is to simply ask: which name is easier to sell: LENR or "cold fusion", with all of its associated historical baggage?


    Another angle is to ask: which name Googles best? (I think there's a clear winner).

  • well the N in LENR has a lot of continuing baggage too

    Coining a new word to avoid negative connotations does not work. Such new words are called euphemisms. They are used to avoid taboo words, and embarrassing words. Euphemisms never work for long. Soon after people invent a euphemism, the negative connotations of the original word attach to it, and the new word also becomes taboo. That is why we end with so many ways of saying "bathroom" (the place to urinate, not the actual bath). It makes no difference what you call "cold fusion"; people will know what you mean.

  • I think the merging of the French and Japanese Cold Fusion Societies under the ISCMNS is a great step of consolidation and unity, and also helps achieving the so called “critical mass” to be recognized as an “alive and kicking” field. I can only hope there will be ever a South American presence, my attempts so far have been unfruitful.


    Regarding the use of social media presence in our favor I agree it is always a good tool, but with the nuance that it helps popularization / divulgation mostly, not acceptance by mainstream. We can gain a lot of followers, and also probably create a source of income to the ISCMNS through donations. It will neither help, but also and perhaps more importantly, and if properly handled, nor hurt, our acceptance by mainstream.


    With regards to the name, I honestly think we could debate it for ever and never reach an agreement. In these cases democracy seems to be more or less deffinitive the way to achieve consensus, as in creating a list of alternatives and voting for them. I personally agree that Solid State Fusion is kind of a blank slate that we could all latch to. I propose we can agree on a list of alternative names, and then hold a vote among the ISCMNS members and see which name gets the most votes. I think this method will result in back to Cold Fusion, but “Vox Populi , Vox Dei” should let us put the issue to rest.

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

  • is the question about what name to use when referring to the field in ISCMNS content, or what to call the society?

    As you can read in Alan Smith ´s post here:

    An old controversy reared it's head at this mornings meeting. What to call the science?

    It is about the Science, not the name of the Society. I agree, and probably everyone else also agrees, the name of the Society suits well its purpose.

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

  • I was thinking more in qualitative terms. Ie. which set of results is ‘better’ / more useful.

    For that concern, there is already an index termed "SEO" (Search Engine Optimization). It happens that Diadon Acs already does a SEO improvement as a step prior to publish any article in LENRNEWS. It seems to be a standard practice, and it seems to work very well to increase visibility in Google Searches.

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

  • I was thinking more in qualitative terms. Ie. which set of results is ‘better’ / more useful.

    Well, you asked "what name googles best." I assume that means, 'what name is most likely to return the results you are looking for.' What name is most often used to mean "cold fusion"? The Google Trends graph is one indication of this.


    Google used to tell you approximately how many references it found for a search term, but it does not seem to have that feature now. That would be a helpful metric.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.