my first reaction is to moan like Edmund Storms that if there is accelerators it is not cold fusion, but hot fusion...
anyway the explanation involve quite low energy, strong participation of the lattice, no usual radiation.
I don't understand how they explain how the neutrons don't escape after being thermalized...
There is reference to many theories, like virtual neutrons, hydrotons, ... It raise some warning, but also some interest... Let the physicist comment.
Sifferköll on his pblob Just published an interesting article about Andrea Rossi and his opponents, the skeptics and most of scientific community.
His analysis started to explain the man hunt he observed on Swedish Public Radio, SR.
QuoteThe Swedish scientists and engineers from KTH, Uppsala University, Vattenfall and Elforsk were also thoroughly discredited by SR. And they performed this man hunt using mainly ad-hominem type arguments, ignoring the results from numerous tests. For them, positive testresult was more or less equal to proof of scam… and everyone holding a different opinion was either incompetent or an assistant scammer in their view.
This irrational behavior, so naïve, raised him a key question that we probably share, some of us suspecting an answer....
QuoteFor me, this is mind boggling. How is it possible for otherwise rational and logical scientists and journalists to not even consider the possibility of Andrea Rossi being on to something new, without even looking?
And he propose an analysis based on the personality gap between Andrea Rossi, of the "inventor" personality and the scientific community full of competent "inspector".
He base his reasoning on few psychology framework that I know from business psychology and management, "MTBI Personality Test" (the test may reveal some insight), the Four Room Of Changes...
It explains why the Inspectors focus on details and miss the important facts, but also why Rossi can achieve the impossible and solve unknow problems, but also why he make so lose test...
the "Inspectors" will have their time, and maybe is it what is happening with the Swedish testers.
QuoteThis reasoning could be used the other way around as well, since inventors are equally useless at tasks where the inspectors thrive.
I believe that these models can give some light to the behaviour of Rossi when it comes to setting up experiments and testing. He’s already building the next model in his head. Demonstrations, thorough scientific experiments and boring comments from all the inspectors, are only a pain in the ass for him. Exactly in the same way as the inspectors feel threatened when their belief system of facts gets challenged by a reactor build in a garage.
He also give his vision of the test to come. i don't know if it is a summary of what is said on internet, some Swedish buzz or insider data.
QuoteSoon we will probably know a little bit more. The group of scientists from Uppsala and KTH has expanded with more scientists from other countries and the second independent test is about to get published early autumn. The test has been going on for months on neutral premises in Lugano, Switzerland with even more thorough measurements than the May 2013 test. It has even been rumoured that an isotope analysis have been made on samples from these tests at several universities in Sweden very recently.
You position is quite common and I disagree because it seems both extremist, and in fact hiding real fear of the result.
You say it was not absolutely independent, but the recent test was not a pony show with the magician holding the water tap. they were alone with the baby, have rewired , and touched the reactor...
Anyway i agree that Rossi is a much less serious reference than McKubre, of the dozens of big names who were ridiculed in cold fusion denial saga.
Scientist are not priest of the truth, and in real life many are the most dishonest activist, at least of their theory, and often for ideologies. This is clearly what happened at MIT to hide the possible positive result of their F&P cell.
From data we have there is still an unimagined unexpected event to fear about Rossi, but at least we should agree that the evidence are more compelling than what we accept everyday as true in Science.
About fraud I am more afraid of consensual fraud, because it is never punished, and very rewarding, even more than business fraud.
Yes it is just an idea, whose value is more in the approach than in the detail...
Lyke Ed Storms theory based on hydroton, there are missing links..
Storms idea is based on the p-e-p fusion that I did not see in the paper (maybe I miss while fast reading).
The Breather make me think as a more evolved idea compared to the modes of the hydroton...
Storms propose that the hydroton not only can concentrate energy, but also spread it... maybe the breather can do that too... of the conversion electrons...
I think it is still too early to propose THE theory, but we have to find a toolbox of ideas like hydroto, breathers, BEC (Kim), SPP (W/L), and a list of constraints, like what Ed Storms have established with his rules.
The "there were restriction" is the usual all or nothing excuse...
in eral works there is restriction linked to business practice. real scientist respect that provided things stay honest... when you desire to refuse, you take the first excuse.
what the scientist was needing is to be able to say "it does not work" or "we cannot check enough" , and they can.
the excuse of the blackbox, or the embargo on results until the final report is not a challenge to their honesty.
I don't see what Essen and Kullander have abandonned ? they have seen it worked, they said it...
Now nobody believe them, that is deniers problem. We should not inverse the reality.
If you see something that work, assume just that you see it working, you cross check, it work ... what do you do ?
Like Lewis and Garwin, you just kept silent ?
That is your conception of honesty ? I imagine no.
That is the conception of honesty by some people I agree. Not mine.
when you call someone that have written a nasty biased critics accusing the testers to be fraudsters (to the point Bo Hoistad say the paper is shameful) , to participate to the next test, you are ready to face hard-skeptic...
now to see him flee with a bad excuse, is expected.
The problem with honest skeptics like Essen, Küllander, Celani, Dawn Dominguez, is that once they look into the telescope... they became convinced, thus instantly bad scientists.
Very interesting.
This kind of concept, mainstream without new physics is interesting.
I cannot judge if it is exact, but the approache is the good one.
Find effects in lattice that allow concentration and diffusion of energy.
See wikipedia for the Discrete Breather concept.
The author discuss of Edmund Storms vision, proposing that it follow some of it's approach... However there is still challenge to explain LENR, because the speed of deuteron don't match.
I hope they contacted Edmund Storms... maybe a mix with his theory around hydroton could be fruitful...
http://stephanpomp.blogspot.fr…2078#c7252989263462744030
I think there was more explanation that the problem was the required period of silence preventing normal activity for him.
it seems clear IH was not afraid of him, but maybe Pomp was afraid of IH.
quite classic, as you know that most skeptics have refused to visit or participate to LENr experiment.
One of the only visit reported is Garwin and Lewis in McKubre labs.
He found nothing serious to critic, and concluded it was an invisible problem.
Read the book of Beaudette for the stories (page 329)
QuoteDisplay More
When Goodstein learned, inadvertently, about the solid scientific work going on in cold fusion research his response was not unique. Earlier, I mentioned the three experienced electrochemists who visited the McKubre laboratory at SRI, Menlo Park, California, during the years 1990 through 1994. They were A. Bard, (University of Texas, Austin, Texas), H. Birnbaum, (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois), Richard Garwin, (IBM, White Plains, New York), and N. S. Lewis, (Caltech). Each spent several days examining McKubre’s laboratory practice in detail. They found no procedural error with the measuring technique or data reduction techniques used to evaluate the operating performance of the cold fusion type cells. They had no contractual obligations either to reveal or to keep the things they learned confidential. Nevertheless, they chose to say nothing to the scientific community.
Dr. John O’M. Bockris, distinguished professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, ran cold fusion cells during the sum-sporadic. At last, he came to a point where he had a cell that ran continuously for three weeks. It was time to call in some of his critical colleagues in the department who knew what he was attempting to do, so they could witness his results. The first one to be invited explained that he was busy moving from one house to another and could not spare the time. The second explained that he was simply too immersed in an examination schedule to break away, and
the third just happened to be leaving on a trip shortly, so sorry. This inference of fear was a continuing pattern.
Dr. Huizenga visited the cold fusion laboratory at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, on February 28, 1997. At this time, he was retired. He was visiting at the invitation of the physics department to speak against the cold fusion heresy that was alive in their department.
Drs. Robert Bush and Robert Eagleton, full professors in the department of physics, were running light water cells. Bush was Huizenga’s host in the laboratory. In Bush’s words, one cell was, “. . . evidencing excess power. And, while the gain (Pout/Pin) was rather modest at that time (about 1.12), the excess
power was well outside the possible error bars . . .”3 Huizenga was invited to spend time taking data. Huizenga demurred. Bush invited him to return on another date and do so. Huizenga demurred. Bush then offered him a fellowship to cover the expense of a return visit. Huizenga demurred. He refused all offers to participate in the experimental work in accordance with the manner of Drs. R. W. Wood and Irving Langmuir in the cases of Blondlot and Barnes respectively.
... he continue ...
QuoteI have concluded that fear is an important force in preventing scientists from looking into cold fusion studies even as an academic exercise. Progress will have to be made in the ghetto without help from orthodox scientists, even those with open minds. There is one source of help, though, from outside the ghetto. The silent partner in this controversy made provision that anomalous power would continue to register on the calorimeters even as their accuracy was much improved. Presumably that help will continue.
It is my thesis that this climate of fear was put into place at Baltimore by the mistaken attack on Fleischmann and Pons’s mental acuity and by the savage and ignorant criticism of their calorimetry. After those eminently successful attacks, who else dared to risk suffering from such public ruthlessness?
QuoteThe evidence is compelling, but there's still issues of reproducibility and so on.
+1
This is the most pessimistic, cautious, prudent, position that is rational.
There are very good reason to be more optimistic about Rossi, from latest test report, and from recent outing by S Pomp who confirmed that the test was real and was ready to face skeptic people. Linked to the fact the the test was not canceled, the report not yet published, and knowing the test was real that Rossi cannot lie without being sure to be corrected, his claim that only one of the reactor was used mean that the reactor was not destroyed early, not proposing ridiculous performance below the specifications.
I disagree with the critic about oil conspiracy, or politician conspiracy.
For me Oil Companies, like all capitalist and corruption structure, have investigated LENR, do agree with your position, and stopped their skunkwork team to investigate, for fear of academic terrorism.
Oil companies, like big corps will wake up soon, and do what they do well : use their capital mass, their regulatory influence, to slow and capture the market so most of the benefit get into their pocket and most be wasted , not in shareholder benefit, but in useless intermediate work as usual (bureaucracy, useless complexity and centralization that justify their existence).
As I repeat all the time, the problem is purely academic, mostly the dominance of a deified profession, who felt concerned by LENR while they were totally incompetent to judge the experiments, and not yet ready to help by their only useful competence : theory. They were so greatly influential, egotistic, illiterate in the domain, stubborn that they killed most effort of research, even by the greedy capitalist who are today too much submitted to governmental forces, to academic consensus.
Rossi have a bad profile, but it is classic for innovators. Profiling is interesting when you don't have a test report, but since 2013 the evidence are compelling...
One can be cautious and keep some fear of unimagined tricks (all imagined tricks are ruled out, either by science, or by game theory)... I would revers the position by saying that nobody rational could eliminate the possibility that Rossi have a working reactor (an euphemism, that some don't even admit).
Many critics against Rossi are fading, letting more a serie of entrepreneur and technologist failures, rather than fraud.
He have been cleared of environmental and fraud crimes in Petroldragon, and the judge recognized all was based on retroactive law (ruling out fraud).
The judge that hunted him, is under accusation of corruption.
His work about thermoelectric generators are in fact following classic direction (anisotropic structure, very expensive to design, and until now impossible to industrialize). The recent news from skeptic seems to be that the Army corp was funded by Leonatdo technology Incorporated (the corp of Rossi's boss, not Leonardo Corp of Rossi)... they paid them to test their TEG... it failed as expected, but that is the game...
When one accept that LENR is real, hard to control, but able to produce huge power and energy, there is nearly certain possibility after much work to obtain a controllable energy source.
If as ENEA have shown recently the F&P experiment lack of reliability is related to doping and crystallography parameters similar to what we observe in semiconductors, there is no doubt it can be controlled one day.
If it is a really random phenomenon like radioactivity, there is no doubt engineers can build machine that exploit the random to produce a statistically predictable result.
Question is when... Is it Rossi ? why not. He have seen what any engineer would have found, that working without water at high temperature is better for heat to power conversion. He have also seen that when something works in a random way a good solution is to produce many random object hoping that a proportion will work...
If not Rossi, Brillouin, Miley, and even Hagelstein, have found something reliable... Not yet efficient but to be improved...
One things that prevent most people to accept Rossi is the cognitive dissonance linked to the beliefs that cold fusion is impossible... Anybody informed know that cold fusion is proven since long (with many challenge of temperature, reliability, control, endurance, performance)... but they are skeptic against any industrial claim of cold fusion as if cold fusion was a hoax, which they know is false...
This does not cancel the need to be cautious on Rossi, like on any entrepreneur claiming he have succeeded in industrializing new technology. Simply current evidence, direct and indirect seems to be unavoidable. I cannot imagine a coherent and credible scenario where E-cat is not working enough to prove LENR is real and there is industrial potential. However there is reasonable possibilities that it is hard to use industrially... not a dominant hypothesis today, but not a ridiculous one.
There is however clear evidence from history that this facts will be accepted very slowly by academic elite, probably more than 1 year to reach the top, countdown starting not from any report but from an industrial achievement. (I took the Wright brother plane as model of academic denial - Internet can make it faster but global-groupthink can make it slower).
Elon Musk is not giving away his patent, but conceding them against the respect of some standard and openness...
His goal is to create a market, being sure that he could have a bigger share if the cake is bigger.
We may meet a similar problem with LENR patents.
Many real innovators I've met are very negative on patents, not more positive about open source...
Patent don't protect really, and opensource is used by big corps often to block innovation of smaller actors...
Innovators finally says that being small, force them to run faster than the corps, because their innovation will be stolen... whatever they do.
you are right.
Malthusian fear are non scientific.
not only t the demography of earth will turn down soon, as it is planned since the 70s, faster than expected because today fecundity get down before wealth increase, but technology and comfort make fecundity go down.
I agree that green movement will split between doomers and cleaners
People who did not read the document I cite may find surprising that I claim there was in 2001 only FOUR critical papers against F&P calorimetry... It is written in the book I always advise : "Excess Heat" by Charles Beaudette.
In a way to understand the tragedy, the fiasco of cold fusion consensus, you only have to read that introduction page :
Quote from "Charles Beaudette"Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.
The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.
The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.
It is hard to admit, for someone impregnated by consensus opinion on cold fusion to accept that Cold Fusion is simply, without any problem, a validated scientific phenomenon, mostly measured through excess heat.
It is even harder to accept that It was massively replicated even in 1990, accross the planet, in various kind of organization s(state, military, academic, industry.
Jed Rothwell have accumulated many articles and some are good at understanding that evidence.
This table "Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence" written by FG Will list the groups having replicated F&P and detected Heat or tritium, neutrons, gamma, He3
There was already 93 groups, from Canada, Germany, USSR, Texas AM, Japan, Oak Ridge, BARC,ENEA, China, Utah, Rome, Stanford, Hawaii, LANL, SRI, BHitachi, Spain, Navy,Englehard Industries ...
Now there are many arguments, which don't fit into scientific method that are spread by the mainstream.
They are analysed in that article by McKubre.
The conclusion of McKubre is flat:
QuoteDisplay MoreOn the basis of the evidence and arguments presented here, and far more extensively and compellingly elsewhere [5,10], it is apparent that the Fleischmann-Pons effect is a new effect in physics. It requires a new mechanistic description and explanation. This new effect is very likely to be associated with a significant number of other condensed matter nuclear processes that await exposition and development.
I predict that once explained, the underlying effect will not appear strange at all. It will seem, in retrospect, that it was quite clear that we should have understood it all along. It is a heat producing reaction, consistent with nuclear but not chemical effects, both temporally and quantitatively accompanied by 4He. This new effect, the Fleischmann Pons Effect, can be accompanied by nuclear “ash”, 3H and 3He being important. Strong evidence for other isotopes
exists [5]; more may follow.
How do we make progress? We make progress through theory: quantitative predictive fundamental physics descriptions. We will continue to make progress best by using the scientific method. To do so we are going to have to engage the broader scientific community. We simply can’t sit here secure behind our walls and talk in closed groups, we need to invoke enthusiasm in the broader scientific community. The organizers of this conference [ICCF15] are to be
commended for recognizing this need and furthering that process.
Another way of making progress is by engaging in the process of creating a product. Here we might take advantage of the growing public and political interest in real alternative energy solutions. The FPE produces real and useful energy, process heat. In Energetics experiment L64, in a single burst, twenty five times more heat was produced than entered the cell as electric power. This heat was produced at temperatures sufficient to boil water. Such an effect has practical value. Obviously taking an experiment to the market as a product requires several steps that are non-trivial. This exercise however may be an effective means of gaining an engineering understanding of the effect even before the scientific.
Thank you for the finding.
It cover LENR page 4 to 7, with decent references to mainstream sources. fair job.
Note that one can find the HTML article there
http://energy-musings.com/node/346#1
on PPHB site
On NyTeknik, the journal where Mats Lewan works, Ulrika Björkstén director of science editors of the Swedish Radio that organized a clear character assassination against Andrea Rossi and his E-cat, have given an interview to defend her program. (translated in English, in Swedish)
QuoteShot. Why anyone would give Andrea Rossi's credibility in the form of scientific reports is a mystery. His projects show clear warning flag, writes Ulrika Björkstén, director of science editors of the Swedish Radio.
Her crusade against Rossi to save the taxpayer and the citizen from a scam artist is not impressing me as I know that the real goal is to protect the idea that :
"Cold fusion is contrary to scientific knowledge"
(guess why I use Comic font 
)
I tried to publish a long, boring long, argument against that meme, and the technology prevented me (ok it is very long 
, not a "comment" ). So I will abuse of my access here to publish it 
:
EDIT: in fact it was not technical, but for a short answer to a "nay-believer" I was flagged as abusive 
! my post is now published 
...
Beside a conspiracy way of mind that is just rationalization of denial, what is shocking me is that Mrs Bjorksten takes as evident that cold fusion is disproved by Science, while factually, scientifically, it is a proved scientific phenomenon.
If Mrs Björksten had a real scientific behavior, she would have read or simply counted the 153 peer reviewed articles (some published in specialized journal in calorimetry, or experimental physics like Journal of electro-analytical Chemistry and JJAP) claiming excess heat, then the 5 written critics on those articles, and then the rebuttal (one of the 5 article is refuting 2 others).
She would have understood that:
Thus that according to scientific method it is a scientifically proved fact.
I know it is shocking, but that is the scientific method.
One of the top electro-chemist in Germany, Heinz Gerisher, after opposing strongly finally admitted there was evidence... in 1992 (when chemist had replicated F&P).
To understand that short claim, check the data as she should have done. Claiming that science is pathological is a job, it is not just parroting Wikipedia or badly written conspiracy books like the one of Huizenga,Parks, Morrison and Taubes:
First read the list the peer reviewed papers claiming excess heat in that tally
If you don't believe, check on by one, and ask experts if there are more, peer reviewed or not...
add this recent
which cite the experiment it replicates
Then consult the critics (be kind, don't ask peer reviewed), and their refutation. See if there is answers to refutation ? if the critics are maintained ?
Charles Beaudette have done it, and synthesized all page 5 of his book
until 2001.
Kirk Shanahan propose another critic recently which is refuted here :
but anyway ignored by all critics even Stephan Pomp who don't dare to defend it. Kirk at least have the courage to defend it, and is blocked too, like all LENR researchers.
The refutation is very interesting to understand that Cold Fusion experimenters are not the "loose scientist" that the myth have painted.
To understand who was loose in that story, Jed Rothwell have made a funny article about Titanic Myth propagated by media
You will see who are Taubes and Morrison, beside incompetent scientists.
Beaudette book, with more details but less aggressively note how those authors avoid to cite any paper after 1989, knowing that chemist took few years to make good papers, as any serious chemist do on such subject.
To see how incompetent was Morrison read that debate
if you need more data than the thousands of article found on lenr-canr.org, you can consult the Beaudette donation
and by the way notice how serious is this engineer when doing Science...
Now you will be surprised that the pile of solid evidence that Cold Fusion is real, according to the scientific method , have not convinced scientists, and journalists, and politicians.
To understand that I will advise you to read books of non consensual epistemology, and of non traditional economics, which all have the characteristic to better match the reality than the academic opinion.
If you don't accept the claims, now compare
with the Wikipedia vision.
This erased Wikipedia article, full of irony describe the real battle between scientific method, and scientific consensus
If someone deserve to be a scientific investigator, it is Charles Beaudette.
Read his book before claiming anything on cold fusion science... at least to avoid ridicule 
. You can buy it on paper (Infinite Energy, Amazon) or read it as PDF :
Of course I don't imagine than any denier will take more than 20 second on those links.
I would say that it matches the theory of Roland Benabou on group-think.
I am still waiting for at least one critical paper against F&P calorimetry, because rambling in skeptics lounge, I have seen no written paper that is not yet refuted to the point of ridicule 
.
The rest on E-cat denial, is just rationalization, because if E-cat is real, this mean that Cold Fusion is real, and thus that it is an epic failure of academic consensus science.
I've often heard of relativism accusation, claiming that no science can be judged better than another...
Kuhn was clear that there was a better paradigm, which was the most productive, useful, practical...
however as we see currently, until it is fruitful, even perfectly scientific evidence respecting the exact letter of scientific method, facing not the least real critic, coherent with known science, cannot convince people who feel endangered as a paradigm supporter.
Cold fusion is proven by at least 153 peer-reviewed positive excess heat papers (2 independent would be enough if not challenged), with 4 refuted critics, and the story is coherent (nuclear, condensed matter, collective effect) despite lack of detailed theory.
In fact what skeptic see is :
Such a level of delirium is a pathetic example that Kuhn and Feyerabend are one thousand miles ahead from Popper about real epistemology.
As I say often, Off with their head... at APS, DoE, Nature, Science, SciAm, texas AM, and also to the parrots and rats at CEA, INFN,Spawar...
some people have to be fired, ridiculed, deprized.
The description of his work is interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
the result is simply that as anyone looking at real science in history, that method not only was never respected, consistency neither, but that trying to apply a method and consistency would ruin science...
I've learned basics of cognitive ergonomy, and one of the basic is that the boss and even the worker often don't understand how they really work.
what he propose is really the opposite of that apparently rationalized science that current bureaucracy is supporting. In a way I don't see anything really shocking.
Maybe the description is mild...
Like for Kuhn i just see what is clear and evident for someone observing real history of science, real bureaucracy in enterprises, real markets and organizations irrationality, and how innovation works in real world...
I've heard nasty things against Thomas Kuhn, but his philosophy is clearly matching facts, and based on basic psychology.
hard to understand what makes people moan, except the strawman they develop against him to protect their mythology.
I watch a swedish discussion
http://www.klimatupplysningen.…rossi-kan-radda-klimatet/
and this is the occasion to see the usual argument, of self evidence.
That E-cat is clearly a fraud, that cold fusion is clearly pseudo-science.
QuoteIf it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
McKubre duck (tested in closed cell, with flow rabbitometry and H+O2 rabbitobination)
Rossi's duck (note that this one is clearly a duck , even if some uninformed observer consider it can be a rabbit, a rat, a mole, but not a duck...)
ENEA duck quite clear, and with some style
SRI , NRL, ENEA joint replication of duck
Greek Canadian Duck (Credit to Luca Gamberale for the pics)
In 1989 there was less data and I concede there was an ambiguous vision of the reality, and that for physicist there was clearly a Duck, because there was no rabbit in their labs, only ducks.
But today, the photography is more clear.
F&P duck, a duck without any doubt. many duck books written.
Thomas Kuhn used that image to make people understand what is paradigm change.
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
Today given the massive data, the ambiguity looks absurd.
On Mat's Lewan blog Slabadang makes this similar critic on the editor:
http://matslew.wordpress.com/2…ts-it-black/#comment-2846
Quote from "Slabadang"Display MoreBjörkstens tactics on her political motivated caracter assasinations!
Björksten is a green politruk and gatekeeper appointed by the idological korrupted gouvernment of Swedish public service. Why she choosed Hansson was because he is deeply involved in the most fanatic branch of the enviromental movement and by hiring a freelancer Björkstens responsability is reduced in a perfect way at the same time. She becomes able to order what the assasination of caracter message must look like and then have the choice to blame Hansson or choose to let the responsability on impartiality and balance slip between the chairs.
Hansson is playing his role as the willingful useful idiot as Björkstens hired torpedo on the caracters she wants assasinated very clumsy but as a man on a mission. A more biased project is hard to imagine. For you who hasnt notised the extreme bias of swedish public service in general and Björlstens as the most extreme and obvious example have to notice the destiny of Lennart Bengtsson who is Swedens most respected and established climate scientist who came out as a sceptic a week ago.
All over the world the story of the bullying and herassment of Bengtsson made front page news in USA Kina Australia England Denmark Finland Norway Indonesia France India and many more countries. But in Bengtssons pwn country where Ulrika Björksten Anna Schytt and Eva Sandahl operates and controls the swedish climate propaganda they didnt produce or publish anything on the remarkelbe event that Bengtsson left thier “97%” konsensus. They see the swedish public as a mushroom farmers “Keep em in the dark and feed them with pure bullshit!”
So whats the ambition and motive behind this hit job? The ambition is to scare any journalist or scientist that dare to challange the intrests of the big green lobby that placed Ulrika on her job as itsgatekeeper.She wants to send a message that she is prepered to caracter assasinate anyone who interfer with the intrest of the big green plan and she has been given the mandate to act on behalf of that interets.
So why is Rossi seem so dangerous from Björkstens angle? Its simply because any option or candidates who compete with the big greens appointed alternatives as biofules vindfarms and solar panels are dangerous to both thier economical and ideological intrests. When people realize that there can be other options and the old dream of cheap energi in abundance could be both rewoken feasable and even just around the corner, is seen like antrax spread ower the people profiting from the big greeen machine. Thats why she ordered this caracter assasination job.
But she is isolated as som many gatekeepers working for public service and MSM.More citizens read blogs on the internet and is increasingly fed up with the pure bullshit they are spreading. Im am an free and independent citizen Björksten cant controll the desinformation she wants to throw at me or you any more. We can laugh ar them from our new independant internet plattform where you have to earn trust while the biased media is ruining theirs.
So Mats … I hope you are not afraid of Björksten she is just a pathetic figure nd sad exuse as an journalist with her future behind her.
I agree that big incumbent corps, established on a market with much more to lose than to win will try to slow the revolution.
However they also have incentive to embrace the new revolution, at they mammoth pace. They are composed of people , executives, workers, who have individual incentive to escape the sinking boa called "company". Of course at the beginning the less courageous actors will try to save the ship, to battle against what they consider as "enemy"...
See how in france we try to defend metallurgy near the empty abandoned 19th century mines, refusing even to move to the port where the minerals flow.
I am much more afraid of fannatic people, defending an idea, a vision of the world instead of their butt, their selfish interest.
See how the physicist defended their myth, their ego, their dogma, against all evidence, just because they could not bear to admit they did not find the trick of physics.
I expect similar desperate defence of people having no intellectual escape. those whose meaning of life oppose the "cornucopian" consequence of LENR, the death of many enemies like climate CO2 or fission energy.
Those people will feel like fannatized military units when signing peace... desperate, inventing conspiracy to make the war continue.
Some says that this happened when Berlin wall fall, and the military-industrial complex invented new enemies.
same for the academics needing funding, whose budget was fed by cold war...
For some time the was against drug did the job.
There was then war agains terrorism...
And... you know...
In a way this gives us hope. Maybe those "fanatic" are not so fanatic. what they need is a funding.
Like all the military-industrial complex and the Ivy leages univesities they will surf on another fashion.
I hope that behind the fanatic activist that will never surrender (like those who still want a cold war), there is a crowd of selfish interest who, like the corporate interest, will ask for a share of the revolution, will just slow the revolution, but will embrace it.
