Alain,
> this order is bad in real lifen and the rejection of LENR is caused by that > pseudo-rational pathology... I appreciate Your fight against pathoskepticism and partly agree. To converge on the issue, let me comment: > in real life the inventors discover a phenomenon, try to make it useful... This is not universally the case, and depends on the TYPE of invention or discovery. It is probably useful to distinguish between 'in-ven-tion' and 'dis-covery'. A discovery results from genuine curiosity like amber/electrostatics, Galvani/proto-battery. 'In-ven-tion' has a peculiar smell : It means: To incorporate something into a pool of property: therefore eg 'Corporation', which is a super-body of property. Like it or not. I have very little hope that my american friends here understand that. Because You are obviously French, maybe You do. Anyway. ->finally scientist get the story and make a theory compatible with other scientific theory... Well. No. This is not the general case. >theory is not a goal, but a tool to make things work... Well. No. It is a conceptual vehicle to reduce complexity and make predictions. At times so successfully that we are inclined to mistake it as 'reality'. ---------- Two examples: 1) Newton & 'gravity'. Did Newton 'invent' gravity? Not in the above sense. Did Newton 'discover' gravity? Not really. It is an element of a conceptual SYSTEM, to make it cohernet! It is a conceptual vehicle like 'temperature'! Newton CONSTRUCTED 'gravity'. Compare: ' Inventing Temperature --Measurement and Scientific Progress' http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Science/?view=usa&ci=9780195337389 2) The telephone. Compared to Newton/gravity or Galvani/electricity it is TRIVIAL what Reis/Bell/Gray and other contenders did. See the timing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone#Patents (Same with the light-bulb, the phonograph etc) To repeat: This is TRIVIAL, because it is BASED ON EXISTING DISCOVERY/CONCEPTUALIZATION of physical laws, which is quite different to the state of LENR, where NO consensus exists wrt underlying physical laws/concepts! I could go on and on, but most vortexers would fall asleep. So I stop here. Guenter ########################################### 2012/9/19 Guenter Wildgruber <[email protected]> my five cents: > >a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. >b) produce a working hypothesis >c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. >d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop >is established. >e) aim for 'commercial' level. > >Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. >Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. >Please spare me Edison or Tesla. >Bad examples. >Galvani being a better one. > >Guenter >
