I agree 115% with what Axil says. However the core of the issue is: *WHAT IS THE COLD FUSION PROBLEM, its definition?* To understand it and to make it useful or to make it useful - we have to consider realistically which way is accessible. Are we ready to accept that the kinds of LENR that are able to deliver energy are rdically different from what Fleischmann and Pons have revealed? Hagestein's editorial is a treasure it helps us to re-define the fundamentals; he offers us the most illuminating questions. Peter
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > There is at least material for 100 posts in this article from Hagelstein. > So let’s get started. > > The scientific approach may not be the best way to get closer to a > solution. Sometimes a systems engineering approach is more productive. > > A systems engineer surveys the problem to be solved from the widest > possible perspective. He evaluates the problem from the top down. > He asks … can the problem be solved using chemistry, physics, > astrophysics, biology, nuclear physics, Quantum Mechanics, modeling, > mathematics, electronics… he casts his net as wide as possible…he goes out > as far as he needs to in order to bracket the problem. When he finds the > fields that may apply to the problem, he moves to the next level and starts > to learn what he needs to go deeper. > > Jack of all trades, master of none" is a figure of speech used in > reference to a person that is competent with many skills but is not > necessarily outstanding in any particular one. > > This person needed to make progress in LENR is a generalist rather than a > specialist. > > The people that have developed the Ni/H reactors are such generalists with > an open mind. The DGT documents reference volcanism, material science, > geophysics and nanotechnology in their explanations of their theories. > > The Cantonese saying applies to LENR "Equipped with knives all over, yet > none is sharp" > > LENR is an issue that needs a lot of knives. > > > > Cheers: Axil > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Here is an important opinion piece. Hagelstein reveals his cynical, >> sarcastic side. He attacks science by vote, and science by Wikipedia, among >> other things. See: >> >> Hagelstein, P.L., *On Theory and Science Generally in Connection with >> the Fleischmann-Pons Experiment*. Infinite Energy, 2013(108). >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf >> >> ABSTRACT: >> >> I was encouraged to contribute to an editorial generally on the topic of >> theory in science, in >> connection with publication of a paper focused on some recent ideas that >> Ed Storms has put forth regarding a model for how excess heat works in the >> Fleischmann-Pons experiment. Such a project would compete for my time with >> other commitments, including teaching, research and >> family-related commitments; so I was reluctant to take it on. On the other >> hand I found myself tempted, since over the years I have been musing about >> theory, and also about science, as a result of having been involved in >> research on the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. As you can see from what >> follows, I ended up succumbing to temptation. >> >> >> - Jed >> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
