Sunday, September 29, 2013

DEFKALION’S HENI ARCHITECT HAS VISITED ME


 .
Defkalion is actually much greater and is far more advanced than both CF hater and CF lover skeptics think. And it has made more very hard R&D work than most of you imagine. Companies and selected individuals have seen their labs and their Hyperion generators working. At its turn, Defkalion also has visited universities, institutes, and companies in many parts of the world...
However I am a very privileged individual because I had the honor and pleasure to be visited by Defkalion’s research leader Yiannis Hadjichristos who has generously helped me to keep an old promise made at a decisive moment of my life. 14 years ago I have retired from this Institute: http://www.itim-cj.ro/ and I have promised to come back when the problem I have studied there, then still called Cold Fusion, will be solved i.e. the phenomenon will become a commercial energy source. For many years, cold fusion just became more and more interesting, was just fragmentary understood but remained unable to be scaled up. Then came Rossi
who has achieved enhanced excess but is behaving like the sorcerer’s apprentice- it seems he cannot control the new phenomena. Then, and this was the greatest positive super-surprise from the history of this, till now, unhappy field:  Defkalion has appeared as a unique Fast Company and has solved the problem.

Therefore when my former Institute has organized its traditional high level PIM symposium see the program, etc. here: 
http://pim.itim-cj.ro/detailed_program.php
Defkalion has accepted that Yiannis should present a paper describing their ideas, technology, and generators. Introducing him to the audience, I could declare that I kept my ancient promise; I had a very deep satisfaction; it was a kairos, a triumph moment of my life. It is not pleasant to be remembered in the annals as “that crazy gullible guy who believed even in cold fusion, R.I.P.!”

Yannis has presented the paper very well- strong content, passionate delivery, great visuals and had success despite the fact that the public was rather ignorant regarding the subject. Cold fusion is either ignored or considered a blunder of the far past. If you speak about it to physicists, the most positive reaction you can obtain is that they are suggesting smart methods and tricks to pass the Coulomb Barrier. The clue is that counter-tautologically speaking, “cold fusion is actually NOT cold fusion”
This was the reason for which before this event, I have published
my paper
intended to be a wake of call for the old guard and even more for the young guard but it had no impact- the domination of strong memes is almost irreversible. Only my closest LENR friends have reacted to it.

However, what made this meeting captivating was the possibility to discuss with Yiannis in the most open and friendly manner. Consider my definition of a friend: “somebody with whom you can think aloud”. Friends are great personal assets in the professional life.
PVC has brought me Hans Kaltwasser and Paul Zugravescu, cold fusion came with Hal Fox, Akira Kawasaki. Mike Carrell, Franco Piantelli and one guy who later became first his own worst enemy then I forgot his name. Now, it is the turn of HENI (because this is what Defkalion is actually doing) and Yiannis became a dear friend whom I admired first for what he has done, and now also for his character and personality. As I told when he introducing him at PIM, he has lead the team which made my dream real.

Take a look to page 23 in the presentation; you will see 5 (five) nude Hyperion generators; add to these the sixth generation now in development and you will get kind of backbone of a story, challenge,
heroic engineering, failures, successes- problem solving inside problem solving. From the very start, this research strategy had nothing Edisonian in it, Yiannis thinks –do not leave anything to luck, be proactive. The problem is much too difficult for long trial and error sequences. Yiannis’s education as mathematician, his specializations in complexity theory and systems thinking and his very diversified experience and expertise in problem solving were his main competitive advantages.
It is amazing; he took cold fusion seriously as object of research in 2009 when Defkalion still was just in an early stage of organization. Obviously a fast learner and a well targeted learner. He has discussed with many participants at PIM, physicists and chemists and he knows a lot of things- has a broad scientific-technological\Culture. See his LinkedIn profile.

We had long vivid discussions, one of them over 6 hours and I have learned a lot about what I am the most interested- more than DGT’s strategy – it is its mode of thinking, values, mission- in one word the Soul of the company, what moves it. The schema: build a technology and make money from it is an oversimplification. I have discussed more times with Alex Xanthoulis the CEO who has founded the company, has worked out the global strategy, took the risks and the vital decisions (as cutting the knot, more or less Gordian, that linked DGT to Andrea Rossi). When I speak with Alex, I hear a voice whispering “you could be such a leader too, but you made the fatal error to be born in a country ruled by dictators and growing up in a communist society” Bad chance but I will come back. Dying is bad per se but dying and not knowing more what happens with New Energy is an unbearable tragedy.

But back to the 5 generations of Hyperions and their history of some 27 months. No 1- does not work, No. 2- gives strong signs, No 3= it goes!, No. 4- it can be measured well, we are on the right track, No. 5 was developed and improved till the good functionality shown at the Demo. It was a job for a great well coordinated team people of different professions, many problems to be solved. The ‘firsts’were part of the strategy:
-        engineering is the way and science, theories are of great help however not only the CF born ones- new theories
-        the problem of control had absolute priority, increase of performances as COP comes after- a very wise decision.
It is about a very hard working team, do not think about sporadic experimentation, only R-5 means more than 300 tests performed
based on a very systematic research plan executed with mathematical rigor and precision. It is important for understanding the extent and level of their effort
A special remark – what the DGT people are doing is actually part of New Physics, new thinking in physics ADDING to what we know, establishing new directions, solving chronic problems, ending a period of relative stagnation and of unanswered questions. It is part of a New Wave in physics, something for YOUNG people of all ages. DGT, beyond creating a new source of energy, clean and 8 to 10 times cheaper than the most economical source today intends to be a nursery-incubator for the new ideas in physics.
A genius is a genius is a genius: Martin Fleischmann the Father of the original cold fusion energy dream was also one of the discoverers of PLASMONICS- a field in the stage of epidemic development now; nanoplasmonics is the clue and core of Defkalion’s process. I already wrote about their HENI (http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/08/defkalion-says-heni-is-more-proper-name.html
From now HENI means (see the PIM presentation p 8): Heat Energy from Nanoplasmonics/Nanoexplosions Interactions.
Yiannis and I have discussed fundamental things, in essence strategy and this has to e correlated with a realistic SWOT analysis. This tool Strengths-Weaknesses- Opportunities- Threats has to be used with emphasis and priority for T and W- Alex knows this much better than me. One of the most potent S features of a company is its ability to make good surprises, to deliver more and other things than expected. When teaching Management of Technology, I always gave this example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
The faster, more inventive, less predictable, surpriseful mongoose defeats the very dangerous cobras. Therefore not a word about the coming events- wait please; see, and you will be happy (in case you indeed want new energy).
Inter alia we have discussed openly about the aggressive skeptics, Yiannis said that if Mary Yugo did not existed “she’ had to be invented as protection against sharks when swimming with them.
 A test made with Mary would be a fine move; unfortunately anybody can tell he/she is Mary Yugo. 

The DGT company is Strong, knows its Weaknesses, will use wisely the endless Opportunities it has and it’s aware of the magnitude and multitude of Threats.
At one point we have disagreed- the Company thinks their generators will be copied successfully by some smart competitors
in 6 months after going commercial but my guess is a minimum of 2 years. Let’s see.

See the attached photos
Yiannis and I in our flat 






Three very critical experts in adult intelligence have supervised
our discussions taking notes on their tablets. The expert-in–the middle, the most harsh one, Nora Toth, has stated that Yiannis is a “nagy fej” i.e. a “great head” (smart) in Hungarian, so he passed the exam.



You can find: 
The powerpoint presentation:

The submitted paper:

Saturday, September 21, 2013

AXIL's metaphor explaining "Everything I knew..." paper

An idea is like a forest fire, if it catches on to just a few bushes in a rain soaked woodland, it will eventually consume that limited source of sustenance and in the due course of time will eventually die out.


But if that idea is set is the dry tinder of a huge woodlot, its vigorous spread and survival is assured. 


Survival of LENR as a permanent concept in the history of humankind is Peter’s primary concern. LENR is a critical long term survival instrument in the toolbox of mankind’s future that must not be lost. 


To ignite the conflagration of the LENR inferno that will preserve LENR in perpetuity, Peter believes that it is critical to legitimize LENR through the development of a commercial product. I believe this is a wise and true idea.


Because of the burden of its history and the essence of its nature, Pd/D serves neither the advancement of science nor the development of a commercial product. Peter believes that study of the Pd/D system undercuts the development of a commercial product based on Ni/H through the diversion of money, attention and talent away from Ni/H development.


This enfeebled Pd/D spark is inherently weak and will eventually be extinguished and erased from the history of ideas. 


Unfortunately at this juncture, like Peter I also believe that the success of a commercial LENR product is the only event that will reverse the negative impressions and disposition of the science community toward LENR. 

Friday, September 20, 2013

Abd's comments to my paper: "Everything I knew..."



I am really grateful to my friend and discussions partner, Abd for his extended , positive and wise comments regarding my Synthesis paper published a couple of days ago. For the majoriy of the ideas we are NOT in close agreement. 
I will not comment the comments, however this is my blog and I have the right and duty of the last word. Two remarks:
a) I think Abd has to accept- with time- that if something is bad for technology, it is even worse for science (as unreliability);
b) Abd has no realistic vision based on experience of how strong, how stubbornly,
how difficultly removable the molecules of/from air adhere on solid  matter; he 
misinterprets Defkalion's demo degassing story.

Abd dixit:


EVERYTHING I KNEW ABOUT COLD FUSION WAS WRONG

(Note- this is a stereotypical title, more exactly almost everything was wrong and not so necessarily what I knew about it)

Aw, gee, you raised my hopes Peter. I know that someone is starting to understand Nature when they say that they don't.

"Wrong" is an idea that we make up, in our thinking, it's not in Nature itself, nor in what actually happens.


We must re-think completely CF/LENR because it has problems and it is very different from how we know it today.

This is true if we recognize "CF/LENR" as a concept. However, Peter's comment would be contradictory to that intepretation because he distinguishes CF/LENR from "how we know it today," i.e., from the concept. So he must mean the phenomenon itself, what actually happens in Nature. And that has no problem at all. It simply is what it is and is not what it is not. Where is the problem? It only appears in us, when we want Nature to be different from what it is.

It is not necessary for us to fall into this trap -- wanting what is not -- in order to be powerful in managing our lives, individually and collectively. Rather, we simply work with what is, instead of making what is into a problem. A *challenge* is not a problem, it's part of a game that we play, a game that, in fact, confers survival value but that is not necessarily aimed toward survival. A limited survival, an increased effectiveness, is a side-effect. I'll state the goal of the gama as Fun, but it could be conceptualized many other ways.

We must re-write radically the history of CF/LENR in order to re-build a good future for it.

Positively, I'd frame this as re-interpreting history. However, my sense is that Peter thinks of this in the exact opposite of what will be effective. Let's see where this goes.


The real cause of all the problems of CF/LENR is that it was discovered BEFORE ITS TIME in the worst system possible, with the less adequate metal.

This is his re-writing, and it is of a kind that, I know from a great deal of experience with people struggling with fundamental issues, will simply perpetuate a trap. There is cogency to some of what Peter is saying. PdD is not the "best system possible," nor necessarily the "most adequate metal," though from some points of view it could be. However, without PdD, there is a very good chance that we might known nothing about LENR. So an ultimate history of cold fusion will demonstrate gratitude that it existed.

And, yes, there were "issues."


 Knowledge and tools missing, CF/LENR was too complex, too new, too unexpected, too messy, too multifaceted, too dynamic, too non-linear and too weird to be really understood and controlled at the time of its discovery. CF/LENR proved to be really at the far right side of the Medawar Zone  http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/FTEssay/Essays/Gluck.htm

I haven't followed that link. PdD was, indeed, complex, messy, non-linear, and I could say weird as well. Yes, we did not know how to control it, and that may still be reasonably asserted, though some may disagree. However, without it, *nothing*. Reminds me of what George Burns said when asked how he felt to be at an advanced age (in his nineties). "Pretty good, considering the alternative."

PdD was great, considering the alternative. That is, the very high loading attainable with PdD was suspected by Pons and Fleischmann to allow a higher fusion rate than expected. They still thought it wouldn't be measurable. But they decided to look, and then saw their experiment melt down. If they had not been extraordinarily lucky, they'd have seen nothing, very likely.

So Nature dropped this gift in their lap, and then they shared it with the rest of us. And now Peter Gluck comes along and is trying to tell us it was some kind of curse.

No, we made it that way, to the extent that it was. We failed to appreciate the reality in front of us, and kept wanting it to be "better."

Once we understand it, we might well make it better, and that process is under way. Good chance NiH will take us into new dimensions. PdD will still be of scientific interest. Peter tries to make this either-or. No, as research opens up, whether with PdD or NiH or something else, all aspects of CMNS will benefit.


The discovery of CF has happened in such unfortunate circumstances that I considered a new word has to be coined for it: “miscovery”

The circumstances were as they were. Labelling them "unfortunate" gives us *nothing.* Basically, we can sit around on the Titanic explaining what is going on, arguing about reality. We can decide whom we prefer to talk with. Maybe we don't like those negative thinkers who say that the ship could sink. Or maybe we dislike those positive thinkers who say it's impossible. A few will just think. They won't jump to conclusions. They will enjoy the Titanic -- fantastic ship, it was -- until the end. And then whether or not they survive may depend *not at all* on what they were thinking the day before.

And whether they survive or not may not matter as much as how they lived their lives. We all die anyway.

The Fleischmann- Pons Cell was the cradle of CF/LENR but it almost became its coffin, and continues to be its bed of Procrustes, limiting its development and making the process almost unmanageable, irreproducible and not scalable..

I see absolutely no sign that PdD or the FP Cell is limiting LENR research. If PdD research had not existed, people would still be skeptical of NiH. Because it does exist, and because some know that PdD cold fusion is real, there is actually increased support for NiH research. Not less.

PdD in some forms is difficult to manage. Not necessarily in all forms. The electrolytic approach is messy, but I could sit down, and within a couple of days at most, be running a Galileo project cell, looking for certain phenomena. It would take me much more time to set up with NiH. However, if someone is new, and wants to take a look for themselves, I might suggest NiH, or, at least, cooperating with the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. In what way is PdD holding them back? Peter, your thesis is preposterous.

PdD is scalable, any effect is. That's not the problem. The problem is manageability, or what is better called reliability. You can scale it up, all right, but then you might get more than you bargained for, unless you scale up in a very particular way.

What Peter may not realize is that all this is so for NiH as well. We have no reliability data from Rossi, nor from Defkalion. There are indications of poor reliability. There is compensation by having overcapacity and the ability to shut down the reaction, at least with Defkalion.

Reliability is the ultimate issue for a commercial product. PdD appears not to be suitable for a commercial product in the near future, NiH may have a better shot at it. But we don't know.


The connection of CF/LENR with electrochemistry was absolutely fortuitous and does not generate a single advantage for the field; on the contrary, wet systems annihilate the chances of CF/LENR to become an energy technology.

But they do not prevent study of the effect. This is what Peter misses, the value of *scientific research*. He wants *energy!* Great! We will get there, and probably, at least first, through NiH. People started studying NiH early on, but results were spotty and some may have been artifact. However, once PdD opened the door to the possibility of LENR, people started looking in many places that, before, would not have been considered.

And if we simply present what we already know about PdD to gain support for a rigorously convincing confirmation of prior work with PdD, we can blow the whole field open, without waiting for Rossi or Defkalion or someone else to save us. *We have what we need,* that is, we have what is needed to get what we need.


 (functional LENR needs temperatures at which the pressure of water is too high for practical electrolysis). The dominant but false electrochemical model of CF/LENR has defeated the catalytic model.

What "false electrochemical model"? I'm not aware of any "electrochemical model." Electrolysis is a convenient way to generate deuterium, and it does act to increase loading, through surface effects, but there is no major theory of cold fusion that considers electrolysis essential. If seen certain radically premature commercial proposals that used huge assemblies of electrochemical cells. The company proposing that vanished. As could be expected. However, there is a large market for below-boiling hot water, it's used for heating. FP type cells sometimes produce high COP. So if they could be made to reliably do that, it's not impossible. But the big problem isn't that, it's the high cost of palladium and deuterium.

As to the science, we could be and would be proceeding to investigate PdD cold fusion, even if Rossi had not found -- apparently -- a way to increase the output. Rossi and Defkalion are working at much higher temperatures, which could be expected to increase the output. (An increase in XP with temperature is observed with PdD experiments as well, and so high-temperature PdD, gas loaded, could be done.)

The discovery of heat excess in palladium was the most unfortunate event possible,

No, Peter, not so. Not having discovered it would have been, as I would define fortune, less fortunate.

Yes, had it been discovered first with NiH, it could have been *more* fortunate. But, Peter, you are using unnecessary hyperbole to convince yourself of some thesis, a story of how awful reality is. Bad idea. Terrible idea, in fact.

The thinking produces that as a reality, like clockwork. Evidence accumulates, and reality appears worse and worse and worse.

 because due to the very high solubility of deuterium in this metal, the bulk is competing with the active sites for the gas, that leads to the necessity to achieve and maintain high loading D/Pd. We can speak about the Pdisaster of the field.

Peter, that's your idiosyncratic theory. It's rooted in a fact, some gases can poison the reaction, possibly. However, an FP cell is probably self-cleaning as to some of these gases. The idea of the lattice as a competitor is interesting, but .... the fact is that until highly loaded PdD existed, the effect wasn't seen.


The merits of the Founding Fathers are really exceptional and  because the have discovered the phenomenon in pessim circumstances. They were able to see profound connection where nobody has dared to think.

They were brilliant *and* lucky. The brilliance was in understanding that standard, accepted theory was based on approximations that had not been tested. So they decided to test them. They were lucky because if the palladium they used had been ordinary, they would probably have seen nothing.


In the long perspective, in the case of CF/LENR, we were barking not at the wrong tree, we were barking at a dwarf, weakling bush…

A real bush. A representative of a vast array of species of useful plants. If someone imagined that this bush was the only possible plant, yes, they were severely limiting themselves. But it wasn't the fault of the bush! The bush didn't have a problem.


However, because for so many years the conditions and tools
for solving the problem of a commercial LENR based energy source were not discovered or were not available, it is not fair and not justified to speak about errors, the experiments made by the supporters of the field have helped it to survive in conditions of extreme hostility.

That's accurate.


In time we have discovered that there are formidable obstacles on the way to an energy source and the much feared Coulomb Barrier is not the most difficult of those.

It's not "feared." It's simply an established habit of charged nuclei. So what? The issue has always been what forms of tunneling might exist. The "Coulomb Barrier" is no obstacle to experimental investigation of cold fusion. To explore the parameter space of cold fusion requires no calculation or consideration of the Barrier, and, indeed, it would simply be a distraction. Cold fusion, so far, is a chemistry experiment. It does not involve the tools of physics.

Physics only comes in when we try to *explain* it, because the reaction itself is nuclear, not a chemical phenomenon. But making it happen? Only chemistry, at least mostly, so far. Dual laser stimulation at possible phonon frequencies, say 20.5 THz, we might call that physics.


Under the stressing pressure of weak results and due to the impossibility to find an acceptable explanation- both of the results and of the failures the collective orientation in the field became non-optimal:
-         CF/LENR has lost its original, definitory aim (to be a competitive  energy source and claimed to be a promising scientific issue, despite the unreliable and unrepeatable  experimental results;

That was the aim of some people, and it blinded them. It was radically premature. It was only important insofar as the possibility could be used to justify funding of basic research, on the long-shot that it could be made practical.



-         it was more and more suggested that the Scientific  Method alone is able to make us to understand CF/LENR and to solve its problems
Noble ideas, however only strictly controllable/manageable experiments can yield genuinely scientific knowledge and only a hybrid, technological and scientific approach can generate progress. Scientism is damaging for CF/LENR due to its inefficiency.

Peter has made that up. The Scientific Method is a technique for developing solid knowledge. It is not the only way to gain knowledge, but other ways suffer from certain defects that can lead to false imagination being believed. The scientific method as an approach cannot necessarily be applied under all circumstances. In particular, original exploration doesn't have time for the scientific method. It is when something is found by exploration that the scientific method can be applied, and, as well, systematic investigation through controlled experiment can then lead to the development of enough data to be able to develop accurate theory. Theory that can then be used to make engineering more efficient.

I think that Peter, by "Scientism" is referring to some belief that everything must be "proven." No, we proceed based on the preponderance of evidence, or sometimes based on hunches and intuition. Scientism may demand that we stop. Scientism is *not* science. It is not the scientific method. It may *demand* the "scientific method,* but the method itself makes no demands, beyond, perhaps, "don't fool yourself."



Cold fusion is too complex a matter to be left to physicists. More exactly- “to physicists alone” being a really multi-disciplinar and trans-disciplinary issue. Systems thinking and understanding complexity are vital. LENR, I believe, is a movie, not a photo, an opera, not a song- to use ~artistic metaphors.

We don't need physicists at this point in the development of cold fusion. That is, the vast bulk of the work does not use the tools of physics, and the development of theory is probably premature. The demand for theory in the first place was a demand that the chemists probably should have ignored. You could call that "Scientism."

What was needed was more evidence. The original discovery was by chemists, and when they tried to use the tools of physics, they were outside their expertise and made a mistake that, it's easily claimed, would not have been made by any nuclear physicist. So the nuclear physicists mocked them. It was a tactical error, to announce those supposed neutron/gamma results, without having them thoroughly reviewed by physicists. Someone may be able to tell that story, I'll take another look at Taubes. But I don't know if that story was told.

In hindsight, they should have stayed far, far away from any theory involving nuclear physics. It would have been enough for them to admit *failure* to explain their results by chemistry. That would have invited others to attempt the explanation and also fail. Had they emphasized the unreliability of the reaction, as they had it then, it would have been meaningless that inexperienced workers, hastily attempting replication, failed to accomplish it.

We can see these shortcomings now. It's possible that Pons and Fleischmann were fooled by the relative ease with which their material worked. On the other hand, they *knew* that it took months of electrolysis. I don't think they revealed that. Had they been more explicit about necessary conditions, there may have been fewer "failed replications."

Why didn't they reveal these things? It's pretty clear from the history. They were constrained not to reveal details by commercial motives. Those were not their original motives, but they certainly became the motives of the
University of Utah, their employer.

So the LENR field was damaged *from the beginning* by commercial secrecy. And that is a consequence of the whole manner in which society handles innovation, and is a complex legal and social problem. It's an error to blame people for having commercial motives.

But *also* it can cause damage.

Notice: here, Peter is asserting that the entire purpose of the field is energy generation. A commercial motive. PdD work is *mostly*, at this point, not commercial in nature. Some still have dreams of wealth, and, it might be noticed, they don't reveal crucial details of their work.


CF/LENR is oppressed, pariah science due to its bad reputation management in its early period; due to its claim to be fusion it contradicted the ruling theories of the mainstream science.

The claim was premature. However, there was no *established* and *demonstrated* mainstream theory that ruled out fusion. Pons and Fleischmann knew that, but also knew that there was a widespread *impression* to the contrary, so they kept their work secret for five years. That secrecy was not motivated by commercial interest, it was to prevent interference.

When the whole thing broke open because of Jones, much was done in haste that might not have been done had they had more time to reflect. Claiming fusion was not actually reasonable until Miles found the heat/helium correlation in 1991. Pons and Fleischmann did not have that evidence. They had detected helium, but had not correlated it with heat. Their detection was easily dismissed as possible atmospheric contamination.


The experimental results were not sufficiently strong to demonstrate more than the very existence of excess heat release- however at low intensity, scaringly bad reproducibility and for very limited duration, not convincingly enough. The situation is clear- “no mercy”- only a commercial device generating plenty of energy, able to replace the existing sources can change the general opnion about CF/LANR.

Nope. Basically, Peter is limiting the possibilities. I suggest expanding them, because we have no control over the creation of a successful commercial device. By "we," obviously, I'm not including those working on such devices. I'm talking about the rest of us. But we *can* still stand for and cause advancement of this field, with what we already have.


From what we start to learn now, “no mercy” will be equally valid for many, if not all sacred cows and pet memes of CF/LENR. First, palladium will become 4-letter word.

Tell you what. If you have any of that **** lying around, send it to me. I'll take care of it. I'll even pay for the shipping. It might be **** to you, but it would be $$$$ for me.

I have about $700 worth of palladium chloride. I don't mind it at all. It doesn't stink. It keeps getting more valuable, usually.


The field has serious problems due to the fact that the scarce sources are always managed inefficiently; this is the Matthew Effect and CF/LENR suffers due to an external Matthew Effect (being considered bad science gets no funding) and an internal
Matthew Effect (chanceless palladium based systems get the greatest part of the money invested in the field); palladium still remains a cultic metal.

This is ridiculous. My sense is that most research dollars are going into nickel work. At this point, I do not consider PdD research an investment in a commercial sense, it is a general science investment, as many kinds of general scientific research is done without regard for commercial application. Peter is anti-science here. I imagine some politician complaining about scientific research that is, for him, of no practical value. Similar complaints are also made about the arts, and anything not perceived by the narrow-minded as being of little value.


A few personal thoughts

The other wasn't personal thought?


I have concluded relatively early that CF happens similarly to heterogeneous catalysis in small areas- active sites and this explains the great bad problem of the field, irreproducibility.

Peter was looking, in that 2002 paper (
actually 1991, just for the record) , for causes for the erratic behavior of cells. He was brainstorming. We know known much of the cause, though substantial controversy remains. Storms explains it as being due to the nanostructure of the materials, specifically of the surface. The causes listed by Peter all can be problems, but even when those problems were eliminated, those that could be, the difficulty in replication persisted.

Much of what Peter wrote in that article was ahead of his time. However, the theory that surface contaminants, per se, were the problem, would only be true in some cases. I.e., some failures could be due to this or that contamination. The persistent problem wasn't due to that, it is almost certainly due to the material itself. That's why it was so ubiquitous!

It is now known how to manufacture palladium cathodes that are much more likely to produce XP. However, they still don't do so immediately. Something else has to happen. Storms says: cracks. It's plausible.


As I wrote in my message from the right site of the Medawar Zone:
“I personally think that the root of troubles and the start point of the final solution for Cold Fusion is its inherent catalytic nature: all the unexpected and highly desirable phenomena take place in very limited active areas, and the research strategy is to breed and multiply and reinforce and enhance these active areas.”

What Storms calls NAE. I thought that Peter had written this in 1992. I didn't find it in the paper. Regardless, he is, above, saying very much what Storms has been saying, though stated a little differently.


Knowing how disastrous can be poisons for catalysts, I easily deduced that CF functions so faulty because the active sites of CF are also poisoned, blocked by polar gaseous impurities from air.

That was not a deduction, it was an inference, and, while not totally wrong, is off the point. This effect would be, by the way, reproducible.


 Later I have learned that nitrogen and argon are also competing with deuterium/hydrogen for the active sites, so the name of enemy is “alien gases.” Deep degassing or…death!”

Except that electrolytic cells naturally expel those contaminants, and gas-loading work typically does attempt to remove gaseous contaminants. Notice that Defkalion used argon as a control gas, and got major XP with less degassing than they would normally have used. No, Peter, this isn't much of an explanation. Obviously, a concern for possible reaction poisons is essential to this research. But it's not the cause of the truly persistent erratic behavior. The material itself is, almost certainly.


I had plenty of failures in my life, however this was the most unsuccessful idea I ever had. Actually it is nasty and dangerous; in case I am right, then all my colleagues who have rejected it sometimes with contempt due to its triviality and implausibility have made a huge error!
If true, the FP Cell that cannot be degassed (deeply) is sentenced to eternal irreproducibility.

Until it cleans itself. FP cells have constant surface activity, with gases being evolved and leaving the cell. Closed cells are different, and that work often takes substantial measures to purify the materials, (or at least they should!)


I have proposed a strategy for building a good future for LENR:
The main principles are:

LENR is in essence technology, a practical energy source.

Nope. Rather LENR could lead to practical applications that are that. It, itself, is simply a natural phenomenon that arises under certain conditions.

LENR is much more complex, dynamic and diversified as usually accepted now.

"Usually" by whom? Storms lists many forms of LENR. I've been pointing out that the variety of results from CF experiments could indicate that there is more than one kind of reaction. I.e., Jones might be right in what he claims can happen, and only wrong when he claims that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong. Poetic justice, eh?


LENR is now in a deep creative crisis and in a “grow or die” (scale-up or perish) situation

It's not going to perish. It's a natural phenomenon, they don't die. While we *could* forget about it, I rather doubt that. I saw the young people at ICCF-18. There were some worries, for a while, that the senior researchers were dying, and that the field might disappear. That is not going to happen.


LENR has a huge potential as new energy source.

It does. The potential is, as yet, *unproven.* But there are *lots of reasons* to be hopeful. Basically, there are engineering problems to be solved. That can take time. As we get the message of the reality of LENR across, the number of people and the level of resources being applied will increase, possibly exponentially for a while.

I predict that, within a decade, large numbers of physicists will be working on the theoretical problem. If someone solves it, it's a slam-dunk for a Nobel Prize. While some young physicists are timid, not all of them are!


These principles can be understood and applied only after a radical paradigm change in the field.
The critical “to be or not to be” issue is accepting the following:
in the “classic” LENR systems, even if the poisoning problem is solved, the density of the pre-formed active sites remains low and the energy density and production too small for applications.

That is, applications other than scientific research into the effect. With some protocols, they are adequate for that.


New methods have to be found by which the active sites are generated in-situ continuously; thus enhanced excess heat is obtained. This process, called LENR+ can be scaled up and, using good and creative engineering can be transformed in an energy source.

You made up that name. It's just LENR, being set up more skillfully.


LENR+ is the way, the truth and the unique hope because classic LENR systems are lost for technology.

Basically, research techniques and technology improve. But I don't have an Oscilloscope+, and for some purposes an old oscilloscope would be fine. But if I want to capture data at 2 GS/sec, I'll use my Rigol.


LENR is static, LENR+ is dynamic, metaphorically LENR is the caterpillar, LENR+ is the butterfly.

No caterpillars, no butterflies, and butterflies die. An increase in site numbers is not a radical transformation.

However, suppose that Ed is right and the effect is not a lattice effect. Suppose that we create *shapes* that catalyze the reaction, that are stable, suppose the overall structure conducts the heat away rapidly enough that the sites are not destroyed. This material could be reactive at low hydrogen pressure. Peter, if you could create such stuff, I'd be happy to allow you to call it LENR+.

You wouldn't care what it was called, because you would be fabulously wealthy.


But LENR+ is a mode of thinking and it is based on scientific concepts, disciplines and methods very different from those tried, with limited success, for LENR classic.

What Peter is saying is that as increasingly sophisticated technology is applied, progress will arise. But he's not actually describing something revolutionary. It's just normal, as a field matures.



Wednesday, September 18, 2013

EVERYTHING I KNEW ABOUT COLD FUSION WAS WRONG


(Note- this is a stereotypical title, more exactly almost everything was wrong and not so necessarily what I knew about it)

We must re-think completely CF/LENR because it has problems and it is very different from how we know it today. 

We must re-write radically the history of CF/LENR in order to re-build a good future for it.

The real cause of all the problems of CF/LENR is that it was discovered BEFORE ITS TIME in the worst system possible, with the less adequate metal. Knowledge and tools missing, CF/LENR was too complex, too new, too unexpected, too messy, too multifaceted, too dynamic, too non-linear and too weird to be really understood and controlled at the time of its discovery. CF/LENR proved to be really at the far right side of the Medawar Zone . http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/FTEssay/Essays/Gluck.htm

The discovery of CF has happened in such unfortunate circumstances that I considered a new word has to be coined for it: “miscovery”  

The Fleischmann- Pons Cell was the cradle of CF/LENR but it almost became its coffin, and continues to be its bed of Procrustes, limiting its development and making the process almost unmanageable, irreproducible and not scalable..

The connection of CF/LENR with electrochemistry was absolutely fortuitous and does not generate a single advantage for the field; on the contrary, wet systems annihilate the chances of CF/LENR to become an energy technology. (functional LENR needs temperatures at which the pressure of water is too high for practical electrolysis). The dominant but false electrochemical model of CF/LENR has defeated the catalytic model.

The discovery of heat excess in palladium was the most unfortunate event possible, because due to the very high solubility of deuterium in this metal, the bulk is competing with the active sites for the gas, that leads to the necessity to achieve and maintain high loading D/Pd. We can speak about the Pdisaster of the field.

The merits of the Founding Fathers are really exceptional and  because the have discovered the phenomenon in pessim circumstances. They were able to see profound connection where nobody has dared to think.

In the long perspective, in the case of CF/LENR, we were barking not at the wrong tree, we were barking at a dwarf, weakling bush…

However, because for so many years the conditions and tools
for solving the problem of a commercial LENR based energy source were not discovered or were not available, it is not fair and not justified to speak about errors, the experiments made by the supporters of the field have helped it to survive in conditions of extreme hostility.

In time we have discovered that there are formidable obstacles on the way to an energy source and the much feared Coulomb Barrier is not the most difficult of those.

Under the stressing pressure of weak results and due to the impossibility to find an acceptable explanation- both of the results and of the failures the collective orientation in the field became non-optimal:

-         CF/LENR has lost its original, definitory aim (to be a competitive  energy source and claimed to be a promising scientific issue, despite the unreliable and unrepeatable  experimental results;

-         it was more and more suggested that the Scientific  Method alone is able to make us to understand CF/LENR and to solve its problems
Noble ideas, however only strictly controllable/manageable experiments can yield genuinely scientific knowledge and only a hybrid, technological and scientific approach can generate progress. Scientism is damaging for CF/LENR due to its inefficiency.

Cold fusion is too complex a matter to be left to physicists. More exactly- “to physicists alone” being a really multi-disciplinar and trans-disciplinary issue. Systems thinking and understanding complexity are vital. LENR, I believe, is a movie, not a photo, an opera, not a song- to use ~artistic metaphors.

CF/LENR is oppressed, pariah science due to its bad reputation management in its early period; due to its claim to be fusion it contradicted the ruling theories of the mainstream science. The experimental results were not sufficiently strong to demonstrate more than the very existence of excess heat release- however at low intensity, scaringly bad reproducibility and for very limited duration, not convincingly enough. The situation is clear- “no mercy”- only a commercial device generating plenty of energy, able to replace the existing sources can change the general opnion about CF/LANR.
.
From what we start to learn now, “no mercy” will be equally valid for many, if not all sacred cows and pet memes of CF/LENR. First, palladium will become 4-letter word.

The field has serious problems due to the fact that the scarce sources are always managed inefficiently; this is the Matthew Effect and CF/LENR suffers due to an external Matthew Effect (being considered bad science gets no funding) and an internal
Matthew Effect (chanceless palladium based systems get the greatest part of the money invested in the field); palladium still remains a cultic metal.

A few personal thoughts

I have concluded relatively early that CF happens similarly to heterogeneous catalysis in small areas- active sites and this explains the great bad problem of the field, irreproducibility.
As I wrote in my message from the right site of the Medawar Zone:
“I personally think that the root of troubles and the start point of the final solution for Cold Fusion is its inherent catalytic nature: all the unexpected and highly desirable phenomena take place in very limited active areas, and the research strategy is to breed and multiply and reinforce and enhance these active areas.”

Knowing how disastrous can be poisons for catalysts, I easily deduced that CF functions so faulty because the active sites of CF are also poisoned, blocked by polar gaseous impurities from air. Later I have learned that nitrogen and argon are also competing with deuterium/hydrogen for the active sites, so the name of enemy is “alien gases.” Deep degassing or…death!
I had plenty of failures in my life, however this was the most unsuccessful idea I ever had. Actually it is nasty and dangerous; in case I am right, then all my colleagues who have rejected it sometimes with contempt due to its triviality and implausibility have made a huge error!
If true, the FP Cell that cannot be degassed (deeply) is sentenced to eternal irreproducibility.

I have proposed a strategy for building a good future for LENR:
The main principles are:

LENR is in essence technology, a practical energy source.

LENR is much more complex, dynamic and diversified as usually accepted now.

LENR is now in a deep creative crisis and in a “grow or die” (scale-up or perish) situation

LENR has a huge potential as new energy source.

These principles can be understood and applied only after a radical paradigm change in the field.
The critical “to be or not to be” issue is accepting the following:
in the “classic” LENR systems, even if the poisoning problem is solved, the density of the pre-formed active sites remains low and the energy density and production too small for applications.. New methods have to be found by which the active sites are generated in-situ continuously; thus enhanced excess heat is obtained. This process, called LENR+ can be scaled up and, using good and creative engineering can be transformed in an energy source.
LENR+ is the way, the truth and the unique hope because classic LENR systems are lost for technology.
LENR is static, LENR+ is dynamic, metaphorically LENR is the caterpillar, LENR+ is the butterfly.
But LENR+ is a mode of thinking and it is based on scientific concepts, disciplines and methods very different from those tried, with limited success, for LENR classic.

Peter


Friday, September 6, 2013

ALAIN COETMEUR ABOUT NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB AND COLD FUSION IN FRENCH!

Nassim Nicholas Taleb et la fusion froide

Introduction

Peter Gluck a bien noté le fait que je cite fréquemment Nassim Nicholas Taleb lors des conversations, et c'est pourquoi il m'a proposé d'écrire ce petit article qui décline la philosophie de Taleb dans le contexte de la fusion froide (LENR).
Je ne prétends pas avoir tout compris de Taleb, et cet article est donc une base de discussion. Je ne doute pas non plus que la philosophie assez radicale de Taleb ne convainque pas tout le monde.
Antifragile, comme les précédents livres de Nassim Nicholas Taleb est un livre riche, mais basé sur quelques idées simples. Taleb, un ancien trader de volatilité, d'origine levantine (Liban, Syrie), orthodoxe, éduqué en France et aux USA, écrit de façon acérée, parfois brutale et agressive contre ceux qu'il juge responsable de mettre notre société en danger de mort. Son profil me rappelle plus ou moins Nouriel Roubini, Jean-Paul Biberian, Martin Fleischmann, Dan Shetchman, et ils correspondent tous à la description de « l'étranger » dont parle Norbert Alter, cet homme ayant vécu dans une autre culture (que ce soit un autre pays, un autre métier, une autre technologie, un autre type d'organisation) qui peut comprendre que la façon dont les choses se font n'est pas la seule possible.
Voici quelques notes de lectures de Antifragile, mais aucune qui ne retient toute la substance de ce livre : [antifragile-wsj], [antifragile-continuations] , [antifragile-nytimes] , [antifragile-dunbar]. Mais le mieux reste de lire ce livre, et d'éviter le café, car ce livre peut choquer.

Les cygnes noirs (Blackswan)

Le livre « Antifragile » est un développement de l’Å“uvre de Taleb concernant le concept de « cygne noir », et l'importance du hasard radical, les « inconnus inconnus » voir « inconnaissables ».
Un « cygne noir » est un événement qui était supposé impossible,  car il n'avait été jamais observé. Ces cygnes noirs portent historiquement l’essentiel des catastrophes, des révolutions, des découvertes radicales, des bénéfices et des pertes financières. Ils sont ignorés, imprévisible par définition, mais dominent les événements prévisibles en importance.
Il n'y a rien de magique dans leur existence, car étant rare, mais très nombreux, il est probable que nous ne les ayons jamais vu le jour où on les observe. Toute prévision basée sur le passé est donc absurde, car elle ignore ce qui a l'impact le plus fort, les cygnes noirs. Taleb parle ainsi de l'histoire de la dinde de « Thanksgiving », qui pourrait penser que les humains sont adorables et la nourrissent bien pour son confort. Jusqu’au jour où elle sera servie au dîner. C'est ainsi que pour Taleb, l'analyse du passé trop récent avec trop de détail est dangereuse, car il donne une fausse confiance.

La prédiction des cygnes noirs du passé ?

Taleb rappelle malgré tout que « a posteriori » nous sommes souvent tentés de retrouver des raisons de prévoir les cygnes noirs dans le passé. Par exemple le tsunami de Sendai qui a tué 20000 personnes et ravagé la centrale de Fukushima, était prévisible depuis quelques dizaines d'années, car la faille sismique que l'on pensait coulissante (et donc limitée à des séismes de force 7) apparaissait finalement comme accumulant des contraintes (permettant des séisme de force 9). Dans la zone, malgré une amnésie collective, on a trouvé il y a plusieurs siècles, des traces de tsunami comparable. Mais c'est une réécriture de l'histoire, et le fait est que personne n'avait réellement intégré ces faits scientifiques.
Un autre exemple est la prévision détaille de la crise des « subprime » par Nouriel Roubini, qui comme Taleb, Fleischmann, Shechtman, Wegener, Wright, Semmelweis a été raillé par le consensus, malgré les preuves rétrospectivement évidentes.
En ce sens la fusion froide est un cygne noir caché en pleine vue, comme le séisme de Sendai. La fusion-froide va désintégrer, vitrifier, anéantir toutes les planifications, toutes les prévisions, détruire des milliers de milliards d'investissements, en en créant bien plus encore, en donnant le pouvoir à certains et en le reprenant à d'autres, vidant de leur sens des milliers de pages de réglementation et de loi. Elle redistribuera les cartes géopolitiques, les cartes sociologiques, les cartes démographiques, écologiques, scientifiques, académiques, politiques... Pourtant ce risque enthousiasmant et terrifiant, n'est même pas considéré par ceux qui pourraient en souffrir ou en bénéficier. Je ne parle pas de se positionner en pensant que la fusion froide existe forcément (comme je le fait), mais simplement de se protéger au cas improbable où la fusion froide soit réelle... comme on cherche à se protéger des astéroïdes, d'un défaut sur la dette souveraine de la France, ou du réchauffement/refroidissement climatique catastrophique. Ce fait simple, comme d'autres situations similaires me semble terrifiant d'aveuglement. C'est malheureusement un cas général, qui me désespère.
Hors du message de Taleb, cette cécité cognitive est à rapprocher des travaux de deux auteurs que j'ai découvert et qui m'ont permis de formaliser ce que j'avais observé.
D'un côté Thomas Kuhn (un résumé en anglais:  [kuhn-sj] , en français : [kuhn-cnam] ) dans « Structure of Scientific Revolutions » explique bien cette incapacité à convaincre les tenants de l'ancien paradigme. Ils sont incapables de voir les anomalies dans leurs paradigmes, incapables de considérer les preuves qui ne sont pas de leur monde. Ils sont daltoniens sur une mer de drapeaux rouges. Pour Kuhn cette cécité est à rapprocher de la transition cognitive observée durant l'observation du canard-lapin ([canard-lapin]). Une évidence quand on a accepté le point de vue, invisible avant.
De l'autre côté Roland Benabou lui présente un modèle économétrique simple qui explique rationnellement les illusions collectives et la pensée de groupe observée dans les bulles financières, certaines  catastrophes industrielles ou financières. Son modèle (voir : [benabou-delusion], et pour des exemples l'appendice « patterns of denial ») est basé sur l'observation que les humains peuvent ignorer des faits pour protéger leurs estimation de richesse, plutôt que leur richesse. Cela se produit quand les individus ne peuvent échapper aux conséquences négatives de l'illusion collective par une lucidité individuelle. Un mécanisme d'illusion collective assuré (« Mutual Assured Delusion ») stabilise le système dans une ignorance des faits dérangeants, assurée par une violence brutale contre les dissidents qui augmente quand la vérité se rapproche. L'illusion descend la chaîne hiérarchique.
Sans véritablement être poussé par Taleb ces deux concepts de cécité cognitive, soit une cécité « d'incompétence paradigmatique » pour Kuhn, soit une cécité « mutuellement assurée » pour Benabou, expliquent qu'il puisse exister des cygnes noirs alors que les informations sont publiques et les probabilités facilement estimables. D'une certaine manière c'est ce qu'en France on appelle « un éléphant dans le salon ». Un fait clair que tout le monde refuse de voir, et qui surprendra le jour où on ne pourra plus ignorer son existence.
La fusion froide sera donc un cygne noir, malgré le fait qu'elle est prouvée depuis 20 ans, et qu'il y a de fortes suspicions qu'elle soit industrialisable depuis 3 ans. C'est un éléphant dans le salon, comme la crise des « subprimes » en 2005, l'explosion de la bulle internet en 2000, et d'autres que je ne citerais pas mais qui commencent à faire du bruit dans le salon de la science consensuelle, sans que l'on ne comprenne d’où cela vient. Ce serait hilarant si ce n'était pas tragique.

Concavité, convexité, fragilité, robustesse et antifragilité

Antifragile va au-delà du concept de cygne noir pour s'attaquer à la question de comment les systèmes, financiers, biologiques, techniques, se comportent face à un cygne noir, où plus généralement à un imprévu ou à un changement d'environnement quelconque.
Taleb était trader de volatilité, et son métier lui a permis de comprendre que certaines entreprises souffrent, et d'autres profitent des surprises. C'est tout le sujet du livre que d'introduire ce concept, et notamment le mot « antifragile » qui n’existait pas, décrivant les systèmes qui profitent des surprises. Il est d'ailleurs bien instructif d'observer que ce mot n'existait pas alors que nous connaissons tous des gens, des entreprises, des communautés, des animaux, qui profitent des changements, des catastrophes, des révolutions, pour se développer. Taleb explique biens que le monde n'est pas contraint par les dictionnaires.
Il introduit un concept mathématique, celui de convexité et de concavité (voir [taleb-medconvexity]) pour expliquer comment les changements peuvent causer des effets très différents selon le système. Un système convexe va souffrir un peu de certain changements, mais va profiter beaucoup d'autres changements. Il sera « antifragile » et se développera d'autant plus vite que le monde change et le surprend. A l'opposé un système concave va profiter un peu de certains changements, mais souffrira beaucoup d'autres changements. Il sera « fragile ». Entre les deux il y aura les systèmes robustes, qui sont assez linéaires, et sans grand intérêt ici, sauf qu'il s'agit des hypothèses linéaires sur laquelle se basent les théories et les planifications de notre monde moderne.
Taleb explique ainsi que les organisations qui se basent sur des prévisions du futur, se rendent de plus en plus fragile, pour des gains de plus en plus faibles. C'est ce que font les institution financières utilisant des modèles de gestion de risques compliqués, ou les installations industrielles qui modélisent tous les risques apparemment possibles. A la première surprise, tout s'effondre. C'est aussi ce qui se produit pour tout système que l'on essaye de maintenir dans un état trop stable, humains, économies, machines. Tout a tendance à devenir instables avec le temps et les imprévus, et là les transitions sont brutales, ingérables, et les acteurs n'ont aucune expérience pour les gérer. Il dénonce ainsi le travail de la banque centrale américaine, et je ne peux que faire le parallèle avec le système français, que j'aime mais qui nous rend si fragile.
A l'opposé il parle des systèmes antifragiles. Les systèmes vivants sont naturellement antifragiles (dans des limites raisonnables). Il explique aussi que les systèmes antifragiles sont composés de composants fragiles individuellement, qui lui permette de se reconfigurer. Il parle ainsi des restaurants, des taxis, des marchés traditionnels, des espèces, des civilisations... J'y vois aussi l'économie informelle des pays en développement, qui résiste bien aux crises financières.
Maintenant en quoi la fusion froide est-elle concernée.
Quand j'ai lu l'état des papiers vers 1993, j'avais été frappé par le fait que la fusion froide apparaissait dans des situations « hors-équilibre », et bénéficiait des changements de l'environnement. J'ai aussi vu comment la méthode scientifique luttait contre ces changements au lieu d'essayer de les contrôler. La fusion froide serait donc « anti-fragile » dans une certaine mesure. Et le comportement de la science académique serait donc très « fragile ». La vision de Kozima que la fusion froide est sensible de façon « chaotique » aux paramètres confirme cette vision.
Pourtant, la communauté scientifique de la fusion froide semble grâce à sa grande variété, et à la manie  de chaque chercheur d'ajouter sa petite touche personnelle, se comporter comme un système antifragile. Elle viole la méthode scientifique en ne reproduisant pas les expériences à l'identique, pas plus que la reproduction animale n'est exacte. Cela donne à la communauté des scientifiques « non-planifiés », « non-orthodoxe » une richesse de comportement antifragile, malgré des acteurs individuels tentant désespérément de suivre leur théorie préférée, et de contraindre la réaction LENR dans un environnement stable qui ne lui convient pas, mais qui facilite la construction théorique.
Un autre point, si on suit le modèle de Thomas Kuhn, est que la science quand elle se « normalise » (au sens de Kuhn) en établissant un paradigme confortable, devient de plus en plus fragile, car elle devient incapable de profiter de ce qui sort de ses prévisions.
Une piste pour créer une version « antifragile » de la fusion froide, est évoquée dans la communauté. C'est que le manque de reproductibilité de la fusion froide lors des électrolyses, pourrait être contrôlée par l'usage d'une poudre ou mousse (ou autre composant, comme la surface du fil de Celani) dont chaque composant à une efficacité variable, et dépends des paramètres de façon variable. On peut même imaginer que les grains réactifs puissent aléatoirement activer les inactifs, ou les désactiver... Dans ce cadre, les changements pourraient réactiver une réaction dans une logique de contrôle « antifragile ». L'essentiel serait donc de maintenir une variété dans la population de grains.

Optionalité : l'essai-erreur est le secret de l'innovation

Taleb explique que le secret de l'antifragilité est « l'optionalité ». Étant financier, Taleb connaît bien le concept d'option financière, un contrat qui pour un prix modique permet d'acheter ou de vendre un bien à un prix donné, et que l'on peut ou pas utiliser selon que c'est avantageux ou pas.
Il explique que ce concept peut s'appliquer aux choix de la vie, et qu'il faut rechercher ce genre de situation où l'on peut gagner beaucoup, mais refuser de perdre si ça ne marche pas.
Il propose aussi un style d'exposition aux risques. Le but est de prendre des petits risques, sous formes d'options pour des gains illimités improbables et des pertes modestes. Il conseille aussi d'éviter les risques « contrôlés » qui ne sont jamais vraiment contrôlés, mais sous-estimés. Au final il conseille un mode de vie entre un socle de survie très solides (une épargne sûre, un métier confortable), et des prises de risques sous forme d'options sans limite de gain, mais avec des pertes acceptables.
Il explique que c'est ce que font les inventeur, les innovateurs, lors qu'il recherchent selon la méthode des « essais-erreurs »( voir [thesis-innov]). Pour lui le mieux est d'essayer tout ce qui est improbable, mais peu coûteux d’expérimenter. Il y aura un nombre important d'échecs peux coûteux, mais bien plus de réussites que prévu, et les réussites produiront des bénéfices parfois gigantesques. Il note que beaucoup de grands scientifiques et inventeurs mélangeaient un bon métier tranquille, et des recherches spéculatives (Einstein, Lavoisier,…).
Il s'attaque donc à la science planifiée, qui tente de trouver des innovations là où cela semble probable, même quand cela est coûteux. Je ne peux m'empêcher de penser à la fusion chaude (Tokamak, confinement inertiel). Il s'oppose plus généralement à tout ce qui est gros, « too big to fail », et j'y vois un rejet général de la « big physics », au profit de recherches hétéroclites. Il dénonce aussi le financement public centralisé, qui se fait au détriment du financement privé.
A l'opposé je le vois bien avoir poussé la recherche peu coûteuse sur la fusion froide, soutenir l'équipe chinoise qui teste l'EmDrive de Shaywer, soutenir les tests de fusion par cavitation, à la condition de ne pas s'entêter dans des voies sans issue. L'approche edisonienne de Rossi devrait lui plaire tout autant. Il ne serait pas plus surpris qu'une percée majeure soit faite par une bande d'ingénieurs entreprenant tentant de sauver un pays en faillite, et l'aidant à regagner sa fierté antique.
Sa position rejoint diverses positions de spécialiste de l'innovation comme Norbert Alter ([alter-innov-fr])

Enseigner aux oiseaux à voler (Lecturing birds how to fly)

Taleb est très dur envers le monde académique qui de son point de vue, tente de faire croire que la théorie permet est essentielle à la pratique des technologies.
Sur la fusion froide, je vois l'expression de ce problème dans le mépris bien visible des détenteurs de la grande physique, envers les praticiens de l'électrochimie, la radiochimie, voir récemment le mépris des inventeurs de garage, des ingénieurs.
J'observe sur la fusion froide que la focalisation sur la théorie au détriment de l'acceptation des faits expérimentaux, a fait un tort infini à la fusion froide. Cela a créé une incapacité pathologique pour les physiciens dominants d'accepter les faits. Cela a poussé les revues dominantes à exiger des positions théoriques, qui n'étaient pas encore possibles de façon solides. Cela a poussé les physiciens de la fusion froide à proposer des théories plus ou moins révolutionnaires, mais jamais irréprochables, qui ont ridiculisé le domaine. Cela a poussé, un temps, la communauté de chercheurs de la fusion froide à moquer les chercheurs comme Miley qui expérimentaient avec de l'hydrogène légère et du nickel.
Il est clair que les plus enthousiastes des supporters de la fusion froide (dont moi au début), se sont fait piéger en croyant que la fusion froide ne pouvait pas voler si on ne lui faisait pas un cours d'aérodynamique.
Comme d'habitude, l'histoire a démontré que ce sont des inventeurs de garages, des pratiquants, les chercheurs de terrain, qui ont fait les percées. D'abord de fantastiques expérimentateurs de classe internationale comme Fleischmann, McKubre ou Bockris (j'en oublie), puis pour les percées le plus folles, les plus inimaginables : un italien têtu et fantasque, blessé profondément par une injustice judiciaire, et des grec expatriés désespéré par l'effondrement de leur patrie.

L'histoire est écrite par les perdants (History being written by the losers)

Dans la suite de sa diatribe contre le monde académique, Taleb explique comment le monde académique parvient à réécrire l’histoire des innovations, pour justifier de sa propre dominance, et celle de la théorie, face aux vrais inventeurs praticiens. Il reprend divers exemples, donc celui des calculs de prix d'options financières, mais aussi le réacteur d'avion. Je pourrais compléter la liste avec les semi-conducteurs, l'avion, le réacteur nucléaire.
A chaque fois, l'histoire officielle fait croire que c'est par une percée théorique qu'une invention a vu le jour. On cache aussi l'importance des actes de harcèlement immondes, les insultes, les débats ridicules « a posteriori », et on sème le doute sur la compétence, la rigueur des inventeurs, et sur l'importance de leurs découvertes.
J'ai contacté une telle réécriture de l'histoire en France sur des sites d'information scientifique à propos de Dan Shechtman. Sur la fusion froide il semble que le film « The Believers » se prépare à accuser Fleischmann et les autres chercheurs de manque de rigueur, pour faire passer l'incompréhensible incrédulité. La façon dont l'histoire des frères Wright continue à être réécrite est édifiante.
Je m'attend donc à ce que dans les mois qui viennent, après une période de déni ridicule et de terreur désespérée contre les dissidents de la dernière heure, les média scientifiques académiques (« SciAm », « La Recherche », « Nature », « Science » « MIT », « Futura-Science ») inventent une fable ridicule pour nous, expliquant comment un laboratoire académique à découvert le moyen de prouver la fusion froide et de l'industrialiser, malgré le travail lamentables de pionniers ridicules et d'industriels incompétents.

Moins c'est plus (Less is more)

Un concept clé de la vision de Taleb est que l’information n'est pas bénéfique, mais cache les faits. Elle donne une confiance fallacieuse dans une modélisation du futur qui sera d'autant plus surprenante que le modèle est précis. Je me souviens sur le sujet de la finance, et sur un sujet scientifique controversé avoir ainsi entendu parler du concept de « modèle précisément faux ». Ce concept me parle d'autant plus que l'ai optimisé les moteurs de calculs de tels modèles, et que j'ai pu être sensibilisé aux limites des modèles (ce qui explique pourquoi Taleb ne me surprend pas).
La conclusion est qu'il ne faut pas chercher à tout comprendre et modéliser, mais qu'il faut concevoir un système qui s'adapte, se réorganise, malgré ou grâce aux imprévus. Les modèles simples et phénoménologiques, avec de bonnes marges de sécurité sont à préférer aux modèles « full physics ». Ces modèles « esthétiques », malheureusement calculables aujourd'hui, que l'on promeut et sont responsable de grandes erreurs, assez difficile à accepter, vu l'investissement énorme effectué.
C'est une vision qui peut inspirer les innovateurs en vision froide, et les rendre moins timides face à l'absence de théorie. Il faut probablement prévoir à s'adapter à l'incertitude de la réaction, à en profiter, à la défier par des changements, via des politiques de contrôle-commande dynamiques.
Il avance aussi une autre heuristique utile à la prévision du futur. Il soutient que les prévisions du futur quand elles annoncent des nouveautés ne sont jamais réalisées. Par contre pour lui, ce qui est prévisible c'est la disparition de caractéristiques déplaisantes. On pourrait ainsi prévoir la disparition du fil du téléphone, du carburant et de la fumée des automobiles, du conducteurs automobile, du travail ennuyeux, du trajet domicile-travail, des achats ennuyeux en magasin, les aéroports, les gares, les lignes de chemin de fer, les autoroutes, le bruit... comment ? On ne sait pas, c'est parfois fait, mais il est clair que dès que ce sera possible, ce sera fait. Pour le reste, c'est un cygne noir... et qui nous dit que dans 20 ans un EmDrive alimenté par un réacteur LENR en conversion thermoïonique directe, dans un sac à dos léger, ne nous permettra pas d'aller voler tranquillement chez nos amis, ou vers le Tibet, protégé de la pluie par un champ de force inimaginable aujourd'hui.
Pour prévoir l'avenir que va changer la fusion froide, il faut donc d'abord voir ce que la fusion froide pourra ENLEVER. La fumée des voitures des cheminées ;  les lignes à haute tensions ;  les pompes à essences ; les gares et aéroports ; les voitures dangereuses pour les enfants en ville, pour les vélos à la campagne ; la connexion au réseau électrique, au réseau de gaz, voir à l'eau potable ; les fils électriques des fours, des radiateurs, des fers à repasser, des machines à laver, des télévisions ; les chargeurs des téléphones, des ordinateurs...

L'effet « Lindy »

Il ajoute une autre heuristique complémentaire, « l'effet Lindy » qui est que comme les espèces antifragiles, les inventions ont une espérance de vie future égale à leur âge. Si elles ont survécu, c'est qu'elles ont de bonnes raisons et résistent bien aux changements. Ce qui est ancien, comme la chaussure, va durer longtemps probablement. Ce qui est jeune, comme le clavier, ne vivra probablement pas vieux.
On peut donc estimer que la voiture, l'avion, le téléphone devraient persister. La prise de courant, même si elle est vouée à disparaître pourrait survivre plus longtemps qu'on ne l'imagine.
Taleb donc apporte une méthodologie pour prévoir le futur, en complément d'autres approches.

Sa peau en jeu (« skin in the game »)

Taleb avance aussi un concept intéressant, le besoin que les preneurs de risques, souffrent de leurs erreurs. Le code d'Hammourabi imposait ainsi que si une maison s'écroulait et tuait son propriétaire, le bâtisseur était condamné à mort. On est loin des cadres exécutifs « antifragiles » qui rebondissent d'entreprises coulées en entreprises fragilisées... Pour connecter les prises de risques à la réalité, sans être suffisant, il est nécessaire que ceux qui fragilisent le système, soient lourdement sanctionnés si leur confiance infondée détruit le système (lire [skin-proj]).
En fusion froide, les acteurs se sont souvent lourdement investis et ont souvent payé cher leur dissidence. Le problème est que je ne vois pas comment la plupart pourraient bénéficier du développement de la fusion froide. Pire encore, connaissant le comportement du monde académique, je soupçonne qu''ils soient enterrés pour cacher la tragédie au public, au bénéfice de héros bien propres et bien académiques.
En face certains acteurs comme Huizenga ou Shanahan se sont investis publiquement, et pourrait risquer une sanction. Dans le même style, comme pour les banquiers, je soupçonne qu’ils soient sauvés de la faillite par le monde académique, et tout au plus enterrés proprement dans la discrétion et le confort, après une vie de gloire.
On voit ainsi l'antifragilité du monde académique, qui profite de tout, vrai ou faux, tant que c'est consensuel. Via des comités de lecture et des comités de financement, des jurys de prix scientifiques, le consensus s'alimente lui-même malgré la réalité. A l'opposé, hors entreprise, il n'y a rien de réel qui pousse des chercheurs à risquer leur carrière face à un monde académique en rang serré, qui bloque la réalité aussi longtemps que possible, c'est à dire jusqu'à ce qu'une application soit développée et vendue. Seul l'irrationalité a sauvé le système, ou comme certains le disent des calculs imparfaits similaires à l'erreur de Christophe Colomb. J'imagine que les héros de la fusion froide ont pensé que le chemin serait plus court, et couronné de gloire.
Au final, ce sont les industriels et inventeurs qui eux ont mis « leur peau en jeu », pour les pertes, mais aussi pour les gains. Il est donc logique que ce soit par eux que le progrès arrive, et la réalité apparaisse. Ils n'ont aucun bénéfice à soutenir un mythe consensuel comme le monde académique, ni aucun intérêt à cacher une réalité féconde.

Épilogue

Le livre de Taleb est dix fois plus riche que ces quelques points, mais déjà on voit bien comment l'histoire de la fusion froide prend un sens évident, et naturel dans ce cadre.
On peut déjà prévoir le futur proche :
·       Une réécriture de l'histoire pour blâmer les pionniers, et récompenser un académique bien propre.
·       L'utilisation de la fusion froide pour faire disparaître des éléments superflus, comme le carburant, la pollution, les fils et lignes électriques, les accidents, le temps perdu...
·       Des innovations inimaginables, et pas les mythes habituels

Références

Pour la traduction des textes entre français, et anglais, n'hésitez pas à utiliser Google Translation, et Bing translation.
·       [taleb-medconvexity] http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/medconvex