Several weaknesses in the paper presented by Lundin and Lidgren have been discussed here, as it should be. When I gave attention to the paper on my blog I expected such weaknesses to be discovered and exposed. However, my reason for giving publicity to the paper were three:
- the authors’ claim that they had made a successful, albeit non documented, experiment, indicating that they might have found some kind of useful method. I had hoped that they would have made their planned real experiment before presenting the paper. - the fairy novel introduction of the little-known phenomenon of ponderomotive forces in the LENR field. - the fact that their paper wouldn’t even be considered for traditional peer-review, which is sad since only increased exchange of ideas in this field, where so many cross competences apparently are needed, will lead to progress. Also compare with Edward de Bono’s concept of Lateral Thinking (which I refer to in the last chapter of my book) where one method of dealing with the brains tendency to pick pieces of information, one at a time (and therefore miss hidden paths if the pieces are presented in the ‘wrong’ order) is to consider also apparently ‘impossible’ paths that normally would be discarded, since they might lead to a possible and real goal, even though they pass through forbidden areas. One way of doing this is trying to see valuable pieces of a new proposition, even though the the theory as a whole might not be valid. As someone pointed out, such an attitude might also encourage the authors to take part in the discussion here. Mats www.animpossibleinvention.com <http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/>
