Disruptive Innovations

The inherent richness of nature offers unlimited areas

for disruptive innovation and this is exactly what is needed  

to solve the climate and energy crises.


These are two crises that did not even need to exist if one looks to the disruptive solutions.


One disruptive area would be to suck 2 Gt of methane out of the atmosphere per year

which takes us back to the 1920s in greenhouse effect and solves most of the

energy crisis.


The idea has been tested with some professors of thermodynamics, who quickly dismiss

this whole area by saying there is too little methane in the atmosphere, only 1.8 ppm.

Presumably a consensus of academic experts and in this case

these experts disqualify themselves from participating in the most important breakthrough of our time.


At the same time, the collective climate science fails to tell us that the solution

may be absolutely necessary for the survival of civilization and that this

innovation must be fully operational by 2025.

From all sides, the disruptive innovations that will become

our only salvation are under attack. The experts might be more interested in saving face

than saving their own children.



As I said, there are unlimited areas for disruptive innovations and

here is another such area: The fourth phase of water.


This area is based on research by Prof. Gerald Pollack, University of Washington.


His book "Fourth Phase of Water" describes a number of unknown and fascinating properties

of ordinary water. It is very likely that the hidden properties of water have

enough potential to solve both the climate crisis and the energy crisis.



Prof. Gerald Pollack tries to explain why mainstream academia is not particularly interested:


The four principles described in the book can be seen as rules of nature,

that were previously hidden in some distant corner and are now being revealed in a clearer light.


These principles seem to be rich in explanatory power. They help

answer simple questions about "why" and "how": why do gels retain water?

How can champagne bubbles multiply in streams seemingly without

without end? How can simple hydrated wedges splinter massive boulders?

How can water rise to the top of giant redwood trees? Why

do you see clouds of steam above your hot coffee? Why does ice make you glide

and fall? Principles can explain many other questions

whose answers have remained elusive.


Because of their enormous explanatory power, I believe that these principles

may prove to be fundamental to much of nature.


Why have these principles remained secret?

How have they escaped being part of the general understanding?


At least four reasons come to mind.


- First, water science has had a checkered history. The Polywater Scandal

left scars and kept curious scientists away from water for decades. All

scientists who were confident enough to enter the arena and who are lucky enough to

discover something unexpected were inevitably attacked with

recycled arrows used to ridicule polywater.


Then came the water-memory scandal. The memory stored in water seemed so unlikely

that it became the subject of scientific jokes. Try drinking more water,

it will restore lost information.


Critics and their scorn and their derision awaited at every turn.

What prudent scientist would venture into this?

Water became treacherous to study.

Drowning oneself in water research is as dangerous as drowning oneself in corrosive acid.


A second reason why understanding has been so slow is that

water is ubiquitous. Water is everywhere. Water has a central place in

so many natural processes that few people can imagine that the basics could

remain open to question.


Surely someone must have figured out the answers a century or two ago. This notion keeps scientists away. Scientists' reluctance has only increased.

Research rewards those who focus on trendy areas and leave little room for

to question the basic science that is widely taught.


Especially when it comes to something so deeply rooted

and common as water, the incentive to question the basic principles



A third reason why basic principles are identified too slowly is the

rule that plagues all of science: intellectual shyness.

It feels more comfortable to rely on the knowledge one has already acquired than to

than dealing with revolutionary subversive ideas.


One would think that scientists would embrace dramatic advances in

fundamental science, but most feel more comfortable limiting

to minor departures from the status quo. Scientists can resist

revolution in the same way as any other defender of orthodoxy.


A fourth reason is sheer fear. Challenging the conventional wisdom

means stepping on the toes of scientists who have built their careers on this

wisdom. Unpleasant reactions are to be expected. For example, I have

stepped on a lot of sacred ground here. I expect to be duly rebuked,

especially from those scientists whose recognition, grants, patents..,

and other attributes of power depend on defending their scientific



A child can be forgiven for such flawed behavior,

but older scientists are rarely endowed with this degree of courtesy.

Therefore, career-oriented scientists have a

conservative attitude and keep their distance from anything that even smacks of revolutionary

challenge. This attitude contributes to the butter and bread on their scientific tables.


In conclusion, at least four factors are responsible for the painful

slow emergence of new principles:

(i) the depraved history of water policy has kept scientists away,

(ii) water is so common that everyone assumes that the fundamental issues have been resolved.

iii) to deviate from groupthink can be tantamount to destroying security.

iv) questioning the prevailing principles is a risky business in any field.


These obstacles have combined to create a long-standing stalemate. I try my best

to get the stalled engine going again.


The future

We started by asking a simple question: why are there exclusion zones?

The more we looked, the more we found.


The key to making progress in all these areas must involve a new

willingness to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes. Even the biggest

of scientific heroes can be wrong. These scientists were human: they

ate the same kind of food that we eat, had the same passions that we have,

and suffered from the same weaknesses that we are prone to have. Their ideas are

not necessarily infallible. It may seem disrespectful, but if we hope to

to arrive at the fundamental truth, we must have the courage to question every

and all fundamental assumptions.


Otherwise, we risk condemning ourselves to eternal ignorance.


Nature's secret rules

Where such explorations may lead, no one can say. Within

domains of uncertainty lies the charm of the scientific endeavour: through a

unfettered experimentation, logical thinking and the occasional good luck of

stumbling across the unexpected, we can begin to illuminate the hidden realms of nature.



In summary, today's society tries in every way

thwart all the disruptive innovations that need to be up and running by 2025


The only way to save ourselves from future climate catastrophe.


Instead, climate experts deny the need and eagerly support the big lie of the IPCC

that global temperatures will stop when emissions are halted.


With this false information, they can justify the big, convenient cheating solution

ZeroEmissions 2050. By the time this gross error is discovered, it is too late to correct.