If You Were in Andrea Rossi’s Shoes, What Would You have Done? (Andy Kumar)

    • Official Post

    LENr was proven properly, that is a fact.


    the problem is that this "properly" (50 sigma, >50% success, correlation of heat and He4, transmutations, replications) is not enough for a kid of 5 years old.
    The few big power experiments are not clear, even if circumstantial evidence, correlated with LENr reality in the lab, make unreality of industrial development very improbable.


    don't mix bad will and incompetence with absence of evidence.


    we lack of industrial grade evidence that can convince dishonest people.


    science cannot convince dishonest observers, that is not new.
    Never forget some people deny Apollo landing. Denial of LENR is of the same kind, just more popular and supported by media authorities.

    Quote

    Never forget some people deny Apollo landing.


    Gee, Alain, I don't know about that. Maybe a few do. But they can go to a launch spot and watch the rockets take off. I can go to a space shuttle exhibit or to a museum and see the spacecrafts which went to the moon and those which serviced the ISS. Where can you go to witness ONE single PROPERLY done LENR experiment that yields high power (100W sustained a day or more)?


    I'm sorry, Alain, but the rest of what you wrote doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone can translate.

    • Official Post

    One properly done, I hope you say 2.


    You have F&P and Longchampt.


    Iwamura and Takahashi with thin filsm


    you have McKubre , , Oriani, replicating F&P


    Barc , Bockris, Storms replicating tritium


    ENEA, NRL, and SRTI replicate their reserach and use routinely cell producing heat with more tha 50% chance...


    Ne4/Heat of Miles/bush replicated by ENEA


    it is not proven only in your dream.


    problem is one need some competence and honesty, and both are rare together.

    "problem is one need some competence and honesty, and both are rare together."


    Competence and honesty are the main qualification for all professional scientists. I've interacted with many scientists in my career and found that competence requires honesty. Not rare at all!

    • Official Post

    you are right, I am not fair.


    competence, honesty, and social influence is what is rare.


    honest and competent scientists, are too often to shy and modest.
    and people having the social impact, media presence, poses often enough hubris to have lost their honesty at the first time they were found wrong.


    people start to be honest in public when they are competent, until they find it not enough to enjoy the fruit of fame.


    This is what I observed with Nathan Lewis, Huizenga... they seems honest people initially, and competent in their small domain, but once they were found wrong they decided to fall into denial.
    this is the process well described in Groupthink by Roland Benabou
    http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink IOM 2012_07_02 BW.pdf


    it starts by rational decision taken with limited information...
    the split of cognition happen when the decision is found wrong, and there is a choice between paying the price, or living in groupthink.


    Alain, I asked you a simple question: can you point me to a reliable and credible experiment in which 100W excess power was achieved for a sustained length of time without fresh fuel. Implicit is that the "COP" (power ratio out to in) be reasonable -- 3 or more for higher powers, 5 or more for more modest yields). Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Miley and possibly others, all claim this. But I can't find proven results anywhere.


    So instead of providing a link to proven results, you name the usual suspects. Interestingly, Jed Rothwell replied the same way to the same question. That is no answer!


    As for ogfusionist, he who criticizes pseudonyms uses one, ROTFWL! I propose renaming him self-delusionist.

    • Official Post

    asking 100W is not scientific. that is tea kettle fallacy. you don't ask an evidence of flying by asking a 747.


    asking 50 sigma is scientific. compile the literature, jed rothwell done it, and you have 50 sigma.


    moreover there is even much above 100W, few but some
    http://fusiontorch.com/uploads…schmannPonsEffect2009.pdf


    I remember some with molten salts



    you just need to learn reading.

    I think I can read and from what I read, Rossi is a crook. You're the one who doesn't understand what I write. I don't care about small levels. You are entitled to have orgasms about them if you like. I don't care. It's claims like Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin and Miley which are EASY to evaluate and so far none has proven valid.


    So once more:


    100W or more
    Sustained to rule out chemical energy or stored energy by a factor ten
    If power is required to run (it shouldn't be) power ratio out/in of at least 3 (6 is better)
    Repeated by at least one reliable and credible investigator at a major institution using the SAME method as the original


    Lots of luck finding that in LENR/cold fusion. And for sure, it's not Rossi!

    • Official Post

    Mary,
    your threshold is simply based on observing the maximum power and duration, and asking more.


    and update as more result appear.


    even F&P have eliminate the chemistry as explanation in some of their burst.


    you will never be satisfied, I know this symptom... not specific to LENR denial.

    Quote from me356

    It could be very funny if usage of LENR devices in the future would be denied for sceptics. Just because it can't work :crazy:

    Typical believer misquote. Nobody says it can't work. Some people say Rossi, a proven criminal, is a crook and has nothing. Others say high power LENR has never been properly demonstrated. Nobody says it's categorically impossible but only that natural laws based on good observations makes it improbable, to say the least.


    Quote

    your threshold is simply based on observing the maximum power and duration, and asking more... you will never be satisfied, I know this symptom


    You know nothing. I just told you what would satisfy me (and many others) in clear and unambiguous detail and you say I will never be satisfied. That's pretty crazy, you know?

    Dear George,


    If this is so trying for you, explaining the facts to us halfwits, why don't you just stay in the ogrish dark pit of conformity, boxed in denial, an rejection of empirical truth in the ECN realm of Mordor. There you find camaraderie, shared beliefs and opinions.


    Trust me, you anger and hate is not appreciated here by the absolute majority. It is entertaining in some sense, but so very useless.


    Please leave, George.

    Alain I'm surprised George got you to take the bait when you realize his symptoms of paranoia. He's playing the game of a perverted fisherman on this forum.


    BTW I've reviewed the original F&P report and their first palladium electrode indicated nanoscale fusion.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.