Bo Høistad: [ERROR] NOT YET three independent replication experiments showed the wanted excess energy!

  • In the norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" an article on LENR/Cold fusion was published, which interviewed Bo Høistad. He says that a new paper is still under preparation, because they are verifying three positive independent experiments (replications?).
    Bo Hoistad just today informed Peter Gluck that it is an error. They work on such a replication, and the 3 are probably the 2 Russian and 1 Chinese.


    [news=96,meta][/news]

  • We can expect they took the lesson of TPR2 weaknesses with emissivity. (latest remarks of Andrea Calaon about TPR2, as I suspected let even the possibility it is correct, or at least not wrong the way Thomas says... not even negative).
    they already showed that they addressed the critics on the electric side from TPR1.
    As I already said many times, I think that only an iterative protocol of test can convince.
    Not only experimenters discover the problems with practice, but the skeptics use hypercritical method which is based on moving target.
    One by one, the experimenters have to address the weakness of their protocols, the conspiracy theories, and various myth, until it is not only correct but convincing.
    It is a process not a result.

  • We can expect they took the lesson of TPR2 weaknesses with emissivity. (latest remarks of Andrea Calaon about TPR2, as I suspected let even the possibility it is correct, or at least not worn the way Thomas says... not even negative).
    they already showed that they addressed the critics on the electric side from TPR1..


    These are only your dreams, facts are a lot different.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • Let's wait for the article and then we make our criticisms, Henry, will you wait for that?


    Otherwise you just sound like a pathoskeptic.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • We can expect they took the lesson of TPR2 weaknesses with emissivity. (latest remarks of Andrea Calaon about TPR2, as I suspected let even the possibility it is correct, or at least not wrong the way Thomas says... not even negative).
    they already showed that they addressed the critics on the electric side from TPR1.
    As I already said many times, I think that only an iterative protocol of test can convince.
    Not only experimenters discover the problems with practice, but the skeptics use hypercritical method which is based on moving target.
    One by one, the experimenters have to address the weakness of their protocols, the conspiracy theories, and various myth, until it is not only correct but convincing.
    It is a process not a result.


    https://petitions.whitehouse.g…ion-lenr-power-generation

  • Let's wait for the article and then we make our criticisms, Henry, will you wait for that?


    Otherwise you just sound like a pathoskeptic.


    Reading TPR we have already seen how "reliable" is Hoistad. Why another paper from him should be better?
    Do you like invoke the "wait" or "it will see" strategy very common between believers and used from twenty-six years?
    If you are so believer you can wait happy the next Hoistad's paper.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • By the way In don't know if the critics are on E-cat reality, which is rational, especially given the huge mistakes in TPR2 (TPR1 is more convincing if you rule out conspiracies).


    About NiH LENR the bibliography is quite weak, and Parkhomov-style replication are still only interesting claims needing confirmation.


    However if you just claim (PdD) LENR is not real, given the quantity of reviewed papers, of replications, the variety of converging phenomenons, I would prefer to smile and answer with that French idiom:
    "et la marmotte elle met le chocolat dans le papier alu".

  • I will be fascinated to see what else Hoistad publishes.


    It is good form, scientifically, to address criticism. I'd hope that he does that.


    With regard to the electrical issues in the Lugano Report I'm not aware of Hoistad having done this. Here is what he is duty bound to correct - I leave out a few minor errors with no great consequences:

    • Make it clear how the active Joule heating results were calculated, address the X3 anomaly. Invoking a possible highly variable resistance heating element for this must be done explicitly, since Inconel - as stated in the report - cannot have the necessary characteristics or anything else like. He has stored data that would validate or deny such an explanation and not using this to resolve the anomaly is most unfortunate. If the electrical connections were changed in the active test, thus altering currents vs powers, that must be stated explicitly.
    • Agree that the temperature and therefore power calculation in Lugano was incorrect and redo as per my comment (but since they have the proper data they can redo this more accurately)


    Or, much easier, admit that the Lugano results are essentially no evidence for anything.


    What I worry is that he will ignore the Lugano report criticism and publish again new experimental results repeating the same mistakes, and perhaps with less detailed information so that what mistakes are made cannot be detected.

  • @Thomas Clarke: My hope is that the Lugano scientist are able to replicate the effect and are then able to measure and analyse at pleasure.
    I guess Rossi made a few restrictions to them, so that they can't reveal too much :censored:


    But when the Lugano guys have their own device, they can care about all serious critics and develop a proper and undoubted calorimeter method to measure energy excess.

  • I hope the whole situation gives all basic researchers here as well as the replicators and potential replicators some added motivation toward including well thought out controls to their experiments. View one's beloved experiments with the eye of a harsh critic right from the design phase.

  • [color=#FF0000]Sadly it is erroneous

  • I hope the norwegian journalist will say now a bit more about the 1MW plant.
    I will not cease to repeat that Rossi actually has no technical justification to tell
    the results only at the end of test- in 2016 and in this case the usuall stereotioy "positive or negative" has no sense. If the device does not work a blind man can see it clearly on the very first day.
    Peter

  • All those news leaking slowly, with ambiguous and erroneous claims to allow disbelievers not to believe, and to reassure slowly the open mind who can compute and balance , linked with recent Sifferkoll article make me think of central bank speech.


    Do you know that strange way to communicate when you are a central bank, the forward guidance, where you tell what you will do in the next quarters, not clearly enough so that people don't think it is sure, and thus react slowly...


    Is it just that media and politics are so incompetent and coward that information circulate so slowly, with so many errors, so much missing data... in a way that was well described in Asimov book "Foundation and Empire" about the Empire... A dying system unable to correctly report avalable informatison, locked by fear of consensus, and too lazy to get good information and check data...


    Or is is a controlled leaking , made to convince slowly people of less and less open mind structure...
    information leaking from the side of the system, borders states, wth messages hard to interpret without time and motivation. with safe harbor statements and pathetic mistakes, or lies, allowing believers in the consensus to still believe...


    Anyway the law of maximum stupidity state that when you have the choice between incompetence and malice, it is probably incompetence.


    I'm tired. :thumbdown:
    I wait for the field test result. science and media will never do the job.

  • Very sad development.


    But there are first rumors at ECW that Bo just wanted to play this story down with his comment on Peters blog.
    So maybe it is indeed true that they replicated it, but the information has to stay confidential as long as measurements are not finished yet and no scientific journal hasn't published the paper officially. ?(:S