Great statement Alain: "Current situation is clearly a denial of possibility".
Why feed the dark wolf? Feed the good wolf where possibilities exist instead.
Critiscism can be good when it is constructive. I would love to see LENR exposed to official science standards in official science journals
"I would love to see LENR exposed to official science standards in official science journals."
So would I!
QuoteHe can make a peer reviewed paper ?
Peer review is about making a contribution to knowledge. If LENR were accepted, or half accepted, then showing a hole in it would be a contribution. But it is not accepted, so why would such a paper be publishable?
The experimental LENR papers that get published show interesting anomalies. Sometimes these can be shot down from obvious errors - but in that case usually they don't pass peer review - you need 3 sloppy reviewers. Shooting down such a paper with a comment etc would be a big effort and for what gain in knowledge? There are thousands of equally bad LENR papers, showing one is wrong in no way disproves LENR because it is non-disprovable (and therefore not science).
Comments shooting down papers do exist. e.g. mine on Lugano, Pope's in the previous Rossi test. Theory papers that look even half-way promising get more attention, and W-L has been comprehensively shot down.
But you can't expect scientists to be that interested in disproving LENR papers when they don't think LENR is plausible, and no LENR paper presents good enough evidence to change that.
TC: You make yourself guilty of feeding the dark wolf.
Looking at the COPE members of scientific journals - over 10000 can be searched for here: http://publicationethics.org/members
I wonder which of them are candidates for LENR papers? The LENR subject overlaps several subjects, one candidate here:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/acmp/
What more candidates would you propose?
There are thousands of equally bad LENR papers
Is this a fact, or your opinion? Do you have a reference, please, or was your Christmas reading list longer than I imagined?
It is a fact unless the papers posted here and elsewhere that I've read are worse than typical.
That sounds a bit more like 'an assumption' to me. Perhaps one based on preconceived ideas?
That sounds a bit more like 'an assumption' to me. Perhaps one based on preconceived ideas?
Not at all. I have seen a decent enough sample of LENR papers to know that most are of poor quality. I'm not claiming all are that.
I no longer want to answer any of your Social Justice Warrior posts. I believe I made two perfectly accurate guesses but I know you will not answer without some additional equivocation on your part.
It is just to tedious to teach you how to sing.
As Mark Cuban would say on Shark Tank "I'm out".
Dog
maryyugo
Hi Mary: Here is my answer to your second question.
"2) Rossi has been in the process of building a robotized factory for millions of ecats since 2012 and the only thing holding him up is certification by some unnamed "certificators" who have had the request and the information since 2012."?
The first part of this question about "robotized factory for millions of ecats " is simply Rossi being like an Edison extrapolating about
his light bulb five years before his his light bulb became a product and imagining how he would put it into production, Rossi is doing the same. I know it is hard for a super skeptic to think like creative people. Then you ask about certification. Of course you ask the question as if you think his certification is a scam. Have you ever gone through this process? It is a pain especially for a new product. This is a recent quote from Rossi showing his frustration on the subject.
Andrea Rossi
January 6th, 2016 at 8:41 AM
Frank Acland:
Both, because now I know the rules and have designed the E-Cat X to ease the difficulties. I come to you to get a thing, but you reject me for a reason: I lose, but I learn. I return to you, and again you reject me for another reason: again I lose, but I learn. I return to you…and this cycle is repeated if necessary one thousand times, because I do not give up: at a certain point I will have learnt enough to empty your reasons tank. This is how it works.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
In my opinion this is a man going through this process and would not go through the process unless he had a good reason: a viable product.
about the opinion of mary on E-cat flow calorimetry, it is her opinion, and it is not proven...
Her evident bias clearly make this statement needing verification.
For those who says all LENR experiments are bad, i wait for a peer reviewed paper that is not refuted like are Lewis, hansen, Morrison, or which does not in fact confirm excess heat result like Wilson.
if you are so good, write a paper.
Dog
My apologies if:
my
last written comment to your post offend you or somehow cause you to feel a
micro-aggression?
Not intended at all, I do however wish to explore the relevance of points proposed in the paper written by Huw Price who is Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy and a Fellow of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. He is also a
member of the editorial boards of Contemporary Pragmatism, Logic and Philosophy of Science.
His point was specific to LENR “The cold fusion horizon: Is cold fusion truly impossible, or is it just that no respectable scientist can risk their reputation working on it?” I have given some thought to the skill of ‘singing’ but have drawn a blank; I wonder if you should direct your comments to another forum, in that respect I would support your decision.
It is just to tedious to teach you how to sing.
I wish you all the best with your endeavours.
Frank
QuoteThe first part of this question about "robotized factory for millions of ecats " is simply Rossi being like an Edison extrapolating about his light bulb five years before his his light bulb became a product and imagining how he would put it into production, Rossi is doing the same. I know it is hard for a super skeptic to think like creative people.
I sort of agree - but would it not make even more sense for this Edisonian extrapolation to be more full-blooded.
Thus - Rossi all along has been extrapolating 10 years into the future when he expects his stuff will actually generate power in all circumstances (rather than when measured with an IR camera, or calculated assuming all cooling water is vapourised, etc).
It would seem to Rossi as though his stuff definitely does work - sometimes - but at other times frustratingly just does not generate power. He would naturally gravitate towards test methods where the output power could not easily be measured and length of time in "SSM" was the only indication of this, as is perhaps the case for this current long-term test. It requires some pretty extreme rationalisation for this to work, but people are good at that.
That would make perfect sense of the otherwise most weird "it could be positive or negative" and other negative tones coming out in the latest Rossifiction episodes?
or is this too like a creative person's method for a believer to consider it plausible?
@Thomas
Not a chance. I can't believe he is that intransigent and stupid to believe his stuff work. Nobody is. How many times over more than four years has he been told about the need to properly calibrate his experiments and/or make them independent of himself? It must be hundreds or thousands. And many times politely by friends of LENR like Dr. Brian Josephson and Jed Rothwell. And nobody is dumb enough to think that squatting in an idiotic ship container (wired for huge amounts of three phase, 440V power) in an unknown place for a pretend and unknown "customer" is going to convince people that he has something. And all the contradictions and idiocy in JONP. C'mon, man. Add it all up and it clearly spells C R O O K! Can't be anything else. Edisonian? More like Madoffonian.
@BBCK777
Fine, then. Please find out for us WHO the certificators (no such word, BTW) are. No certification agency refuses to be identified as working on a task. Also why it takes them almost 4 years to do the job. Where, exactly, is the stumbling block? Don't they know they are the ONLY thing (as per Rossi) standing between the world and endless amounts of cheap power? You don't suppose that matters to them? They also stand between Rossi and billions of dollars to help children with cancer. Surely, that matters to them. ROTFWL.
And then you quote Rossi? You take THAT man's word for things? Why that's your problem right there. You've completely forgotten: CLAIMS ARE NOT FACTS OR EVIDENCE.
And there you have it, trial by media, in this case this forum. Always was a contentious characteristic of our democracy and here we have the proof of that.
Add it all up and it clearly spells C R O O K! Can't be anything else.
It may well be a legitimate expression of freedom but any judge seeking to isolate a jury from undue influence would certainly instruct them to not to view certain comments on this forum. Were they to do so, the defence would be in a strong position to have the case dropped. The O.J. Simpson case is an example of media influence on jurors. The Judge had to remove 4 jurors who had reportedly watched television reports of the case.
A report issued by the Law and Justice Foundation describes four critical stages that can help a judge determine whether the jury’s decision was tainted by media publicity.
•Stage 1: one or more members of the jury actually encountered the media publicity information (either directly or indirectly)
•Stage 2: At least one jury member recalls the information
•Stage 3: the information influences juror perception of the case
•Stage 4: the influence upon the jurors is determinative of their verdict- either by contributing to the verdict or by directing jurors against the weight of evidence.
So Mary, you appear to be Rossi's very own insurance policy. But you are very intelligent, I'm sure you already know that.
Best regards
Frank
PS: read Price's paper, its all about the risks of undue influence. https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-…ossibility-of-cold-fusion
It is very difficult (to say the least) to defend an opinion that Andrea Rossi is an honest inventor hell-bent on making an impossible invention to save humankind from energy starvation and climate destruction.
With a bucket of water, a thermometer and five minutes spent with one of Rossi’s foil cucumbers he himself or anybody else can measure the true heat output by sticking the hose into the water and measure the temperature increase. Actually, years ago I suggested this in an email and Rossi answered: yes we are doing precisely that, a report will soon be issued. Soon like until a blue moon …
The heading of the mail that I sent revealed that it came from an international company with substantial involvement in power generation. After a minor mail exchange he offered to supply an E-Cat container to our factory (without me asking for it). We would only have to pay for the heat delivered. This must have been around 2011 when he was going to start the 1 MW installation in Greece.
No, I did not bring it up with my bosses, but if I had we could have been the secret customer and when Rossi fell asleep over his keyboard I could have sneaked into the container to take a good look at the plumbing and the wiring!
After this generous offering our relation deteriorated and eventually Rossi decided that I was not a nice guy so he broke up with me. Sob …
H-G Branzell
It is very difficult (to say the least) to defend an opinion that Andrea Rossi is an honest inventor
Oh I think you are so misguided! Imagine an attorney for Rossi's defence pointing out to the Judge this forum and comments such as yours and Mary's. He/she would have no difficulty whatsoever having the Judge throw the case out under the Law and Justice Foundation guidance.
As Thomas says: ad homs like this do your case no good!! Indeed, you are helping Rossi's case.
Best regards
Frank
PS: read Price's paper, its all about the risks of undue influence. aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientis…ossibility-of-cold-fusion
After a minor mail exchange he offered to supply an E-Cat container to our factory (without me asking for it). We would only have to pay for the heat delivered. This must have been around 2011 when he was going to start the 1 MW installation in Greece.
H-G,
My gosh, all he wanted was for you to pay the heat generated by the 1MW to this FAKE company you SCAMMED (ironic) him into believing you represented! Sounds very fair of him if you ask me. Sure doesn't sound very shifty to just sell the heat.
A true scammer, it seems to me, would have asked you to buy the plant outright at list ($1.5 mil) and run. Even at that, would 1.5 mil pay off his investment in building the scam up to that point...assuming your company would have put word out they got a piece of junk? Just building that contraption, transporting it, employee salaries, patent lawyers would have chewed up a few mil by 2011 easily.
But no, he offered to sell only the heat delivered... so where is the scam, the payoff, in that?
By the way, before [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] bought in, there was another such heat delivery deal close to completion in Europe. I think it was Hydrofusion that was involved. They had narrowed down the customer, the factory, and worked out the specs...the whole bit, then it was canceled.
Quote
Oh I think you are so misguided! Imagine an attorney for Rossi's defence pointing out to the Judge this forum and comments such as yours and Mary's. He/she would have no difficulty whatsoever having the Judge throw the case out under the Law and Justice Foundation guidance. As Thomas says: ad homs like this do your case no good!! Indeed, you are helping Rossi's case.
While I agree ad homs do not help an argument, I don't think ad homs on an obscure internet forum would ever alter the guild of lack of it of Rossi in court of law.
QuoteBut no, he offered to sell only the heat delivered... so where is the scam, the payoff, in that?
The payoff for Rossi has been one year of his followers ardently interested in the test progress, shipping container pcs, even it seems AR's own intimate health.
Inventors claiming scientific breakthroughs very rarely get taken to court, and even more rarely convicted in criminal court.
How can you prove that a non-working device was known not working by the inventor? All the excuses made on ECW can be made in court and when it is a science issue it is pretty easy to cast enough doubt to prevent absolutely any criminal prosecution. Even civil, unless the inventor is careless, investment in new technology is caveat emptor because everyone knows there can be glitches big or small.
Notwithstanding that, Rossi's behaviour has been transparently dishonest - continual refusal to do real tests while promoting obviously spoofed tests as good.
You have to be a clever psychologist to know how much of this is deliberate fabrication, and how much the idee fixe which is an important part of character in many ground-breaking inventors. We admire it when they are right, and it looks very silly when (much more often) they are wrong. Rossi's high level of denial of the evidence means that even were his goal somewhat easier to achieve he'd not likely meet it.
Mary Y here sees this as deliberate fraud. It is really a matter of interpretation, because the external evidence is the same. I prefer to hold open the possibility that Rossi is self-deluded and while in some ways practicing deceit also feels this is justified in achieving his world-changing goal. But then I guess many people with borderline nacissistic disorders might follow that pattern, and it is more common than you might think. We are told that many famous and successful people have that. Rossi seems pretty successful...
