• Dear ECW,



    From:


    http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/



    I note that you have not yet corrected this section of your site, which
    now from material published at LENR-CANR or discussion on LENR Forum,
    where several initially doubtful and expert reviewers have agreed - you
    surely know to be inaccurate?


    I know of no serious reviewer - and
    several have gone through the argument - who disputes the downwards
    temperature correction - or the fact that the "acceleration" in COP is
    an artifact - or the fact that the dummy calculations are correct
    because as stated the incorrect "book" emissivity used was changed by
    the authors to match the temperatures independently measured.
    Unfortunately this was not done for the higher "active test"
    temperatures.



    Details sumarised below:



    (1) The Lugano test figures came from inaccurate temperature calculation
    (calculated figures were nearly 2X what actually was measured).



    This is not a matter of opinion, but of thermographic fact. Although
    there are many uncertainties about the calorimetry the Al2O3 (at the
    band measured by the IR cameras) shows an emissivity of 0.95 - with very
    little variability - not as supposed by the testers 0.4.



    (2) The testers used total emissivity figures, contrary to normal
    thermographic practice, when they should have used band emissivity figures. For high
    temperature Al2O3 the difference is very large - 0.95 vs 0.4.



    (3) Following through the consequences of this one error explains everything
    unusual about the report findings, including the "acceleration", under
    simplest assumption that Rossi's device is no more than an electric
    heater.



    (4)You can find the detailed calculations - replicable by anyone
    with a PC who can download (free) python 2.7 - published on LENR-CANR.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf


    I'm sure you would not wish to mislead your readers on this one matter.



    Best wishes for the new year,


    Tom Clarke

  • The strategy that the science community uses to undercut LENR is by just ignoring whatever attention that the LENR folks want to raise in the science community. They will expel the LENR believers from their websites and restrict their comments from publication in their magazines and preprint sites: the strategy is simply to ignore anything that the LENR community produces. Even a nobel laureate can be shunned for offences against the status quo.The same will work in the other direction where whatever the naysayers produce will be ignored by the LENR community. In this current state of affairs, it is best to keep from wasting energy and keep quite until the monied interests make their decisions about the way the future will roll.

  • Quote

    I'm sure you would not wish to mislead your readers on this one matter.


    Leave any hope Thomas, ECW has a huge bias.
    Supporters don't want understand and they will support Rossi's hoaxes despite any evidences you can provide. They are very prompt just to censor criticisms, licking any Rossi's says.

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

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Henry ().

  • Quote

    The strategy that the science community uses to undercut LENR is by just ignoring whatever attention that the LENR folks want to raise in the science community. They will expel the LENR believers from their websites and restrict their comments from publication in their magazines and preprint sites: the strategy is simply to ignore anything that the LENR community produces. Even a nobel laureate can be shunned for offences against the status quo.The same will work in the other direction where whatever the naysayers produce will be ignored by the LENR community. In this current state of affairs, it is best to keep from wasting energy and keep quite until the monied interests make their decisions about the way the future will roll.


    This accusation of censorship is shocking. Please give me precise details: (which open website, what form the expulsion took, what were the claimed reasons, have you contacted the website for thse, not just the people claiming unreasonable expulsion?), I will investigate further.


    However - two wrongs do not make a right. the censorship on ECW is blatent and harmful to any hope of accurate discussion there.

  • Comments never published and without any explanation.


    Quote

    However - two wrongs do not make a right. the censorship on ECW is blatent and harmful to any hope of accurate discussion there.


    Absolutely right.

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

  • Thomas, If you really want to see over the top censoring try going to PESN. Plus you can get a full sidebar of wacky religion at the same time. By over the top I mean that Sterling will also certify your idea works over the phone for a slight donation. Both he and his other admin 'Stuart' will actually edit your posts, it truly is a one stop shoppe.

  • I don't mind ECW comments being selected according to their editorial policy. Nor that being whacky.


    I mean censorship of comment on comments that has no relationship to politeness and simply eliminates non-approved strands of argument, banning (polite) people with such views. So a casual reader can see a discussion not knowing that it is forced to be one-sided.


    For example, I can see no way developments in the criticism of the Lugano report, as can be considered here, could be put on ECW because it is a tenet there that Rossi's statements are always correct. That makes for some weird rationalisations.

  • Thomas, why focus on Rossi/Lugano? Even if you are right with your critiscism what differences do you expect it to be for the LENR development? Go dig lenr-canr.org and find 25 years of research to critiscize.


    Frank Aucland has his right to a personal believing as have you here. No-one asked you to rewrite your texts here. Who is right and who is wrong will be known in time anyway.

  • Mats:


    Everyone has a right on the internet to post whatever they like on their own site.


    I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that Frank would not want to mislead his readers, and he maybe lives in a bubble where there is stuff he does not know about - that is always the danger of censorship.


    If, however, he does want to mislead readers that is his prerogative.


    Maybe his readers want to be misled. :)


    I think there is currently an emphasis on Ni-H LENR that is unhelpful. It duplicates the learning process with Pd-D LENR. Rossi contributes to this and has arguably provoked a whole rash of little LENR startups hoping to make Ni-H LENR work.


    Of course, if Ni-H LENR does work then I'm wrong.

  • I like your last sentence, it show a bit of humbleness.
    If Ni-H is a closed way forward we should know that pretty soon I hope, and if so the lessons learned could be applied in other ways. If Rossi is the big scammer some here believe, that will be candy for the psychological science. Who are you trying to save?

  • To Thomas on "accusation of censorship"-answer to Axil above.


    It is not hard to find examples of this. The most rescent I know of is found here: http://animpossibleinvention.c…xplanation-break-through/


    Lundin and Lidgren says in the article (scroll down towards the end)
    "Lundin and Lidgren submitted their paper to the open preprint website Arxiv.org and to the peer-reviewed journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, PPCF, but both declined to even let reviewers have a look at it, the latter arguing “that the content of the article is not within the scope of the journal”. Arxiv.org even blocked Lundin from submitting further papers during July and August.

  • "Lundin and Lidgren submitted their paper to the open preprint website Arxiv.org and to the peer-reviewed journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, PPCF, but both declined to even let reviewers have a look at it, the latter arguing “that the content of the article is not within the scope of the journal”. Arxiv.org even blocked Lundin from submitting further papers during July and August.


    This is a typical bit of mats reporting - onesided.


    It may be true, but we would need to look at the article and whether it was in fact within the scope of these two journals.


    As a matter of technical judgement I would say that LENR at the moment (90% of it) is in the area of "metal hydrate thermal anomalies". The attribution of these to a nuclear mechanism is hypothetical, and thus far there is not even a working theory, so we have a collection of phenomena.


    There are journals for everything, but not all work, even if it is good, can be published in all journals.


    Looking at the paper myself it contains some theoretical speculation and the experimental evidence on which this speculation rests. the cited evidence is the Lugano test, and their report.


    It is not fair to ask these theory guys to check the calorimetry - but they should have done a proper LS. They did not reference the material showing Lugano report calculations to be wrong and effectively eviscerating this work as experimental evidence. (It is published on lenr canr with the other critiques of the report - so not too difficult to find).


    So, personally, if asked to review I'd reject because they have not done their homework. They could always rewrite with a properly referenced evaluation of the Lugano report or by excluding this entirely and using different experimental evidence. It would be reject, not make changes, because without knowing what is the experimental data on which the theoretical speculation rests it is impossible to evaluate its merit - it does not seem to stand alone. Different data would then change the theoretical content.


    perhaps it is a shame that they did not get such feedbackP

  • I imagine if they want feedback of the sort I could provide they would (as most people do) submit their paper to a variety of journals till they find one that likes it. Perhaps they are doing this? Anyway, I'd think they would get to hear about the Lugano report issues?


    Tom

  • Thomas, wrt "I think there is currently an emphasis on Ni-H LENR that is unhelpful. It duplicates the learning process with Pd-D LENR"


    Ni-H LENR is almost as old as Pd-D LENR, discovered by Italian scientists in around 1990. But Even F&P included Ni in their patent.


    yes, most of the research have been done on Pd-D, right og wrong as it may be. Pd-D may be proven to be the wrong branch of LENR,,of you'r looking for high energy yields...time will show.

  • If you look back at the early conversations, such as some in 2011, you can see that Frank Acland was less restrictive and allowed consideration that the measurements by Kullander, Essen and Lewan might be badly done and the ecat was an electrical heater, and Rossi was a fraudster. Somewhat later, he tightened up the policy. The believers in Rossi were losing the argument and badly. Eventually, Acland made any discussion of scam or fraud or even negative evidence against the ecat out of bounds for the site.


    In my experience with frauds and cons, ALL of them eventually do that with enthusiast web sites. They HAVE to. Examples are those who believe in near-death-experiences and psychic mediums who talk to the dead, magnetic motors, perpetual motion schemes, and the like. The inventor or proponent web sites are all censored. Even Paul Story, who is comparatively open minded, rigidly censored ecatnews.com until he finally became persuaded that, like Steorn's magnetic motor and perpetual battery, the ecat was a scam. Edited to add: and of course, Defkalion's forum was a particularly abrasive place where Hadjichristos (mainly) controlled the debate with sarcastic, arrogant commentary and lie after lie after lie. And he removed whatever posts he disliked and banned the authors from posting. And gee, look what happened to Defkalion? Hadjichristos has moved on. I wonder if his new employer knows how he made his living for three or four years before.


    A web site censored against conflicting ideas and evidence is a hallmark of a scam. Rossi's idiotic blog and Acland's silly web site are both examples of this. So, BTW are several other cold fusion blogs. Fortunately, and thanks to Alain, this one so far is NOT one of them. Thanks, Alain, for allowing interesting debate here.

  • Lundin and Lidgren says in the article (scroll down towards the end)


    I would not hold the Lundin and Lidgren paper up as an example of censorship. My impression is that it is not a good paper. Their theory predicts free neutrons, which would cause all kinds of problems. They do not appear to be aware of this basic difficulty; e.g., they did not say something like "some may find difficulties in the fact that there would be all kinds of problems if we have free neutrons, but for reasons (a), (b) and (c) this is not an issue." The closest they come to anticipating that such neutrons would be an issue is in suggesting that somehow the ponderomotive force would preferentially vacuum them up (if I remember correctly).


    In addition, there is vixra.org, which will accept any papers, without the same kind of filters that are used at arxiv.org, so arguing censorship with regard to making papers available is a squishy thing at this point.

  • colwyn - that was a generalisation, but not an ad hom. The topic here is Mats's reporting, and I'm pointing out that this is typical of the rest.


    In otehr words, I'm commenting on the content of his relevant output, not his character.


    I guess I should note that this is restricted to his LENR reporting. I've nothing to say about his other stuff.

  • My reading of the thread is different: The topic was 'bias in scientific publishing', then evidence was adduced to back up this claim (the quote from Mats L about L & L).


    But instead of concerning yourself with this statement about L & L, we get an ad hom: 'Mats writing is one-sided', with the implicit suggestion we can just ignore what he said. And yes, doing that does involve generalising, when compared to just focusing on his argument.


    Which is an Ad Hom by most people's definition... Although apparently not by your own (sui generis?) definition which attempts to limit the description of 'Ad Hom' to arguments against a person's character only.


    From google:


    ad hominem
    ...directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.


    So yes, you have successfully turned the topic into 'Mats-s general reporting', when really the topic should have been 'what Mats said about this'.


    Thomas. You make a lot of incredibly insightful posts, in a polite and non-abrasive manner. This site is better for that. I just note that IMO you display an odd double standard about Ad Homs. You are the first to call people out, but you also slip a few of your own into your arguments (Albeit in a more subtle way than most). This is unfortunate, as with any Ad Hom, it tends to polarise the debate, and the real arguments get sidetracked. (Perhaps this exchange is as good an example of this as any).

  • colwyn -


    It is not a double standard. I call people out over statements they make on the topic at hand which are wrong.


    Thus, when evaluating statement A on topic X, I take into account the person's reliability on topic X as determined by whether statements B,C,... on the same topic have been accurate.


    What I don't do is consider:
    Have they previously been upright moral people, lied to their wives/husbands, been imprisoned, etc.
    Have their statements on other topics far from that relevant been accurate
    Have they skills/qualifications etc of any kind.
    Have they reasons to lie/psychology that makes this likely/etc


    These other things are all meta-evidence, and very weak when compared with the details from the topic at hand.


    You might say I should consider each statement on the topic at hand out of any context and ignore the fact that a given person (for example) has regularly made technical statements that are false. I have sympathy with that approach but think its a bit silly when some actors (e.g. Rossi) regularly make technical statements that are self-contradictory. To ignore this when evaluating their other technical statements seems unwise.


    In the case of Mats - his technical reporting is a good read and appears unbiassed, but if you look at the details you see he holds up two sides of a scientific issue with selected advocates without going in detail into how the issue resolves. You can for example do this with the AGW debate obtaining an apparent stalemate between those who hold the heavily reviewed and quite uncertain (but with well quantified uncertainty) IPCC position, or those who think baldly that this is wrong and highly biassed. In reality when you go through the science, in detail, the contrarian points made are nothing like as strong as they seem when summarised. thus a journalist can easily seem "unbiassed' by selectinmg both contrarian and mainstream viewpoints, giving each equal weight, when one is in fcat much more factually based than the other. I've gone rather OT in this paragraph.

  • The rule against ad hominem is easy to over-apply. Sometimes personal details are relevant to assessing the likelihood of a situation or claim. If such details are omitted, you cannot get an adequate picture of the situation to evaluate it fairly. This heuristic can be and is taken too far by some, and you get the bad kind of ad hom. The trick is to keep discussion balanced, pleasant and focused on facts. Ad homs can make that more difficult.


    Needless to say, repeated, tendentious distortion of details relating to individuals to support a one-sided case does little to clarify the truth. Of course, such presentations also tend to be self-defeating.

  • I think for a personal 'best" evaluation would would take into account various other factors.


    When discussing matters on internet forums any such factors, even if in principle helpful, become the focus of arguments that tend to obscure the main debate. So there is good reason to do this less on the internet than in other contexts.