[IMPORTANT] Trolling and insulting users / Forum rules

Thomas Clarke: I dislike skepticism in any form, because it is telling how you are limited. Why to not be open minded to agree that there are many unknown things that we are not understanding?
Do you really think that you know everything? If so, then the only explanation for this behavior is, that you are god.
Skepticism is the main obstacle to find a new things. Without skeptics like you progress and development will be much faster.
Without belief, you are just a poor man. This is what I think.

Nearly anything that you can imagine is possible, it just need time and patience.

If you are true, then mankind can't do any progress in any way. You should study our history to know more about our future.
We are at the beginning with science. I hope that you will live for next 50 years to see that you were completely wrong.

me356:

I disagree with pretty well everything you have said and implied above.

Skepticism is about not rushing to belief or disbelief. I guess there are domains within which nearly everything you can imagine is possible, but science is not one of them. For a scientist imagination is constrained by a vast amount of past observation and the (scientific) assumption that physical laws are unlikely suddenly to change.

That means new theory needs to be compatible with past data (of which we have a lot).

LENR is essentially a theoretical construct. LENR Skeptics don't disagree about the various reported results, they just reckon nuclear reactions are not the most likely explanation for them.

As for progress - we will most likely have human-level intelligent AI within 30 years unless there is some major disruption of our civilisation. That disproves your last statement.

IMHO. At different steps of development of anything new, the different things are useful.
For generation of new idea scepticism is poison, killing the new thing. Imagination and open mind is only the source of the new idea.
For the next step, to proof a new idea and to polish this idea constructive scepticism is useful.

LENR research is at the stage of transition from new newborn to starting to walk level. F&P initiated LENR, Rossi is already making babysitting .

If somebody considers that LENR is not real, why they are here at this forum at all ? IMHO this forum for people who accepted reality of LENR and would like to understand LENR in all details and to develop LENR technology. All sceptics about reality of LENR should find a new place for their conspiracy fraud insights.

Thomas Clarke: There are working devices around the world that are using cold fusion for very long time. Fusion, even at room temperature is working - there is absolutely no doubt about it. And there are many more nuclear processes that are working as well. LENR is known for 100 years now, you can find papers about it.
You will recall my words very soon.

Mary Yugo: You have not understood what I have said.

To show you example why you are wrong - for example for very long time people believed that earth is flat. Everybody believed in it and there were evidences that it is true.
But fortunately there were open minded people and proved that it was wrong. You have mentioned flying - yes, also for this was evidence, that it can't never work. All known laws at this time just denied it.
Nearly for each groundbreaking things there were 99,999% of skeptics and only few which found that all people were wrong.
And now, it is very same with LENR.

Tell me one reason, why current physics theories are complete and can't be wrong? Because we have not find evidence for this, yet? Very poor argument.
We even don't understand and can't link quantum physics with classic physics. And this is one of a major flaws. LENR is maybe few levels under this knowledge that we obviously don't have.

It is very funny how people today are thinking how good they are. People will be always erroneous.

Following are reasons I like this forum: First, there is a robust debate. Second, specific items of evidence and experimental procedure are examined in detail. There's a third thing I like as well, although you don't see as much of it lately, and that's that actual hobby experiments are sometimes discussed.

If too much normative superstructure is imposed upon what can be discussed, I think it will make it hard to have a robust debate. I would not mind stronger enforcement of norms pertaining to personal insults of people both on and off forum and a stronger evidentiary requirement for discussions of potential fraud. But those two things deal with minor annoyances and not the main bulk of what is discussed here.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Now, these arguments definitely advance a skeptical position, but are they therefore "conspiracy theory" and to be restricted to skeptics corner? I can feel quite a few duplicate threads being posted if so...

I don't think this is conspiracy theory at all. Lasers beaming energy into a device, or a series of implausible steps undertaken as part of an expertly executed magic show, are closer to what I think of as conspiracy theory.

My view is such that if there is community that is interested in LENR and we have forum like this, discussions about LENR validity shouldn't be present at all.
LENR skeptics are simply intruders that are trying to destroy this community. And this apply to any community.

For example - if you believe in god, you are mostly visiting places where other believers are too. And if there is somebody that is constantly saying that what you are believe is not true, then he is not welcome at all.
You can say, he is terrorist.

And same apply to this forum. There are possibilities to deny access in our case, just because of our interest. Yes, skepticism is good in some cases. But not now. Skeptics are good for doing measurements, checking errors in papers, but not for disintegrating community. If I was admin of this forum, I have banned them long time ago without any hesitation.

People that are even not admitting that LENR can be possible shouldn't really visit this place.
Admins must distinguish what is really important for this community.

Hello Mary. If You really have a scientific background, that it should be easily to grasp that LENR, or whatever You call these mutation effects, has been proven enough, to no longer call it a believe. There exist plenty, fully peer reviewed papers, that were publish it highly respected journals. Just read them.
The other aspect, namely to get useful (sustainable) amounts of energy (COP> 3 thanks to Carnot), out of LENR-Reactors is still farther away than any manned flight to the Mars. Thus for me its OK to criticize all the funny guys, which look for public attention. So its all about dialectics.
If You blame (for e.g.) Rossi, then blame his methods. Don't blame LENR even if there is no existing – complete - theory available until know, which can fully explain the different LENR mechanisms. If You ever reviewed the accessible theories, than You should know that there are at least two completely different paths which may lead to transmutations. Further on there is an existing field where e.g Laser induced LENR is overlapping with the conventional kinetic induction of fusion.
There are also many different ignition methods to start or induce transmutations. The method Rossi has chosen sounds like stone age and will only (when ever) supply a new form of a heater and never any electric current etc.. For me (quantum) physics is just starting to become a completely new world, which really can answer the important questions of the universe.
Please be productive and spend Your brain to progress the human universe instead of banging around. It would be nice to read any serious LENR paper (or at least a sound review) that You contributed to.

AlainCo, will we ever see a post on this Forum that relates to protocol for testing and replicating hydrogen fusion at the helium producing level? Why is there a trend for endless bickering and babbling on what should be a very useful tool for discussing experimental results? I'm referring to this LENR Forum label, "The trusted Low Energy Nanoscale Reaction Community".
Could the answer be because experimentation requires hard labor and bickering about someone else's work just requires hot air? And all exacerbated because of the limited number of scientists doing any work since the F&P days. The personal vendetta against Dr. Rossi has been amusing.
MY your flying unicorns will become visible just be patient.

Why on earth would I ignore Rossi's defense, both from him and made on his behalf? I haven't the slightest interest in excusing his behavior in connection with the thermoelectric devices sold to the US military, the apartments in Florida, the factory full of robots, the degree from Kensington University, etc. But there is an outstanding claim that Rossi was exonerated by the Italian courts for all but a minor infraction. If it is correct, your assertion that he is a convicted fraud is an empty one.

The word "fraud" is used too lightly by watchers in this field. I've heard it applied to Rossi, Defkalion, Levi et al., Bockris, Papp, and others. The only time I've seen evidence that cannot be attributed to something else is when Intelligentry was raided by the FBI. There are many circumstantial details that are of interest that fall short of clear fraud, and one can raise these details and remain factual without going beyond one's knowledge.

Every star in the universe is a hydrogen fusion reactor, evidently hydrogen will fuse to produce helium. The Coulomb repulsion that won't allow proton proximity leading to fusion can be overcome with an easily produced catalyst.

Quote from ogfusionist

Every star in the universe is a hydrogen fusion reactor, evidently hydrogen will fuse to produce helium. The Coulomb repulsion that won't allow proton proximity leading to fusion can be overcome with an easily produced catalyst.

This might be hard for you to believe this, but I don't believe that hydrogen fusion is the energy source of the stars, LENR is.
This will be common knowledge when LENR is recognised by profession science.

See

&"This might be hard for you to believe this, but I don't believe that hydrogen fusion is the energy source of the stars, LENR is."

No, I believe. The original meaning of the acronym LENR related to nanoscale hydrogen fusion. Spectroscopy of starlight indicates the energy is from hydrogen fusion to produce helium. Nature would use the simplest reaction as an energy source, transmutation of protons to helium, then transmutation of higher amu's.

Quote

My view is such that if there is community that is interested in LENR and we have forum like this, discussions about LENR validity shouldn't be present at all.LENR skeptics are simply intruders that are trying to destroy this community. And this apply to any community.

That is a clear view, but not held by many people. There will also be many believing as you do who nevertheless think it important to gain widespread scientific recognition for LENR. How can you engage with this effort from a position of "it is proven, so I don't need to present arguments or address critics"?

Quote

Hello Mary. If You really have a scientific background, that it should be easily to grasp that LENR, or whatever You call these mutation effects, has been proven enough, to no longer call it a believe. There exist plenty, fully peer reviewed papers, that were publish it highly respected journals. Just read them.

I think you confuse:
"there are peer reviewed papers claiming X"
with
"X is likely to be true".

The two are very different and the first does not logically imply the second.

Today, Everybody knows who was Boltzmann and his famous equations incuding entropy definition in statistical physics. I just would like you remember that when he was alive, the sientifical community considered his work as completely creazy and false. This bad behaviours conducted to his suicide.
Boltzmann is today considered as one of the cleverest scientist of every time.
This example should impose us to be modest and tolerant when we are in front of new things.
This universal message is for me the base of all exchanges between people interested in sciences. Curiosity and imagination are good things in this world and have to be encouraged and never criticized.
Franck Delplace

Quote

This example should impose us to be modest and tolerant when we are in front of new things.

I'd agree - but LENR is hardly a new thing. It has been well aired over 25 years...

Quote

Curiosity and imagination are good things in this world and have to be encouraged and never criticized.

That may be good advice for a parent, but if, in science, there was no criticism of imaginative hypotheses that do not stand up it would be difficult to discern the imaginative hypotheses that do stand up!