The Playground

    Quote from Argon

    The importance about arguing on what Thomas Clarke have written here and many other forums, is because he was using his scientific argumentation to convince readers. One example is this suddenly re-popped up 'super heated core with loose coupling', to prove that all Rossis tests were fraudulent. Vaporization of amount of water needs around 4 times the mass, or temp, in hot core no matter is it metal or porous material like stone. Loose coupling or porousness only changes Time constant the heat is released, but does not change stored energy/kg (considering not playing with pressures).


    But since Thomas seemingly has bailed out from here, I will respect him and not continue on that topic. He is not able to defend himself in this forum anymore.


    Let me state that I appreciated the presence of T.C. on this forum, and while I disagreed with nearly everything he stated, he was always quite polite. That said, after I took a close look at his loose-coupling hypothesis and challenged him on it, he ultimately backed off and disclaimed it entirely. I give him credit for doing that. It is not easy to back off from a position. As for the Oct. 6, 2011 test, we are left with Ascoli65's numeric model. But I have some serious questions about how he developed this model, which doesn't square with real-world common-sense experiences, as highlighted by Jed's observations. That conversation continues here: Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

    I might add that Thomas' paper, which contains some good points, lists no affiliation or contact information and so is anonymous. And yet Thomas demanded on this forum that the authors reply. Furthermore, at the end of his "anonymous" paper, he demands that the authors (who are not anonymous) retract their conclusions. While he may be right in many of his conclusions (his points about band emissivity seem to be quite relevant, although I'm not so sure about some of the other points, which are in my opinion not discussed in a sufficiently clear and detailed manner) I see no reason why the Lugano authors should feel obligated to reply to an anonymous report.


    As a side point, I note that neither the Lugano report, nor Thomas' comment, would be likely to survive peer review without significant changes and a requirement of much more detail and/or analysis. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the Lugano report was either not submitted for publication in a real journal (and so did not undergo this process) or was rejected if it was submitted. Given the limited resources of the Lugano authors (e.g. they could not repeat the experiment) this is somewhat understandable.

    IH Fanboy. Yes I had lots of arguments with him during the weeks, but I have always respected his persistence on his argumentation. My concern was mostly how this knowledge and productivity was used to manipulate common opinion. Something I have opinion on, but not all of us agree with me on that either.


    As said prefer not to comment his individual statements further here since he is not available defending his stand.


    Edit: Want to repeat that what comes to old test reports and Mr Rossis old talks about automated factories (with IH), and numerous customers and promises about COP, or controllability of E-Cat output power etc. i'm not too interested on that period. Reason which I have said also before is that when stakes are so high, all possible business manouvers are taken into use, if they keep competition away or behind at least. So in his old demos and blog he can have been not truthful (since they are not legally binding).
    But dispute between Rossi and IH is very official and legally binding. That is why I am mostly interested on that part and future turns on this saga.

    Quote from quizzical

    I might add that Thomas' paper, which contains some good points, lists no affiliation or contact information and so is anonymous. And yet Thomas demanded on this forum that the authors reply. Furthermore, at the end of his "anonymous" paper, he demands…


    I like this post above as it is a good argument, and is both challenging and respectful. I don't agree with it, but think it is insightful. We clearly need more of this. :)
    I would like you to ask him (Thomas C.) this directly when he returns (hopefully as another userid as he now sees why people use pseudonyms or more appros 'nom de guerre').


    Also, while I don't agree with Rends his post on TC he stated his objections clearly, and somehow without mud.


    While on the otherside of the fence if we ever lose Axil we would be in the same boat.
    I have personally benefited greatly by people that post a hypothetical then back it up with a relevant URL. in combination make very strong arguments.

    Quote from LENR Calender

    Supposedly Sifferkoll took the registration e-mail Thomas used on his website and used that to find his docs. Then posted the info here. How is that not doxxing?


    Do you give permission to the moderators here to take your registration e-mail and post any info they find on google?


    It's not doxxing because Sifferkoll didn't go out of his way to find TC's email


    TC, a known anti-Rossi, anti-LENR, pro-"harmless" nuclear fission, goes to comment on Sifferkoll's blog. Sifferkoll is a known pro-LENR supporter.


    TC has a 1400+ post history of FUDding it up on this here forum, he relentlessly spends his days shooting down LENR and Rossi, while proving nothing. His main argument? "we can't say anything, we don't have enough data" and his feeling :"fission is much better, it's safe (Fukushima was nothing more than a hiccup)"
    TC also often states that his expertise is relevant in the field, i.e. he's a scientist, i.e. he appeals to authority. Now, which authority likes to flex, and stay secret? Makes no sense the good TC would try to remain anonymous, while appealing to authority, while giving out his professional e-mail to a known adversary, while playing hurt diva and leaving
    Also remember he wanted to leave when I started to address him, but as I'm a nobody, that would have been a bad move. However, he can play devastated that Sifferkoll "doxxed" him, when S merely had access to the mail TC himself gave him. Now he can push levers and try to emotionally manipulate people! "Boo hoo evil Sifferkoll has doxxed me : ((( " along with his downvote/upvote zombie pals -> people will tend to think that Sifferkoll is a horrible person now. In the end, it does make sense: character assassination.



    I'll say it again: y'all knee-deep in information warfare, and some fucktards are pulling your strings
    Psyops is very much a reality, emotional manipulation is a thing.



    It would be better for you to discuss hard data and equations and nothing else, because those emo turmoils hamper your collective research and make certain POS people very happy

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Rigel - what website? What is a doxx? Harvesting IP addresses? What in the hell are you talking about?


    Welcome back!!! Things got a bit crazy recently. Unfortunately Sifferkoll took things too far with personal info for Thomas in a very shady unethical way....and now he is gone. Thomas was VERY important to the topics at hand...his knowledge was quite impressive on the subject matter. Seems Sifferkoll got what he was hoping for...to silence Thomas. Interesting turn of events to say the least.

    Renzz - It looks like there are some real heinous sleazeballs in their strategy of silence and seek. That's how they roll though so not surprised at all.


    Take heart - they have several difficult days ahead. Hopefully, Thomas will be back for most of the fun.

    Quote from "Rigel"

    No it does not work like that, infact you are killing your reputation and your blogs.


    Well, that is a risk I'm taking I guess; win some, lose some...
    I have a few observations though;

    • Firstly I did not post Thomas email, which seems to be the general spin.
    • Secondly I don't remember exactly, but I actually believe the email had nothing to do with me finding TC, but something with browsing thru his comments on disqus and also that I read somewhere that he was an AGW type of person (whome I happen to believe are among those that have the most to lose on LENR - and whome will fight it furiously since it will make their huge tax dollar funding disintegrate). Thomas seems to have been occupied with those climate models prior to LENR to some degree.
    • And finally; I ve been stating for five years now that this saga has way less to do with science and/or measurements than with economics, politics and psychology. To some degree science and politics has even merged since it is so dependent on tax dollar funding. Basically ; follow the money and look for actions by the stakeholders sums it up.



    How do you call people who willfully spread disinfo in the hope that a technology carrying a huge and beneficial impact on the lives of billions of creatures, never appears or is slowed down to a crawl?


    Insults exist for a reason: to name things as they are


    I'm not stating that this or this member of this here forum is one of those people, but they do exist, and given the huge clamor around Rossi and LENR, do you really believe none would be here, socially engineering?



    Once again: restrict access to only people with proven scientific competences and discuss LENR from a technical point of view
    You'll be rid of shills (or at least they will have to debate with hard facts) and dudes like me won't have to play Internet Police anymore


    If the "Rossi effect" is in fact real, there is only one person keeping back "a huge and beneficial impact on the lives of billions of creatures", and that is Rossi plain and simple. I think you are pointing the finger at the wrong person(s).

    Renzz you should sue Rossi in front of Hague International Criminal Court, the case is strong:


    It's pretty obvious that every day that passes sees ROSSI spreading more confusion in the LENR field, which is really a lifesaving field, while it's not because the radioactive byproducts will give leukemia to already cancerous children who could have been saved if not for ROSSI, who hampers the development of LENR and prevents those children from being saved.


    So ROSSI is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for all those deaths, also for the GABAZILLION millions of dollars spent on expensive energy production while the whole world awaits LENR, which has never been painted a horrible picture in the mainstream media, and which academics have never ridiculed.



    SAVE THE WORLD
    SAVE THE CHILDREN
    SUE ROSSI!!!

    Quote from Keieueue

    Renzz you should sue Rossi in front of Hague International Criminal Court, the case is strong:


    It's pretty obvious that every day that passes sees ROSSI spreading more confusion in the LENR field, which is really a lifesaving field, while it's not…


    I see you have taken up the sarcasm torch...it IS fun..enjoy it. Cute, but my point stands.

    Quote

    Take heart - they have several difficult days ahead.


    Damn Dewey, I am reading this since weeks if not months. Please if you have facts show them or if you dont then think of the old proverb "Talk is silver, silence is golden"


    You start to remind me of the guys who foretell the armageddon and when the date is there... well we all know how many times the world already ended don't we?

    that means no facts?


    the more you talk about it the more I get the feeling you're just whistling through the graveyard...

    Regarding the message that “revealed information about another forum member with mischevious intent”, Sifferkoll was not the first one in LENR blogosphere to publish a link to TC's web page.


    This document containing TC's web page address has been available for weeks:
    https://thenewfire.files.wordp…2016/05/lenr_ecat_fog.pdf


    That document has been noticed at least in ECW and Vortex-l. I'm not sure whether it has been noted also here in lenr-forum.

    John said "I'm not sure whether it has been noted also here in lenr-forum."
    Mea culpa.. I think I posted it on the "fog" thread. It had info. on IH relevant to "fog".


    I personally would not put photos of myself on the net, since I have been threatened several times with
    beheading by Islamic State fans on twitter...the stuff that goes on in this forum is "playground" :)

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.