The Playground

  • Hey Hhuxxleyy, maybe I like a little Socratic discussion at times, but have you never noticed that I don't advance any arguments or seek to persuade anybody of anything. I doubt anyone even knows my opinions on many regularly discussed topics here. Of course, people think they do, but that's another story, which only involves them.

    Of course you haven't noticed, as you're too busy constantly broadcasting your own predictable opinions* to all and sundry!

    And at least make an effort to spell my name properly. You literally get it wrong more than half the time. So I don't care if you think that "I look bad", as your powers of observation are evidently horrendous! What else of mine are you misreading?

    Harrass? (sic) Mary? Mary is free to block me if heshe pleases. In fact, I encourage it. I block plenty of people whose posts I don't care to read. You should try it too, it cuts out a lot of guff.

    And one more thing: Guess what, fool, this is the playground... home of the off-topic pressure-release... Don't like it, don't visit it! People without a sense of humour aren't welcome anyway.

    Indeed, by your own account, all you've really achieved here is a off-topic addition to the whatever you deemed off-topic in the first place... Excellent work old boy.

    * Which to be fair, are interspersed between plenty of logic and facts, although in my opinion this can only increase the pernicious nature of such. There's many good reasons why I write (and say) In My Opinion to preface such...

  • Hi Epimetheus ,

    These validators observed the same set of experiments and where provided the same materials to show in their reports. Of course the basics were repeated over and over. Nothing wrong with that.

    Are validators "independent" if they (or someone acting on their behalf) copied and pasted large sections of some common source document, possibly making small adjustments to the numbers here and there? Are they "validators" in any meaningful sense? Would you not expect someone billed as an independent validator to collect their own data, or, at least, to refer to the source document and summarize the important things that stood out to them rather than incorporating the text unattributed? There is quite a lot wrong with what has been described. For your own sake in assessing claimants in this field, it is important that you understand this point.

    Is someone an independent validator who has had a 20-year ongoing consulting relationship with BrLP and who did his master's thesis on an earlier iteration of BrLP's technology?

    I digress, though; my main point in this instance pertains not to unsourced incorporation of text or to financial and other ties to BrLP but instead to the length of BrLP's documents, which combined with the technical jargon must make them impressive to some people, e.g., perhaps Shane D. (He can clarify whether length or density of technical jargon were considerations for him.)

    If you dont like Mills and dont believe in what he is doing than I think you should go with a bullet proof argument:

    Mills promised an energy producing device in the late 90s and again in the late 00s and still has not delivered. And he is still taking investors money. And at leat 2 nobel laureats say his theory is BS.

    That is also a good discussion to pursue.

    You wont find much repetition in the 1900 pages of GUTCP.

    It is not important to my point that the technicalese be copied and pasted; far better, in fact, that it not be, as in the case of GUT-CP. I'm not sure what BrLP were thinking with those validation reports, where the copying and pasting is easy to identify with a little due diligence.

  • ele

    I have no idea what most of that means and Sifferkoll's input is, as usual, irrelevant.

    I have no idea whether Levi wrote more papers than he listed on his UniBo CV and if he did, what his motivation could be in leaving them out. Maybe it's the same Levi in both lists, maybe not. The only reason that came up was because some of you believers claimed that Levi was somehow distinguished and well known. He's not either. But it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that Levi could go into Rossi's closet, dodge a few skeletons that are certainly there, and get his hands on that original ecat which gave the best and highest performance of any ecat EVER, both in terms of absolute level of power out and also power out/power in ratio. Not only that but Levi used mass flow calorimetry and forced cooling. Wow. If I were Levi, I'd yank out that puppy and make it run again, PROPERLY BLANKED AND CALIBRATED and with some credible witnesses on hand. That would go a long way to restore his highly damaged credibility.

    But of course he won't do that because he has to know that he would get zero excess heat if he performed the experiment properly. No insider would be dumb enough at this point not to know that. That is the only possible reason Levi didn't reply to Josephson when J asked him to repeat the test properly. That's what matters. Not how prestigious the coffee brewer from Bologna is.

    Post moved here from 'Rossi Gullstrom' thread. Greened for insulting content. WARNING Mary Yugo Indulge yourself like this again, and you may be sanctioned up to ban level. As the team decide. Insults from behind an Avatar are of very little value here or anywhere. Alan

  • Gee, whoever moved this post, perhaps YOU can venture a response to the always present question: Why didn't Levi repeat that spectacular test he did in early 2011 that was published in NyTeknik? Done right, it would have proved the ecat worked. Replicated properly, even as a black box test, and everyone would have paid attention. yet he never did it. Aren't you just a bit curious why? What his thinking about this was? And here we are now, five more years of wasted effort by many, $11 million given to a crook and $7 or so millions to lawyers and all of this because Levi wouldn't re-examine an obviously critical test, even when asked to do so by a Nobel laureate. Now you tell me what sort of person behaves that way.

  • What ShaneD said. Plus Levi did not seem to be under constrain to persuade Rossi to perform experiments properly, including calibrations. Or he could have done the honorable thing and refused to continue with Rossi. What constrains *is* he under? Did Rossi have blackmail material on him? Was Rossi holding one of his children hostage? C'mon. There are dozens of things Levi could have done over six years that he most certainly did not do to get at the bottom of what it is Rossi is really doing and to make it known to academia and prospective customers.

  • One day LENR may take it's secrets to the grave, buried under 6 feet of NDAs, secrets, and "constraints".

    Right Shane,

    as Alan demonstrates here quite often with his hints ("You don't have an idea of ..."), the LENR community is obviously more secretive than the freemason are, and only "insider" understand what marvelous things are on its way.

    So, I suggest if you want to get some "inside information", you join next annual gathering of the LENR community (where the global leaders of LENR meet), and spend some bottles of wine for the dinner...

  • So, I suggest if you want to get some "inside information", you join next annual gathering of the LENR community (where the global leaders of LENR meet), and spend some bottles of wine for the dinner...

    From that video, it looks like the only insider information passed along at the ICCF's is the best buffet entree, and where the free wine is served. :)

    Yes, I know these conferences have a serious side. And the video does show this gathering to be a low budget affair. In comparison, I would guess the hot fusion guys wine and dine on the public dime, at posh resorts.