The Playground

  • Perhaps this shows a worthy example of the hobbled thinking that may be pervasive among skeptic "physicists" with little knowledge of the real world.


    Ekstrom's response: "Yes I have access to the Indiana ion source article and I have read it. But I cannot see why I should do your job!"


    Maybe you should take a step back and see what caused my reaction. I found your comment arrogant. And why do you need help from somebody "with little knowledge of the real world".

  • Maybe you should take a step back and see what caused my reaction. I found your comment arrogant. And why do you need help from somebody "with little knowledge of the real world".


    I don't and it is very likely we don't. I think it is appropriate to let those who may not be familiar with how some few elders can poison the discourse with their manifest academic ignorance paraded as "authority". At about your age, I've been there and seen that enough to know (Ph.D. 15 years ago, summa cum laude undergrad work, both at a major research university). Maybe you should step back yourself and see what comment by you led to my comment.


    "From your arrogant besserwisser comment one gets the impression that you knew what you were talking about. That is obviously not the case."


    Now, perhaps several 'microwave to proton' references later, we see that I know at least something of what I was "talking about". And there are many more such references concerning proton liberation/generation/isolation using exactly the microwave generator (magnetron, thyratron or whatever) from a microwave oven, or the power (20 to 50 W) and frequency equivalent (2.45 GHz). Further a fair number of these references might be reached in spite of your refusal to be helpful. Frankly, I find your arrogance just stupid, since your credentials should obviate the need for any such posturing. Further I think others here make a grave error in cutting you what amount to a "free pass", even though they claimed not to be doing so.

  • In the playground!!! I will dump a little nugget of my own. I think that ME356 is as phoney as the skeptics who spew out endless attacks on courageous researchers taking on the LENR windmill, to the length of "War and Peace" every year. Perhaps Hank Mills can stop begging him, and like Rossi, ignore them until they produce a steamer or get of the pot.


    And yes Mr. Ekstrom is like every dogmatic physicist who think that their disagreeing with someone is an invitation to intimidate them into stopping.


    Read this: http://nautil.us/issue/7/waste/einsteins-lost-hypothesis, Mr. Ekstrom. If Albert Einstein can consider the possibility of unexpected properties and reactions in the atomic and nuclear realm, so to, could you!

  • And yes Mr. Ekstrom is like every dogmatic physicist who think that their disagreeing with someone is an invitation to intimidate them into stopping.


    He's not at all intimidating. There's exactly zero power to intimidate in broad historical generalizations along the lines of: "we've studied such-and-such for 100 years, and we've never seen anything like that!" It is very easy to ignore that kind of broad-brush statement, and even enjoy it as being a little quirky. Peter Ekstrom also has made some genuinely insightful comments. I'm glad he's here!

  • Read this: nautil.us/issue/7/waste/einsteins-lost-hypothesis, Mr. Ekstrom. If Albert Einstein can consider the possibility of unexpected properties and reactions in the atomic and nuclear realm, so to, could you!


    I have read it. It is a sweet little story that is like a gospel for the LENR religion. Scientifically, Sternglass did not have the best of reputations and he even failed to replicate his own experiment! The article ends with a few heroes of the LENR world, e.g. Krivit's favourite Lewis-Larsen. A very nice attempt to make out that Einstein is part of LENR history!


    Thanks Eric and Alan for the support!

  • Mr. Ekstron, The point is NOT that Sternglass was right, (although that is still not clear) but that Einstein did not take the expedient course of chanting dogma, but encouraged him to be stubborn and pursue his research. He even acknowledged a theoretical basis upon which the proton generation could be based. Simply put he encouraged out of the box research and understood that the standard model was in no way complete or even necessary. Your "certainty" regarding any number of phenomenon is not at all the same, and that does in fact inhibit certain avenues of research. I would be far happier with your comments if they were delivered in a more open minded manner, at least accepting that the LENR results are at the least enticing and worthy of further work even if, in the end, that is futile.

  • The Grump,

    He even acknowledged a theoretical basis upon which the proton generation
    could be based.


    Yes. Unfortunately wrong, though.

    Simply put he encouraged out of the box research and understood that the
    standard model was in no way complete or even necessary.


    Yes, but sometimes people get too far outside the box and need to be
    brought back. Also, the main thing is not theory - theories come and go -
    but an enormous amount of experimental results.

    ..at least accepting that the LENR results are at the least enticing and
    worthy of further work even if, in the end, that is futile.


    I do, but some touch with reality is needed!


    This is getting way to pleasant for this thread, so I'd better stop before I get in trouble with the moderator. :)


    PS. I think it is a shame that Thomas felt he had to leave the forum
    because of something I can only classify as bullying. His dedication and
    knowledge will be sourly missed! The purpose of this forum is, I hope,
    to make progress by discussion. Not like The Other Place were the
    purpose is to promote dubious products.

  • I think, that this forum needs to have members with a solid and "established" scientific background like Peter Ekstrom and I'm also glad that he is here.


    It doesn't matter, wether someone seems to be a believer or a skeptic, because no one is forced to adopt the opinions of the other. But everyone here may benefit from the presentation of different views / facts and might become inspired to new ideas or solutions.

  • Hank Mills. What a pest!


    Out of 96 posts (so far), over 50 of them are hassling ME356 to release information a couple of weeks early, and 5 are threats to quit the forum. Many of them are excessively long, and contain some fairly tenuous reasoning and metaphors. A good advert for his books, they are not.


    Even a Buseyism was thrown in at one point. Only Gary Busey should make Buseyisms -- leeway is given because he has an unfortunate long-term brain injury.


    Whatever happened to:


    I'm going to make the following plea ONE FINAL TIME.


    I personally am done with this forum and the entire community if Me356 doesn't agree to share a few paragraphs with us. I'll have this account deleted, make my final post on the JONP, make a final short article on E-Cat World, and leave for good.


    And I'm not threatening to leave. I'm going to leave. I've already made my mind up on that. There is no purpose in hanging around any longer. I'm just waiting for the moderators to delete my account on this forum.


    :rolleyes:


    If my children acted this way, I'd feel I had failed as a parent.


    Also why is it necessary to have all your posts deleted? (Admittedly I would also delete them if I had written them). Just delete them yourself!!

  • I think, that this forum needs to have members with a solid and "established" scientific background like Peter Ekstrom and I'm also glad that he is here.


    Granting someone "due respect" might feel good, and has a certain Kantian categorical to it. Unfortunately there is a "trojan horse" risk embracing these folks of the "old guard". Look carefully at role of dogma in the history of CF / LENR / AHE.


  • Granting someone "due respect" might feel good, and has a certain Kantian categorical to it. Unfortunately there is a "trojan horse" risk embracing these folks of the "old guard". Look carefully at role of dogma in the history of CF / LENR / AHE.


    For me, that sounds like an at least moderate form of paranoia.


    Some of the users here might have an agenda (for example in the Rossi/IH disput), but certainly, I'd not expect, that the "old guard" is at standby to conquer this forum.

  • If you have not yet, please read Beaudette's Excess Heat and/or Mallove's Fire from Ice. When the stakes are huge, "stuff" happens. The big turnaround in the last 10 years is probably irreversible, that is largely motivated by the recognition of greenhouse gases in global warming. So in that sense it may be more paranoia than justified, since the forces for CF are gathering strength.

  • Rigel - Simultaneous to filing his lawsuit against IH, Rossi launched a PR war using a strategy of lies, mistruths, and hyper-conspiracy slander thru his network of minions, faux handles and fanboys. It hasn't taken too much effort and time to put some holes in their hot air balloon and bring them closer to the surface of Planet Rossi. Rossi has brilliantly disclosed some information that is going to be very helpful to the IH case. (make sure that gets back to him please and ask him to keep it coming).


    You've got my real name and my email address and are showing great leadership by asking for more information. Why don't you go first - what is your real name and email address? Or better yet, check your bias as a next step with the same questions to the pro-Rossi posters. That doesn't fit your agenda but you're welcome to surprise us all with a balanced response.

  • Granting someone "due respect" might feel good, and has a certain Kantian categorical to it. Unfortunately there is a "trojan horse" risk embracing these folks of the "old guard". Look carefully at role of dogma in the history of CF / LENR / AHE.


    I am flattered that you hold me in such a high regard that I could decide the Trojan war. No, I am just a simple nuclear physicist and not that influential. As always, money will talk. But in some respect you are right. Science and the scientific method is strong and will prevail in the end. But fear not, we will find the golden nugget... if it is there.