The Playground

  • https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01468-9


    "First they came for the Cold Fusion researchers, but they did nothing (and even joined in the harassment)"

    Well, a certain person of surname Coyaud leads a pack of CF researcher harassers, albeit AFAIK this has always been online and never in the flesh.


    This article, on the other hand, talks almost entirely about scientists that studied a specific topic that is a whole can of worms we won’t open again in this forum.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I saw an article stating that this sunspot cluster was comparable to the one that caused the Carrington event, an that the past Geomag storm was indeed of that intensity, anyone has read something similar?

    AFIK: Last Event was G5 280 points
    Carrington-Event was G5 400 points

    Sourced from a German site.

    12.05.2024:

    Heftiger geomagnetischer Sturm bricht Rekorde
    Der seit Freitag Abend wütende Magnetsturm ist der stärkste seit Jahrzehnten. Und er ist noch nicht vorbei.
    www.heise.de

    13.05.2024:

    Magnetsturm am Wochenende: Die Infrastruktur hat den Härtetest bestanden
    Stromnetze und Satellitensysteme haben den heftigen Magnetsturm am Wochenende offenbar gut überstanden.
    www.heise.de

    Edited once, last by bang99 ().

  • https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01468-9


    "First they came for the Cold Fusion researchers, but they did nothing (and even joined in the harassment)"

    Not sure where that quote is from?


    The issues raised in the link are about harrassment from those politically engaged or conspiracy theorists, rather than anything about scientific merit or otherwise.


    Interesting opposite question is when strong promotion of generally agreed wrong science (vaccines don't work) becomes something that should affect a scientists standing. Is preventing employed scientists from indulging in public promotion of such views harrassment or correct. Should for example a physicist who advocated flat-earther views, or maintains that the 1960s moon landings were all faked, be allowed to use their position as prestigious prof of blah blah blah to advocate such views?

  • Regarding this quote: "First they came for the Cold Fusion researchers, but they did nothing (and even joined in the harassment)"

    Not sure where that quote is from?


    The issues raised in the link are about harrassment from those politically engaged or conspiracy theorists, rather than anything about scientific merit or otherwise.

    I do not see where that quote came either, but it describes the fact that the modern anti-science movement began with cold fusion, with what Schwinger called "the death of science." Scientists themselves started this, along with the editors of Nature, Scientific American, the New York Times, and other muckety-mucks. Later, conspiracy theorists and internet trolls at Wikipedia and elsewhere joined in.


    This article describes harassment from politically engaged conspiracy theorists who knew nothing about the science of vaccination. Attacks against cold fusion were made by politically engaged academic scientists who knew nothing about cold fusion. I mean they have no idea what instruments are used, what results are obtained, or what explanations are offered. They never answer any technical questions or read the literature. They claim there are errors, but they never list one. THH is a prime example of such people.


    These critics make elementary-school level mistakes in the scientific method, as does THH. See the DoE review board errors, p. 43 - 44:


    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJresponsest.pdf


    As far as I know, Pons was the only cold fusion researcher who was threatened by physical violence. But many others had their experiments sabotaged, their documents thrown away, and they were fired, threatened with deportation, and so on. One of the best documented examples is what happened to Mel Miles. See p. 153 - 161:


    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf


    . . . and in various other documents.

  • do not see where that quote came from


    First They Came by Pastor Martin Niemöller

    First they came for the Communists

    And I did not speak out

    Because I was not a Communist

    Then they came for the Socialists

    And I did not speak out

    Because I was not a Socialist

    Then they came for the trade unionists

    And I did not speak out

    Because I was not a trade unionist

    Then they came for the Jews

    And I did not speak out

    Because I was not a Jew

    Then they came for me

    And there was no one left

    To speak out for me

  • Although riffing on the Neimoller poem is often seen as humorous, I was being quite serious.


    There are many sub-facets to that poem, not least being the implied passivity of Neimoller himself. However that deflects from the fact that he was far from being a passive onlooker, as he actively applauded and encouraged the various stages - until he became a target himself.


    Note that there are multiple (authorised) versions of the poem, and the Americans use a Bowdlerised version, to suit their own political proclivities.


    As Curbina commented, the examples in the linked article are all from a particular field. But this is actually a far wider problem, and one not limited to science. The persecution of ("the wrong type of") feminist has been a particularly egregious example - but along with politics and religion this is an unsuitable topic for this forum.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • I realize that was a reference to the Neimoller poem. When I said, "I do not see where that quote came either . . ." I meant that THH and I both cannot find the message here where someone said that. We don't know what sort of academic politics or harassment that message referred to. Anyway, there has been a broad range of harassment. And even more denial, evasion, double-talk, and the kind of unscientific nonsense the 2004 DoE panel members wrote, and that THH himself writes every damn time instead of addressing the technical issues. That is not harassment but it is trolling. It is annoying. I am sure the DoE panel members knew better. In any other context, discussing any other scientific claim, they would not write such stupid things. I expect THH would never write the kinds of things he does in a discussion of something like high temperature superconductors.

  • Those people at Nature lack self awareness! As does THH. Plus they know nothing about history.

    Far be it for me to claim self-awareness - we all have are failings in that respect.


    Indeed claiming others lack self-awareness is often a sign that the claimer lacks the same...

  • Indeed claiming others lack self-awareness is often a sign that the claimer lacks the same...

    How often? Do other critiques often reflect the conditions of the person making them? In that case you must be grossly incompetent about every aspect of science, because countless times you have said that Fleischmann, Pons, Storms, Miles and the others are making very simple mistakes that no high school kid would make. For example, in one of your rare efforts to address the technical details, you claim the boil off results are wrong because bubbles obscured the water level, and no one noticed when the bubbles stopped, and electrolysis stopped, when the liquid boiled away. Needless to say, anyone present in the room would instantly see these things. The moment the boiling begins, and the moment the electrolysis stopped is recorded in the computer data as well as the video. Also, you do not explain how the calorimetry before the boil-off and after it could have been right, but the heat magically stopped for 10 minutes. In short, your "explanations" are preposterous, ignorant, foolish nonsense. Perhaps this is why you think Fleischmann et al. are ignorant fools.

  • But probability plays no role in other fields, such as chemistry. Experiments often produce such clear results that even one test proves the point. The most extreme example in history was the first test of an atomic bomb. There was no doubt it was a nuclear explosion.

    There are other interesting examples in applied science, as it becomes closer to technology. The first incandescent lights made by Moses Farmer did not need any statistical proof. Anyone could see they were glowing. Edison discovered how to power lights in parallel instead of series. Again, that took no statistical proof. One bulb burned out but the the others continued to glow. Much later, statistics were needed to optimize filaments.


    Anyone could see the first telegraphs and telephones worked. The first computers were highly unreliable and often had to run the same program again and again until they produced the same answer three times. That made them more probabilistic than you might think. The latest GPT AI is extremely probabilistic in nature. It is astounding to me that determinate machines can be so unpredictable.


    Some effects are more difficult to detect than you might think. The first controlled airplane flight did not look different from the failed flights before it. An amateur observer watching it probably could not have told the difference. Wilbur Wright wrote a detailed, engineering analysis in his notebook, and later published papers, describing why this was a controlled flight. Later flights were hundreds of feet up, lasting 30 minutes to an hour, going 50 to 100 miles (in circles). Anyone could see they were controlled flights.


    The first tests of the transistor seemed to amplify the signal. It looked like it was working. An old school, experienced electrical engineer in the lab said: "You can't be sure. The way to test it is to feed the signal back into the circuit. If it is an amplifier it will produce a sine wave." So they did, and it did. That was not a statistical test but it showed that confirming amplification can be more difficult than you might think. Of course you can always tell with a modern commercial transistor.

  • Daniel Davis is speaking out.

    God help us.

    Ukraine Hits Inside Russia w/U.S. WEAPONS
    #Ukraine #Russia #Biden #Blinken #Putin #zelensky
    www.youtube.com

  • Another bump from the sun.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • I still find this interesting to study ..

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

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.