QuoteRossi has never allowed a test that he did not control. He will not do it now. Repeating my prediction: Penon will not be deposed. He will not attend any deposition hearings.Rossi will have a 'bag of excuses'. My favorite excuse is: The PTB secretly ruined everything.
agreed. It is still open what Rossi will do, and a fascinating part of the psycho-drama. Claim persecution by evil US govt and flee to Sweden having sold his condos? Actually, those may be his wife's condos - perhaps he has some corporate structure arranged by now so he has no monay?
I think Eric it is sort of necessary in the "Rossi could be telling the truth because you cannot prove..." threads. This way somone can read those thread getting only a mild case of apoplexia - the mixed up parts give time for feelings to return to a more usual temper.
QuoteIt is still open what Rossi will do, and a fascinating part of the psycho-drama. Claim persecution by evil US govt and flee to Sweden having sold his condos? Actually, those may be his wife's condos - perhaps he has some corporate structure arranged by now so he has no monay?
Fortunately, that won't work. Judges can order "piercing the corporate veil" and accessing the individual behind the corporation's funds if it can be shown that the corporation is a sham, established simply to protect the owner's capital funds. A friend of mine helped start a small company which later became very lucrative and large. She had disagreements with the other founders and they tried to form a new corporation to transfer their assets and cheat her out of her fair share. There was a (very expensive and elaborate) trial. The judge ruled in her favor, decided the amount of her fair share of the original company, and ordered that the amount be paid, even if it meant the funds came from the new company and the personal assets of the original owners. There was talk of an appeal but that would have been very costly for the company and eventually she received the full amount.
Let's leave Rossi out of at least one thread, please!
Done.
And maybe vice-versa?
I think His Lugano model has some merit. It's better than the official report at least.
But it misses a few things, and some assumptions could be tweaked, and the error bars extended.. I don't think it proves COP=1, as has been suggested after the fact, but which he rightly avoided stating in the conclusion.
I read a good conspiracy theory that the Lugano ecat couldn't self sustain because Rossi didn't want to give the details to IH, who made the control box.
Does this box let the cat chase the mouse? Isn't the mouse supposed to have a lowish COP?
Quote from GHI don't think it proves COP=1, as has been suggested after the fact, but which he rightly avoided stating in the conclusion.
The idea that any analysis could "prove" COP=1 from Lugano data is absurd. the methodology is littered with assumptions that turn into unquantified errors.
All the TC writeup does (here is where I find it) - if that's what you refer to - is say that if you follow the Lugano author's own method, correcting the obvious error and one minor issue where they underestimate COP slightly due to not counting ridges, you get around COP=1. That same writeup then lists a whole load of unquantified errors and gives +/- 30% or so for error bounds (as an estimate - not accurately quantified).
Does this prove COP = 1? Of course not! None of Rossi's bad experiments could ever prove COP=1, they all have large unquantified errors!
Does it provide even a tiny little bit of evidence for COP > 1? No!
What is it that somehow Rossi having bad experiments is seen as positive for the prospects of his stuff working?
Quote from GHBut it misses a few things, and some assumptions could be tweaked, and the error bars extended..
I like details. This statement is just plain wrong, because the TC report gives no error bars. I don't quarrel with that, because the errors are so impossible to quantify (in both directions). I also think this off-hand "I could do better" type comment is just hot air and assumption. TC is not here to answer but if you try to make some point about that data supporting positive COP > 1 evidence let us have it. I bet Paradigmnoia here will have a go at it. I might too!
The idea that any analysis could "prove" COP=1 from Lugano data is absurd. the methodology is littered with assumptions that turn into unquantified errors.
Does this prove COP = 1? Of course not!
Which is the conclusion of Clarke's report, which I agree with.
However since that was published, Clarke, who Mats Lewan once described as being "unbalanced", has gone further, and suggested that his report proves the COP=1... Thanks to Google, here's a couple of quotes from the former trolls refuge of ecatnews:
Quote from Thomas Clarke@Shane. I hate to be so blunt, but this is a lie. Rossi’s demos have gone from claimed COP=100 to claimed COP=3, and we know that the 3 is really 1. (26/12/15)
Quote from Thomas Clarke[it] would appear to be a lie, since COP = 1 from the latest hot-cat test. (27/12/15)
I'm sure there are many more examples where this "conclusion creep" is being also suggested. Hence my statement.
@GH - what is the point of your last post?
Let me point out that if Rossi had done no tests at all, we could not prove his COP=1. Lugano improves on that slightly, by showing COP is quite close to 1.
Quote from GH
Which is the conclusion of Clarke's report, which I agree with.
I, too, agree (broadly, though not in every tiny detail) with the TC report. And I'm glad you've now rowed back from your (I was pretty sure) unsustainable criticism of his conclusions.
Quote from GH
However since that was published, Clarke, who Mats Lewan once described as being "unbalanced",
Just an aside here.
Quote from AbdMy own preference is, in general, for those who are anonymous to drop it, absent clear necessity, which is rare. Pseudoskeptics are not being assassinated. Real skeptics are participating, which is important.
You can see however why real skeptics (e.g. TC - as far as I can gauge) might want anonymity. It is not just that Mats - the most prominent reporter on Rossi - calls him "unbalanced" but other people like GH here - for months afterward - repeat this quote. It is unpleasant troll-like behaviour and I'd suggest that GH desist. [If you look more deeply into Mats comments they were immediately after TC had strongly and successfully argued against mats' flawed logic, and based on Mats's belief that lies and distortions are Ok to support Rossi, because the outcomes are unbalanced. The harm from lack of support if Rossi is for real far outweighs the harm from support if he is a fraud. Hence distortion is justified]. Mats has now vanished from public debate of this issue - having made this attack. I doubt TC cares now, but I do. It is reprehensible behaviour. And GH reprehensible in propagating it. (Sorry for the length but if I mention this comment of Mats I need also to mention the context, otherwise I'm as bad as GH).
back to GH's distortions:
Quote
has gone further, and suggested that his report proves the COP=1... Thanks to Google, here's a couple of quotes from the former trolls refuge of ecatnews:
Thomas Clarke wrote:@Shane. I hate to be so blunt, but this is a lie. Rossi’s demos have gone from claimed COP=100 to claimed COP=3, and we know that the 3 is really 1. (26/12/15)
Thomas Clarke wrote:[it] would appear to be a lie, since COP = 1 from the latest hot-cat test. (27/12/15)
There is an enormous difference between "proving COP=1 exactly" and a summary statement that it is 1. For example, are the people who claim COP lying because if fact COP could be anything between 2 & 4? Of course not.
If we use GH's fallacious logic no-one can ever say Rossi's devices don't work, if you define don't work as COP=1. That is technically correct - in the same way that I cannot prove GR correct, only that it is correct to within say 12 significant figures or whatever.
It is really (except as a deceitful debating point) wrong. I'm not saying GH is deliberately distorting the truth in his post. But he actually does do that, TC cannot reply (because of that I'll do my best) and if GH is not a troll perhaps given a moment's reflection he will:
(1) Apologise to TC's ghost or whatever for bad manners
(2) agree that saying COP is known 1 not 3 is a correct summary of Lugano given that the initial result of 3 +/- some error margin is wrong and the real result is 1 +/- some error margin.
(3) agree that it would appear to be a lie, since COP=1 from the latest test is entirely justified: if it is any of the things that you'd expect.
Quotehere's a couple of quotes from the former trolls refuge of ecatnews:
That is more distortion from GH. He is implying that TC's post is troll-like because of where it is posted. That is condemnation by association and improper. It would be like my saying that anyone who posts on ECW must be biassed towards Rossi. TC (I remember) posted here quite a bit and his posts don't seem much like a troll's. If you don't believe me go look.
ECN and ECW are polar opposites, taking different sides on the Rossi debate. The only difference I can see is that ECN did not moderate or ban and so allowed both sides of the debate to be presented. ECW had a specific policy of only allowing one side - effective arguers on the other are banned. Both ECN and ECW had (and seemed from comments to approve of) unpleasant troll-like ranting at times.
Having reflected:
1. I don't think verbatim (and referenced) quotes of people are either bad manners, or deceitful.
2. "COP is known 1 not 3" is not a summary of the Lugano report, or TC's report. I'm suprised he has previously appeared to claim otherwise.
3. If we assume the "latest test" means the Florida debacle, the game of Chinese whispers being played proves nothing, other than COP=disputed ...It's currently not looking too rosy for Rossi though.
4. ECN was totally "the trolls refuge", it's where people who were banned from every other forum could hang out and make abusive and slanderous statements without proof, based solely on their own hunches, and repeatedly mock and insult people who didn't share their viewpoints. Saying that, TC was a noble exception, 99% of the time.
But can one really wallow with the pigs at night, and then soar with the eagles in the morning?
Edit2: Sorry, I didn't realise you had already posted when I edited in point 4. I was trying to limit the number of posts. I'll avoid making a point 5 about how I believe TC misinterpreted Mats' comment.
Quote from GH
Having reflected:1. I don't think verbatim (and referenced) quotes of people are either bad manners, or deceitful.2. "COP is known 1 not 3" is not a summary of the Lugano report, or TC's report. I'm suprised he has previously appeared to claim otherwise.3. If we assume the "latest test" means the Florida debacle, the game of Chinese whispers being played proves nothing, other than COP=disputed ...It's currently not looking too rosy for Rossi though.
So: over the Lugano comments I stand by my comment and explanation above which can be compared with GH's "proof by assertion" here.
Over deceit: I accept GH's statement that he is not deliberately distorting things. This is clearly a matter of judgement and this thread stands as record for people to judge. Matter closed from my end.
Over bad manners: this is another time where GH distorts things (again I guess not deliberately). The bad manners AKA reprehensible behaviour was the mention of Mat's comment, which itself was troll-like, out of context.
EDIT: so Gh has edited his post in reply to this one (without saying that!):
Quote from GH additions4. ECN was totally "the trolls refuge", it's where people who were banned from every other forum could hang out and make abusive and slanderous statements without proof, based solely on their own hunches, and repeatedly mock and insult people who didn't share their viewpoints. Saying that, TC was a noble exception, 99% of the time. But can one really wallow with the pigs at night, and then soar with the eagles in the morning?
Still no apology for the reprehensible behaviour! But on this specific point I half agree. ECN had that element, but also it had serious discussion of the "non-ECW-approved" side of the Rossi affair. There was not really any other place much for it. And ECW also (still) allows people, whether banned from other forums or not, to make slanderous statements and repeatedly mock and insult people who don't share their viewpoints, as long as those unshared viewpoints are ECW approved.
It is not just that Mats - the most prominent reporter on Rossi - calls him "unbalanced" but other people like GH here - for months afterward - repeat this quote. It is unpleasant troll-like behaviour and I'd suggest that GH desist. [If you look more deeply into Mats comments they were immediately after TC had strongly and successfully argued against mats' flawed logic, and based on Mats's belief that lies and distortions are Ok to support Rossi, because the outcomes are unbalanced. The harm from lack of support if Rossi is for real far outweighs the harm from support if he is a fraud. Hence distortion is justified]. Mats has now vanished from public debate of this issue - having made this attack.
I have often defended Mats, but his treatment of Thomas Clarke was atrocious. He is active on E-Catnews, and appears not to have learned anything. I'd be completely happy if he were to show that I'm wrong.
https://animpossibleinvention.…ilding-plus-more-updates/
QuoteFinally—I will continue having the comments on this blog closed. The main reason is that few new facts have been presented, whereas unmanageable amounts of opinions have been posted.
I would like to apologise if I have hinted at Thomas Clarke’s having an agenda with his impressive number of comments. I want to assume that Clarke is perfectly honest in the significant work he has laid down on analysing the Lugano report and on commenting what, according to him, is probable or not. But I would also like to note that producing for some periods up to 34 posts per day hints at a position which I’m not sure if it should be called balanced. This, combined with obvious spin from a few people, apparently having an agenda in criticising some individuals, adds to my decision to keep the comments closed.
Mats Lewan was here accusing Clarke of imbalance, but seems to have no idea of why someone might write that many comments in a very hot discussion on a major blog page. Clarke had become expert on certain things, and would be likely to see comments that he knew were misleading or incorrect. That would create massive temptation to comment. If he happens to be free in his life, if he has time, that many comments is not that outrageous. No analysis has been done of those discussions, I'm tempted to do it, but, as usual, so many subjects, so little time.
I look at E-Catnews and see a great deal of mishegas. Mostly I ignore them, but it is always tempting to comment, and then if I comment, there are replies attacking me or what I've written, often, and so then there is, again, temptation to write more. Experts mostly stay away from the blogs for exactly this reason, it can be a truly unpleasant context. "Wallowing with pigs" has been mentioned. And then someone who does try to discuss can be seen as imbalanced, because any sane person would stay away. And then is that what Mats really wants? For people to stop reading his blog? Well, it's happening. Mats stopped updating the court files and shows no depth in awareness of what has come out in the IH Amended Answer, which is the first reasonably solid information from the other side of a dispute where Mats was attempting to be neutral, as to what he said he was doing, but, in fact, consistently presenting only one side, often losing context and presenting what he had been told as truth.
Many questions that Lewan asks have clear answers that he may never have seen.
Closing comments meant that he could make even inflammatory statements, and nobody could respond. I understand that maintaining the blog was too much for him, but could he have asked for help? Would there be anyone he would trust to moderate the blog to maintain standards?
I recently introduced someone who had known Rossi a long time to the Amended Answer. This is very difficult material for a friend of Rossi to read. But Rossi needs friends who will see what has actually been going on, otherwise so-called friends become enablers. which can lead someone down the path to ruin, this is ordinary and common in life. The reaction of the friend showed that much of what had been going on was already known, but the pieces were not put together, and Rossi's behavior was excused in various ways. There was deception, that is clear. How deep the deception is may be difficult to disentangle.
Here there is argument about COP for Lugano. It is possible to estimate COP from the Lugano test, but impossible to be sure about it; however, there is additional information, and that is the IH claim to have attempted to verify the Lugano results, finding no excess heat. This is not some ordinary replication failure. This is the company that made the Lugano devices, that had Rossi available to assist them. Planet Rossi may be claiming that they are lying, but those who cry "lies" must always be suspect themselves. Lying on the part of IH makes little sense, it requires a conspiracy contrary to their plain motives and intentions, something twisted and devious and probably self-harming, among people highly experienced with risky ventures. It requires a large number of people to be complicit in the conspiracy, particularly the investor-owners of IH, who have had inside information since the beginning. The "Rossi conspiracy" is mostly Rossi, plus, eventually, Johnson, Penon, and perhaps Fabiani, though Fabiani might merely be incompetent. Likewise it is not necessary to consider Levi and the other professors as conspirators. The Lugano test was an error, it seems, not a fraud -- setting aside the fuel sample, a different issue. Rossi handled the fuel, and how anyone could consider that "independent" is beyond me.
If there was no heat from the Rossi device, how to interpret the alleged transmutations? In fact, transmutation results are commonly suspect and difficult. It takes very careful work and multiple samples to begin to be confident about transmutations. It would take correlation of transmutations, quantitatively, with excess heat, which would require far more samples with different levels of generated heat. Realize that far more definitive results with PdD and heat and helium can still be considered controversial, in spite of extensive confirmations.
So, a Rossi fraud theory requires only one major fraud, who induced friends to help him, and who were paid for this. Rossi has his opportunity to respond. We will see. His bluster on his blog is meaningless.
I did not read the Lewan blog at the time and just read some of the comments for the first time a few minutes ago. Contrary to Lewan's claim there was much fact being revealed. Lewan simply didn't understand it. Dewey Weaver was nckhawk, Lewan knew that by the time he shut down comments, and Dewey was revealing much inside information, it is very clear in hindsight. As well, randombit0 very much looks like Rossi, providing information that only Rossi would be likely to know.
Lewan was in a fog, and apparently still is.
Quote from AxilWhat does Lugano demo say about this?
It proves it. This was the test that he least controlled, hence I believe his obvious nervousness. But, he determined:
Me too. I will ask nicely. 
Please continue discussions about Rossi, 'is LENR real' and similar off topic (ie. Nothing to do with Calorimeters/Calorimetry) on a more appropriate thread.
On this thread, for example. I would be very interested to see MY describe directly and exactly (not via links) what would be an ideal calorimetric set-up for experiments up to and including 'boiling water' types.
Display MoreMe too. I will ask nicely.
Please continue discussions about Rossi, 'is LENR real' and similar off topic (ie. Nothing to do with Calorimeters/Calorimetry) on a more appropriate thread.
On this thread, for example. I would be very interested to see MY describe directly and exactly (not via links) what would be an ideal calorimetric set-up for experiments up to and including 'boiling water' types.
For a moderator to suggest "continuing discussions" on a more appropriate thread, without moving the posts which are being discussed from this one (or copying them and linking), and then to ask a question that is, itself, peripheral to the primary, original topic here, and likely to stimulate more off-topic discussion, shows why lenr-forum.com continues to be a mess.
What is a "more appropriate thread" for an answer to a comment made in this one? There is no clear overall organization to lenr-forum. To avoid topic drift, I did open a new thread, promptly deleted by Alan as "spam," with no recognition or apology of the error, nor attempt to fix it, nor invitation to repost.
Structurally, lenr-forum needs far better organization, there should be a way to comment on comments qua comments rather than as primary responses to a thread topic. Moderation would then rigorously enforce the structure.
Reading more of the conversation here that I had missed, that conversation contains aspects more deserving of commentary than the primary topic. Organizing this into separate topics is a piece of work, and, this is common. Somebody else should do that. Moi? Why me? Much easier to complain about what others don't do.
ABD - the problem is you do not have a clue how to behave. The mess is entirely in your head. You want to moderate here, do so. Ask Alain/David, I am sure they would be entirely happy for you to take over. Otherwise bear with it.
ABD - the problem is you do not have a clue how to behave. The mess is entirely in your head. You want to moderate here, do so. Ask Alain/David, I am sure they would be entirely happy for you to take over. Otherwise bear with it.
Okay, I'll ask. Thanks.
Otherwise, as a participant in the community, I have the right to point out structural problems, including moderator misbehavior. One of the qualities of a moderator is learning when to shut up, to avoid arguing about moderation on the site, except in a place dedicated to that purpose. Moderators on community-oriented sites will often move such discussions, perhaps leaving behind a link. (Truly abusive moderators will simply delete them.)
