[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/11/02/about-e-cat-world/']This is a post in response to an article titled “The Pied Piper of Bologna: Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat Con” which mentions E-Cat World by Steven B. Krivit posted on New Energy Times here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…Investigation-Index.shtml Steven Krivit writes “The Web site is maintained by Frank Ackland [sic], a man with no known affiliation or […][/feedquote]
About E-Cat World
- News-Feed
- Closed
-
Ug. Krivit displays his shoddy yellow "journalism." He mashes events together, relating things that are unrelated, and, as usual, making every sleazy claim he can find. Some examples:
QuoteAnother major promoter and business associate of Rossi was Sterling Allan, of Fountain Green, Utah, the creator of Pure Energy News Service and the Free Energy Blog. Sterling's character emerged in February 2016, when he was arrested on multiple counts of child sex abuse, [etc.]
First of all, Allan was not a "major promoter" of Rossi. Rossi's fame spread entirely independently of Allan. Allan was obviously, ah, imbalanced, it was long obvious. The scandal has no relation to Rossi. It's just something shocking that Krivit can toss out, and he loves stories like this. The Allan story is tragic, and for it to be used like this by Krivit is thoroughly disgusting.At one point I attempted to connect with Krivit, since I had news he might want to report. He basically spat in my face. I am so glad, because I could have ended up working with this perversion of "journalism."
Krivit has a large image of a rather offensive T-shirt, and I was able to find the web site where it is sold: http://www.zazzle.com/energyrevolution
This appears to be about four years old at least. Again, it's not actually about Rossi, this is something put together by someone who might be or have been a "supporter" and Rossi is not responsible for such, he is responsible for what he has done and what he writes.
Krivit's story of the lawsuit is distorted.
QuoteIn serious conflict with sound business practice, Darden trusted Rossi to conduct the first round of technical due diligence on behalf of Industrial Heat. Rossi walked away with $11 million and quickly purchased the equivalent amount of commercial real estate in Miami Beach, Florida. Before the outstanding $89 million transaction could be completed, both parties sued each other for fraud.
"Darden" is Industrial Heat, which, possibly because of taking an obvious risk with Rossi, garnered at least another $50 million in investment for LENR. Krivit doesn't understand what IH did, they "crushed the tests." Krivit came up with the easy hypothesis of pure fraud. Whether he was right or not -- we still do not know and might never know if Rossi really had some results, on occasion -- the matter was not nailed, scientifically. We now know much better what has been going on. Sometimes the easy explanation actually turns out to be correct, but we still don't have proof, merely an increased pile of evidence. Krivit is not a scientist and does not understand science, and has shown that many times. Krivit has shown no understanding of what is going on with Rossi v. Darden. Yes, Rossi sued IH etc. for fraud. Civil fraud, we should notice, though distinctions like that will be lost on Krivit. The fraud claim is proposterous on its face. IH eventually countersued for fraud as well, but the strongest parts of the countersuit don't have to do with the reality of the effect, that is almost a detail.
QuoteAfter these lawsuits became public, room-temperature-fusion-believing researchers turned on Rossi and, like "FredZ777" wrote on ecatnews.com, fled "like rats deserting a sinking ship." Edmund Storms rationalized that "naturally, some exaggeration, fraud, and lying would be involved because people do not like to give money without knowing the secret, which cannot be revealed." Michael McKubre resigned from SRI International and moved back to his native country of New Zealand, while Brian Josephson continued to defend the fraudulent excess-heat claims of Rossi.
Notice the connection with "fusion-believing." The known LENR is obviously some kind of fusion, and Krivit's fave, W-L theory is extremely unlikely, unsupported by evidence and actually contrary to it, but this became his theme, and I've long suspected, with some evidence -- but not proof -- that he was paid to make the shift. So here he is using the Rossi debacle to attack researchers who supposedly "believe" in fusion. Actually, McKubre calls himself "theory agnostic," but he did one of the two most precise experiments showing the value of the heat/helium ratio, which strongly indicates some kind of fusion. Krivit has also attacked Vittorio Violante, who did the other such experiment. Krivit's critiques demonstrated that he was clueless and ignorant and could not read a scientific paper accurately, he made amazing mistakes. Not surprising, not a scientist, and without scientific training.
Ed doesn't particularly understand the lawsuit, he is, after all, a cold fusion researcher and not a lawyer and I doubt that he understands what IH did. Ecatnews.com died, it was a haven for pseudoskeptics, by the that time. And what does McKubre have to do with this? His family is in New Zealand and he visited them, but he was retained as a consultant to the project at Texas Tech, and would be there, at least part of the time, except for recent health issues creating a delay where he cannot travel. None of this has to do with Rossi in the least. Krivit, though, has accused McKubre of data falsification, so to him, it's all part of a big conspiracy to "promote the fusion theory."
Josephson? I haven't noticed him commenting on Rossi recently. Where? Krivit doesn't provide links or evidence, but implies this was after the lawsuit was filed.
(The lawsuit revealed a great deal that was not known before, including to some of the "insiders" whom Krivit condemns on another page as "supporters of Rossi." Yes. There were many who had considered that maybe Rossi had something -- in spite of the obvious problems -- and some of the "true believers" have bailed, seeing evidence. To be careful, I must note that Rossi has not yet Answered the Countercomplaint, and it is evidence provided by IH in their Answer and Counter-Complaint that has been so devastating. Actual evidence, not just the claims of a yellow journalist.)
The most recent comment I could find with a search for Josephson and Rossi was this, reported on e-catworld, well before Rossi v. Darden, it was 2015:
QuoteSecondly, Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, a British physicist, has written a comment on the Nature website in the “Week in Science” news section for August 21-27:
“As flying pigs have so far not yet been spotted in these parts, you won’t be getting the following news from Nature itself! We are pleased to have this opportunity to keep Nature readers up to date: 1) “For the first time in two decades, the Japanese government has issued a request for proposals for low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research”. For details see http://news.newenergytimes.net…fund-lenr-research-again/ 2) Andrea Rossi has been granted a US patent for his ‘energy catalyzer’, which claims to produce large amounts of energy from a nuclear reaction (however, the patent itself does not refer to this aspect, only giving details of the design).”
There is no "defense" there, just a note of a patent -- and it includes qualifying language like "claims to produce."
I spent some time looking, I found nothing from Josephson after Rossi v. Darden was filed (which was the first clear public evidence that the relationship between Rossi and IH had broken down. Until then, that Industiral Heat was working with Rossi made it more plausible that Rossi might have something real. It would take people who might have supported Rossi in the way that Josephson did (which was mostly cautious, beyond maybe his first comments in 2011) some time to recognize what had happened and shift gears. The real watershed was the appearance of all that evidence in the IH Answer and Countercomplaint, a pile of exhibits showing what Rossi had hidden previously. I saw one of the people listed in Krivits list of supporters, completely appalled by what Rossi had written.
Krivit is a shoddy journalist and obviously has no fact-checker or editor, he is unrestrained and untethered.
The only scientist of note that I've seen "supporting" Rossi recently has been Vysotskii, whom Krivit hates because he wrote a critique of Widom-Larsen theory. Basically, Vladimir simply isn't up on the news.
I have no idea what Norman Cook now thinks (he coauthored a paper with Rossi on theory last year.) Many scientists treated Rossi as if he were a scientist, not recognizing just how different he was, how he rejected the scientific method and refused all independent testing. What I've observed is that now that it turns out that IH claims they were unable to verify any excess heat, having paid for full disclosure, undercutting all the arguments made about Rossi's need for secrecy, very few scientists are showing any support for Rossi. What Krivit details on his page about promoters of Rossi is almost all old stuff.
The Swedish scientists have gone silent, apparently.
-
Quote
First of all, Allan was not a "major promoter" of Rossi. Rossi's fame spread entirely independently of Allan.
Allan actively and vigorously promoted Rossi who granted him special access and interviews. Whether Allan materially helped Rossi achieve his frauds is open to conjecture. Allan's web site was indeed influential among believer types and whackjobs. We don't know where Darden heard of Rossi. Maybe it was just through such a nut case web site that he or someone he knew chanced on, perhaps through some Google recurring search for "LENR" or "cold fusion".
As for Krivit, he writes vastly better, more succinctly, and more cleverly than you do. Not to mention that he was among the first to realize that Rossi was a criminal and a fraudulent con man, as early as the first quarter of 2011! Darden and the Woodford fund and many others who ended up yielding cash to Rossi in return for scams would have been much better off to have used Krivit or Popeye or me or many others as a consultant before parting with their money.
I don't have time to read and parse the rest of your verbose post. Maybe someone else does though it is probably a waste of time.
-
I have no idea what Norman Cook now thinks (he coauthored a paper with Rossi on theory last year.)........This is a good point. Over the years, Rossi has had dealings with other noted people. It seems that only Focardi remained somewhat positive about him. Others, some of whom were companies and not individuals such as National Instruments, Seimens, etc. have all passed into obscurity.
We have :
The Lugano team : All silent and unfortunately so.
Penon : Silent, but surely we will see a response in the lawsuit
Fabiani : Actually posted a few positive posts in the past, but seemingly silent now. Again what will the lawsuit establish?
Bass : Nothing previous and nothing now. Will the lawsuit bring testimony?Various "Experts", aerospace engineer and even a "scientific committee" as posted by Rossi. None have ever came forward.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ardo-corporation-updates/
Outside help from a "Specialist" :
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…lve-quarkx-safety-issues/
and there are others.
The point is that no one has come forward. Not even the "satisfied" customers. This is not a good sign and one of the most
damning pieces of evidence for me. We have many bloggers on various forums. Supports and skeptics alike. I would think
it not unreasonable, of the 13 MW plants Rossi has stated have been sold, the various customers and consultants he has worked
with, that at least a few would become public. After all, this is world changing stuff! Even if they posted under an anonymous name.Norman Cook was public for a while. Has he made any recent statements? I did a quick search and did not find anything after
early 2016. Rossi stated he was working on a theory with him. Is this still in the works?
-
Darden and the Woodford fund and many others who ended up yielding cash to Rossi in return for scams would have been much better off to have used Krivit or Popeye or me or many others as a consultant before parting with their money.
I do not think the Woodford fund gave Rossi any money. I do not know who Popeye is, other than the comic strip character. Selecting Yugo as an adviser is an interesting idea. It would make the decision making process orderly, consistent and predictable, like betting tails on a two-headed coin. Or putting Prof. Wagstaff in charge of Huxley College:External Content www.youtube.comContent 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 don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I'm against it!Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it
Or condensed it
I'm against it!I'm opposed to it
On general principles
I'm opposed to it! -
Mary Yugo wrote:
I do not think the Woodford fund gave Rossi any money. I do not know who Popeye is, other than the comic strip character. Selecting Yugo as an adviser is an interesting idea. It would make the decision making process orderly, consistent and predictable, like betting tails on a two-headed coin. Or putting Prof. Wagstaff in charge of Huxley College
I think that Popeye is Joshua Cude, i.e., probably Joshua P. Shroeder, the former Science Apologist on Wikipedia.Mary Yugo is so busy bloviating with same-old same-old that "she" doesn't become actually informed. One of Rossi's big complaints is that allegedly IH used his magnificent demonstration in Doral to impress Woodford, then took the $50 million and gave him nothing from it. Mary does not understand most of what is going in in front of her face, so busy is she with a story that she made up years ago about how stupid other people are.
The real story of Andrea Rossi is far more interesting than Mary can comprehend. Her story is shallow. In another post, I mentioned that Rossi could still sell his technology in Sweden. Mary then attacked this, today, as wrong, since Rossi has no technology.
Of course, my comment was written under the contingency that Rossi has a technology, as a comment for those who are claiming that IH stole the Rossi technology to suppress it. He "could" sell it, if it's real. A simple conditional statement is not a proclamation that the condition is factual. Mary generates this kind of nonsense all the time. I've come to interpret it as trolling. There is no intention for serious conversation.
-
Jed:
QuoteSelecting Yugo as an adviser is an interesting idea.
Dick Smith, the Australian billionaire thought so. He emailed my maryyugo sign on and asked for my real identity and to talk on the phone. I told him. We did talk. I told him exactly what sort of test to demand from Defkalion before investing the million dollars they wanted. And I told him how and where to get the test done. He also got similar suggestions from several other people. Of course, Defkalion refused and he didn't invest, thus saving a million or more. I hear your modest loan to Defkalion didn't fare so well, right?
As to what happened to Woodford's money, I don't think we know exactly but in the sense that it is exceedingly unlikely to result in high power LENR from which they can make it back or get more money, it was wasted.
Of course, Abd, Rossi could sell his technology if it were "real". I could sell my unicorns equally as easily if they were real and they are as or more likely to be real than Rossi's moronic and intensely crooked claims. Have any more truisms to pass off as wisdom? Oh well, they do take up space.
-
And I told him how and where to get the test done. He also got similar suggestions from several other people. Of course, Defkalion refused and he didn't invest, thus saving a million or more. I hear your modest loan to Defkalion didn't fare so well, right?
What Yugo told the Australian would be obvious, and this was all thoroughly discussed in 2011. Yugo was betting on the most likely situation, but IH addressed something else. One might note that they apparently did not invest in Defkalion.As to Jed's "load to Defkalion," Jed did not make a loan to Defkalion. Rather he bought a ticket to visit them -- I might have done the same -- but they cancelled the visit and Jed could not get a refund. I don't know if he had been promised reimbursement before, but Jed believed that they owed him the money, for sure. I think Hadjichristos did say that it would be paid, but it never was.
Very different from a loan. This kind of synthesis of fact to create impressions is typical, not just of Mary Yugo, but of "debunkers." Most debunkers are "defending" the "mainstream," often popular impressions of the mainstream. They will usually be more-or-less right, but rigid and narrow, and occasionally they can be spectacularly wrong, and the attitude is just plain nasty.
That "loan" comment was typical trolling.
-
I don't think, that A. Rossi fakes his research. The lithium based replications (Parkhomov) did started after the leak of his Lugano report, the discharge based replications (me356) did started after his announcement of QuarkX reactor.
This still doesn't imply, that Rossi hasn't faked his demonstrations at all - but it seems for me, the basis of E-Cat technology is able to run independently of Rossi. -
@Abd,
it is true that many debunkers are guilty of over-generalisation and carelessness in their comments. And particularly hurtful is when they tar whole classes of people with the same brush.
But that is exactly what you do when talking so dismissively of Mary and Joshua.
Mary has a straightforward view of things. She does not take a position on LENR and therefore does not see LENR wannabees as any different from pink unicorn wannabees. For her they have to show robust results and if they cannot do this, but continue to extract money from people claiming them, she smells fraud.
Joshua is rather different. Calling him a science apologist is a smear that carries much argumentative baggage and unhelpful. As I read his posts, which are somewhat repetitive, he takes a very arguable stance on the whole LENR matter which is sociological rather than scientific. Thus he argues:
(1) It is not for him to know whether LENR theories and have traction or not, or whether experimental claims have traction
(2) Scientists individually are very highly motivated to look for positives in LENR: the rewards for success far outweigh the penalties (in wasted time) for failure. The long time that has elapsed is enough for whatever might be non-pathological from the field to emerge into daylight.
(3) (Joshua thinks) the argument that LENR is discriminated against by prejudice, and therefore real, is problematic when compare with the other argument that LENR is published, has universities interested, etc, and therefore real. Both arguments are used by LENR supporters.
(4) LENR research has been regressive, not progressive, with historic experiments still cited as best proof for claims. This is the hallmark of pseudo-science.Now, it is perfectly clear that you, and 99% of the others here, strongly disagree with these views which are all, except possibly for (4), sociological. And (4) is where you might partially agree but give sociological reasons.
I'd respect an argument that sociology, applied in this way, is weak and therefore these arguments do not have weight.
What I don't respect is the opposite (equally weak) sociological arguments strongly argued with no admission that in this (sociological) argument there are two sides and Joshua's points can fairly be argued. You and others do this.
It would be a fair counter to say that what matters is the scientific evidence. Wyttenbach here would probably agree that. The issue then is that experimental write-ups that one person thinks are strong evidence, another thinks are not. Generalising about this matter does not help at all. On specifics, which for me are much more interesting:
(A) Shanahan's clever reinterpretation of FPHE as due to calibration that ignores reactor environment changes between control and active, together with a possible physical mechanism for such an effect, deserves proper loving interest of the same kind you would want for an thought-provoking LENR result. Not the dismissal you give it. It is in fact very similar: the mechanism ticks a few boxes but is unproven and speculative. Even if, unlike Shanahan, you have no preference for mundane physics when compared with low energy nuclear reactions, I'd want you to be interested in the details purely because such things are fun, rather than dismissive.
I'd say the same to anyone looking at LENR claims and rubbishing them on general grounds without that crucial interest. For example Pope et al's critique of Lugano makes a whole load of valid general points but does not engage with the detail and therefore misses the error which neatly explains all the observations. From Pope you could fairly say that the experiment was unsafe and therefore does not prove anything, but not explain in detail the reported results.
When marshalling the scientific evidence engagement with details matters. For example, on the heat vs helium issue you have a very general argument:
Correlation is meaningful regardless of what is correlated. True but unhelpful in this case to your argument because if He at very low levels relates to a combination of leakage rates, experiment time, and data selection where values too high and low are discarded, it is easy to model mundane effects that will generate such correlation. That is Shanahan's argument.
I'd respect your stance here if you engaged with the specific source details (not citing references from others which turn out to themselves be reviews and flawed). If the source data is not available we have a problem.
I'd also respect your stance if you accepted that Shanahan's argument was reasonable (while not necessarily correct) and pointed out that current research would obtain better raw data under stringent methodological protocols that would resolve the matter.
In fact, to design such methodology, I'd expect you to want to engage in detail with the critiques of the current data and find protocols that the critiquers (perhaps Shanahan) accepted would rule out obvious artifacts.
Instead, without clear methodology agreed with critics before the experiments you have:
(1) whatever results come out can be justly accused of being cherry picking, which makes anything marginal of no value.
(2) there is more chance that protocols will contain errors that allow holes to be picked in future resultsPerhaps clever and creative people have done this, and good protocols exist. They would still need to be clearly published before experiments start, to strengthen the case. And I don't believe anyone accepting current results imply on balance that LENR exists would be the best person to do that criticism, because their analysis of existing results is thereby constrained to be more positive than that of a more skeptical person.
(B) Wyttenbach's support here of sonofusion I can't understand. There are very few "raw result" papers. The initial positive results were so good that if real commercialisation would surely be easy, yet this was a long time ago and there if no followup trail of similar positive results. Further, various people have suggested definite flaws in the original results. Wyttenbach disputes these but I'd happily go over the matter again on another thread as long as we can do this with the raw write-ups rather than detail-losing summaries. And Wyttenbach's evaluation of this paper is I notice not shared by others here who are nevertheless positive about LENR: one reason I have not jumped to look at that stuff in even more detail.
(C) The "no smoke without fire" argument, where one is swayed from quantity of individually questionable results rather than specifics, I have my own (which strangely enough was also promoted here by TC, though I'm not sure anyone else noticed) strong meta-argument against.
-
Quote from Zephir
I don't think, that A. Rossi fakes his research. The lithium based replications (Parkhomov) did started after the leak of his Lugano report, the discharge based replications (me356) did started after his announcement of QuarkX reactor. This still doesn't imply, that Rossi hasn't faked his demonstrations at all - but it seems for me, the basis of E-Cat technology is able to run independently of Rossi.
It is absolutely right that if you judge the large number of these replications to indicate positive results, you can therefore reasonably suppose Rossi had some positive results whether or not he then over-egged them.
But that view is not even very popular amongst people who accept from other evidence that LENR definitely exists and therefore are inclined to see positive results as more likely.
You will properly assert that your evaluation is correct: but remember that other well-informed people may differ from you.
-
(B) Wyttenbach's support here of sonofusion I can't understand. There are very few "raw result" papers. The initial positive results were so good that if real commercialisation would surely be easy, yet this was a long time ago and there if no followup trail of similar positive results. Further, various people have suggested definite flaws in the original results. Wyttenbach disputes these but I'd happily go over the matter again on another thread as long as we can do this with the raw write-ups rather than detail-losing summaries. And Wyttenbach's evaluation of this paper is I notice not shared by others here who are nevertheless positive about LENR: one reason I have not jumped to look at that stuff in even more detail.
@THH: Sonofusion is not classical LENR, as it's ignition is hot-fusion level energy. But the outcome of sonofusion is the LENR result of two dimensional D-D fusion just delivering He4.
Sonofusion is more or less a family research, with the usual concomitant frictions happing like: Filing a patent without telling the others, hiding some findings etc...
Further on, it would surprise me, if they ever are able to get a significant COP over 10, what is needed for a practical use. There is a chance to enhance the COP form 4 to 8 if two of the parties would join. Recently a patent was filed that addresses the optimizing of the bubble shape, which would lead to more efficient ignition.Up to now we can learn two things: Hot fusion on the table is possible: The LENR outcome is He4 and not He3,3H. This has been confirmed by three independent US Military/state labs.
From the above said, it must be clear, that all the ITER people will fight to marginalize sonofusion research...
-
(A) Shanahan's clever reinterpretation of FPHE as due to calibration that ignores reactor environment changes between control and active, together with a possible physical mechanism for such an effect, deserves proper loving interest of the same kind you would want for an thought-provoking LENR result. Not the dismissal you give it.
Experts have looked carefully at Shanahan. They spent a lot of time & effort on his papers. They refuted him. His arguments have no merit in my opinion. He was treated too kindly by the peer-reviewed journals, as was Morrison. The journals are biased. It takes years for a first-rate cold fusion study to pass peer-review, but a paper opposed to cold fusion, even a preposterous one, goes in like greased lightening.Here are the rebuttals to Shanahan. He has never addressed these arguments. He claims otherwise, but he has not:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MarwanJanewlookat.pdf
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf
Here is Morrison's paper, which was published in Physics Letters A:
-
Correlation is meaningful regardless of what is correlated. True but unhelpful in this case to your argument because if He at very low levels relates to a combination of leakage rates, experiment time, and data selection where values too high and low are discarded, it is easy to model mundane effects that will generate such correlation. That is Shanahan's argument.
Do a cursory review of the literature, or just read my description of Miles, and you can easily rule out all of these hypotheses. The experiment time was the same in all cases. All of the data was presented: there was no data selection, and nothing was discarded. The leakage rate was measured carefully and repeatedly for years for some of the cells. It is NOT to "easy model mundane effects that will generate such correlation." It is utterly impossible. Miles and the others who did these studies carefully considered all of the points you listed here, and many others, and all of the issues raised by Shanahan. They ruled out these issue. The people who measured the helium are in two of the top helium laboratories in the world, staffed by preeminent experts. They have been doing helium studies for decades for other nuclear research. They understand issues such as leakage. They measured the helium in blind tests, with no knowledge of whether the cells produced heat or not, so there is no chance that wishful thinking affected the measurements. -
I don't think, that A. Rossi fakes his research. The lithium based replications (Parkhomov) did started after the leak of his Lugano report, the discharge based replications (me356) did started after his announcement of QuarkX reactor.
This still…
Perhaps you are right.
I don't think that at the same time are possible two discovery like "Hydrino" and "Cold fusion".
I much much more believe in Randy's "Hydrino". It means, that Rossi could be right with energy production but mistakes with "Cold fusion". -
As to Jed's "load to Defkalion," Jed did not make a loan to Defkalion. Rather he bought a ticket to visit them -- I might have done the same -- but they cancelled the visit and Jed could not get a refund. I don't know if he had been promised reimbursement before, but Jed believed that they owed him the money, for sure. I think Hadjichristos did say that it would be paid, but it never was.
Yes, that is what happened. They invited me along with a group of others, then put it off several times, then they cancelled on all of us. Unfortunately the ticket was non-refundable. I could have exchanged it for another within one year, but I don't recall that I flew anywhere that year. (Maybe I did, but the exchange fee was a few hundred bucks, and it was cheaper to buy a new ticket.)Hadjichristos did say it would be refunded. He said that publicly, in an on-line forum. But they never did refund. Later, he said publicly that they had refunded it, and he accused me of lying about it. He said they wire transferred the money. I told them they must have wired it to the wrong person. I suggested they send me a copy of the receipt. I never heard back from them. He later claimed they investigated me and found dark secrets, which is why they cancelled. He did not explain why they also cancelled on the other people.
The ticket cost $1140.90. The receipt is filed on my disk under Defkalion. Having them repeatedly cancel, and then publicly lie about the affair told me everything I need to know about Defkalion. In a sense it was more educational then a trip would have been. It was worth the money.
-
DGT Cancelled me and my (top-flight steam engineer) friend too. Probably round about the same time.
-
Quote
Do a cursory review of the literature, or just read my description of Miles, and you can easily rule out all of these hypotheses. The experiment time was the same in all cases. All of the data was presented: there was no data selection, and nothing was discarded. The leakage rate was measured carefully and repeatedly for years for some of the cells. It is NOT to "easy model mundane effects that will generate such correlation." It is utterly impossible. Miles and the others who did these studies carefully considered all of the points you listed here, and many others, and all of the issues raised by Shanahan. They ruled out these issue. The people who measured the helium are in two of the top helium laboratories in the world, staffed by preeminent experts. They have been doing helium studies for decades for other nuclear research. They understand issues such as leakage. They measured the helium in blind tests, with no knowledge of whether the cells produced heat or not, so there is no chance that wishful thinking affected the measurements.
OK, so this is a very strong claim. For, specifically, data coming from Miles. Would that be the raw results, or summary conclusions after processing? Because I distrust the latter.
I'm wondering why this indisputable data is not used now by LENR supporters? As Abd points out it would be undeniable. Yet Abd feels another experiment is needed?
I was not myself aware of such very strong uncontaminated and robust evidence, so I'll now go examine this stuff. Just so I don't waste my time, precisely which (original) experiment reports from Miles are you referring to?
PS - wrt experts. That hardly helps. You yourself dismiss the views of very many experts as biassed or ignorant, and perhaps you are right. I don't think cherry-picking expert judgements will help matters.
Regards, THH
-
OK, so this is a very strong claim. For, specifically, data coming from Miles. Would that be the raw results, or summary conclusions after processing? Because I distrust the latter.
These are the conclusions in the peer-reviewed journal papers and in the official publications from the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, which I am told has higher standards than the journals. See, for example:http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
I'm wondering why this indisputable data is not used now by LENR supporters? As Abd points out it would be undeniable. Yet Abd feels another experiment is needed?
Well, you can always improve on a result with another experiment. It reminds me of something a retired NRL rocket scientist once told me. After WWII they sent some captured V2 rockets up to study the ionosphere. They got great results. They asked Congress for more money. Some Congressman supposedly said (in effect), "You have been there, and you have the data. Why do you need to go back?"https://www.nrl.navy.mil/accom…ents/rockets/v-2-rockets/
I guess Abd feels they a more accurate measurement with more modern instruments. When Abd suggested this, Storms, I and others said, "the opposition and mainstream pays no attention to the data we already have, so they will dismiss this as well." Maybe we're right, or maybe data paid for by Mr. Gates (?) will have an impact. One never knows, do one?
PS - wrt experts. That hardly helps. You yourself dismiss the views of very many experts as biassed or ignorant, and perhaps you are right.
I never do that. Never, ever. I have great respect for experts. However, people who are biased or ignorant are not experts. Granted, that is something of a tautology, but when people make statements which -- in my opinion -- show they do not know what they are talking about, I then conclude they are not experts. They are often self-appointed experts. Sometimes they are celebrated in the mass media as experts. But you seldom see actual experts in the field who are impressed by them. I have seen many examples in computer science, linguistics, Japanese anthropology, cold fusion and other fields in which I myself have a measure of expertise and I can judge.I recall a vaunted expert in computers in the mid 1970s, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal and other leading mass media. An opinion maker. I read a short technical paper by him and his research "group." I saw immediately that they knew less about computers than any high school educated keypunch operator. They had no idea how software is distributed and installed. They thought it comes on ROM and EPROM chips. They did not understand the difference between ROM, mag tape, RAM and disks. I knew more about computers by using timeshare machines in 8th grade, in 1968, than they did. You have to look closely at people's specific technical knowledge. When a professor pontificates about cold fusion, ask him what sort of calorimeter McKubre used. If he does not know, he has no business talking about the subject. A gang of idiots wrote rave reviews on the back of Taubes' book. Some of them have Nobel prizes, but they know nothing about cold fusion, and their comments are idiotic. As is the entire book, from start to finish. Just having knowledge about science does not give you a magic ability to know about experiments, when you have not read about them and you have no clue what instruments were used or what the results were.
There are many examples in history which are clear in retrospect. For example, in 1939 experts at the State Department told my uncle Danny that he should go ahead and sign a contract with Japanese suppliers for medical equipment because "there is no chance the Japanese will attack us." Those people thought they were experts on Japan, but events showed they were not. Many real experts at the time realized the Japanese might attack. The Japanese themselves were not keeping their intentions secret.
-
Quote
That "loan" comment was typical trolling.
No, Jed said Defkalion owed him appx $1K and refused to pay. I assumed this was a loan. I was guessing he had advanced them money for a piece of equipment and instead it was a ticket. Big deal. Focusing on trivia is the province of the gullible. The big picture is that Hadjichristos was an arrogant and pompous con man and obvious serial consistent liar from the start and that Defkalion tried to rip off Rossi except that they didn't realize that there was nothing to rip off. ROTFWL. They got what they deserved though I do feel badly for their hapless investors. Abd never thinks of the investors.
Or maybe Abd still believes that the Hyperion made 10kW on the desktop reliably and that this was verified by seven of the world's largest and best known (although unnamed) companies as per Hadjichristos in Defkalion's forum multiple times.
