Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Setting aside Steorn, Orbo, and Hepha Heat, which is where they may stay for ... a long time ...


    On another note, I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever you or Jed are paid by IH. Anyone can lie and make up a tale of innocence, so the chance is non-zero but very low. The combination of admiring a company that on-the-surface from a certain view point seeks to advance LENR (although we don't know how they would handle a TRUE HOT POTATO of an LENR technology if they got their hands on one), recognizing Rossi's personality can often be infuriating, and seeing the issues with Rossi's account of the one year test could make a reasonable person feel the exact same way. I have to admit that to anyone who jumped into the LENR community right now, Rossi would seem like an outright snake oil salesman. So to jump to the conclusion that the ardent supports of IH are being "paid" holds very little plausibility. Very indirect compensation such as IH just happening to fund researchers they are highly interested in and support is more probable. This could provide an incentive to defend IH without any agreement (written or verbal) ever made.


    Like, ordinary.


    SS, you are demonstrating a basically reasonable position. There is only one set of words I'd seriously question. "ardent supports." I do support IH, but it is "ardent"? This implies a kind of dedication that is absent for me. I developed a hypothesis regarding their behavior, that explains it in the face of both skeptical ridicule and Planet Rossi blame, but it is just a hypothesis, for which I see some evidence and little contrary evidence, but I'm fully aware of the human tendency to see, not just what we "believe," but even what we think. One of the ways around this is communication, discussion, sharing of various points of view. That is why pseudoskepticism can be so damaging, where it manages to create a rejection cascade. It shuts down communication through hostility, contempt, ridicule, and, too often, arrogant ignorance. It is not *at all* that skepticism is "wrong." It is, in fact, essential to science and many other fields ... such as law.


    Quote

    But for those of us who have been closely following this saga for years, know more than the newbies to this field, and to differing degrees have been made aware of other information (such as undisclosed successful replications) the situation is more nuanced. Because underneath layers of strange behavior, exaggerations, dishonesty, and emotional outbursts, we are absolutely convinced of a working, real technology that has NOT been forgotten by Andrea Rossi.


    For those who knew LENR, it was always nuanced. The position of "Rossi crook" was an easy one, even obvious. A series of possible realitiies is collapsed into the easy positions. "Rossi forgot" is one hypothesis that has been raised, and it could have some explanatory power if you consider it. It would allow those "undisclosed successful replications." (Again, I quiestion the term "replication." Replications include quantity, not just some ratio. They cover predictability. Full replication is not possible without predictability of an effect. The effect itself may vary, but then associated products or conditions may be correlated. That is predictability, as I've claimed -- under peer review -- for the heat/helium ratio, based on something on the order of 80 measurements by more than 12 independent research groups. -- and it can be and should be many more than that, with increased precision, as is happening.


    Because any given test can contain an unidentified artifact, and because fraud is *not* impossible -- it would be rather boringly ordinary, though Rossi is not ordinary -- a single or even a series of *differing* tests will probably not be enough to turn the corner, especially now. This picture radically changed with the filing of Rossi v. Darden, which removed the doorstop keeping the general judgment of CMNS scientists open. There are now only a few left who think Rossi may have something.


    But it is perfectly acceptable for you to hold out, to stick your foot in the door, if you don't mind a little pressure. Especially, as to what I write, I hope for correction of errors. It can be hard to come by. Where possible, when one is found, I go back and fix it, and if it's been noted, I fix it with strikeout and explicit amendment, that's an old Wikipedia habit, so that discussion does not become meaningless. There are people claiming everything I write is FUD, confusion, word salad, or Wrong, but they don't get specific, or what they claim is just fact, or explicit surmise, and if it isn't, I'll fix it. I will source it if required, and distinguish between sourced fact and personal interpretation.


    Quote

    EDIT: For the record, I know of NO ONE that has been paid by Rossi to spread FUD. His "sock puppets" make it pretty clear to me that he can't find basement dwellers willing to wage a professional PR campaign. Any professional troll would have told him to shut up, stop making himself look so silly, and let them do the work in a way that would actually have an impact. But then again, there is a non-zero chance that there could be a couple trolls officially working for him. I just don't find it likely.


    Thanks. What a reasonably sane skeptic may want to see from you is this simple recognition that skepticism is reasonable, and that, at this point, even a view that Rossi is a fraud is "reasonable." Reasonable does not mean "correct." In fact, in my training, they assigned us to do ten unreasonable things a day. It is absolutely amazing what can happen when we step outside of the "reasonable," but there is a difference from being crazy: we know we are stepping outside, people who are attached and/or crazy don't know that. They believe in all their "reasons" instead of seeing them as often-useful heuristics.


    This training was fairly recent (2011-2013 or so, as to what was truly intense, it's really still ongoing in many ways) but I was prepared for it in and extensive and wide-ranging personal history. I was a friend of a very well-known scientist (a food chemist, actually), who discovered some numerical patterns in letter counts in the Qur'an. It was amazing stuff. (There really is a pattern!) He went over the edge, deciding that God was directly revealing to him.... but he didn't normally talk about that, and he came up with a whole series of iconoclastic positions. He became popular in some circles, some of what he wrote offended fanatics, and he was assassinated, in Tucson, Arizona. When I found out, I decided to research what he had found, in depth, to honor his memory. (He had been kind and thoughtful, even when I questioned him.)


    It was all an extended diversion, an artifact of his search process. But he had developed dozens of "reasons" for what he was doing, and then, if some problem was found, he could explain it away. The human brain is highly skilled at finding reasons. In the training, they say we create them, and it is a piece of what humans are really good at. ("The human being is a meaning-making machine.") Call it pattern identification, but it goes beyond that. We can invent patterns that don't exist (that is, that have no connected underlying cause), and there's the rub, and it rubs two ways: one is obvious, we can mire ourselves in what doesn't exist, but the other is spectacular: this is how we create the future, as possibilities.


    Back to here and lenr-forum, I often add the qualification that Rossi may pull out a Wabbit. It's a friendly term, perhaps mildly sarcastic, but ... magicians do pull rabbits out of hats. And someone who is as the "eccentric or even deranged inventor of something real" might do could exactly that. However, most of us won't bet on it, and if we need to place bets, we will bet the other way, and that's all. It's not "right" or "wrong," it is a choice, and you pay your money and you take your choice.


    I am to some degree poking Planet Rossi to put their "silent majority" money where their mouth is. One might investigate Hydro Fusion and buy stock, if they are sane. Are they? I have no idea! I don't create strong opinions in the absence of evidence, or I attempt to avoid it. What are the Swedes doing? I don't know! One could create some kind of organization to support investigation of the Rossi Effect and crowd-fund it. One could also chat it up with scientists and polcy-makers, but beware of reputation blow-back! What I'm suggesting would be reasonably safe. Such efforts could be as "gullible" or "carefully skeptical" as the owners or donors choose.


    This is what it means to actually stand up for what one believes instead of just complaining about "they won't let us" and "evil conspiracy," which never goes anywhere. It's good for maybe a few weeks, to create one's position, but beyond that, it is what is called in the training a "racket." "A persistent complaint combined with a fixed way of being." These have payoffs. By focus on complaint, we are relieved of all responsibility, it is all their fault. Not ours. We get to look good and make others look bad -- we think.


    This has almost nothing to do with "truth." That was probably the most difficult aspect of the training for me to face. "But I'm right!" And I probably was, within the narrow terms of the problems I had created. But I was disempowered, and this came to be my saying: "I'm so right I make myself sick." And then there are tools, well-developed and honed, for moving beyond that.

  • Sorry Abd, but I find this thread quite ridiculous.....
    If a person chooses to leave a message in Rossi blog, it is quite probable that he is a Rossi-fan, just like people who frequently visit a football team official site. So I find pretty normal that most of the comments on Rossi blog could be very partisan. I'm much more unclear about the fact you are spending such a lot of time in stuff like this!
    You wrote: "There is no evidence anywhere of "IH service" for anyone writing on the blogs. I'll set aside Dewey Weaver, where he is actually an investor, not someone paid to write on blogs! Blog commentary is of practically no benefit to Industrial Heat, they would be crazy to pay for it, and they aren't crazy. There is, however, someone who has, in the past, benefited from blog positings. Who would that be? If someone is creating FUD, who would have a motive, and particularly a financial one? It's not rocket science to guess!".So, if you fill hundreds of forum pages with your ideas against Rossi, we should think that you are just a free-thinker and a verbose writer, whereas if a person leaves just one positive/partisan comment on Rossi blog he certainly is a paid puppet? Come on, be more impartial!And to Jed you wrote: "Just because you are not paid to create FUD doesn't mean that someone else isn't."
    Friends of yours are independent and unbiased writers, but who thinks in a different way (even if he is obviously partial) is just creating FUD? I don't think so......

  • I am not "complaining" about e-catworld, I describe it. It is an openly pro-Rossi site, like some others. Lenr-forum is generally neutral, overall. Of course, Rossi has attacked lenr-forum on his blog....


    Generally neutral?!? LOL! Abd, you have cited Mr. Weaver, who posted 806 times in three months of activity, and you left 1750 posts so far, just to mention two persons "just a little bit" impartial and very, very active. Where do you see neutrality?
    Jed Rothwell wrote: "What a strange thing to do. Someone has too much time on his hands, and nothing important to do."
    Jed, are you saying this thing to Abd (one who truly lives in this forum) talking about someone else? Really?? I'm having so much fun...... ;):thumbup:

  • While I don't always agree with Abd, I do not think he, nor any of us for that matter, should be ashamed, or accused of, because of our time here in pursuit of knowledge. If one disagrees, then perhaps they could give us a better outlet for our passions?

  • Quote


    You wrote: "There is no evidence anywhere of "IH service" for anyone writing on the blogs. I'll set aside Dewey Weaver, where he is actually an investor, not someone paid to write on blogs! Blog commentary is of practically no benefit to Industrial Heat, they would be crazy to pay for it, and they aren't crazy. There is, however, someone who has, in the past, benefited from blog postings. Who would that be? If someone is creating FUD, who would have a motive, and particularly a financial one? It's not rocket science to guess!".So, if you fill hundreds of forum pages with your ideas against Rossi, we should think that you are just a free-thinker and a verbose writer, whereas if a person leaves just one positive/partisan comment on Rossi blog he certainly is a paid puppet? Come on, be more impartial!And to Jed you wrote: "Just because you are not paid to create FUD doesn't mean that someone else isn't."


    This meme that people are paid to post on blogs is unhelpful, and I've never believed it on either side. The idea that Rossi posts with aliasses on his own blog - well I think that is pretty well proven, and his privilege if a bit weird, but I doubt he pays himself. Anything else? Impossible to disprove, but it seems unlikely, and anyway it is not relevant. It makes no difference to me whether posts here are paid or not: I judge on quality not motive. That is mainly because I like to work things out myself and don't put trust in anyone else except that which is earnt. Even then we all make mistakes, and I don't forget that.


    Unless you view these matters (of whether a given revolutionary technological device works or not) as being a reality tv show where the winner will be the one with the best back-story, the audience here really does not matter much. There are two exceptions:

    • Rossi has always viewed PR as supremely important. This comes from the way he spends so much time grooming his internet audience, and the way that he talks of the Dorral customer episode as a "magnificence" of more effect than tests on IH premises. Of more PR effect perhaps, but less use if you are trying to determine, for yourself or serious investors, what works.
    • IH also have a strong interest in their LENR reputation amongst serious scientists and there is some (not I think much) overlap with the various blogs (this, ECW, MFMP, and weird ones like ego-out). I can however understand Dewey, for purely personal reasons, being very very pissed off at the slanderous accusations thrown at his friends, so much at variance with what he believes the truth. And Dewey (like quite a few others here) quite enjoys weighing in and fighting the good cause.


    That is the point. We are here because we enjoy it. Those who are doing experiments are also here because they enjoy it (and the ones seriously doing experiments with real money much less likely to be reporting results here). There is no shame in that, far from it, but it is grandiose to think that somehow opinion here matters to the wider world.


    [OK - Alan is here (in part) because he hopes to make money selling lab equipment in a good cause - and many here hope for good to come from research into LENR - but that does not make opinion here of any import]

  • [OK - Alan is here (in part) because he hopes to make money selling lab equipment in a good cause - and many here hope for good to come from research into LENR - but that does not make opinion here of any import]


    Not quite right. The last thing that drives 'Lookingforheat' is a desire to make money. There is way more money in selling shit from China (as my father used to call it) than in supplying impoverished independent cold fusion researchers. Every penny that comes into LFH (and many many more) we spend on equipment, donate to the cause, or use to keep afloat. Neither of us has had any material benefit at all. Except it has spurred me to upgrade my facilities here - mostly a question of labour. Good job I am very practical when it comes to joinery and metalwork!


    Our hope is that either one of us at LFH or one of our customers makes a publishable public breakthrough. Money as profit is bottom of the agenda.

  • <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/2133-Alternative/">@Alternative</a> (aka Abd):


    We banned you because you made a heavy insult. Your ban will <b>expire on monday</b>. So keep cool and on monday you are back!


    He did? I'm surprised that anyone took notice... it's like spotting dog doo in those massive heaps of leaves that clutter the street in front of my door. Surprisingly, my feet do a much better job in that regard.

  • Nevertheless, absent some emergency, this is the last post from Alternative


    Abd, I can think of no 'emergency' that would keep me from deleting further posts you make (using any log in at all) until such time as your Admin-imposed blocking is over. Otherwise you are just poking fun at a system designed to keep this place 'clean and tidy. Whether you choose to go or stay is entirely your choice, whatever you do this place will survive and prosper through the efforts of all, not because of any single poster.

  • Shane, to respond (to where else to goto) the NSF can be quite educational. It is mathematical theoretical and abstract. And NSF is somewhat closely moderated.
    As we wait for a decent experiment that is replicable.


    I personally do not learn things with out thinking them out for myself. I like others here have looked at Papp, almost anything involving OU devices. So far the only one I see --that may require new physics (MiHsC withstanding). Rossi is a TV channel. Let me know if you find something. I would like to change the channel.

  • Quote

    Mary has been a total arse...


    You see my writing that way because you accept virtually any fantastic claim as fact from virtually anyone. And of course, I rub your nose in it when it goes bad which is essentially always.

  • You see my writing that way because you accept virtually any fantastic claim as fact from virtually anyone. And of course, I rub your nose in it when it goes bad which is essentially always.



    I see your writing as crude, repetitive, and unimaginative. Basically you say the same thing over, and over and over. Once in a while, when backed into a corner about your "qualifications", you pull out your short, and well honed, wikipedia quote about calorimetry, to "prove" you are an expert in the matter. When pushed further by those still not convinced, you resort to the "I will bet you $100,000" I am an expert bluff.


    I actually enjoy your participation, but only for entertainment reasons. How anyone could accord you some respect as a professional...as many do, is beyond me.

  • I for one, hope that the ban is lifted and Mr. Lomax decides to participate.


    I appreciate his taking time and posting his in-depth opinions, especially since he backs them up with links, history and
    experience. While I do not take anyone's word as "absolute truth", I do not find a lot of obvious errors in his posts.


    It is frustrating that most criticism of Mr. Lomax's posts seem to be:


    - They are often of long length and detailed : Well, often the subject deserves long length and detail. Our society is too geared towards instant gratification! "I want an answer, I want it now and I do not want to have to study or understand the depth".


    --- If you do not want to read a post that is more than one sentence long, then I suggest that you simply do not read them! Why complain? No one is forcing you to read them.


    - That Mr. Lomax is full of himself and conceited : Who on this list isn't!


    --- Again, if you do not like his opinions or the method he presents his opinions, then skip his posts. Some, including me, find them very worthwhile.


    - That he is too "Pro IH".


    --- I do not see it that way at all. I see he presents evidence as he sees it logically. If that evidence is "Pro IH", it is not his bias.
    But again, one is not forced to read his posts.


    I do not read the posts of some here. They are pointless, repetitive and often inflammatory. I simply skip them. I do not feel I need to post negative comments about them. Why should I? Why should others?


    I do not know what the cause of the ban was nor do I need to know. I do not condone bad or unacceptable behavior. I do find it surprising that he stated something so villainous that it merited a ban. But sometimes people say things that they later wish they had not. I know I have in the past and probably will in the future. Mr. Lomax can be a bit pointed at times, but I would hope he did not resort to base intent. Again, I find the ban quite surprising. (I do not mean to criticize the moderators here either. They have an often thankless job.)


    So I hope Mr. Lomax changes his mind and rejoins the forum. For me, his posts are most appreciated. Partially because I find time lacking to read the docket in detail and partially because I am too lazy! I appreciate the time he spends, not just skimming the content, but studying it.

  • Quote from LENR Calender: “Mary Yugo has been banned in the past, Shane.”



    If so..when specifically? And if so, it can not be long enough, if you ask me. Nothing in comparison to Abds benign, yet voluminous, posts leading to his…



    The closest info I can get to you about this is this thread (in which you participated).


    Censorship, FOIA, and Mary Yugo



    Getting banned for a couple days is not such a huge deal, and I suggest Abd just enjoys the time off.

  • To clear the Abd ban situation: Abd called a user ( @zeus46 ) "an idiot".
    This can be found here: MFMP: Next replication - GlowStick 5.4 aka GlowShell


    In the terms of use each forum member has agreed that insults will result in a ban, repeating insults will result in a permanent ban.
    So this cannot be a surprise.


    Abd was notified about this and should have received a private message in his "Conversations".
    There is absolutely no talk of "Pathoskeptic" behaviour, but of "Insult" behaviour.
    The message should look like:



    Everything is said: Tomorror at 10:55am Abd's ban expires and he can write here again.


    I don't understand why Abd is making such an outcry.


    And now: back to topic!

  • @Timar wrote "Funny coincidence: almost immeditately after Abd announces his retreat, someone I haven't seen hanging around here for months comes visiting this thread..."


    But alas it is coincidence. After the forum got bombed by threads in kanji or some similar language. I took a voluntary break. So not a pattern. I doubt anyone would think I am an IH shill. And channel Rossi for me is entertainment. When MY was banned, I also was a campaigner for Mary Yugo (who is scoffing at me currently for my Papp comment) and now for Adb. I try not to have a thin skin. But running this forum is like herding cats. I do not envy their jobs. BTW, If you click on the Discus you will see I have been back for over a month. I think alternative is who you mean maybe.