Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • Not accusing anyone in particular,



    It is very difficult to take someone seriously


    .....who makes random, nonspecific and general observations?


    Its difficult also to take Rossi seriously

    given his lack of specific results.


    On the other hand there are many in the LENR field

    who I do take seriously..

    the most recent publication by Michael Staker

    I take seriously.

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf

  • On the other hand there are many in the LENR field

    who I do take seriously..

    the most recent publication by Michael Staker

    I take seriously.

    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…F21_Staker_2_Oct_2018.pdf


    I'd agree that Staker's work is an example of experimental data that should be taken seriously - unlike Rossi or the vast amount of other fluff discussed here (plant-based LENR etc).


    I'd disagree that these interesting and unexplained results have as only explanation LENR (see my post on the other thread where I give some other options). One thing people here forget is that LENR is not, at the moment, an explanation. It is simply a not understood option when all others are ruled out, which as per my post on the other thread I do not believe they have been.


    Worth pointing out that should He4 / excess heat correlations at expected rate be clearly confirmed then LENR would be indicated not just as "only though-of way to get excess energy" but also as something with definite evidence and partially understood, which would immediately help its case.

  • I like Rossi fluff.


    1. Steven N. Karels June 17, 2019 at 8:15 PM

      Dear Andrea Rossi,

      “you stopped the E-Cat SK Leonardo test because of certain components failing.”

      Were the failed components involved in:

      a. Electrical energy conversion (output from the LENR process)?

      b. Control problems?

      c. Thermal issues?

      d. Starting and Stopping issues?

      e. prototype board reliability?

    2. Translate Andrea Rossi June 17, 2019 at 8:50 PM

      Steven N. Karels:

      a. yes

      the others no.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

    3. Colin Watters June 17, 2019 at 10:34 AM

      Dear Andrea,

      Do you still consider the SK to be at the prototype stage? Given the amount of time and money you have spent I had hoped you were at the pre-production stage at least.

    4. Andrea Rossi June 17, 2019 at 3:29 PM

      Colin Watters:

      We are serving a restricted number of “pioneers” and fixing problems.

      Warm Regards

      A.R.

  • I'd disagree that these interesting and unexplained results have as only explanation

    I never wrote that Staker's works have one explanation.

    so I don't know who you disagree with.? maybe you are disagreeing with yourself.


    I said " the most recent publication by Michael Staker I take seriously"

    If you want me to take you seriously please don't read into my words...stuff that isn't there.

  • I never wrote that Staker's works have one explanation.

    so I don't know who you disagree with.? maybe you are disagreeing with yourself.

    If you want me to take you seriously please don't read into my words...stuff that isn't there.


    Please remember what you have written:


    RB:


    Apparently it is easier to say that LENR may not work

    than read that LENR does work.


    only a click away...


    "LENR does work" is a big claim.


    But, if you like me are saying that LENR may not exist (other than the known lowish energy kinetic fusion results) then we are in the same ballpark and there can be genuine differing views as to liklelihood.


    THH

  • Quote

    Either there is some way to game the Researchgate system

    I am sure there is. And gaming, cheating and lying are Rossi's modus operandi. There is no way thousands of people are interested in a paper by the crook. Virtually nobody outside of the LENR community has heard about him and even fewer would seek out anything he has written.


    I don't specifically know about gaming Researchgate but social media like Twitter are pretty simple to game as to numbers of reads, likes, and so on. And if you don't want to bother learning how, there are services available which will do it for you.

  • I don't specifically know about gaming Researchgate but social media like Twitter are pretty simple to game as to numbers of reads, likes, and so on. And if you don't want to bother learning how, there are services available which will do it for you.


    Perhaps you should make enquiries? Specifically for RG. The other ones are well known

  • I am sure ResearchGate would like to know they can be spoofed...if they truly can. No faster way to lose credibility, than to lose the trust of readers. And being able to pump up your own "reads", to make your paper look more respectable, would do that.

  • I read some kind of thread, maybe on Reddit, that insinuated RG is aware of a potential problem and have adjusted numbers down previously




    **RG, as in reasearchgate, not the thin-skinned RG, who is otherwise not to be mentioned, for fear of receiving whiny letters in the post.

  • https://www.socialsciencespace…-example-of-a-bad-metric/


    Quote

    Furthermore, intransparency makes it very hard for outsiders to detect gaming of the system.



    Also wikipedia:


    Quote

    ResearchGate has also been criticized for failing to provide safeguards against "the dark side of academic writing", including such phenomena as fake publishers, "ghost journals", publishers with "predatory" publication fees, and fake impact ratings. It has also been criticized for copyright infringement of published works.



    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27924967


    Quote

    ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community.

    Memon AR1.

    Author information

    Abstract

    ResearchGate has been regarded as one of the most attractive academic social networking site for scientific community. It has been trying to improve user-centered interfaces to gain more attractiveness to scientists around the world. Display of journal related scietometric measures (such as impact factor, 5-year impact, cited half-life, eigenfactor) is an important feature in ResearchGate. Open access publishing has added more to increased visibility of research work and easy access to information related to research. Moreover, scientific community has been much interested in promoting their work and exhibiting its impact to others through reliable scientometric measures. However, with the growing market of publications and improvements in the field of research, this community has been victimized by the cybercrime in the form of ghost journals, fake publishers and magical impact measures. Particularly, ResearchGate more recently, has been lenient in its policies against this dark side of academic writing. Therefore, this communication aims to discuss concerns associated with leniency in ResearchGate policies and its impact of scientific community.


    100 Things Wrong With Researchgate


    (try searching it for "reads")


    That's all I have time for right now. (some of the above is ETA since Alan Smith 's last comment) I did not easily find any way to buy "reads" for Researchgate so it could be that they are more subtly hidden (I mainly checked Fiverr.com) or the result is simply the outcome of unreliability in the way the web site measures reads (and just about everything else). See above mention (without detail) of "ghost journals, fake publishers, and magical impact measure" whatever those are.

  • RG's lack if score algorithm transparency

    I never look at the popularity rating at Researchgate.


    I just read the content.

    If the articles are downloadable instantly I am happy.

    If not.. I have to find another way to get them free

    eg search around on vixra, arxiv,

    access a university account.


    Takahashi's RG has lots of articles


    nothing new though

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akito_Takahashi


    perhaps later in 2019..

  • Quote

    Virtually nobody outside of the LENR community has heard about him and even fewer would seek out anything he has written.



    Right, I totally agree.


    BTW, there are a lot of chinese jobless well educated programmers who need some income. You can hire them to level up Your character in GTA5 for example... to level "WHATEVER"... so they will level up Your character till You say: THX, it is enough.


    Maybe You can also pay them for research gate fake readings. One reading = 10 dollar ? Surely possible to find a guy who is willing to do this.