Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


  • I think he has "supported his own assertion", but you may have missed it?

    ***No. There were 18 points. 15 points of fact, 3 points of surmision. He claimed "almost all" of this was in my own head.




    His "point by point he just threw out there, and you disproved of" BTW, is your opinion.

    ***It is a valid opinion, looking at the point-by-point and his dismissive handwaving. Keep in mind that he started in on this discussion upthread with a Humpty Dumpty re-definition of terms like "real" and "fact".



    Like I said, Para knows this story better than anyone here.

    ***Then he should show more of what he knows and less of what he HumpteyDumpteys.



    He has proved that many times over.

    ***Fair enough. He just hasn't done that on this subthread.



    You just have to be willing to listen to what he has to say,

    ***Do you agree with his Humpty Dumpty approach to the word "real" upthread?


    and not only listen to yourself.

    ***I'm listening to him, and I'm disagreeing with him. Disagreeing is NOT:"only listening to one's self".

  • That is an observation. As I said before, you cannot prove an observation will always hold. That would be like trying to prove there are no black swans because you have never seen one. Only a widely-accepted theory can prove it.

    What many people don't seem to realize is that scientific laws are merely a series of observations. Usually pretty strong or rigorous observations, but observations nonetheless. People seem to think that when it's termed a LAW, that future observations have to OBEY that law. It is a poor choice of verbiage to be using the word "law" for "rigorous observations".



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

    The laws of science, also called scientific laws or scientific principles, are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] Each scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the Universe.


    Maybe some day we'll call this observation "Jed's Law of Missing Ionized LENR Radiation"...

  • Tork - your mind clearly doesn't process clarity very well. Perhaps you'll have some time to think about that one day.

    My mind processes the clarity of adam henry detection with premium quality. I can spot them from a mile away. One classic example is they forget how much of an adam henry they are, they start out a post with an insult like calling the person perhaps a homonym like HeweyDeweyLewzie , and then the rest of the post was serious, intended to be taken seriously, to be thoughtfully considered. And they're SURPRISED that the other person is still responding to them as if they're an Adam Henry. Speaking of processing clarity, it's clear for everyone here that you're the one who starts this stuff. Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin. That classic line from the classic movie MIB was spoken to an intergalactic cockroach. Maybe your mind should process THAT clarity.

  • Dewey Weaver

    Quote

    We'll continue funding deserving research while y'all keep playing with matches and words.

    Yeah, well, I'd recommend that you have Brillouin's results checked by a truly capable and completely independent source before you or IH commits to more money. And I'd not use any of the "usual suspects" as a consultant. Perhaps use an organization like Earth Tech or a university nuclear engineering department where the final opinion is "officially from the department" and not from a single professor. A renown testing lab like Sandia would also be good (but probably expensive). I'd task the consultant(s) to make sure Brillouin's calorimetry is not "sketchy" regardless of assurances from mmckubre , Tanzella and JedRothwell !


    Nota bene that the entire Rossi vs IH debacle was caused entirely by a failure to follow the above generic advice which was all over the internet when IH signed on to Rossi's project.

  • Dewey Weaver

    Yeah, well, I'd recommend that you have Brillouin's results checked by a truly capable and completely independent source before you or IH commits to more money. And I'd not use any of the "usual suspects" as a consultant. Perhaps use an organization like Earth Tech or a university nuclear engineering department where the final opinion is "officially from the department" and not from a single professor. A renown testing lab like Sandia would also be good (but probably expensive). I'd task the consultant(s) to make sure Brillouin's calorimetry is not "sketchy" regardless of assurances from mmckubre , Tanzella and JedRothwell !


    Nota bene that the entire Rossi vs IH debacle was caused entirely by a failure to follow the above generic advice which was all over the internet when IH signed on to Rossi's project.

    So, a company named Industrial Heat wouldn't be good at measuring... ahhhh.... industrial heat?


    And 7 independent skeptical scientists, among whom was the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, couldn't be counted on to be.... uhhh...skeptical? They couldn't measure Power In (Watts) and Heat Out (Watts)?


    I think what would be acceptable is a relatively standard testing lab attended by guys who are familiar with magic tricks, like James Randi. Of course, the Swedish Skeptics were supposed to have their Fraud Detector Kit or something like that, and it appears to have failed completely if we listen to the skeptopaths around here.