Worth also that the pensioners who put their trust in Woodford, who in turn put his trust into IH's assessment of Rossi have lost their cash. Nothing in the bank for them yet.
-
-
Worth also that the pensioners who put their trust in Woodford, who in turn put his trust into IH's assessment of Rossi have lost their cash. Nothing in the bank for them yet.
After all is said and done, and without intention of blaming anyone involved but just to underline that unsupported claims can have a nefarious effect, This is perhaps the single most pernicious example of the damage that has been done by the whole "Rossi Saga", some innocent bystanders got fleeced out of their hard earned bucks. Period.
-
After all is said and done, and without intention of blaming anyone involved but just to underline that unsupported claims can have a nefarious effect, This is perhaps the single most pernicious example of the damage that has been done by the whole "Rossi Saga", some innocent bystanders got fleeced out of their hard earned bucks. Period.
This is absolutely correct. But it is all in hindsight and I think that the question for everybody now is how to minimize the chances of this sort of thing happening again. Because I think it is happening. Right now. And many people are repeating the same mistakes they made before.
Publishing complete, thoughtful, descriptions of claims and evidence is a good way to avoid trouble. It leads to replication attempts and to a fruitful back-and-forth with critics. It is a hard-won standard in professional science where it has been put in place for good reasons ... because anyone can be wrong, or self-deluded, or a pernicious fraud. And yet I see many here who seem to want to employ almost any stratagem to avoid publishing or to forgive those who avoid it. "They have to maintain their IP" they say, or "Let the market decide", or "We'll try a different way" (other than publishing) are statements I have seen here over and over and over.
I would like to see higher standards in the online community. It's members should be saying 'You've got a claim?' -- 'Then publish!'
And publish in real, peer-reviewed publications. Researchgate, by itself, isn't good enough. Researchgate is for preprints, and no one should be pointing to a publication there as anything to be particularly proud of. It's just a way of seeking preliminary feedback before a real publication is made.
-
@Bruce-H.
It's a laudable aim, but 'reputable' journals will not publish anything the looks like cold fusion research. I know of four cases this year where very reputable and highly skilled researchers in the field have had papers refused without peer-review and with scant courtesy. Google's Nature paper was an exception, but as they have huge clout and the paper showed null results I consider it to be the exception that proves the rule.
-
It's a laudable aim, but 'reputable' journals will not publish anything the looks like cold fusion research. I know of four cases this year where very reputable and highly skilled researchers in the field have had papers refused without peer-review and with scant courtesy. Google's Nature paper was an exception, but as they have huge clout and the paper showed null results I consider it to be the exception that proves the rule.
I see this as another in a long line of excuses.
-
Those are sadly cold hard facts Bruce. Not 'excuses' - a childish reply that demeans your argument,
-
I see this as another in a long line of excuses.
When you try to get a LENR paper published, see how it goes and let us know how your opinion about how you were received.
-
-
ETA, in another private forum there is a very famous researcher complaining about this same problem.
" I have several cold fusion manuscripts from this year that I submitted to major Journals, but they were rejected without review by the Editors. "
ETA -that quote is not history, it was written an hour ago.
-
ETA, in another private forum there is a very famous researcher complaining about this same problem.
" I have several cold fusion manuscripts from this year that I submitted to major Journals, but they were rejected without review by the Editors. "
ETA -that quote is not history, it was written an hour ago.
I am well aware of the problem. Outside of the JCMNS, There is only one journal that will accept for review and eventually publish if the article is of experimental work based on hydrogen or deuterium, and with focus on energy production, but more general experimental LENR work, with very few exceptions, is often stopped at the door.
-
After all is said and done, and without intention of blaming anyone involved but just to underline that unsupported claims can have a nefarious effect, This is perhaps the single most pernicious example of the damage that has been done by the whole "Rossi Saga", some innocent bystanders got fleeced out of their hard earned bucks. Period.
When did the court case end, was it February 2017?
Woodward assets peaked later, in June of 2017, at about 10 billion Pounds.
Fell to about 3 billion Pounds early 2020.
I don't blame Rossi for that!
-
When did the court case end, was it February 2017?
Woodward assets peaked later, in June of 2017, at about 10 billion Pounds.
Fell to about 3 billion Pounds early 2020.
I don't blame Rossi for that!
Others can tell you better how that sequence of events went. Rossi lost my confidence far before the lawsuit ended, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while but shortly after with the joke of a demo in Stockholm I walked away and never looked back. I only regret having to read about it in this forum as people still pay attention / waste their lives on that.
-
When did the court case end, was it February 2017?
Woodward assets peaked later, in June of 2017, at about 10 billion Pounds.
Fell to about 3 billion Pounds early 2020.
I don't blame Rossi for that!
I don’t blame Rossi for anything, I liken him to the Flim Flam Man.
“After a run in with me, maybe next time they won’t be so eager to get the edge.”
(Mordecai Jones).
If people are so gullible and foolish they deserve what they get.
-
ETA, in another private forum there is a very famous researcher complaining about this same problem.
" I have several cold fusion manuscripts from this year that I submitted to major Journals, but they were rejected without review by the Editors. "
ETA -that quote is not history, it was written an hour ago.
Sometimes you have to search for a home for a manuscript. This isn't unusual. Sometimes you have to shelve a manuscript and hope that you can repackage parts of it for later use. Some projects never come out of the file drawer. That is pretty painful if your grants depend partly on your publishing record! But it is par for the course. For everyone.
I don't see any of this as a reason not to insist that people publish their work. Academic publishing is a complex ecology within which niches form in response to demand.
My point is that the LENR community visible on this site seem to be always coming up with excuses for why research should not be first described properly and then verified in independent replication before being treated as serious. That is the sort of ambiance that the Rossi's of the world like to operate in.
-
... Rossi lost my confidence far before the lawsuit ended, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while but shortly after with the joke of a demo in Stockholm I walked away and never looked back. I only regret having to read about it in this forum as people still pay attention / waste their lives on that.
OK then. Play this forward instead of backwards. Use the Rossi episode as a learning opportunity. What would you do now that you weren't doing at the time in order to sort out the real from the unreal?
For me, the entire Russ George episode from 2018 till now has uncomfortable parallels with the early Rossi adventures -- amazing claims, secrecy, demos in front of prominent scientists, and now on to something new before questions about the old work is answered. Lots of people have faith in Russ George. Good! The question for them, and for us all, is how to separate what we seeing develop right now from what we know from past experience turned out to be empty claims.
-
Sometimes you have to search for a home for a manuscript. This isn't unusual. Sometimes you have to shelve a manuscript and hope that you can repackage parts of it for later use. Some projects never come out of the file drawer. That is pretty painful if your grants depend partly on your publishing record! But it is par for the course. For everyone.
I suggest you read the comment in my post above again. Written by a very distinguished scholar working in the field of nuclear physics for probably 50 years with many non-LENR papers already published . Do you really think you know more than he does about submitting papers for publication?
My point is that the LENR community visible on this site seem to be always coming up with excuses for why research should not be first described properly and then verified in independent replication before being treated as serious. That is the sort of ambiance that the Rossi's of the world like to operate in.
Well, so you say. That's why we organise conferences and discuss the results with other people working in LENR. Because people in the field know how best to spend their time and to co-operate to get things done..
-
OK then. Play this forward instead of backwards. Use the Rossi episode as a learning opportunity. What would you do now that you weren't doing at the time in order to sort out the real from the unreal?
For me, the entire Russ George episode from 2018 till now has uncomfortable parallels with the early Rossi adventures -- amazing claims, secrecy, demos in front of prominent scientists, and now on to something new before questions about the old work is answered. Lots of people have faith in Russ George. Good! The question for them, and for us all, is how to separate what we seeing develop right now from what we know from past experience turned out to be empty claims.
That’s a completely spurious comparison, you can’t put both in the same box, at all.
-
That’s a completely spurious comparison, you can’t put both in the same box, at all.
You are talking in retrospect. But 10 or so years ago, Rossi would have looked to you as George does now. My question is ... what standards should people insist on in order to judge whether current claims are to be taken seriously.
I guess the ball is in your court. You seem to be saying that Russ George's claims are to be taken seriously right now. Why?
-
That's why we organise conferences and discuss the results with other people working in LENR. Because people in the field know how best to spend their time and to co-operate to get things done..
And thus the niches develop for publishing in a specialized field. As I said. And this is why saying that publishing is difficult is, in the end, just an excuse for not upholding high standard. As I said.
-
Somewhere buried in your posturing are some sensible if ignorant comments. However, the underlying prejudice and insistence that you know things s about publishing papers that people far cleverer and more experienced than you do (I exclude myself here) just makes you look petulant and not worth arguing with.
