Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Some day, an LENR supporter on this site will respond to questions of a technical, economic, or practical nature from a skeptic without resorting to personal insults, withering remarks about the skeptic's intelligence, or other ad hominem tactics and then they might seem like credible advocates for their position. I am not hopeful. And no doubt the response to this will more of the same.

Quote from Zeus46

In other words, you were providing a meta-commentary, on a subject you know nothing about?

Worse than that. It is a subject she repeatedly brags that she knows nothing about!

This is a peculiar way to act. Imagine a person who says she knows nothing about the Japanese language. Not even how to count to ten. Now imagine I say something about Japanese transitive and intransitive verbs, which sometimes baffle Americans. Yugo jumps in and says "you are wrong!" I ask why. She says, "Hey, I have never studied the subject. Don't expect me to know this stuff." Which is it?!? Do you know what you are talking about, or don't you?

When you make bold assertions and in the next breath disavow them by saying you know nothing about the subject, you look peculiar!

Yugo's strategy reminds me of politicians who say "I am not a scientist but . . ." [global warming does not exist] [fill in the blank]. If you are not a scientist, and you have not studied the issue, you should shut the hell up.

Quote from interested observer

Some day, an LENR supporter on this site will respond to questions of a technical, economic, or practical nature from a skeptic without resorting to personal insults, withering remarks about the skeptic's intelligence, or other ad hominem tactics and then they might seem like credible advocates for their position.

Most of the time we do answer questions directly. More often we point to documents such as this one:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but I have uploaded 1,050 documents, with 1,456,725,624 bytes of information about cold fusion. That's a lot of bytes! So I find it a little odd that you accuse us of not answering questions or not providing information.

Let me rephrase what you are saying. You want to know why we don't spoon feed you every single thing you want know. Why are we such meany-meanies who demand you do your own homework? Making the information available isn't enough -- you want me to explain it again and again.

Some day, when I point to that document by McKubre, you or Yugo might actually shut up and read it instead of complaining that I never tell you anything. Yes, and someday hell may freeze over.

Pardon me for being cynical and resorting to personal insults, but when I repeatedly tell people to read this or that, year after year, and yet they read nothing and brag about the fact that they know nothing, it rubs me the wrong way. It is annoying when I point to a paper by Fleischmann a dozen times here, Yugo does not read it, and she doesn't see where she confuses 6 seconds with 3 hours. Other people have downloaded millions of copies. Why can't she? Why can't you? Are you allergic to knowledge?

Quote from JedRothwell

If you are not a scientist, and you have not studied the issue, you should shut the hell up.

ROFL.

Quote from JedRothwell

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

Read, studied, analyzed, rejected.

Quote from maryyugo

And a better, clearer and more spectacular demonstrations COUPLED WITH INDEPENDENT AND PRECISE REPLICATION would help.

We already have that from about 180 major laboratories, including many of the best in the world such as Los Alamos and BARC. They were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. All of these institutions are independent from one another. The people at BARC do not take orders from Los Alamos. These demonstrations are spectacular to people who understand the technical issues. For example, this is spectacular and irrefutable proof that cold fusion produces tritium:

"Tritium up to fifty times background has been observed upon electrolyzing 1N D2SO4 in four out of four cells when using Pd cathodes "of a certain type". No tritium was detected in four control cells, containing H2S04 in H2O, employing Pd cathodes cut from the same wire spool. Tritium amounts were from 7 x 10¹⁰ to 2.1 × 10¹¹ atoms, corresponding to average
generation rates from 5.1 × 10⁴ to 2 × 10⁵ atoms/sec/cm2. In all cases, D/Pd and H/Pd loadings of 1 ± 0.05 were attained. A cyclic loading/unloading regime rather than the usual continuous constant current regime was applied to attain these high loadings. Tritium analysis was performed in Pd, electrolyte and the gas head space of the sealed cells. Maximum tritium concentrations of 8.9 × 10¹⁰ atoms/g Pd, 180 times the detection limit, were found in the D-loaded Pd cathodes, none in the Η-loaded Pd, Also, no tritium within detection limit was found in 150 unused Pd pieces . . ."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf

You have not read these papers, and you would not understand them even if you did read them, so they are not spectacular to you. You would not be satisfied with a thousand more spectacular demonstrations, or ten thousand more.

In most scientific research, you have to know something about the subject before you see why the results are spectacular. The fact that Will et al. examined 150 unused Pd pieces will have no significance to a person who does not know how they examined them, or what that examination means in this case, or what that null results tell us about the positive results. You, obviously, cannot know any of this because you have not read the paper.

Experiments and demonstrations of new technology seldom produce results that even an amateur can see are spectacular. Some did. The most dramatic example in history was the first test of the atomic bomb in 1945. In contrast, the first test of the Chicago Pile-1 nuclear reactor in 1942 would have meant nothing to an amateur observer who did not understand the science. It was just some clicks on Geiger counter and a pen recording indicating ~1 W of power. If Mary Yugo had been there she would have said: "One watt means nothing! You need kilowatts to make a convincing case." Yet the 1942 test led to the atomic bomb. It was just as spectacular as the bomb from a scientific point of view.

A cold fusion experiment indicating 100 mW of heat is just as spectacular as the first cold fusion powered car, airplane or the first cold fusion powered rocket will be, if these things ever come to pass. The 100 mW is only spectacular to those who have the eyes to see, and the imagination and knowledge to know how history works, and how progress is made. People such as Arthur C. Clarke. Or me. Or the Wright brothers. Someone asked them what was the most wonderful part about inventing the airplane? What was most gratifying? Orville (I think it was) said the best part was, "thinking about what it would be like before we did it." That is how a quintessential scientist thinks.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Read, studied, analyzed, rejected.

By a crackpot who thinks that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight at room temperature. If you thought this paper had merit, I would worry there might be something wrong with it.

IH Holdings International Limited Unaudited Report and Financial statements Year Ended 31 December 2016

IH HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LlMITED Return of Allotment of Shares 25/09/2017

IH HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House)

Quote from maryyugo

And they do it in an arrogant and pompous manner reminiscent of the revolting way Hadjichristos ran his forum and dealt with questions about his flagrant Defkalion scam.

Yes, it is such an insult to nitpick you just because you cannot tell the difference between 6 seconds and 3 hours. And just because you brag that you never read anything. As if this was supposed to be scientific discussion!

I know, I know. I get it. We are such boors. Academic stick-in-the-mud people, obsessed with facts, numbers and textbook physics. It is so much more fun to pontificate about stuff you know nothing about! Why read when you just make stuff up?

Quote from maryyugo

"Total aggregate value" around 363K in USD. Not very impressive, is it? Barely enough to buy a decent house in most places.

True. But IHHI is not IH. Maybe however IH is now a holding company with no assets other than IHHI? You'd need to look at the whole corporate picture to know.

Quote from kirkshanahan

My point here is not to revisit the 'Mizuno bucket' conflagration, but to illustrate that Zeus46 knows well that I did not say what he said I did.

Which bit?

Last I recall you were refusing to discuss anecodotal accounts - a rather weak final argument, I felt.

an alleged scientist wrote re: "Mizuno bucket'

"I also wrote, that if there was no heater and the water was at room temp, it was highly unlikely that any significant evaporation would occur."

The converse of this statement is

"If significant evaporation occurred then it is highly likely that there was a heater "

Kyu Sakomoto,1961, wrote "omoidasu haru no hi" = remembering the spring days

In the case of Sapporo spring days, 1991, significant (45-7.5)= 37.5 litres of evaporation occurred.

Therefore it is highly likely that the 7.45 kg reactor was a heater...giving out 85000000 JOULES since APRIL 27.

which greatly exceeds any conventional 'chemical" heat

For further " haru no hi" please refer to

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf

IPHBV Holdings Ltd Report and Financial Statements Year Ended 31 December 2016

IPHBV HOLDINGS LTD - Filing history (free information from Companies House)

Alhlfors "IPHBV"

Kanashimiwa hoshi no kage no

Sadness lies in the shadow of the stars.

Zeus46  "Last I recall you were refusing to discuss anecdotal accounts - a rather weak final argument, I felt."

an alleged scientist " Yeah, can't get through to people with closed minds."

" 十人十色"

a Japanese expression about 'color' or ' colour'

https://www.duedil.com/company…ngs-international-limited