Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It is important to be able to nit pick to pieces claims of LENR so that we are, collectively, so good at it that when the real deal comes along it will obvious as the nose on our faces. Our various tests of BS will utterly fail when applied to the real thing.

The real thing was published by Fleischmann, Bockris, McKubre, Miles and many others. I am sure your tests for BS will find nothing in these papers. I am not aware of any papers that found experimental errors in any of this work. I know of only two published author who tried to find errors, Morrison and Shanahan. They failed. In other words, "the real thing" has stood the test of time.

Quote from Roger

Well that's really heartening, it only took you 1690 or so posts to lose interest in Rossi. Yet, you're still posting about him

The social engineering going on on this forum is hilarious. The most verbose of the posters repeat ad nauseam that Rossi is a scammer and that there's nothing to see so move along, and they all have 1k+ posts repeating exactly that, with the bonus option of "LENR is a giant nothingburger, it's not even worth spending time studying it".
But it's worth spending hours daily on this very forum (and others I believe), trying to persuade others of this

Oh come on! The internet is stuffed with fora and blogs hosting small groups of people holding wildly different views and arguing ENDLESSLY about them. Not with any hope of suasion or resolution; just because they are the sort of people who like to argue. No-one here expects their opponents to change their minds - they are here for the craic. "Worth the time " has nothing to do with it.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It is important to be able to nit pick to pieces claims of LENR so that we are, collectively, so good at it that when the real deal comes along it will obvious as the nose on our faces. Our various tests of BS will utterly fail when applied to the real thing.

Should we dig up all the grass to kill the weeds. Most skeptics want to starve all LENR development to protect the investor from being SCAMMED. I say fertilize the grass and weeds heavily to let each grow. Even if the field is choked with weeds and most of the fertilizer has gone to naught there will be a patch or two of rich green grass that will survive and grow vigorously. Eventually the field will be filled with grass and the weeds will be pushed aside.

Don't kill all. Don't throw out the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

they are here for the craic

I did not know that word "craic." Great word!

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Shane and Eric Walker HOPE that it will be a failure. Anything to back up their previous statements rather than have a new source of clean cheap energy.

I would find it tickling and amusing if Rossi ended up pulling a rabbit out of a hat in several years' time. I cannot think of any statements that I have made that I would regret in that eventuality. I do not give it a probability of zero; I give it a very small probability, taking into account the information we now have access to. And if he did succeed, that would (one can hope) be good for humanity. I'm not holding my breath, but we must work with probabilities, for no one is omniscient.

Truly the forces of destruction against LENR will soon arise with awesome power. This demo of the Quark will mark the birth of this anti LENR movement. Much of the money that is currently devoted to killing the climate change movement, the Koch brothers, Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, and the Manhattan Institute will be redirected at LENR.

Expect to see a burst of highly opinionated new membership here on this site funded by these groups.

Quote from JedRothwell

The real thing was published by Fleischmann, Bockris, McKubre, Miles and many others. I am sure your tests for BS will find nothing in these papers. I am not aware of any papers that found experimental errors in any of this work. I know of only two published author who tried to find errors, Morrison and Shanahan. They failed. In other words, "the real thing" has stood the test of time.

Please don't ignore the multiple failed attempts to replicate any of this, which continue even today. See IH, and Coolescense. There hasn't been a single LENR/CF experiment I know of where both the mass of transmuted material and the quantity of created photons matched what was expected above background for the claimed amount of excess energy.

JedRothwell ,

I don't spend any time attempting to pick that body of work apart.

I doubt that I can reach the level of knowledge to do a good job of attempting it. I know my current limitations. Maybe I will get knowledgeable enough to look over those experiments critically one day. I am better at noticing where cause and effect seem out of step with each other, and pattern and anomaly detection. Probably a borderline Aspie thing...

Like the unfortunate Parkhomov repeats in a plot a while back. As soon as I looked at the plot, I knew something was amiss, unconsciously. The plot just looked wrong. It took a while to work out what was bugging me about it. Little chunks of up and down data making a lumpy line, nothing that any calculating would have proven or disproven, but I could see the grains of repetition hiding in it. I am great at finding problems in data, doing QA/QC, catching shifted parts of columns, transposed chunks of data, and accidental decimal point shifts when scrolling through spreadsheets containing thousands of rows and dozens of columns where other people just see a sea of numbers. But I am no electrochemist.

Parkhomov Padua! I thought it its day of glory! Physicists are mistaken, energy should be looked for on geology!

Quote from lenrisnotreal

Please don't ignore the multiple failed attempts to replicate any of this, which continue even today. See IH, and Coolescense. There hasn't been a single LENR/CF experiment I know of where both the mass of transmuted material and the quantity of created photons matched what was expected above background for the claimed amount of excess energy.

McKubre's replication of Les Case..... He=heat

Quote from lenrisnotreal

Please don't ignore the multiple failed attempts to replicate any of this, which continue even today. See IH, and Coolescense.

I am pretty familiar with their work. I probably know more about it than you do, since I visited I.H. and talked extensively with the people whose work they were trying to replicate. I believe I know why they failed, just as I know why some larger, better-equipped labs failed in 1989 with quick and dirty experiments, such as the one I describe here, on p. 10 and 11:

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

I do not think such failures are significant. If the people at Los Alamos or BARC had failed, that would be significant, because they have far more expertise, instruments, resources and knowledge than I.H., Coolescence or the MFMP. As far as I know, nearly all of the big national and university labs that made a serious effort to replicate in the 1990s succeeded.

Expecting a small, inexperienced group of people to do cold fusion is like expecting that I can successful perform open-heart surgery.

Quote from lenrisnotreal

There hasn't been a single LENR/CF experiment I know of where both the mass of transmuted material and the quantity of created photons matched what was expected above background for the claimed amount of excess energy.

Yes, that is common knowledge. Everyone has known that since the day cold fusion was announced. However, your expectation is based on theory. Experiments have shown that your theory is either wrong or inapplicable. When replicated, high-sigma experiments conflict with theory, the experiments always win; theory always loses. So what is your point? If you insist this is a reason to ignore the experiments, you are practicing a weird form of religion, not science.

Quote

If the people at Los Alamos or BARC had failed, that would be significant, because they have far more expertise, instruments, resources and knowledge than I.H., Coolescence or the MFMP

After few years everything will be forgotten anyway. Who actually remembers the know-how of SPAWAR, for example?

Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

Parkhomov Padua! I thought it its day of glory! Physicists are mistaken, energy should be looked for on geology!

I was disappointed that the plot of the data had not been dealt with by the time the Padua conference was held, considering that he had been alerted to it well in advance. Parkhomov did eventually make amends, and supplied the actual recorded data files. That is good enough for me. I'm not sure what to make of his later work, but the efforts he and his team have made since Padua are considerable.

I don't find much to say, the most fun and valuable result of the test is as people say, that Rossi managed to fool people into thinking he has nothing but indeed had seen an effect and finally managed

to produce the effect in quantities - then great. But when asked about an opinion before an event of certainty, most odds are against him. He modifies history to fit the future, as people point out. He

manipulates his partners as shown with the story of the letter about the debacle with hydrofusion where Rossi wrote a letter to Darden telling him he fooled the Swedes - a story that I just can't find

is in any way in Rossis favor. He said at one time that there was electricity actually enough generated to get the Quark self sustained, and still today he can't get it self sustained. There are much more facts

speaking against Rossi and I think that it is wise and natural that people with brainz criticize and even get emotionally against him and libel a bit. Please note that new people read the discussions all

the time and it is good to maintain a constant story not to trust Rossis technology without hands on experience. Also if Rossi saw a weak effect or spurious effect and lost the effect over and over again in

various tries that manifested itself in non conclusive demos and tests, with setups that shown no or too small effects it could explain a bit of the strangeness. Heck when I did my phd in math, It was a constant

fight of finding a solution and then realize a mistake when proof reading and then rinse repeat. This process of alternating between being creative and optimistic and critical could result in mistakes like the

hot cat probably was a fluke due to using the heat camera the wrong way. This issue is actually difficult to pinpoint and I don't think that Rossi has good enough experience to catch that error (it's not his expertise)

so I therefore lean towards that he varied casings and setups until he saw an effect, but in stead of an effect he optimized towards a casing that was transparent and time was lost. What I take from this is that it

is expensive and time consuming not to engage with valid experts. We hear testimonies where Jed and others want's to help improving a setup or experiment, by being careful, in order to skip a dead end and

enable another revision. We have no evidences that Rossi listens, well indirectly. The tests never repeated and is either an indication of fraud or that he discovered issues that he kept quit and tried a new versions

after that. To an outsider it looks like historically Rossi was not careful enough and failed time and time again if he is honest. Have he finally found the graal? Time will tell but I'm not optimistic if he has succeeded

he have been fooling a lot of good folks including me and himself many many times. There are actually signs that all this saga is due to mistakes of a manipulative and suspicious mind that has seen things he thinks

is of great value. I actually have a huge difficulty to see why the heck Rossi don't calm down and disapear with the ton of money he already got. Doesn't make sense to me hence my try understand why he still

continues. The saga is strange, maybe we will have a great laugh of a good demo, or just enjoy the tune of technology that can't be realized, just as the horrible song from the singer that couldn't sing

still have an entertaining value.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

After few years everything will be forgotten anyway. Who actually remembers the know-how of SPAWAR, for example?

I believe you are right about that. It is unfortunate. People act as if experimental evidence has a sell-by date. As if experiments 30 years ago are somehow made invalid by the passage of time. Or less significant.

That's not how it works. Experiments in the 17th century by the first modern scientists are as valid as any.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

After few years everything will be forgotten anyway. Who actually remembers the know-how of SPAWAR, for example?

I do