Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

@Kirk: I think we are still at a disconnect with respect to what a replication is. Jed points to graphs of some parameter (H/M ratio) vs. heat output as evidence for replication. Well, I am sure that all loaded palladium experiments have a ratio and people do report better results with more loading. That doesn't say anything about replication, however. Are the set-ups the same? The methodology? The calorimetry? As long as we use the loosey-goosey definition of replication, then it's all swell. Perhaps I am dogmatic, but a bunch of related experiments with related results constitute something interesting and worthy of further investigation, but they are not replication.

All of this avoids your analysis of the validity and meaning of the results regardless of whether they are repeatable or not. But I am told that I should not listen to any of that because at some point you apparently said something peculiar about a bucket of water, so you are completely disreputable

Aw c'mon, I never said that! Really! Trust me I'd never lie about something as important as that!

JR's definition of replication is "Joe ran something and claimed it produced excess energy. It had metals and hydrogen it it, so it must be cold fusion (or LENR)."

I saw enough commonalities in reported results back in 1995 to suspect something might be going on, but there was no, and isn't any, replicatable protocol for producing LENR. People *claim* there is, but it never works without somebody dropping by to tweak the system, and then the results aren't the same anyway. This *is* the greatest bugaboo facing the field at this time. I did find CCS/ATER as a proposed commonality.

Quote from interested observer

That doesn't say anything about replication, however. Are the set-ups the same? The methodology? The calorimetry?

Questions, questions . . . Gee, golly gosh. How on earth can you find out??? Is there a way? Such as, I don't know, reading the papers? Naw!

Quote from interested observer

As long as we use the loosey-goosey definition of replication, then it's all swell.

"We" do not use loosey-goosey definitions. You pull such definitions out of thin air. You make stuff up. You know nothing about this, you read nothing, and you assume that the papers say whatever bullshit just popped into your mind. As I said, it is a never ending cycle. A do-loop that never gets done.

Quote from interested observer

They naturally make one very curious why Toyota is not busy doing cold fusion instead of Camrys. I'm sure you have reasons that are anything but technical in nature.

Trolls never add substance to a discussion. Trolls don't even know about what they are talking. Trolls fight for a pre-made opinion, without knowing why...

Toyota, Toshiba, Panasonic, Fujitsu .. are large conglomerates, that have a broad business base. From this perspective your statement is already funny...

The main target of Japan is the Fukushima clean-up, where Toyota is trying to help. Something that will not happen in the USA. The USA has covered their nuclear bomb testing/ manufacturing waste under a huge carpet. The value of an average live in USA seems to very low compared to Japanese business and research moral.

Quote from JedRothwell

Questions, questions . . . Gee, golly gosh. How on earth can you find out??? Is there a way? Such as, I don't know, reading the papers? Naw!

"We" do not use loosey-goosey definitions. You pull such definitions out of thin air. You make stuff up. You know nothing about this, you read nothing, and you assume that the papers say whatever bullshit just popped into your mind. As I said, it is a never ending cycle. A do-loop that never gets done.

How to know if they are the same- go to the conferences and ask. It amazes me that people bitch about not knowing this or that, not having the data, and never once have they taken steps to ask the primary sources.

In most areas of human endeavor, it is useful and helpful to seek out people who have devoted considerable time and effort to understand the current state of knowledge, to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to figure out what is important to know. Sometimes we call these people experts. I had the mistaken impression that people like Jed Rothwell are of that sort for the topic of LENR.

However, apparently LENR is not like most areas of human endeavor. It is more like Eastern religions or other mystical pursuits. For those, if you consult an expert, you are told that you must find our own path in life and seek the truth for yourself. Gurus will not spoon-feed you with their wisdom. You must gather it for yourself. It is all very deep. And don't mess with the gurus because they are very grouchy.

Yeah, I guess LENR is like that. You gotta earn it or it isn't any good.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

How about his"green fuel" electric generators? He sold the company for ~$1 million that funded his early work on LENR.

Your posts invariably show your ignorance of the subject.

https://e-catworld.com/2014/06…-on-old-rossi-technology/

Quote from interested observer

In most areas of human endeavor, it is useful and helpful to seek out people who have devoted considerable time and effort to understand the current state of knowledge, to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to figure out what is important to know. Sometimes we call these people experts. I had the mistaken impression that people like Jed Rothwell are of that sort for the topic of LENR.

You do have a mistaken impression. Let me explain how this works. Whether I am an expert or merely the librarian, you are doing it wrong. You repeatedly ask me for information. I give you links to documents. Instead of looking at the documents, you complain that I did not give you anything, or I gave you a compendium, or I am big meany-pie who does not spoon feed you whatever information you demand. Then you make up nonsense and claim that is what the document says.

When you do this time after time, people stop helping you. They stop taking you seriously. Whether they are experts or librarians, they see that you are a time-wasting troll who has no interest in the subject, and will not make an effort to learn about it. You cannot keep fooling people indefinitely. That's where your "mistaken impression" is.

Quote from oldguy

How to know if they are the same- go to the conferences and ask. It amazes me that people bitch about not knowing this or that, not having the data, and never once have they taken steps to ask the primary sources.

You don't even have to go the conferences. Just read the proceedings. They are often better than the conference presentations because, <ahem> <if I do say so myself> they are edited by me.

You can also ask the authors, if they are still among the living. Many of them are not, alas.

Quote from JedRothwell

You don't even have to go the conferences. Just read the proceedings. They are often better than the conference presentations because, <ahem> <if I do say so myself> they are edited by me.

You can also ask the authors, if they are still among the living. Many of them are not, alas.

Yes, good editing, but I normally get more out of talking to people in the halls and going out to dinner with them or driving them from the airport. Most (but some exceptions) of the talks are things that are already available.

Quote from kirkshanahan

Didn't look at the video. Sorry.

I doubt you read the McKubre paper the video is based on. If you did read it, you failed to understand it, so you probably would not understand the video either.

Jed, someday you will have an exchange with someone who doesn’t see things the way you do and you will refrain from attacking and insulting them. This will be a personal breakthrough for you. Good luck with it.

Despite being insulted over my lack of research and laziness, i started looking at some of the links that the belligerents sent. Seriously I am glad as I had not yet seen some of these links and i enjoy this subject. I do really think there is something going on in some of these experiments that warrants alot more study. However every researcher i checked into in these links seems to be dead or at least not involved in LENR. Is there anyone still alive who claims to be able to replicate LENR? I guess LION thinks so but he has not been of much help I guess. Axil completely understands the physics apparently (chiral polaritons etc) but is unable to replicate anything. But he can suggest to others to get fuel from other others. And then there is O day, what a joke. (Queue the insults now)

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Despite being insulted over my lack of research and laziness, i started looking at some of the links that the belligerents sent. Seriously I am glad as I had not yet seen some of these links and i enjoy this subject. I do really think there is something going on in some of these experiments that warrants alot more study. However every researcher i checked into in these links seems to be dead or at least not involved in LENR. Is there anyone still alive who claims to be able to replicate LENR? I guess LION thinks so but he has not been of much help I guess. Axil completely understands the physics apparently (chiral polaritons etc) but is unable to replicate anything. But he can suggest to others to get fuel from other others. And then there is O day, what a joke. (Queue the insults now)

Cracking into the nucleus to suck out its energy is no mean feat. It took Holmlid 42 years to become its master and then it took two more years for Sindre-Zeiner Gundersen to replicate Holmlif's results. It looks like it to me that the easiest route to LENR is using the SAFIRE electrode method. It only took that team 5 years to get their results. Before you criticize, hot fusion has been at it since the 1950's and nothing has come of it yet.

But LENR is more than just energy production, it is also warped space, worm holes, monopoles, desk top black holes, teleportation, antigravity, disintegrater beams, energy shields, maybe even time travel...all that star trek stuff. All that may be worth a little extra work.

Quote from axil

Cracking into the nucleus to suck out its energy is no mean feat. It took Holmlid 42 years to become its master and then it took two more years for Sindre-Zeiner Gundersen to replicate Holmlif's results. It looks like it to me that the easiest route to LENR is using the SAFIRE electrode method. It only took that team 5 years to get their results. Before you criticize, hot fusion has been at it since the 1950's and nothing has come of it yet.

But LENR is more than just energy production, it is also warped space, worm holes, monopoles, desk top black holes, teleportation, antigravity, disintegrater beams, energy shields, maybe even time travel...all that star trek stuff. All that may be worth a little extra work.

Using your standards of fact checking, I'm going to review hot fusion research.

Hot fusion is the hottest thing! Much hotter than the centre of the sun, fusion reactions delivering MW of power already work. The fuel from sea-water ifs effectively infinite. But hot fusion is much more than just free unlimited power. Modern experiments have shown new wonders that promise is control over gravity, space, and time itself!

Higgs Bosons - the particle that makes gravity work - can now be produced at will. Commericalisation is just round the corner and while no-one has yet come public with an anti-gravity machine many must be working on this.

Faster than Light neutrinos show that Einstein was wrong and hint at the likelihood of real time machines.

Pollution-free hot fusion with Hydrogen and Boron and direct conversion to electricity is being worked on by 3 or 4 different groups all with completely different approaches, and all with experimental results proving their method will scale up and work. Even if one of these proves not commercially viable this will surely revolutionise power production within 5 years.

New fusion reactors using the latest superconductors are set to allow hot fusion reactors to be miniaturised, at much lower cost than now. Think of every household having its own fusion power source!

I have not given the links, or names. But if challenged on specifics I can do this and every one is more plausible than the evidence Axil cites above.

Quote from axil

But LENR is more than just energy production, it is also warped space, worm holes, monopoles, desk top black holes, teleportation, antigravity, disintegrater beams, energy shields, maybe even time travel...all that star trek stuff.

Bubble gum...!?

Quote from JedRothwell

I doubt you read the McKubre paper the video is based on. If you did read it, you failed to understand it, so you probably would not understand the video either.

Ahhh! I love the smell of a good ad hom in the morning....

As usual JR you know not whereof you speak.

Quote from interested observer

Jed, someday you will have an exchange with someone who doesn’t see things the way you do and you will refrain from attacking and insulting them.

You attack and insult yourself. I merely point out that is what you doing. Anyone can see that you are repeatedly demanding information from me which you then refuse to look at. You asked about similar experiments in multiple labs. I told you to look at the video (or the script and notes, which is faster). The script addresses that very issue. It is one of the main themes. So anyone who did look at the video will know that you did not bother to glance at it, but instead accused me sending you on a wild goose chase to an irrelevant "compendium." (A six minute video is a compendium?!?)

You do this again, and again, and again. You demand information; I give it to you; you don't look and you demand the same thing again. How many times do you expect to get away with that? Who are you trying to kid? You are not Lucy and I am not Charlie Brown. You can't keep jerking the football away. Don't you see that you are making yourself look foolish?

You make a fool of yourself in front of everyone and then you accuse me of insulting you! Shanahan is even worse. His latest is to pretend there could be a giant fan in a room where I told him no such fan exists, and there is no room for one. I proved that by uploading a photo of the room. But he has said that countless times, and he will say it again. Like you, he makes a fool of himself and then blames other people. The only ad hominem here is Shanahan against himself, and you against yourself.