Quote from JedRothwell

For example, programmers and engineers may be somewhat antisocial but they are usually honest about technical issues because you can't lie to a computer. As Rudyard Kipling put it, machines "are not built to comprehend a lie."

You would think that scientists are similarly constrained. Nature is not built to comprehend a lie either. Many of them are constrained, but others I think are not. They resemble programmers who never ship a product, but only vaporware. I mean scientists whose work is not replicated. There have been several scandals in recent years about this.

Of course there are many honorable, hard-working scientists.

I am wondering what happened to the Rossi-Gullstrom anti-matter theory. Has this progressed and what happened to Gullstrom and Mats Lewan? They seemed to have disappeared.

https://e-catworld.com/2017/12…cat-producing-antimatter/

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Wow. Interesting credentials. Can you say: "conspiracy theories?"

I sympathize with his credentials, Paleo, yes Im old. Libertarian, yes. Capitalist, for sure. Anarcho, well not that one.

Shane, thank you for giving me the opportunity to better explain my position on some sensitive aspects of this debate. You have raised many important points, and I 'd like to reply in detail.

Quote from Shane D.

But you strongly imply fraud, and that is just as bad as saying it. It is obvious to everyone where you are going with this. If you will, please stop with the insinuations about sinister motives.

No, I'm not implying any fraud. Fraud has a very specific legal meaning: "the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right." So, to be considered fraudulent, intentional deceits should have the motive to deprive someone of money, or the likes. Contrary to many people here on L-F, I've never talked about these sinister motives. So, I'd will but I can't stop doing something that I've never done.

Quote

That includes all involved, …

Yes, of course, stopping to imply fraud should includes all those involved in our discussion, even Rossi. My opinion is that any accusation or insinuation of fraud against anyone should stop. I hope the mods will urge everyone to avoid using words like fraud, fraudulent, fraudster, scam, scam artist, and so on. A web site is not a court, and no one has been judged guilty for the facts we are talking about.

Quote

…. from the UOB professors, …

As for the UniBo professors, I didn't insinuate anything. Instead, I openly pointed out that the UniBo calorimetric report on the January 2011 demo contains 3 misrepresentations of the calorimetric data, which caused the overestimation of both the output power (by a factor greater than 15) and the total energy (by a factor greater than 30). Having these amazing results "revived immense worldwide interest in the whole field of LENR", as reported in 2015 by the scientific journal "Current Science" in its special issue on LENR, I think it is very important – from a mere (pseudo)scientific point of view - to know where these misrepresentations came from.

Quote

… to Prof. Price.

Could you please better specify what I would have unfairly insinuated against him? I just openly criticized the way he applied the concept of "reputation trap" to Rossi and to LENR field. I think it's legit.

Quote

Yes, it smacks of censorship, but even more important to us is to protect respected scientists reputations from destructive speculation.

I fully agree with this basic principle. In addition, I would say that also normal people and their trust in science must be protected. The best way for scientists to protect both their reputation and science is to follow what said by THH (1) "… science flourishes from opennness and the willingness of academics to publish ideas, accept criticism, and reply to it, all in the open so that anyone can judge who is right." Let me ask you again (2), do you agree with this sentence?

Quote

I do not mean to dissuade you from critiquing their testing methods, or results...that is fair game as part of the peer review process. Just stay away from the personal stuff.

This is what I'm already doing. I'm discussing the results of the 2011 Ecat tests, which were brought directly to everyone's attention by means of internet and other media, so they are not personal stuff. These results are wrong, and I think it's fair to understand how it could have happened.

(1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

(2) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

Perma-banned? Don't turn this into ECW. The evidence that there is a conspiracy to promote LENR in Italy is just as strong as the evidence that their are vast conspiracies to suppress LENR, lacking. I don't see threats of perma-banning of those people. Particularly on this thread, "the old west." If you don't like the conspiracy theory, rebut it or ignore it. If I was a moderator I would move your post to clearance, as being too hostile.

Quote from Alan Smith

If you continue to imply that there is some kind of conspiracy to promote LENR - which I suspect you consider to be impossible - at the taxpayers expense

I wish there were such a conspiracy! I am not usually in favor of purloining public money, but I would make an exception. It is for a good cause and what's morality without flexibility? This is in Italy, don't forget.

Anyway, seriously, I do not think this calls for banning Ascoli.

On the Ascoli65 issue.

I agree with him about quite a lot, but not about the utility of knowing where those 2011 test misrepresentations come from. It is in the realm of "cannot know" because we can never know the thought processes of other people, only what they do. in this case one or more academics write a report which multiple academics signed off (how officially I don't know) as correct.

Where I disagree with ascoli is that the appearance of academics validating this report, which indeed created significant public and other interest, is a matter worth investigating. Academics are naturally trusting of colleagues and anyone else (including alas Rossi) who advances an interesting proposition. They rely on the natural ability of science to correct errors, and suppose it unlikely that anyone will deliberately falsify data. This happens very rarely. On the other hand stating things that are wrong, presenting (processed) data which is wrong, even presenting raw data which is wrong, for many reasons, happens a lot. One reason it is not a good idea in science to point figures at possible deliberate malfeasance without very clear evidence is that it inhibits communication. Everyone makes mistakes and since determining whether something wrong is a mistake, or some deliberate falsification, is difficult and causes much stress for everyone better not to do it in any case where there is doubt.

That might seem unjust - cheats get away with cheating - but it is far preferable to many more innocent but mistaken scientists accused unjustly of dishonesty.

Quote from Shane D.

Not so easy as that. LF has become very popular. Much of LENR land tunes in here to keep abreast of developments, and weigh in on matters. Many of them are insiders, and some of them were involved with the Rossi story. We need them, and their participation here for the good of the field. Allow too much speculation about their motives, however carefully worded, and they go away.

Ascoli has made his point many times over.

I understand the exigencies of the forum, Shane, and appreciate your kindness and sincerity in saying that my position may hurt them. Let me take it as an acknowledgement of the solidity of my arguments.

Yes, I had the opportunity to express my points of view many times, so, not having other argument to share with the people here, it's time for me to take a vacation.

Thanks for your sympathy, … and for not having raised the "conspiracy" issue

Quote from Alan Smith

Ascoli65has made 2260 posts, the great majority of them on this one topic and recently has started to drag in more 'innocent bystanders' . Enough already, time for a little hostility on the mods part.

Right now, my score is only 421 posts (2260 are the points), which is a small fraction compared to many L-F users, with positions very far from mine. If my few posts are able to grab "innocent bystanders", it probably means that they have solid bases, and can't be easily rebutted. I'll take that as a compliment.

Anyway, until now - apart from some sporadic episodes - my comments have benefitted of a fair tolerance on the part of the administrators of this forum. I prefer not to turn it into open hostility or an unfair ban, so I let you regain the lost "innocent bystanders".

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Perma-banned? Don't turn this into ECW. The evidence that there is a conspiracy to promote LENR in Italy is just as strong as the evidence that their are vast conspiracies to suppress LENR, lacking. I don't see threats of perma-banning of those people. Particularly on this thread, "the old west." If you don't like the conspiracy theory, rebut it or ignore it. If I was a moderator I would move your post to clearance, as being too hostile.

Thanks for your support.

Quote from JedRothwell

I wish there were such a conspiracy! I am not usually in favor of purloining public money, but I would make an exception. It is for a good cause and what's morality without flexibility? This is in Italy, don't forget.

Anyway, seriously, I do not think this calls for banning Ascoli.

I also would have preferred it to be a conspiracy, so it would have been a single episode, limited to a group of conspirators. Unfortunately we are dealing with a widespread habit, not only in Italy. In today's society, science, research and, hence, academy have achieved the status of religion. Science provides hope in some salvation, and scientists are considered holy wizards, their good faith can never be doubted.

Anyway, thanks for your fair intervention.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Everyone makes mistakes and since determining whether something wrong is a mistake, or some deliberate falsification, is difficult and causes much stress for everyone better not to do it in any case where there is doubt.

I fully agree with you, and with this fundamental scruple in dealing with controversial facts, but .. the misrepresentations I'm talking about cannot be explained in any other way than deliberate falsification.

If you keep having in mind the Lugano report, which indeed produced a mess of raw and processed data, while talking about the January 2011 demo, without considering its specific and much more simple data, you will never realize how impossible it is that these wrong data derived from inadvertent mistakes. This will tell you a lot from where it came all the subsequent Ecat farce.

I told you the same things many times, so I don't think that this time will be different. If you want to understand what I mean, you will find what you need in my previous comments, otherwise you can choose to wait forever for a conclusive proof.

Greetings everybody.

“California requiring 100% clean energy by 2045 will cost about $350+ billion in energy storage”

What are you waiting for Andrea?

Quote from Shane D.

1. Anonymous August 31, 2018 at 6:22 AM

   I watched the almost 3 hours of the convincing and well measured test made in Stockholm on November 24 2017 of the Ecat (source Youtube).

   I noticed at the end the public applauded: were there also nuclear physics of the mainstream science?

Always good for a laugh! Never leave us Andrea.

Rossi sure spends a lot of time trying to upend the reality that the Stockholm demo was the least convincing demo he ever did, and the extremely poorly made measurements were anything but incredibly awful.

The audience was probably applauding the chance to get out of there and have dinner and a beer or glass of wine somewhere, rather than the world’s worst and most boring magic show.

Rossi simply has plenty of time. Writing he is working hard only means he is very busy to stay tuned to his many sock puppets and having a hard time to not mess up things (e.g. signing questions with AR... 😄

Quote

As the babblers seem to be running our of insults for Rossi, here is a new targer. http://e-catworld.com/2018/08/…production-press-release/

You could start with "It's not American" and go on about the "lack of third party verification" for fifty times.

@Adrian Ashfield

Right. That company has many earmarks of a typical high tech, midlevel investor scam. Unless you have exact details on who and how their "technology" was verified. In general, e-catworld.com, like PES before it, has almost exclusively scams powering their stories. Present company (Alan and Russ) most emphatically excluded. I am not even sure they are covered in ECW. They make too much sense.

Signed: Your Trusty Babbler

Quote from Shane D.

Para,

I agree. Why does he spend so much his sockpuppet's time hyping that demo? About a month ago, one even claimed the video had gone viral. What is he trying to accomplish? If only I could get into his head. Well, maybe that is not such a good idea!

I’m also wondering why Rossi so desperately tries to pimp up the “Stockholm event”.

When the success of that show is so important to him, then it is hard to understand how he and Fabiani could mess it up so badly!

Getting caught on camera flipping some switches on the PSU - that should not happen.

One could easily design a PSU which detects what load is connected on it, and automatically switches the supply voltage and/or current depending whether the “dummy resistor” is connected, or an el heater (aka “reaktor”) is connected. - No manual flipping of switches required.

And also, it would be easy to hide a 20Wh battery (e.g the batter pack from a notebook) inside the PSU, and power the “reactor” for 1 hour from that battery. - Then Rossi could show the (almost no) power consumption of the PSU as well, and wouldn’t have to come up with ridiculous excuses why the PSU draws more power from the grid than the reactor “produces”.

Wondering if Rossi will consider such “improvements” for his next “convincing” demo.

If not, he will lose another 50% of his remaining supporters.

Quote from Shane D.

Para,

I agree. Why does he spend so much his sockpuppet's time hyping that demo? About a month ago, one even claimed the video had gone viral. What is he trying to accomplish? If only I could get into his head. Well, maybe that is not such a good idea!

I suppose one day the video may disappear but the hundreds of “convinced” posts may remain to attest to its convincingness.

Or perhaps if the mantra is repeated enough, Rossi’s conscious will shift into the universe where his crap works.

Or maybe he has been doing this for years, but now his over-the-internet hypnosis ability is failing, and we finally see the strings of the marionetteer. (Didn't he recently claim to be a marionetteer?)