Adrians’s heels are so firmly dug in now there is absolutely nothing that will convince him Rossi and his Ecat are frauds.
It is stupid to come to a certain conclusion before you have enough facts to know for sure.
If the QX works or diesb't work, unlike you, I will be right. If it works you will have public ally demonstrated your poor judgement.
Display MoreThat's your kind method of answering. Avoid the critical part.
I said" The Stockholm Demo was convincing me, in not to believe in RossiSays/MatsLewanSays".
You asked why! You avoid any serious answer to specific tech questions! You are really an engineer?!
"Why so desperate to convert me? Who cares?"
I'm not on the road to "CONVERT" you.
I would like to have an answer from an educated enigineer, zig long years in business, experiance and knowledge to some simple questions about electric engineering and schematics, circuits, layout, data and common calculations with Ohm and Kirchhoff.
Got nothing back in substantional.
Only babbling by AA. Yes, that's YOU! A Babbler! RossiSaysBabbler!
Man, you had a career in industrial workmanship. Did you loose it al?
Okay, got it, put you back on BLOCK LIST, so I don't have to read your nonsense.
It it is offensise this time, well, it's well placed and deliberate,
OVER AND OUT.
Bang, I appreciate your posts and your willingness to enter the lists. PLEASE do not put AA on block -- that would deprive us of another educated avenue for examining and critiquing AA's babblings.
AA, I have not forgotten that I still owe you a response -- however, in addition to my kidney stone problems I am sure I mentioned (but not more than 20 or 30 times), I tripped over myself a week and a half ago and broke (clean breaks fortunately) two ribs on the left side and am in some discomfort. But please don't let my delay in responding prevent you from answering the real world practical application certification and licensure questions I asked a few weeks ago, all of which I am sure you would have had to deal with in your vast experience in designing, overseeing the construction and running of large scale industrial plants. Please let me know if you can't easily find them and I will be most delighted to repost for your convenience.
Estimate of what the QX spectrum (2636 K black body) should look like on the StellarNet spectrometer software (used in Stockholm).
(The power density of the QX is reported to be about 274000 W/m2, which dwarfs that of typical sunlight on the Earth’s surface, and therefore light bulbs lighting a room comfortably).
If the QX works or diesb't work, unlike you, I will be right.
Brilliant Adrian! A non-falsifiable opinion. I think Einstein was going to go in that direction as well. His original paper was said to have claimed "E may equal MC^2, or it may not, let's see". Then realizing he would be the laughing stock of the physics world he actually published a real theory. Karl Popper is rolling over in his grave when he reads your "right" statements. Let me have a go at this. The moon probably is made of Swiss cheese. And don't give me this NASA moon rocks bunk, those trips were a scam.
Display MoreThe only relevant question to LENR is how it has been possible that a controversial man like Rossi climbed in a few years at its top, eventually ending being almost identified with the whole field.
The answer is very simple, and has been unequivocally revealed by the Ecat affair. Being LENR inexistent, the only achievable target is convincing as many people as possible for as long as possible that there could exists such an ephemeral phenomenon. It is not possible to get more, in particular it is not possible to have a replicable LENR method or device. This is the reason why a philosopher and marathon runner like Rossi has become the champion of this field. The only winning strategy for LENR is wait&see, change horse and wait&see, change again and wait&see, and so on. AR on JoNP - and his supporters on the other websites - are just applying this strategy, month after month, year after year.
This strategy lasted for almost 30 years thanks to the credibility provided by academics who have been allowed to produce and disseminate erroneous and even misrepresented experimental data without any effective scrutiny and adequate criticism by their peers (except during the first few months), also benefitting from the protection of their scientific institutions, and from the patronage of some political apparatuses.
CF/LENR is a big bluff. A bluff is not replicable, but it can only be raised again, and again, and again, …
I must strongly disagree with much of what you just wrote: I am not a scientist nor a engineer, and have made that clear in my postings. However, I tend to be of the school that what man can dream, he can ultimately achieve (except my becoming incredibly handsome, I dream, I dream, but nothing). I don't KNOW for certain that CF/LENR is possible, but I believe we should continue investigating, trying and yes, often stumbling in the dark.
Now, as to Rossi, I think we agree that he is a complete fraud and, at least in my opinion, a loathsome deceitful individual as well.
LEASE do not put AA on block -- that would deprive us of another educated avenue for examining and critiquing AA's babblings.
I believe he meant for himself only. He will block the messages so that he cannot see them. This may reduce high blood pressure and frustration.
Regarding your health problems, I hope you feeling betting. And actually getting better. Take care. If you have high blood pressure, ask your doctor about blocking AA's postings.
AA: “If the QX works or doesn’t work, unlike you, I will be right.“
In your own mind, perhaps. To the rest of the world, you are the consummate hard-core Rossi believer.
I think Einstein was going to go in that direction as well. His original paper was said to have claimed "E may equal MC^2, or it may not, let's see".
Actually, he didn't even write most of those equations. He just took the Lorentz transformations and said: "Hey, you know what? This stuff may not be just a mathematical construct. It could be real."
Oh, and Heaviside figured out that E=MC^2 before Einstein, but he didn't bother to publish. Such a recluse!
I am totally with Shane.D on this. You are on very thin ice. 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 then you will find yourself perma-banned. It's very simple, and entirely your choice.
Alan, I don't interpret Ascoli's remarks as proposing that there was a conspiracy, although I may be wrong. I read his remarks as suggesting (a suggestion with which I agree) that, (1) as you have noted, the people involved are all humans and, by definition are capable of not only making mistakes but also being susceptible to pride, hubris, shame and all of the other human failings; and (2) institutional and bureaucratic structures are not well designed to handle situations where one person, in this instance Rossi, has taken advantage of academics and other professional and has put them in, essentially, compromising positions.
To me, Rossi took advantage of a lot of people, many of whom would prefer that their involvement could somehow be airbrushed out of history. Assuming Ascoli is correct on his engineering analysis (and applying AA's standard, I have no reason to doubt Ascoli), the original measurements as reported don't work out. If so, the academics involved have, from many viewpoints, two choices: admit they made a mistake in their work (including not doing a thorough job) or admit they were suckered -- neither of these choices is attractive. So they exercise a third option, one we really don't like -- they just ignore the issue assuming that with the passage of time their involvement will be forgotten or forgiven. I dln't view that as a conspiracy but rather as basic human nature.
Alan, that was a long winded way of saying that I don't think his comments deserve banning. But it is not my board. I usually prefer a more open environment, but again, I am a guest here.
Display MoreJed,
You can bring an Adrian to water,
but you can’t make him read data.
Adrians’s heels are so firmly dug in now there is absolutely nothing that will convince him Rossi and his Ecat are frauds.
This would be tantamount to him admitting he was conned and wasn’t smart enough to see thru the conn.
And that is impossible, he is smarter than all of us, just ask him.
His retorts are funny though
It seems funny to me that there has been a great deal of speculation here lately as to the behaviour and actions of the academics who initially backed Rossi's claims. Some here still believe in Rossi's, and the academics', claims while others cannot understand why the academics haven't publicly admitted that they were wrong.
The funny, or strange part, for me is that we have a ongoing example of the various arguments made about the academics' behaviour -- that being AA (who I fully admit I like to go after for my disagreements with his positions and logic). ASSUMING that Rossi, and the ecat/sk/qx/widget of the day, are bogus, which to many of us is clear beyond any dispute based on the evidence/lack of evidence/engineering issues/Rossi's unfamiliarity with the truth, why is AA so resistant to agreeing that Rossi ain't real.
AA claims that he is a highly experienced individual and not only do I have no reason to doubt him, but I believe him. AA comes across as highly intelligent and capable of reasoning logically and rationally. All of which begs the question then of his unwavering faith in Rossi -- is this because he knows something that the rest of us don't, is it because he sees something we don't, is it because he truly, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is keeping a completely open mind while the rest of us are so prejudiced against/jealous of Rossi that we are incapable of being fair judges, or is it because AA has invested so much of his time, his energy, his failing eyesight into believing in Rossi that he cannot now possibly consider not believing him, or is it that the reputational cost of having to admit being suckered by, or just wrong about, Rossi would be, in AA's estimation, too great.
I truly am not trying to pick on AA here or attack him and I get the feeling that AA and I would agree on many other issues, but I find his behaviour confusing here. It would be one thing to discuss disagreements rationally and logically, but ad hominem attacks don't move a discussion forward. And no, this is not an ad hominem attack -- I am questioning AA's behaviour because I don't understand it.
Alan, I don't interpret Ascoli's remarks as proposing that there was a conspiracy, although I may be wrong.
In general he is a little cautious, but having read many of his posts, I stand by my assertions.
The subject was the QX, not whether Rossi was a liar. You have lied about me, so should everything you now write be discounted?
Except I don't want to rehash Doral, if you gave an actual example I could probably argue the point. You only look at IH's point of view.
In #6283 I asked for examples to substantiate your factually wrong general statements, which you have not given. You are not in a strong area when it comes to details because they do not support your views.
The subject was the QX, not whether Rossi was a liar. You have lied about me, so should everything you now write be discounted?
Except I don't want to rehash Doral, if you gave an actual example I could probably argue the point. You only look at IH's point of view.
Adrian,
From your point of view, as a professional engineer, would you, under any circumstances, any conditions, ever MEASURE energy the way Rossi did?
Yes or no.
I have learned something new about science. If something is published in a paper and there is no subsequent paper disproving the claims of the first paper, then the claims of the first paper are proven. So the secret to success in science is to make sure nobody reads your papers.
Here I thought Adrian was out there with his contention that if the e-cat QX was not proven to be a fraud, then it is legitimate.
Welcome to the brave new world.
Brilliant Adrian! A non-falsifiable opinion.
The babblers, mot being very bright, keep writing my opinion on the QX is wrong.
Thank you for pointing out that it's not.
Back, just to answer your comments.
I tend to be of the school that what man can dream, he can ultimately achieve
Please, consider the difference between dreaming and sleep-walking. First is pleasant, second is dangerous.
QuoteNow, as to Rossi, I think we agree that he is a complete fraud
Sorry, I don't agree. He is a PR man, the best ever in the CF/LENR history.
I dln't view that as a conspiracy but rather as basic human nature.
Now, we agree.
All of which begs the question then of his unwavering faith in Rossi
I don't know what his reasons are, but here they are the justifications AA provides:
| New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry) Various well known scientists have witnessed the various E-Cats working and Parkhomov has even replicated one.
|
|
2. Do you think Forcardi was stupid? He worked with Rossi and believed the effect was real. Levi's original experiments with just water (not steam) showed huge amounts of excess heat beyond any possible experimental error. Later demos showed mixed results. I think the one with a heat exchanger wasn't that bad and even if one thermocouple was a bit too close to the hot side, how do you explain the heat after death going on for so long?
|
|
What about Focardi and the professors who were members of the scetic's society? They said they were looking carefully for deception. And as members of the skeptic's society had had plenty of practice. I believe them more than an anonymous babbler who has never been near a LENR reactor. When an anonymous babbler, who has no known experience of LENR, says that respected scientists who have actually examined LENR reactors are fools for not detecting fraud and that he knows better, that is being arrogant. The critics take IH's word for everything as gospel and ignore scientists who have a better track record than IH. How many of the now hundreds who have witnessed a Rossi demonstrations, (apart from Krivit who Rossi reportedly caught trying to take a sample of the fuel) have complained or stated they were fraudulent?
|
|
Because many competent scientists think Rossi has discovered something useful and discussing that possibility is better than pages of babble saying that he hasn't.
|
These are valid arguments, until you look carefully at what the well known scientists and respected professors wrote and declared about the Ecat performances.
Greetings.
Re 6283 (asked for examples)
The QX demo showed the QX size, color and way that the QX needs operator intervention in the form of switches changed during tests"
The only thing missing was the resistance of the QX, for which, for now, you should take Rossi's word for it. It will be confirmed one way of the other soon enough.
I have no proof that that UFOs piloted by green-skinned aliens don't exist, and many people (more than just Rossi) claim this. Does that mean we should be getting ready for an alien invasion?
Typical. Comparing LENR with UFOs. Peer reviewed papers showing replications of F & P apparently mean nothing to you
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheimporta.pdf
I don't know of any well known scientists who have withdrawn support. Do you? See the several pages of scientists and organization listed under FACT 1A here: http://www.lenrproof.com/slide_05.html
I'm not inclined to wade through your walls of text to show you samples of where you expressed certainty, but you have. I'm surprised you nrought up 6283 as the main point of your comment was demolished by several replies.
Adrian, let me remind you what you said which i quoted in #6283:
(1) Is that really the best you can do? You and the babblers write pages about Rossi not having proof, but it is apparently OK for you and the babblers to state things with certainty about which you have no proof
Typical. Comparing LENR with UFOs. Peer reviewed papers showing replications of F & P apparently mean nothing to you
When have I compared LENR with UFOS? I'm comparing Rossi's claims with UFOs - very different. Misrepresenting other people's views is an easy way to sustain arguments, but not a correct one. My comment on the subject re LENR had a reply from McKubre here saying that he agreed. And I'm willing to bet I've studied those peer-reviewed papers in a lot more detail than you: so they certainly don't mean nothing to me.
(2) It's not like UFOs when a Nobel prize winner and many well known scientists support it. You are confused. taking the words of anonymous babblers here as meaning something.
I don't know of any well known scientists who have withdrawn support. Do you?
You have not been able to provide the name of even one well-known scientist who currently supports Rossi. Absence of disproof is not the same as evidence - a mistake that you make repeatedly with Rossi's demos. As i've pointed out no demo at all would equally have absence of disproof, and equally be unsatisfactory. As PhysicsForDummies has pointed out the views you hold are undisprovable and therefore essentially worthless. However the arguments you use to support those views can be disproved - specifically as here where you make two cavalier statements for which you have no evidence.
You have not been able to provide the name of even one well-known scientist who currently supports Rossi.
Under current circumstances that would be equivalent to doxxing. Unfair question.
Under current circumstances that would be equivalent to doxxing. Unfair question.
Not at all. Adrian is arguing that public support for Rossi from prominent scientists gives Rossi credibility. Lack of that does not.
for example, maybe there are several scientists who quietly believe in UFOs, and tell their friends this, but are inhibited from making their support public. That is quite different from somone prepared to stand up for the UFOs with scientific evidence, however controversial.
Before you say it - there are quite a number of scientists willing to stand up for LENR, as the literature will tell you. They may be correct or not, but they advance reasons for their views in a proper and (possibly dispovable) manner.
