ele- Please give reference , proof, that Penon took data from his system. Rossi said he had to deliver it at a set time each day. Do you believe Rossi?
Notice that IH requested the raw digital data 3 times in court and Rossi refused to deliver it and the court is considering sanctions on those grounds (not sure what became of that)
Riven by factions and feuds, capable of extraordinary venom and discord that actually destroys the credibility of all concerned, no matter where on the spectrum of belief they may be located.
I don't think this moral equivalence holds! There are some individuals who have destroyed their credibility entirely, elsewhere or on this forum. (Some of them do not seem to wish to maintain credibility.) There are some whose credibility is safely intact. I will leave it to readers to determine where the overall balance lies, but obviously not everyone will judge a diverse group of self-selecting observers on the basis of the lack of credibility of some of them. The picture of LENR watchers is not as dire as you make it out, even at a high level, it seems to me. Anyone who approaches this topic quickly realizes that the entire spectrum of people on the internet, of all kinds and temperaments and naivety and intelligence, are there, with the expected results.
and ample evidence that his Ni+LiAlH4 system does not work
Again and again generic statements..... there is also evidence that that system do work ( Parchkomov, and Chinese groups ) a failed replica is not a proof (e.g. DC current heating notoriously does not work).
Also Ni+LiAlH4 is not the same technology of Doral.
This mean levi, and worst of all the Swedish professors, have lied to us.
Alain you also seems not to know how modern data acqisition apparatus work.
I see also that you are part of the club "Insult Levy every day, keep the Doctor Phd away!"
Strange (for you) that Levy and all the others are still publishing in peer reviewed journals and maintain their positions.
An earlier post from Forty-Two about Penon's data acquisition.
ele - looking back, I see no way that the flow data was taken by Penon. It doesn't seem to have a remote logging but it had to be read off the meter by someone (who was not Penon).
Do you have some proof that Penon was able to remotely view the data directly from the meter and not through someone else reading the meter?????
My guess is you will not answer directly. You often seem to avoid the real questions.
You would have less an appearance of bias if you acknowledged this fact and applied it to these words, noting that given Rossi's past record what he says here provides no useful validation for what really happened. That is not what your previous words here seem to indicate.
Not sure you are the best person to lecture on bias.
I don't think this moral equivalence holds! There are some individuals who have destroyed their credibility entirely, elsewhere or on this forum.
Eric Walker . Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear, my fault. When I said ....extraordinary venom and discord that actually destroys the credibility of all concerned....I really meant the 'all' to represent the whole LENR field. Anybody looking into it for the first time- be they scientist or interested layman is likely to recoil in horror at some of the bickering and insults proffered, as you say here, or 'elsewhere '.
Ele seems to be greatly ignorant of previous explanations of flawed replications and calls people out on things that everyone already knows (that digital data collection systems exist). Then ele talks with who knows what level of inside knowledge claiming that Doral was not based on Ni+LiAlH4. It is a good thing if so, because Ni+LiAlH4 shows no credible evidence of ever working! I can provide you a long list of scores of negative replications along with evidence that improved methodology is associated with disappearance of COP>1. Can you provide any evidence of a credible experiment replicating the ecat?
Not sure you are the best person to lecture on bias.
Perhaps this is the point of misunderstanding. I do not think THH or myself would state we are not biased. I know that I am. I state it openly and I try to qualify that bias with facts and logic. It appears to some at least, that you state you are not biased and only seeking truth, yet truly answer with a great bias.
That was my above point. If someone makes a post and states that the "it looks like the heat exchanger existed", then either they believe this post or they are being dishonest and simply trolling! Why would someone make a post, yet not believe it? So with all your posts about the heat exchanger, you are saying you believe it and Rossi is telling the truth. Otherwise why would you post several pages on it unless your are just trolling? And then much of the posts is on very flimsy evidence!
You accuse IH of being the worst thing that could happen to LENR, yet completely ignore how BAD Rossi has been! These statements clearly indicate a strong allegiance to Rossi, but then when called out, your are "only seeking the truth".
So at least to me, it is not about being biased, it is about being upfront and not being hypocritical. If you truly believe there is a heat exchanger, so be it. Be ready to provide your reasoning and stand behind it. But do not post pages and then state "I never said I really believed"! 
So with all your posts about the heat exchanger, you are saying you believe it and Rossi is telling the truth. Otherwise why would you post several pages on it unless your are just trolling?
This is where I think you misunderstand. There is wide gulf between recognizing and highlighting evidence for something, and embracing something as true. Evidence comes in a wide variety flavors, weights, significance, etc. I would like to think that all here are weighing the evidence and letting that guide their thoughts. Unfortunately, what I mostly observe is that some here take great offense when evidence of something is highlighted, if it contradicts their preconceived notions of reality. I'm not saying that I have a monopoly on reality--I'd tend to think nobody does.
At some point, however, one's will and bias must bend to an accumulation of evidence. For some, that takes time. For example, for Jed, he believed (and might actually still believe) that there was a single DN40 exit pipe from the 1 MW plant. This flies in the face of reason, flies in the face of deposition testimony, and flies in the face of IH's own expert. But Jed still seems to believe it. That is an example of not letting the evidence guide one's positions.
Anybody looking into it for the first time- be they scientist or interested layman is likely to recoil in horror at some of the bickering and insults proffered, as you say here, or 'elsewhere '.
I think it is normal for academic science. I first met Fleischmann when he came to MIT to give a lecture. The microphone and speakers in the lecture hall were not working. The first thing I heard him say was: "That's quite alright. I am used to shouting. I've been an academic all my life." Woodrow Wilson, who was president of Princeton U. said that academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so small.
Generally speaking, compared to other professions, I think academic science has more lying, cheating, plagiarism and corruption because there is no accountability. People get away with bad behavior. There have been several mass media articles about that lately. Such as:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0…e/cancer-carlo-croce.html
"Years of Ethics Charges, but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass"
Here is an article about inept research:
"The Impostor Cell Line That Set Back Breast Cancer Research
It’s but one example of a major problem in cancer science."
http://www.slate.com/articles/…east_cancer_research.html
A reader comment:
"If people knew what researchers were really like they would be stunned. Their personality type is very ruthless and dishonest work and conclusion is the norm. I work at a famous university medical center and we have a few of the 'stars' here. Most of the time it's the postdocs who do the work and the researcher is nowhere near it. Their name is on the paper but that's about it. The pressure external and from themselves to publish and succeed is insane."
I guess things have changed. I haven't worked in a pure research environments since the 70's. Then in many places in the UK it was both collegiate and convivial - the era of peace and love perhaps? In the 90's working as a lecturer at what is now called 'The Cass Foundation' in London I did find the kind of atmosphere you suggest was prevalent, but most of the nonsense was carried out by stealth.
I guess things have changed. I haven't worked in a pure research environments since the 70's. Then in many places in the UK it was both collegiate and convivial - the era of peace and love perhaps?
Things have changed? Wilson was president of Princeton in 1902. Fleischmann's career began in the 1940s. There are many accounts of vicious academic politics in Newton's day.
I am sure there have always been convivial academic departments as well.
There is wide gulf between recognizing and highlighting evidence for something, and embracing something as true.
There is no evidence at all for the mezzanine heat exchanger. Photos do not show any pipes going to it. Photos of the room show there are no electrical connections or holes.
For example, for Jed, he believed (and might actually still believe) that there was a single DN40 exit pipe from the 1 MW plant. This flies in the face of reason, flies in the face of deposition testimony, and flies in the face of IH's own expert. But Jed still seems to believe it. That is an example of not letting the evidence guide one's positions.
You misunderstand. I suppose it is DN40 because that is what people saw when the equipment was intact. Rossi tore it out so there's no telling what it was. I am not sure. The main thing is, I do not give a fart about the size of the pipe. It is inconsequential. The pipe might have been 6" or 2'. That would not have affected the analysis. There are dozen reasons why the claims are impossible. One of them was that the pipe was too small. Even if that was not the case, that still leaves all the other reasons. So who cares what the diameter was? You obsess about this because you imagine that if you can disprove this one small argument the other arguments will magically go away. This resembles your absurd claim there was no glass in the windows. First of all, anyone can see there was glass. Second, even if there wasn't, the window is nowhere near big enough for a 1 MW heat exchanger, and no one in his right mind would put one there. You would put it on the roof or outside.
Dear Andrea,
I do hope you are recovering well. It really concerns me. Have you
started to play tennis with your wife again during the easter days?
Last time when I wished you well for your health, you did not answer.
Maybe I used the wrong words, for which I apologize in that case.
Just a few questions about your progress with the QuarkX.
1. Dous the measurements with proper calometry instrumentation confirm measurements done in the past?
2. Does your co-operation with Mr Gullström improve your progress with the QuarkX?
3. Does your strong co-operation with Gullström mean that you also
believe that neutrons can move from one atom to another under some
circumstances?
4. Are you still also co-operating with professor Cook to improve the theory?
Thank you for answering our questions.
Kind regards, Gerard
Gerard McEk:
Thank you for your care. I am well. You have nothing to apologize about.
Answers:
1- The COP is lower, but in the same order of magnitude
2- Yes
3- Our paper speaks for itself and I prefer not to add anything, pending a substantial review of it
4- I have enormous esteem for Norman Cook, whose book has inspired my
work since the day it has been published ( I bought a copy of the first
edition several days after its publication, same thing I did after the
publication of the second edition ). Of course our collaboration will
continue and we have agreed upon the next starting point, when I will be
able to give him data that now I cannot supply. As you have seen in the
documents published of the litigation, IH has accused me to have
violated the NDA with the publication of the paper Cook-Rossi: while
this accusation is ridiculous, since they had approved the draft before
the publication on Arxiv Physics, this fact explains to you how mined is
the field I have to walk through.The theoretical work on course with
Carl-Oscar Gullstroem is perfectly conciliable with the atomic structure
theorized by Prof Norman Cook.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
IH worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success. But the Cook-Rossi scientific paper better not be published on Arxiv, or else! I mean, if IH loses control of the all-without-success-unsubstantiated e-Cat technology, it would be an outright travesty for IH and its investors.
This is where I think you misunderstand. There is wide gulf between recognizing and highlighting evidence for something, and embracing something as true. Evidence comes in a wide variety flavors, weights, significance, etc. I would like to think that all here are weighing the evidence and letting that guide their thoughts.
IHFB,
You make it sound like this is some heated debate over something nuanced, but what we know already shows it to be nothing of the sort. Nothing nuanced, weighted, or flavored about it...Rossi made up a fake company, dismantled equipment and lied on multiple occasions, all to which he tacitly admits to doing in his own testimony. So are we supposed to sugar coat that, so as not to ruffle feathers?
It is as if we have a photo of Rossi over the body, bloody knife in hand, and you want us to consider that the photo does not show him actually stabbing the victim, or that perhaps the victim was not such a good person either.
Shane,
I understand that the JMP ruse is the go-to now for anti-Rossites. It is sensational. Rossi's admitting of the scheme under oath is a blockbuster. The jury will eat it up. I get it.
But I think it would be ill-advised to put on blinders to all evidence because of it. Don't just take in the evidence that appears damaging to Rossi. I would encourage you to take in all of the evidence.
