Clearance Items

  • This thread will be a kind of bargain bin for posts that are deemed to be

    • intentionally inflammatory,
    • willfully careless or of dubious factuality,
    • generally unhelpful,
    • or otherwise of low quality.

    Posts moved to this thread will be left here so that people can rummage through them in the event that there is something redeeming to be found in one of them. Posts may still end up in the playground thread as well (e.g., when they're interesting but not on the topic of the original thread). As with the playground thread, people are free to continue conversations here if they like.

  • That seems wrong to me. A typical IHFB Rossiesque comment.

    It is takes little to no effort to attack the commenter, than the address the comment itself.


    Next up will be post count, followed closely by "why is he even posting on an LENR" forum, when he obviously hates all things LENR.


    There is a playbook 101 if you know where to look.


    Moved from the me356 thread. Eric

  • Thanks,


    I'm done with LF

  • Thanks,


    I'm done with LF


    But you will be back. Just because you disagree with someone who is both intelligent and articulate does not mean to either give up or leave in a huff. Just up your game and give better arguments. "I'm done with LF" is weaksauce as the kids would say.


    BTW,

    He would not spend so much time here posting his "nonsense" just to prove that he is superior. It was covered along time ago. Just that the evidence has to be strong. I am not sure why any one of us would want to believe someones word over scientific proof anyway. That is what got us in this mess to begin with.

  • First of all, I'd stop to communicate with schematically thinking trolls at this forum, being Me356. They apparently never did any experiment, failed the less and they also have no experience with adventurous Bob Greenyer, who already announced many breakthroughs - but none of them succeeded yet. Why every experiment must be announced at public before it's actually prepared and checked first? What is the meaning of such an attitude? Greenyer is amateur and he makes damage the whole LENR community. I'd stop to collaborate with him after such an experience, being Me356. For the record, I'd also never give him my latest technology.


    Moved from the me356 thread. Eric

  • Quote

    Who told you that that me356 did not agree to publication? Where did you get this information?


    see above:

    Quote

    I was not the person who made a schedule of the test. I have never said that it is ready for testing. Tested device was far from ready and MFMP was informed about it weeks ago. At this day I have sent a message to Bob G. that it is not good to schedule without me. Also I have stated for a few times in the mail

    that day, that it is really not ready. At this time the tickets were already billed.


    I'd say, one of us cannot read English. This is first time, when I superseded native English speaker.


    Moved from the me356 thread. Eric

  • If you religiously and not scientifically think that there isn't any LENR phenomena why you are posting here ?


    I'm not back (just lurking as is my want), but I knew the playbook would happen within a couple of days.


    Shows that what I wrote in my post that was sent to TRASH, becomes true.

    Clearance Items


    No longer is anything written in the R vs D thread for fear of being sent to to the Playground or Trash.

    Rends and Eric have taken the helm for a while.


    Moved from the playground thread. Eric

  • There is nothing wrong with moderation here even if people disagree with it. It is the policy of the permaban that is broken and that will not be addressed. So I have beaten that horse to death once 5x over. I never mentioned this before since I think I have a good understanding of why it was used. But months ago when I bitchzed about it and requested a TOS I was pointed to some offsite stuff on how to behave. My point was completely lost so I will remake it.


    If you are taking money from ad revenues on your website you fundamentally have obligations to ensure proper discourse hence moderation, I get that, but without a TOS you do not have that at all. But we do things differently in the US.


    And finally as I kick that dead horse one more time. Any time we lose a voice we all lose. This my way or I am bye bye way is not adult. And you know I would not say it if it was either not true or i did not respect the reason. Let bygones be bygones.

  • You seem to disagree, and believe the Li isotopic profile demonstrates that somehow. So, please explain, with logic or evidence, why you think that the Uppsala ash analysis cannot be reasonably explained as the result of Rossi tampering versus transmutation.


    I sincerely and earnestly am interested in challenges to this conclusion, as it helps me and others on this forum learn.



    sigmoidal : As an inventor of fake facts it's up to you to proove, where we can buy 99% 62Ni (20% molar content) mixed with 80% molar content of 6,7Li with an unnatural isotope ratio.


    You have to explain us how somebody could generate such a mixture and how such a mixture can survive 1300C - just to be stable in one grain...


    What I learnt of you: The fake facts that Brian once invented must hold for ever... and that pure means 16% content like for orange juice.


    PS: Before you start the next desperate move, keep in mind that the table you consulted does not show all isotopes.., masses 23, 69 were also found in high percentages.. thus my figures given 20/80% are in reality much lower...

    Moved from this thread. Eric


  • Wyttenbach. Your reply deserves this thread.


    As I said on the main thread:

    https://www.isoflex.com/nickel-ni


    Offers Ni-62 in the purity: 98%-99.28%. There are many other suppliers, one of which sigmoidal referenced.


    I did not bother with Li, because there is a large amount of both Li-6 and Li-7 available, and in any case the low MW here means fractionation could significantly skew the ratio.


    Mixing Ni and Li not beyond Rossi's ability. Precisely how things mix cannot be ascertained from the ash since at the temperatures given the Li will melt.


    Stability is nothing to do with isotopic ratio, which will remain the same (though some fractionation might be expected of the Li in particular).


    Your comments here about fake facts are quite uncalled for, unless this is a severe case of projection and you are unconsciously imputing to others what you are doing to yourself.

  • Quote

    Do you see Dolly the Sheep as a "fact from heaven"? It's never been replicated.


    Try checking the literature. Mammalian cloning is a well established art/technology replicated hundreds of time. Specifically cloning a sheep by transfer of a cell nucleus is very inefficient (almost 300 attempts were made before Dolly was conceived) but ... well here, read this for openers and Google "mammalian cloning" to educate yourself about this, which you badly need: http://www.crystalinks.com/cloningsheep.html


    Quote

    You ask (I think) why are there not 150 rebuttal papers? Surely that is obvious. This is a phenomena that is broadly viewed as experimental error with unconvincing and incoherent results. The set of papers with coherent results KS shows could be something mundane - but most people don't bother because the effect is so low when if nuclear it would be expected to be easy to get it much higher and easily measurable. The papers showing excess heat are viewed as unconvincing. Writing a refutation is both something few people want to do (what is the point) and something few people want to publish (it makes no contribution, rebutting something not generally accepted is a particularly pointless thing to do).

    Exactly.


    And while there may be 150 papers, there are far fewer authors. Most are what some critics derisively call "the usual suspects."


    Somebody asked why I don't write about the situation with hot fusion. I can't write about everything. I have not followed hot fusion but as I understand it, predictions of success were far premature and a ton of money is being spent in research. Far as I know, nobody is fraudulently claiming a market-ready technology using hot fusion. That was my interest in Sniffex, Steorn, Rossi, Defkalion, McKubre and other Papp proponents, Miley, Swartz and Brillouin, etc. etc. -- they claimed dramatic achievements and exhibited the behavior of frauds.


    Post moved here because of over-broad characterisation of too many people as 'frauds' and following an external complaint. Alan,

  • Saying that people "exhibit the behavior of frauds" is not the same as calling them frauds. Doing science by press release promising all kinds of wonders is indeed the MO of frauds. That sort of behavior has sullied the reputation many LENR researchers regardless of their legitimacy. Maryyugo's interest in these people was piqued by this behavior, since it is possible fraudulent activity that is "her" primary focus. Go ahead and defend the work of some of these people. Perhaps it is of high quality and warrants further attention. But making dramatic announcements of breakthroughs backed up with meager details year after year that never somehow go anywhere is not the behavior of respectable scientists.

  • Saying that people "exhibit the behavior of frauds" is not the same as calling them frauds. Doing science by press release promising all kinds of wonders is indeed the MO of frauds. That sort of behavior has sullied the reputation many LENR researchers regardless of their legitimacy. Maryyugo's interest in these people was piqued by this behavior, since it is possible fraudulent activity that is "her" primary focus. Go ahead and defend the work of some of these people. Perhaps it is of high quality and warrants further attention. But making dramatic announcements of breakthroughs backed up with meager details year after year that never somehow go anywhere is not the behavior of respectable scientists.


    I find Mary's comments untactful, and would not make them myself. But I agree with this analysis: if all of the people she cited have behaved like this (I know some some have, no idea about others) then she is correct. Which is not the same as saying they are frauds.

  • Alan, I don't think your analogy holds at all although I am sure that you feel that you "got me" with it. There are many traits which fraud artists display as part of perpetrating their scams. These traits do not in themselves constitute fraudulent activity although they clearly exist to support that activity and, to the non-credulous, they are clearly suspicious. When we say that someone exhibits the behavior of a child molester, I don't think we are referring to anything other than them molesting children. I am not going to bother getting into the endless debate with you or anyone else who inexplicably and astoundingly still thinks Rossi has anything of value, but if you genuinely don't see his behavior as outrageously suspicious, then I leave you to your world view.

  • I am not bothered by what anyone says about Rossi at all, or Defkalion. All of that has been said a thousand times. so all of your comment above is way off target, you know zilch about my weltschmerz. As for endless debate, that will not happen, I assure you.


    When people (MY) hiding behind an alias (no matter how well-worn) start dragging in claims of 'fraudulent behaviour' and proffer a laundry list which include the names of several perfectly respectable scientists, and when those claims generate immediate complaints from both inside and outside the forum I am going to act. And if I do not, so would another moderator.

  • Blech... I carefully avoided characterizing all of the people and companies mentioned as frauds. I said they exhibit behavior of frauds-- in this case, giant claims, short deadlines, and ABSOLUTELY NO PERFORMANCE. All the entities I mentioned did was simply to solicit and spend money. No products, no papers of any import in mainline journals, no independent tests by properly accredited labs or companies... I could continue but it's wasted effort. And I forgot that BLP should be added to the list.


    This forum is so heavily overmanaged, it's hardly worth the trouble to write to. In fact, with the demise of ecatnews.com, there is no uncensored site which has appreciable circulation and is about claims to nickel-hydrogen LENR in particular or LENR in general. THAT tells you something about the nature of LENR. It's proponents "exhibit the behavior" I've come to expect from the owners of sites devoted to UFO's, psychics who talk to the dead, and promoters of Ponzi schemes.

  • Words lose their meaning when one suggests that McKubre, Miley or Swartz exhibit the behavior of a fraud. This goes beyond a lack of tact. It is either delusion or gross carelessness. Miley and Swartz have been accused of making claims that they've failed to adequately support, but this is entirely different than fraud.

  • Words lose their meaning when one suggests that McKube, Miley or Swartz exhibit the behavior of a fraud. This goes beyond a lack of tact. It is either delusion or gross carelessness. Miley and Swartz have been accused of making claims that they've failed to adequately support, but this is entirely different than fraud.


    Yes, and no. A pattern of making claims that are unsupported is characteristic of frauds in this area. But it does not imply fraud and may be entirely innocent. Of course a lot of companies with new technology that ends up not being commercial do exactly that.


    Logically, Mary is correct. It is not tactful because the set of people making such repeated unsupported claims is large and includes many more non-fraudulent practitioners than fraudulent ones, so the seeming implication that such behaviour implies fraud is wrong. And insulting to a whole load of misguided but honest people.


    Also, in some cases (e.g. Mills) Mary would say she has convincing evidence of fraud but others would disagree. The whole fraud conversation is unhelpful, except in extreme cases one of which is going before a Court this Summer. Much safer just to note a pattern of claims followed by non-performance and leave of trying to gauge motive.


    I'm not quarrelling with moderating such stuff. just pointing out logic.

  • Looking for various misconduct,

    instead of focusing on respected experimentsres who have been transparent and survived review (but not trolling), there is indeed meat for the chevalier of science :


    First is the pathetic erroneous Caltech paper who was not retracted or corrected of it's errors, who are as public as Defkalion critic by Luca Gamberale and E-cat pacermonitor

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


    you have the MIT data tweaking, who not only is not documented, but seems to even be manual as Jed Reports, and who launched the furor of MIT editor himself

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

    and this is not accounting for the addtional incompetent which was not enough documented (you can be honestly incompetent but document it)

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedg.pdf#page=138


    You also have the very strange peer review of Morrison article who make our beloved pet theorist sand conspiracy theorists look very serious

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


    You also have Gary Taubes conspiracy theory on tritium, and the bent inquiry against, directed by Huizenga and Parks anti-science epistemology. The impossibility of that theory and the cherry picking of data is documented.


    all that would allow good trial, and I'm sure you would be competent in finding the crimes, if motivated.


    so, Mary you you want to denounce fraudulent behaviors, and why not academic misconduct, or epistemoly errors, I propose you attack first the clear example. I'm sure I will share the 2 first on your list, like many people here, but afterward I'm afraid your motivated beliefs will bend your hierarchy of fraudulent behaviors, toward a more tribal and position-based critics.


    how long ago did you change your mind?


    each of us should ask secretly to that question.

  • SSC: If you want to say that I am lying when I say I don't have a dog in this fight, say so and don't be a coward. I repeat, I have no dog in this fight, I have no financial interest in it and I have no personal or business relationships with any of the parties, their counsel or anyone on this board (at least as far as I know, as most of the people here post anonymously). But, if you decide you want to say I am lying, please note that statement could be considered defamatory, particularly as I have identified myself, and I can assure you that this board and your ISP will gladly turn over you real identity pursuant to a subpoena. So, at the risk of violating the norms of this board, fold it five ways and shove it where the moon don't shine.

    Your vulgarity and your exaggerated reaction are entirely inappropriate. I only expressed a reasonable doubt, among other things I was just doing irony. But such a angry answer shows only guilty conscience. If you want to denounce me for such a trifle....well, do it. Obviously you have time to throw.


    This post moved from RdV2 - reason, contains threats of legal action, which have no place in this public forum. Alan.

  • Yes, let me refine my earlier post. Behaving "like" fraud is not fraud. Actually, McKubre probably did not defraud anyone but he encouraged spending money in fruitless ways. His problem seems to be insufferable pompousness and immense gullibility. I suspect he's sincere.


    As to Miley, someone who knows him personally confided to me, probably has ... well ... mental issues. The guy described him as a whackjob, sincere but clueless. This seems to be recent. He did good work in his early years. Now before someone yells libel, I am not saying I believe that. I was told it. What I know for a fact is that Miley said his existing test devices could make hundreds of watts continuously on a test bench and that was at least four years ago and he has produced absolutely nothing public.


    Swartz is simply ineffective. He's been making the same claims for minuscule amounts of excess heat for decades and teaching a class, misleadingly said to be from MIT (in fact it is only held AT MIT and has no connection to the school), which purports to teach how to replicate the excess heat except nobody seems to be able to in a credible manner. The supposed connection to MIT and the way it is advertised is not necessarily fraud but is something a fraudulent claimant would do. Clear enough now?


    Alain, you seem like a nice guy but I can almost never understand your writings. The above is no exception. I know nothing of the papers you cite and I have no idea how they bear on what I do know about which is Rossi and his various fraudulent activities, past and near-present.

  • Your clarification is a little bit like clarifying that, when I said those fellows were acting like would-be murderers, what I meant was that they were pulling the triggers of rifles, which is something that would-be murders also do. I'm correct in saying this, even though the men were on a hunting trip and were not really murdering or intending to murder anyone.