Clearance Items

Quote from Alan Smith

Hi Jed. Let's say that the 'independent' part is ongoing, actually we haven't asked anybody to do that specific thing, we are more interested currently in verifying (independently) the gamma situation. People can argue about calorimetry till either their tongues turn black and fall of (as you know) or the listeners ears do, but the gamma stuff is way more interesting for all sorts of reasons. In particular, heat just tells you something is happening that makes things hot, but gammas are like fingerprints, unique patterns that link to identifiable suspects.

Agreed,

Keep testing/experimenting until your data can be continuously replicated,

THEN, get independent verification, (by trusted sources), of your results

Is a program for listing the electron configuration as pewter avbl? will calculate shells and orbits ..ect?

Quote from Alan Smith

It's a good plan you suggest Roseland67 , we never thought of that.

I know, sorry Alan,

I’m just an anal engineer that likes to dot i’s

and cross t’s, and then check again to make sure I didn’t make an error, ( which I usually did).

And for some foolish reason, I don’t think anyone else is qualified except me 😊

Quote from Shane D.

Being done as we speak, and the reactors are in good form putting on a double show. Not that this is the first group to the barn, nor the most qualified, but with the numbers involved, cross section of expertise, resources available, and equipment, this will certainly qualify as an independent verification.

That is not independent verification. Independent verification consists of some group constructing their own reactors and getting the same results without the direct participation of the original researchers.

Quote from JohnyFive

his seem to invalidate Russ's statement that all that claimed success in LENR should measure an excess radiation.

Radiation is the faint smoke of the fire. You need to know where to look and you should do careful backgrounds.

Nobody knows the exact rules. So you should not draw any conclusions.

We relay on radiation because it is the most compelling proof.

Quote from Shane D.

OK then, I was wrong. It was not independent. Nonetheless, it was a very rigorous process. Keep in mind; to their credit they initiated this, and then willingly subjected themselves to a thorough going over, so that should count for something? That said, my last say on this matter is   

And also, by your definition, BEC has been independently verified by SRI, so I would assume that based on that, you are a full believer in LENR?

Following Alan's terminology, what seems to be going on here is some sort of verification process. I'm not sure I would call it "independent" verification. It is more like 'guided' verification. And, sticking with the same sort of terminology, I would class SRI's studies of the Brillouin prototypes as independent verifications but not independent replications (because SRI did not build the cores themselves from a recipe).

You want me to be a full believer in LENR because of SRI's reports? Sorry, that is too black-and-white and I'm more of a Bayesian type of guy. I would still like to see independent replication and I'd like to see a bigger effect so as to leave competing non-LENR explanations in the dust. Still, the SRI experiments have increased my estimation that LENR may be real.

Quote from Alan Smith

In my use of the english language, that's independent replication, not verification. Verification is when I say 'is that the moon up there, and you say 'yes, definitely', or alternatively, 'no, it's a streetlight'.

Ahh, I think I understand now what “independent verification” means:

In Rossi’s language “independent verification” is when Rossi says ‘this here is an e-cat and this here is dry steam’ and some retired Swedish profs say ‘ah, yes - it’s steam... interessting’.

How often was the e-cat “indipendintly verified”?

Well then there is nothing to expect from Rossi.

And if people stop talking about him he will vanish, isn't it?

There is more than enough in the interweb about Rossi being a fraud.

So why still bother?

Quote from Gruber

So why still bother?

My hypothesis.. Rossian OCD... an ill-defined medical condition

Rossi hurt quite some people with his behaviour. (ask Dewey for example)

So I think some therapy is appropriate.

Maybe there could be a threat dedicated to this?

Rant@Rossi...

An old tv... maybe you can see mag fields in nano soup ~

Not very scientific but at lease you'll know.

Note.. the lines from the magnetic's will not be remediable.

Nice video~

Another meteor fragment also called an unexplained implant attached to the body generating a frequency may be something you would find interesting.