Clearance Items

  • Lumping legitimate LENR researchers, and their *teams*, in with the likes of a Rossi, religious charlatans, or political figures, is what discourages most of the players in the field from posting here. They peek in to stay informed, but participating is just too risky for them. This is a good example of why.


    We all have our one time rants. You had yours,...now back to your usual, reasonable, comments.

  • Shane, if you were really concerned about how this site appears to legitimate LENR researchers, you would be looking very hard at the frequent overblown, pseudoscience rants by several regulars around here. Instead, they are treated as valuable contibutors which doesn’t exactly give the place gravitas. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

  • Shane, if you were really concerned about how this site appears to legitimate LENR researchers, you would be looking very hard at the frequent overblown, pseudoscience rants by several regulars around here. Instead, they are treated as valuable contibutors which doesn’t exactly give the place gravitas. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.


    They do not care about our "valuable contributors", or amateurs, who randomly mix and match scientific concepts, or build virtual LENR machines. More than likely they find it amusing, harmless and innocent. A good mental exercise perhaps, and something to be encouraged...because you never know what benefit they may bring.


    They do care though about being slandered, ridiculed, stigmatized, lumped into the same category as Rossi, or L Ron, and the threat to their reputations of being drug through the mud.

  • They do not care ...

    They better should care.

    Legimate researcher - in particular when they do research in an anyway controversial field - are well advised not to be lumped together with crackpots.


    Here a nice tool for ‘rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics’:

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html


    Easy to use. For example:

    10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it 

    “Lovely gammas” or “Rossi effect” comes in my mind, but actually, “Rossi effects” deserve 20 points, because of:

    20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

  • They better should care.


    Legimate researcher - in particular when they do research in an anyway controversial field - are well advised not to be lumped together with crackpots.


    They are not "crackpots". They are just trying to piece together the LENR puzzle. I am sure the "non-controversial fields" websites, also have their own free spirits thinking outside the box. As long as they do not threaten reputations, they are free to roam there..although vigorously debated, as they are here.

  • If you don't understand the definition of 'lovely', or 'gammas', there is very little hope for you.

    I know what ‘lovely’ means, and ‘gammas’ very likely refers in this case to gamma radiation.


    But you should understand, that a two word term often means something very different than the individual words.

    An example for you... ‘smart-ass’

  • “Lovely gammas” or “Rossi effect” comes in my mind


    As for lovely gammas .. it was never meant to be a technical term

    and was never written in a technical paper.


    its quite appropriate for a blog or fora with a mixed ability readership


    for me it meant that the gamma readouts from the nuclear isomers

    were regarded with great affection by Russ George.

    Who would sign off on a technical paper as Forty-Two?

  • They better should care.

    Legimate researcher - in particular when they do research in an anyway controversial field - are well advised not to be lumped together with crackpots.


    Here a nice tool for ‘rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics’:

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

    I suggest to add :


    38: your research is not reported neither by mainstream media nor by high "impact factor" journals.

  • But you should understand, that a two word term often means something very different than the individual words.

    An example for you... ‘smart-ass’


    What a terrible example, as neither of those two words has its meaning changed by the other.


    But then, I also doubt you could come up with a better example, as your initial point about lovely gammas was so ridiculous in the first place...


    And on the topic, I don't belive Rossi has ever used the term 'Rossi-effect'.


    So nul points all round, it seems.

  • your initial point about lovely gammas was so ridiculous in the first place..

    What are you talking?


    I was talking about

    10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it

    and “Lovely Gammas” appears to be a new coined term - just try and google “Lovely Gammas” (with the quotation marks). - You will only get a couple of hits, leading to

    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/tag/lovely-gammas/

    (you see, “Lovely Gammas” is even a search tag on the atom-ecology site )

    or to the “Androcles, The Hunt for Lovely Gammas is On” story

    ... and then there are this “Lovely Gammas”.

    And on the topic, I don't belive Rossi has ever used the term 'Rossi-effect

    Oh come on, are you really that uninformed.

    Here some examples:

    (And btw: The meaning of “smart-ass” is not “clever buttocks”)

  • Well 42, it seems you are mostly right, and are less of a dunderhead than I had you down for...


    Which makes it all the more surprising that you need a definition to understand the term 'lovely gammas'. Other than for trolling purposes, of course.