Clearance Items

  • More like middle 6 figures. Who would throw half a million dollars to make $10k?


    Eventually we'll be able to bet on this kind of stuff again.


    http://freerepublic.com/focus/…435697/posts?q=1&;page=39

  • I'll call you on that one.


    The initial flurry of replications of F-P from everyone generated largely negative results. These replications were from many people including experienced electrochemists. Unless you count replications as the repeats done by F & P themselves - and no-one would normally define replication like that - your comment is crowd-pleasing and not accurate.


    You would have a point if all the non-F&P electrochemists from those initial replications got positives and only the non-electrochemists negatives, but I believe that not to be true. If you disagree I will look it up but for that effort I expect you to eat a lot of crow.

    You're uninformed. Here is a paper delineating 153 peer reviewed replications, listed right here recently in this forum.


    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

  • [email protected]

    Quote

    Like Jed has said, the first 100 or so replications of Pons-Fleischmann came from a veritable who's who of electrochemistry. Mary may know a calorimeter but he is not among the top notch of electrochemistry.

    You're responding to a crude troll who viciously mocked Peter Gluck on his own blog while Peter was hospitalized with serious eye and other health problems and unable to properly monitor the posts.


    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.c…from-peter-with-love.html


    Except for one post (I leave you to guess which one) I never wrote on this string nor for the last two years on Peter's Blog to save him irritation. I am pretty sure "Joshua Cude" and probably "George Hody" did not write there either and were impersonated by this evil, cowardly piece of subhuman slime. When he tried that sort of crap here, he was justly banned. I have no idea why he was allowed back. I disapprove of banning in general in forums but impersonating other users is certainly a valid cause. Not to mention when it is for the purpose of mocking a sick, distinguished individual who can not defend against it.

  • OK. F&P's epoch-making experiment was a table-top thing. Definitely low five figures. It has been replicated hundreds of times, right?


    I bet 10K (and I'm sure MY will bet another 10K) that none of those hundreds can replicate it on command. (Sorry for not asking, MY, but I'm sure you'll agree.)

    Most of them cannot replicate because they are dead. Some, such as Miles, have replicated recently. I am not sure what "on command" means but anyway, they run several cathodes and typically one out of three works.


    With the Storms method, you test many cathodes. This is described in detail in his paper. He found ~5 out of ~100 that passed all of the tests. All five of them worked. That is either a 5% success rate or a 100% success rate, depending on how you look at it. See:


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


    You could replicate with the Storms method if you happen to be an expert in electrochemistry and you have a well-equipped lab and a year to two to spare. That's how long it takes, as you see in the paper. You might find 5 cathodes that work. If you don't, you may have to spend a few more years looking. The process could be automated to go a lot faster, as I said.


    It would be rather silly to bet on this. If you believe in the scientific method, and that replicated, high sigma experiments are the only standard of truth in science, there is no doubt the effect is real. If you don't believe that, nothing will convince you. So why bother betting? It is already an accomplished fact. It would be like betting on the mass of an electron, or whether Faraday's law is correct.

  • Not to mention when it is for the purpose of mocking a sick, distinguished individual who can not defend against it.


    I would argue that you aren't that 'distinguished'... and Roger just has a crush on you. Why not be nicer to him (in public)? We all need a little love in our lives.

  • I was referring to Peter Gluck as distinguished. He is also the one with pending eye surgery, blindness and God knows what else. He's in the hospital. He can't defend his blog against trolls. You can't read the post? It's sixth grade English.

  • Further, as you are not willing to identify these brave souls, I would give it the same weight I give to the astrology predictions from "qualified, expert psychics" I see advertised on the internet. And, lastly, I will raise your two experts by the four, count them, Nobel Prize winners I spoke to, but whom I can't identify for obvious reasons, all of whom say Rossi is full of excrement (ELE: sarcasm alert).


    @WW: For a lawyer, specialized in mediation, you talk to much about bullshit...


    Is this Yankee slang or just bad habit after two months reading in an old man's forum??


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden aftermath thread. Eric

  • Quote

    I'm pretty sure Peter in is on the joke... There's plenty of Roger's Ego-out posts that pre-date the eye complaint. Some that you even replied to.


    Unless it's more than several years ago and/or says that a post under my name is a fake, I didn't write it and I did not reply to Roger. He probably replied to himself. I have not contributed to Peter's blog in at least two years, probably more. We did exchange some emails but those were never posted. Peter is not in on any joke. He is suffering in a hospital. Some piece of human excrement is abusing his blog.

  • woodworker wrote:

    Further, as you are not willing to identify these brave souls, I would give it the same weight I give to the astrology predictions from "qualified, expert psychics" I see advertised on the internet. And, lastly, I will raise your two experts by the four, count them, Nobel Prize winners I spoke to, but whom I can't identify for obvious reasons, all of whom say Rossi is full of excrement (ELE: sarcasm alert).


    @WW: For a lawyer, specialized in mediation, you talk to much about bullshit...


    It seems that Eric likes your style and leaves your excrements at the original place...



    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden aftermath thread. Eric

  • Wait a sec. F&P had been replicated thousands of times, but if I ask someone to do it it will take "You could replicate with the Storms method if you happen to be an expert in electrochemistry and you have a well-equipped lab and a year to two to spare. "


    Are you for real, Jed?


    "I, and hundreds of others, had replicated F&P at the drop of a hat, but if you ask me to do it NOW it will take two years." Even Rossi would be embarrassed at that excuse.

  • "I, and hundreds of others, had replicated F&P at the drop of a hat, but if you ask me to do it NOW it will take two years." Even Rossi would be embarrassed at that excuse.

    is that you pathetic excuse...


    1- you refuse to admit the work of top experts who replicated the phenomenon hundreds of time

    2- when proposed to replicate their way, you say it is too difficult to be real


    anyway the opinion of Bockris, Gerischer, or Fleischmann is more valuable than yours, than of any physicist

    https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4613-4560-2

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf#page=2

    http://www.electrochem.org/palladium-award

  • Bockris, Gerischer, or Fleischmann, oy vey! I don't give a flying fig about their opinions, much less yours.


    Again, shmuck, can you show me LENR? 20K on the line. Since SO many people have shown LENR SO many times, someone there must have all the equipment payed, the 20K are just gravy.



    banned for 2 weeks - unnecessary use of insults.


  • Wait a sec. F&P had been replicated thousands of times, but if I ask someone to do it it will take "You could replicate with the Storms method if you happen to be an expert in electrochemistry and you have a well-equipped lab and a year to two to spare. "


    Are you for real, Jed?

    What is strange about that? It is like saying you have to be a trained surgeon working in a well-equipped hospital to perform open heart surgery. Open heart surgery has been done hundreds of thousands of times by thousands of experts, but ordinary, untrained people cannot do it.

    "I, and hundreds of others, had replicated F&P at the drop of a hat, but if you ask me to do it NOW it will take two years." Even Rossi would be embarrassed at that excuse.

    I never said that I replicated! I never said it can be done at the drop of a hat. I said that it takes an expert and when it is done manually, it takes a year or two. It would take an expert a year or two to replicate a new automobile engine design with manual tools.


    Let me add that anyone who reads the Storms paper will see why this method takes a year or two. Evidently Mr. Holmes did not read it, or he did not understand it.

  • Quote

    He clearly is, seeing as how he has posted underneath some of yours and rogers more ribald conversations, without deleting them.


    If these happened within two (even perhaps three) years, it was Roger posting to Roger because I have not contributed to Peter's blog for quite a while. And none of my responses to "Roger" were ribald -- anyway, none that I recall. I mostly ignored that sorry piece of derelict humanity.

  • Eric Walker: You may have overlooked, that I found the WW post extremely disgusting. I only related my post to the disgusting part. Leaving such a (WW) text unedited can only be explained, if the target is to somehow downwind the official level of this forum...


    I agree that the part of woodworker's comment about excrement was unfortunate. There have been a number of comments from various people that go too far. It would be too much work and ineffective to try to follow up on all of them. But the unedited text can be very obviously explained by reasons other than "the target is to somehow downwind the official level of this forum." Three straightforward reasons are that woodworker's post had some redeeming information beyond the unfortunate remark, and that yours had no redeeming information whatsoever, and that more generally you are under close scrutiny because your actions, attitude and comments are often not constructive. You will probably be under scrutiny indefinitely.


    Your post above together with your subsequent actions in connection with it, for example, took you to within a hair of having your account suspended for two weeks.