Clearance Items

  • Are you the same Bob who complained about me banning Johnny5, who was obviously Me356 with a different hat on?

    Actually no.

    I am the same Bob that was questioning why Johnny5 was being scrutinized (and rightly so as it turns out) but neer a word of criticism about the absolutely proven and known Rossi fraud! At the time, you may well have had inside knowledge about Johnny5 but the rest of us did not. Rossi's blatant misdeeds were clear to all. Yet Johnny5 got the public scrutiny and Rossi not only went free but continued to get the occasional "thumbs up". That was my beef, not that I was sure Johnny5 was the real deal. I did post that if he PROVED to be real, that it would be a break through, but I never jumped on his band wagon without proper vetting. It is clear now, according to your assertion that he was ME356, that he was a fraud. (ref post 94191)

    Yet some here, who clearly was on ME356's bandwagon, cannot seem to admit that they were fooled.... regardless of equations, data and ....

    Not sure what the above post has to do with my "aluminum hat" post, but I did answer it to my best. It is amazing how a few people here think that IH, "big oil", "pharma mafia", pay people to post on LENR! That is indeed aluminum hat stuff! (Dewey, while posting here, I do not believe was paid to do it. He simply was a directly involved and interested party and made no secrets about it.)

    How about your thoughts on a certain poster's continuous juvenile and personal torts to several of the posters here? I do try to be civil and I think my posts reflect that, except when someone else starts it and continuously keeps at it! As the Tom Petty song goes... "I won't back down". Although I will quit wasting my time when it comes to certain people who seem to be bordering on ...... :thumbup:

    (By the way, I liked the "bilk for money" line....very funny and exactly what Rossi does! Are you starting to come around on this? :))

  • Yet some here, who clearly was on ME356's bandwagon, cannot seem to admit that they were fooled.... regardless of equations, data and ....

    Almost everybody that once did see a LENR reaction starts to act weird... Even more weird if not able to reproduce it at will or long enough.

    I was just lucky as I first was only interested in science not in any fantasy of making money! May be next time...

  • Isotope production in thunderstorms

    ... "The atmospheric photo-nuclear reactions triggered by lightnings provide a previously unexplored channel for generating isotopes of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen naturally on Earth, opening new detection mechanisms that can help us to characterize this high-energy atmospheric events. The enhancement in isotopes abundances, specially unstable nuclei decaying through β+mechanisms can produce glows in the seconds to minutes scales after the TGF, giving an additional tool to evaluate the high-energy event."

  • Educating wyttenbach (does it work? Can it work? watch here for the next exciting installment).

    So what is the difference between:

    point mutation?

    May be you are talking to yourself: Glad to see that you learn some basics. Next step is to refresh probability theory...

    If we just spoiled your next free drink at the large round lodge table then I feel not sorry.

    By the way: To improve your troll rating I do suggest that you yourself! carefully read the posts as I already did use 3% and not 7% for the changes...So you commit its 4% and thus even far more unlikely...

    thus 3% is 900 changes what takes 20 years if all changes just by luck happen at the expected places and are positive ones.

    Best match to SARS-CoV2 in bats found so far is 96% not 93% RTAG13

    The only chance for a recombination - that in very rare cases can happen in a living species - would need the human intermediate host to be infected with AIDS. But this is a strange fantasy.

    May be you should explain to the rest why it is important for you and your dark allies that we do believe that CoV-19 is natural??

    This post moved to clearance because it repeats the 'troll' word after a gentle first warning. Alan.

  • I agree with TTH about Wyttenbach. Rest of post deleted.

    So you might.But personal attacks are not encouraged here. Alan

    My post did not contain name calling or anything like that. I described Wyttenbach's behaviour on this and other threads and said that I think he might not have the intellectual goods that he claims to have. I believe my post was within the guidelines for this forum. Certainly, THH has been enduring worse on this very thread.

    Nonetheless, I will modify the post in a way that I hope will be acceptable but making he same points. If it is to be again subject to possible deletion I hope that the issue will be first talked over with moderators who do not have professional ties with Wyttenbach.

  • Bruce__H

    Your post contained a personal attack on Wyttenbach - referring to a matter which the team were already dealing with. But more importantly it prolonged an unpleasantness I hoped had been nipped in the bud, which was why it was edited. You are not a moderator, if you wish to make a complaint yourself please use the warn 'hammer' signal to do so privately and not clutter up the threads and prolong the pain.

  • showed pretty conclusively that this guy is has way out opinions... pretty conclusive

    THH.. which guy?

    Etienne ?

    pretty conclusive ? 95% probability?

    way out ? 5% probability?

    This is a pretty exact analogy for genetic evolution.

    The wandering evolutionary dialectic is interesting.. I must say;)

    Actually a more relevant analogy from the LENR forum concerns the Ascoli65 insertion hypothesis.

    Ascoli65 alleged that Mizuno artificially inserted the heater power readings (P) in a spreadshest

    because the deviations .. P/p.. (mutations)

    were far more than could be expected from calculation,,

    However it was shown by comparing the heater versus blower power readings

    that these deviations.. P/p (mutations)

    were expected ( "0.007+/-.0013 and 0,0018+-0.0003 ")

    from random calculation errors resulting from a global truncation..

    In the case of Etienne-Montagnier it might take some time for them

    to do comparative probability analysis on Covid-19 versus HIV/SARS/ Influenza A,B,C mutation rates..

    where some time = years... as opposed to the hours it took to analyse spreadsheet data.

    Phylogenetic study can take years in biology

    however hopefully soon (mid June ) the WHO has some HCQ... ivermectin data

    to actually alleviate the disease mortality.

  • The blower current error is possibly bigger, since the 3 ohm current sense resistor is fiat 3 ohms.

    I do the same and it seems to work well enough.

  • I am not a troll, but you, on this thread, argue in a way that is a unscientific, a disgrace, and creates much noise with little enlightenment. You latch onto certain memes and quote them as though they answer all questions - while ignoring all other questions.

    Why are you posting that you are not a T ?? Do you feel like needing to say this?

    Only you ignore questions (I asked : Why it is important to you and your friends that CoV-19 is natural??) This - stepping over serious questions - is a typical T behavior also the action to reverse the logic that the other is doing so.

    Also your all mighty intellect obviously cannot digest that you by mistake did claim that 96% is better match than 97% ... A typical mistake of an angry childish man.

  • Everyone can see on the Covid thread that Wyttenbach is being his usual provocative self. He has a super-confident manner and often scorns those he disagrees with. When he addresses topics including LENR mechanisms and fundamental particles, this high-handedness can appear to be the impatience of someone who is working on a high level and is having to deal with people whose understanding simply isn't up to his (a group that appears to include most professional physicists) I certainly know I don have the understanding to keep up with him on topics such as SO(4) symmetry and the like, and I suspect that no one here really does.

    So the question is ... how do we assess Wyttenbach's radical claims that he understands how LENR works and that he has found a new our understanding of how the universe is constituted? Eighteen months ago, I urged Wyttenbach to put his SO(4) claims in front of some really serious scientists for detailed feedback. I suggested submitting written work to a top journal where an editor would engage expert reviewers who to look closely at the ideas involved (Researchgate is inadequate for this purpose). I wonder if anything like this has been attempted in the meantime. I have the impression that Wyttenbach is avoiding real scrutiny and is content with impressing the small fry here with bluster.

    Meanwhile -- back to the Covid thread -- I do happen to know something about biology and can see that Wyttenbach's expertise on this topic is not very deep. He makes elementary misjudgments and mistakes and yet his manner there is just as coruscating as it is when he is talking about the failings of the Standard Model. This confirms for me that Wyttenbach's self-certainty cannot be used as evidence that his claims have something to them.

    My message is that people on this forum should not be cowed by Wyttenbach. Everyone should be sceptical of his claims regarding LENR and physical symmetries and should urge him to put his ideas not just on the internet but in front of really capable people for serious assessment.