Dear Eric Walker, if you kill my messages ALL TIME directly to clearance items , this is because you are AS FAR AS incompetent that your friend AXIL !!
bye bye you can kill my profile a second time, definitively this website doesn't help Lenr field.
This is unfair. Eric is not incompetent at all. He knows exactly what he is doing. You only need to figure out what his priorities are, then all the pieces fits together.
Cydonia, vous voudrez peut-être revérifier une hypothèse que vous faites. Mais m'appeler incompétent ne vous aimera certainement pas à l'équipe du forum.
Ok Eric Walker,
I apologize to the entire team, especially you.
I apologize to Axil too, I was overwhelmed by my bloody temperament..
Therefore, I feel that more we write thread here, more it seems true what is said, no ?
In all cases, I don't see how "metallic hydrogen" or "polaritron" should explain, both , XH, or Vysotskii results or better Na+O to K by Ohsawa ( no Hydrogen here...) ?
Still sorry to have communicated a bad feeling, long live to LenrForum.
I am still waiting for Rossi supporters to explain why they think he has something. All we hear is “well, there are other people who think so.” Especially coming from Alan, that is an astoundingly weak argument.
They tried to execute a business strategy where they seemed merely interested in collecting IP from various researchers but not in industrialization.
That is completely wrong. They spent a great deal of time and money pursuing industrialization.
Where did you get that information? I suspect this is mere speculation. I think you should refrain from speculating about people and business strategies that you know nothing about.
I'm not myself a fan of conspiracy theories.
Then simply don't make them. How hard can it be?
From my point of view it sure looks like you're making psychological assessments of Rossi, Fabiani, Levi, Alan etc (more or less everyone supporting Rossi in any way.) It also looks like those people you're creating conspiracy theories about know a whole lot more about Rossi and the experiments than you do (wherever you may roam). Which brings me back to the orignal question. Since you seemingly do not care about actual first hand experience and real facts, but only pseudo-facts and remote analasis of human behaviour - What credentials do you have to back this pseudo arguing up?
That is completely wrong. They spent a great deal of time and money pursuing industrialization.
Where did you get that information? I suspect this is mere speculation. I think you should refrain from speculating about people and business strategies that you know nothing about.
And where are the evidences of the industrialization agenda/investments?
i've read some info here and elsewhere and it all points to them running around gathering IP. Come on, these people are lawyers. It is what they do. They don't build anything.
And where are the evidences of the industrialization agenda/investments?
Personal knowledge.
Personal knowledge.
Excellent. They should keep doing that. They seem to be very clear about Rossi having nothing to do with these plans, so no hindrences there, right?
And it would also also be very good if they could show something of importance, since when searching now the only thing I find is their less than impressing and very questionable land redevelopment engagements; Meadowlands etc. It sure looks as they are very far from industrialists.
Well, at least we know that for *that message*, the person asking Rossi the question wasn't Rossi! I think that is about all we learned from it though.
Then simply don't make them. How hard can it be?
From my point of view it sure looks like you're making psychological assessments of Rossi, Fabiani, Levi, Alan etc (more or less everyone supporting Rossi in any way.) It also looks like those people you're creating conspiracy theories about know a whole lot more about Rossi and the experiments than you do (wherever you may roam). Which brings me back to the orignal question. Since you seemingly do not care about actual first hand experience and real facts, but only pseudo-facts and remote analasis of human behaviour - What credentials do you have to back this pseudo arguing up?
Tony,
Whenever we accept other people's unsubstantiated evidence we make a psychological judgement as to their reliability to deliver that evidence. It is not exactly brain science. the only time this is not done is in a religious context where certain matters are accepted on faith.
You have a logical disconnect. You repeat your statement that I am making conspiracy theories without one thread of evidence for this, nor even saying what you think the theory I propagate is.
Perhaps you are not a tech guy, or have not been following Rossi for many years. The issue with his demos is that the detailed experimental descriptions written by those people who did the experiments do not show Rossi's claims, and in some cases directly contradict his claims.
My credentials for being more accurate than Levi over analysis of (say) the Lugano data is that as has been argued here for several years now, in detail, against all comers, Levi made an elementary mistake which (last I heard, from Mats, a years ago) he had still not recanted. If you understand spectral emissivity and how Optris thermal cameras work you can validate that for your self, all the info is here. We all make mistakes, but Levi has published a bad mistake and never retracted or corrected, bad form, or great incompetence, given that he was made aware of the mistake in TC's writeup.
None of Rossi's other strong supporters have shown skill in experimental work for Rossi. You could look for example at the execrable experimental write-up signed by Penon where he does not even state what instruments he uses to measure voltage and current - something that it turns out is highly relevant to the results: RMS AC vs average AC wrong gives a spurious positive result. After much critique the story was that although Rossi released this report signed by Penon, in fact it was not Penon's report. That is sort of worse, since it indicates a lack of concern with professional honesty from Penon to let such misattribution stand, or a bald-faced forgery from Rossi, if Penon was unaware of the false report.
You probably are at some disadvantage here not having worked through all the technical details of these many reports yourself. But the good news is that all the material still exists - you can do it now.
Display MoreTony,
Whenever we accept other people's unsubstantiated evidence we make a psychological judgement as to their reliability to deliver that evidence. It is not exactly brain science. the only time this is not done is in a religious context where certain matters are accepted on faith.
You have a logical disconnect. You repeat your statement that I am making conspiracy theories without one thread of evidence for this, nor even saying what you think the theory I propagate is.
Perhaps you are not a tech guy, or have not been following Rossi for many years. The issue with his demos is that the detailed experimental descriptions written by those people who did the experiments do not show Rossi's claims, and in some cases directly contradict his claims.
My credentials for being more accurate than Levi over analysis of (say) the Lugano data is that as has been argued here for several years now, in detail, against all comers, Levi made an elementary mistake which (last I heard, from Mats, a years ago) he had still not recanted. If you understand spectral emissivity and how Optris thermal cameras work you can validate that for your self, all the info is here. We all make mistakes, but Levi has published a bad mistake and never retracted or corrected, bad form, or great incompetence, given that he was made aware of the mistake in TC's writeup.
None of Rossi's other strong supporters have shown skill in experimental work for Rossi. You could look for example at the execrable experimental write-up signed by Penon where he does not even state what instruments he uses to measure voltage and current - something that it turns out is highly relevant to the results: RMS AC vs average AC wrong gives a spurious positive result. After much critique the story was that although Rossi released this report signed by Penon, in fact it was not Penon's report. That is sort of worse, since it indicates a lack of concern with professional honesty from Penon to let such misattribution stand, or a bald-faced forgery from Rossi, if Penon was unaware of the false report.
You probably are at some disadvantage here not having worked through all the technical details of these many reports yourself. But the good news is that all the material still exists - you can do it now.
Don't flatter yourself. I'm most probably a way more practical tech person than you can imagine... (if you want to play the game like that). I know about the "TC" Lugano job. It's exactly what I would call a textbook type of conspiracy theory (even though it carefully tries to look like something "scientific"). Facts remain; you try a lot to make it look as if you know more facts than you do - using your (skilled, i'll give you that) arguing to go after those that actually has the first hand knowledge and have been doing actual meassurements. And is it not also a fact that you try to hit on those people with, as you say, religious (cult) argument?
Display More@Tony,
Care to make your argument specific, i.e., at the level of technical detail, rather than left to vague high-level statements such as:
For example, can you mention some specific details in the writeup that you did not agree with? This will be off-topic in the present thread, but it won't be hard to move the discussion to a more suitable thread.
Ok, so we'll avoid that then ...
I believe I made my point clear already. Valueing the information from real people with first hand knowledge (and their reputation on the line) infinitaly higher than random anonymous Internet entities seems perfectly logical. Don't you agree?
If you quote you should quote including the spelling mistakes
Actually I wrote to Rossi and he paraphrased my question and posted it with his answer.
Care to make your argument specific,
Eric you only go after people who are not anti Rossi. For example, MY's inane comment about my correspondence with Rossi on the QX's power - not a peep from you.
I I hope you will be asked to step down as a moderator if & when the QX surfaces.
am genuinely interested in Tony's critique of TC's analysis of the Lugano report. I have my own complaints, both about the Lugano report and about TC's analysis.
I'm sure you are... but probably not for the reasons implied 
As I said though, my main critique is that it is a pseudo report from someone anonymous not present with a lot of assumptions on stuff has not meassured himself. Also he implies that Rossi (regarding Isotopes) is fraudulent and that the scientists are somehow DEPENDENT (not independent) of Rossi without any proof. And as I said I consider it professional conspiracy theory made to confuse. This is also why it is anonymous.
Now, what are your complaints about the TC hypothesis Eric?
QuoteEric you only go after people who are not anti Rossi. For example, MY's inane comment about my correspondence with Rossi on the QX's power - not a peep from you.
Well, let's see how inane my comment was. Adrian, you are taking the word of a man who lied repeatedly about essentially everything to everyone, according to SWORN DEPOSITIONS in the pretrial documents from Rossi vs IH. So, I suppose in your view, it's "inane" to assume Rossi may be (probably *is*) lying again, as he has done virtually all the time before? Let's put it another way:
What evidence, other than Rossi's worthless word, do you have that the ecatQX puts out any sort of power that it generates in excess of what is put in?
If you think it does, how do you know when Rossi permitted no measurement that would yield such a conclusion?
Why do you think Rossi did not permit a complete power measurement? What IP could that POSSIBLY compromise and exactly HOW?
If you can't answer those entirely reasonable questions, perhaps you should stop insulting the remarks of the people who raise them.
QuoteMY is unwilling to go far in engaging details on demand.
Not entirely fair. I only engage details, as you put it, about issues I really know. For example, Rossi's thermoelectric scam, which I studied extensively, and for which I spent my own money getting an FOIA request sent. I also engage on issues related to early ecat tests such Levi's reported in NyTeknik and those "supervised" by Lewan and in particular, on the issue of the absent calibrations in ALL of those tests-- just as calibration and proper measurement are STILL absent in the ecatQX demo.
I do not engage in most of the hot cat discussion. For one thing, I have never used in a lab and know nothing about real, research grade thermal cameras (I played with some cheapies from BangGood ( https://www.banggood.com/ ) but that doesn't count). For another, I consider that the hot cat tests were a ruse. They were never necessary to prove the ecat concept and they never provided any substantial power or COP performance. They were just another mechanism Rossi chose to add complexity (3 phase power and heat flow calculations from radiated heat) in which he could hide more fraudulent activity.
