Quote from Alan Smith

Since you don't appear to believe in LENR at all, I always you were here just for the arguments. I didn't realise that psychodramas could be so compelling, I can't even get to the end of a box set TV drama without getting the feeling I should be doing something more useful.

Alan - I'm not faith-based, so I don't believe in LENR. But, OTOH, I'm probably more interested than you or many others here at the fascinating strongly coupled plasma shielding theory and experimental results, or the NASA claims of unexpected nuclear activity following deuterium exposure to low-energy x-rays.

Quote from Tony

Is that so?

Why is it that all of a sudden a tsunami of counter attack defense (need to be weird... conspiracy, bla bla, etc etc) surfaces when possible motives of the Rossi haters are brought up. That is the kind of psychology I'm interested in ...

Maybe its just that some people think it fair, when you make gross personalised attacks on people here just for posting pretty obvious viewpoints you don't like, to argue the other side?

Quote from Tony

Eh, what attacks are you talking about?

I'm merely asking questions related to comments made by you and others. Maybe they are uncomfortable, what do I know...

And I do not find the viewpoints anywhere near "obvious", merely biased, or worse. Not the same thing you know...

Display More

Don't look like non-attacking merely asking questions to me:

Quote

Precisely what I'm talking about... You prove my point with a real life example

My message however was obviously not intended for you, since your bias is already set in stone and you are pushing it best you can, as good as anyone of those other anonymous Internet commentators with unclear agendas and financing.

As far as I can see it, anyone (bang99 in the case above) who draws the obvious conclusion, from Rossi's 6 years of admitted by all here lies and inability to produce working devices, that he is a flake, is to you an unclear agenda with unclear financing

I don't find your vituperation here uncomfortable, I do, as I noted with evidence above, find it a little dishonest. There are many guys here who post trollish comments I detest. I don't make personal attacks, or question their financing. That is speculation and unhelpful. I do call them out if, like you, they make dishonest ad hom attacks.

If you have substantive evidence of a lack of clarity in financing of any of these posters you object to - then please post it. Otherwise all you do is bring down the overall quality of argument. Since this is the clearance thread that is fair enough - but so is my pointing it out.

Quote from Tony

What are you talking about?

I'm simply saying that some (actually all) commentators do have unclear agendas and financing. Is that a personal attack? I consider it a fact, since none of us (including me) have made any statement or declarations about our employers/financing/agendas. How can this even be considered an attack?

BTW, I do not share your assessment of the conclusions made by bang99 as anywhere near "obvious" and that he should be a "flake" and unable to produce working devices etc. That however is a real personal attack and do not belong in a forum like this at all, and by that YOU are bringing the quality of the argument down.

You are now being dishonest (again). You apply this mantra specifically to posters with a different view from yours, linking the speculation to the viewpoint. That is not simply saying all commentators have unclear agendas and financing.

Your assessment of the public information here is different from mine. My summary of bang99's position re Rossi was not an ad hom - but I'm sure he will correct me if I got it wrong. The "flake" epithet applies to my understanding of bang99s view (as portrayed here) of Rossi.

My calling you out on your posts here is also not an ad hom. I'm not making any general comment on your character, merely pointing out defects like dishonesty in your posts here. and I'm quoting specific examples - see above - that justify what I say.

Your arguments as above have no merit: you have a definite view but have not yet here to my knowledge marshalled arguments in its favour. But you post quite a bit, which is why I'm pointing out the lack of substance other than to make personal attacks.

Quote from Tony

Of course. Don't you agree that you would be in a better position to evaluate the goods if you were allowed to be present during tests/demos or do due diligence before investing?

that is clearly true, but not what you say here - which is ask Mats.

Mats (and all Rossi's chosen observers) is strongly predisposed towards a positive view of Rossi. Therefore asking Mats for his opinion is very different from being present oneself. The public record shows that on a few occasions when people have taken a diferent view from Rossi about his work - citing clear evidence - Rossi has stormed out very angry. That BTW applies even to Mats, who discovered Rossi mis-measuring power with average volt and amp meters at an important Hydrofusion test. The (independent) Hydrofusion test engineers found COP=1. Rossi insisted his measurement of COP=3 was correct in spite of Mats' attempt to explain the difference between RMS and average measurements on non-sinusoidal signals.

Apparently, according to Tony, nobody who wasn’t “there” can legitimately espouse negative opinions about Rossi. If you want to endorse him, on the other hand, it is all good. But that curious fact is not of any psychological interest of course.

Any more info on excitonium ?

its a bit past theoretical LENR. Seems Axil just knows where to look for undockored info.

A statistical pie chart some time soon would be helpful~

Quote from THHuxleynew

So, the area from given dimensions is 20cm2. The stated area in the revised report is 82cm2 and also 44cm2. The 44cm2 figure is revised down from 82cm2 in the original report? Anyway it is still not consistent with the clearly stated port diameter and geometry. The geometry calculated area gives a much lower flow rate. But no reliance can be placed on this, or on the other figures.

THHuxleynew : The usual blow in the wind.... May be in/outlet have different dimensions and sombody mixed it up. As the Italian say: Red Ferraries are faster than yellow ones...

Or do you really believe that your FUD has an impact on the COP ??

By the time axil got interested I just knew the thread would get hopelessly derailed with only loosely in-topic monologues. Can't you all just stick with what Shoulders et al. wrote and reported? Most of his work was practical, not theoretical. Can't you axil create your own thread or blog where you could post all your stuff?

Wyttenbach

I think the spirit of the thread was originally also collecting information about Shoulders' work, which is quite scattered around the web and often hard to find. Citing or linking papers and essays in the thread specifically dedicated on the subject doesn't necessarily mean unconditionally endorsing it; I don't find it fair to characterize what for example I tried to do as that of a "follower", also given that I was basically asked to take a look and so I did.

Quote from can

By the time axil got interested I just knew the thread would get hopelessly derailed with only loosely in-topic monologues. Can't you all just stick with what Shoulders et al. wrote and reported? Most of his work was practical, not theoretical. Can't you axil create your own thread or blog where you could post all your stuff?

Axil's loosely in-topic monologues attempt to connect Shoulders experimental insights with recent advances in condensed matter science that have been advanced over the last 20 years. What Shoulders has discovered has also be validated and expanded on by other professional scientests.

Shoulders said:

Quote

@59m27s - the lone wolf

KS “The question is really poised around what person you need to help you get there. And I guess I am finding, more and more, there aren’t any - you get there by yourself or you don’t get there”

Since Shoulders suspended his research, there has been a rediscovery and an extension of his leading edge findings made by professional science. It is important to learn what these professional scientist have found and understand what insights that they contribute to what Shoulders has done.

John Hutchinson, a collaborator with Ken Shoulders was said to include experimental research showing artificial gravity effects including videos of objects flying around in his lab.

I just ran across an article that shows how exciton polaritons (AKA EVO) produce artificial gravity effects.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10137-z

Artificial gravity effect on spin-polarized exciton-polaritons

Quote

Experimental observation of bouncing of light in curved optical waveguides has been reported in ref. 22. In ref. 23 the effect of the self-induced “artificial gravity” on the interaction of optical wave packets in the Newton-Schrödinger system has been investigated. The nonlinear effects are responsible for the appearance of the “gravitational” potential in that system. The effects of gravitational lensing, tidal forces and gravitational redshift and blueshift have been emulated.