I examined the F&P documents and exposed some obvious errors, asking the others L-F members to explain these apparent inconsistencies, but only a few did it for a while and now they are silent, leaving my observation unexplained.
You did plenty of explaining yourself. What you observed was a typographic error and some misplaced blue arrows, nothing more I am certain, and from that you have constructed a whole conspiracy.
Back to the straw man. The budgets are held hostage, not the staff, this was from the beginning a comment about the waste of money, nothing else.
Thank you for the clarification.
What budgets? In Canada, university administrators allocate the funds for research infrastructure (buildings) but faculty fund equipment and operations mostly from money they obtain themselves. The share of the infrastructure support that a faculty member gets from the administration depends on how much funding they can win. Given all this the leeway for administrators to push around tenured faculty is not huge. And the question of tenure is, in the end, dealt with by the department (i.e., one's co-researchers) as a whole rather than being soley in the hands of administrators so there is not a huge amount of hostage taking there either.
So again. What budgets? Is the situation in Italy grossly different from as I have described such that most, or even a substantial minority of a researchers's budget is derived from the university itself (an thus under the control of administrators)?
Is the situation in Italy grossly different from as I have described such that most, or even a substantial minority of a researchers's budget is derived from the university itself (an thus under the control of administrators)?
Yes.
This is absolutely true for hot fusion! But no professor of cold-fusion has mislead the public so far. May be you still assume AR being a professore ...
Come on, AR was never considered believable, not even by Rothwell: https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=29406#post29406
All the Ecat credibility lies on some European professors and US experts who declared to have measured or seen huge quantities of excess heat been produced by its various models.
As for the misleading of the public and the decision makers, I can talk for the Italian context. CF got a big attention from the highest levels of our governments since the beginning. I give you just a couple of example, among the dozens that occurred in the last 30 years.
The following quote comes from a declaration of the Minister of Education, a former professor of an Engineering Department, held on May 4, 1989 to the Italian Parliament. The text is really interesting for an Italian, but could be boring for the others, therefore I only report a small quote from the final replication of the Minister (please, translate by yourself):
| From http://legislature.camera.it/_…Bollet/19890411_00_06.pdf [bold added] … Dunque, per quanto possa essere grande la tenerezza verso il nuovo nato, credo che prima di poter parlare di un nuovo filone applicativo sia necessario attenderne la crescita. E questa non è prudenza, ma una mia sensazione. Ricordo che quando ne discussi con il professor Bartolini, che non giudicava attendibili i risultati raggiunti da Fleischmann e Pons, lo invitai a riflettere su come fosse assai improbabile che due scienziati si mettessero d'accordo per raccontare cose non vere. A mio avviso, quindi, è consigliabile un atteggiamento di apertura; attenti, però, a non essere imprudenti, anche per il nostro ruolo nell'ambito della comunità scientifica internazionale: il prestigio della scienza italiana si misura, infatti, con decisioni che, anche dal punto di vista delle responsabilità politiche, risultino non criticabili. … |
So when the Minister was warned by prof. Bartolini that F&P results were not reliable, he replied that "it was very unlikely that two scientists agreed to tell untruths". Now, after 30 years, it's evident that Bartolini was right.
In the meanwhile, CF has contributed to delude the people, convincing them that an almost free energy source was possible. Who understands Italian can enjoy this video, shot in 1997:
It was a comic show, but it had the pretention to deal with serious topics. Among other things, it was essentially said that with a little heavy water and 200 kLiras (about 100 Euros) it was possible to have 5 kW for 400 years. After a few years the same show man founded the 5-stars movement, whose leader is presently the Deputy Prime Minister and leads the Ministry of Economic and Industrial Development.
QuoteOn the other side Italy spends billions a year for family car of (Roma's) state employees... May be you should change the field...
But this is a LENR forum.
This will do a lot of good. Sort of like a ... rain dance.
QuoteHow can we coordinate a round-the-world "go to Hades" aWake for 20th century geo-political power, pseudo-skeptics, and half-steppin "scientists" to tell them that CF Lives!
You can start with a verified demonstration showing Pout > Pin and Eout > Ein by a large margin for a long time from a small device and verified by a government agency or renown testing lab. Get "60 Minutes" to cover it. Or a nice fat high yield explosion from a small device in a safe location with appropriate measurements. But wailing about pseudo-skeptics and other villains won't cut it. It won't help one tiny bit.
I see dissenting comments are discouraged. OK, have at it. It will do absolutely nothing.
QuoteMost people believe there are other intelligent civilizations out there.
Perhaps. But out where exactly?
Anyway, most reasonable scientists simply say it is certainly possible, even likely, but until it is demonstrated, the real truth is nobody knows. People "believing it" adds nothing at all to the proposition.
QuoteAs for the research on fusion, both hot and cold, a much worse damage than wasting money has been to mislead the public and the decision makers, providing them an easy excuse not to face the global resource problems in a truly effective and long lasting way. The illusions spread by the FUSION chimeras have largely contributed to creating the current critical situation. Part of this responsibility lies on ambitious or unscrupulous professors and other public researchers
For cold fusion, I don't think so. Outside a small community of enthusiasts, most scientists don't spend either time or resources examining cold fusion or LENR. Hot fusion is another story. How much should be spent on that can certainly be argued. And when if ever it will be practical can also be argued. However, unlike LENR, that the concept works can not.
The thread just opened and you could not wait to launch into your well rehearsed MY diatribe. It is our party to plan, and attend, and you are not invited. Go plan you own.
For cold fusion, I don't think so. Outside a small community of enthusiasts, most scientists don't spend either time or resources examining cold fusion or LENR. Hot fusion is another story. How much should be spent on that can certainly be argued. And when if ever it will be practical can also be argued. However, unlike LENR, that the concept works can not.
There are serious attempts notably from https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ to do hot fusion in newer smaller quicker ways. They are a long shot, but have no new physics to work out and a decent chance with the technology. They hope grid power 2030 and break even their current in build prototype.
It's dumb and it accomplishes nothing. Why not spend all that energy on finding a decent and properly verified demo? Do something useful maybe? I want to see LENR become real, not people celebrate abstractions and insulting skeptics who so far have been right all along.
I can't see why tokamakenergy don't couple their reactor to a proton particle beam to smash some particles in the plasma into pions and thus muons and so further catalyse their hot fusion. Or maybe they tried it but had no luck.
We want to thumb our noses at the establishment, that's why. Rebels with a cause. 
And you sure have a funny way of "wanting to see LENR become real". You have been trashing it for years now.
I know, CF/LENR should be treated at a much more general level, as a socio-psychological phenomenon, or even as an existential one.
That's what the skeptics claim as a last resort to explain their behavior.
What is the name for the funding stream in the UK that goes through the hands of university administrators and allows them to hold researchers hostage? What is the name of the corresponding funding stream in Italy?
Shane, how do you feel about medical charlatans who claim to have cures for cancer? Do you cheer each of them on and applaud their efforts just because curing cancer is a great thing? If you don’t see the analogy, that is why you don’t understand SOT’s world view.
Now, after 30 years, it's evident that Bartolini was right.
It's that (Bartolini) your name Ascoli?
IO,
It is a long way off. Plenty of time to think it out. If you have a logical, and constructive disagreement with the idea, by all means post it to Ruby's thread.
Now please, while we may on occasion *out* one avatar to another avatar for perspective, putting a real name to an avatar, is solely at the discretion of the member.
IO,
It is a long way off. Plenty of time to think it out. If you have a logical, and constructive disagreement with the idea, by all means post it to Ruby's thread.
Shane,
I don’t even know what idea you are talking about. I gather there is some sort of event being discussed but I didn’t see the original description wherever that was. So no, I have no disagreement, logical or otherwise. My comment was directed at the notion that SOT’s negativity does not imply opposition to the hopes and aspirations associated with LENR but only to jumping to positive conclusions based on flimsy or even fraudulent claims. As I implied with my quack medicine comment, just because successful LENR technology development would be a great thing, that doesn’t mean one should automatically assume that every LENR claim is a great thing.
