Clearance Items

  • Shane D.

    I amazed at how some people just don't "get it." Here is the line in question again, slightly changed to show the relevant part:

    if you believe that [Rossi might have something] at this point, I think you should be ready to invest in:

    (name an implausible invention) like

    - gravity cancelling machines

    - magnetic motors

    - HHO gas powering cars from water

    - Noble gas engines

    and yes, flying elephants if you don't like pigs. At least the elephants can flap their ears to make overunity energy.

    Gullible is what gullible does, to paraphrase a bit.

  • Quote

    It is, because our Clients like not to be harassed, at least for the time being. Otherwise they would not ask for an NDA.

    Same bovine excrement as Rossi pushed out in 2011. One thing the Rossi crowd is good at: recycling garbage. And apparently that sh*t still smells sweet to the Acland and Lewan crowd. Levi, on the other hand, far as is known, has been very quiet as have the "Swedish scientists" who originally tried to reproduce Rossi's hot cat claims.

  • The "FP's experiments discussion" has been closed a few hours ago (1). No problem for me. I already had the opportunity to fully illustrate my one point: the errors in the F&P conclusions on their 1992 boil-off experiment.

    I'm sorry for those who were interested in discussing other points. If the F&P results will be interesting again for the LENR-Forum, maybe we can continue the discussion on another dedicated thread.

    I use this "Clearance" thread only to answer the last question of Jed Rothwell.


    JedRothwell wrote:

    Add to that hundreds of other electrochemists and chemists who read the paper and say it is correct. You find it almost impossible to believe that all these people failed to find the blatant error. So, apparently you conclude that they found it, but they are part of a giant conspiracy to pretend the paper is valid. Either that, or you conclude that the creme de la creme of 20th century electrochemists could not do elementary chemistry.

    The reason is much simpler. The more serious errors in the results of the 1992 boil-off experiment are not detectable by reading only the ICCF3 paper, it is necessary to compare the information contained in the paper with those provided by the lab video. I don't know how many people, apart from F&P and some of their co-workers, were in possession of that video. Those who had the possibility to make this simple comparison also had the opportunity to easily recognize that the F&P paper was wrong. Maybe none of them suspected that "the creme de la creme of 20th century electrochemists" was not able to synchronize the video with the data log, as instead was stated in the paper.


    Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong, and there is no error?

    Yes, I always consider the possibility that I'm wrong. In this specific case of the errors contained in the F&P's 1992 paper, I asked for the collaboration of the other L-F members to have a confirmation or a disproval of my hypothesis.

    Well, I got only confirmations. Some have been provided in a positive way, with the sharing of my impressions on the presence of foam in the cell and the contribution of other videos and documents useful to better understand the facts. Other implicit confirmations came in the negative form of all those comments which tried to minimize the importance of the 1992 paper or the meaning of related videos, without providing any explanation for their discrepancies. In both cases, I thank everybody for the attention and for whichever contribution they gave to the discussion.

    Finally, the most significant confirmation arrived with the closure of the thread while the discussion was still ongoing.

    The second time it happens to me (2). On the first occasion, it took a long time before many Ecat supporters realized that R&F were wrong. In the case of F&P, it will probably take even longer.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion


  • I think the diatribe above is probably the daftest thing you have yet written. You would like us to believe that everybody confirmed foamgate, even those who did not. Unbelievable and puts you very near to troll country..

    Absolutely not. It was not my intent to misrepresent the opinion of other members. Let me clarify this point.

    It's obvious to anyone who read the thread just closed, that most of L-F members who participated in the discussion vehemently rejected my interpretation of the "foam issue". I myself would have been surprised by the contrary.

    But JR's question was inherent in my personal opinion on the possibility I was wrong. Therefore, what I meant by saying that the negative reactions were an "implicit" (perhaps I should have used "indirect") confirmation of my hypothesis, is that, from my PoV, all attempts to minimize the importance of the F&P paper and the significance of their video, as well as the lack of any factual criticism on the merits of my remarks, confirmed my personal confidence in having proposed the correct interpretation of the results of the 1992 boil-off experiment.