Clearance Items

    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.


    Quote

    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.


    Quote

    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

    (2) http://www.physicsforums.com/s…hp?p=3219736&postcount=86

    Quote from Alan Smith

    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.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Everyone is hereby ordered to "try and be civil". There, I did my job.

    You didn't remove the initiating insults. Does that mean we get to respond with insults? Why do moderators allow one set of insults but not another?


    Here's an example of how you could do what you're claiming.


    You take the original unprovoked insult, like this one:




    interested observer wrote:

    @kevmolenr: Now that we are clued in that you are a delicate soul who gets very upset over bits of sarcasm and takes them as horrible insults, we will try to stay clear of your tender toes (yes, that is more sarcasm and probably will set you off again crying “unfair!” to the mods.

    So let’s try to understand where you are coming from. Based on the notion that it is not strictly speaking impossible that Rossi’s assorted claims are real, you are saying that pointing out how absurd and unlikely they are is bad form? You like it better if people just regurgitate the nonsense he spews? ECW is designed for that purpose. Why not spend all your time there among like-minded souls? I guess it is because you see yourself as an heroic defender of LENR battling skeptopaths like Jed Rothwell (??????).




    And then you modify it & repost it without the insult, like this... and move the original to the Clearance Items thread.



    interested observer wrote:

    @kevmolenr: .snip. So let’s try to understand where you are coming from. Based on the notion that it is not strictly speaking impossible that Rossi’s assorted claims are real, you are saying that pointing out how absurd and unlikely they are is bad form? You like it better if people just regurgitate the nonsense he spews? ECW is designed for that purpose. Why not spend all your time there among like-minded souls? I guess it is because you see yourself as an heroic defender of LENR battling skeptopaths like Jed Rothwell (??????).


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------


    THAT is doing your job. Leaving it to the insulted party to weed out insults into the response to keep it civil doesn't work anywhere, especially when all responses (even polite ones) get shunted to a Clearance Items thread without notice.

    Quote from interested observer

    I am not interested in trading insults with you on some other site.

    ***Of Course Not. You're only interested in throwing out insults where you know you will be protected, where your insults survive while your antagonists' insults are moved. Like I said, and I predicted: "I already know how you will scurry back from such an invitation."


    I am mostly here to watch the Rossi circus and his remarkable supporters of which there only a handful who participate these days.

    ***Because of people like you who insult them, and then when they respond in kind, their insults are moved to the Clearance Items thread without notice. But your insults are not insults, right?



    I don’t have a strong enough stomach to spend time on sites where there are lots of Rossi fans.

    ***No you don't, because your insults won't be preserved so readily. But note that you shy away from going where your insults as well as theirs would be preserved. Nope, you're not interested in that.




    That being said, if it would make you a happier camper to call me names, please do.

    ***I'll be glad to, if the mods allow it. But if history is any indication, you're just hiding behind their skirts.



    Shane will probably let you get away with it.

    ***Shane isn't the only moderator.



    I will only call you a Rossi supporter.

    ***You have been delivering a bunch of insults up until now. All of those insults survive. Last time around I was put on 'probation' for answering insult for insult, and my comments were shunted (without notice) to the Clearance Items thread while the original insults were allowed to remain. Just like your original insults remain on this thread even now. That is the context in which you decide you're gonna be a nice guy and "only" call me a Rossi supporter as an insult.



    That suffices as an insult in my view.

    ***What you don't even seem to realize is that I don't qualify as a Rossi supporter. My remarks get sarcasm over there just as they do over here. And the reason you don't realize it is because there is something missing in your discernment capabilities, and that is probably what causes you to keep on reverting back to classical fallacies.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Kev,Not going down that Rabbit Hole with you. Maybe because you have been gone awhile, you missed that this Rossi thread is less moderated than others? What is acceptable here, is not tolerated on other threads. We have put out notice of that before, after getting complaints similar to yours. The reason for that is because there is little middle ground with Rossi. He is either a conman, or genius inventor (one other category I am in) in most people's opinion. So we discussed it in private, and concluded we have the choice to ban Rossi talk, or let members have their say...up to a point, and we chose the latter option.

    ***Does this mean I get to trade insult for insult without my comments getting shunted aside while theirs remain?




    Those that decide to participate on this, or any Rossi thread know the rules and accept them.

    ***Those are new rules. Is there a posting where new rules are put up for people to read when they wander over here?



    That said, there is no getting around us Mods being humans, and we do make mistakes. Overall though, I think we do a pretty good job of walking that fine line. Proof of that is in the growth of our member ranks.

    ***True enough.



    Alan wrote a very polite message to you, simply asking you to try and be civil, but the main point was asking you (in private)

    ***I don't know what you're talking about, "in private". I'll have a look around. Did Alan write a very polite message to the folks who INITIATED insults?



    to ease up on "management". I would have phrased it differently, and asked you try and be less volatile, as you do often come across as about ready to fly off the handle.

    ***Please, do yourself a favor as moderator. Look through my interactions on this thread and determine for yourself who threw out the first personal insult. It's like what happened when we were in school and the teacher determined who threw the first punch in a fight... the one who initiated the violence was at fault. In the case of written comments, it's all up there for you to see. Same thing happened last time. If these are the rules and you guys are so steadfast about them, then those rules should be prominently posted.




    That is balanced though, with you having many good things to say. Especially about Rossi. How about you get back to the discussion, get thicker skin, and leave the moderation to us?

    ***I have plenty thick skin when I'm allowed to trade like for like. Your fellow moderators noticed that my insults were so withering on the skeptopaths that they removed my insults but kept the skeptopath insults up to be read, as if there was no response to them. If you have "restored balance to the force" then that's all good and grand. Keep in mind that the previous moderation policies have driven Rossi supporters away, and the current moderation policies keep all those insults standing, so the context is rather loud.

    • Official Post
    Quote from [email protected]

    I read my 'private' note from Alan. How is it you know that he said "try and be civil" if it's a private message? You got it before I did.


    Because yiour note was in a 'conversation' (see banner menu) in which other members of the team were public participants. Just look at the top of the page. All participants are able to see it once posted, whoever sees it first would be the 'first to see it'.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    KevMo - another refurbished Rossi acolyte who is here to try and perpetuate the mistruth and misdirection that Rossi counts on to sustain his story.

    ***Dewey, a guy who was duped by what people around here call an inept con man.




    IH did want Rossi IP

    ***Well, there we have it, don't we?



    to find out if his system worked and the R'ster sold his IP for $11.5M

    ***No, he didn't. The court documents make it clear that Rossi was paid $11.5M to conduct a 1 year demo of his IP. If it passed by way of an unbiased third party (Rossi doesn't seem to know what unbiased means), then he was to transfer the rest of the IP to them and they were to start paying him $89M at first royalties and other compensation after that. IH balked, wouldn't pay the money.



    then wasn't able to follow-through on his contractual transfer obligations because it never worked in the first place.

    ***See. We have a straightforward factual disagreement here. Let's just go to the court records to check. At the time I was predicting that IH would settle, on the basis that they had paid $11M for a yearlong demo and I was loudly criticized here. Sure enough, IH settled.



    There was nothing to transfer except a bunch of electrical and plumbing junk.

    ***There was that independent report. The money was supposed to transfer after the report was received. Positive report, IH sends $89Mil. Negative report IH sends nothing. IH didn't want to pay but, oddly enough,... they still wanted Rossi to transfer his technology. Why, if it was so worthless?


    KevMo also attempts to perpetuate that R IP (a joke in and of itself) was "transferred to others".Volumes of discovery submitted for the trial revealed that didn't happen -

    ***Fascinating. The stuff I read showed that Rossi was alleging exactly that--that IH was transferring IP to competitors. Since it never went to trial, we'll never know but we DO know that IH and Rossi dropped the lawsuit. And part of that settlement was a transfer back of all Rossi's IP.



    another falsehood from Planet Rossi_KevMo.

    ***No, you're the one spreading falsehoods here, Dewey.


    Rossi doesn't even know what his "IP" is any more because it is some beguiling ether floating on the surface of Planet Rossi.

    ***If the guy is supposedly doing a fan dance around a pile of bullshit, then why don't all these geniuses here figure out how he's faking the demo? If he's a fake, I wanna know. If he's real , I wanna know. But all you're doing is spreading more bullshit. Look at what was going on just slightly upthread, talking about the camera. For someone who knows so little, he sure is able to put on a convincing enough fake that even Mike McKubre thought the spectrum analysis was worth looking at. For such a stupid con artist, he sure does smart things, like conning you. If he's stupid, that makes you more stupid than him. Did that ever occur to you?



    How many times has the market spoken already? I've lost count.

    ***Why are you posting this to me? I said outright that Rossi says he should be graded on "in Mercato Veritas" and that there is nothing In Mercato so there is no Veritas. That's the thing with people that get all wound up about Rossi, they assume someone says something and go all out in knocking it down when the other person didn't even say it.

    Quote from woodworker

    LET ME ASK THE SAME QUESTION: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE CURRENT ROSSI WIDGET IS REAL?

    No, I will not let you. The discussion took place inside a hypothetical. YOUR hypothetical. I predicted that folks would want to just brush aside that hypothetical, and that's exactly what you are doing, right here and right now.


    You want me to address YOUR hypotheticals then you address MINE. I already addressed this hypothetical. Now it's YOUR turn, and you answer with insults.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Because yiour note was in a 'conversation' (see banner menu) in which other members of the team were public participants. Just look at the top of the page. All participants are able to see it once posted, whoever sees it first would be the 'first to see it'.

    Your note to me was in private. I read about you saying "go and have some fun" in public before I ever read it in private. I don't know what the 'banner menu' is nor how it has bearing on this.

    Quote from Ascoli65

    ...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

    Attempts? Ha, Sorry it was never meant as an attempt, but as factual description of their published papers 😉


    And I believe the critisism of your analysis was on the contrary, very factual.


    Anyhow, I believe we were going in circles at the end, so I agree the closure of the thread were expected.



    Quote from woodworker

    You also complain about personal insults but then you do the same by saying that "to be candid, I'm not really all that interested in your answer,"

    ***Ahh, da poor wittle snowflake got her feewings hurt when I said I didn't wanna hear her answer. She takes that as an insult. She can handle it when her insults are allowed to persist but her opponents' insults are removed. Let's see how she handles it with a level playing field. My suggestion is that she go ahead and remove all the initializing insults because that is what got us into this trouble. Everyone wins.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.