Clearance Items

  • Whether diamonds in the rough, or refined, we try to accomodate all personalities. That is what has made LF so popular. If they do not make the cut, then so be it. Plenty of others waiting to fill in.

  • He gets :thumbup:s from the Rossi supporters. In private, he is somewhat less confrontational than here on the forum. Reasonable though, and smart as can be. Granted, he is not very polished in public, but many here are not.

    He has a window to work with, and to his credit is willing to accept that. Like many before, they either find their place here, or opt for other forums better suited for their unique talents.

    Somehow I've come to think of this whole place as the "Fight Club" of LENR. You don't come here unless you're seriously f***** up to begin with, and have absolutely nothing better to do, but entertaining it is :)

  • The field under discussion is LENR, and you say

    that the reputations of Focardi and Celani is less than 2 dead flies? You're obviously proceeding from an extremely loaded definition.

  • Using Wilson to deny F&P results is a bit risky, as

    1/ he bashed politely Lewis and hansen that were the only serious experimental critics

    2/ he added a correction to F&P that finally does not explain big burst results, and that Fleischmann integrated (as safe worst case) even if it was introducing strange anomalies.

    3/ he was enough competent and motivated, so that if there was other serious claims he would have raised them

    Citing Morrison given some of his errors, is raising doubt on one's credibility and sincerity, especially if at the same time you criticized a dozen of competent experiments; In the same way it raised doubt on the credibility of the editor who managed peer review of his paper, proving that high impact journal are less serious than domain journal.

    I cited Wilson and Morrison just to respond to JR, who asked: "If Ascoli65 has some authorities in mind who have published arguments and facts that call into question these experiments, he should tell us who they are."

    I don't use the "Appeal to Authority" argument. I formulate my opinions by looking directly at the available experimental evidences provided by the CF researchers. I prefer to make mistakes by myself. When I followed Morrison in arguing that the wrong results of the F&P's boil-off experiment could have been explained by liquid entrainment, I made a mistake. On the contrary, looking directly at the lab video provided the real explanation. Probably, Morrison didn't have a copy of this video.

    But this is not the place to reopen the ongoing discussion on the closed thread. I've already exposed there my detailed scientific and technical remarks on the wrong results of the F&P experiments, asking for a constructive contribution from the other L-F members to confirm or refute these remarks on a factual basis. In response, I mostly received OT, ad hominem, boycotting and even insulting replies. As for you, you didn't answer my questions (1), after having intervened in the discussion claiming your skills.

    In the end, the thread was closed. You are an L-F admin, so you too have probably been involved in this decision to close the thread instead of answering my questions.

    That says it all: the F&P's conclusions on their boil-off experiment are indefensibly wrong.

    (1) FP's experiments discussion

  • The “Accomplishments”, by them in LENR.

    As of today, what have they accomplished,

    Other than to confirm what doesn’t work?

    So your contention is that some of the top LENR reputations amount to zip. Even though the top "who's who" of electrochemistry replicated the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?

    That seems to be a reasonable example of where to start in terms of defining "Skeptopath".