Clearance Items

  • A bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. I am not claiming that the chemists and lab techs knew that but the principals did.


    Do you claim the chemists, lab techs, and the people who developed the device did not know what the devices did? Are you saying they devoted years of effort to machines that did not work at all, and could not be used to analyze blood? That would be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. On the other hand, if the device worked somewhat, and if the scientists and engineers working on it felt that it might be an important contribution to the technology, that would not be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. It would a mistake, or a failed product. It would be that no matter what the principles said or did.


    Perhaps you think the scientists and engineers were in on the scam, and they knew the machine did not work at all. Or, perhaps you think the scientists were deluded somehow, and they thought the machine worked, but it didn't.


    It seems to me you have a black or white view of events. You seem incapable of understanding that what happened at Theranos was a mix of events, and that different people played different roles, and saw it in different ways. Some were engaged in a scam. Others were trying to do good science and good R&D. It is complicated, but to you, all things are simple.

  • It is a lasting mystery to me why some individuals who are smart enough to know better, think there is residual merit in crooks and sociopaths like Elizabeth Holmes and Andrea Rossi. We sure see these folks represented here!


    Quote

    Do you claim the chemists, lab techs, and the people who developed the device did not know what the devices did? Are you saying they devoted years of effort to machines that did not work at all, and could not be used to analyze blood? That would be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. On the other hand, if the device worked somewhat, and if the scientists and engineers working on it felt that it might be an important contribution to the technology, that would not be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. It would a mistake, or a failed product. It would be that no matter what the principles said or did.


    Did you see the video documentary? Did you bother to read what I wrote? The so-called Edison device never performed a useful subset of tests and never gave accurate results. It was apparently not a novel invention but a lame and mostly malfunctioning adaptation of existing technologies. Most test results reported by Theranos in a poor try at meeting their contract requirements with various retail pharmacies were obtained with conventional machines at the Theranos headquarters and these were hidden in restricted areas of the building. This was not a mistake. It was not a "failed" contribution to technology. It was a misrepresentation and a huge bag of lies fed to investors as well as to the illustrious board of directors and advisers which at times included Schulz and Kissenger. The scam was uncovered and revealed by none other than Schulz's grandson. Schulz himself took years to be persuaded that the claims were not real and were never real.


    Only Holmes knows what her true motives were and whether she was really trying to make a device that worked. She probably was but it was still a scam because she lied to and hid essential information from directors and shareholders alike in order to secure investments. The degree of fraud and it's punishment will be revealed after the civil and criminal actions run their course.


    The potential criminal penalties are 20 years in prison for Balwani and Holmes. The government rarely seeks such penalties for best honest efforts that failed (/sarcasm). Read up on this, find and view the TV documentary. You are quick to criticize when you think others have not done their homework yet you seem to know absolutely nothing useful about this case.


    Quote

    On June 15, 2018, Holmes and Balwani were indicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. According to the indictment, investors and doctors and patients were defrauded. It is alleged the defendants were aware of the unreliability and inaccuracy of their products, but concealed that information. If convicted, they each face a maximum fine of $250,000 and 20 years in prison. The case has been assigned to Lucy H. Koh, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[93][94]


    -Wikipedia


    ETA: nobody claims or charges the majority of employees at Theranos with a scam. Most worked honestly but were frustrated by the secrecy which hid the bulk of operations and true goals from them along with the performance data. Each person was only allowed to see a small part of the entire workings. And many, to their credit, squawked as much as their tight NDA's and other restrictions would allow.


    See also (behind paywall for some but some free articles allowed each month):


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…nos-elizabeth-holmes.html

  • Listen, Julian, at one time I developed a small subset of clinical lab tests (I can discuss that with you by email if you like) but it was a while back so I readily admit I may have missed something recent. What is the name of the machine which does 30 of the tests you listed on a capillary full of blood? A link would be nice but I'll be happy to Google it. And it can do any mixture of any 30 on one sample? That would be pretty amazing. Most lab tests can be done on capillary size blood samples and there is nothing new about that but not many can be done on the same sample by the methods I used to be familiar with.

    I will send you a private message so that I will not bother others with a subject that is not related to LENR.

  • Polls like this are silly. It does not matter what people think about if he does or does not have what he claims.

    It is what it is.


    How about a poll on the boiling point of water? Is it 100C or 50C or 150C ..... it is what it is a poll will not change reality.

  • Did you see the video documentary? Did you bother to read what I wrote?


    No. I read the book.


    The so-called Edison device never performed a useful subset of tests and never gave accurate results. It was apparently not a novel invention but a lame and mostly malfunctioning adaptation of existing technologies.


    "A lame and mostly malfunctioning adaptation of existing technology" is a bad product. It is an R&D failure. It is not a scam. Many companies have such R&D failures. IBM used to come up with one every few years in the 1980s, such as the PCjr. You called this a "bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam." I think most people would take that to mean a fake product that does not work at all, and was never intended to work, by anyone in the project. Like when MiniScribe started shipping bricks in place of hard disks. It wasn't like they thought someone might be able to use a brick to record data. It seems to me that by calling this a total scam, you are saying that everyone involved -- including the scientists -- knew it could never work and would never sell, and they were all in it for the money. Since one of the scientists committed suicide in despair, I do not think he was in it for the money.


    I begin to see how you manage to disregard the replications of Pons and Fleischmann by 180 laboratories. In your mind, every experiment and every R&D project is either a success or it is "a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam." There are no gray areas. No projects that go well in some ways, but not so well in others. No partial progress. In your mind, either the cold fusion researchers can make a fully saleable multi-kilowatt reactor, or they are liars, lunatics and criminals (as Robert Park would put it).

  • Polls like this are silly. It does not matter what people think about if he does or does not have what he claims.

    It is what it is.


    How about a poll on the boiling point of water? Is it 100C or 50C or 150C ..... it is what it is a poll will not change reality.

    Totally Wrong.

    Your example lacks reference to the Rossi scam. Because water boils in different pressure levels at different degrees, and Rossi is a complete scumbag, NO MATTER ON WHICH pressure level.

    And this poll can eventually ( if one was maye ever made before ) track the sane people who definitiely said NO or (if there were more than one poll ) now said NO. At least Mats Sockpuppet Lewan can track the amount.


    And present that to Rossi.

  • Yeah of course, they do. As well as Terminator, Event horizon, Chuck Norris and Axil.

  • Oh do give us a break. The original Fleischmann Pons experiment was replicated and confirmed at over 180 labs,
    ...


    Come on! You know that the most celebrated and best documented F&P experiment is the "1992 boil-off experiment" described in their ICCF3 paper (1). But, as already discussed in this forum (*), the conclusions of this paper are blatantly wrong, as everyone can see by analyzing the original lab videos (2,3).


    All the other F&P experiments are much less documented and the claimed excess heats are so small to be comparable with the experimental margins of error, so that there is no reason to believe that they were real.


    Alleged confirmations from other (180?!) labs are presumably affected by the same kind of errors. In any case, it's not possible to trust any claim of successful replication made by people who didn't recognize the huge and obvious mistakes made by F&P in their "1992 boil-off experiment".


    (1) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

    (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9K1Hvw434
    (*) F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • @Ascoli : As paid hot-fusion agent we can asumme that it's your job to spread fake news.


    Why fake? Ref.(1,2,3) come directly from F&P and were published on the internet by two of the most active CF/LENR supporters.


    The thread (*) was opened at the request of the LENR-Forum team and, until it was closed, each L-F member had the opportunity to express his position on the subject.


    And, finally, I've no connection with hot fusion, as I told you many times: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

  • Come on! You know that the most celebrated and best documented F&P experiment is the "1992 boil-off experiment" described in their ICCF3 paper (1). But, as already discussed in this forum (*), the conclusions of this paper are blatantly wrong, as everyone can see by analyzing the original lab videos (2,3).


    I know that is your opinion, but I do not know anyone who agrees with you. I certainly do not. I think you should refrain from saying "everyone can see" since no one else sees it. Perhaps you should say "anyone should be able to see."


    You are making two assertions here:


    1. F&P were wrong. That's plausible, at least.

    2. Everyone can see this, and everyone agrees with you. That is wrong, as a matter of fact. No one agrees with you.

  • I think you should refrain from saying "everyone can see" since no one else sees it. Perhaps you should say "anyone should be able to see."


    OK, thank you. Your wording better expresses my thoughts: anyone with a basic knowledge in thermodynamics and looking at the written and visual documents of the "1992 boil-off experiment" should be able to see that F&P drawn the wrong conclusions.


    Quote

    You are making two assertions here:


    1. F&P were wrong. That's plausible, at least.

    2. Everyone can see this, and everyone agrees with you. That is wrong, as a matter of fact. No one agrees with you.


    OK for the first assertion. That's indeed my own opinion, as I have extensively documented and explained.


    As for the second assertion, I never stated that everyone agrees with me. I can only say that after rising the "foam issue" last fall, some L-F members agreed with me (1). Most are classified as LENR skeptics or naysayers. But the most important agreement came from a reputable and active member of the LENR community (2).


    Actually, no one knows how many agrees with me on the "foam issue" and its negative impact on the conclusions contained in the most important F&P paper. To get a better idea, it should have been allowed the specific poll, that was proposed on January (3).


    (1) FP's experiments discussion

    (2) FP's experiments discussion

    (3) FP's experiments discussion

  • As for the second assertion, I never stated that everyone agrees with me.

    "Everyone can see" means everyone agrees.


    No one can see what you describe. It is a fantasy. It does not happen. On the contrary, anyone who boils water in a test tube will see that you are wrong. What you describe would apply to any test tube, and any method of boiling, not just boiling with cold fusion heat.