Clearance Items

  • Blech... I carefully avoided characterizing all of the people and companies mentioned as frauds. I said they exhibit behavior of frauds-- in this case, giant claims, short deadlines, and ABSOLUTELY NO PERFORMANCE. All the entities I mentioned did was simply to solicit and spend money. No products, no papers of any import in mainline journals, no independent tests by properly accredited labs or companies... I could continue but it's wasted effort. And I forgot that BLP should be added to the list.


    This forum is so heavily overmanaged, it's hardly worth the trouble to write to. In fact, with the demise of ecatnews.com, there is no uncensored site which has appreciable circulation and is about claims to nickel-hydrogen LENR in particular or LENR in general. THAT tells you something about the nature of LENR. It's proponents "exhibit the behavior" I've come to expect from the owners of sites devoted to UFO's, psychics who talk to the dead, and promoters of Ponzi schemes.

  • Words lose their meaning when one suggests that McKubre, Miley or Swartz exhibit the behavior of a fraud. This goes beyond a lack of tact. It is either delusion or gross carelessness. Miley and Swartz have been accused of making claims that they've failed to adequately support, but this is entirely different than fraud.

  • Words lose their meaning when one suggests that McKube, Miley or Swartz exhibit the behavior of a fraud. This goes beyond a lack of tact. It is either delusion or gross carelessness. Miley and Swartz have been accused of making claims that they've failed to adequately support, but this is entirely different than fraud.


    Yes, and no. A pattern of making claims that are unsupported is characteristic of frauds in this area. But it does not imply fraud and may be entirely innocent. Of course a lot of companies with new technology that ends up not being commercial do exactly that.


    Logically, Mary is correct. It is not tactful because the set of people making such repeated unsupported claims is large and includes many more non-fraudulent practitioners than fraudulent ones, so the seeming implication that such behaviour implies fraud is wrong. And insulting to a whole load of misguided but honest people.


    Also, in some cases (e.g. Mills) Mary would say she has convincing evidence of fraud but others would disagree. The whole fraud conversation is unhelpful, except in extreme cases one of which is going before a Court this Summer. Much safer just to note a pattern of claims followed by non-performance and leave of trying to gauge motive.


    I'm not quarrelling with moderating such stuff. just pointing out logic.

  • Looking for various misconduct,

    instead of focusing on respected experimentsres who have been transparent and survived review (but not trolling), there is indeed meat for the chevalier of science :


    First is the pathetic erroneous Caltech paper who was not retracted or corrected of it's errors, who are as public as Defkalion critic by Luca Gamberale and E-cat pacermonitor

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf


    you have the MIT data tweaking, who not only is not documented, but seems to even be manual as Jed Reports, and who launched the furor of MIT editor himself

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

    and this is not accounting for the addtional incompetent which was not enough documented (you can be honestly incompetent but document it)

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedg.pdf#page=138


    You also have the very strange peer review of Morrison article who make our beloved pet theorist sand conspiracy theorists look very serious

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf


    You also have Gary Taubes conspiracy theory on tritium, and the bent inquiry against, directed by Huizenga and Parks anti-science epistemology. The impossibility of that theory and the cherry picking of data is documented.


    all that would allow good trial, and I'm sure you would be competent in finding the crimes, if motivated.


    so, Mary you you want to denounce fraudulent behaviors, and why not academic misconduct, or epistemoly errors, I propose you attack first the clear example. I'm sure I will share the 2 first on your list, like many people here, but afterward I'm afraid your motivated beliefs will bend your hierarchy of fraudulent behaviors, toward a more tribal and position-based critics.


    how long ago did you change your mind?


    each of us should ask secretly to that question.

  • SSC: If you want to say that I am lying when I say I don't have a dog in this fight, say so and don't be a coward. I repeat, I have no dog in this fight, I have no financial interest in it and I have no personal or business relationships with any of the parties, their counsel or anyone on this board (at least as far as I know, as most of the people here post anonymously). But, if you decide you want to say I am lying, please note that statement could be considered defamatory, particularly as I have identified myself, and I can assure you that this board and your ISP will gladly turn over you real identity pursuant to a subpoena. So, at the risk of violating the norms of this board, fold it five ways and shove it where the moon don't shine.

    Your vulgarity and your exaggerated reaction are entirely inappropriate. I only expressed a reasonable doubt, among other things I was just doing irony. But such a angry answer shows only guilty conscience. If you want to denounce me for such a trifle....well, do it. Obviously you have time to throw.


    This post moved from RdV2 - reason, contains threats of legal action, which have no place in this public forum. Alan.

  • Yes, let me refine my earlier post. Behaving "like" fraud is not fraud. Actually, McKubre probably did not defraud anyone but he encouraged spending money in fruitless ways. His problem seems to be insufferable pompousness and immense gullibility. I suspect he's sincere.


    As to Miley, someone who knows him personally confided to me, probably has ... well ... mental issues. The guy described him as a whackjob, sincere but clueless. This seems to be recent. He did good work in his early years. Now before someone yells libel, I am not saying I believe that. I was told it. What I know for a fact is that Miley said his existing test devices could make hundreds of watts continuously on a test bench and that was at least four years ago and he has produced absolutely nothing public.


    Swartz is simply ineffective. He's been making the same claims for minuscule amounts of excess heat for decades and teaching a class, misleadingly said to be from MIT (in fact it is only held AT MIT and has no connection to the school), which purports to teach how to replicate the excess heat except nobody seems to be able to in a credible manner. The supposed connection to MIT and the way it is advertised is not necessarily fraud but is something a fraudulent claimant would do. Clear enough now?


    Alain, you seem like a nice guy but I can almost never understand your writings. The above is no exception. I know nothing of the papers you cite and I have no idea how they bear on what I do know about which is Rossi and his various fraudulent activities, past and near-present.

  • Your clarification is a little bit like clarifying that, when I said those fellows were acting like would-be murderers, what I meant was that they were pulling the triggers of rifles, which is something that would-be murders also do. I'm correct in saying this, even though the men were on a hunting trip and were not really murdering or intending to murder anyone.

  • Your clarification is a little bit like clarifying that, when I said those fellows were acting like would-be murderers, what I meant was that they were pulling the triggers of rifles, which is something that would-be murders also do. I'm correct in saying this, even though the men were on a hunting trip and were not really murdering or intending to murder anyone.


    well this is clearance...


    Not quite. Given a gun everyone would pull its trigger to use it. So the observation over-generalised does not point in any way to culpability.


    However Mills/etc behaviour is not used by everyone. Only those with vapourware who repeatedly are overoptimistic - or by frauds. Other companies underestimating needed capital (common) at least make progress rather than changing completely the device they claim to be on the verge of commercialising whenever they need new funding.

  • Not quite. Given a gun everyone would pull its trigger to use it. So the observation over-generalised does not point in any way to culpability.


    The example overgeneralizes it, but there is an important and critical point: intention is paramount. A fraud must intend to be a fraud. It is far from obvious, and probably obvious the other way, that McKubre, Miley or Swartz intend to defraud anyone. Mentioning them in the original list was indefensible, and the followup explanation reminded me of this interaction:



  • Swartz is simply ineffective. He's been making the same claims for minuscule amounts of excess heat for decades and teaching a class, misleadingly said to be from MIT (in fact it is only held AT MIT and has no connection to the school), which purports to teach how to replicate the excess heat except nobody seems to be able to in a credible manner. The supposed connection to MIT and the way it is advertised is not necessarily fraud but is something a fraudulent claimant would do. Clear enough now?


    Mary, your comments on McKubre and co are based on your pathetic lack of knowledge about the field you are so critical of, and of work done by people with twice your brains and application, and half your arrogance. To pick one example, Dr. Mitchell Swartz has four degrees from MIT all in EE and trained in medicine at Harvard going on to serve in surgery and radiation oncology. In the LENR field he has successfully demonstrated two types of system, and published the results after peer-review.



    POWER OUTPUTS:- At the multi watt level, an aqueous system for 5 days, data here: http://world.std.com/~mica/phusoropendemo.html

    DURATION:- At the level of hundreds of mW with the dry NANOR-type system for 3 months, data here: http://world.std.com/~mica/nanoropendemo.html


    I don't suppose you will ever read the papers, but do have the grace not to throw out whole babies with your bath-water.

  • Boy, given that LENR has been amply proven and replicated by world-class scientists again and again, it is truly a shame that there does not exist a single powerful corporation greedy enough to put their money into the technology that would completely take over the world. I guess the hidden forces of the physics elite are powerful enough to stop anything. I missed out on those guys throughout my career. Go figure.


  • Alan. When claiming peer-review you need to give the papers not summaries. If those two web links are peer-reviewed then I don't think much of it - there is not nearly enough info to know whether the shown results are mundane or extraordinary.


    So far I've only seen from Schwartz papers that are unimpressive. If you are predisposed to believe what they say, they look good, but as credible calorimetry they do not.


    Perhaps you've got a better link for the aqueous system? I have not looked at that before.


    Schwartz is a showman. Makes me mildly distrustful when he claims something extraordinary, though unlike Rossi I can believe that his LENR classes are good fun and educational, so I cut him some slack.

  • woodworker wrote:

    SSC: If you want to say that I am lying when I say I don't have a dog in this fight, say so and don't be a coward. I repeat, I have no dog in this fight, I have no financial interest in it and I have no personal or business relationships with any of the parties, their counsel or anyone on this board (at least as far as I know, as most of the people here post anonymously). But, if you decide you want to say I am lying, please note that statement could be considered defamatory, particularly as I have identified myself, and I can assure you that this board and your ISP will gladly turn over you real identity pursuant to a subpoena. So, at the risk of violating the norms of this board, fold it five ways and shove it where the moon don't shine.

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

    So the snowflake attorney from Berkley is on the board for three days and he wants to sue someone - HALARISOUS!! to funny .. Go IH )))


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • Alan. When claiming peer-review you need to give the papers not summaries. If those two web links are peer-reviewed then I don't think much of it - there is not nearly enough info to know whether the shown results are mundane or extraordinary.


    THHuxleynew . I was replying to Mary, who wouldn't read anything anyway. If you wish to poke around for other papers by Swartz do so. But better check the spelling first..

  • Quote

    I thought perhaps i was being too nice

    You know, one must always talk nice about LENR researchers!

    Never critisize their work, no matter how many years a researcher repeated again and again the same claims of "excess heat" - but nobody else can replicate.

    And don't demand "extraordinary proof" for extraordinary claims - this might just upset the inventor and the whole LENR community.


    And never belittle amateurish attempts of garage tinkerers building a nuclear reactor. - Worship them, because they (totally unselfish) try to save the world.