Clearance Items

  • 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.

  • 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.


    Surely you do not place criticizing a LENR researcher's work in the same category as saying that his or her behavior is like that of a fraud? It is important to keep in mind the central issue being discussed here. It's not about critiquing the work of researchers being problematic, or about extreme skepticism of their claims being a bad thing, etc. It's about using terms like "fraud" too loosely. Surely this issue resonates even with some of a skeptical frame of mind?

  • Surely you place criticizing a LENR researcher's work in the same category as saying that his or her behavior is like that of a fraud? It is important to keep in mind the central issue being discussed here. It's not about critiquing the work of researchers being problematic, or about extreme skepticism of their claims being a bad thing, etc. It's about using terms like "fraud" too loosely. Surely this issue resonates even with some of a skeptical frame of mind?


    I agree Eric, it is quite clearly improper to call scientists, however continually misguided, frauds, as long as they are honest. Nearly all scientists are this.


    There is a progression here, where scientists can be associated with over-optimistic companies claiming to want to commercialise what is clear vapourware. Those scientists are unlikely to be frauds either. Even the companies are unlikely to be fraudulent - but that possibility must remain on the cards. Personally, I don't see much room for genuine commercial development until the science is proven real (which, again personally, I doubt it will be). It is unwise to seek commerical gains when they are so far from being clear.


    The issue is not so much whether the people involved are hopelessly over-optimistic, and have bad judgment. It is whether they deliberately deceive. That would not be true of nearly all these LENR claims. It would be true of Rossi. I'm not quite certain whether it would be true of BLP - though I'd guess not.


    MY does not see much room for honest mistake when it goes with a 20 year struggle as in BLP. I think MY also sees some other evidence as indicating deception from BLP which I would not. Or maybe she just reckons any company that can waste people's time and money for so long is a bad idea.

  • I actually approve of IH's apparent approach re commercialisation. Back what seem to be the best bets. Get IP protection where possible. Do rigorous testing to see what might be real. Have a long timescale. They are ideal LENR backers, if they are still able to do this after the Rossi debacle.


    So, if there is anything commercial in LENR, I see IH as being the best hope of sniffing it out. And that is very different from the many vapourware companies.

  • It is funny to hear people who accuse experiments like Miles, Storms, McKubre, of no replication while there is hundreds of replication in peer reviewed papers... beside regular replication by ENEA , SKINR, NRL, and Storms.


    of course no replication exist for oneself if one say there is none that exist.


    as said the scientistwhose paper should have been rejected for error if Nature was doing their job,no lab with a decent football team have replicated cold fusion...


    not even sure it is true, this guy have a problem with facts that dissent with his opinion, and even more with his ego.

  • I must say that I truly admire your grasp of legal concepts, legal procedure, legal transactional issues, etc. In case it is not clear, that was sarcasm.

    And allow me to say that you show the level bullshit and meanspiritedness that I have come to expect from lawyers, affirming once again that y'all have such a lousy reputation.


    edit:

    And you completely missed that Penon gave his deposition, which a was significant oversight in your introduction to this group. How's that for grasping legal issues, lawyer man? By all means, publish again the Law Firm you represent so we can all know who to avoid if we need legal assistance.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • Well, in just a few weeks we will all be able to evaluate the accuracy of our legal predictions. I am a betting man, are you? I will be happy to send a $10,000 (US Dollars) cashier's check to the administrator of this site, by delivery this Friday, betting that IH wins on the principal complaint (as I have previously said, I have no predictions on the counter-claim). Are you willing to match? Winner take all? Also, any other takes, IHFB, et al? I will happily consider upping the ante. All bets to be in by close of business next Monday (June 25, 2017).

    I regularly bet at PredictIt.org. I get great odds and I know I'll get paid. And I don't have lawyers putting words in my mouth that weren't there in the first place. With a bitch like you and how you talk, I should expect to get 25:1 odds. You willing?


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • He (WW) can post his information himself and has done so. Check the forum and try to stay up.


    However, you asking for such information from someone here is doxing and grounds to have you banded from the forum.

    If pointing out that someone has " shown the level of bullshit and meanspiritedness that I have come to expect from lawyers" is considered doxing then this forum isn't what I thought it was. And I didn't ask him for any information, I simply commented on what a jerk he seems to be, after he keyed up on me. He's the lawyer who didn't grasp some legal thingie, I'm not. So who is he to criticize me about grasping legal issues when his grasp is so weak?


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • You seem so confident and yet you want odds? To quote the orange haired shi*-gibbon in the White House, Sad. Sorry, straight even.

    You're the one who demonstrated confidence, lawyer man. I posted up thread that I'm still trying to figure Rossi out. You obviously didn't read that post either. You ain't much of a lawyer. Give me those odds or STFU.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • Since you like taking up lawyers on their bullshit, you should take up your own bullshit. Only one of your examples was science, and it's not like Shockley conned many people over vitamin C. In fact I would suggest you made yet another mistake there and intended to say Linus Pauling. Way to go, lawyer boy.


    By bringing in invalid analogies, especially by your ridiculous political stance, you are attempting to obfuscate. Typical lawyer move. Please, by all means, tell us your former law firm so that we can all go out of our way to avoid it.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • Please explain this: "especially by your ridiculous political stance, you are attempting to obfuscate." Are you suggesting that I am attempting to obfuscate my opinions, political or otherwise? I thought I was pretty open open them. Or are you suggesting that being a liberal progressive Democrat is a ridiculous political stance?

    By bringing in irrelevant bullshit political stuff and invalid analogies, you are trying to obfuscate. And lookie here, you do it again by continuing down that obfuscation path of talking about your ridiculous political position as if Hillary isn't one of the best examples of a political con artist in a whole generation. Maybe you can get a proper response from her if you ask her to email it to you. That is, if she doesn't delete that email as well. Oh, I know, since we're talking about nuclear energy, ask her how she sold 20% of our nuclear stockpile to Russia while she was SoS. At least my example kinda-sorta touches on nuclear stuff.


    Geez, you must have been a really bad lawyer. Please let us know who your former law firm was, so... you know... as proud as you are about your work... we can respond appropriately when we need legal assistance.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • The fact that you backed "crooked Hillary" speaks volumes.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric


  • Alan, of course I've read papers Jed recommended and skimmed many more than I read. I found them difficult. Whose moronic idea was it that I do not read papers? What I said many times is that I no longer read papers reporting minute amounts of excess heat production or papers written vaguely and badly, as most LENR papers are.


    LENR papers seem to be written only for specialists. It is often unclear what normalized units mean when they are used for graphs. Data charts are often small and blurry. Materials and methods are poorly described. There is rampant use of so-called isoperibolic calorimetry without proper description of the calorimetry and proper calibration. isoperibolic calorimeters are a terrible way to measure heat production. And replication is almost always lacking -- someone else does an entirely different experiment. I once found an interesting paper which seemed to show high heat for sustained periods but I misplaced the reference and when I asked Jed about it (it came from him originally) he declined to help me find it. Anyway, like most of the work I am referred to, it was a decade old and had never been redone or further developed.


    That same critique applies to the experiment descriptions (I'd hardly call those documents "papers") which you linked. Those were in 2003 and 2012. Where are the replications, improvements and practical applications that were promised then?

  • Yes indeed. No politics, no religion, and no pornography.

    I see you're listed as a moderator. Why is it that I have been threatened with 2 weeks of timeout for "aggressive, contentless posts" when it was WW who is always first to insult and brought politics into it as part of his obfuscation?


    And who are the moderators if it's not part of their title?


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric