Clearance Items

For the eighth time, the image you made is of the notes section, at the end of the document... It's essentially a footnote for (the actual) slide 27. This is one of the problems that comes with scanning a document quickly rather than reading it properly.

Quote from maryyugo

You really think I am going to read 30 pages of Celani crap

No, I don't*, I think you are a troll who revels in in his anti-intellectual stance. (US political metaphors withheld). But you should read it, for at the very least, it would help you to avoid saying really dumb things like:

Quote from maryyugo

Celani is absurd. He has never implemented the most obvious suggestion made by me years ago and by others on Vortex: USE MORE F'N WIRES with the same heater wire.

Celani is singularly unimpressive and I hate to waste time with him. He still failed to do the one extremely obvious thing which would have improved his results... if they are real... which I very much doubt.

So to recap... You don't believe it's real, therefore it's a waste of time to read about it. But because you haven't read it, that's really just an uneducated knee-jerk dismissal. Good show. Randi would be proud.

But when Interested Observer says: "Since I have not studied the requisite hundreds of papers required to have an informed opinion about LENR, I am quite willing to admit that I don't have one"

I'm surprised you have the chutzpah to reply: "My position also. Perhaps IO and I are twins, separated at birth."

Don't you see the fundamental difference between IO's agnostic/skeptic approach and your hardcore skeptopathy?

You seriously don't?

* And I don't care whether you do read it. You're a joke to me. An caricature whose arrogance is to be held up for amusement, as a salutary lesson to those who might in future allow their intellectual curiosity to wither to a similar level.

Quote from maryyugo

The image I posted says it's slide 27. I would tend to believe the label on it.

For the ninth time... You are looking at a footnote from the 'notes' section.

It only says 'slide27' to help the supposed "reader" know which part of the main text it refers to.

That should be an easy concept to understand, no?

Quote from maryyugo

And so feeble minded you don't know how to point a person to specific text or images in a paper.

Bad memory too Mary? This was about as simple as I could make it:

Quote from Zeus46

You want slide 27, which can be found hiding directly underneath slide 26.

Also, as I mentioned before, slide 21 too ...This can be found 21 pages from the start of the document, if you don't count the title page.

Let me know if I need to dumb the explanation down some more...

EDIT: Just for you Mary, I will also explain that slide 27 can be found 27 pages from the start of the document, if you don't count the title page. ...Also If you manage to loose count before reaching the right slide, each slide has a number printed at the top.

Quote from interested observer

The notion that Mary refuses to become informed about LENR is believer mythology. What that really means is that she refuses to interpret the claims in the same way as believers.

Hilarious comment. You should be on stage.

Jed, I have to wonder how you, who have been enmeshed in the cold fusion story for over two decades as well a number of other long-time advocates of the phenomenon feel about the Rossi-heads here who have branded you as "anti-LENR" or "pro-IH" (whatever the hell that even means) because you see Rossi for the fraud he is. I suppose these people have the warped notion that calling Rossi a con man is somehow being disloyal to LENR (again, whatever the hell that means.)

I guess that is the smart aspect of Rossi's con. He tapped into a demographic that deeply needs him to be legitimate. As I alluded to on a previous occasion, it is somewhat analogous to believing in a miracle cure hoax perpetrator because you want to eliminate cancer. As I recall, there is an old saying involving wishes and horses that is pertinent.

Quote from interested observer

Ok Jed, once again you argue that cold fusion is well-understood and reproducible and the only problem is that nobody is allowed to do it, or at least nobody is interested.

I did not say that at all. You are putting words in my mouth. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, instead of making up a strawman version.

I did NOT say it is well-understood. That's ridiculous. I said no one understands it.

I said it is reproducible by experts, who spend hundreds of thousands and devote years to the effort.

I never said "nobody is allowed to do it." That's also ridiculous, since I myself know most of the people who did it.

Lots of people are interested but no one I know has funding, except the people at U. Missouri and Texas Tech. As far as I know they are not doing a very good job, but I could be wrong about that.

Quote from interested observer

So suppose they put you in charge of the planet. What would you have done, how long would it take to do, and what results would you expect?

Obviously I would spend $50 million or so automating the process so that we have many powerful laboratory reactors instead of just a few. I think I made that clear in the previous message. You can see from the papers I linked to what that would entail. It is no great mystery.

Quote from interested observer

Jed, I have to wonder how you, who have been enmeshed in the cold fusion story for over two decades as well a number of other long-time advocates of the phenomenon feel about the Rossi-heads here who have branded you as "anti-LENR" or "pro-IH"

It is annoying.

I was ambivalent about Rossi for a long time because the first Levi test seemed positive, although not definitive. Also because I figured I.H. knew what they were doing. It turns out their judgement was flawed. My ambivalence ended the day I saw some of Penon's data. It was obvious that even if Rossi had something in the past, the 1-year test was nonsense.

I was leery of him all along based on what the people from NASA told me during a two-day meeting, about the time he almost blew them up. I knew he was a loose cannon, and inept at times. Also his 1-MW test years ago was ridiculous.

I had no knowledge of Rossi's business deceptions, his pretend company or the fact that he was talking to himself until the lawsuit papers were filed. My negative opinion of him before the lawsuit was entirely based on my own analysis of his data, plus what I heard from NASA, as I said.

I am pro-I.H. because they were supporting some good researchers who deserved funding. I do not know if they still are. I haven't heard from them in some time.

Quote from interested observer

I guess that is the smart aspect of Rossi's con. He tapped into a demographic that deeply needs him to be legitimate.

I think that is true. That is a good summing up.

Quote from maryyugo

My position also. Perhaps IO and I are twins, separated at birth.

Perhaps a calorimeter is only as good as the person who uses it?

Quote from JedRothwell

As an experienced librarian at LENR-CANR let me suggest that you should dismiss people such as Yugo. I know the type. Again and again they demand to be spoon-fed the data, but they never read what you suggest. They never do their homework. They are not serious. They say nothing has been published, so I point out there are THOUSANDS of papers. They whine and kvetch that thousands are too many, how can I be expected to read so many, why can't you narrow it down and point to a few??So I point to a few, which are featured on the front page at LENR-CANR.org, for crying out loud. How hard was that? Too hard, I guess.

Hmmmm, sounds to me like you're a reader

Quote from maryyugo

yay for skeptopathy

Quote from [email protected]

That is consistent with the evidence. The first hundred or so replications of Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event was done by electochemists, who regularly use calorimeters. The first null results were from physicists who do not regularly use calorimeters. This set up a science-political turf war.

I'll call you on that one.

The initial flurry of replications of F-P from everyone generated largely negative results. These replications were from many people including experienced electrochemists. Unless you count replications as the repeats done by F & P themselves - and no-one would normally define replication like that - your comment is crowd-pleasing and not accurate.

You would have a point if all the non-F&P electrochemists from those initial replications got positives and only the non-electrochemists negatives, but I believe that not to be true. If you disagree I will look it up but for that effort I expect you to eat a lot of crow.

Quote from maryyugo

100%... Yay for skeptopathy

Quote from THHuxleynew

The initial flurry of replications of F-P from everyone generated largely negative results. These replications were from many people including experienced electrochemists.

That is incorrect. Most of experienced electrochemists succeeded. It took them 6 months or a year to do the experiment, repeating it several times. They often reported a low success rate. That is, many tests that produced no heat and only a few produced heat. The failures were mainly because they could not achieve high loading. They measured loading so they knew this was the problem. (Non-electrochemists seldom measured loading, OCV or other critical parameters, because they did not know about them.)

I am sure of this. I have seen various tallies of the early experiments and I know most of the people who did them. See:

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

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

There may have been unpublished experiments that failed that I do not know about, but I expect most professional academic electrochemists reported their results. Electrochemistry is a small world and every professional knew Fleischmann and Bockris, and communicated with them.

There were a few professionals such as Lewis who thought they got a negative result but it was actually positive. See:

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

There were many failed replications but in nearly every case we now know why they failed. It is no great mystery. In most cases they made mistakes in electrochemistry that no professional would make, such as confusing the anode and cathode.

Quote from maryyugo

No. Maryyugo wrote: "I was 100% accurate. Yay for skeptopathy." Something apparently was lost in translation from English to dummy.

So are you admitting you're a skeptopath Mary? What is your take on Rossi now?