Clearance Items

Quote from Eric Walker

Just one point of clarification. TC's report is not anonymous. It was authored by Tom Clarke:

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

I agree that the conclusion that some people have made about Rossi's handling of the "fuel" being fraudulent go too far. But this is not TC's conclusion, nor is it implied.

Can you clarify why you think it is a "pseudo report"? Is it different in kind from the analysis that was made available by Bob Higgins?

My complaints are twofold. First, I saw the original Lugano report as having a fundamentally flawed methodology, in which an attempt was made to use first-principles calculations to calculate radiant power (and energy) from the Boltzmann equation, when calorimetry would have been the sensible thing to do. Despite claims to the contrary by the authors, I suspect calorimetry would have been possible. In the case where it was not possible, and the object under test really did need such an approach, there would be a strong impetus to change the device so that it could be measured with calorimetry.

TC (perhaps for the sake of argument) goes along with the premise of the calculations and then does similar ones himself. It all felt like a tower made of sand.

My second complaint had to do with ungenerous assumptions about the isotopes in the isotope section of TC's paper.

Display More

Fine.

Firstly, we agree on the isotope covering based on Rossi "handling" the fuel/ash. And It certainly implies ... yes fraud (of course it does not state it, it would be unprofessional, right?)

Secondly, it certainly is anonymous. Who is Tom (Thomas?) Clarke. There is no contact information. It could be totally fake and made up for this particular reason? We dont know, or do we? Or maybe there's a gmail adress?

Quote from Eric Walker

So, Tony. Are you interested and willing to provide support for the following statement of yours? If TC's analysis is a conspiracy theory, there will be all kinds of nonsequiturs at a technical level.

Also, is TC's analysis different in kind from Bob Higgins's analysis, or is the latter also a conspiracy theory?

It is certainly different in the two areas I descibed. Author Bob Higgins is not anonymous and does not imply fraud and dependence on the testers as argument (as in the case of TC - which probably explains his anynomousity)

Quote from Eric Walker

Getting back to your earlier complaint about ad hom a few days ago, I don't see how TC's arguments depend upon his being anonymous or not. In that paper they are nearly all technical. Do you have a technical basis for saying that TC's report is "exactly what I would call a textbook type of conspiracy theory"? Or are you just going off of high-level impressions formed from trying to discern the author's motives?

The obvious motives and ad-hom arguments against the real testers as well as the anynomousity of the TC handle is more than enough for me to call it a conspiracy theory (the fraud/dependence conspiracy). And, yes I consider the motives and incentives of the author to be central of any rational evaluation of the work, dont you?

Quote

The obvious motives

Please spell out what you think those "obvious" motives are and why they are "obvious."

There is zero evidence Rossi swapped the ash. Several witnesses who were watching said it was not possible. Not only that it would have been exceeding difficult to get those isotopes.

That being the case, some nuclear reactions must have taken place, which means the hot cat must have worked to some degree.

Being wary of optical temperature measurements I would have used several type S ttermocouples. They didn't. That does not invalidate the procedure.

Quote from maryyugo

Please spell out what you think those "obvious" motives are and why they are "obvious."

In TCs supposedly "technical" paper TC nevertheless felt compelled to state Rossi "handling" the fuel and the testers as being dependent (not independent) on Rossi as arguments ... Does it get more obvious than that?

Quote from Eric Walker

I find motives hard to discern and easy to get wrong. There have been enough abortive attempts to identify people's real motives off and on on this forum and others to make me nervous about going too far in that direction. There are people, for example, who I believe to have had unsavory motives in producing technical rationalizations to support various statements made about the Doral stuff. But in the end what matters is whether what people say is true and self-consistent, on one hand, or incorrect, on the other. Motives are an interesting side show. Technical arguments are the most interesting.

I tentatively conclude that you have not really reviewed the technical arguments in TC's paper, and that apart from some information available or lacking about the authors, you are unable to spell out why at a technical level TC's paper is different from Bob Higgins's analysis.

Well, we disagree. I believe motives are equally important as the technical side (and well worth pursuing due to their importance even if sometimes (but not as often as one might think) difficult, which they very often are not), since they often affects deciscions made on how to present technical data, what to include and what to not include etc. Not a day passes by where this bias does not surprise me, even in science. Especially within somewhat controversial subjects like LENR. Only study the technical side of the argument will make you severely handicapped. Don't you think?

I the case of TC I find the anonymousity a red flag. There is a reason for it and as a spelled out numerous times it is highly suspicious. I'm curious to know why you who seem very thourogh in your argumentation does not view the anonymousity of TC in the same way?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

@Tony ,

Just do the math. I fought Clarke's paper, defending Lugano, until I ran the numbers.

The isotope swap bit is too weak to defend, either way, as well as extraneous to the main argument.

Perhaps this part is best to be omitted from the paper.

That's fine. The number might be right or not. I dont know, we dont know because it is a meta analysis. Speculation. We do not have all the information and neither do/did TC. Only those on site know and for reasons we dont know they do not feel like discussing them here (understandable), but instead keep on doing their own experiments.

As for TC it also is a red flag that he states he has been asking the testers for comments on his anonymous paper... and somehow argue that they should respond ... Whos does this TC guy think he is?

Quote

There is zero evidence Rossi swapped the ash. Several witnesses who were watching said it was not possible. Not only that it would have been exceeding difficult to get those isotopes.

First, if the reactor did nothing and was an electrical heater, as is almost certainly the case, the isotopes could have been in the reactor to start with. Second, the story I heard is that Rossi and Levi and Rossi employees ran most of the testing and the Swedish scientists were only present on limited occasions. Finally, isotopes of nickel are expensive but readily available commercially and not a bit difficult to buy. In fact, someone reported that they had evidence that Rossi had purchased 62Ni specifically.

Quote

That being the case, some nuclear reactions must have taken place, which means the hot cat must have worked to some degree.

Except, of course, that that was NOT the case.

Quote

Being wary of optical temperature measurements I would have used several type S ttermocouples. They didn't. That does not invalidate the procedure.

Of course you would have. But it's much harder to misdirect, deceive and cheat with thermocouples unless, as in earlier Rossi devices, they are deliberately misplaced closed to heaters. Anyone would have used thermocouples instead of Stefan-Boltzmann based measurements in which errors are magnified to the fourth power. Rossi never calibrates and almost never uses the appropriate circuits or instruments. THAT is what invalidates MOST or all of his "procedures." That's how he hides his scams. If he did the experiments and demos properly, it would be impossible to scam.

Quote

In TCs supposedly "technical" paper TC nevertheless felt compelled to state Rossi "handling" the fuel and the testers as being dependent (not independent) on Rossi as arguments ... Does it get more obvious than that?

I have no idea why that seems to you to bolster your argument. In fact, Rossi did handle the fuel and the Swedish scientists did not properly attend and supervise the experiments so Rossi could have fooled them easily. And NONE of this goes to TC's motive. Is there something about "motive" you fail to get?

Also, I am frequently amused by anonymous forum participants who denounce and insult other participants because they are anonymous. It's hilarious.

Quote from Eric Walker

First, as I said, TC is not really anonymous. He's a real person. As has been sleuthed out. Second, there are legitimate reasons for wanting anonymity. You yourself are anonymous, and that does not invalidate your arguments here. Perhaps TC works in a context in which his employer would frown on his engaging in discussions about LENR. That would not be very surprising.

But for the sake of argument, let's say TC's motives were the worst possible ones. What conclusions do we draw on that basis about the technical discussion in the TC paper?

Well. If you publish a paper and want it to be taken seriously and want to get feedback from the real scientists, you should not be anonymous. Especially if you at the same time accuse these scientists of being corrupted/dependent etc.

Am I actually interpreting you correctly when you argue that someone like TC should be taken seriously?

BTW, are you sure he is a real person? Have you met him?

Quote from interested observer

Tony joins the rank of Rossi supporters who provide every defense in the book except actual technical arguments for their positions. It is all attacks on his opponents and their credibility. Don’t listen to Thimas Clarke because he is “anonymous.” Instead, they believe Rossi because because he has the world-renowned Fabio Penon vouching for him. In other words: they got nothing.

Hmm, that could be because of the endless task of defending against the infinite amount of possible scenarios that could have been instead of what actually happened

i'm merely stating that we dont know because we were not there when it happended and we are only speculating. I find it a lot more interesting to find the reasons (who,why,where etc) for the actual speculation. Because that is the only thing that is real here.

Quote

BTW, are you sure he is a real person?

OK, I'll bite. What else could he be? A conglomerate? A corporation? A Martian? A robot? A psychic illusion? An evil spirit? A pink unicorn? WHAT?

This whole line of argument is beyond stupid. It's about what he wrote, not his arbitrarily given name! Even his credentials don't matter much. It's WHAT HE WROTE!