QuoteDewey is concerned that somebody might drop Rossi another $11M based on 'something they read on the interwebs'.
In 2012-2013, it seemed very unlikely that someone would, yet along came IH.
Clearance Items
-
-
Since there seem to have been no critical posts attempted at all on the “less critical” thread, there is no empirical data about just what that term means. So your position cannot be refuted.
Not uncommon.
-
In 2012-2013, it seemed very unlikely that someone would, yet along came IH.
Sot,
Not sure I agree.
I think Dewey got conned out millions of $$,
and someone has to be blamed for this.
IH knows it was there own fault and that they only have themselves to blame for being so gullible, but they simply can’t say it.
What we are seeing from Dewey is probably what I/we would be doing had we had been the subject of Rossi’s scam, and that is lashing out at and condemning any/all things Rossi.
-
Display More
Sot,
Not sure I agree.
I think Dewey got conned out millions of $$,
and someone has to be blamed for this.
IH knows it was there own fault and that they only have themselves to blame for being so gullible, but they simply can’t say it.
What we are seeing from Dewey is probably what I/we would be doing had we had been the subject of Rossi’s scam, and that is lashing out at and condemning any/all things Rossi.
It seemed clear to me in reading the depositions, that Darden was highly suspicious even before the Validation Test, because Rossi kept reducing the number of reactors he would use. Remember he came up with the 2 stories as to why; Italian Law, and not wanting to disturb neighbors with the noise?
Then there was further suspicion when Darden wanted to bring in one of the "big testing companies" for the VT, but could not because Rossi said he "would have big problems with that". Rossi knew they were ready to walk, and that is why he brought them a pre-release copy of the Ferrara HT (Hotcat) report on the day of the VT. Which is why Dewey is upset with the Swedes.
-
“If we don't want the QX to vanish in the same way as the Papp Engine, the Chernetsky Self Generating Discharge device, the Moray Tube, and a long list of other devices need to urge qualified parties to replicate this technology“. - Director
This gem from the Rossi-friendly thread. It speaks for itself (well, unless you are one of those folks who thinks every free energy crackpot in history was the real deal. If that’s you, pardon the intrusion from reality.)
-
THH has left the building.. I guess the cults will continue.
I do like some cults but not on this forum
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
-
tipping point question Jean. Knowing the recent BigBang out there. I its true and there are....did they f up or other..~ I would expect similar debris, I guess its all in what you believe.
-
The radiation is not always apparent. Recent batches of our fuel ( to a slightly different recipe) are showing abundant excess heat, but very little radiation- though they have not yer been heat-cycled so often as others, and this may change as the system 'organises' itself.
-
Quote
Recent batches of our fuel ( to a slightly different recipe) are showing abundant excess heat
Is this a verifiable evidence about XH or is another "CF claim" or what?
-
@hunter - Verified in our laboratory to our satisfaction. I have no idea what goes on in your mind.
-
hunter- Verified in our laboratory to our satisfaction. I have no idea what goes on in your mind.
Well said. But I think he means "independently verified." It is not independently verified yet. Right?
-
Hi Jed. Let's say that the 'independent' part is ongoing, actually we haven't asked anybody to do that specific thing, we are more interested currently in verifying (independently) the gamma situation. People can argue about calorimetry till either their tongues turn black and fall of (as you know) or the listeners ears do, but the gamma stuff is way more interesting for all sorts of reasons. In particular, heat just tells you something is happening that makes things hot, but gammas are like fingerprints, unique patterns that link to identifiable suspects.
-
Hi Jed. Let's say that the 'independent' part is ongoing, actually we haven't asked anybody to do that specific thing, we are more interested currently in verifying (independently) the gamma situation.
Well, that's grand. But I was just responding to what you said: "I have no idea what goes on in your [Hunter's] mind."
I am interpreting what goes on in his mind. I am guessing "verification" means "independent verification." It ain't verified until someone else sees it. People often use "verification" to mean that.
I am a Hunter whisperer. Or a Hunter wrangler. Not sure which trendy term applies.
-
Quote
I have no idea what goes on in your mind.
Quite simple, what normally the Science requires to anyone made any extraordinary statement of this type, in order to be considered a scientific fact (GA) and not only your opinion. After 30 years of CF claims never accepted you should already have clear the meaning. A private "satisfaction" about an (unproved) "abundant excess heat" not count at all as scientific demonstration.
-
A private "satisfaction" about an (unproved) "abundant excess heat" not count at all as scientific demonstration.
Of course it is a scientific demonstration! Every experimental discovery in history starts with a private scientific demonstration. It is always private and unproved at first.
Granted, this particular result from Smith and George might be a mistake. Any result might be a mistake; you can never tell until it is widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios.
When Fleming observed the staph samples killed off by fungus, that was a scientific demonstration. He was the first and only person to see it, and at that moment he had published nothing. It was unproved. But it was 100% scientific.
When the people at Bell Labs made the first transistor, they were not even sure it was an amplifier. The next day they put it in a feedback loop, and it produced a sine wave. That's a scientific demonstration. It was private; a half dozen people knew about it. They had not published anything because the gadget was one-day old.
Cold fusion was private in the early 1980s because only Fleischmann, Pons, Mizuno and a few others had seen the effect, and they had not communicated it with anyone. Mizuno scratched his head, wondered, and then more or less dismissed the anomalous heat as inexplicable. But the results were still a scientific demonstration. Just not one that he could understand at that moment. Years later, when similar results were obtained in hundreds of labs and published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, the demonstrations were no longer private or unreplicated. Perhaps you are saying that makes them more reliable, or more believable. No one would disagree with that! Least of all Fleischmann, Pons or Mizuno. Of course it is better when a scientific demonstration has been repeated in hundreds of labs, hundreds of times, with better instruments, and well documented. But still, the first time was a demonstration.
Perhaps you don't believe the results have been widely replicated -- or replicated at all. In that case, you are not doing science.
-
@hunter - Verified in our laboratory to our satisfaction. I have no idea what goes on in your mind.
Alan,
Measurements please
-
Quite simple, what normally the Science requires to anyone made any extraordinary statement of this type, in order to be considered a scientific fact (GA) and not only your opinion.
Hunter,
Can you show where, and by whom this forum was asked to believe an "extraordinary scientific statement", based only on that person's "opinion"?
Personally, I have not seen anything like that here. Thx.
-
Quote
Can you show where, and by whom this forum was asked to believe an "extraordinary scientific statement", based only on that person's "opinion"?
When someone states here that he obtained an “abundant excess heat” this is not a common statement as scientific point for GAS, it’s an extraordinary one.
At same time not giving all the due scientific evidences of this statement he spreads only a personal opinion (any proves verifiable independently by ww scientific community), a personal view to be believed or not just depending on faith of who reads his statement.
-
Quote
Perhaps you don't believe the results have been widely replicated -- or replicated at all. In that case, you are not doing science.
Results not only not believed by me but not accepted (or rejected) by ww scientific community.
No one of these “results” have been accepted and included in the ww recognized scientific IAEA database.
After 30 years you continue to overestimate the contents and the weight of your private library.
-
After 30 years of waiting for his prey, the patient hunter should be able to wait another 30 weeks?
