Clearance Items

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Agreed,


    Keep testing/experimenting until your data can be continuously replicated,

    THEN, get independent verification, (by trusted sources), of your results

  • Agreed,


    Keep testing/experimenting until your data can be continuously replicated,

    THEN, get independent verification, (by trusted sources), of your results


    Being done as we speak, and the reactors are in good form putting on a double show. Not that this is the first group to the barn, nor the most qualified, but with the numbers involved, cross section of expertise, resources available, and equipment, this will certainly qualify as an independent verification.


    And thanks to Wyttenbach for being there, to work with his counterpart from the cavalry. Great team effort.


    Crossing my fingers.

  • Being done as we speak, and the reactors are in good form putting on a double show. Not that this is the first group to the barn, nor the most qualified, but with the numbers involved, cross section of expertise, resources available, and equipment, this will certainly qualify as an independent verification.

    That is not independent verification. Independent verification consists of some group constructing their own reactors and getting the same results without the direct participation of the original researchers.

  • That is not independent verification. Independent verification consists of some group constructing their own reactors and getting the same results without the direct participation of the original researchers.


    OK then, I was wrong. It was not independent. Nonetheless, it was a very rigorous process. Keep in mind; to their credit they initiated this, and then willingly subjected themselves to a thorough going over, so that should count for something? That said, my last say on this matter is :thumbup:  


    And also, by your definition, BEC has been independently verified by SRI, so I would assume that based on that, you are a full believer in LENR?

  • That is not independent verification. Independent verification consists of some group constructing their own reactors and getting the same results without the direct participation of the original researchers.


    In my use of the english language, that's independent replication, not verification. Verification is when I say 'is that the moon up there, and you say 'yes, definitely', or alternatively, 'no, it's a streetlight'.

  • 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.


    This seem to invalidate Russ's statement that all that claimed success in LENR should measure an excess radiation. From my point of view you have been rather very lucky to find a mixture that produces Gamma Rays. But for Excess Heat production this is not needed, right?

  • his seem to invalidate Russ's statement that all that claimed success in LENR should measure an excess radiation.


    Radiation is the faint smoke of the fire. You need to know where to look and you should do careful backgrounds.


    Nobody knows the exact rules. So you should not draw any conclusions.


    We relay on radiation because it is the most compelling proof.

  • OK then, I was wrong. It was not independent. Nonetheless, it was a very rigorous process. Keep in mind; to their credit they initiated this, and then willingly subjected themselves to a thorough going over, so that should count for something? That said, my last say on this matter is :thumbup:  


    And also, by your definition, BEC has been independently verified by SRI, so I would assume that based on that, you are a full believer in LENR?

    Following Alan's terminology, what seems to be going on here is some sort of verification process. I'm not sure I would call it "independent" verification. It is more like 'guided' verification. And, sticking with the same sort of terminology, I would class SRI's studies of the Brillouin prototypes as independent verifications but not independent replications (because SRI did not build the cores themselves from a recipe).


    You want me to be a full believer in LENR because of SRI's reports? Sorry, that is too black-and-white and I'm more of a Bayesian type of guy. I would still like to see independent replication and I'd like to see a bigger effect so as to leave competing non-LENR explanations in the dust. Still, the SRI experiments have increased my estimation that LENR may be real.

  • In my use of the english language, that's independent replication, not verification. Verification is when I say 'is that the moon up there, and you say 'yes, definitely', or alternatively, 'no, it's a streetlight'.

    Ahh, I think I understand now what “independent verification” means:

    In Rossi’s language “independent verification” is when Rossi says ‘this here is an e-cat and this here is dry steam’ and some retired Swedish profs say ‘ah, yes - it’s steam... interessting’.


    How often was the e-cat “indipendintly verified”?

  • I was going to put this in a PM but..

    It just seems most are using the million dollar front end machine instead of the piece of string from the old way. Now we have a hand full of people doing front end alignment ripping people off and virtually no one that can think to use string from the back tire to the front tire , ask anyone in here how to do it without a million dollar machine. you get the idea... I don/t know how I can help past this point..without using string.= old TV to understand magnetic rotation from something that looks like a ratchet gear.

    maybe I just need sleep..

    errr..