Apparently there are three options regarding LENR literature:
1) If you don't read it, you are worthless scum (unless you embrace it sight unseen.)
2) If you read it and criticize it, you are a crackpot.
3) If you accept it as the gospel according to Jed, you are golden.
Pick your poison.
Note that this is prior to my CCS publication, so this paper will NOT consider the CCS at all.....
Show me where I’m wrong here folks….
I'll show you. Your ridiculous discredited theory has its own thread on this forum, so you should be posting your refrains on that thread rather than deliberately derailing this thread.
@kevetc. So what exactly do you mean when you say that the effect has been replicated 153 times. Try to contain your spittle and answer calmly, if you are capable of such behavior.
Display MoreApparently there are three options regarding LENR literature:
1) If you don't read it,
You mean, like Shanahan said about JT He's paper?
2) If you read it and criticize it, you are a crackpot.
You neglect the case, like Shanahan, where he didn't read it but still criticizes it.
@kevetc. So what exactly do you mean when you say that the effect has been replicated 153 times. Try to contain your spittle and answer calmly, if you are capable of such behavior.
Read the thread and in particular, the Tally paper that Jed and I both linked to. If someone comments on a thread without reading it, is that worthy of spittle? You tell me.
QuoteWhy the hell should I tell you the same thing again and again and again? You will never read it.
As I said, see the video.
Don't be coy, Roy!
What is your technical basis for this statement
Prior interactions with you on this thread. Please take your nonsense to your own thread, ask that question on your thread and it will get the responses it deserves.
QuoteSo if an effect has been replicated 153 times in peer reviewed journals (many of whom were the top scientists in the field of electrochemistry) , is that not enough for you?
It's not that the *effect* has to be replicated (by 153 different methods). It's that an exact experiment has to be replicated including materials and methods and error analysis (thanks, KS). And it helps to pick the very best yielding experiment as your choice of what to duplicate/replicate. That's why I am after Jed to provide the one or a few BEST tests, not hundreds or thousands which non-enthusiasts have not the time to review.
QuotePrior interactions with you on this thread. Please take your nonsense to your own thread, ask that question on your thread and it will get the responses it deserves.
Ouch! If you won't play nice on my terms, take your toys and go home! Somebody is overly defensive, methinks.
Prior interactions with you on this thread. Please take your nonsense to your own thread, ask that question on your thread and it will get the responses it deserves.
That's not a technical basis, that's a personal basis. Please define your technical basis.
It's not that the *effect* has to be replicated (by 153 different methods). It's that an exact experiment has to be replicated including materials and methods and error analysis (thanks, KS). And it helps to pick the very best yielding experiment as your choice of what to duplicate/replicate. That's why I am after Jed to provide the one or a few BEST tests, not hundreds or thousands which non-enthusiasts have not the time to review.
Seems like standard MY obfuscations that Jed has called you out on. When a bunch of data is presented to you that refutes your position, you say "too much to read". And when it gets pared down you act as if it's not surrounded by all the other data.
The PREPONDERANCE of the evidence of >150 replications is strong. You may be familiar with calorimeters but you are nowhere near the top of the elctrochemistry field as these scientists were. I think you hide behind such things.
That's not a technical basis, that's a personal basis. Please define your technical basis.
You have your own "technical basis" thread where such discussions should take place. Have those discussions over there. Your goal here is to once again derail this thread.
Kev: no, none of this is worthy of spittle, at least among sensible people. If you can't answer a simple question without ranting about what I have read or not read, then it is a YOU problem, not a ME problem. I thought my question was quite simple.
I have repeatedly stated that I am pretty open-minded about LENR in general, but every single one of you guys who champion it act like lawyers who drown their opponents in useless paper in an effort to avoid getting to the meat of the matter. I kind of wonder why you guys argue with skeptics at all. Clearly, you aren't actually trying to convince us of anything. Your purpose seems to be just to vent about other people not seeing the world the way you do. Well, it's a (relatively) free blog. So knock yourself out.
You have your own "technical basis" thread where such discussions should take place. Have those discussions over there. Your goal here is to once again derail this thread.
So post your response over there if it's so important to you. What is your technical basis for claiming my 'theory' is discredited?
This must be a mistake. Tritium results have nothing to do with atmospheric helium. In any case:
Yes, I'm sorry, I meant the He results.
I have not looked much at the tritium results.
Display MoreKev: no, none of this is worthy of spittle, at least among sensible people.
So, commenting on a thread when you haven't read the thread isn't worthy of spittle. Sensible people READ THE THREAD. I see you don't count yourself among sensible people.
If you can't answer a simple question without ranting about what I have read or not read, then it is a YOU problem, not a ME problem. I thought my question was quite simple.
Read the posts right near your posts, and all around it. Understand the context. You are commenting on a thread without reading it, right in between a crackpot and a notorious skeptopath.
I have repeatedly stated that I am pretty open-minded about LENR in general, but every single one of you guys who champion it act like lawyers who drown their opponents in useless paper in an effort to avoid getting to the meat of the matter.
153 replications IS VERY MUCH the meat of the matter. And so is 14,700 experiments which means that these replications were done multiple times. But to your point, there is a greek word that we get the word "apologetics" from. It comes from "apo" which means "away" and "logos" which is "word". It is "a word away from" which in greek times meant a word away from critics, who would drown out what people had to say in the public square. When it was determined that the person had something worth hearing, they would conduct a trial so the guy could give his "apology", his "word away from" the critics. So what you have just done is to criticize the structure and format of this forum, trying to blame us for not having a "word away from".
I kind of wonder why you guys argue with skeptics at all. Clearly, you aren't actually trying to convince us of anything.
There is a certain healthy skepticism and then there is hyperskpeticism. I don't try to convince hyperskeptics of anything. But 153 replications by the leading electrochemists of the day is something that a regular skeptic kinda acknowledges as compelling, while the skeptopaths engage in the behavior that you are obliquely criticizing.
Your purpose seems to be just to vent about other people not seeing the world the way you do. Well, it's a (relatively) free blog. So knock yourself out.
That is not my purpose. In starting this thread my purpose is to get to the starting point for a healthy skeptic (not for a skeptopath or a crackpot, though). That starting point is >150 replications, >14,000 experiments, >180 labs, and perhaps some other compelling evidence. But LENR is a very difficult field, just ask the MFMP guys.
So post your response over there if it's so important to you. What is your technical basis for claiming my 'theory' is discredited?
Post your responses over there if they're important to you. That is your "technical basis" thread, set up by the moderators, just for you.
The easiest way to clarify the discussion is to keep you on your thread and let real scientific discussions move apace here. That is one of the stated functions of moderators on this panel. I hope to see them doing what they say they do, because you have already derailed this thread once.
We are not here at your beck and call. You are here at our pleasure. This is our forum, and you're a guest here.
I do remember an impressive paper I misplaced before I could take enough time with it to try to grasp exactly what had been done and how. Maybe that was it. If someone really got 400W out with zero power in, for an appreciable period of time and with proper blanks and calibration, it is the most impressive demonstration of LENR ever. So the link please. Pretty please?
Please give him the link Jed! Everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves...
