The Great 'Believer' Witch Hunt

  • ARE YOU A LENR BELIEVER? 32

    The result is only visible to the participants.

    This thread is inspired by the type of troll who taunts others about being a 'believer'. Generally it's an attempt to polarise an argument, often for some small-minded entertainment value. But whilst some people might see it as a slur, other people are out-of-the-closet and proud. I'm interested to know what the balance is, and you need to vote to see the results.


    You can suggest a new category if you want/must, and also change your vote later.


    The poll is anonymous - names are not shown with votes. (Barty might be able to see them, but he seems harmless - I cannot see who has voted).


    Your opinion counts... Even you lurkers!










    * You must really have read (and understood - Mary) at least three published LENR papers.

  • Here is a statement of opinion that you have missed.


    Fine control and manipulation of the strong force and the constituents of subatomic particles: quarks, will bring advancements in technology that can scarcely be imagined. It will make Star Trek science look like kindergarten play.

  • ARE YOU A LENR BELIEVER?

    The questionnaire allows only one choice, whereas I would select 2 through 6 in the affirmative, because there are such a wide range of claims in cold fusion. Some claims I am sure are true, others I doubt, and still others are wrong.


    So, anyway, I did not respond.


    You must really have read (and understood - Mary) at least three published LENR papers.

    This is an excellent stipulation! I wish that all public opinion polls relating to cold fusion included this.

  • Just for clarity, I have read and understood more than three LENR papers:


    Holmlid 1st paper

    Lugano report (if you count it)

    The F&P from simplicity through complexity to simplicity one

    Various others, Japanese isoperibolic stuff

    The guy W here likes who did ultrasonic cavitation stuff


    And I've skimmed (< 30 min absorbing) a whole load of others


    I voted no 6 but really the MCQ does not do justice to options. I would be somewhere between 5 & 6. There is some evidence, but my judgement on balance is that it is unlikely to mean LENR is real, though not impossible. So to reserve all judgement would be sitting on the fence. I'd be very happy to be wrong.


    As for troll taunts. I find generally, even here, the pathoskeptic taunt (specifically when applied to those with a detailed technical contribution like Shanahan - whether you agree or not with his views), more problematic than the believer label. After all we do not call such people pathobelievers.

  • I think the label "believer" is generally used to mean the same thing as "pathobeliever." It carries the connotation of a faith-based religious belief that is untethered to empirical evidence. People who take the contents of physics books seriously are not put in a category of physics believers. It's true that the contents of physics textbooks are not contested, and that at a high level those of LENR papers are. At any rate, I prefer to call myself a "LENR watcher," as I'm both quite open to the findings in a specific study being shown to be due to artifact, on one hand, and there being something interesting, and indeed nuclear, going on in the experiment after all, on the other. Perhaps I am not a believer in the sense that the term is usually used.


    I now see the world of things LENR in terms of specific studies. I think it is risky to attempt to aggregate conclusions over large numbers of studies without having carefully scrutinized each one individually: there are 90 papers showing that transmutation were seen, etc.


    There surely is a contingent of people whose attachment to certain propositions relating to LENR is purely faith-based, as we have seen recently.

  • There surely is a contingent of people whose attachment to certain propositions relating to LENR is purely faith-based, as we have seen recently.

    I would say there were more people who had made up their minds Rossi was a scam artist on this forum, prior to waiting for solid proof.

    It would be amusing if the derisive "Rossi's World" turned out to be true.


    I already find it amusing to be labeled a "Student" at my age and with my experience.

  • I voted for the weak evidence choice. Seems like the only rational response to me. I certainly don't see any strong evidence.

    Edit - I guess "strong evidence" is a subjective term for many.


    "Witch hunt" - I don't think there is any witch hunt agains LENR believers on this forum.

    Personally I have fluctuated between strong believer and weak believer, largely due to Rossi and his antics.


    Who on LENR-Forum can be labelled as a skeptopath?

    Even MaryYugo, who may be the most skeptical commenter, is interested and looking for LENR and would likely be delighted to have LENR commercialized.

    In fact anyone who is convinced LENR is not a thing would have no motivation to hang around this site.

    Edit - I notice that currently one person has voted for "LENRs are impossible. Have you never read a physics textbook?" so is that humour? If genuine then why come to an LENR site?


    “Skeptopath” is probably one of the most useless words around. It basically means anyone who disagrees with what you think to be true. As an example let’s look at AGW.

    So is someone who does not accept the evidence for AGW a skeptopath?

    Evidence for AGW is hundreds of times more than for LENR (tens of thousands of papers vs 153 peer reviewed papers for LENR according to Jed).

    So isn’t an AGW skeptopath who labels someone who does not accept LENR as a skeptopath a hypocrite?

    Similarly if an AGW skeptopath criticizes the scientific community for not accepting the evidence for LENR, is that not hypocritical?

    The problem with such subjective labels is they are a slap down but not encouraging to free and open debate.

  • I would say there were more people who had made up their minds Rossi was a scam artist on this forum, prior to waiting for solid proof.

    It would be amusing if the derisive "Rossi's World" turned out to be true.


    I already find it amusing to be labeled a "Student" at my age and with my experience.


    Or on the other hand;

    I would say there are more people who had made up their minds Rossi was the real deal on some forums, prior to waiting for solid proof.


    Rossi generates a lot of noise, most of it from himself.

    He chooses to do this and thus benefits from the adulation and support of his fans.

    So then the other side of the coin is when another year goes by and his promises come to nothing then some of those erstwhile supporters desert him.

    Some might even decide it was all a big fakery.

    Rossi made his choices, he wants Rossi to be in the public arena but his actual devices are private and secret. Even the outcome of the trial after one year is private and secret.

  • I would say there were more people who had made up their minds Rossi was a scam artist on this forum, prior to waiting for solid proof.

    It would be amusing if the derisive "Rossi's World" turned out to be true.


    I already find it amusing to be labeled a "Student" at my age and with my experience.


    Scam artist is your phrase, not mine. I don't think it fits in the normal sense, nor do those here who think carefully. You have to be particularly unwilling to engage with fact not to know that he has consistently deceived (or in some cases only tried to deceive) business partners and those testing his devices. It would seem that he partly believes his own deceit - at least that is very possible - and such passionate conviction would help sway those who admire him into believing that he could not be a scam artist and therefore must have what he claims.


    That binary argument comes from a lack of sophistication. Rossi can be both a transparent deceiver and also believe his own deceits. Contradictory? Yes. Go read Shakespeare or Freud and you will perhaps see many other examples of how humanity, at its core, embraces contradiction. It is just that Rossi exhibits this universal tendency in an unusual way.


    The psychology here of Rossi is one of the fascinating things about this story - it is a real psychodrama.

  • Quote

    It would seem that he partly believes his own deceit - at least that is very possible - and such passionate conviction would help sway those who admire him into believing that he could not be a scam artist and therefore must have what he claims.

    That is mostly incompatible with behavior. The evidence suggests that Rossi went from one carefully designed method of ecat fraud to another and tested each one ahead of time to make sure it would fool the marks. It may have been an accident that thermocouples were wrongly placed close to heaters in the original ecats ( the rustbucket toilet pipe models ) but it was no accident that Rossi refused EVERY suggestion to measure the power out correctly or to calibrate. When photos of misplaced thermocouples were AGAIN called out, this time in the so-called Ottoman-size ecats, the ones that so impressed Rothwell and others, Rossi had every opportunity to repeat the demo with properly placed temperature sensors. But he did not.


    Instead, Rossi went to yet another carefully contrived mismeasurement scheme-- this time the hot cat with no forced cooling and only the thermal camera to estimate the output power. Again, proper calibration was refused on a trumped up reason. Proper use of thermocouple or alternative calorimeters was also refused. And the Swedish blind mice didn't even reply to the critiques or or demand that Rossi correct the deficiencies and give them another crack at the experiment. Why not correct the known problems with the setup and issue a new report? What could prevent that other than deliberate flummoxing of gullibles, Rossi's specialty?


    I suppose you think the convenient disappearance of Rossi original factory heater supposedly from 2007 and the inability to produce the thermoelectric efficient prototype were also self-deception? Maybe the fire that destroyed all his records of thermoelectric development was self deception? Levi's unwillingness to repeat his experiment on the most powerful and efficient ecat EVER was self delusion also? You know what? I don't think so.



    Quote

    The psychology here of Rossi is one of the fascinating things about this story - it is a real psychodrama.

    Rossi is a simple, classical con man exhibiting strongly sociopathic behavior for all of his adult life that we know about. Not unusual, not in itself interesting.


    What is REALLY interesting is how people can believe that he is sincere and in your case, TTH, how you could even entertain that this is self delusion. Rossi in no way behaves self-deluded. His inconsistent and constant lies are a hallmark of a second rate con man. It's the highly gullible and desirous believers whose psychology is of interest here. As I have noted elsewhere, this believer behavior is probably the result of natural selection which took place in an earlier and very primitive time when belief on faith had a strong survival value. IMO, this is also why religion/mysticism/superstition (all variants of the same phenomenon in the human brain) seem to be hard wired in the mind. This OT so I won't pursue it but there is a specific neurophysiologist research who looked into this in detail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger


    What is interesting is why believers seem to think that doxxing critics and attacklng them personally like in this moronic piece: Skeptopaths, cryptodenialists and saboteurs vs LENR - OwnDoc actually helps their cause while at the same time, they fail to address the valid points these critics make... that is interesting!

  • http://rexresearch.com/stuff/stuff7/adamenko.pdf


    The Proton 21 experiment informs us about the true nature of LENR. That nature is not based on the detection of excess heat, but on the way that LENR processes energy.



    Explanation:


    The ash of a LENR experiment contains activated metallic nanowires that are covered with Surface Plasmon Polaritons. This nanoparticle acts like a synthetic monopole tachyon. When this particle receives energy, the energy is reformatted by particle creation into muons. In other words, energy comes in and muons come out. This behavior has been seen in observations by Holmlid. This behavior has been predicted to occur in monopole tachyons as described in string theory.


    The Inside Story:

    Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes


    http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11616.pdf


    And following the link on page 19


    The forces we analyzed in this section, which act to force excitations into the bulk

    gravitational solution dual to the con¯ning geometry, may provide a gravity-side manifes-

    tation of this phenomenon. This e®ect is similar in some ways to the description of black

    hole evaporation via hadronization in [18].



    Plasma-Balls in Large N Gauge Theories and Localized Black Holes


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0507219v3.pdf


    LENR is not as simple minded as many expect, but a complex cutting edge proof of many aspects of theoretical science.

  • I voted 5 and 6. Now 6 includes Ferrara and Lugano TPRs, and also ENEA's Rapporto41. I find some respectable researchers in the field that make me still suspend a definitive judgment. But I don't share the view of an evil mainstream science aiming at suffocating novelty. When I see that extraordinary claims such as those I quoted in the celani thread are ignored by mainstream science and I see Celani's funding zeroed by INFN, I am inclined to think that his peers have identified flaws (even though they may have not engaged in a public critique).

    Otherwise his research -proving a repeatible tabletop nuclear reaction- would be worth the Nobel prize (physics and not peace please) or it should be proof that this was unjustly denied to F&P.