ICCF-20 Papers Uploaded.

Rossi certainly has more mentions on Lenr Forum than at ICCF20.

In this forum Jed wrote about 1000 comments..some of them are amusing..most are not supportive ..re: Rossi.

Bupkis?? Dank Jed.

Changing ones mind after considering new evidence to the contrary of previously held opinions is a hallmark of intelligence.

Quote from maryyugo

Rothwell giving any credibility to Rossi or Defkalion at all after the summer of 2011 and many other examples I could name . . .

Levi's first report was published in 2013. I considered it technically credible, and I still do. As I have pointed out several times, You have not found any technical problems in this report:

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

You do not know of any reason to doubt it, and neither do I. It lacks credibility now because of events. Because the follow-up report from Levi et al. was much worse, and the Doral test was a fraud. But, given what we knew in 2013 when this was published, in my opinion, it would be closed-minded and unreasonable not to give this report some credibility. I do not apologize for doing that.

As I said, you win bets by betting against every new claim, and never giving any credibility to anything. You have no clue why that report might be wrong. You declare X must be wrong and -- as usually happens in R&D -- you get lucky because most Xs are wrong. This takes no more intelligence than using a Magic 8 Ball and ignoring all answers other than:

Don't count on it

My reply is no

My sources say no

Outlook not so good

Very doubtful

Quote from maryyugo

So yes, "we can't be sure" at the same time you castigated people like me for calling him a crook and a con man and argued that "some" of his tests were very credible. In fact, you are still bleating for people to find something "technically in error" with one of Levi's tests which shows you don't get the issue. If someone is deceptive, it may not be possible to find the technical error because it is deceptively hidden and deliberately so.

If it is not possible to find the technical error then we have no reason for technical doubts! You seem to be saying we should believe in invisible, undetected problems. Like invisible unicorns. Look, this is simple:

Either you know what the problem is, or you don't.

If you don't know, then you cannot assert there is a problem. You might suspect there is one. You might suspect Rossi is very good at deliberate deception. But you cannot assert that is the case because you have found nothing.

In fact, Rossi is no good at deliberate deception. Look at the Doral test, and the Penon paper. It took me all of 5 minutes to see it was bullshit, from a sample of the data. I cannot imagine why anyone believes it. It is a shockingly crude, transparent attempt at fraud.

Quote from maryyugo

We've been through all this before. Nobody seems to even be able to specify what you mean by "technical problems" in the report.

Nonsense. Anyone knows what I mean. Some people here suggested some problems with this paper, but in my opinion they were wrong.

You have not found any technical problems in this paper or any other that I recall. Mainly because:

1. You seldom read the papers.

2. When you do read them, you make gigantic errors in analysis, such as thinking that 3 hours is not significantly longer than 6 seconds (both numbers from the paper in question!)

The only "error" you have pointed to in this paper would require ex post facto time travel to detect. A person would have to evaluate this paper when it was published in the light of events that occurred years later. I am supposedly at fault for not accomplishing this remarkable act of clairvoyance.

:Evaluating a paper which reports scientific experiments requires confidence"

....that the evaluator can read

Watching movies such as House of Games or American Mary are not prerequisites

I have looked over Indication of... and haven't found any "smoking gun" error. Although I suspect there is something fishy with it, I don't know what it is. There simply may not be enough data in the report to work out a major problem. Maybe there is no problem...

However, real things, events, measurements, etc. are often easily corroborated by cross-checking with related things, and it should all be self-consistent. The Lugano report, for example falls apart in this type of analysis, and the most likely explanation (that the IR measurements were done incorrectly) is very self-consistent. As far as Indication of..., perhaps the right set of cross-checks hasn't been found yet. The thermal time constant for heating the device might be a fruitful line of investigation.

Unfortunately the more technically complex analyses become increasingly opaque to the average reader, and typically become indurated with ad-hoc assumptions, since much of the data needed to really do the more complex tests of the system properly simply are not presented in the reports. Where are those original PCE-830 and Optris data files for Indication of..., and for that matter, Lugano? The Indication of... Report suggests that these data files were available. Somebody must have them.

@Mary Yugo ,

I don't disagree, but I am just avoiding absolute statements in regards to the one paper. Of course, the report is not really an island, but dragging in anecdotal information from outside the report defeats the purpose of determining what might be wrong that could be determined from information supplied from within the report. Of course, if deception was intended, leaving out that sort of counter-corroborating information would be important in crafting the paper in the first place.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I have looked over Indication of... and haven't found any "smoking gun" error. Although I suspect there is something fishy with it, I don't know what it is. There simply may not be enough data in the report to work out a major problem. Maybe there is no problem...

However, real things, events, measurements, etc. are often easily corroborated by cross-checking with related things, and it should all be self-consistent.

Absolutely! No argument there. I wasn't suggesting this paper was be-all, end-all undeniable proof of the claim. I just said that in the context of 2013 it should have been considered credible and taken seriously, in my opinion.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The Lugano report, for example falls apart in this type of analysis, and the most likely explanation (that the IR measurements were done incorrectly) is very self-consistent.

Yes. That was quite a blow. It hurt the technical credibility of Levi and the other authors. So did many other aspects of that paper, such as the lack of calibration, and the authors' refusal to answer questions posed by McKubre and others.

Now that we have seen the Lugano report and Rossi's outrageous test in Florida, I would say that the "Indication of" paper is completely discredited. Not for technical reasons, because I still do not know of any technical problems, but because years later the authors demonstrated they are incompetent, and in Rossi's case, dishonest.

I know little about Levi and I do not know if he is personally dishonest, but his refusal to answer questions by McKubre was unethical by academic standards. It was unbecoming of an academic scientist.

Quote from maryyugo

Missing the point, as usual. Evaluating a paper which reports scientific experiments requires confidence that the author or authors are honest and competent. That, in turn, requires good evidence and good past performance.

I had no reason to doubt Levi in 2013. Rossi, yes, but not Levi and the others. You are saying that in 2013 I should have doubted him based on what he did two years later. Do you understand how time works? Do you see why it would be impossible for me to judge Levi based on an experiment he published two years after this? That is what you are doing, and what you demand the rest of us should have done. That's magical thinking.

Perhaps you are saying that prior to the publication of "Indications" you already knew that Levi was incompetent or unethical. Bully for you. You were paying a lot more attention to him than I was. His earlier papers seemed rushed and incomplete, and I stopped paying attention, but "Indications" seemed to have merit. Based on what little I knew about him then, I thought it should be taken seriously. Granted, this is a value judgement. I am often willing to give researchers the benefit of the doubt. It isn't as if I am paying for the research. I have nothing to lose. You, on the other hand, give absolutely no one the benefit of doubt. You don't even believe long dead famous scientists!

You accuse J. P. Joule of inventing a bogus method of calorimetry: isoperibolic calorimetry, that you are suddenly convinced does not work. You think phase change calorimetry is bogus. That means you throw out the first modern calorimetry done by Lavoisier and Laplace in 1781. Their instrument made an accurate measurement of the metabolic heat from a guinea pig, correlating it with the carbon dioxide exhaled by the animal. That level of sensitivity means their instrument could have detected the heat from many cold fusion reactions with confidence. As indeed it did, when the people at Shell Oil used a replica of the instrument. Since you apparently think it is impossible to measure cold fusion excess heat today, you will never accept the fact that any competent scientist could have done it in the last 236 years.

Not only do you demand that I magically judge the present based on future events, you want to rewrite the past because you refuse to believe that calorimetry works. Or that techniques in common use for 236 years work. This is irrational, ignorant, a-historic and unscientific thinking.

It's normal human behaviour to trust other people. It's how/why society works, and also the reason why (the few) cheats generally prosper.

To be suspicious of everyone, or at least, to be suspicious of groups of people for spurious reasons must act like a handicap of sorts, hindering one's potential to some degree.

Incidentally, Yugo also declined an invitation for dinner at my house next time it was in the UK. Can't imagine why, but presumably also for spurious reasons...