How do you convince a skeptic?

  • Who said that when and where ... how many.? What problems?

    I'm interested .. in the substance behind this Euclidean point

    Don’t be disingenuous. Of course I mean the world’s energy problems. And there have been numerous posts espousing the view that without LENR, all is lost. Also many posts claiming we are months away from turning the world upside down with LENR technology. I am not going to search through thousands of posts for examples. If you think I am making this up, suit yourself. Not your own view? Glad to hear it.


    But you will not have a civilized discussion of any of this because you are 100% ad hominem with me. So have a nice day.

  • Whether academic politics or the fundametal nature of the phenomenon is the ultimate stumbling block for applications is not certain.

    Experts say it is certain. You have said you do not understand the technical issues, so you have no basis to dispute these experts. For all you know, it is 99% politics and 1% the fundamental nature of the problem.


    (Assigning percentages is a joke, but I am sure the problem is mostly politics, and I do not know of any reason to think it is fundamentally impossible or that there is a stumbling block.)

  • So what is uncivilised about asking for the stats on your broad and sweeping generalisation”


    There was no sweeping generalization. I said I had a problem with people who espouse a certain opinion here. I didn’t say how many such people there are but only that there are some. I have no clue about the stats on this any more than on any other viewpoint expressed here. There are 3000 members here and probably 30 of them account for 90% of the content. Who knows which views are common and which are esoteric?

  • Experts say it is certain. You have said you do not understand the technical issues, so you have no basis to dispute these experts. For all you know, it is 99% politics and 1% the fundamental nature of the problem.

    Yes. For all I know, that is correct. It also doesn’t change my pessimism that the situation will change. But like I said before, perhaps new developments will change matters including academic politics.

  • I didn’t say how many such people there are but only that there are some


    Thanks for clarifying that to some. I mistakenly thought that all people on LF was implied

    Mea Culpa

    I am glad to see that you have a more defined mission on LF.

    My mission is less well-defined.. more to do with weltgeist and rocks.

    Kia kaha ,kia toa, kia manawanui on your mission

  • If it works I think it will upend the world, even more the automobile, the computer and the internet did. I made a detailed case for this in my book. The book may be wrong, but I do not think it is "stupid." See:


    I agree the changes will be huge- but it won't happen overnight . The end result may be a real transformation, but it will probably take several decades for the changes to become fully realised. Power and control are not readily relinquished., so it won't upend our world too much because we probably wont be there to see the final result.

  • I am glad to see that you have a more defined mission on LF.

    I would be most interested in learning what my mssion is on LF, given that I don’t have one. I have found the Rossi saga to be quite fascinating for the past 8 years and in recent years this has been the best place to keep an eye on it. The fact that Rossi has managed to entangle the LENR community in his scam is unfortunate, but so be it. You can choose to believe me or not, but I have no axe to grind with regard to LENR and certainly no “mission” with regard to it.

  • [For all you know, it is 99% politics and 1% the fundamental nature of the problem.]


    Yes. For all I know, that is correct.

    Okay, for all you know it is almost all politics. Then why did you say this?


    "Whether academic politics or the fundametal nature of the phenomenon is the ultimate stumbling block for applications is not certain."


    Is it not certain? Or are you not certain? Or do you have no idea? It seems to me that you often make assertions about cold fusion and then when someone asks you for the basis of the assertion, or for some statistics, you evade by saying you have not read the literature, you don't know, etc. This is your "get out of jail free" card. You say anything you like, and no one can question you or hold you to it because -- ta da! -- you haven't read the literature. You sound like one of these politicians who say: "I am not a scientist but" [global warming is not real / vaccinations are dangerous].


    Do you have some basis for saying it is "not certain," or don't you? If you don't know, you should say:


    "I cannot judge whether academic politics or the fundamental nature of the phenomenon is the ultimate stumbling block for applications."


    That is very different from saying "it is not certain."


    Other people, who have read the literature and who do have technical knowledge say that it is certain.

  • I would be most interested in learning what my mssion is on LF, given that I don’t have one.

    Your mission, should you choose accept it, is to pretend you are a neutral observer while making statements that call into question the research, imply that it is impossible, or denigrate the researchers. Should you or any of your associates be caught up in questions, or shown to be misinformed, ignorant, or just plain wrong, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. As will you! You will disavow any knowledge of anything. Everything you say will become magically inoperative as soon as you say "hocus pocus I have read nothing and I have no mission."


    This tape will self-destruct in ten seconds. Good luck.


  • Jed, let’s leave calling into question the research aside since that is a vague concept. So tell me where I have said the research is impossible or where I have denigrated researchers. Please. I would like to be reminded of these things since I can’t recall any examples. Or are you simply playing the “all you skeptics are alike” card?

  • So tell me where I have said things are impossible and where I have denigrated researchers.

    Just now. Right above. You said "it is not certain" whether "the fundamental nature of the phenomenon is the ultimate stumbling block." Then you said you have no idea: "for all I know" it is politics. So, your first statement is magically inoperative and for all you know the fundamental nature has nothing to do with it.


    You have done this dance again and again. You make a bold assertion calling into question the research, or the researchers credibility, or their capability, and as soon as anyone ask "why do you say that?" you magically unsay it. And then act all hurt because you poor little innocent never said anything about anything.


    This is tiresome. You are not fooling anyone.

  • "

    Jed, most of the world (again, those who have any opinion at all) judge the field by the most visible people that include Rossi (the most visible), Blacklight, Brillouin, Swartz as well as various people claiming to have replicated Rossi despite the fact that nobody even knows what Rossi does. It doesn't matter whether they are doing LENR or some other mystical activity or whether these are scientists, scam artists, budding geniuses, or anything else. They are the public face of LENR, not your


    IO has not explicitly denigrated anyone in this example


    IO uses word association to IMPLICITLY denigrate

    Btw- Brillouin AFAIK is a dead person.. perhaps IO means Robert Godes..- did Godes actually claim anything about Rossi?

  • Could THHHuxleynew please toughen up and refrain from the 'personal' assertion?


    No. I'm tough enough, and will not insult you, or personalise this. However I will continue to point out that your posts here, where they make personal comments about me, are unhelpful and lower the discourse. They also make it seem that your case here is weak independently of its actual strength.


    Q1. HAS THHuxleynew ever read the CCS paper written by KirkShanahan. in the last 17 years


    Which paper do you mean? There was, in order:


    Your 2002 Shanahan paper?


    Shanahan (1)

    Reply (by can't remember whom)

    Shanahan (2)

    Repy from Marwan et al

    Shanahan White Paper


    I read the whole sequence about 2 years ago when the matter was discussed here. Have you read it all? You absolutely need to read both sides of a debate like this and compare what is not answered by each side, to get some idea of the true position.


    Q2 How does THHuxleynew account for the spurious CCS/ATER anomalous heat being observed ONLY with D2O and not with H2O.

    in Pd/D20/Li electrolysis experiments?????


    Had you read that sequence of papers the answer would be obvious. ATER is an unusual phenomenon requiring specific electrode preparation and conditions (rather like LENR). The physical properties of H2 ad D2, including diffusion, are very different. so it is not at all surprising that ATER and hence CCS should be very different between H2 and D2.


    Regards, THH


    (sorry - there are better links, and I may have got the sequence wrong, but at least this makes some of the refs clear)




    Shanahan April 2005 Thermo Acta


    ??


    Shanahan Sept 2010 J Env Mon


    The Marwan et al response to Shanahan


    The Shanahan white paper

  • “People are so itching for a fight that they don’t even care what their opponent is saying.”


    How true these words are!


    Two posts in a row of people working hard to spin my words to suit their diatribe.


    So let me get this straight: saying that it is not certain what things might prevent the development of LENR is denigrating its researchers. I guess I forgot that they are omniscient and, despite the claims that there is a crying need for more research, they already know all the answers. My bad. I have truly dissed them. And that is an example of my destructive mission? Sheesh!


    My other attacker: my observation that many casual observers lump together the charlatans with the legitimate researchers is an attack on those legitimate researchers. Right. That surely is what I intended to say. Actually, if you do the appropriate numerology on my words, I probably insulted the wives and children of the researchers as well.


    Boy, if you are not part of the tribe, you are dog-meat. I can only imagine what would happen if I actually was anything like the anti-LENR force you pretend I am. Don’t you guys have more important battles to instigate?

  • Had you read that sequence of papers the answer would be obvious.

    It is not obvious,

    Prove that it is obvious,

    Particularly this statement

    "

    CCS errors from this cell of an ATER type would follow from the special active environment on

    the electrodes created from the D electrolysis that allows ATER"


    How do CCS errors follow from ATER or a special active environment??

    I thought CCS errors result from the use of linear regression analysis

    guaranteeing an excess power signal and have nothing to do with either ATER

    or the special active environment.

    "A systematic error in mass flow calorimetry demonstrated"

    Article in Thermochimica Acta 387(2):95-100 · May 2002 "


    Nothing Personal.