Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • There are several reports of gammas - try this one from Focardi.


    You are right. Gammas seem to be characteristic of Ni-H. I did a cursory search through the EndNote files. Most of the references I found were about the gamma phase of loading (unrelated), or theory, or "we looked for gamma rays but we didn't find any." That seems to be the main result from Pd-D.


    I should have said there is little evidence for gamma rays.


    You can find a little evidence for practically anything in cold fusion. Even biological cold fusion, which as Ed Storms says "will challenge you." To paraphrase Dirty Harry: "You've got to ask yourself one question. Do I feel open minded? Well, do ya, punk?"



    You can do a cursory search on this screen, in the "Search All" column:


    https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081

  • No Jed, the video and your book were not responsive to my questions then or now. I did watch/read them but they were not what I was asking about. I was not asking about F&P. You seem to finally understand where I was coming from when you said:


    I wouldn't call those other things cold fusion. My definition is limited to the Fleischmann-Pons effect which is...”


    So what I was really trying to find out is whether accepting F&P-type results means automatically accepting any result that labels itself as cold fusion/LENR. As ridiculous as that sounds, I think it is pretty much standard beavior around here and explains alot about the inexplicable support for Rossi. I am happy to see that you don’t suffer from that problem. Like I said, your answers today seem quite sensible. They refer to a relatively narrow issue that has been endlessly extrapolated beyond what is appropriate.


    And, speaking of things that shouldn’t be called cold fusion, we really all should get back to discussing the world-shaking events at the puppet condo.



  • No Jed, the video and your book were not responsive to my questions then or now.

    ***That goes back to your inability to communicate then as well as now. You should just recuse yourself from the conversation because you have disqualified yourself. Your attempt to reframe what you were supposedly asking at the time is pretty lame once a person goes back and reads what you wrote. It's not even close. You're just trying to justify your incredibly stupid remark.


    I did watch/read them but they were not what I was asking about. I was not asking about F&P.

    ***You were on a thread asking about how many times F&P were replicated, so once again it comes down to your inability to communicate, your stupidity, your surrounding yourself with skeptopaths while claiming "I'm not one of them".


    You seem to finally understand where I was coming from when you said:

    “I wouldn't call those other things cold fusion. My definition is limited to the Fleischmann-Pons effect which is...”

    ***The problem is that your remarks on that thread aren't even close to what you're claiming now, and your justification fell short and sounds hollow. Just walk away from this thread. Go on, join other threads, but you've disqualified yourself.




    So what I was really trying to find out is whether accepting F&P-type results means automatically accepting any result that labels itself as cold fusion/LENR.

    ***That isn't what you wrote on the thread. :It's also a very stupid question.


    As ridiculous as that sounds, I think it is pretty much standard beavior around here

    ***Then it should be no trouble whatsoever for you to parachute onto one of those threads and spread your sunshine there.


    and explains alot about the inexplicable support for Rossi.

    ***No, we established on that other thread that you APPROACHED the whole subject matter of LENR in a post-Rossi fashion as if he REPRESENTED the field of LENR, even after we pointed out to you that all of those 153 peer reviewed replications were ALL prior to Rossi. You wrote something stupid and now your attempt at walking it back has backfired.



    I am happy to see that you don’t suffer from that problem. Like I said, your answers today seem quite sensible.

    ***And yours seem the same as before.


    They refer to a relatively narrow issue that has been endlessly extrapolated beyond what is appropriate.

    ***You sure have a lot of opinions for someone who explicitly says he doesn't read the literature and whose comments are not intended to forward science.




    And, speaking of things that shouldn’t be called cold fusion, we really all should get back to discussing the world-shaking events at the puppet condo.

    ***That "we", Kemosabe, should NOT include YOU.

  • I did watch/read them but they were not what I was asking about. I was not asking about F&P.


    You did not make that clear. But when you watched and read them, did you not see they were about the Fleischmann-Pons effect, and nothing else? Did you not see they are narrowly focussed on a clearly defined subject?


    Why would you ask me, of all people, about something other than F&P?!? I have never discussed anything other than the Fleischmann Pons effect. I have written 29 papers and books, and answered hundreds of questions here, and I do not think I have discussed anything else. I have uploaded 1,935 papers. Apart from a few in Proceedings, they all about the FP effect.


    It is surprising you did not notice that I narrowly define cold fusion as the Fleischmann-Pons effect.



    So what I was really trying to find out is whether accepting F&P-type results means automatically accepting any result that labels itself as cold fusion/LENR


    You were trying to "find out" whether everyone in this field accepts or rejects results en mass, according to some agreement? Have you ever met a scientist? What does "automatically accept a result" mean, anyway? Do you get the impression from McKubre, Storms, or I accept any result?


    How would this automatic acceptance work? Do you suppose we will not let you into an ICCF conference until you sign a paper agreeing to accept any result? I think you would find that people seldom agree about things at a conference. Ask three physicists a question and you get five answers. People disagree with themselves.



    Like I said, your answers today seem quite sensible. They refer to a relatively narrow issue that has been endlessly extrapolated beyond what is appropriate.


    Those are the same answers I have been giving since 2004. See the first two chapters here, by Mallove and me:


    https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf


    Those are the same answers McKubre, Miles and others have been giving since 1989. Other people may be extrapolating, but not us. I do not think you will find a single instance in my papers in which I extrapolated beyond the Fleischmann Pons effect.


    Of course I realize that other people have extrapolated. I spent weeks copy editing the latest JCMNS issue, which was about biological transmutation. (https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedza.pdf) Note that I do not endorse papers by copy editing or uploading them. I disagree with many of the papers at LENR-CANR.org. Others, especially some of the theory papers, I cannot make head or tail of. I have no idea what they mean.

  • If you are going to mock my words, quote them in their entirely:


    “So what I was really trying to find out is whether accepting F&P-type results means automatically accepting any result that labels itself as cold fusion/LENR. As ridiculous as that sounds, I think it is pretty much standard behavior around here...”


    I have no idea of what you have had to say since 2004. I ask you questions because you are clearly an authority on the subject, especially in comparison to most people who frequent this site. Whom should I ask about the state of CF science? Axil?


    Now that you have made it clear to me what subject matter you consider to be established CF science and what you don’t, I will be careful to avoid confusion.

  • I have no idea of what you have had to say since 2004.

    You have no idea?!? You just said you saw the video. The video is what I have been saying. Which is it? Did you see the video or not?


    I have also repeatedly recommended my book chapters written by Mallove and me.


    For that matter, I have been saying the same thing McKubre, Storms, Beaudette and others have said since 1990. You have no idea what they said? Not a clue?


    You seem to alternate between saying you have read the material and seen the video, to saying you have seen nothing and you know nothing. One minute you read something; the next minute you have "no idea" what it says.


    Now that you have made it clear to me what subject matter you consider to be established CF science and what you don’t, I will be careful to avoid confusion.

    Now that I made it clear? Now? I made it clear in 29 papers and a video. I pointed you repeatedly to McKubre's paper that makes it clear. You just told us you read it. But you did not realize what it said until now??? What is that supposed to mean?


    You don't have to agree with my definition, but for you to claim I never told you how I define cold fusion is absurd.

  • So what I was really trying to find out is whether accepting F&P-type results means automatically accepting any result that labels itself as cold fusion/LENR. As ridiculous as that sounds, I think it is pretty much standard behavior around here...”

    Yes, it is ridiculous but no, it is not standard here or anywhere else. In science, people seldom agree. Not here and definitely not at ICCF conferences. If you were to read the literature, you would see the authors frequently disagree.

  • Its a form of pollution that has materially damaged this forum.


    You always say that. Maybe one day you will be right, but not yet. Unlike you, I see something positive happening, and that is kevmo is finding his place, and the members opposed to his abrasive style are beginning to adjust. Like they did with Adrian, and many others before.


    To his credit, kevmo is a quick learner, and after being informed of the unwritten Rossi thread rules, has made his own adjustments, and has since played within. He pushes the boundaries at times, but who does not?

  • One of the biggest disappointments in LENR was when MFMP announced they found Gammas, Biberian replicated it 48 hours later, and then... poof...,,, nothing. They just went on to half a dozen other experiments without saying ANYTHING about their gamma ray findings, which would have been the PROOF, the Smoking Gun of LENR.


    http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…follow/follow-2/347-gamma

  • They just went on to half a dozen other experiments without saying ANYTHING about their gamma ray findings, which would have been the PROOF, the Smoking Gun of LENR.

    Ask them what happened. In most cases like this, the authors discover an error in their experiment. They discover those are not gamma rays after all. They should post a message retracting the finding, but often they just stop talking about it instead. That's understandable. It is embarrassing.


    In other cases, the result fades away. They try many times but the gamma rays never show up again.


    The MFMP is not going to cover up a positive result. If they were still seeing gamma rays, they would report it, I think.

  • You always say that. Maybe one day you will be right, but not yet. Unlike you, I see something positive happening, and that is kevmo is finding his place, and the members opposed to his abrasive style are beginning to adjust. Like they did with Adrian, and many others before.


    To his credit, kevmo is a quick learner, and after being informed of the unwritten Rossi thread rules, has made his own adjustments, and has since played within. He pushes the boundaries at times, but who does not?

    You see something positive happening? One by one, people here are ignoring kevmo while he carries on his crusade to try to drive off the people he does not approve of. What a futile exercise in self-important grandstanding. You seem to think that this nonsense is somehow adding something positive to the site so onward we go. It does save time not having to read roughly half the posts here, so that is a positive thing I suppose.

  • You see something positive happening? One by one, people here are ignoring kevmo while he carries on his crusade to try to drive off the people he does not approve of. What a futile exercise in self-important grandstanding. You seem to think that this nonsense is somehow adding something positive to the site so onward we go. It does save time not having to read roughly half the posts here, so that is a positive thing I suppose.


    Yes, that is part of the negative feedback process kevmo no doubt takes into consideration. He is abrasive, but not dumb. You guys are all smart. If you feel someone has gone too far, you get together and adjust to deal with, as you are doing. He responds by changing...to a degree. In the end will be a happy medium.

  • Ask them what happened. In most cases like this, the authors discover an error in their experiment. They discover those are not gamma rays after all. They should post a message retracting the finding, but often they just stop talking about it instead. That's understandable. It is embarrassing.


    In other cases, the result fades away. They try many times but the gamma rays never show up again.


    The MFMP is not going to cover up a positive result. If they were still seeing gamma rays, they would report it, I think.

    I asked Bob Greenyer on ECW a while back. He said something about the guy owning the equipment having a new job or something better to do.


    There was also a tease about upcoming information relating to EVOs or charge clusters -- or whatever the latest blinking light distraction is -- and how they masquerade as gammas & give off false readings or somesuch thing.


    flimdeflam razmataz handwaving

  • You see something positive happening? One by one, people here are ignoring kevmo

    ***Nothing wrong with that. No temptation to insult a person you're ignoring. It's really strange though, that some people who claim to be ignoring me keep right on commenting towards me and about me. You might actually be one of those folks IIRC.


    while he carries on his crusade to try to drive off the people he does not approve of.

    ***Well, mostly just you. You disqualified yourself on that other thread by saying your own comments don't further science (after a long sequence of anti-LENR anti-science nonsense) and that other thread is closed. But, folks don't have to listen to me, they can listen to Jed who until recently, was upvoting what you had to say.


    What a futile exercise in self-important grandstanding.

    ***You mean, like,... trying to backtrack a comment where you admit that you aren't here to further science? That kind of self-important grandstanding? Or is it some other different kind of self-important grandstanding?


    You seem to think that this nonsense is somehow adding something positive to the site so onward we go.

    ***He can see that folks are far less tempted to throw insults at a person who will trade insults. Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'.... and then the insults diminish. That's a positive thing.


    It does save time not having to read roughly half the posts here, so that is a positive thing I suppose.

    ***Every cloud has its silver lining. Murphy's Law has its interesting corollaries , such as the one saying that Murphy was an optimist. My preferred optimist corollary is : If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  • Shane - Treating abrasive serial posters who mainly perpetuate falsehoods thru multiple SPs as credible has damaged this forum.


    You knew it before we did. He was the only serial poster we know of lately...J5 being the last. Now he knows the rules, and while quiet since learning, will play by those rules if/when he comes back. Maybe one day he will even share his secrets, instead of playing games like he does.

  • Shane - Treating abrasive serial posters

    ***As opposed to parallel posters?


    who mainly perpetuate falsehoods

    ***If it's falsehoods , then show where it's false, instead of harumphing and whining.


    thru multiple SPs

    ***Multiple Service Providers? Multiple Software Processes? SP=??

    https://www.acronymfinder.com/SP.html

    When I signed up here I screwed up, and put my email as my screen name, so it would be particularly difficult to spoof my origins (and also particularly stupid to accuse me of spoofing)...



    as credible has damaged this forum.

    ***Why doncha just argue your position? If something is unfactual, knock it down. Your problem is, things you THINK are facts are merely your own ASSERTIONs. That makes you lose credibility. And as you point out, pushing incredulity damages this forum.