Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

  • "Extraordinary how context changes things."

    ***That was on page 30 out of 463 pages of back & forth on the LENR-Forum. So yeah, context is everything. I keep saying that this deserves its own thread, and since you're too lazy to do it, I opened up a dedicated thread for it.


    https://disqus.com/home/channe…_report_on_rossi_reactor/

  • As a public service to those no longer reading kevmo’s posts, you are missing out on the fact that the stuff I post here is not intended to move science along (as, for example, the way his erudite contributions do.) He shares this astonishing revelation several times a day.


    But if you aren’t getting to hear it every few hours, here it is: my posts here are not for the purpose of moving science along. They are also not aimed at curing cancer, promoting world peace, mitigating climate change, solving the Middle East problem, or analytically solving Fermat’s Last Theorem. For those hoping for any of those things, I do apologize.

    "Extraordinary how context changes things."

    ***That was on page 30 out of 463 pages of back & forth on the LENR-Forum. So yeah, context is everything. I keep saying that this deserves its own thread, and since you're too lazy to do it, I opened up a dedicated thread for it.


    https://disqus.com/home/channe…_report_on_rossi_reactor/

    Kevmo,


    You deserve your own thread

  • Kevmo,

    You deserve your own thread

    I had my own thread, on this forum hoping to set a simple inductive touchpoint of how many replications are accepted in LENR. It was basically polluted by skeptopaths.

    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    And Interested Observer , whom it appears you're coming alongside in defense, was among the most egregious of skeptopaths, saying that his own comments were not intended to further science.


    To which, Jed responded:


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JedRothwell

    Verified User

    Likes Received6,258

    Aug 18th 2017

    +2

    #461


    interested observer wrote:

    I can assure you that my comments on this forum are not moving science in any direction, nor are they intended to, nor could they.


    Jed:

    Then why do you make these comments? What is the point? This is a science-oriented forum. If you comments contribute nothing to science, and if -- as you say -- you have not read the papers and you know nothing about the subject, why do you muddy the waters with ignorant, baseless assertions?


    --------------------------------------------------------


    And also again:



    -------------------------------------------------


    Online

    JedRothwell

    Verified User

    Likes Received6,258

    Aug 18th 2017

    +3

    #464


    interested observer wrote:

    How's the air up on that high horse?


    Jed:

    I suggest you address the issue. Why are you expressing strong opinions about a technical subject you know nothing about? You agree that you know nothing, and you are contributing nothing. You just said that! What are you trying to accomplish? Are you hoping to impress people?


    .... You should certainly not make bold, general assertions about the entire field. Anyone who has read the literature can see you have no idea what you are talking about. For example, this statement of yours is completely off the wall:


    "I think the existence of LENR - to extent that there is even a well-formed definition of the phenomenon - is still an open question."


    As I said, I could give a 20-minute lecture off the top of my head describing the well-formed definition of cold fusion. Anyone who has read the literature can do this. This is not an open question at all. Granted, the experts do not all agree on every aspect of their well-formed definitions, but there is a lot of common ground.



    If you were to say: "I do not agree with the well-formed definition" then we would ask: "Why not? What aspects of it do you disagree with? What experimental evidence do you point to?" You are saying there isn't any definition. That's chaotic nonsense. Mind-boggling nonsense. It is like saying there is no theory of special relativity, so Einstein was wrong.


    ....


    Your recent comments dissed & dismissed yourself more effectively than I can. You yourself boldly told us that you know nothing and you contribute nothing. You said that your comments, "are not moving science in any direction, nor are they intended to, nor could they." Yes! Right. We agree. So, naturally, you should shut up. Right?




    Why do you continue to comment about technical issues? Why on earth do you say things about the "well-formed definition of cold fusion" when you have no clue what that definition is, and no interest in learning about it?

    ---------------------------------------------------

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

    Didn't you say you "rest your case"? So you didn't really mean it. Like all the other expressions you throw out, you don't really use them in their original meanings, you just throw them out because they sound like interesting expressions.


    Some day you MisanthRossists are gonna learn how to put together 2 sentences without resorting to classical fallacies. That will be a good day.

  • As I said, I could give a 20-minute lecture off the top of my head describing the well-formed definition of cold fusion. Anyone who has read the literature can do this. This is not an open question at all. Granted, the experts do not all agree on every aspect of their well-formed definitions, but there is a lot of common ground.


    Suppose you redeem your reputation here by doing this, making a post purely about science without attacks on others? I promise to read such a non-attack definition with interest, and will point out where I feel it could be improved, since personally I do not think it is as easy to do what you say here in a way that is consistent.


    Everyone here would benefit (who has not muted you) by being able to judge whether, when you make the attempt, you can discuss science in a cogent way.


    Overall it would improve the recent lamentable tone of the thread.

  • Since Jed is the one who said he could do this, I look forward to his post in this regard as well.


    In the meantime I hold onto the ridiculous hope that y'all will learn how to put two sentences together without a logical fallacy, or perhaps do what was said when you "rest your case" or maybe even just drop your MisanthRossist attitude, since y'all can't explain how he hoodwinked so many bright scientists.

  • THH, the quote you reference is from Jed, not from kevmo. Good luck getting a non-attack answer from him either.


    The argument from 18 months ago that kevmo is morbidly obsessed with grew out of Jed’s taking offense at my observation that at least according to the denizens of this place, there seem to be a whole lot of characteristics associated with LENR without any accounting of which ones are necessary and which ones are sufficient. I was genuinely and non-judgementally interested in hearing an answer so as to better understand what constitute replications. Instead of answering that fairly straightforward question (which one would hope would not require a 20-minute lecture), I was given the usual harrangue about being too ignorant to argue against LENR. Of course, I was not arguing against LENR at all but was merely asking for some clarity.


    Apparently this is a far greater crime than actually attacking LENR in any way, which many others here do all the time. Judging by kevmo’s endless repetition of the same 18-month-old quote, it apparently is the greatest outrage ever committed. Ironically, squarely in the middle of that same and apparently infamous exchange, I noted how very little of the discussion here has anything whatsoever to do with science, especially coming from some of those expressing the greatest outrage. Things have not changed.

  • THH, the quote you reference is from Jed, not from kevmo. Good luck getting a non-attack answer from him either.


    The argument from 18 months ago that kevmo is morbidly obsessed with grew out of Jed’s taking offense at my observation that at least according to the denizens of this place, there seem to be a whole lot of characteristics associated with LENR without any accounting of which ones are necessary and which ones are sufficient. I was genuinely and non-judgementally interested in hearing an answer so as to better understand what constitute replications. Instead of answering that fairly straightforward question (which one would hope would not require a 20-minute lecture), I was given the usual harrangue about being too ignorant to argue against LENR. Of course, I was not arguing against LENR at all but was merely asking for some clarity.


    Apparently this is a far greater crime than actually attacking LENR in any way, which many others here do all the time. Judging by kevmo’s endless repetition of the same 18-month-old quote, it apparently is the greatest outrage ever committed. Ironically, squarely in the middle of that same and apparently infamous exchange, I noted how very little of the discussion here has anything whatsoever to do with science, especially coming from some of those expressing the greatest outrage. Things have not changed.



    Thanks for that - I must have been confused by all the *** from kevmo. It is quite possible to use bold/italics, or the quote function...


    So has kevMo at any time strung together any coherent argument about science, other than telling others they are wrong (which is not really about science...)? I'd like to read it if he has.


    I don't ask this of Jed since he attacks the specifics he attacks - and I often disagree with him - but rarely spills this over into generic attack all.

  • The argument from 18 months ago that kevmo is morbidly obsessed

    ***Insult.


    with grew out of Jed’s taking offense at my observation that at least according to the denizens of this place, there seem to be a whole lot of characteristics associated with LENR without any accounting of which ones are necessary and which ones are sufficient.

    ***Long winded stream-of-consciousness justification for his pile of dung statement. Everyone can go on over to that thread and see for themselves how ridiculous his statements were, but he's given full leeway over here.


    I was genuinely and non-judgementally interested

    ***No, you were seagulling onto a pure-science thread with your horse manure approach to learning.



    in hearing an answer so as to better understand what constitute replications.

    ***Anyone can see for themselves that this is just plain untrue, and now that you continue down this path, it constitutes a straightforward coverup lie.


    Instead of answering that fairly straightforward question (which one would hope would not require a 20-minute lecture), I was given the usual harrangue about being too ignorant to argue against LENR.

    ***You ADMIT you didn't read the papers, you ADMIT your ignorance. You don't even TRY to come up to speed, you just seagull on the science.



    Of course, I was not arguing against LENR at all but was merely asking for some clarity.

    ***Horse manure.




    Apparently this is a far greater crime

    ***Hyperbole


    than actually attacking LENR in any way, which many others here do all the time. Judging by kevmo’s endless repetition of the same 18-month-old quote, it apparently is the greatest outrage ever committed.

    ***Look what Jed had to say about what you wrote. He asked very pointedly why you even bother to visit these threads. So do l. You disqualified yourself.


    Ironically, squarely in the middle of that same and apparently infamous exchange, I noted how very little of the discussion here has anything whatsoever to do with science, especially coming from some of those expressing the greatest outrage. Things have not changed.

    ***Another long-winded stream-of-consciousness justification horse manure maneuver. But at least you're inviting people on over to that thread to see for themselves.


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Well, we can't very well comment over there, because the thread was shut down. Note that Jed was all over IO's case there, but he upvotes him over here.


    Here's one of the interesting interactions with IO.

    Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

    [email protected]

    Member

    Likes Received565

    Aug 19th 2017

    #480


    interested observer wrote:

    Of course I wasn't talking about your posts, Kev. Clearly you are always moving science with them,



    Kevmo:

    And clearly you are not, by your own admission.





    IO:

    or at least you are moving something.


    Kevmo:

    Engaging with you has certainly been moving the bizarrometer.

  • [THH, the quote you reference is from Jed, not from kevmo. Good luck getting a non-attack answer from him either.]


    THH, the quote you reference is from Jed, not from kevmo. Good luck getting a non-attack answer from him either.


    Here is my 6-minute non-attack answer:


    https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618



    A somewhat longer answer written by Mallove and me is in Chapter 1, here:


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


    I wrote a good summary here which I recall you liked, but I cannot find it because of the wretched message system here.



    No, wait. The message you said you liked was in answer to your question, "what is a replication?" That is an interesting question. The answer is not as simple as it might seem. My response:


    Clearance Items

  • Thanks for that Jed, I do not doubt your ability to do this.


    However i still have doubts over KevMo's interest in science - as opposed to attacking people.


    From his thread above, KevMo make a few attacks, and his first science statement is as follows:


    Do you see Dolly the Sheep as a "fact from heaven"? It's never been replicated. Lots of "facts from heaven" have had only 2 or 3 replications. 153 replications, well that's significant, especially if they're from what Jed calls the "who's who of electrochemistry".


    I can't see much science in this. I guess it shows an acquaintance with early cloning experiments. But it is a very bad comparison from which to reason about LENR. In the case of Dolly a technology (SCNT) that is very unreliable is used to replace a cell nucleus. The result, when it works, is a clone. Whether that technique could ever clone live sheep was not known till Dolly. It has not been replicated because people shortly after found much better cloning technology and used it in preference.


    But there was no serious question that Dolly's existence could be experimental error. The difference between a dead foetus and a live sheep is pretty clear, You have to be very careless to confuse the two - ane even if you are careless in that way the fact that Dolly was indeed a real clone was verified many times through DNA testing. That is the opposite of LENR experiments where, in that thread, Kirk was suggesting that those replications could be errors, systematic or one-off. (Kirk was keen on one specific class of sytematic error).


    KevMo's argument here is completely fallacious. And familiar to us on this thread for its superficial correctness masking a flaw based on lack of context.


    @KevMo. Perhaps I'm being unfair. Do you have another science comment we could review?

  • From one of Jed's links

    Quote

    The core of the Toyota reactor was about the size of a birthday cake candle. A candle burning at 100 watts uses up all of the fuel in 7 minutes, whereas one of the Toyota devices ran at 100 watts continuously for 30 days. That’s thousands of times longer than the candle. It produced thousands of times more energy than the best chemical fuel.


    If you know, pls:

    - when did this take place?

    - what was the power in to obtain 100 watts out?

    - what type of calorimeter or calorimetry was used?

    - was this replicated and if so where and by whom?

    - is there a link to a report or paper?

    - most important: why was not such an amazing result further developed?

    - (heh) where can I buy one?

    tnx

  • there seem to be a whole lot of characteristics associated with LENR without any accounting of which ones are necessary and which ones are sufficient.


    That is incorrect. See: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf


    was genuinely and non-judgementally interested in hearing an answer so as to better understand what constitute replications. Instead of answering that fairly straightforward question (which one would hope would not require a 20-minute lecture), I was given the usual harrangue about being too ignorant to argue against LENR.


    Actually, I did answer, and you even said:


    "Thank you Jed. That is exactly the sort of answer I was seeking and it didn’t even require you to abandon your principles!"


    Clearance Items


  • I guess you are quoting the video transcript (https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618). The source of that is Roulette et al., listed just above the sentence you quote:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf


    All of the sources are listed in the transcript.



    "why was not such an amazing result replicated and further developed?" See pages 4 - 6:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf