Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from interested observer

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.

Quote from [email protected]

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.

Quote from Shane D.

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.

Quote from [email protected]

But, folks don't have to listen to me, they can listen to Jed who until recently, was upvoting what you had to say.

Not often.

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