The Burden of Proof.

  • Recently LENR Forum team members have been discussing the age old problem of truth and lies. This has been brought to the fore time and time again in posts on the Rossi threads, going back many years. Anybody performing experiments yielding unexpected results can expect to be asked many questions in an effort to understand how this is possible, or to discredit the claimed results altogether, This has been a problem I have faces myself, on the one hand coping with pleas not to disclose from colleagues, but on the other hand wishing to be as open as possible.


    But what about the posters, who may well be anonymous who post claims of 'interesting' or even miraculous results, yet despite several or numerous never (or rarely) produce a proper photograph of their lab set up, offer only the most generic of data and when their claims become unsustainable Vanish like smoke?


    Does anybody have an opinion on this topic? Is peddling unsubstantiated LENR fantasy a more damaging habit than offering incomplete proof? Are lies more damaging to the field than flat denial of even the best supported papers from world class scientists? Personally I stand in favour of the truth, even if it hurts, and as much disclosure as seems possible at the time. But others- including my admin/mod colleagues may have opinions of their own of course. Please feel free to comment.


    NOTE. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A GENERIC DISCUSSION, THERE IS LITTLE NEED TO NAME NAMES, AND POSTS DOING THAT MIGHT (JUST POSSIBLY) BE MOVED.

  • For me the most painful and first time was Rossi. Then after me364 ,Suhas and Leon I developed immunity. I wouldn't even bother reading lengthy posts unless there are plenty supplemental materials to support claims. Not to mention a verification.

  • I wish I knew their reasons for doing this. It doesn't seem ordinary trolling.


    As for myself, I always try when reporting my very humble testing to provide as much information as materially possible, and even what I'm thinking in the process, as it can sometimes happen that what on the surface might appear like trivialities that can be safely omitted could be in reality very important details. This is actually often a problem in the experimental sections of peer-reviewed scientific papers, but it has happened (or used as an excuse to justify null results by others' replications) also in experimental reports from the LENR field.

  • Is simply having a lot to say on research papers you have already read, noticing patterns etc. concidered being a fake scientist? If so that is a serious limitation to progress on the forum.


    But one thing that has been troubling me is people act like they are for new energy sources but they seem to just be promoting stuff with zero experimental or logical backing. Like intentionally lowering the average apparent professionalism of the forum.

  • But what about the posters, who may well be anonymous who post claims of 'interesting' or even miraculous results, yet despite several or numerous never (or rarely) produce a proper photograph of their lab set up, offer only the most generic of data and when their claims become unsustainable Vanish like smoke?


    Does anybody have an opinion on this topic? Is peddling unsubstantiated LENR fantasy a more damaging habit than offering incomplete proof?

    Apparently, these people are lying. It is a strange compulsion. A little like Munchhausen syndrome. It makes you wonder why anyone would do it. If it is a scam, where is the profit? If it is an ego trip, who is impressed?


    It does not bother me much, because I have seen so many sincere cold fusion results that turned out to be wrong. They cause no harm. They fade away. A fake result also fades away and is forgotten, so in the end it causes little harm. There is hardly any functional difference between the two.


    This is like comparing the Munchhausen syndrome (a deliberately fake result) to a psychosomatic illness which the patient thinks is a real disease (a sincere mistake).

  • 'cold fusion by proxy'

    That is good!


    That sounds similar to the "Munchhausen syndrome by proxy," which is a horrifying variation of plain-old Munchhausen syndrome.


    Neither is psychosomatic because the person exhibiting the Munchhausen syndrome (or by proxy) knows he is not actually sick, whereas a psychosomatic patient sincerely believes he is sick. See:


    https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/munchausen-syndrome#1-2

  • Quote

    But what about the posters, who may well be anonymous who post claims of 'interesting' or even miraculous results, yet despite several or numerous never (or rarely) produce a proper photograph of their lab set up, offer only the most generic of data and when their claims become unsustainable Vanish like smoke?

    I think that letting them post and then commenting in detail on the deficiencies in their work may be useful to potential investors. For that reason, I favor it. Of course, to a point. People who grossly abuse the forum with nonsense or use giant amounts of space should be curbed by moderation.

  • I agree, and in more general terms too. Anyone's pet theory, is just that, and by acknowledging this, their credibility improves. In my opinion...


    Yes their maths may work out nicely, or its a nice story that makes logical sense to them, but the burden of proof is firmly upon them, and until they, or others, have provided that evidence, and it's been assessed by suitably qualified people. I reckon (for their own sake) they'd be better off being far more humble.

  • I agree, and in more general terms too. Anyone's pet theory, is just that, and by acknowledging this, their credibility improves. In my opinion...


    Yes their maths may work out nicely, or its a nice story that makes logical sense to them, but the burden of proof is firmly upon them, and until they, or others, have provided that evidence, and it's been assessed by suitably qualified people. I reckon (for their own sake) they'd be better off being far more humble.



    This is a very good description of what standard model physicists/mathematicians do in dense matter papers. Without any experimental proof they claim a never measured strong force or (CERN) claims the quarks being particles albeit they are only resonances. Even the math in these cases does nowhere fit.


    Just for more modesty we should ask these folks to correct all the papers and add the words fiction/never measured/ virtual or, simply that they retract these nonsensical claims...


    Anybody that is educated in math and want's to contribute to the future physics theory can join the SO(4) physics seminar in April (6-8). We will also show how fusion in "reality" works.. as we have experimental facts = spectra.

  • The inclusion of the words “I think” in your post earns a great deal more respect than your typical comment. Kudos.


    I want to puke at the idea of getting any respect from you. Being anything less than an ant under your boot is an insult. If I were on fire in the street and you had a fire extinguisher, I'd rather burn to death or live the rest of my life in a burn ward than allow you to help me. If the world was about to come to an end and your space craft was the only way to get off the planet, I'd wait here until the end.

  • I want to puke at the idea of getting any respect from you. Being anything less than an ant under your boot is an insult. If I were on fire in the street and you had a fire extinguisher, I'd rather burn to death or live the rest of my life in a burn ward than allow you to help me. If the world was about to come to an end and your space craft was the only way to get off the planet, I'd wait here until the end.

    You have some serious anger issues. You should work on them in between epiphanies on the nature of the universe.

  • I want to puke at the idea of getting any respect from you. Being anything less than an ant under your boot is an insult. If I were on fire in the street and you had a fire extinguisher, I'd rather burn to death or live the rest of my life in a burn ward than allow you to help me. If the world was about to come to an end and your space craft was the only way to get off the planet, I'd wait here until the end.


    Very professional... but i don't think all your comments are off the mark, in relation to maximizing reaction rate/output, Those of us that don't have labs can't be speaking in absolutes yet.. Appreciate your input though keep connecting dots. Peace.

  • I take compliments however they come...even backhanded ones. :)


    Keep in mind we are all here to save the planet environment, with varying approaches to achieving that end. No reason knocking each other. I always appreciated IO's reminding us how fruitless this all is, and what fools we *probably* are, all the while hoping we are right (and him wrong). And also Directors sincere determination in applying all his serious smarts in piecing it all together.


    The process may be as ugly as making sausage (Impossible Meats now making plant based sausage BTW), but somehow, someway, this dysfunctional, and quarreling group will get to the finish line.

  • I always appreciated IO's reminding us how fruitless this all is, and what fools we *probably* are, all the while hoping we are right (and him wrong).

    i appreciate the semi-kind comments, but don’t think they accurately reflect my opinion. Generally speaking, I don’t consider the LENR community to be fools at all nor its efforts fruitless. I am not terribly optimistic about its prospects, but certainly am happy to be proven wrong. Now, if we are talking about Rossi believers, then I do believe they are fools and expecting anything of value from him a fruitless endeavor.

  • Quote

    I want to puke at the idea of getting any respect from you. Being anything less than an ant under your boot is an insult. If I were on fire in the street and you had a fire extinguisher, I'd rather burn to death or live the rest of my life in a burn ward than allow you to help me. If the world was about to come to an end and your space craft was the only way to get off the planet, I'd wait here until the end.


    Please stop holding back. Speak your mind!

  • This is a very good description of what standard model physicists/mathematicians do in dense matter papers. Without any


    Anybody that is educated in math and want's to contribute to the future physics theory can join the SO(4) physics seminar in April (6-8). We will also show how fusion in "reality" works.. as we have experimental facts = spectra.

    May I get an invite? Pretty please?