What Ascoli set out to do, and what his intentions are now, are irrelevant. His claims should be addressed on their own merits regardless of his motivation. As it happens, his claims have no merits.
Fine, I agree.
Tell us, please, "when the boil off events begin and end" (1), for each one of the 4 cells in the "1992 boil off" experiment.
(1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
Why should I discuss about any other LENR claim or experiment, when it is impossible to discuss on the evidence of the only experiment for which we have the original images, the same which have been used by the experimenters to derive their claims?
This argumentation is totally moronic made by a possible paid hot fusion troll.
The papers conclusions - we see cold fusion - have been made by Fleischmann from reading 5 highly accurate TC's. Finally Fleischmann just wanted to get out the 99.9% fit with his calorimetry model, when he did look at the video to get some clarification with the help of daily change in air pressure he only could use after the experiment. This fitting helped him to adjust the final total dry out moment by a few seconds....
Cold fusion has been declared due to 3 hours of heat after death measured by 5 TC's and of course the recorded large excess enthalpy.
Display MoreSince 2011, I've been interested in many events and protagonists of the CF/LENR history. As you know, I've started commenting on the Ecat, then Celani, the MFMP experiments, then Takahashi, Mizuno and some other Japanese researchers.
Eventually, four years ago, I arrived at the beginning of the history, at F&P, the most important protagonists of the field. At that time, I have raised the same objections, I'm discussing now on this thread and I got the same reactions. At best, nobody has entered in the merit of my objections, with the only exception of Robert Horst (1). For years, people has invited me to look at other F&P's documents or at other researcher's claims, trying to divert the attention from the F&P's Simplicity Paper.
You are doing the same now, by complaining I'm not interested in the latest news from ICCF24, or Assisi. What should I say about them? Why should I discuss about any other LENR claim or experiment, when it is impossible to discuss on the evidence of the only experiment for which we have the original images, the same which have been used by the experimenters to derive their claims?
The availability of the "1992 boil off" videos allows everyone here to be in the same conditions. There is no more the privilege to say "I know something you don't" or "the experimenter knew something we don't". The images rule.
The "foam issue" is a test to understand if LF is scientific forum or only a fan-club. This is the reason why it has the priority in my present interest on LENR.
My intent (mission is too bombastic) is simply to search, understand and proclaim the truth, as it is normal in a scientific context. I've always looked for a sincere and constructive confrontation with others in order to avoid making mistakes myself.
Why "may be right"? We have the images, the same images used by F&P to deduce their claims. We can arrive at a conclusion. Either I'm right, or I'm wrong. How is it possible that you are not interested to know if F&P were actually right or wrong in writing their final claims in the Simplicity Paper?
And how can you say that this experiment is only tiny part of the F&P's story?
An important phenomenon such as the alleged HAD derives from the claimed results of the "1992 boil off" experiment.
Footages from the related lab video have been included in a popular program such as "Good Morning America" in 1994 and in the documentary "Fire From Water" in 1998.
The Simplicity Paper was the first in the list of the papers selected by McKubre et al. to be submitted to DoE in 2004, when they were asked to provide the best evidence on LENR reality.
Is all this above just a tiny part of the story?
OK, then as far as you are concerned you have FP's dead to rights. And since you claim they were the genesis (although they were not) of the science, their offspring LENR in all it's various forms is a pseudoscience. I respect your opinion, and the polite and methodical way you conducted yourself.
Other members disagree though, and it appears there is nothing from here on out that you, or THH can say to change their opinions, nor they yours. As I said before, the two sides are at an impasse, and has become counter-productive. So, my vote is to shut the discussion down and send both sides back to their respective corners.
Not that it matters, but I enjoyed the thread. Unfortunately, recently it turned acrimonious and started spiraling out of control. I knew it was doomed when even THH got angry. 
If it were up to me, everyone would be able to debate these contentious issues without ever taking it personal. Like our LF motto says: "Check your ego at the door, and don't insult other members".
The "foam issue" is a test to understand if LF is scientific forum or only a fan-club. This is the reason why it has the priority in my present interest on LENR.
If you know a better forum, go join it.
Display MoreEvery statement here is incorrect. Obviously, you have not read anything about Miles, or you did not understand what you read. All of these issues are addressed in his papers. For that matter, they were addressed by me, in my review of his papers. Obviously, you will not read my review or any of the papers, but perhaps others here would like to see how these issues were addressed. My review:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf
There are a number of papers by Miles. Here is the most comprehensive one:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
For others, go to the library (https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1081) and under "All Authors" enter Miles. You can also search for "helium" in the "Search All" category. This searches through titles, keywords and the abstracts for all papers. It finds 204 papers, not all of them on file at LENR-CANR.org.
That's it for me. I will not respond to THH about Miles or McKubre. I think I have done enough, writing a paper and indexing the library. THH can use the library search features . . . but of course he will not. He will keep repeating these assertions indefinitely, hoping that readers will think he is right because no one responds.
Jed, I have raised issues. You have said you have addressed them. Perhaps, to save time, you could quote an answer more specific than
17 pages - your paper - could not find my issue addressed? I scanned it quickly.
91 pages (Miles) where is my issue addressed? I was not up to reading 91 pages on spec.
etc.
It does not help, when specific issues are raised, to quote several 100 pages of stuff and say "the answer is in there somewhere".
I did look at this stuff a long time ago - I may have missed answers to my issues, in which case I'm sure you can direct me to them since you are more familiar than I am with the literature.
Display MoreJed, I have raised issues. You have said you have addressed them. Perhaps, to save time, you could quote an answer more specific than
17 pages - your paper - could not find my issue addressed? I scanned it quickly.
91 pages (Miles) where is my issue addressed? I was not up to reading 91 pages on spec.
etc.
It does not help, when specific issues are raised, to quote several 100 pages of stuff and say "the answer is in there somewhere".
I did look at this stuff a long time ago - I may have missed answers to my issues, in which case I'm sure you can direct me to them since you are more familiar than I am with the literature.
For gods sake read it again!!!
Jed, I have raised issues. You have said you have addressed them. Perhaps, to save time, you could quote an answer more specific than
17 pages - your paper - could not find my issue addressed? I scanned it quickly.
I shouldn't engage but . . .
Points 1 and 2 are covered in the section "Possibilities for error." Find the rest yourself. Do not ask for any more hand-holding or spoon-feeding. I am not capable of explaining it more clearly than I did in this paper.
OK, then as far as you are concerned you have FP's dead to rights.
Sorry, I can't understand what does it mean.
QuoteAnd since you claim they were the genesis (although they were not) of the science, their offspring LENR in all it's various forms is a pseudoscience.
It's not me to say that F&P are at the root of LENR. See for instance this recent initiative (1): "ARPA-E acknowledges the complex, controversial history of LENR beginning with the announcement by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in 1989 that they had achieved deuterium-deuterium (D-D) “cold fusion” in an electrochemical cell."
As for pseudoscience, I can't draw that conclusion, but the obstinacy to refuse to looking into possible errors made by F&P is not a good starting point for anyone who is claiming to have obtained some extraordinary results in the field.
QuoteOther members disagree though, and it appears there is nothing from here on out that you, or THH can say to change their opinions, nor they yours.
I still hope it is possible. The opinions can be changed on the basis of the weight of the arguments, as Curbina said (2) "Let the weight of the arguments decide which vision prevails."
JR has just wrote (3): "What Ascoli set out to do, and what his intentions are now, are irrelevant. His claims should be addressed on their own merits regardless of his motivation. As it happens, his claims have no merits."
This is encouraging. Let's see if he really wants to enter in the merits of my arguments and answers my questions about the begin and the end of the boil off events (4)..
(1) https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/…55-4c3b-a211-b128d2a4a0e4
(2) RE: The Playground - No more Covid Games Please.
(3) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
(4) RE: Where is the close-up video of Fleischmann and Pons boiling cell?
Sorry, I can't understand what does it mean.
It means you are sure they (FP's) were wrong.
JR has just wrote (3): "What Ascoli set out to do, and what his intentions are now, are irrelevant. His claims should be addressed on their own merits regardless of his motivation. As it happens, his claims have no merits."
This is encouraging. Let's see if he really wants to enter in the merits of my arguments and answers my questions about the begin and the end of the boil off events (4)..
Sorry, but I am afraid this discussion will end soon.
It means you are sure they (FP's) were wrong.
Thanks.
To be more precise, I became convinced that both the conclusions of the F&P's Simplicity Paper are wrong.
And, do you have a your own opinion on the two issues (foam and arrow) which are under discussion? Had F&P been right or wrong in their two conclusive claims of the Simplicity Paper?
QuoteSorry, but I am afraid this discussion will end soon.
Well, not the first time it would happen.
It wouldn't be a tragedy, my friend.
Well, not the first time it would happen.
It wouldn't be a tragedy, my friend.
Nothing personal old friend. The thread is now closed.
