Sifferkoll make a short article discussing about why those physicist ridicule themselves by defending what cannot be...
[news=13,meta][/news]
Sifferkoll: Why are Pomp, Eriksson, Ekström and Håkansson Making Fools out of Themselves in Ny Teknik?
-
The reaction Pomp and others are displaying is contrary to what you would expect from a scientist, but there is an explanation called The Backfire Effect:
The Misconception:
When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.The Truth:
When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. -
yes, that is what Roland Benabou
have deduced from his modelisation of Groupthink
His model conclude that when people cannot exit a belief without admitting huge losses, they have a tendency not only to be deluded and ignore reality, but consequently to be violent against those who dissent. and the paradox is that the more the delusion is dangerous, the more the group terrorize the dissenters, the more the victims are enforcing the terror against dissenters.
the more the data are clear, the more the data are denied, and the more the terror against dissenters increase (Cassandra Curse)...My Nobel vote is to Benabou !
ROLAND BENABOU FOR NOBEL !
-
Why don't Pomp & co do their own LENR experiment or discuss results with other LENR researchers such as Mike McKubre?
The truth is out there and today it is not that hard for someone as determined as Pomp & co are to prove LENR is BS, to check facts with other LENR researchers.
All I see are 4 guys who refuse to look through Galileo's telescope.
Quote[Vo]:Failure to fulfil the Galileo test Ian Walker Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:54:17 -0700
Hi all
If you refuse to look through the telescope then you have failed the
Galileo test; you have stopped being a scientist and practising a religion.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg98898.html -
Different Dog, Same Leg Action:
I asked Stephen Pomp to critique the work and reported results of excess heat, transmutations, He4, Trituim etc production of McKubre and others. Was told if the results were not reported in Nature, etc he was not interested.
Seems ECat results don't need to be reported in Nature, etc for Pomp to do a critique.
I suggest that if Pomp is OK to critique the latest ECat results, without them being published in Nature etc, then it should be OK for him to critique McKubre and other major LENR researchers.
Papers can be found here: www.lenr-canr.org.
Simple logic here. Either ALL of the reports of excess heat, transmutations, He4 & Tritium production are false or there is something happening that may require a new chapter to be written in the book of existing physics understandings.
So please Stephen Pomp widen your LENR results report base and provide the same high level of critique to ALL the other major LENR results as you have done with the latest ECat test report.
-
He refused to participate that test and told it on his blog....
strangely (?) I cannot find his message...Is there google cache of this post? Or any other "way-back-machine"-cache of his site?
-
I put the link somewhere but I don't remind...
note that stephan pomp support the double inverted clamp conspiracy...
plus the conspiracy of powedr moving from 800 to 900W with heat 1250 to 1400...the testers cannot see when a phase have a negative power...
rolling over the floor laughing loud...
even an intern cannot do that without noticing.the good news is that they are clearly desperate.
the only serious critic, and this make me sad, are raised by McKubre, that the calibration was done at too low temperature. anyway if you assume there is no LENr, then the 1250W period is a calibration, and the 1400C shows a huge anomaly that rules out COP=1...
no doubt it work.all honest skeptic here should see how those cargo cult skeptics refuse to challenge their own theory with the evidences.
-
Display More
I put the link somewhere but I don't remind...
note that stephan pomp support the double inverted clamp conspiracy...
plus the conspiracy of powedr moving from 800 to 900W with heat 1250 to 1400...the testers cannot see when a phase have a negative power...
rolling over the floor laughing loud...
even an intern cannot do that without noticing.the good news is that they are clearly desperate.
the only serious critic, and this make me sad, are raised by McKubre, that the calibration was done at too low temperature. anyway if you assume there is no LENr, then the 1250W period is a calibration, and the 1400C shows a huge anomaly that rules out COP=1...
no doubt it work.all honest skeptic here should see how those cargo cult skeptics refuse to challenge their own theory with the evidences.
On Vortex, an expert in this kind of indirect temperature measurement (measures rocket exhaust plume temps, etc) said instruments used and setup was OK. With respect to McKubre, AFAIK, he has no expertise in this type of temperature measurement, so why the negative comment? I do note McKubre is working with Brillouin on their 100 COP LENR water boiler.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/F…9:10#Brillouin_.7E100x_OU
Seems both IH and Brillouin are in the same low temp LENR heat market. Wish them both all the best.Would also comment on the reddish colour of the ECat reactor. We do not know when that photo was taken, so unless the team give us a time stamp, it is pointless to try to work out the reactor temp from the displayed colour. I have no doubt, there are red herrings in the report, to send deniers onto false trails, to stop replicators and to try to protect IH IP before patents are obtained. It would seem to be very much in the favour of IH for the report to be thrown into the rubbish bin as then they can continue on to ECat commercialisation without serious replication actions.
In that way Pomp, etc may be aiding IH commercialisation efforts.
-
I just made a screenshot of his post. Not that it suddenly disappears
-
There are only two reasons why the World Intellectual Property Organization(WIPO) refused to grant Rossi and his wife's patent http://patentscope.wipo.int/se…il.jsf?docId=WO2009125444 for the US and the rest of the World.
Written Opinion of the International Search Authority:
http://patentscope.wipo.int/se…_pct/id00000011868762.pdfWithout this patent the E-Cat Invention is worth nothing and as long there is no theoretical explanation available, the only reason for the WIPO (and the EPO https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP08873805 ) to change their opinion is 'to provide an experimental evidence, which would enable the skilled person to assess the viability of the invention' and this experimental evidence is the current third party test, nothing more or less.
Rossi and his investors would be very stupid if they would reveal more details of their invention as absolutely necessary, before they did not own this patent (quite possibly the most valuable patent ever). Therefore they have to undergo a huge balancing act: on the one hand side protect the intellectual property as much as possible, on the other hand provide enough information to enable the proof by other skilled persons. I think this succeeded! The only question is, if the WIPO (and EPO) accept the evidence as sufficient and the patent will be granted (then the global commercialization of the Ecat will start very quickly), or not, in this case we have to prepare us for many more years of waiting and endless litigation.
-
Rends: So IH should help MFMP to replicate the reaction. Maybe in an uneconomic way. Few Watts are enough for scientific proof.
If it's replicated they get their patent and everyone is happy. But why they are not doing this?
There is guaranteed a way to start a reaction which is much lower intense to the IH one, but enough for science and research. -
Latest test has provided the required "Experimental Evidence", sufficient for MFMP to attempt replication. I note the experts stopped short at describing why it works, so negating any mention of the dreaded words "Cold Fusion". Patent should be granted.
-
It is possible for people with no strong views about psychology to look at the facts relating to tests of rossi's e-cat and reach conclusions.
In the case of this latest test the facts do not show the claimed COP of > 3 because there is a significant internal inconsistency in the published data that relates to input power. It has the input power for active tests is inconsistent by a factor of 3.
Of course, the mistake may be resolved in some other way and the recalculated figures still show some interesting COP. But until that happens you do not need to have any agenda or prejudice, nor to speculate about motives, to consider this test as negative.
Please comment on any assumptions in my calculations that you feel could be wrong?
-
We cannot tell precisely how these measurements were taken. For example, maybe a single stream of data goes to the computer and the active measurement so transmitted can be changed by manual control or a program command. We know Rossi had manual access. But in these situations with limited data it is impossible to be sure exactly what might have happened.
You are assuming that these things are impossible: just as you criticise nuclear physicists for doing the same with regard to LENR.
It is certain that something was mismeasured by a factor of 3.3X or so because the test figures are not consistent. Given a mismeasurement of input power by a factor of X3 or thereabouts in the active test, plausible as above, all is understood. The remaining 10% mismatch on input measurements could be phase asymmetry caused by resistor tolerance, the active runs have output power equal to input power to within 10%. The 10% is easily covered by uncertainty in alumina emissivity - which was not measured at these temperatures but assumed equal to the value from a reference book. Alumina characteristics, and specifically transparency, depend on microstructure.
I can give a plausible scenario leading to the quantified error for each Rossi test. Can you say as much for LENR where you have a hypothesis giving a quantified value of the nuclear reactions possible that fits the data?
-
Alain,
it cuts both ways you know...
QuoteHis model conclude that when people cannot exit a belief without admitting huge losses, they have a tendency not only to be deluded and ignore reality, but consequently to be violent against those who dissent. and the paradox is that the more the delusion is dangerous, the more the group terrorize the dissenters, the more the victims are enforcing the terror against dissenters.the more the data are clear, the more the data are denied, and the more the terror against dissenters increase (Cassandra Curse)...
