Posts by Rigel

Quote from Alan Smith

Hi Rigel. There are a prodigious amount if 'New Ontological Theories' submitted for publication. A friend in the (print) Journal business tells me they see around one a week. I am not really qualified to comment on the content or the quality of this one since philosophy tends to bring me out in spots, so make no claims for this, but I have always found Klee to be a thoroughly decent (and generous) chap and a serious student and researcher into LENR. Perhaps in a truly 'Calofornia' way he has a deep interest in things that are too mystical for an engineer like me. Some at least of the business troubles that have gained him a rather raffish reputation are due to his being the owner of a business that he no longer has any day-today management of, but has been for some years a passenger in the hands of 'management at the wheel.' There is probably a lesson for us all there.

Alan are you sure you are responding to me? Can you post the # so i can respond please? The original ref is cut off somehow.

Also have a great time in Miami, and if you get the chance see the Keys, you will fall in love.

I admire Russ Gries the experimenter but the other fellow mentioned not so much (as others have mentioned) . If you provide a post # per above, I will try to respond.

Listen, take care and enjoy your trip. Expect traffic like downtown London after it collides into NYC in some horror show. Miami is big and traffic is big. Somehow they meet.

Food is excellent. I would more wish you were going to ICCF-21 but that is Rigel. Just wait till I see Dewey!

Quote from Bob

On the subject of vanishing into the night, I would like to put forth the following questions. Hopefully Jed can give some insight as it seems he is well connected and knowledgeable. Perhaps Mr. Weaver will respond as well!

The question stems from my lack of knowledge about current legitimate researchers and their status. It seems that many are of advanced age and I wonder what the status of their work in LENR today is.

I.E. Are these people still conducting physical research / testing in LENR, only writing papers or not active at all?

(please pardon if I have misspelled names)

Storms

McKubre

Piantelli

Miles

Muzuno

Cravens

Celani

Are there any others that are conducting current serious research in LENR? If so can you provide a short list?

Mr. Weaver,

Can you inform us if IH is still doing any funding or active work in the LENR field with other researchers?

Thanks in advance!

Display More

Bob,

Dr. Nagel should be added to your list. He is both honest and well honestly everything I want to be when I grow up. I have been to his lab he has both equipment and resources.

To be fair I have been to another research level scientists, he is critical but has an open mind if new data becomes available. It is true beauty to see in action.

I want to know both sides as it is educational. It is critical thinking for me.

Quote from maryyugo

As Jed Rothwell, said, IH could not afford to risk some $300 million on the probability that an entirely lay jury would believe corporate types and academics over a con man and a bunch of accomplished liars. Not a risk worth taking. Why would they? They did not admit wrong doing and they did not pay Rossi anything. That's a win for them and a clear loss for Rossi.

Alan purports to have invited me to attend (were you planning to fit me in your suitcase?) but in reality, Rossi already had his chance with me back in 2011. Then, I was in email communications with Jed Rothwell. I have described this before but, briefly, the idea was for Jed to put together a team to fly to Italy and test the steam ecat exactly as it was. I was prepared to meet them in Italy.

The plan was simply to collect all the steam and condense it ("sparge" it) into an insulated and instrumented water tank to measure its energy content. Voila, problem solved. Needless to say, the test would have been done without the need for Rossi to reveal any trade secret or to allow any measurement which might expose intellectual property.

Of course, Rossi never agreed to that simple and direct plan for the experiment. He also did not offer to do such a test himself or to have it done by others. That was when I became absolutely certain he was a fraud. No legitimate inventor would refuse a definitive test of their invention when it was offered without cost by a trustworthy group of experts or for that matter, by himself or anyone.

In the last 5+ years, Rossi has never allowed a single proper and independent test of his ecat. There never was a need for a hot cat. There is no need for a QuarkX. The original steam ecat which puportedly made 10kW+ from a tennis ball sized reactor sitting on a desktop in a stable and consistent manner purportedly for six months on a tiny amount of cheap fuel-- that alone was worth billions or trillions and probably a Nobel Prize. If the thing had been real, Rossi could have written his own ticket. Running a silly kludge of 50 pieces of junk in a shipping container? Absurd from the start. Why IH ever agreed to that will always be a mystery to me.

Display More

Quote from Dewey Weaver

I dusted off my handy-dandy notch filter nanoapp that lets one see the truth in context with autotranslate of R code - what was actually said follows:

"The 1MW is a malfeasance".

Dewey you are coming (ICCF-21) next year right? I need to check here. I am glad to see you still have blood in the game. I was concerned that it was just about business. And the requirement to minimize losses. Not about proving LENR beyond a shadow of a doubt. If someone took me for that kinda cash they bitter better be the IRS.

I quite honestly hate travelling, I know we joke here, but if I can, I want to do it. I hope Jed and many others come. I am not sure why we are still talking about the "magnificence" after all this. But I do not mess with people that think differently than I do. We now think similar so I can mess with you.

I notice (catching up) that Mary had a quite poignant response a few pages ago about why IH cut losses. Also I hope you are still working with IH and LENR regardless.

I certainly did not want this result to happen and wanted it to come to an end.

Quote from bocijn

.I'm just saying I have no faith in Ni anymore"

Experimental reality has no faith in it.

Mizuno has been using palladium for almost 3 decades.

Without palladium Mizuno measures little XS heat.(2017 report)

preprint http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedw.pdf

But he does use nickel as support.. perhaps nickel contributes something else?

Display More

Well here is what I have been "not" trying to say directly. Maybe it (Ni) does assist. I am speaking to something different. I look at scams and scoundrels as a learning exercise. I have "upped my game", I had to. (why? well somehow Thomas Clarke was doxxed and harassed--- this is not okay and a show stopper, being honest and using your real name seems to get out our furry friends that need help or at least a cage)

Also I pretty much have an orthogonal view now with regards to the IH debacle. Wanting something to work ( if I may to segue for just a second ==->say EMdrive) and knowing something does not work beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point is well orthogonal. I now have this viewpoint regarding LENR. It (LENR) works but I am sure as I can be that E-cat does not and never did. Some of the people that have completely discredited it continue down that path. Even they should change direction and I have learned a lot from them. (no names but you know ...)

May I ask if you are actively experimenting bocjin? We have honest researchers here, unfortunately we have one that is dishonest beyond reason also. This is why I joke with Dewey. IH cutting loses and splitting gets my blood boiling. But "it" is the way of the world. (old Irish saying) it only involves business.

We have good people here, i would never disparage them.

I will no longer not acknowledge this quarkbullshaite. I have zero interest in it. While I lurk I could not give a flying spud (like that mods).

That is dead and buried. Could I be any clearer? Give someone the benefit of the doubt but we are so past that people are using time energy and $$$ on this , I am questioning others judgement here now.

If someone has questionable data in an honest test well this is one thing, but if someone does this is worth looking at, but I ask myself what has happened in the last "how many years is another"?

As far as faith goes it is the single factor that makes me inquisitive. Even after I am dismissive of a thought and idea. I would not spend anytime on something that I am sure is total baloney. There is something here. I am looking for it. Sorry for the diatribe but it is how I feel. If I am wrong or mumbling let me know. I hate talking past someone.

Rig

Oh you mean this book?

I'm just saying I have no faith in Ni anymore . So it (time and money ) is best spent elsewhere.

Quote from Alan Smith

'Bugger' is term that has been hijacked in the UK. At one time it was a mild imprecation in vernacular British speech, no more offensive than 'Damn!'. I suspect this particular use was derived from the polymerising of 'Beggar' and'By God!' the latter altered so as not to 'take His name in vain etc.' Silly,Buggar, Daft Buggar, Charmng Old Bugger, Bugger it! Since its on-board meaning has recovered its more medieval and forensically descriptive connotation, it may be that is is no longer acceptable in everyday usage.

Well I will stick with 'old fart' or 'mighty wind' for now then.

Quote from bocijn

"by the ignorant mass — which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught"

Bugger it. Maybe I'm too old

$200 for Thomas DeLonge?

I'm just not ready yet to grow my consciousness. and shift the paradigm ad astra.

https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/

Display More

I looked at your url.

I live 11 miles from Ft Meade and have posted my view out back on the water before to Dewey when we were joking . I am not honestly sure of your earlier reference, from your comment about you and ME356 that you mentioned before, unless you know of me or indirectly from someone I hosted before. Please clarify? Even if indirectly.

I may joke here about things but I do not want to disparage folks. This jump from an experiment to commercialization is now bullshaite without truly independent results.

And now I have doubts about even our more interested trusted investigators. Wanting something to work is not the same ( e.g. like I want deuterium LENR to work but regardless of what I think it still needs be verified ) I now regret all the time I have spent on Ni based LENR on the years old saga that no longer has meaning to me. I try to come here for education and knowledge. Maybe to help. I maybe disappointed but that does not mean discouraged. So please clarify.

Quote from Eric Walker

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bugger

Well now I have done it. (there was no harm intended, I do not even try to harm even the doxxers here)

Maybe, "old fart" would be better since that would be nice, since my wife calls me that (but she always carries a mighty wind herself , so there is that).

But Eric if you want to use urban dictionary as a reference look up SMIB.

Or as we call it locals.

Quote from Alan Smith

Not all would agree.

“The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass — which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught — but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning. Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse. The academic backwoodsmen have been the curse of genius from Aristarchus to Darwin and Freud; they stretch, a solid and hostile phalanx of pedantic mediocrities, across the centuries.” (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers [New York, 1959], p. 427.)

I am starting to like you, you old bugger.

Quote from AlainCo

What I've learned is that in business, wherever you innovate, if you put 1Mn$ to develop somethin, your margin is normally no more than 1/2Mn$, or at best 1Mn$ if you are incredibly needed.

Inventors forget the one who put th Bn, deverve the Bn, and because he is hind and thankful, share few Mn with the one who only did the science.$

anyway you can be happy with few Mn, provided you don't have to do the job of the guy who invested the Bn and did all the business plan, risk taking, lobbying, investment, industrial insfrastructure planning and management, exploited his network of tycoon, paid all the governments, ideological and religious official and agencies in every kind of real or moral currency, to make the things real finally...

As I've learned in High Performance Computing, if it is only technical, it can be solved.

Problem in LENR fiasco is not mostly technical.

Irrational expectation, old fashioned innovation culture, not rational greed, is a bigger problem.

This is in my opinion, at the source of the difficulties to cooperate, to hear others work, to replicate.

since the beginning LENR is a planet-wide psychiatric experiment planned by God.

Display More

(We don't need heroic planet-savers, but rational entrepreneurs who can understand they cannot win alone.)

Au contraire mon ami, it is exactly what we need. This does not negate the argument for rational entrepreneurs by any degree. The effort required to make change does not have to necessarily be tied to money and risk (which is quite logical) but it does not hurt to have knowledgeable people working their "asses off". The two together make a motivated team.

As for just speaking for myself, I never learned things by just reading about how something works and how it can be exploited. But "the history of how something works" and then I build on that. I am aware that people used my work for profit.

I worked harder for projects that I have believed in, money and risk were not factors.

Maybe that is why I am poor but trying to fix things to make this a better place serves me just fine. It is why I am willing to host mortal enemy's (sic) in my area.

Lets hope for the best Axil. I do, but my guard now is quite high. My belief system is now quite challenged now after..... what happened. I seem to see a pattern IMO

-> belief - then experiment then then the verification part is disputed or denied.

But what bothers me is why people that profess that seem "more on the goal of saving the world" actually turn out to be more worried about commercialization.

You know I do not talk past someone, and believe in LENR. Probably why I try not to offend folks here but ask honest question.

Why cannot these claimed results not be repeated independently?

These things don't jive. They just don't. We know honest experimenters and researchers and even critics involved in this area.

I deleted the next sentence so will paraphrase . But it was something like..... we know that we have both honest and dishonest researchers working on this.

Believe in things. But for goodness sakes test the living hell out of them before talking commercialization.

I thought I may have been considered disingenuous here but some know me and I think this sums up where we are all at.

Quote from Longview

Likewise. No offense intended. BTW, I was addressing Adrian Ashfield who appeared to have a legitimate question.

All good.

I think we want the same thing. I do not care who TTH is but "what he says". We all have been here a long time. I want to ensure I understand. Forgive question just wanted clarification. We have some good people here.

Quote from maryyugo

No data can be trusted in ANY experiment in which Rossi is involved. You could only trust tests of Rossi-made devices if they were presented to a highly qualified and equipped team as a black box with input wires and a thermal output of some sort. ALL measuring devices and ALL input power supplies and metering MUST HAVE COME from the TEAM and Rossi can not be within touching distance of the device or the instruments during the ENTIRE experimental run. Measurement methods must be entirely and freshly chosen by the measurement team. These criteria have never been met. Essentially none of them. Thus none of the data from the Swedish scientists is trustworthy. NONE! IMHO, of course.

I am not sure why this comment has not been acknowledged. Mary this is spot on. This fellow did not have independent tests and that should be very clear to all by now.

Which one of us after all these years together does not see that?

Funny thing is I am more upset at IH for not stopping it completely--- but chickening out. Hence my joking with Dewey. I chocked it up to just being business. But that never covers the damage that something like this costs. If there is something it will be found either by someone in a garage or a lab.

But the "blue light special" needs to goto bed now. We have to move on. The quarkX is transparent to me. It should be to others.

Quote from Longview

Yes, but read my post for a subtle hint: THH has had other names here. The powers that be have seen fit to transfer his points to the newer identity, at least twice. It is an artifact of some judgments being made that likely have a rationale, even if in retrospect perhaps not the wisest one.

I have to ask so what? While i believe in LENR "he TTH" is skeptical. I surely want to hear both sides of any thing, so I can understand. We have to give up wondering who someone is.

His arguments are persuasive. Did anyone here not want Rossi to work? I certainly did. What is wrong with wanting valid science? We are not on the same page anymore on these forums if we all just have to agree.

I am not a Rossi fan, but still think LENR is real. How does that resolve? I had the honor of meeting a believer and a skeptic that were quite knowledgeable this summer.

They had access to resources that were quite immense.

They were diametrically opposed and still somehow respected each other.

Honesty is not our enemy. Can not be. Science should be the platform we stand on.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

[ Gamma test : I thought I'd be able to resume next week, but the California Conflagration has set me back. Not affected myself, but friends lost houses. ]

Alan take care of business at hand. WE ( as in all of us) hope for the best. And good luck.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Rigel - bring it!

I'll be waiting for you.

As you wish Dewey as you wish. But I have to agree with Miss Yugo that Rossi will no show, would that not be great if he did?

You have to give Rossi credit, at least the government is not paying for his food and board.

I will try to attend for 2 reasons.

#1. To get my hands on Dewey

#2. My profound respect for Dr. Nagel (I want to be like him when I grow up)

But first Dewey. That old rascal.

Quote from maryyugo

The world does need people who think like Axil. Well... maybe not that far out. But certainly, a great contributor like Musk, who has accomplished so much in tangible work, also has some weird ideas and grandiose plans. Anyone want to travel to Mars? One way, I believe it will be.

My point is, visionaries are really needed. But we also need critics to keep them in line with reality.

No Mary we don't need to do anything to handle his reality. We need Axil to keep on being Axil. I have never seen him attack another user personally. And of all people you should know about personal attacks. I often ask direct questions here, they (mods) are kind enough to allow it.

I also read you and do not dismiss you. Your reality will be challenged someday maybe? Not with this but in general, 'eyes wide open'. He has been taken to task before and started citing more links. Never personal attacks not once.

Best thread and discussion here in a very long time.

Are waves built on top of waves (fourier transform) ? I am imagining if something revolved around the speed of entanglement or if slowed down then tachyons if they exist that these (superluminal beings) would be discussing math that just does not fit and out of bounds. Like a bose ground state. Hypothetical (speaking for the FTL folks here if the tachyonatics 'I mean people or something like reasoning beings' exist) imaging if they could go beyond ground state. What would they think? We can slow down light now. Go the other way.