Posts by Eric Walker

    You wrote:

    have anything to do with me harassing Peter?

    You now talk about accusations of your harassing Peter when I explicitly quoted you claiming that you were being impersonated. Quoting again, you said:

    Admins, please be advised there are people impersonating me and I am a victim of this fraud

    Please point to where you were impersonated as claimed, or your account will be suspended.

    Please Eric, tell me what have I said that is out of order? maryyugohas made accusations against me. Heshe has called me names and sworn at me. I have merely defended myself.

    You wrote:

    Admins, please be advised there are people impersonating me and I am a victim of this fraud. The Real Roger Barker does not read or post on Peter's blog. I am however saddened to hear about his condition and wish him well.

    The issue, as you hopefully know, is not that you are being impersonated on Peter's blog. It is that Mary is being impersonated on Peter's blog. I have no idea whether it is you that is doing the impersonating, as Mary alleges. I would not be surprised in the slightest. Regardless, please don't waste our time with this kind of runaround.

    Eric Walker: Sono fusion of Deuterium (D2O) produces tons of 4He... Totally verified - still supported by DOD...

    Sonofusion is not necessarily the same as, and is indeed thought to be quite different from, what is happening in the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. So a conclusion drawn about sonofusion cannot be applied to PdD electrolytic cells without a case being made that they are the same.

    to rephrase my points, I realize that not only there should be a phenomenon to lower the coulomb barrier, but most important is the need for many barriers that prevent the nucleus to fuse immediately after the coulomb barrier is overcome. thus my naive model.

    What you are describing is a system of quantum energy levels. Instead of having one quantum transition (and a high energy photon, in the case of dd → 4He + gamma), there are many quantum energy levels, transitions between them and resulting photons.

    In quantum mechanics, each release of a photon (carrying away a quantum of energy) requires two energy levels in the system, one before the release of the photon and one after. When talking about nuclei, we're talking about a nuclear system. In the context of a single nucleus there are (generally) well-defined levels in the system, each corresponding to a unique configuration of the nucleons. Once the nucleons shift to another configuration and the nucleus changes in shape and pattern of vibration, you either have a photon emitted that carries away the difference in potential energies of the two configurations of the nucleus, or, in the case of something like absorbing a gamma photon, you have a shift to a higher energy state.

    So we have something like:

    • Heavy nucleus, configuration 1 — highest potential energy
    • Transition to configuration 2 — a little less potential energy + a photon
    • Transition to configuration 3 — a little less potential energy + a photon

    For heavier nuclides such as uranium, the energy levels in a single nucleus are no doubt too many to enumerate. For light nuclei there are few energy levels for different bound configurations of the nucleus. For deuterium and hydrogen, there are no transitions between energy levels, either because there is only one nucleon (hydrogen) and so no transitions, or because what higher energy levels there are correspond to unbound states (deuterium). Meaning that when a suitable perturbation occurs, instead of shifting to a configuration of the nucleus with a higher potential energy above the ground state, the deuterium nucleus just fragments into a neutron and a proton.

    In Ed's case, he's looking at the combined system of a chain of hydrogen and deuterium atoms, purportedly held together by electromagnetic forces in a narrow crack, which is emitting low-energy photons. If we are attached to quantum mechanics, the implication is that there must be energy levels for the system as a whole, with a pair corresponding to the transition resulting in one of the low-energy photons that Ed describes, and each transition releasing potential energy in the atomic system so that it falls into a lower-energy state. There are some assumptions going on here that make it difficult to follow his argument any further. One is that this system of a chain of atoms ends up emitting photons that shed away part of the energy of the usually abrupt (quantum) transition from dd to the product 4He. So somehow our quantum system is not only an atomic system but also a nuclear system, that of the daughter 4He. All of those photons that are being emitted correspond not only to differences in energy levels in the atomic system which comprises a chain of hydrogen and deuterium atoms; we must also presume they correspond to differences in energy levels in the nuclear system of the daughter 4He. That implies that 4He must have many energy levels, with each photon that is carried away resulting from a transition between two of the many levels. But 4He has no bound states above the ground state. If you succeed in perturbing it into a higher energy state, it flies apart.

    To follow Ed's argument further, we must abandon quantum mechanics at the nuclear level, or we must allow many levels in the 4He system which were previously ruled out by experiment, or we must explain how you can have energy levels in the system of atoms as a whole but not in the daughter nuclei that are an outcome of Ed's process while at the same time carrying away energy related to the formation of the daughter nuclei.

    maryyugo there's not a whole lot we can do in this case. I suggest you write Peter Gluck privately and let him know, and/or add a note to the blog to clarify the matter for others. I recall something like this happening to Abd Mats Lewan as well.

    All of that is self-taught (and probably erroneous), learned from reading textbooks I purchased on Amazon in 2012 and after when I first started taking an interest in LENR experimental writeups and in skeptical criticisms of LENR.

    I think you misunderstand what "creepy" means. This is what it means:…&utm_source=search-action. There is nothing creepy in anything you have described, although naturally in your stalking of me you have interpreted my past actions your through your own characteristic lens.

    What you describe as a FUD report was my best effort to make sense of the Lugano isotope results in a positive light, at a time when I thought they might have pointed to something interesting. I now do not really find that line of investigation promising anymore.

    Re the (graduated standard) greater priviledges for those who are useful. I'm less comfortable with this. Personally I'd reckon the people I don't think are useful here do improper things more often than those I do think are useful, so the same standard applied everywhere is fine. Perhaps it is more a question of taking the average badness so as not to overreact by banning a person normally useful who has an atypical and short regression to non-useful behaviour?

    Consider the limiting cases: on one hand, you have someone like Peter Ekstrom , who is recognized in his subfield of experimental physics. On the other you have the anonymous troll who has never sought to contribute anything of interest. There would (and should) be a lot more patience for allowing Peter an occasional lapse into intemperate behavior (which he has never done) than the anonymous troll who is clearly here only to stir things up. How far apart are they in terms of how much their presence is valued here? Immeasurably far. Losing Peter would feel like a great loss, while losing the troll would be something to look forward to with anticipation. Those two lie towards opposite endpoints of a long continuum of people who will be missed, either greatly, or somewhat, or not at all, if they take issue with some overly rigid application of the guidelines.

    On a larger site, it might make more sense to apply the guidelines without regard to personalities according to some average of bad behavior, but we are a small site, and we have to stay grounded in common sense.

    You quoted my Physics.SE profile:


    Enthusiast with questions about physics from time to time. Since I’m not in much of a position to assess the validity of answers, I generally just pick the answer with the most votes after a certain amount of time has passed.

    As someone with only a single class in physics for engineers in my first (or second?) year of college, I do not feel myself in a good position to pass final judgment upon the answers I receive on that site, generally provided by people with years of training in physics, which may seem counterintuitive to me or go in a different direction than I would like. I think this is the proper attitude to approaching a field of great complexity and sophistication that is far outside of one's own training. It is certainly not creepy.

    My picking the answer with the most votes sidesteps the whole question of whether the answer is factually correct, which I may have doubts about, but which I am not in a position to fully assess. It would obviously be bad to select an answer for approval simply because it is the most convenient to my speculations.

    Reading through this it is clearly an attack on Eric by Sifferkoll and Zephir.

    Eric has explained his position and clarified matters but the attack is sustained.

    Yes, clearly. Since the approach here and my own involvement were being systematically mischaracterized, I thought it opportune to clarify things for lurkers and newbies; and, if there was a shred of sincerity left in sifferkoll , perhaps for him on a point or two as well. Part of the challenge is that there are people who are sincere who find sifferkoll 's and Zephir_AWT 's arguments persuasive. In such a context, taking action without some kind of background of explanation can seem arbitrary and can be confusing for people. Nonetheless I no doubt gave them more airtime than was warranted. Now that old topics are being revisited, I will gradually disengage from the current discussion.

    Most discussion boards have an "argue in public with a moderator on moderation matters and you'll get suspended/banned"-kind of policy for a reason, so I'm sort of surprised that this meta-discussion is still going on.

    We come from a tradition of erring on the side of lenience as far as allowing poor behavior goes, and the difficulty in this case is compounded by the fact that I occasionally like to dive into debates on substantive points which is something that can feel confrontational. If people found themselves debating mods on substantive points in one context and then being banned for debating with a mod in a different, more meta context, it would be hard to know where the line is to be drawn and when to engage and when to step back. But I do think this is an interesting suggestion.

    Zephir_AWT : this is a warning. Please do not import tendentious characterizations of religion into this discussion. You did it a few posts back, and I was hoping that would be the last time, but you've done it again. Religion is one of several topics to be avoided here.

    This warning applies as well to anyone who will seek to test the limits on this.

    I do find some amount of satisfaction in protecting this forum from those such as yourself who would impose your way upon it against the wishes of the LENR Forum team. But what you call complex rules are largely a description of what we've already been doing, described as best as I can describe it. The main recent innovations are the Playground thread (Rends's idea), this thread and the two-week bans for ignoring moderator warnings. For some time now we already had valued forum members and less valued ones, and we did not blindly apply rules irrespective of context and the personalities involved. I've simply attempted to put the existing approach into words as best as I can as the topic has come up.

    There was a time a year or two ago when you and several others had more or less free reign, with Alan spread thin and only him to heroically deal with a flood of misbehavior, and at that time this place was incredibly unpleasant. My hope is that LENR Forum is now a little more pleasant for people with the knowledge and skills we seek to attract.

    I don't know where you got the impression that I don't have an opinion about things or that I try to come across that way. I think this is you trying to read too much into things, when I've said pretty much what I think in posts here and on Vortex.

    You and anyone else who find Mary annoying are free to block her. In fact, while you are still here and have not yet left for a more enlightened forum, I fully encourage you to block her if you find her distracting. At that point she will no longer bother you at all. I do not think she actually posts much to the same threads that you do, so I suspect this is a nonissue. Nonetheless, blocking is a great feature when made use of.

    You and anyone else are at liberty to start a new thread looking at one of the papers in Jed's library. In fact I think you do from time to time. If that does not attract the attention of the majority of posters, it is because they are discussing some other topic that has more of their attention; perhaps a basic one, although often a technical one.

    Mary may yet get the boot for misbehavior of some kind or ignoring Alan or something, but she won't get the boot because of the views she holds about LENR. We should set aside that thought.

    Your idea about decentralized moderating of threads is an interesting one. I have no idea how that would turn out in practice or whether it would be a good idea.

    I am certainly not the main moderator here or acting as the main moderator. It is entirely a team effort, and I have no privileged role. Alan and I work closely together, and Barty and Rends have helped out as well. Your complaints about my moderation will no doubt be considered on their merits.

    That does not seem like a very promising approach, to be honest. I guess only time will tell if the LENR Forum team will yield and bend to your wishes.

    I do not mind not being in your good graces.

    Zephir_AWT : I encourage you to seek out another forum. Please go. You will not be happy here. We are not going to bend to your wishes, so you should find another place that will cater to them. You will never get back the time that you have already devoted to complaints about how things are being done here, and we are not interested in doing things the way you'd like them to be done. It seems like a fruitless effort.

    I don't recall you posing that question to me, specifically. I probably missed that it was directed to me. But to address it: I don't really agree with the premise. I could be wrong, and at one point I think I agreed with the sentiment. But now my sense now is that "hyperskeptics" and "pseudoskeptics" are not dangerous and do not need to be kept out of forums. The truth is the truth; it can be obscured for a while, but eventually, hopefully, it will out, whatever it is. If such people succeed in obscuring it, perhaps unintentionally, or maybe intentionally, they can only do so much.

    But the real difficulty lies in where to draw the line between sincere and insincere skeptic. I think people are complex, and there probably isn't anyone who is all one or the other. The difference between the two is often one of varying degrees of laziness at different times of the year. Attempting to separate them out does not feel like an easy thing to do. Making an issue of it would just be a distraction. Let people put forward weak arguments if they like. The weakness will be clear to everyone.

    I'll reiterate that encouragement. Anyone dissatisfied with how this place is run should check out Kev's forum and see if it is better suited to their interests and goals.

    That comment was not about this thread but rather about behavior in the forum at large. But this thread does not provide an occasion for being a jerk. Some people want a rowdy forum, where it is ok to intentionally disrupt discussions and be antisocial. We on the LENR Forum team do not want such a forum. We don't want a stuffy forum, but there's a big difference between a forum where people can get away with being antisocial and a forum that is not stuffy.

    Clear enough ... The pecking order of your farm is settled. Different people - different rules... It certainly will please the Rossi-haters and I suppose that is part of the game we play, right?

    It is clear, but not in the way you describe it. At the top of the pecking order are people who do actual experiments and people who make well-reasoned arguments and marshal a lot of facts, possibly drawing upon specialized knowledge. At the bottom of the pecking order are people who make only catcalls, who refuse to engage with the details of discussions, and who rely upon personal attacks of other forum members to change the focus of the thread. Mixed somewhere in the middle are people who have inside information to share and people who make interesting points but whose intemperance largely detracts from what they have to say. You may not agree that this is what the pecking order is, but it seems pretty clear to me that this is the case. This pecking order has nothing to do with Rossi and everything to do with the quality of people's contributions in terms of the perspective they bring, their willingness to engage details, their willingness to respond to moderator requests and their willingness to help keep this place a pleasant one. Obviously those who show through their actions that they will go out of their way to make things unpleasant for others will not gain much goodwill for their efforts.

    No, you don't return the behavior in kind. Your option in that case is to calmly call out the behavior as an ad hominem argument, if it is, and, hopefully, to go further and explain why allegations of criminal activities or being in on a gig are false or, quite often, unsubstantiated. You can do all of this without insulting anyone or raising the question of their motives and intent or injecting vitriol. The more specific the focus is on details the better.

    To the contrary! I encourage you to reply to those who have earned a reputation for making a real argument. But you have to reply with a real argument as well. I would like you to do that, in fact. Replying with petty insults, ad homs and vague generalities is the opposite of making a real argument.

    No you are wrong. What you get by your complex and event based approach to moderation with bias and grading here and there is an Animal Farm.

    Ok, this is your view about how the LENR Forum team should run the forum. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. We have our own view of how we wish to run this forum and will be happy to enforce the norms that we adopt.

    If you wish to move out of the category of low-value contributor, the path is straightforward: stop attacking forum members and calmly address the substantive points raised in discussions. If you are able to consistently produce a real argument and avoid vitriol, things will change considerably.