Posts by Eric Walker

    Rossi is famous for his demos, which are often conflated with experiments when people are arguing in a hurry. But there have also been several reports based on actual tests involving somewhat careful protocols; e.g., the Ferrara test. Were they scientifically adequate? I can only conclude from the comments I've followed that either these tests were inadequate to establish their conclusions because of some methodological flaw (e.g., a bad or missing control); or, at minimum, there were one or more holes that were in need of filling in during a subsequent pass.

    Is a "test" an "experiment" in all of the ways you mention, oldguy ? Perhaps not. But neither is it a lackluster demo of the kind seen recently in Stockholm. Enough of those more rigorous tests would justify taking interest in something provided there is follow-through. So I do not fault many of the people with relevant credentials who publicly showed interest except for a lack of caution, given all of the negative indicators that have long accompanied Rossi.

    Is this the way the citizens should consider the prominent scientists when they support wrong positions?

    It is clearly important to distinguish, on one side, people who are open to anomalous results being real on the basis of secondhand accounts they've heard, and, on the other, people with relevant training who actually carried out specific tests and assert that anomalous E-Cat results are real. I think if we went back over your list of 25+ people with (semi-) relevant training (not all professors), only a far smaller group would fall into the second category. The people in the first category (who are open to anomalous results mentioned in secondhand reports) have an entirely different relationship to the activities of interest to you than the people who attested to the anomalous E-Cat results. You want to lump them all together.

    Fair enough, Ascoli65 . Everyone has his personal assessment of the field.

    That is: the theory exclude the possibility of CF, but there are experimental evidences that contradict the theory and shows large excess heat. Well, after you have seen in detail what these experimental evidences are, and of how much credit they have obtained in the LENR field, you can easily deduce with a large confidence that the probability that the CF is real is that of the theoretical part calculated by Focardi.

    Cold fusion/LENR is above all an experimental phenomenon. One can safely conclude that protons are not fusing with nickel nuclei and still have the problem of explaining the results of palladium deuteride experiments of the kind Fleischmann and Pons and Miles investigated. One can go even further and say that, in one's own assessment, it seems unlikely that there is any fusion at all and still face that challenge — what is the source of the significant excess heat and other findings in the experimental phenomenon of LENR? There are other possibilities that are not fusion. As an experimental phenomenon, a particular explanation (e.g., fusion) need not be true in order for some or many of the experimental reports to be correct.

    This is the heart of empiricism — you go where the experiments lead you rather than relying solely on theoretical arguments.

    What is the combined probability that a couple of dozen physics professors, including a Nobel Prize winner

    We should get concrete, Ascoli65 . Can we presume that the Nobel Prize winner is Brian Josephson? He was only going off of indirect reports, so I do not think it would really be accurate to suggest that he was "fooled" by Rossi. He was open to Rossi's having something on the strength of accounts he was hearing. That is not remarkable when you consider that he is particularly open-minded. That brings us to 23 physics professors. Would you be so kind as to list them out? I can think of Levi and the Swedes. Presumably there are 20 or so more.

    Ascoli65 , you appear to have conveniently passed over the cold fusion literature entirely. Your apparent conclusion, that cold fusion has no scientific basis, assuming that is your conclusion (it can be hard to know for sure what your conclusions are), remains to be given support. What you need to do to advance this particular prong of your thesis is to show that all of the cold fusion experiments are flawed in some way. There are many such experiments over the previous 30 years to take a look at, so you will be engaged for a while, of course, helpfully answering questions at each step.

    If, alternatively, cold fusion might have a scientific basis, or if it does have a scientific basis, the notion that seeds of deception might have been sowed by credible sowers such as Martin Fleischmann is altogether inapplicable.

    H-G, I'm not a very good LF power user; perhaps THH's tip will do the trick. My advice is to click around a lot.

    The forum software is quirky. I'd personally be interested in trying Discourse at some point in the future.

    Dewey Weaver : you appear to forget that you started this particular round doing something you knew quite well we wouldn't like. You have taken countless liberties and intentionally imposed on our patience, engaging in behavior as provocative as that of many who have been permanently sent away.

    Where does this patience and leniency bring us? To your publicly calling for Alan's removal. Sort of makes one's head spin when you think about it.

    There are several strategies that the least effective debaters have a tendency to adopt and switch between:

    • Make the discussion one about moderators and moderation and their biases, hypocrisy, etc.
    • Make the discussion one about the ulterior motives of forum members.
    • Argue that we can't possibly know such-and-such because we weren't there.

    Better debaters will know to avoid these strategies.

    mgspan , thank you for giving attention to this topic. I look forward to hearing more of your conclusions. Please take a look at the large GUT-CP volumes if you have not already. My tentative conclusion is that they are filler material, works of intentional obfuscation, possibly for the purpose of impressing potential investors and scaring away people with relevant expertise. But I do not have more than a basic familiarity with quantum mechanics and so am limited to reasoning from circumstantial evidence.

    The volumes can be found at URLs such as these:…P-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf

    (Just change the url slightly to get to the other volumes.)

    argbo18 can you please clarify what you mean by "the elephant in the room is off limit"?

    Lack of Rossi supporters could also have something to do with the change in moderation tactics taking place after the settlement.

    Please, pretty please, don't attempt to make this into a discussion about moderators and moderation, etc. What you want to do is to address matters of fact under discussion relating to things outside of this forum.

    I'm sorry Eric, but I cant make any sense out of your statements here (except as some kind of vague warning).

    Let me make the warning concrete: you are close to being banned, because you have a habit of attempting to make the discussion here one about forum members and their motivations, rather than addressing issues of substance that pertain to things outside of the forum. The ad hominem arguments directed at forum members have the effect of diverting discussion away from the topics outside of the scope of the forum itself, which are the ones of primary interest.

    I believe people sometimes do have rational reasons for their actions. Dont you? And Dewey clearly has a financial connection with IH. Is that even controversial?

    Dewey's connection to IH is uncontested and uncontroversial. Presumably you thought I was suggesting otherwise? What is controversial is suggesting that other people have a connection to IH. I would not be surprised to learn that there has been a scientist or two posting infrequently who has received funding from IH. But that is benign and harmless.

    But, as you say above, merely insinuating IH (meaning of the word being open for interpretation) are not the world savers and heroes Dewey is marketing results in warnings like yours.

    You miss the point, but I'll try to clarify it: merely insinuating IH are not world savers does not get people in trouble. At all. Even a little. Trolling gets people in trouble. Using sock puppet accounts gets people in trouble. Continually redirecting the conversation to questions about the motives of forum members (ad hom) and insinuating ties to IH where there is no clear connection get people in trouble.

    at the same time attacks on those defending the honor of those supporting Rossi as well as supporting him is almost always allowed and even cheered upon by the crowd.

    You missed the long discussion of this question, earlier up in this same thread, but there have been different standards applied to different people here. People who might be called "persons of interest," e.g., because they were central to the Rossi v. Darden lawsuit, or because they have considerable knowledge and experience in the field to bring to bear, have been accorded a measure of latitude to do things others wouldn't get away with. We don't like the fact that they have sometimes or often misbehaved. But having them here despite such misbehavior has on balance seemed better than simply expelling them. (Our willingness to do this is continually being reviewed in specific cases.) If Rossi were here posting under his own name, he would no doubt be accorded similar latitude. Members with no obvious insider knowledge to offer or experience to bring to the discussion are not accorded such leeway. You may not like that we have chosen to do things this way.

    I mean if what you want is a pure anti-Rossi forum then call it shutdownrossi or something. Simply pretending to be neutral and rational, but not following it up and deliver by actions is hypocrisy in my opinion.

    What I want is straightforward. I want people to focus their arguments on matters of substance and to avoid personalizing the discussion with other forum members. Anyone who is pro-Rossi who can work within those restrictions is welcome here. The suggestion of hypocrisy will do little to change how we're doing things.

    I think I've explained our expectations sufficiently at this point.

    Tony :

    If you had been on this forum for several years and suffered tens of people with little else to say but to accuse forum members and mods of being tied to IH somehow (the connection usually being money), you might draw the following conclusions as well:

    • Someone making such insinuations doesn't really know what they're talking about.
    • Someone making such insinuations is unlikely to have anything of value to contribute to the discussion about LENR, ever.
    • Someone making such insinuations is likely to spend their time attacking the motives of other people on this forum rather than addressing issues of substance.

    I don't know who you are, and you might have been here in an earlier incarnation. Assuming that is not the case, you have not been here for several years. Instead you have a new account with no known background and are presumably unaware of the (too) numerous discussions that have been carried out on this topic in the past. We no longer have much patience for conspiracy theories of this variety. If the interest is a consuming one for you, I suggest you pursue it elsewhere on a blog (although don't expect to win goodwill doing this).

    As for people who appear to take a neutral position, they can be sent away if they use a sock puppet account, especially to evade an earlier timeout. Another situation is that someone is on a list because of a history of intentionally provocative (= trolling) behavior, they have nothing else of note to contribute, and they cross a line one last time.

    Dewey, your attitude leaves something to be desired. If you can clarify how your assertion that Mats Lewan has been blackballed by the IVA is to be found in writing, please do. If you have inferred that he's been blackballed from the link you provided, please indicate that that is the case.