I don't want to give them my name and email address. Can you take a screenshot of the poll and post it here?
Eric Walker
Verified User
- from Loveland, Colorado
- Member since Oct 5th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Eric Walker
-
-
Doc. 151, plaintiffs' memorandum of law, now on the docket.
-
There's no systematic evidence at this point as far as I can tell that removing impurities from the surface of a substrate does anything beneficial. It seems to simply be an assumption that this is the case. It might be the opposite: that preparing a substrate by cleaning it will be partly or wholly detrimental.
-
Did Dewey suggest that Hank Mills should lawyer up again?
I don't recall. But as I said, threats of litigation and suggestions of threats aren't welcome here.
-
Just a reminder that anything that sounds vaguely like a threat of litigation against one of the forum members, or that might reasonably be understood as such, should be taken to another venue and handled through other channels.
-
-
Doc. 144, a notice of hearing, now on the docket.
-
I represent that remark, but all these theories of massive and complicated fraud are just too outlandish for consideration.
Perhaps you meant, "I resent that remark" (not sure).
Which complex theories of fraud are you referring to? My point was only that IH have not been attacking anyone.
-
Why should they when the have such as Dewey and Jed to do it for them?
You agree with me, then, that IH has not been attacking anyone. But let's apply your logic to you: why would Rossi need to attack IH when he has you to do it for him?
-
Say IH is absolutely right- then why on the Earth should it attack so wildly the opponents.
IH are attacking and have attacked no one. They've been admirably discreet and vague about Rossi over a period of years and continuing into the lawsuit that was started against them with their own money. This discretion on their part has been turned around into fault for their not making a fuss in public earlier. The "attacks" you must be referring to would perhaps be Dewey Weaver's efforts to set the record straight on behalf of IH, his friends and business partners, when he's clarified, and they've clarified, that only IH speak for IH.
-
Am I the only one here who senses a similarity here to what happened to P and F shortly after their 1989 experiment.
For the sake of LENR as even a remote possibility, let us hope and pray that there is no deep parallel between Rossi and his antics and what happened with Fleischmann and Pons.
-
.. but not an IH super-insider ..
Happy to let that slide by, too. He IS an IH super-insider.
Little can be concluded from such an omission. If I attempted to correct every mistaken or wrongheaded statement made on this forum, it would be an endless and futile task.
-
I also find it funny Rossi is still claiming the "Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences" performed Lugano:
Reminds me of the earlier work accredited to the University of Bologna. Or, in Mills's case, to work done at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (key word: "at").
-
Doc. 143, a memorandum of law, now on the docket.
-
-
-
You would not be just filling space trying to make sure people scroll past #1639 ASAP, would you?
Here is a link for convenience.
-
I just said, that reference to lack of evidence cannot serve as the evidence of the opposite - but evidence of pluralistic ignorance. For example ENEA lab achieved the reliability 70% of cold fusion at their palladium samples in 2009 - by now it will be probably even higher.
You've conflated evidence for LENR with evidence for a lab rat. We have plenty of evidence for LENR. What we don't have is evidence that there is a suitable lab rat experiment. The evidence for LENR, as we know, is patchy and hard to reproduce, but nonetheless there's a lot of it. The evidence for a lab rat cannot be patchy and hard to reproduce by definition. If such was the case, we wouldn't have a lab rat experiment, and we don't.
If Szpak had a suitable lab rat experiment in the IR thermography you point to, we would only know after the fact when other independent labs succeeded in reproducing it. It is not Szpak's fault if this is something that would be straightforward to do and other groups have simply not taken the initiative. But neither is that experiment a verified lab rat experiment yet, by widespread understanding of workers in the field, until other groups have seen some success in replicating it and start to use it to characterize LENR. For we're talking about a lab rat experiment and not about LENR in general.
The general understanding of motivation for LENR dismissal with scientists is generally not very deep even here, at the LENR forum.
We're talking about a lab rat experiment and not LENR.
-
Doc. 137, a notice of attorney hearing, now on the docket.
-
Nanortech is using exactly the same term at its web page. This page also says, that "Nanortech anticipates it will be setting up a pre-order list by Fall 2016. Unfortunately, there is not at present the capacity to make these components generally available in the short term".
For the purpose of whether an experimental protocol or apparatus is a "lab rat," as the term is used by workers in the field, it does not matter that someone claims they have a lab rat, as in the case of the NANOR. What matters is that independent laboratories have had success in using it to tease out details about the LENR mechanism. Which hasn't happened yet with any device.
Is your intention to reach mutual understanding on this topic, or is it simply to reply with retorts to every valid (and in this case, obvious) point that is made?
