I was getting to the point where I was going to block him... But then he at least learned how to use the quote function correctly. After that I figured he might be able to learn other things.
Oh, how does my speculation differ from other speculations using patterns to evaluate the state of things in this saga?
Not quite sure how to parse that. You attack and criticize people for criticizing Rossi. However, their criticisms of him are based on his proven (by himself) lying and obviously deceitful practices. Your staunch support of him is based on *what* evidence? Don't bother answering. There is none. He has never had any independent replication or verification and never allowed any measurements but his own (flawed) ones.
I guess you know better than I the reasons for your actions (I can only speculate). I can see that you try hard to paint your speculation as "technical issues" and "facts" even though you obviously have no idea about them since you are still sitting in the armchair far far away... You are probably becoming delusional; deceiving yourself into believing that the patterns you see are facts.
Perhaps you could educate yourself more by reading the court documents and Rossi's own contradictory comments rather than the baseless assertions and veiled insults?
Alan, this comment of yours is profoundly anti-scientific and disrespectful.
It is of similar quality and content to the (ignorant of detail) anti-LENR comments from many in mainstream science that are so castigated here.
Why do i say this? Ascoli has advised precise, well-documented, critiques of a single F&P paper. Even though it is just one paper it is worth looking at because it has attracted much previous comment (Morrisson etc) and also is held out by many on this site as clear well-presented proof of LENR. In fact when asking for a single paper to start with, many would give this (I remember it being so used here).
Now, many disagree with Ascoli's conclusions and I'm happy that they should present that with their arguments and evidence. So, I notice, is Ascoli.
However this "meta-critique" is an ad hom - making claims about Ascoli's general scientific competence without specific evidence, and more important it generalises from the details of Ascoli's critique, which stand on their own, to some larger emotive argument which rests on difficult to justify generalisations.
I do not respect it, and Alan although I respect some of your qualities I've noticed on occasion (here, and some comments previously noted by me on the Rossi thread) that you make advocacy style comments on the basis of no evidence. it does you no credit with those here who like detailed analysis and discussion more than tribal advocacy (perhaps those are a decreasing number, if so I'm sorry).
In the various meta-comments you and others have made about Ascoli's points I see the following flaws:
"F&P has been replicated - therefore it does not matter". Logically incorrect:
(1) Systematic errors in F&P could be replicated by the paper most commonly shown (Longchampt) who follows F&P very precisely
(2) Suppose F&P is erroneous but Longchampt valid. Then we have one sighting of LENR not two. A big difference in the scientific world.
"Modern LENR proof is more important than F&P":
Fair enough. But Ascoli's interest in F&P is reasonable when modern people here advance the F&P evidence as clear proof of LENR, and it continues to be seen by those in the field as important evidence. Of course if/when modern evidence is clear F&P becomes irrelevant. The (public) modern evidence is not clear to many (including me).
"These objections are based on speculation and grainy videos, and not proven":
I agree. Nothing can easily be proven about interpretations of an old experiment. However if an error is shown as plausible this makes a significant difference in how the experiment is viewed from when no such error has been identified. Especially in the case of experiments interpreted as showing some hitherto unnoticed effect (LENR) the burden is on those claiming such new effects to prove that there is no other explanation (in this case misinterpretation of foam).
"Ascoli only addresses the boil-off excess heat - not needed since other phases of the experiment also show LENR. "
That is a separate matter, and since F&P remark on the boil-of excess heat as significant, if in fact they have mistaken this we should (in their shoes) interpret that also as significant.
Ascoli, if I remember right, also makes some rather speculative comments himself about the quality of other LENR work, the probity of LENR reserchers, etc. Those also I do not respect, since they are not based on detailed argument. And his discussion of the F&P paper does not rest on these speculative comments.
I disagree completely. Lately Ascoli has been arguing "you're right - I'm wrong" and trying to say that he has won the argument (because he says he has) or based on twisting the replies of others asking him questions.
For what concerns my position, way too much and without any prospect of success. See also: Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”
Since you are new to this discussion, may I ask you an opinion about the video brought to our attention by Robert Horst ( FP's experiments discussion )?
What is in the cells during the last phase of the boil-off: foam or boiling water?
I have no idea based on the available "evidence". I'm no physical scientist. I certainly wouldn't have the hubris to criticize the work of respected scientists who couldn't even rebut criticisms.
FWIK, after 30 years and more than 0.5 B$, the main and only scientific result from CF/LENR research has been obtained in the psychological field, thanks to the intuition of the long-run researcher Stan Szpak: "scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe."
This dictum circulates only within the LENR community to explain the opposition to CF (1). It's a pity, because IMO it also explains the LENR phenomenon itself (see Luke 6,42), as well as large part of the scientific research, to the point that - providing to add (many) in front of "scientists" - it could be presented as a well reproducible "Szpak Law".
A corollary to this law is that "(many) scientists consider a duty to save (or improve) the world, starting from their own".
At a broader socio-psychological level, ie removing the word "scientists", the Szpak Law (and its corollary) applies to everyone, including me. It is encoded in our DNA.
Remind me again how much has been spent on "hot fusion" and how successful that has been...
I don't often comment here. I'm more of a lurker. I had to respond to this though. This response by Alan is, at best, disingenuous. Russ HAS been downright obnoxious. And not because anybody inferred *anything*. He attacks the person who asks a reasonable question based on the crime of not including their life and work history and real identity along with the question.
Given that you refer to him as “Dr Rossi”, you clearly siimply accept anything the man says as truth without regard to any facts. Good luck with that.
Agreed. You know he doesn't have a doctorate right? And he's already making noises about abandoning the QX for the SK. Thereby continuing his pattern (hey! Why fix it when people like you still believe in it?)
Although if you ask you may get quizzed by Russ on what your qualifications are and why you think you have a reasonable right to ask.
I think it's hilarious that the Rossi'ites are just lapping up the E-Cat SK. We all knew he was just going to come up with a "better" E-Cat instead of actually producing the supposed masterpiece of the QX.
He wasn't being beat up for not divulging all the data. He revealed data and was asked intelligent questions about it. If he didn't want those questions he shouldn't have posted the data.
So what you are asking for is for me to give to anyone who asks, all of the fruits of my labors without even the courtesy of knowing the identity of the person or persons asking for that gift. Is that what you are saying? Is there any implied threat of being dissed here for not complying to any and all anonymous demands for such value to be given. Such dissing is not an uncommon feature of this forum. And no of course I would not consent to a work around being to make the same demands on a friend and colleague. As stated this is very preliminary raw data and while it is exciting data it is not ready to be dissected with questions from anonymous unknowable entities. When more information is ready to be shared it will be!
That's how forums work. If you don't like it. Don't participate.
So he's starting to build a factory but we still haven't seen one working prototype? I, of course, discount the "Stockolm" DPS.
This is encouraging if true. Seems like they got over 15. If this can scale...
However, I note that there's no analysis of the used fuel for nuclear reactions. There's also no measurement listed for how much heat was applied. Any calculations used seem lacking in information which is not encouraging.
I don't understand how accelerating a material to hit a target is fusion by cavitation. But I guess I don't have a PhD.
looks fairly disappointing so far
I think I am giving balance to the Dewey, Shane D discredit Rossi campaign .
Please. Rossi doesn't need Dewey, Shane or anybody else to discredit him. He does perfectly fine all by himself. Sam12 - have you read the court transcripts yet?
Ever hear of ventilation, HVAC, contamination control via directed air flow...
I've heard of them. Do you have numbers on how much airflow is needed from a fan that isn't over the bucket to evaporate that much water?
You falsely assume failure to bet on something as a sign of uncertainty. You make too many assumptions in general.
Correct. I'm close to 100% certain that Rossi has nothing. I'm also close to 100% certain that he will come up with some BS that *looks* like he has something within your (AA) boundaries. Whether it secret robotic factories a secret customer a fudged "test" or whatever.
Wiser minds than mine have spoken... Neither Kirk nor Jed will move a whit from their position. I don't have the math (or time or inclination) to refute Kirk's CCS/ATER theory. I'm not as gung-ho as Jed on proving Kirk wrong. But I don't believe in ninja rats outside of TMNT and if a reputable scientist says the bucket evaporated I think you should have had good cause before calling him a liar.
So Mark, you see the last post from Jed right? Did you notice he still hasn't got it? How many times can you remember me saying just today that 'air flow' or 'ventillation' is the primary missing variable? And then Jed says:
The density is amazing, truly amazing.
Furthermore, he brings this up again-
- when we've been over and over that time and again.
FYI - I've seen no F&P claims to HAD events that are sustainable, and I've discussed that many times here and back on spf as well.
Talking to Jed is like talking to a TV commercial.
You postulate an airflow that is irrelevant to the experiment. There was no massive fan moving air over the bucket.
Jed is not the only one to notice this. You said it was only hot because they heated it. Then you ignored Jed when he told you it was three days later. You constantly avoid the facts. Unless you say it is anecdotal and wasn't repeated. At least these two points give you some credibility.
As an outsider and somebody with no skin in the game one way or another... I find Ascoli's attitude towards Jed tendentious and offensive. I'm surprised that he has borne it so well.
I'd be happy to take a bet like Mark H offered - but seems to have backed off.
I'm still open subject to stipulations and an independent referee. I was actually looking for some kind of online solution before work commitments got in the way.
You're on, assuming Alan Smith will agree to hold the money and act as as referee. I will send him an undated check for 50 pounds if you will send him one for 500 pounds.
The only snag I see, if production materializes, is that the first units will probably be sold with a NDA and the results not known until later. But I would accept Alan Smith's judgement on this.
Sam12. Be careful. You are likely to be banned for being boorish if you defend Rossi.
Im in. With all the stipulations above. Not Rossi selling to himself. COP>1. PUBLIC customer. Ie.i could go to a store and buy the (UL certified) unit. By March 22, 2019.
Although, since Alan has established himself in Rossi's court. Perhaps somebody more impartial? No offense to your integrity Alan but you have shown bias towards Rossi.
I believe it’s going to happen.
Rossi is on a roll.
I can feel it in the AiR.
I would place £500 on the table against your crisp £50 note that this time next year there will be no working AR reactors sold to the public.
A theory is used to make predictions about how to configure the next test to further explore the consequence of the theory. You can never prove a theory, you can only disprove a theory through additional experimentation.
Are you being deliberately provocative? Your theory is chirality and you propose an experiment where nothing happens to prove it?
I theorize that if I stick my head in a bucket a boiling water it will get burned. Since, as you say, I can't prove this. Perhaps you would like to prove me wrong?