The third choice on Mats poll covers
that base.
No. No it doesn't. And it's quite ridiculous that the poll is worded so positively (to Rossi) all around.
Mark H
Member
- Male
- from Kennesaw, Georgia, USA
- Member since Apr 7th 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by Mark H
-
-
Am I missing something? Isn't the bulk of all generated electricity from magnets?
-
When is that expected, folks? Oh... and competitive to what? In what way? "Competitive " is so lacking in meaning when you are referring to solid accomplishments in getting practical power and energy out of LENR.
I'm confused why you sound gleeful when you attack LENR. If/when it is definitively proved successful as a mechanism for power generation, wouldn't it benefit everyone? (Other than hot fusion researchers of course)
-
Im sorry. Ascoli65 started this thread under false assumptions and it all went downhill from there. Please note that I didn't swear or make any reference to male bovine excrement. Damn. Now I did.
-
Sam12 - are you trolling? Do you see how ridiculous this all is?
-
Ascoli65 is the poster boy for confirmation bias.
He didn't jump there, he was there before he read a word of any of it.
-
She Blinded Me With Science https://g.co/kgs/aCRBy4
-
Mods? How is some anonymous blogger calling cold fusion bullshit "news"?
-
Do I have to block sifferkoll again? It was painful enough listening to his twaddle the first time around.
-
Zoom is very accessible and solid. We often use it at work. Agreed that Skype for business is spotty at best.
-
Note that *I* was not the one who started the insults.
-
Here's the difference with my work. It speaks for itself to my employers. I don't have to go to a public forum and crave adulation for it. If I don't do good work my employers have the option of firing me - because they can see my work and the results of it. I sincerely hope that you have something worthwhile - not for your sake ( I personally think you're an odious egoist based on your posts). But for the sake of the planet and my daughter's future on it.
-
No what you do is make insulting insinuations about people who actually work for life and look after their family and the family of man. You are simply a troll.
Wow. You certainly put me in my place. Or made yourself look like a complete jackass. Either-or.
-
Yeah. I blocked km. His posts have no value. In replying to Dewey's insult he insulted everybody on this thread. Then 3 or 4 posts later he accused Dewey of blanket insults (something he had just done). Then his spurious and ridiculous attacks against Woodworker... His every post just exhausts me.
-
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?
-
I'm not believing their optimistic assessment based on past hot fusion history but they have big names and big money behind them
-
Display More
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.
-
Display More
Hi Mark.
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.
