Posts by Zeus46

    LENR experimenters tend not to adopt the same protocol because they do not apply appropriate skepticism to their own results

    ^ A slightly amusing cross-posting from another thread.

    Although i guess its a fairly well known fact that people criticise in others what they don't like about themselves...

    And finally, anyone who creates 89 pages of discussion debating the relevance of their guesswork into 15% (or whatever, I lost interest a long time ago) error margins, when the reported output is several multiples of the input, is telegraphing a few pathoskeptic tendencies... to say the very least.

    Also note that 70% of that 89 pages is repeating points for others not understanding points made, rather than presenting a critique. 10% of it is RB presenting in technicolour past posts from THH with commentary. Etc. Neither of those activities are down to skepticism of any stripe.

    The thing is, Huxley, the source* you quote to argue that the flow in Mizuno’s pipe is less than he reported, itself contains no estimates of the magnitude of error in its own formulas. Which, seeing as how it’s essentially just a rehashing of empirical science from the 1800’s, is likely pretty large.

    I think it’s well understood that a pathological skeptic is always minimally sceptical of his own claims, or the claims of others that agree with his preconceived notions...

    So yes, it does seem a little suspicious, that when comparing two somewhat incompatible results, there is an immediate assumption that all the the error is inherent in one, whilst the other is considered a work of such high accuracy that even the mere thought that it may contain its own error boundaries apparently doesn’t cross your mind?



    But just for the record, is there anyone here besides JR, RB, or Z46

    A fairly weak attempt at trolling there yourself Shanahan. Not been getting enough attention for your liking?

    Just stick to the laws of thermodynamics, make semi-sensible estimates in your attempts at parametric analyses, and stop acting like a tool, then you’ll have few comments from me.

    Which skeptics on this forum are practicing which form? Who is currently (2019) practicing pathoskepticism where it matters?

    I’d say anyone who refuses to acknowledge that it’s Bill Gates’ signature on that LENR funding contract is a pathoskeptic for sure.

    Also anyone who, despite repeatedly being shown the evidence, denies “anybody has tried to stop” research into LENR is definitely a pathoskeptic, or just isn’t paying enough attention.

    But those people who refuse to read published papers, instead preferring to reel off their now-standard I’ll-informed opinions, are clearly not pathoskeptics.

    They’re just idiots.

    And finally, anyone who creates 89 pages of discussion debating the relevance of their guesswork into 15% (or whatever, I lost interest a long time ago) error margins, when the reported output is several multiples of the input, is telegraphing a few pathoskeptic tendencies... to say the very least.

    Any of those sound familiar to you at all, grasshopper?

    I'm not sure they imply it... more like they state it explicitly.

    At the very least they seem to have "worked closely" on their calorimetry with half the 'google' authors.

    Your argument is the one that a child will use to say "no point trying to join in and make friends - everyone hates me". A self-fulfilling prophecy. While maybe everyone will hate you if you do join in, we all know not trying is a poor excuse

    Thought you were talking about your declined invite to Essex for a moment.

    And kirkshanahan , since you asked me: The difference between yours and Paradigmnoia's "parametric study" is that he bought a fan and an anemometer and tested them.

    You contrived a scenario where the water temperature was impossibly high, as judged by the laws of thermodynamics, and that an invisible turbo- powered fume hood was doing most of the lifting. And that's a Big difference.

    ...Although thinking about it, it is perhaps not surprising that a man who disregards both the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of evolution, would have more than a few doubts about LENR.

    Seems a bit of a cop out... I think there was a rough consensus over one or two at least.

    Why not have a poll, with all options mentioned so far? Three votes each, and I reckon one or two will stand out.

    I'd do it myself if it wasn't bedtime...

    Sounds a lot like another spoonfeeding request.

    I mean... I’d help you out... But honestly, considering how easy it would be to look up “Forsley” on LENR-CANR for yourself, you appear to be not that interested in finding out, so really, it would be a waste of my time.

    Anyway, you repeatedly state how you’re always reading LENR papers these days. (Eight times this year, in fact - gotta keep count for Boor's Bingo). So if that were indeed true (as if!) I'm sure you would have no problems finding the papers for yourself.

    Unless you have some ideas on on how to make a definite working cathode, I’d say your argument is still stuck where it was four posts ago...

    (And that’s without getting into the issue of whether it’s possible/a good idea to prove a negative or not)

    ...I don’t think “Google” are looking to spend an indeterminate amount of time searching through an unbounded parameter space in the hope of finding something that works.

    WikiMedia's latest motion to dismiss argues: "The truth cannot defame, and it's true you're banned" - and - "you mention your banning so often on your own website, that you can't be all that bothered about it".


    The easily-bored polymath, alleged *********-enabler (removed at request of lawyer), and budding vexatious litigant, Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax has been a little bit too quiet recently. Clearly a storm of some description had to be brewing...

    Capitalising on time spent indulging in the legal minutae/demented brinksmanship of the 'Damp-squib Lawsuit of the Year' (Darden v Rossi).... And completely failing to acknolwedge the maxim "A man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for client"... Adb has fired off a $6,000,000 S.L.A.P.P. suit at his two greatest nemeses - The Wikimedia Foundation - And some 16-year-old kid from the UK. (...And his..."twin brother"...:rolleyes:)

    Notwithstanding the valid question as to whether the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Court extends to whatever grubby part of the English 'midlands' the petulant oik hails from, the young pork pie muncher has already engaged an equally high-powered team of lawyers as Abd has. - Apparent to all, when they dismissed the complaint as merely "a Lolsuit".

    The heinous tort committed by the Wikifiddlers appears to be their public list of shame, doxxing and pillorying those less fortunate individuals, who can't help but get themselves globally banned from all WikiMedia sites for perpetuity. (Or untill they register a sock account, at least).

    Not thrilled at being on the recieving end of a $6,000,000 (plus damages and fines to be determined) doxxing lawsuit from the Doxxer-in-chief himself, the Wikimedia Foundation has employed the eye-wateringly expensive services of non other than Jones Day.

    (Presumably Abd is gambling on a risky "last minute settlement" gambit, as seen employed by Jones Day up-close and in-person, thanks to his previous junket to the "Sunshine State").

    Hopefully the overpaid Harvard Law graduate dealing with this doesn't spend a few billable hours discovering that Abd maintains an uncannily similar 'Hall of Shame' on his own website. 8|:D (Listing the persona-non-grata of this very forum, no less)

    As is becoming de-rigeur these days, a account has been set up to fund this venture. Zero $ has been raised so far, so donations are not just encouraged - but advised... as it would probably be good for him to talk to a lawyer at some point. And its probably best that the lawyer isn't one from Jones Day, presenting him with an outsized costs claim.