Posts by maryyugo

    Alan Smith

    I was responding to this of yours:


    Quote

    If the Roulette ball falls on red 10X in a row, it is worth betting on black next time

    And that's wrong. In this context, I assume worth means the probability of winning, Otherwise, what can "worth" even mean? And that is the same, for any number of independent trials, REGARDLESS of what color came before. Definition of independent!


    I have no idea what you meant after that but it won't change the fact that it is NOT worth betting on black next time. Not any more than betting on red. If you're saying something else, please explain. You're getting as cryptic as the Abdominable Abd.


    Bob Alan was not discussing the probability of getting 10 spins resulting in the same color in a row. He implied that prior results affected the next trial. They don't. I'm pretty sure he knows that so the point, if any, he was trying to make, eludes me. And knowing Alan from prior reading, he is not likely to make it clearer.

    Quote

    If the Roulette ball falls on red 10X in a row, it is worth betting on black next time - even if there is no greater mathematical probability of that being a winning bet (it is also known as a 'sucker's bet).

    No it's not. It make absolutely no difference what came before, assuming the roulette wheel has been (heh!) calibrated to be neutral. Each spin of a roulette wheel is an independent trial. The wheel does not have memory. What has that to do with a sucker bet?


    Quote

    A sucker bet is a gambling wager in which the expected return is significantly lower than the wager(s).

    (internet)

    Quote

    During the litigation, IH claimed that neither the report, nor the test was valid, but no conclusive proof for this was ever produced.

    Seemed pretty conclusive to me and to many others. If the test and report claiming that Rossi could produce a megawatt for a year from nuclear fusion were correct, is anyone so naive as to think IH would have failed to pay what they would have owed? And then gone on to make billions of dollars from ... say... maybe simple space heaters? Sold world wide by the billions? Oh yeah. Mr. Lewan. The one whose repertoire of high technology never seems to include a) calibration and b) truly "indipendent" verification.

    Quote

    John Hutchinson, a collaborator with Ken Shoulders was said to include experimental research showing artificial gravity effects including videos of objects flying around in his lab.

    And you believe Hutchinson about that? Seriously?

    Quote

    /2018 will be the year

    For what? More likely nuclear war than LENR breaking through to the general scientific population, IMO. I wish it were the other way around.

    Quote

    When the reactor temperature is 300◦C, the generated energy is 1 kW. An increase of the
    temperature is expected to greatly increase the output energy.

    That's nice. But why not increase that temperature by insulating, allowing the input power to go to zero. That should not be hard if a small device makes 1 kW or more. A demo like that, with substantial heat persisting a long time (after all, if the heat source is nuclear fusion, it should do that with a small amount of "fuel") would instantly establish LENR as real and credible. Of course, it would need to be credibly measured with appropriate calibration and replication by independent experimenters.

    "Heat after death" is a truly bizarre label for autonomous operation. I guess my car exhibits heat after death. It gets pretty warm and stays that way even after I turn off the starter. ALL LENR reactors with a significant power output and output/input power ratio (which the field also bizarrely calls "COP") should run on their own heat production after they are initially started. Be very suspicious of a claim for efficient LENR which is said to make high power and somehow STILL requires connection to a power source from the mains.

    Jim Dunne? I think you mean Jim Dunn (no e) formerly with NASA? IIRC, he's the one who was pressing Dick Smith to invest a million dollars in Defkalion. He also believed Rossi much longer than warranted by any reasonable observations. I wonder what he will say about Rossi now.


    How is he a "leading investigator" in LENR? What did he actually investigate in a reasonable manner with credible results? Maybe I missed it.

    Eric Walker I am sure you know that the CR-39 track experiments have been criticized as have F&P's claims and transmutation experiments-- ALL of them and those critiques were accompanied by experiments in some cases and good theory and calculations in others. And no, I am not going to rehash them now.


    It is (typically) disingenuous to cite those results without mentioning and citing the critiques.


    What I want to know is why high power claims were made by Mizuno (kW), Miley (hundreds or thousands of watts), Brillouin, Nanospire, and other very testable claims like Dennis's "balls" and MFPM's various incarnations of Parkhamov's tests and Rossi's hot cat, and Swartz's NANOR or whatever can never seem to be elucidated, properly demonstrated, replicated and on and on. As IO pointed out, the main things the enthusiasts rely on are low level measurements which are rarely the same methodology from experimenter to experimenter and which can all have substantial measurement errors or mismeasurements. IMHO of course. But mainly, someone needs to get after the high power claimers and get them to produce!


    If Mizuno actually completed those cute-named reactors with the projected outputs in the kiloWatts and there was not a huge electrical input, it would be game over for the critics. And with what he showed, he seemed so close.

    Paradigmnoia

    Quote

    So we have now, what, 3 orders of magnitude in variation between results of various calculation methods used on one device, with the same input (based on oscilloscope pattern)? Yay science!


    Rossi's version has to be right. Rossi has a doctorate from Kensington University. But he'd best not brandish that degree in Texas! Or California!


    Quote

    According to Texas Penal Code, it is a misdemeanor to use a degree from Kensington University "in a written or oral advertisement or other promotion of a business; or with the intent to: obtain employment; obtain a license or certificate to practice a trade, profession, or occupation; obtain a promotion, a compensation or other benefit, or an increase in compensation or other benefit, in employment or in the practice of a trade, profession, or occupation; obtain admission to an educational program in this state; or gain a position in government with authority over another person, regardless of whether the actor receives compensation for the position."[14]

    A person who is found guilty of this misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $2,000, up to 180 days in jail, or both.[15]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_University


    It's just a rumor but I heard he was getting his post doc from Trump University in real estate development when it unfortunately shut down abruptly.

    Ascoli65 Cool! Or rather... hot AND energetic, very much unlike Rossi's ecat.


    Tony

    Quote

    Go there , and make the measurements. That is the only way.

    ROTFWL! You may not be aware of this but Jed Rothwell, some scientists he had assembled, and I were prepared to meet in Italy in 2011 and to examine Rossi's steam ecat by sparging (condensing) the steam in an insulated, temperature-metered bath and noting the temperature rise. This is a simple and accurate way to deal with steam which is of unknown "dryness". The steam is not measured, the energy (enthalpy) is. IIRC, we also planned to verify unequivocally that input power was properly accounted for and measured. Rothwell, at that time, had good communications with Rossi until he told Rossi about the nature of the proposed test. After that, Rothwell was just a clown or a snake to Rossi.


    JedRothwell If your recollection is different, please make corrections.


    When faced with proposals for accurate and independent measurements of his claims, Rossi refuses, denigrates the proposal (in some instances he called such tests 'unnecessary" because he already "knew" (could predict) the result!) and usually he manages to insult the proponents of the tests. This is not how someone with a legitimate claim to prove acts... except maybe in your world, Tony?

    Quote

    Of course. Don't you agree that you would be in a better position to evaluate the goods if you were allowed to be present during tests/demos or do due diligence before investing?

    Two entirely different issues. No, I would not be in a much better position to evaluate "the goods" (Rossi has goods?) by being present during what Rossi calls a test. I suppose I could ask Rossi why he didn't calibrate or some other relevant questions but he'd dodge them. And I am sure, if I insisted, he would throw a tantrum, call security and have me thrown out. There is little chance that I could see something incriminating by being there that did not come out in discussion later. And if I did, Rossi would simply explain it away or erupt in insults. It's that style which is classic for high energy frauds and cons. People with the goods allow them to be properly and indipendently [sic]/Rossi tested.


    Due diligence before investing? Nobody has done that with Rossi. Yes, that would help but Rossi has almost never allowed it and probably never would. The only times he allowed proper testing of the ecat for example by the Swedish Scientific Institute (or whatever it was), the ecat made no power and Rossi was found to be mismeasuring the input. Rossi views proper calibration and well performed due diligence like a vampire views sunlight and for much the same reasons.

    Ask him (Tony) about any specific instance of Rossi's faking, lying and cheating most notoriously of investors, and how it fits in with Rossi having the goods, and watch Tony splutter. His fallback position is you were not there so ask Lewan (ROTFWL!)!

    1.5kW of steam may not be much but how about a megawatt? Hey, enthusiasts, when did Rossi manage to show that? Even with a giant Diesel generator running or giant cables connecting his various IH kluges to the main? No enthusiast remembers the HUGE sub-panel connecting Rossi's"megawatt plant" to the mains? If it was as efficient as he and Penon claim, why did he need such fat cables? Three phase power at 440V?

    Once again, the REAL elephant in the room is 1) Rossi's failure to show calibration of the output energy measuring system and 2) Lewan's total negligence in not demanding that it be done BY HIM. Same with tracing and measurement of the input power.


    If anyone had properly calibrated, this would all be moot. Of course, the ecat would have been revealed as COP<1. Absent proper calibration of input and output and isolation of input power so one can see there is no cheating, the entire exercise is pretty much futile.


    The highlight of the video by Lewan edited by Krivit is when Lewan catches Rossi screwing around with the controls and then the ecat starts making boiling noises and steam increases. Rossi was obviously goosing the heater. And when caught, he had a classical "deer in the headlights" expression easily seen in the video. When asked how it was going, his lame answer to Lewan was the now classic, "Stable... stable." Yes, electric heaters are stable, Mr. Rossi.


    I'm not sure the version of video you are all talking about. This is the one I refer to as clear illustration of Rossi cheating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?…er_embedded&v=uviXoafHWrU

    Quote

    Unless you feel somewhat hesitant to put your trust into the hands of anonymous Internet commentators with unclear agendas and financing ...

    I keep seeing garbage like this. Most of us who criticize Rossi have a very clear agenda -- to prevent fraud, crookery and cons. As for financing, PLEASE PLEASE oh PUHLLEAZ tell me where I can get my hands on it!!!!! As for trust. who is asking for trust except Rossi? Certainly I don't ask for trust. I simply ask that people look at the facts and ask appropriate questions.

    Quote

    Most science reporting is not as bad as Mats reporting of the Rossi quark-x demo, but is still not to be trusted.

    A lot of modern science reporting, especially internet-based reporting, is wildly optimistic and forward looking rather than factual. It is often replete with words like "should" "may" and "possibly will" and reflects mostly hype and not accomplishments. But yeah, not as dismal as the gullible way Mats Lewan has brown-nosed Rossi for the last six years!