Posts by ZenoOfElea

    max


    Certainly we do not know what an atom or electron is really like. We just have various models that approximate the behaviour. Some models work better in some circumstances and not in others.


    Are theoretical predictions really failing to produce experimental results?

    There are certainly predicted effects that have produced results; the most obvious one is the Higgs, although the predicted search paramenters were very fuzzy.

    A few others I found;

    The Kondo effect.

    Light from a vacuum via Casimir effect.

    Predicted quantum transient bond in cold chemistry.


    Thank you Max, you made me have to think.



    My problem with alternative theories is that there are hundreds of them from loan cranks sitting in their basement to super smart researchers like Edward Witten and Sabrina Pasterski.

    The fans of these theories demand that you must read and study the entire works of their hero; Randell Mills, Garrett Lisi, Rossi etc etc.


    Luckily I am too stupid to be able to attempt to do this, knowing my level of stupidity saves me a lot of time.

    As a tax payer I pony up the money for clever physicists to waste their time on string theory or whatever.


    Presumably the theory that supercedes the Standard Model will be one theory that explains more phenomenon. So that would be one theory then!

    Of course there is no guarantee that any of the current theories on offer is the correct one. We may have to wait another hundred years.

    Or maybe nature is not as mathematically elegant as most physicists would like to imagine.

    The big question in my mind is: Is there ANYTHING that Frank and His Rossies WON'T BELIEVE?


    Well strange you should say that because in another ECat World article; "Rossi’s Catalyst: Electron Clusters Light Up Christmas This Year (Hank Mills)."


    Engineer48 says of Axel's speculations.

    "No verified experimental data. Just more unproved theory."

    "I call that out as techo babble rubbish."


    But if Rossi says it runs on anti-matter then that must be true.

    I guess they don't have irony on ECat World.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson on Twitter has the right idea.


    There is no point providing evidence to support a round earth because they will never accept/believe it.


    Better to go after their "facts" by showing them to be absurd.





    Z

    Alan Smith

    Thank you for the information.

    Indeed as a stand-alone piece of logic then indeed there could be a market here for heat.


    Problem 1 is; this goes against some of the previous conspiracy theories from Sifferkoll. That was my main point.

    If one is into conspiracy theories then one could also argue that he is an oil industry man sent in to spy on Rossi. Not that I believe that either, but of course I cannot prove he isn't. ;)


    Problem 2 is; taking the view that Rossi does have a viable LENR product then Rossi in bed with the fossil fuel business may be a problematic path for LENR to take. Many feel the fossil fuel business may have peaked, or peak soon, in which case Rossi is teaming up with yesterday's energy providers rather than tomorrow's. Also if Rossi had problems dealing with IH then how is it going to work with the oil industry? I would think they would have a conflict of interest in Rossi delivering LENR to the world.

    LOL


    ECatworld.org

    Article "Black Friday Was a Day of Success for Rossi" by ECW Reporter. ^^


    Sifferkoll comment regarding the role of William S Hurley.

    "Yes, big oil is potentially a HUGE client. They have the infrastructure and the processes and with LENR they can make their own synthetic oil cheaply as well without the need of mideast or fracking, etc. It is huge."


    So big oil have gone from being part of the Forces of Evil trying to stop Rossi and are now Rossi's new best friend and saviour.:saint:


    The rest of the Forces of Evil are not going to like that! :evil:


    If Sifferkoll spins any more he is at risk of meeting himself coming back and disappearing up his own fundament. :D

    Interested observer; you got it right, now in stage 5 and 6. Well done. :thumbup:


    Either Mary or Jed once commented that each of Rossi's tests/demos/DPS get successively worse (from a data perspective) not better, as would be the case with most development projects.

    And indeed we can see that here. :thumbup:


    Reading the Dr Mike analysis on Ecatworld.org this was certainly not science.

    It was indeed (as Eric called it) a dog and pony show (DPS). :thumbup:


    Rossi certainly does not care about his critics (fair enough, as Adrian says he does not owe us anything). But he does entertain us so. ^^

    Nor does he care much for his supporters. Once again he provides them with a DPS and a crock of data that is worthless.


    Clearly, as others have stated, it is all about the money.

    The key people in the room were not the scientists and loyal followers, they were just there for decorative purposes.

    The key people were the marks (sorry investors).


    For those who might disagree with this view it would be interesting to find who Rossi actually spent his attention on after the show.

    According to Alan the maestro was only available for a limited time, so who got to see him?

    The yorkshiremen of Rothwell will not be impressed with your 'midlander' slur.


    Actually I live in the rhubarb triangle in Yorkshire.


    Its a bit like the Bermuda triangle, but with less sun and more rhubarb.



    I suspect Jed Rothwell may be a member of one of the lost tribes of the rhubarb triangle.


    Z

    @Adrian

    I know it is not quite right.

    I know Rossi does not owe me anything, although he may owe some people something. :(


    It was an attempt to give a rough sketch of the differing perspectives. I am sure each of us has different subjective takes on everything and how significant or insignificant it is.

    I am interested on why different people, who are smart, can look at this and see such polarized conclusions, otherwise we risk painting the opposing viewpoint as idiotic and those proponents not worthy of respect.

    Without respectful debate this site deteriorates into pointless preaching.



    Queue Mary ... :)

    I don't think anyone here (well almost) is being dishonest.

    I think we all have our opinions and what we want is definitive proof, whether Rossi will ever provide that is unlikely IMHO.


    Sadly as the emotion grows and the claims become more shrill the civility and respect decreases.


    Glass half full or glass half empty.


    This is my take on reading through the various postings.


    Theory 1:- Rossi is a fraud.

    The evidence is clear in his dishonesty and evasiveness.

    His trials and demonstrations are sloppy and flawed to hide his trickery.

    Finally, after many years of promising he has repeatedly failed to produce a marketable device.

    This is the conclusion from looking back at the evidence.


    Theory 2:- Rossi is the real deal.

    His dishonesty was forced upon him by dishonest partners, he is not evasive he is necessarily secretive.

    His trials and demonstrations may be sloppy and flawed according to scientific standards but Rossi is not a scientist, he is an engineer.

    Sure Rossi may have character flaws but In any case none of this is of any import.

    The proof will be when he produces the device to market as he has promised.

    From this perspective looking back proves nothing and serves no purpose.

    Rossi could not possibly be putting all these years of effort in if he did not have what we all hope for. So we must look forward to the promised demonstation. That will settle everything.

    And if not this one then maybe the next.

    "pathoskeptic technofascism" - wow, is that a thing? Or is it just nonsense?


    In fact most people here started off believing in Rossi (Jed, Shane, myself and many others).

    Others at least had an open mind and wanted to investigate.

    So why all the criticism against Rossi?


    You can blame mystery shills paid by IH (how is that still working now the court case is settled)?

    You can blame secret government black ops (not very successful are they)?

    You can blame space aliens.


    The real answer is much simpler and closer to home.

    It is Rossi that has changed minds with his actions and lack of actions.


    For those who are scientifically able the data produced by Rossi and the lack of replication is damning.

    For many others it is simply his actions and behaviour. His dishonesty and ability to take the money and provide nothing in return speaks volumes.


    As Adrian says - it is true that the fact he has not produced a product to market does not prove he does not have one. But it does not prove anything, it is not proof of any kind.


    So obviously, at this point, we cannot know 100% for sure Rossi does not have what he claims.

    Guesses on 1% or 0.1% chance. I and others would be amazed and embarrassed but also delighted.

    Of course we want LENR, which is why we are here.

    So those who expect nothing from the November demo and those who expect a triumph, who will be correct? Either way it is interesting to watch the Rossi show.

    Good luck to Alan.

    Mary; your negativity is busting my chakras.

    Are there any areas of LENR research that you have any positive feelings about?


    I get the criticisms of particular individuals or research that you feel are dodgy or sloppy or inaccurate.

    Indeed evidence proves that there are conmen selling LENR. Strange for an area that apparently suffers from no funding being available.


    So is that it, exposing conmen? In which case why choose the LENR field to camp at.

    Is there anything in the LENR field that you think is worth more research?

    Even worse than 'Corporate Science' is when the government decides it is best placed to decide what specific research projects should be funded.

    There needs to be a balance between oversight of tax payers money and stifling scientific creativity. So who is best placed to decide?


    While I agree the current system sidelines maverick scientists, if I wanted to make a contrary wise argument;

    In the UK I know that the Royal Society do bang the drum for "blue sky" research and leaving open the possibility for serendipity in science.

    Also in the case of "mavericks" such as Rossi and BLP, although supporters can complain about lack of support by mainstream science and various establishment obstacles that they face, but both have managed to find parties willing to provide financial backing, so financing is not a show stopper.

    It seems the evolution of science progress today is more dependent on expensive technology and expensive big team collaborations.

    This approach can surely provide great focus and "reach";

    Planetary space probes.

    CERN.

    Human genome project.

    Yesterdays news about collaboration on the gravity detection results is in this vein.


    But I guess this must constrain the areas of enquiry towards mainstream goals and inevitably collaboration means that more "maverick" scientists get sidelined.


    Also of concern is the "reputation trap" and the politics of science.


    Science needs creativity otherwise it risks becoming ossified.

    There is still much creativity in certain theoretical areas, just look at sites such as Quanta Magazine.

    However we need some mechanism to encourage mavericks in research, I guess this comes down to funding and the battle for money.

    It seems the evolution of science progress today is more dependent on expensive technology and expensive big team collaborations.

    This can surely provide great focus and "reach";

    Planetary space probes

    Human genome project.

    Yesterdays news about collaboration on the gravity detection results is in this vein.


    But I guess this must constrain the areas of enquiry towards mainstream goals and inevitably collaboration means that more "maverick" scientists get sidelined.


    Also of concern is the "reputation trap" and the politics of science.


    Science needs creativity otherwise it risks becoming ossified.

    I am also convinced that there is so many LENR materials available that it can't be denied. You are served with undeniable facts. But as you can see, even this is not enough for normal people. You need a real product to be convinced. Even after independent tests there will be doubts. But if you can buy and use it, there will be no doubt anymore.


    There are certainly many who feel that the amount of anecdotal evidence for LENR is convincing. "There is no smoke without fire."

    But if we accept that then do we accept UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster? All these have many anecdotal reports to support them.


    What will convince skeptics is evidence. But what kind of evidence?

    As ME356 says evidence can be faked.

    So maybe it depends on trust for the source of the evidence.

    But trust can be subjective, trust can be manipulated and even an honest researcher can fool themselves.


    So we are stuck with either a bullet proof, verified demonstration; or replication; or a working product on the market.

    Recent demonstrations have been less high COP and more Keystone cops.

    So far no working LENR product on the market.

    Although Jed says there are convincing replications they are clearly not convincing enough for many.


    Oh well, maybe 2018.


    :/

    @damn_right_man


    Axil is Axil.

    He travels his own road to seeking the truth but he certainly has a taste for the fantastic.

    Be more tolerant, not everyone is the same and Axil seems like a nice guy.

    Its just an Internet board, not a national news publication.

    If you find his posts unhelpful or intollerable simply ignore them.


    If the censors start coming after posters because another poster does not like what they say then this place is going to get very quiet.

    @THH

    I value your contributions very highly, as I am sure many others do, because of;

    Your ability for technical analyses.

    The clarity of your posts.

    You are always willing to look at the counter evidence and consider that you may need to change your mind.

    You are always polite and civilized, in short a gentleman.

    Your postings have certainly played a significant part in shaping my opinions and 1,990 likes received suggests I am not the only one.

    It is true that the postings have dropped off since the trial concluded and there is less data to pick over, but the search for LENR continues while we wait for the fog to clear. You are one of the main individuals helping the rest of us to see through that fog.

    There is always a background noise of various parties suggesting that this site would be better off if a view they do not like was no longer voiced. There are many echo chambers on the Internet for such people.

    By all means step back, I am sure you have more important things to do, but please do not let some ill-mannered insults cause you to abandon this site.

    In a small way this is perhaps what some LENR researchers have to put up with.

    I have no technical background to assess this but it sounds kind of sciencey, so I'm in.


    ;)

    In a parallel universe there is an Axil with no scruples. but lots of investors' money.

    What you call "skeptics" are actually a mix of social engineers spending their time trying to slow down LENR by occupying verbal space in the biggest LENR forum around, and some hardcore (this time for real) pseudo-skeptics who need to hold onto their beliefs.


    I am a skeptic.

    I do not spend my time social engineering or trying to slow down LENR. I want LENR to be real and available ASAP.

    As a matter of fact I have money invested in Woodford and put more in with all the hype and hope around Rossi. I turned out to be wrong about that.

    At least I can admit when I am wrong.


    "Criminal hyperpsychic mastermind hypnotising scientists for 10 years." What a baloney straw man argument.

    You are just trying to make the side you disagree with, "the skeptics", look ridiculous but are merely making yourself look ridiculous.


    Talking of ridiculous; a Rossi supporter on ECat World actually suggested that the enemies of Rossi had failed to stop him so Satan had now sent Irma to target Rossi so we should pray for him. Presumably Satan also hates the oil companies based in Houston.


    I guess each of us have a greater or lesser grip on what is real and what we make up in our heads.

    Still we can all be wrong and we can all be fooled, either by others, or by ourselves.

    Reading through this it is clearly an attack on Eric by Sifferkoll and Zephir.

    Eric has explained his position and clarified matters but the attack is sustained.


    My take aways from this;

    Sifferkoll and Zephir are not interested in Eric’s explanations, we have gone past that, yet the attack is sustained. Maybe they are trying to put pressure on Eric. We know Alan is going on holiday so maybe now is a good time. Maybe they want to be banned to prove Eric is “unreasonable”. Sifferkoll is clever, but is he as clever as he thinks he is?


    Sifferkol as a moderator would be a disaster, he always brings anarchy and chaos (see “debate” over last 3 pages).


    Zephir to use his own words sees the world in terms of “patoskeptics” and “haters” and “twaddlers”.

    Again not a great start for someone to proclaim about how to moderate a site.


    Sifferkol and Zephir clearly have a hit list of Mary, Dewey and anyone else they don’t like the look of.

    In fact any time Mary posts anything Zephir pops up with a ripost, usually without content but surely insulting and sometimes personal. This is something I referred to earlier where trolling turns into bullying. It’s a personal thing of mine that I don’t like bullies.

    Sifferkol has been quoting from Animal Farm lately which is ironic given what they are trying to do to this forum.

    I know Sifferkoll wants Eric to disappear and I guess Dewey might be happy if Alan was to go away.

    While I may agree or disagree with the opinions of particular moderators I want a balanced and varied team of moderators.

    All the moderators are biased to some degree but If those moderators who have a particular view are excluded then the debate here will be the poorer.


    I also think personal attacks on moderators are part of the general trend for trolling to turn into bullying against particular individuals.

    Lets respect the moderators.

    @kevmolenr

    Sifferkoll as a moderator. :D Yes please do that. I would never dare post there but I would read it for the fun.


    This is the guy who makes threats on his blog.

    This is the guy who decides someone is an APCO shill based on his mood of the day.

    All these shills who were paid by IH, but oddly that the dispute is now over those shills all continue to post, but now they are presumably doing it for free.

    Gee could Sifferkoll have been wrong?

    All these accusation against Eric for controlling the board in a way Sifferkoll does not like.

    And yet there are a group of moderators here with differing views. If Eric was trying to control the board in a manner they had a problem with then I am sure they would let Eric know. But clearly Eric has the support of the other moderators. Oops yet another thing Sifferkoll is wrong about.

    Sifferkoll “My experience is that I'm usually pretty spot on when it comes to evaluate other peoples motives. My track record is among the best here no doubt about it - go back and check the history.”

    sifferkoll BIG LOLS

    Why are you here?

    You slag this board off around the Internet.

    You come here with nothing to add but insults and poorly researched conspiracy theories.

    You have made specific accusations against me personally.

    I was named in your stupid conspiracy theory so I am able to judge your credibility.

    If you had done even basic research you would see that I have supported an open debate with input from all sides. You would also see what my particular motives and interests are in the Rossi/IH story.

    But in the world of the Sifferkoll conspiracy theory research is not needed.

    I normally try to see that there are two sides to a discussion and the other side have their opinion in good faith.

    But you are different. Personally I think you are toxic to rational adult debate.

    So Sifferkoll you are wrong on me, you are wrong on Rossi, what else are you wrong about?

    Thx ZOE, that was funny. Could have sworn he was talking specifically about Rossi and others:


    Yes, I thought that it has interesting observations (from 1984) that are very relevant today about the scientific mindset and some of the cases discussed on this site. In a parallel universe David Jones could have made millions from gullible investors.


    "Scientists are used to deciphering nature, which may be subtle but is not deliberately deceptive.

    Likewise, the goal of an engineer is to produce something that works and that other people can use. It is not to deceive."

    IH people came out weakened by this process: they proved to be incompetent and presumptuous, they paid 11.5M to have nothing in hand, neither the IP nor the 1MW plant and they spent millions in lawyers. But their supporters will continue to repeat to us perpetually that it was Rossi that came out defeated by this affair. They obviously need to believe this ....


    Well OBVIOUSLY Rossi did not come out defeated. But nor did he win the case and the hundreds of millions he was claiming.


    And OBVIOUSLY if the whole Rossi/IH thing were a con then at the end the conman (Rossi) would end up with a lot of money and the mark (IH) would end up with nothing. So at the end of the process does it look like it was a con?


    I am not interested in "But the con man says this" or "But the conman showed us some figures" or "But the conman has a friend who verifies his stuff".


    The only way out for a real business man would be to say "It was a business disagreement over a bad deal. So now I will sell my product with another partner."

    What a conman would do is say "Oh I dropped that product, I have a wonderful new thing that you must see, except you can't because its secret, but I can show you a photo".

    Neither of you have proved my statement wrong, but I'm not going to waste time debating how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

    Adrian

    I am not trying to prove your wrong. Merely juggling different perspectives. Don't you like to do that, it is very enlightening.

    In fact I cannot prove you wrong because your statement is correct. Just as mine is.

    But I submit that more people that started off thinking that Rossi was real have changed to the view he is a fake than the other way around.

    This means that the "Rossi is real" group is shrinking whereas the Rossi is fake group is increasing.

    People who think Rossi is fake are not welcome on E-Cat World, so where do you think they might go?

    This site is of course biased, according to its membership, but then so is E-Cat World. Which biase do you prefer Adrian?

    Of course if Rossi starts selling real, working E-cats then your are right and I am wrong.

    If he doesn't then I suppose it never proves anything. So you have the safer position.

    How long can you hold your breath?