Darden at this point was highly unwilling to think Rossi's stuff did not work, and hoped it would just be some glitch. But, he was aware enough of reality to know that without investigation a test setup that registered a control device with a COP >> 1 could not be trusted.
Well, at least he was not unwilling to raise money from Woodford in Doral before turning against Rossi ... Isn't that fascinating?
I participated in a test and caught the Wealthy Career Specialist cheating. Upon spotting that he was caught, he quickly shutdown the experiment claiming potential runaway.
IH did a control / fueled reactor test and caught the WCS cheating - he flew out the door in a rage.
Great. First hand experience is good. Did this happen before or after IH raised money from Woodford in Doral? I believe the answer to that question puts the statement into perspective.
Well let's go with what is shown and then see how we get on. Maybe we will be able to figure out that something crucial has been left out. I haven't caught such a thing yet but perhaps you can help.
I am trying to stick with the things that are known. Things actually said by Mr Rossi and things that can be seen. Since you feel that these things are discouraged on this forum I suggest that this is a good way to proceed. It will fill in a hole and at the same time will establish a united front and defy the moderators together!
What do you say? Will you try out some impartial analysis and see what happens?
Totally useless waste of time. Go ask someone who have actually participated in one of the tests instead. Then you do not need to sit at home making wild guesses to confirm your arm chair thesis. (oops! forgot that those people are on the wrong side of the fence...) But you prove my point by trying to direct this discussion towards speculations on insignificant unknowns. 
argbo18 can you please clarify what you mean by "the elephant in the room is off limit"?
Please, pretty please, don't attempt to make this into a discussion about moderators and moderation, etc. What you want to do is to address matters of fact under discussion relating to things outside of this forum.
Then, pretty please, dont ask me questions like that one at the top...
What is your opinion of that Krivit video?
Wow. If Kritvit published a video we can be absolutely sure it does not show the details that Krivit did not want it to show.
Sometimes they just vanish (IH Fanboy and Engineer48), or they make a pretend argument and then make sure never again to revisit the argument (Tony), or they just studiously ignore the whole thing (Adrian Ashfield). It is my opinion that this is happening because all these people realize that the case against Mr Rossi is valid on this point and they don't wish to admit it. They just want to carry on pretending that the evidence doesn't exist. It is intellectually dishonest. And in this case how can one value their other arguments? That is why I care and go on with the debate
Lack of Rossi supporters could also have something to do with the change in moderation tactics taking place after the settlement. It is only encouraged to discuss details of the unknown, while the elephant in the room is off limit. This seems not have been the case earlier here when there was less bias. I suppose this change is deliberate. As Mr Chomsky put it:
Quote from Noam Chomsky“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”
We're committed and continue to spend time, effort and resources to move this field forward
Hmm. All we know about it though, is that we will be the last to know, right? ... Vaporware?
I note with interest that TC - much like the Swedes - hasn’t yet responded to the pointing out of certain errors/clarifications to his paper (ie. improvements to the view factor).
It’s a shame that TC hasn’t been seen for a while, so perhaps someone else with a good understanding of his python script could add in the revised VF numbers, and see what it spits out. Might be interesting.
Yeah, its kind of telling he disappeared the second somebody put a tiny little bit of his skin in the game... It's really easy to say things when theres no accountability... Not really the same thing when a Israeli security person has a "chitchat" with you and your rabbi (Levi) or when you and your boss maybe are receiving strange mails and suggestions about career opportunities, etc etc. In this story Levi, the swedes, incl Mats and now definitely Gullstrom stand out as those with balls (To be clear, I do respect for Dewey and Jed a bit too - although they seem merely to be kept in the game to trash Rossi and the swedes now - not to supply anything new )
No excuse needed. Sometimes dispassionate reflection and analysis can lead to a better perspective on matters. Many here have paid attention to the pages of detailed quantitative work (before your time) in challenge that make the watertight case against their conclusions being correct. You could start by reading and understanding (no more than high school math + physics enough to understand power spectrums) TC's paper?
Re house of cards. Projection?
There is a one fundamental and huge difference between the swedes first hand experience and your anonymous rantings. They have "skin in the game" (as of the excellent book by N Taleb). As far as I know, you do not. Which makes it possible for you to write anything without accountability and taking any consequence of it. This fact influence the weight that should be put on your (or TCs or anyone else, except Dewey - we know where his skin is...) arguments and for my analysis of the situation it is obvious whom to trust.
The Swedes always seemed like blind mice to me.
Of course they do. Otherwise the house of cards you built will fall apart...
Also you need some excuse that makes your distant second hand opinion on the matter seem more valuable to your audience than the first hand experience of the swedes, right?
Alan - I predict that you'll eventually get tired of carrying that bucket around. Your implied balance remains out of balance
which is just as well.
Don't worry. I read the comment before it was removed. I'm curious to know it it represents the official view of IH though?
And I'm still curious to know if your thermometer encounter was during the Doral episode of before?
We know he is both the scoundrel and the charismatic intellectual dinner companion.
How do you know? Did either you or Shane meet him? Or do you use second hand opinion for all that psychological profiling?
TC said the Lugano authors never replied to him sending them a preprint: one of the authors acknowledged it and said he would pass it on for consideration.
Good. So then at least we can be sure they know about the critique. What is your assessment on their behavior to this date and the fact that they seem to still be on the Rossi train?
A first person experience: The R'ster was claiming 450C and climbing in a demo while the handheld IR temp gun (with laser dot on) on a blackbody showed 275C. After spotting my actions ("how disrespectful of that guy" some of you folks thinking), the R'ster flipped what seemed to be two switches on his front panel and immediately claimed "we have a possible runaway" with a request for everyone to leave the room. I got the temp gun out after using my hand in a near field wave to get a better sense of the heat output from the device during the demo. I'm no walking thermocouple but knew there was no way his claimed temps were as high as his instrumentation was stating.
That is a gigantic delta - say no more, say no more.
Interesting. At what point in time did this happen? Was it during the one year Doral episode or was it earlier?
I think people can fool themselves when it comes to testing like this, and that the only real way to know that testing has succeeded is through defense of results, through repeated trials and, under more open circumstances, through replication. So for me the sheen on those earlier nominally-positive results was dimmed when competent critique came out to cast them into doubt. The only way to revive the sheen would be for the researchers and engineers who did the testing to defend their results against the critiques, or to conduct new tests incorporating the feedback. I doubt this will happen.
That leaves in doubt the status of the earlier positive tests as a basis for concluding anything. Perhaps a robust defense or future testing would support the earlier tests, or perhaps the critiques were spot-on. Which way one leans on this question will depend on whose judgment one trusts.
No doubt a level headed approach. What is your take on the fact that many of the first hand testers seems to still be on the Rossi train? Does that support your "critiques spot-on" scenario?
Since the situation is obscured on our side by a lack of information, I'm not in a position to assess either of these questions, apart from extrapolating from previous attempts at testing Rossi's tech.
Fair enough. But most of these tests had positive results, right? I agree that theres been a number "mistake scenarios" posted here and elsewhere, but by second hand people with no direct involvement, or by IH of course, but only after they were sued ... What do you make of this?
My point was about what we can conclude about the fact that there were reportedly lots of people at the Stockholm demo who continue to take interest in Rossi: next to nothing.
I agree - only conclusion seems to be that there were both science and business people present - and that they are not sharing the information they might have here. We can of course speculate on the reasons in any direction we like but i seems at least somewhat likely that they have not distanced themselves from Rossi in any meaningful way. On the contrary - it looks as if many of those with first hand knowledge of the tech is still on the Rossi train (both from the science and the business side). It would be interesting to know your interpretation of this?
So it all turns on any scientists (or engineers) who have the qualifications to make an assessment. And we've heard nary a peep from certain ones to defend their previous work, so that work by itself cannot provide the basis for a positive assessment from the outside.
Maybe they might not be that interested in publishing their views on random Internet forums? And they might not care what any number of anonymous posters think? Seems though as some of them were present in Stockholm... And if their opinions have not changed, why should they even bother to say so?
But note that the opinions of any businessmen will be reducible to those of any scientists they have consulted who are in a position to assess Rossi's tech, or they are flying blind without research upon which to base an impression
What does this tell us about IH? What scientist did they consult?
