Posts by seven_of_twenty

    JedRothwell wrote:


    Yes, well the problem is your method of advocating.

    No it's not. The problem is your continuing unsubstantiated claims taken and combined from various places to make it seem as though robust LENR is a proven fact. If it were, the world, at least the world of scientific research, would be a very different place. Fortunately, there are now apparently enough rich people with interest to put the issue to rest in the next few years. Although I doubt you will believe negative results no matter who coughs them up. On the other hands, skeptics make simple, straightforward and reasonable demands which are met from you with obfuscation and accusations.


    Standard Skeptopathic GoalPost Moving

    Usual meaningless blustering instead of performing

    Maybe so. Maybe not. But none of that is much fun because it doesn't do anything. It won't self run. It doesn't consistently make enough power long enough at a large enough "COP." Renown independent trusted labs have not tested it. Except to the aficionados, AKA "usual suspects," it is not impressive.

    ETA: I've always advocated for research. What I object to are the constant predictions that boilers and power plants are around the corner (Brillouin, GEC) also everything from room heaters to space power systems(Miley and others). After thirty years of that, everyone should know better. Overoptimism leads to scammers.

    Perhaps but https://www.gatesfoundation.or…mation/Open-Access-Policy

    Maybe keep it quiet if it's just a shot in the dark, I suppose, with exceedingly low confidence. But why in the world choose to keep LENR research confidential and secret if Gates has any hopes it will bear fruit? And of course, if it's the former, it doesn't or shouldn't bolster confidence in the reality and value of LENR as a technology which can become practical. And I think that is the way presumed Gates involvement is being used here.

    IMO, overoptimism like Shane D. frequently exhibits here, isn't helpful. It causes lots of dashed hopes and lost confidence. My prediction for next loss of confidence: Brillouin, GEC, Swartz, Miley. Who did I forget? Oh yeah... Mizuno. Pessimism gives me no pleasure. As I and other skeptics said many times, it would be a lot more fun if LENR were proven real.


    Indeed, we already have forgotten all problems in relation with pedophilia and Catholic clergy !

    I doubt that this issue is forgotten. Maybe futilely swept under the rug by some Church officials but far from over and far from forgotten by victims, advocates for prevention, and of course, lawyers.


    But I am sure he [Stremmenos] is capable of a much better job. I hope he is OK.

    His writing was florid and bizarre in 2011 so I am not sure he is capable of a "better job." I hope he is OK too but you do need to see what he wrote back then if you are concerned about it. There were also rumors about his heath in the now defunct forum and IIRC, on (less sure about that one). That would have been about the time that Defkalion went down for the last time.


    I spent an enjoyable couple of hours with Stremmenos a few years back. A charming gent with decades of experience in both politics and experimental physics. I look upon this paper as more tranquil reflections of his own views than as a competitive entry into the academic field.

    Stremmenos gave important support to Defkalion which IIRC caused several investors to lose considerable funds, including, I think himself. He may be charming but if he was ever a discerning member of the scientific community, I think he gave up that reputation around 2011-2012. His writing about his experiences with Rossi and with Defkalion at the time, made absolutely no sense, even considering language and/or translation issues. It was gobbledygook word salad. Look it up. He was apparently at one time an outstanding contributor but that seems to have been a long time ago.


    Can not blame him, or the other philanthropists for taking that leap, because those like you are lying in wait to shame them if they do.

    Nonsense. First, the idea that Gates cares about comments by anonymous people on the internet is beyond ridiculous. Second, who have I shamed? I called out Darden and Woodford for doing due diligence extremely poorly on Rossi. Is that not fair and correct? Who have I and the local skeptics on this forum raised issues with unfairly? (names and issues please)


    . You can't blame scientists for being wrong.

    True 'nuff. But scientists can be held accountable for gross negligence and/or incompetence. And if that leads to a party losing money or having their reputation injured, that party can sue.


    Perhaps you are saying Levi et al. gave more a positive review to the people at I.H. I have no heard that and if it happened I know nothing about it

    Why else would Darden have offered Rossi $11.5 million essentially up front?


    He apparently is there in his capacity working for the "Laurene Powell Jobs Trust"

    So if true, which is far from clear, what does that tell you? George Schulz former US secretary of state and distinguished statesman and no less than Henry Kissinger were on the board of Theranos. And we know how that ended. It's really weird and probably telling that LENR proponents have to stretch a few threadbare facts to the breaking point (for example the Gates connection from an incompletely redacted signature) instead of simply showing overwhelming data that LENR is robust and works well.


    I wish we could get Levi et al. to respond to critiques such as yours, but I doubt they will.

    I've been mystified by that. Why in the world would Levi and the Swedish scientists not respond to reasonable and polite questions and critiques? Why would they not desperately want to do it again better if they believe it was real? And if they don't think it was real and they were fooled, why not own up to it and regain dignity?


    demonstrate that cold fusion works - at the Mega-Watt excess heat scale.

    The most doubtful skeptic is not that exigent, not nearly. 100 W or so long enough to exceed either stored or chemical energy by a factor of ten would be fine. But it has to be done so it's simple, clear and credible. JedRothwell will probably tell us it's been done n times. But it can't be by the usual suspects using the cryptic method of isoperibolic calorimetry. It has to be done with an infallible method of calorimetry (mass flow for example), extremely cautious calibration, meticulous blanks (dummy runs) and sufficient power ratio out/in that Shanahan's much argued error sources become moot, again by a huge factor, say for example 10. And you have to be able to do it pretty much on demand. But a megawatt? Fun for sure but no way needed for proof of concept. I bet you knew that Director .


    They were far larger than the Curies' first heat results from 1896, or the Pile 1 Reactor that demonstrated a fission chain reaction

    The huge differences are that those experiments ended up somewhere fairly quickly whereas LENR hasn't. They were properly verified by credible independent sources. Those experiments were also congruent with theory which LENR isn't. As always, Jed's comparisons are apples with onions. Or maybe turnips and rutabagas.


    How do you know "it's a fine piece of work", but the "usual suspects", if you did not read it?

    Skimmed it to appreciate the scope and read some parts, ie. the Anthropocene Institute (pretty iffy on LENR, large laundry list of other possible future techs). Most of the article looks like it will be rehash. Like I said, provide a single best example of LENR in action. Most skeptics have no time to re-read the usual suspects.