Thanks for interesting answers. Rossi said that the mouse had a COP > 1 but not much over 1. How would you explain that?
Mats002
Member
- Member since Apr 18th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Mats002
-
-
Hi Alan. Well I think that at small enough scale, temperature and pressure are hard if not impossible to measure. T and P are averages of the behaviour of many particles and/or waves around the probe.
Is it known how a group of H atoms 'experience' their surrondings inside a metal lattice? Can it be equivalent to millions atmospheres? I do not know if this is possible or not. Do you?
-
Is it possible that inside the metal lattice, the H is forming metallic H? Maybe that is what you are saying but with other words?
If so you have support from those scientists:
http://m.livescience.com/53292…-of-hydrogen-created.html -
Looking at the COPE members of scientific journals - over 10000 can be searched for here: http://publicationethics.org/members
I wonder which of them are candidates for LENR papers? The LENR subject overlaps several subjects, one candidate here:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/acmp/What more candidates would you propose?
-
-
-
Another paper about the same story: https://www.academia.edu/18051…efereed_LENR_Publications
-
Thomas, you are obviously a genius, sitting high above established professors with a long history. As only one example you are superior of this guy: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/366leonid.html
Can I kiss your feets please? :crazy:
-
With regard to Huw Price 'Reputation Trap' and discussions here about the quality of papers, I want to give attention to an organization named COPE.
More than 5000 scientific journals are members of COPE including Nature (Editor-in-Chief: Sir Philip Campbell).
I wrote to them:
Dear COPE,
Your processes - as far as I could see - are focused on misconduct from the writers, but I have seen that also editors can behave unethical and because you suppose to be a 3rd party auditor of the practice I hope you take my question seriously.
The examples I have come from the area of physics and the science of LENR, aka Cold Fusion. To my knowledge editors still refuse to publish papers about this subject. My question is not about particular examples about refused papers but about the editor process of refuse. An editor must have integrity and look again at new evidence even if refused earlier. Editors should not fall for groupthink of what is possible or not. Solid experiment results should not be refused because current theory says otherwize.
Please direct me to the subprocess and guides for what to expect from the editors.
Yours truly
Mats G DanielssonI just got an answer from Linda Gough, from the administration of COPE. Following her advice I find this important text:
It [COPE Code of Conduct] also established a mechanism for dealing with complaints against COPE member editors that could not be resolved by the journal’s own complaints procedure.
So: this is a way to go for LENR paper writers, please use it!Dear Mats,
Thank you for your email to COPE.
We expect all of our member editors to follow the COPE Code of Conduct. If you have a concern about a journal that is a member of COPE, we do have a process for dealing with complaints or concerns. Please see the details of our process on our website http://publicationethics.org/contact-us#complaints
Kind regards
Linda Gough
Administrator
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.orgTel: +44 (0) 1379 854181
Fax +44 (0) 844 443 1087Registered charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: COPE, 22 Nelson Close, Harleston, Norfolk IP20 9HL, UK -
-
-
Eh? It took a while to compile that message. If I understood it right it says "Scientists are not interested in the Lugano report because a) their time is limited and b) Lugano report is badly written"
Because you obviously are interested in the Lugano report and spend a lot of time here it makes you a non scientist. I am not sure that is what you intended to say.
-
Thomas, I agree with you the catch 22 situation of how to critiscize a paper on archivex without it being published there. Is it not better for science to take on 'dubious' papers so that they can be properly discussed? If they where uptaken into the 'real' science community then may be the authors would take part in the discussions. As the situation stands they refuse to answer your critiscism, I would not be surprised if they have som more information not yet shared.
-
To Thomas on "accusation of censorship"-answer to Axil above.
It is not hard to find examples of this. The most rescent I know of is found here: http://animpossibleinvention.c…xplanation-break-through/
Lundin and Lidgren says in the article (scroll down towards the end)
"Lundin and Lidgren submitted their paper to the open preprint website Arxiv.org and to the peer-reviewed journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, PPCF, but both declined to even let reviewers have a look at it, the latter arguing “that the content of the article is not within the scope of the journal”. Arxiv.org even blocked Lundin from submitting further papers during July and August. -
I like your last sentence, it show a bit of humbleness.
If Ni-H is a closed way forward we should know that pretty soon I hope, and if so the lessons learned could be applied in other ways. If Rossi is the big scammer some here believe, that will be candy for the psychological science. Who are you trying to save? -
Thomas, why focus on Rossi/Lugano? Even if you are right with your critiscism what differences do you expect it to be for the LENR development? Go dig lenr-canr.org and find 25 years of research to critiscize.
Frank Aucland has his right to a personal believing as have you here. No-one asked you to rewrite your texts here. Who is right and who is wrong will be known in time anyway.
-
Hi Felix. Interesting links. I did not risk all that money in Woodford, just enough to feel I have a tiny, tiny share. I am not a gambler, but in this case I make an exception.
-
Hi, I bought a share in Woodford a month ago. I am willing to loose those money but I can say: I own a share in [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon]!!!
-
Hi, I bought a share in Woodford a month ago. I am willing to loose those money but I can say: I own a share in [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon]!!!
-
It makes me very happy to see more live open science on the NiH LENR system. The quality of measurements and lessons learned over time seams to be incorporated in this new round of experiments - yey !
Good luck Ugo et al!
Stephen, I understand you are asking about this sentence:
"Safety measures include shielding against eventual alfa, beta, x, gamma and neutron emissions, as well as internal coatings of reactor surfaces by Boron Nitride layers, to protect it against corrosion."I can not answer, hope Ugo et al will, but I find it interesting that in Rossi patent WO-2009-125444 from 15 oct 2009 at page 6: "In particular, the inventive apparatus is coated by boron layers and lead plates both for restraining noxious radiations and transforming them into energy, without generating residue radiations and radioactive materials."
I also note that Rossi in this patent show his respect for both Focardi and Piantelli: "The most intelligent work performed in the fusion field, which work has been accurately studied by the present inventor for practicing his invention, is a study of prof. Sergio Focardi and Prof. Francesco Piantelli", followed by references to 6 documents written by them.