Posted on 12/10/2012 5:50:12 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
What I am referring to is not to threads on FR, but links to good hard science. If you can find "marginal and pathological" reports on LENR/CANR, trot them out.
Likewise Storms book. Likewise Beaudette's book.
Your comment basically tells me that YOU have not bothered to check any of those sources.
So I suggest you climb down from your own horse, buddy. As to "wise-ass remarks", I can handle the occasional one quite well, but what goes on in the LENR threads goes far past that, and is well into abuse that would not be tolerated on pretty much any other type of thread. For whatever reason, the moderators choose to allow it.
If you consider the above comment "whining", then so be it. Feel free to ignore my remarks, as I do for certain parties here.
Work at what? Hooray for research but realistically cold fusion is a scientific curiosity nothing more.
I think you should ask Warthog what he means by “overunity.”
As to the marginal/pathological being included in some of the LENR pom-pom waving we've seen around here, those things have been pointed at on these threads previously. No need for me or anyone else to trot them out. That's just sending another on a fishing expedition rehash, to end up with things that will just be hand-waved away.
As far as moderators "allowing"...they do not set themselves forwards as arbitrators of what "truth" is. That is up to those discussing the issue. But on this thread, I've been discussing the atmosphere of the forum itself, responding to your own complaining concerning the same, more than commenting on the science itself, which I've always made some mention of being hopeful towards, myself.
Your comment basically tells me that YOU have not bothered to check any of those sources.
I've looked into much of what was linked to here in previous times, did some more digging, etc. Now I have to have read certain books, or cannot comment as towards your own behavior here, as you keep whining aBOUT OTHERS? right...
It was YOUR choice to bring the insulting, flame-baiting, editorializing source, which was sure to rile many, due to past FRAUDS like Rossi being previously held up as some sort of cutting-edge leader, with those who doubted sneered at. Tone down the sneer component, and things will flow smoother. Though you, yourself have taken effort towards reasonableness all along, there has always been the sneer, also, with much of it not fully justified. How many were insulted for insulting Rossi? Think that one over. The whole field hasn't quite gotten over Fleischmann and Pons, in the public eye. A history of almost ran claims, not quite cutting the mustard, has obscured efforts which have made progress in the field, such as the Mitsubishi work will or could, as soon as it is more widely duplicated.
I'm asking you to take the starch out of the self-justifying sneer, the oft repeated "you haven't looked into it".
Bring the good information. Stick with that. Perhaps logically explain it, or break it down in ways that can be recognized beyond the possibly dubious. Sending others off on expeditions is ridiculous.
Even at trace levels, the so-called cold fusion thing, is significant, to the extent that it does occur. Bigger traces, bigger significance.
At least the moderators saw fit to move this thread from news to chat.
I'm willing to let it go...but I would like to see a bit more than we are now seeing. Time will tell.
All this petty pride. Get sick of it.
Comment all you like. Your comments are simply uninformed.
"It was YOUR choice to bring the insulting, flame-baiting, editorializing source, which was sure to rile many, due to past FRAUDS like Rossi being previously held up as some sort of cutting-edge leader, with those who doubted sneered at. Tone down the sneer component, and things will flow smoother.
Sorry, but there is NO EVIDENCE that Rossi's work in LENR is fraudulent. As to any other activities, the information from different sources is contradictory. That is the state of the facts on Rossi.
"Though you, yourself have taken effort towards reasonableness all along, there has always been the sneer, also, with much of it not fully justified. How many were insulted for insulting Rossi? Think that one over.
In every case, the insults were begun by others. I am simply responding in kind.
"The whole field hasn't quite gotten over Fleischmann and Pons, in the public eye. A history of almost ran claims, not quite cutting the mustard, has obscured efforts which have made progress in the field, such as the Mitsubishi work will or could, as soon as it is more widely duplicated."
No, the whole field hasn't gotten over the FRAUD perpetrated by the pathological skeptics (virtually all physicists) who are entrenched in the "science heirarchy", and have and have used their political clout to stifle LERN research. This interference is WELL documented.
Pons and Fleischman's work has been duplicated repeatedly by qualified researchers at qualified institutions. That you believe otherwise simply shows you haven't studied the facts sufficiently. In the peer-reviewed literature, their work has NOT been "falsified" by their critics. Said critics "have" succeeded in the political world.
"I'm asking you to take the starch out of the self-justifying sneer, the oft repeated "you haven't looked into it"."
Unfortunately, that happens to be the state of things.
"Bring the good information. Stick with that. Perhaps logically explain it, or break it down in ways that can be recognized beyond the possibly dubious."
I've done that REPEATEDLY, and in fact in every thread, I have recommended things to study. I started out recommending the LENR/CANR database, but evidently that is just "too much information" for a lot of people, so I have recommended Ed Storms book as well as his summaries (which are available on-line, FOR FREE). Apparently, even THAT is too much information, so I have recommended Beaudette's book. If you can't handle that level of information the Beaudette presents, then there is no use of my trying further.
"Sending others off on expeditions is ridiculous."
Sorry, but I don't have the time to hold the hands of the ignorant and spoon-feed them tid-bits of information. I'm much too busy doing real hard science, and have very limited time for commentary on FR. I spend too much time here as it is. If that upsets you, then I'm very sorry, but "ich kann nichts anders".
"...the Italian and his wire..." happens to be one of Italy's (and Europe's) more prominent physicists, and "his wire" just happens to be one of the very promising approaches to LENR that is producing exciting results. He has recently given an invited lecture at CERN about it (videos available online, and links posted in severl threads here), and has demonstrated it at several legitimate venues.
He and his research have nothing to do with Rossi other than the fact that both involve LENR and that they both happen to be Italian.
That you consider that "marginal" simply points out how clueless you really are on this subject. You'll probably consider that comment an insult.....but dang it, it is simply true.
Why doesn't the Italian in some way help provide the proper materials to assist in having the results duplicated outside of his own lab? If there is some patent concern, then well...that could be a good reason. If it's simply science at this point, there is none.
It does seem to me you WANT others to be "clueless" if they don't agree with you right off the bat. And you have long demonstrated habit of making declarative statements, bringing scarce support for the same, while getting pissy when folks don't just bow down to your "superior knowledge".
There HAVE been lots of problems in the LENR field. That's been part of it. Excess heat measurements calculated with calorimetry, which may or may not have been result of chemical reactions, or possible loose controls, etc. All of that sort of thing bears looking at. That is what skepticism is for. To see if there is a problem, a what could go wrong, what could have gone wrong approach. Some others (not necessarily myself) here have taken that sort of investigative approach, and been bashed for it, more or less called ignorant.
You yourself in touting this according to you "prominent physicist" "producing existing results" and a "very promising approach" fail here to simply speak of it neutrally, possibly bringing a link for this physicist's work, and better yet, having that work confirmed by others, uncontaminated by being linked in an article still touting Rossi as some sort of "leader". Instead, I get get called clueless. What next? The repeat of the claim that there have been more than 10,000 confirmations? Is that what comes next? With no real examination of that claim, beyond yourself possibly repeating what you have read elsewhere, leaving little or no way to properly quantify that without bumping against your OWN leaning upon argument of authority?
You can hurl "clueless" all you want. But those whom thought Rossi a rat-fink all along turned out to be not so clueless.
Drop the personal attack approach, quit taking it personal yourself if somebody comments negatively, and much conflict will be avoided. But what do you do? You brought insult, right out of the gate...for what reason...to cover the embarrassment that is Rossi? LOL right at you Mr. scientist. ROTFLMAO.
Simply solution. Go with what some of your own sources say concerning Rossi (sorry, lost the link) and distance yourself from that guy, even if it may take admitting to yourself the possibility of having had otherwise justifiable hopes misplaced in that person's work.
baloney. from the article YOU bring, is the insulting;
With the article still touting Rossi. Appearing to many here as some kind of getting back at, some self-justification pay-back towards previous critics you've crossed swords with. Deliberate insult, stirring the pot, while you act innocent. Pretend all you like. I know what I see. It's plain as day.
So I should lie and say that your statements are correct to protect YOUR tender ego??
"Why doesn't the Italian in some way help provide the proper materials to assist in having the results duplicated outside of his own lab? If there is some patent concern, then well...that could be a good reason. If it's simply science at this point, there is none."
He has done/is doing precisely that. One successful replication has already been reported, and a second one is being done in an "open source" model (see "Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project".....www.quantumheat.org). This volunteer program aims to reproduce various CF experiments in a totally open process, with all data available on-line, and much of it available in real time. Celani provided the necessary materials in both cases.
"It does seem to me you WANT others to be "clueless" if they don't agree with you right off the bat. And you have long demonstrated habit of making declarative statements, bringing scarce support for the same, while getting pissy when folks don't just bow down to your "superior knowledge".
If you mean I don't produce a shit-storm of links, you're right. I just don't have the time. But EVERY statement I have made is based on hard facts which are available at the sources I have referenced.
"There HAVE been lots of problems in the LENR field. That's been part of it. Excess heat measurements calculated with calorimetry, which may or may not have been result of chemical reactions, or possible loose controls, etc. All of that sort of thing bears looking at. That is what skepticism is for. To see if there is a problem, a what could go wrong, what could have gone wrong approach. Some others (not necessarily myself) here have taken that sort of investigative approach, and been bashed for it, more or less called ignorant.
The problems you mention are a VERY minor percentage of the available data. And most of your "investigative approach" amounts to blind speculation, most already answered in the published literature. The data is there...avail yourself of it.
"You yourself in touting this according to you "prominent physicist" "producing existing results" and a "very promising approach" fail here to simply speak of it neutrally, possibly bringing a link for this physicist's work, and better yet, having that work confirmed by others, uncontaminated by being linked in an article still touting Rossi as some sort of "leader".
As I said, I don't have the time to produce a shitstorm of links. The published papers of Celani are available at LENR/CANR.....anyone can access them. Videos of his talks are available on-line and have been linked to in CF threads here. And then there is Google.
"Instead, I get get called clueless. What next? The repeat of the claim that there have been more than 10,000 confirmations? Is that what comes next?
I really don't have an interest in what the total number of confirmations is. Kevmo has looked into that and provided a link to the researcher who said that. But there are plenty of published articles available to anyone who bothers to look.
"With no real examination of that claim, beyond yourself possibly repeating what you have read elsewhere, leaving little or no way to properly quantify that without bumping against your OWN leaning upon argument of authority?
Oh, please. I have repeatedly referred to verifiable sources (and will continue to do so).
"You can hurl "clueless" all you want."
Apparently not just clueless, but terminally lazy as well.
"But those whom thought Rossi a rat-fink all along turned out to be not so clueless."
That is certainly the point that many are selling. Unfortunately, the data available at this time only supports a verdict of "inconclusive".
I post here because as a practicing scientist, I have an obligation to speak the truth about matters of science. I have and will continue to do so.
"Drop the personal attack approach, quit taking it personal yourself if somebody comments negatively, and much conflict will be avoided.
I suggest you go back through the early threads and see who first entered "assault mode", and the MANY efforts I made to try to re-focus the discussion on the science.
"But what do you do? You brought insult, right out of the gate...for what reason...to cover the embarrassment that is Rossi? LOL right at you Mr. scientist. ROTFLMAO.
LOL. A line or two in the article refers to Rossi, and that's all you can see.
"Simply solution. Go with what some of your own sources say concerning Rossi (sorry, lost the link) and distance yourself from that guy, even if it may take admitting to yourself the possibility of having had otherwise justifiable hopes misplaced in that person's work.
Excuse me?? I have ALWAYS admitted the possibility that Rossi might be fradulent, or simply wrong. But the totality of evidence at this point in time simply doesn't support either of those conclusions.
Sorry, but the article does NOT "tout Rossi". There is ONE LINE in the article that refers to Rossi. And like it or not, that line is correct. Even if Rossi ultimately turns out to be a fraud, his "stirring the pot" has forced a re-examination of the very real science behind LENR.
You "see" only what you want to see....not what is actually there.
Nice dodge. It wasn't about the science. That part was all about you.
About which, as with all else you have posted here, you are clueless. I respond as treated, no more, but no less.
That's what I "see plainly" but you can't face concerning yourself, hiding behind the mr. scientist act while getting in a few putdowns, whenever possible... giving you another opportunity to call others "clueless". Sick ego ya' got there matey. pathetic. speaking of "pathologies". HA!
Go ahead. Give me another round of self-justifying crap whining about how others "started it", even while mainstream science still shies away from LENR related work to a large degree, in fear of ruining their reputations.
Are you going to call me clueless for saying THAT? Does it induce a reaction within you to explain why that is so (but not exactly rightly so) while more anger stirs within yourself concerning my alleged cluelessness -- which you'd be more than happy to tell me about once again?
Let me re-cap for you then way things more went around here;
A few show up calling him a fraud
Every sort of excuse possible is made for the guy
Some of those excuses are shredded before your eyes
You take it personal, telling yourself others are stupid, so you may more easily dismiss them. Then you tell them they are stupid.
Like I said, it's going to take a while to clear the taint here on FR because of that history HERE.
Otherwise, as towards the broader picture, beyond all this personality friction;
Trying to clear the air, and have some of that which LENR research has produced become more accepted, isn't going to create the wider spread effect you are hoping for, if it becomes a hobbyhorse platform for you or others to salve wounded pride & ego. Which is what this thread was all about, really, with the science being secondary.
Don't you get it? Admit it to yourself at least, or remain fragile. THAT said, I will admit I'm punishing you a bit for the failings and sins of another's quite fragile, even brittle personality, but I'm getting lumped in with those even of the science community who have consistently panned the entire cold fusion idea (which has changed since Pons & Fleischmann) leaving the impression I'm being punished (with insults) for that lack of acceptance among others.
How convenient for you, to have so many readily available whipping boys to bash, so that you may GET EVEN with the world!!!
Clueless? Not about you, your motivations, your pride & fears (which is what I've been talking about the last several posts) and how those are bound up with all the rest of the LENR information. I see right through the act. But keep it up, it gives ME something to ridicule.
The other thread didn't have any of this sort of back-and-forth, did it? Allow yourself to instructed as to technique by the other example? --- if gaining acceptance of LENR is a goal. Try discussing it without internalizing the information, and whatever is said concerning it?
Or remain being a prick about it, making sure to include aspersions towards others when speaking of the subject, if that's what blows your dress up. The choice is entirely up yours.
Nope. Totally and completely wrong. I picked the first "non-Rossi" (i.e. without the word "E-Cat" somewhere in the title or origin) blog SPECIFICALLY because the owner of the blog is known as THINKING ROSSI IS A FRAUD, and it gave a link to the Iwamura work.
Also, among those who follow alternate energy work, "New Energy and Fuel" is considered a very reliable source. The "tone" of the article and the title of the article are totally his and had precisely zero to do with why I picked it.
If I had happened to hit a different blog, the title and tone of the article would probably be different.
But the choice was strictly happenstance.
So you see, your very first supposition is wrong.
And the rest of your blather is strictly from your own imagination and prejudices.
"even while mainstream science still shies away from LENR related work to a large degree, in fear of ruining their reputations."
True, unfortunately. A situation generated by a small group of pathological skeptics from the hot physics community to protect their funding sources.
"Are you going to call me clueless for saying THAT?"
Yup. I sure am. Go educate yourself on the actions of the physicists when CF was first getting started up, and continues even unto the present day. REALLY "dirty pool".
Krivit covers it quite nicely on his site, as did Eugene Mallove before his death. Pretty much every non-biased journalist has noted the same things.
"Does it induce a reaction within you to explain why that is so (but not exactly rightly so) while more anger stirs within yourself concerning my alleged cluelessness -- which you'd be more than happy to tell me about once again?
Anger??? No. A bit of sadness, perhaps.
It's no sin to be clueless (ignorant). What "is" a sin is to refuse to look at information to relieve the ignorance....that qualifies as stupidity.
Here's a quote for Leonardo da Vinci which applies:
"There are three classes of people.....those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see."
"Like I said, it's going to take a while to clear the taint here on FR because of that history HERE."
Oh, I suspect that the air will never be cleared. The "good manners" thread is already veering.
I suggest you leave the psychoanalysis to professionals.
I already did that. Long ago, and refreshed my memory recently. From Krivit. Before posting to you. Oblique reference to it was included in what I just said to you.
Don't believe you. Pull some one else's leg. You liked it. It was still flamebait regardless, for this forum and though Krivit otherwise a critic of Rossi, still mentioned him in a positive light? Inconsistent. That was part of the bait, whether you planned it or not.
I guess you can see that by now, so some progress has been made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.