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.
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".