eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Defkalion And A Jumble Of Thoughts

October 21, 2012

When you strip away the juvenile dummy (pacifier) spitting, eCatNews comments lend an insight to the psychology of belief and ultra scepticism. This was not my intention when I set it up but it’s there for researchers nevertheless.

I find myself torn between the two groups. In nature and temperament, I warm to the positive thinking of the believers but in hard-headed pragmatism, have to hand it to the ultra-sceps. If they were able to deliver their message without scorn, they might find their arguments more persuasive.

By its nature, people self-select to post on these types of sites. If you are excited by the possibility that the eCat might save us all or make you money, it is easy to attach a label and understand your interest. If you are certain that this is all fake or mass delusion, it’s not so easy to figure why you’d bother.
Sure, the curious might drop in and shake their heads and wonder, but why spend hundreds of hours over multiple years on what can seem to be a full-time job actively following something you don’t believe in? The believer or open-minded sceptic (me) will find it difficult to reconcile this and it is no wonder that we shoe-horn theories including big-oil and professional debunkers into the mix.

On the other hand, if I was running a scam or exaggerating for business effect and had no scruples, I’d create a number of personas to stir the pot and add some spice to flavour the mix in my favour – butter and flatter the believer ego and throw in some guff about men in black. In that case, it is inconceivable that none among us are plants placed here by the main protagonists – if they are scammers.

When I started out, unable to fathom the ultra-sceps, I was inclined to believe they were agent-provocateurs. While I still hold that door open for some, the label is no longer necessary to understand the motivation of a few at least.

A recurring reason given by a a handful of posters is that they are simply fascinated by what is going on. They are entertained by all these people with the capacity to filter out the obvious (in their eyes) and perform somersaults in order to turn repeated failure-to-deliver into positive news.

As the believers and hopeful sceps self-select, so too will a particular breed that takes delight in feeling superior to those they view as village idiots. In another life, perhaps they would be sticking anyone stupid enough to give this subject mind-space into the stocks and throw shit at them. Apart from being paid, why else would such an animal be here?

Which is a shame because I think they have a point.

Take the latest DGT report. I agree that this is a possible step forward in the sense that it appears to indicate that tests have in fact been conducted in the presence of outside parties who were able to place their own instruments wherever they saw fit. Counter to some knee-jerk mocking, it appears the observers are not morons and that the detail provided demonstrates a methodical mind at play. All of that is something and not the ‘nothing’ scoffed at by certain individuals.

However, let’s step back a little.

We were told long ago by DGT that they can control the reaction and in their tests never see a COP below 19 in a package that can deliver a power-range that includes 45kW. We are now presented with a report of a test that is unduly complicated and observed by people that are easy to (unfairly or not) attack.

I do not like the insults hurled – there is simply no need for it and it diminishes the argument. The choice of players may not have been DGT’s as the test was paid for by a third party but when the name of someone on Rossi’s JoNP board is prominent, we should not be surprised when a few eyebrows are raised. This says nothing against Nelson or Melich but merely makes you wonder at the self-inflicted complications DGT has attached to their public-facing campaign. And it is a campaign.

When I made the decision to ignore anything the company said without third-party corroboration, it was because they appeared to perform a foot-stomping 180 on the promise to release the protocols and names of the internationally recognised independent tests and testers. Like a drowning man clinging to a matchstick, some sought solace in the flimsy wording of the promise. Perhaps all the organisations wanted to remain as secret as Rossi’s customers. Well, a lifetime later we get the protocol and ‘accidental’ release of the names behind a witnessed (albeit hands-on) test that was paid for by someone else.

Taking that step back again, if Defkalion has what they say, they could give it to a wintered-granny to warm her up even as she watched her bills plummet. The test in question is the sort one might perform as part of R&D and not proof of life. Bring it to any university in the world and let them warm a bath with it and then empty it and warm another and another until you rule out cheating and conventional fuels.

I am not accusing DGT of anything except acting suspiciously. It is always possible that I simply misunderstand or do not have some key information that would make legitimate sense of it all. Given the history of the new energy field and the thousands of promises made and broken within a pattern of obfuscation, lies, incredible claims without proof, investor fraud and over-complicated inventor-controlled demos, one would think a company nurturing a real breakthrough would not behave to type. They would shut up until they were ready and when they announced something it would come at us like a hammer-blow, not a soap opera.

I realise in taking this stance, I am probably killing eCatNews. So be it. When my optimism shines my ad revenue can multiply by anything between 20 and a hundred. It is that dramatic. However, as someone with the tendency to trust, I cannot ignore the logic of my observations.

That logic holds out for a possible turn-around by AR and/or DGT. This last report is welcome and may hint at over promising rather than outright deceit but if you have the same tendency as me I urge you to question yourself as much as you should do the motives of others. Do not trust Defkalion. Do not trust Rossi. If the principal players are legit and sane, they will agree that trust does not have a good pedigree among new energy peddlers and they will do their best to demonstrate that they are worthy.

I believe that cold fusion researchers have had a rough ride and I also believe that the stigma surrounding such research has stymied it. By making it a career-killer, unpatentable and unwelcome in peer-reviewed journals, it is starved of new blood and money. When ultra-sceps tell you that negativity cannot hinder progress, they are being disingenuous or naive but be careful of taking that idea too far.

I agree with those who say that asking hard questions about the eCat and other high-power LENR claims will not kill them. If Rossi or DGT are for real, they can squash a million voices using no more than a bath or a granny and a bunch of truly independent testers and they could do it in days.

You can make excuses for them, you can let your distaste of those who would trample on your dreams drive your impulse to friend anyone they mock or you can open your mind – truly open your mind – and wonder why the fuck everything is so damned complicated?

Posted by on October 21, 2012. Filed under Defkalion,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

94 Responses to Defkalion And A Jumble Of Thoughts

  1. JNewman Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Well said, Paul. I agree with you that the rancor and scorn that runs through a great number of posts here is unwelcome and unhelpful. It is the result of frustration on the part of people with polarized opinions. One need look no further than modern politics for very public examples of the same phenomenon. Unfortunately, despite protestations to the contrary, there is little room for the middle ground even in matters related to Rossi and DGT. From the standpoint of believers, either you are “optimistic” and have the betterment of mankind at heart or you are a “pathoskeptic” and are a bitter and evil individual under the thrall of Big Oil. From the standpoint of skeptics, you are either delusional or a shill of Rossi. Either way, all this must eventually play out in the real world. If these miraculous devices are genuine, they will need to find their way into the hands of neutral parties who can verify their existence once and for all. Otherwise, they will remain the grist for internet infotainment. In the meantime, Paul, I think your site provides a forum for fascinating interactions that have value for their own sake.

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 6:38 pm

      Rancour and scorn? This is quite a good example of both:

      “Believe whatever you’d like, GW. I note that you don’t have anything to add to your bullshit about “Naval Research” (NRL? ONR? SPAWAR? Naval Postgraduate School? OSD? Captain Crunch?) I like it better when you just blather about your fantasy island.”

      :)

      • General Zaroff Reply

        October 21, 2012 at 6:41 pm

        We are all guilty of terrible crimes Daniel.

        • daniel maris Reply

          October 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm

          Yes, Generalissimo,

          Great crimes…perhaps…

          But not all of us have been arraigned by the International Court of Human Rights in The Hague. There you have the advantage over us.

          It seems some people feel your attempt to re-establish the Congo Free State, claiming direct descent from King Leopold of the Belgians and using his tried and tested methods was a mistake… Of course your motives were pure: there is no reason to doubt that felling the entire rainforest of the Congo basin would not have solved the world’s energy problems, as you claimed in your book “Seriously Green Energy”. But it appears the rarified world of international jurisprudence has little time for your sort of lateral thinking.

          • Bigwilly

            October 22, 2012 at 3:22 pm

            Bahahahhahah! Excellent post Daniel!

      • JNewman Reply

        October 21, 2012 at 8:40 pm

        Indeed, Daniel. I said that it was not a good thing; I didn’t say that I don’t take part in it. As the General says, hell awaits us all.

        • GreenWin Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 1:28 am

          Some, more than others JN.

        • DvH Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 8:25 am

          hell ? isn’t that the place where they claim excess heat??

  2. Shane D. Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    I don’t see what was so complicated about this DGT test. Was it not a simple calorimetry run the likes of which the skeptics have claimed was necessary to prove beyond a doubt?

    Glycol/H2O in reactor chamber then out. Measure the temp in/temp out… there you have it. They even simplified further by eliminating the gaseous phase and kept it to simple liquid calculation.

    So I’m baffled admin by your belief that any test should be simpler and more obvious?

    Yes, I can see the part about an observer not being in full control, but in this case he had his own equipment to verify, and he did do that.

    Nelson is, as Gibbs described him, “a very serious scientist”, so while this was not truly an independent test, it wasn’t just an observer passively looking on.

    Not perfect, but surely not something that would turn someone into a skeptic as it appears you have now become. Just the opposite in fact.

    Take care. Thanks for keeping this site up. It will be uselful for future scientific study in understanding the irrational minds of skeptics as we transition to a LENR world.

    • admin Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm

      Hi Shane,

      The complications lie in the totality of the drama and not just in this one test. In the case of the test in question, I hope you read that I do not point fingers at the observers and do praise their methodical approach. I also commend Defkalion for allowing them placement and the use of their own instruments but I cannot ignore the prominent word ‘observer’ throughout the report or the fact that it was done on DGT’s premises. I also cannot ignore the fact that the power was kept low (DGT says this was because they were testing the ability to control and not the strength of the reaction which is why I made the internal R&D comment).

      As I said, I accuse the company of nothing but acting suspiciously. When we know why, I may understand better but at this point I simply duly note that while there may be legit reasons for this, it is also easier to fool someone when you keep power low, use your own premises and conduct the test with ‘observers’ present. I stress again that this does not mean that they are cheating but that if they wish to convince anyone but those with a tendency to believe then such tests have to be truly independent and as simple as they need to be to prove the point (you do not need careful calorimetry if you’ve got a bath and 45kW to play with).

      On the question of me being a sceptic… Despite my hope and optimism, i have always been a sceptic. I take that stance because it is the way science works and I trust that method more than I trust unproven claims – or my ability to smell bullshit. A good scientist (which I am not) distrusts his or her own results before other do. I do rile against taking that too far and truly think the weight of evidence points to LENR being worthy of serious public-funded research.

      I also realise that businesses operate in a tough world and give room to the fact that we may be witnessing a mating dance, the rules of which are not yet clear. However, even in that world, I cannot help wonder why it takes so long to deliver ‘proof’ that can so obviously be attacked. In pointing this out, it sounds as though I am attacking those conducting the test. I am not. I just wonder why they don’t do it the easy way.

      With hardly a pause for breath they could knock down every argument there is and do it in days. This announcement seems to demonstrate that they are trying to convince someone but most scientists will see more questions than answers and this then makes you wonder who they are actually trying to convince.

      As I said. No accusations. Only puzzlement and looking forward to that being blown away by the knock-out blow they should be able to deliver.

      Thanks to everyone for your comments.

      Paul

      • Dale G. Basgall Reply

        October 21, 2012 at 5:51 pm

        admin while I was reading your post above the scenario reminded me of an old farmer wanting to sell his old tractor that he has used for years.

        You get there and “he” starts the tractor right up, but you did not see him push the knob, turn the valve when he walked by and so on. That old farmer knew exactly “how” to turn things to make the tractor start first bump of the starter.

        You get it home and can never get it started again. So anyway that is right about the observers in your post and the promoters of the tests.

        There are “pot fillers”, “pot stirrers”, and “pot lickers” and then those that turn up the heat.

      • Shane D. Reply

        October 21, 2012 at 6:30 pm

        Fair enough admin.

        Maybe this will explain some of the reasons the LENR science is developing like no other:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8M0i2fh8lGI

        The earlier witch hunt shaped the field by driving it underground, and what is slowly emerging is suspicious due to the suppression by derision it’s pioneers and new adherents encountered.

      • Ransompw Reply

        October 21, 2012 at 11:07 pm

        Paul:

        Why do think there is an easy way? If Defkalion had a workable commercial product, they would be selling it. So is seems obvious they do not have a working 45Kw reactor. Of course that doesn’t mean they don’t have a reactor that could absolutely convince one of the reality of LRNR. The question is what good would that do them?

        • Quax Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 12:08 am

          Ransompw, a skilled patent attorney could turn a working LENR reactor into solid gold if they can prove a real effect, even if this is not a commercially ready 45 KW unit. Such an attorney could secure key technological aspects without even referencing LENR.

          At that point Defkalion could sell itself to the highest bidder and make its investors and founders very, very wealthy.

          Your notion that proven LENR would have no market value is rather curious.

          • Ransompw

            October 22, 2012 at 1:12 am

            What you say is possible but not necessarily true.

          • spacegoat

            October 22, 2012 at 1:33 am

            I believe it was their CEO or CTO who stated such bids have already been made. They were rejected because the DGT team wish to see this revolution (if it ever occurs) through for themselves. To finish what they started.

          • Shane D.

            October 22, 2012 at 2:13 am

            Quax,

            Not quite so easy it appears. This is from the Brillouin Energy website/history. They did in fact have a highly qualified patent attorney/physicist work for them, and then invest after becoming knowledgable of their product:

            Late in 2005, the company sought and obtained patent counsel from David Slone of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, one of the leading patent firms in the United States. Mr. Slone, who also has a Ph.D. in high-energy physics, was so impressed by Mr. Godes technology that he agreed to write the patents in exchange for an interest in the future revenues of the company.

            After that Brillouin went BK as far as I can tell, and now has resurrected itself, sans Slone. The business world always seems so simple from the outside, but if anyone has ventured within, they soon find out that it is not so easy as it seems.

            You can have a very good product, location, location, etc., but really there is so much more… luck amongst them.

          • Quax

            October 22, 2012 at 5:48 am

            Shane D., seems to me this rather validates my point. LENR technology (assuming it works on some level) would have a definite value even without a working reactor.

            As to spacegoat’s comment, it is of course possible that they want to stay firmly independent. But there are various ways that a buy-out can happen, including a provision to keep on the old management.

        • admin Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 11:58 am

          Hi Ransompw,

          When DGT started their forum last year, they posted quite freely and were very specific in claiming they had control of the reaction and regularly generated multiple kWs at a cop that varied according to the test but never less than 19. If that was true almost a year ago, I don’t see why it is not true now. If it is true and you have such a high power device with a large cop then you do not need careful calorimetry to make your point any more than a butcher needs atomic scissors to cut a joint of meat.

          I believe they say the test did not use high power because they were looking at control. That is the sort of thing you might do in R&D or customer trials but unless it is part of a series that includes high power, it seems counter intuitive to deliberately use a setup with a lower signal to noise ratio. This does not mean they are cheating but does raise the question. As to why they would they do it? By releasing the results of this test they show that they want to convince some people out here that the Hyperion is the real deal. If they have what they said last year there is no need to over complicate things in order to do that.

          I restate my position. I am not accusing them of dodgy dealings but demonstrating my confusion. Perhaps – for some strange reason – this is part of a series released out of turn and we will yet see that uncomplicated, genuinely independent, proof. If I were the type to accuse, I’d say something along the lines of it is far easier to cheat at low(ish) power and reduced cop than with 15kW @ cop 19. People may not like that being said but I guarantee it will be noted by anyone with a scientific bent waiting for definitive answers. It may be enough to persuade a wavering investor but an already sceptical person with technical training will probably remain on pause.

          My point is that this test does not seem designed to convince a scientifically trained person even though it would be simpler than the test they carried out. I await more information before concluding anything. Unlike some, I have no issue with Nelson and find his comment about further tests tantalising. I genuinely want my doubts cast asunder but we are far from that at the moment.

          • Ransompw

            October 22, 2012 at 3:35 pm

            Paul:

            I think what they were saying when married to Rossi is at best irrelevent to what they have now. The early forum answers occurred while they were working with Rossi. I think much of it was at best puffery and at worst outright lies, who knows.

            Defkalion’s problem is they basically started over after the Rossi divorce. Obviously they had some knowledge about what he was doing.

            I agree with you that this whole mess is anything but clear and I await new information before I will believe Defkalion or Rossi, but those on this forum that constantly talk about fraud as though it was a forgone conclusion drive me to distraction. Based on what I see, I don’t think it is nearly that certain.

  3. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Paul that’s why we come here, you don’t stir the pot as you stated above.

    And the granny in the heated water from LENR reminded me of the granny in wheres the Beef! One granny like that sipping a hot toddie in the steam room would be all it takes, that’s the test. The Granny test, that’s cool and would work for me to.

    Things get complicated when a stockpile of variables are present and we don’t hold people to their words. We let the fibs and illusions slip behind instead of facing facts regarding the types of people we follow that keep producing more untruth.

  4. General Zaroff Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Once again I apologize for being rude to some. I am here for self-amusement, but I continually cross the line and offend everyone.

    As atonement for my sins, I offer my services in the following way:
    Ransompw said on the previous thread:
    “…A constant input of course is impossible with the listed protocal so I must assume he thinks the vacuum test pulled in a set amount of o2. Well, what is the size of the reactor? At less ten 1 bar how much o2 is in the system? If it reacts with H2 how much energy is produced? How does that compare with the energy produced in the tests. ”
    and
    “Sure the data Nelson relied on will be interesting when published, but the idea that any of you are in the least bit competent to evaluate it is hysterical. ”

    I am one of the people here who is competent enough to perform the required calculations. But I humbly ask Ransompw to perform the calculations himself, and state all of his assumptions along the way. This will be a great opportunity for him to demonstrate his year and a half of scientific education, and give him something else to say other than railing against the skeptics. I will happily check his results and confirm for anyone who cares if they are accurate, free of charge.

    Until then I will go back to staring into the abyss.

    • Dale G. Basgall Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 7:07 pm

      General since your in that abyss right now how about the observation of spin and the standard model. How can something spin in air or atmosphere indefinitely or until acted upon by some other like elemental force and that sounds secondary as a motion or illusion from oscillation. Are there oscillating particles in the next sub atomic step closer to origin or sourse that are the primary drivers to spin theories and observation?

      Is there some type of particle oscillating within the atom at different speeds prior to the spin being initiated and propelled indefinitely?

      • Quax Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 12:14 am

        Dale, if you are referring to the spin of elemental particles like the electron spin, I suggest you don’t get hung up on the name. There is nothing spinning in the conventional sense. Just like the flavor of quarks doesn’t mean that you can taste them.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 9:52 pm

      I have one word for you, General, or more accurately, one acronym: GIGO.

      • General Zaroff Reply

        October 21, 2012 at 11:47 pm

        Do you mean “garbage in, garbage out”? If so, I am sure you are right. But I just wanted to get Ransompw to demonstrate that he actually has learned some science in the past year like he claims.

    • Ransompw Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 3:12 pm

      General:

      Assuming the size of the reactor is a liter and you need about 22 liters of air at atmosphere to have a mole of air and that oxygen is about 21% of that, so maybe .01 moles of O2 in the reactor and twice as much H2 would react, so say .02 of a mole and given about 240,000 joules of energy per mole of H2, maybe 4000 joules would be the maximum created under Thicket’s Theory or about 1Wh.

  5. PersonFromPorlock Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    I suspect that discussions here fall victim to a very general rule: that as the number of replies increases, the odds that a thread will turn into a pissing contest approach unity.

  6. ts Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    I agree with the admin’s post. I think there are two types: pathosceptics and pro-scientifics. Pathosceptics wouldn’t believe the airplane worked or that the Earth was not the center even when presented with scientific data. Pro-scientifics will believe anything as long as it is backed by irrefutable scientific data. The flip side is pro-scientifics may not believe something not backed by science, especially if the verification is easy. As far as I can tell, almost everyone on this website is pro-scientific.

    People since Jan 2011 on this site and elsewhere, have demanded to have an independent black-box type test where the ecat’s IP is protected. Experts would simply measure the input to verify all the input power is accounted for and not filtered out before measurement. Experts would measure output to verify the exact amount of heat produced by strict calorimetry and not have to worry about steam quality/etc. And, experts would determine how long the test would run to make sure no chemical energy is stored in the black box. This scientific test would silence all the talk on both sides.

    The test demanded above seems to not have been performed yet completely independently. In fact, there seem to have been at least two partially independent Ecat tests where investment money was at stake that failed.

    Once a rigorous, independent scientific test, and not a carefully controlled demo, proves decisively that high power LENR works, I’m sure all the believers in the scientific method will believe in high power LENR, as I will.

    • JNewman Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 8:47 pm

      I can’t argue with what you say, ts. And I sincerely doubt that there are actually any pathological skeptics here. Pathological skeptics are people like flat earthers, Holocaust deniers and moon landing deniers. They deny things for which the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. Anyone who believes this to be the case for cold fusion is pathological in a completely different way. But I think the problem is that such people cannot or at least refuse to make the distinction between denying that cold fusion could exist and denying that it has been proven to exist. Anyone who conflates those two things is not capable of understanding what it means to be skeptical.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm

      “Experts would simply measure the input to verify all the input power is accounted for and not filtered out before measurement. Experts would measure output to verify the exact amount of heat produced by strict calorimetry and not have to worry about steam quality/etc. And, experts would determine how long the test would run to make sure no chemical energy is stored in the black box. This scientific test would silence all the talk on both sides.”
      -
      This is what I and others asked for almost two years ago from Rossi, Defkalion, Swartz, Miley, Nonspire, Brillouin and others. NOBODY WILL DO IT. You’re exactly right. Those tests are what are needed and they would then need to be replicated by another team at least once.

      That is ALL that is needed to silence skeptics. And nobody will do it.

      • Alain Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        isn’t it what is done…

        -full power metering with wattmeter. calibration of the wattmeter with other tools to eliminate doubt.
        -flow calorimetry in liquid phase (even if there is bubble, as said it became liquid finally). calibration with blank run to eliminate doubt.
        - high level of power and COP to have undeniable COP>1 whatever is the error band in a real world (200% error needed to cancel result. Even pretended tricky Rossi ampmeter would not trick it).
        - duration long enough to exclude chemical sources.
        - good cooperation of Defkalion (without the Rossi style of paranoia) that reduce risk of magician tricks.
        - independent and competent tester that have an history of skepticism, and no risk of national prejudice (even the opposite, since Rossi is US, not DGT).
        - a tester with no financial incentive from sponsor (just expense paid), and big professional incentive to deny (member of a mainstream organization).

        all is in the report.

        I’m just not surprised that when someone propose you what you ask, you reject it…
        That is typical and expected.

        If you integrate that result with many other results, scientific, or business, it is no surprise.
        Thus no surprise that with the same level of proof, you take the same level of denial.

        This message is useless like trying to convince a priest or a conspiracy fan. I’ve tested before…

        do you have enough self-supervision to see what happens to you? what is your own behavior ?

  7. Al Potenza Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    This about Uri Geller (an old and despicable crook and thief and liar) from the old string was interesting:

    “spacegoat Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Thanks for an answer instead of the humbug by JNewman and John Millstone.

    Interesting about Feynman.

    Still, the list is long, and if peer review is so valuable, how did spoon bending get into Nature”.

    The way it got into Nature magazine is by mistake. Targ and Puthoff were rudely bamboozled by Geller. They missed his trickery which magicians such as James Randi and one of the editors of Popular Photography magazine and Johnnie Carson readily caught.

    The article was later retracted with apology by Nature.

    Do your own homework. Here is a syllabus from a university classroom devoted to clear thinking:

    http://www.wayofscience.info/unit1part2.html

    Belief in Geller represents a lowest common denominator of gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills. Congratulations.

    • spacegoat Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 1:43 am

      How about you read followed by a PAUSE before prejudice kicks in. Your understanding would be much improved.

      I stated I was not interested in the Geller story = no opinion about Geller, so why an earth would I wish to do homework on Geller.

      The story was merely a framework for understanding how pathoskeptics work: I now understand they take a list of scientific references and evaluate their scientific worth on the basis of the document that cites them. Thus Geller story references => ridicule and disbelief.

      Pathos run on hot prejudice.

      Only Jami was able to answer without prejudice. Credit to him.

  8. John Milstone Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Paul, you say:

    I do not like the insults hurled

    And yet you throughout your commentary use the term “ultra-sceps” to describe those who don’t blindly accept the unsubstantiated claims made by Rossi and DGE.

    I don’t see you using a similarly condescending term for those who make huge leaps of faith without the facts to back them up.

    LENR is more credible than, say magnet motors (a la Stoern), but it’s still “fringe science”. It needs solid, even overwhelming, evidence before it should be taken seriously.

    And yet, in spite of all the researchers over a quarter of a century, we still don’t have that overwhelming evidence.

    Even worse, those who claim to have devices that could easily provide that evidence refuse to do so. Just like every other free-energy scammer throughout history.

    The way to prove LENR is to prove LENR, not out argue the “ultra-sceps”. And, in 25 years, no one has been able to do so.

    FYI, I’m here primarily because it’s interesting to see how self-delusional the Rossi (and DGE) believers are. A perfect example from the just-released pre-test document (since it didn’t actually include any real test result data). One of the True Believers announced that because the PDF happened to contain an “Owner” embedded field filled to “NASA”, therefore NASA must endorse and support whatever the PDF said. Of course, as anyone who actually has worked in the real world would recognize, that field is there because the person who generated the report happened to use his work laptop, with software provided by his employer. That’s all. But, in the mind of the “True Believer” it’s proof positive that NASA “believes” in LENR just as much as they do.

    I’ve “wasted” far too much time here. Maybe this is (finally) the verge of an energy revolution unlike anything we’ve seen. But it looks a lot more like Keely/Papp/Newman/Stoern/Blacklight/”anyone hyped by Sterling Allan”/etc./etc.

    Even as you come to grips with the likely fact that this is all just another fraud (a la Stoern), you still want to side with the Believers and criticize those were right (but right too early). So be it. I’ll take a break from posting here (to the great cheers of Meth (the nutter) and Ransom and a few others).

    If the world should actually flip on its axis and Rossi and/or DGE really do prove that they have what they claim, I’ll come back briefly to make my apologies.

    But I won’t be holding my breath for apologies from the True Believers, no matter how obvious it becomes that Rossi is continuing his long-established trade of criminal fraud (with DGE being a willing or unwilling accomplice). They have already shown a complete lack of critical thinking. They think you can “wish” LENR to be true.

    Well, good luck with that.

  9. Thicket Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    I’m back from a nice weekend at the cottage. :)

    I see that Ransom has taken the opportunity to post his typical lawyer-speak tripe about me running away. It’s just another example of his petulant, bombastic deceit. Let me return the favour in kind. I expect a quick response from you Ransom, or it’s obvious to me that you’re a lily-livered, yellow-bellied coward who runs away from a debate. Be quick about it. The minutes are ticking away. (My apologies to admin. Paul. You’re a better man than I am when it comes to turning the other cheek.)

    There sure is a lot of bunk being posted about vacuum tests.

    First, to do a leak test under vacuum is absurd. Have any of you actually ever tried to find a leak in a vacuum system? It’s very hard, sometimes bordering on impossible. There is usually no sound. You can’t analyse the surrounding air to find where the leak is. The best way to find a vacuum leak is to shut down the process and pressure it up. If you’re lucky, you can hear the leak. After that, you can try something simple like a soap test around flanges, threads, valves and other equipment. If you still can’t find the leak, you can be more sophisticated by injecting helium or hexafluoride into your process and then using a portable analyzer to find the leak.

    Leaks that drop pressure in a process are macroscopic, not molecular, so the comment about the hydrogen molecule size being smaller than air is meaningless. This is a good example of folks with a bit of knowledge reaching the wrong conclusion.

    Also, remember that vacuum leak testing was just one of several stupidities done by Defkalion. It’s the one that Ransom picked on because because he has some familiarity with it, since that’s what he has between his ears.

    I don’t know how much oxygen leaked into the Defkalion system. I don’t know what vacuum level they got down to. Someone assumed 0 bar, but that’s an assumption. I don’t know if Defkalion stopped the vacuum test, let the unit sit, and then pressured it up with hydrogen. If it sat, then 0.21 atmospheres of oxygen partial pressure would be in the process. What I do know is that it’s stupid to try to find leaks under vacuum when you can pressure up a process.

    Did oxygen play a significant role in this experiment? None of us know. We’ll probably never find out. What is known is that Defkalion’s overall test method was absurd. Doing a vacuum leak test is just one of the absurdities.

    It’s sometimes frustrating and often funny trying to debate something obvious with folks who have no practical experience with the subject being discussed.

    • Ransompw Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm

      So Thicket if it had .21 atmospheres of oxygen when it was pressurized with hydrogen how much energy was produced from your assumed chemical reaction and how does it compare to the total energy produced?

      • Thicket Reply

        October 21, 2012 at 11:30 pm

        You figure it out Ransom. While I don’t mind doing some work or research for folks I respect, including some believers, you’re not one of them.

        • Ransompw Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 1:15 am

          Oh brother. It was your point, you would think you’d want to defend it.

      • GreenWin Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 12:41 am

        Ransompw, you must not challenge nibblers to actually do work.

    • Frank Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 11:40 pm

      It’s one of ‘Defkalion secrets’ why they evacuate the reactor before operation. In order to check for leakage it doesn’t make sense because it’s complicated (vacuum pump) and even when the system is perfect ‘vacuum-tight’ it doesn’t guarantee you in any way that it is still tight under 15 bar over-pressure. Gaskets/connections may be perfect tight ‘in one direction’ but leaking ‘in the other direction’. And in addition to that 15 bar over-pressure is 15 times more pressure difference to ambient pressure than -1 bar (perfect vacuum). Therfore, if you want to be sure that a system is tight under operating conditions, you need to apply that pressure under which you operate the system later.
      If the reason for the vacuum is that they want to make sure that the reactor is dry and there is no oxygen in the system, then they can do this in a simpler way: Just flush the system with an inert gas (and if necessary followed by a short Hydrogen flush).

      • Ransompw Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 5:55 am

        Frank:

        They also heat the reactor after holding a vacuum. Why is unclear but it may have operational significance.

        Thicket’s point was that with a leak and given the vacuum protocal, oxygen was in the reactor for the test and Nelson misidentified the chemical reaction for a nuclear one.

        I questioned this theory and believe it is silly. That was the point of my post to Thicket.

        Nelson’s conclusions may turn out to be in error but not for that reason. My real issue with many of the sceptics here is their reaction to this report,

        First, for months now most have posted over and over that the report of tests was untrue even when I suggested that I had good information that some had taken place.
        Second, when the report comes out, none of the sceptic clan acknowledged that their suspicions had been in error and instead attacked the report viciously (including character assasination of Nelson).I believe this reaction shows a clear bias on those sceptics posting. In my opinion many will not accept (or consider the possibility) positive results because they are invested in their opinions which are almost more important to them now than the subject itself.

        • Frank Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 6:52 am

          I questioned this theory…

          That’s right, the remaining oxygen alone (together with the subsequent) added hydrogen can not be accounted for the claimed ‘excess heat’.

          However, with some wild imagination you could even suspect that in the gas bottle is not pure Hydrogen, but a combustible gas-mixture (already including O2).
          This “idea” is just for ‘educational’ purpose (one may do the calculation to check if that would be theoretically possible and how many gas ‘refills’ would be required if you assume 1 liter volume of the reactor and 14 bar @ 400C) – in terms of safety it would be a bad idea to have a such a gas bottle next to your table!
          It should just illustrate that if someone wants to cheat there are plenty of ways to do it – and among all of them also some safe and simple ways (e.g. wrong setup for the el power measurement which can’t measure the power for the spark plugs).
          From the “report” and the video we have seen, the test leaves open many ‘options’ for unintentional errors as well as for intentional deception.
          And when I consider the wrong information we got from Defkalion (reports about hundreds operational Hyperions etc.) one year ago, why should I trust them now?

          • Ransompw

            October 22, 2012 at 2:32 pm

            Frank:

            The first spark would ignite the whole shoting match in the pressurized reactor, wouldn’t it. There would be NO control, NO sustained release of energy. I don’t think such an event would be missed by Nelson. By the way what would happen to the pressure, would it exhibit a slow leak?

          • Frank

            October 22, 2012 at 10:25 pm

            Right, it would be much to complicated to construct the inner part of the reactor in a way, that only small portions of the combustible gas get’s ignited (a seperate reservoir, a combustion chamber…) a that’s why I said, there would be simpler ways to cheat…

        • MaxS Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 8:57 am

          another thing: I cannot believe they seriously present a test report based on a “leaking” reactor. It can hardly be more unprofessional. This tells us they must be far away from a commerical product.
          I imagine you have such a heater in your house leaking hydrogen, you smoke a last cigarette and ….
          I wonder did they learn about the apparatus design from The Prophet ?

        • Alain Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 2:35 pm

          note that when the leak was discovered, they stopped the test and dumped results…

          moreover if there is leak, with high pressure gaz inside, the gaz get out, and heat get out… so about calorimetry the ratio is negative.

          if hydrogen burn with air and finally succeed improbably in heating the reactor anyway, it does not explain a quantity of heat much above any chemical reaction inside.

          there is no escape.
          it work and it is nuclear.

          please look at you own thinking procedure. make a BIOS self test.

  10. buffalo Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    well,lets hope the MFMP will be able to verify something soon.something clear.something direct.something live.that should crank up some hope here.

  11. Al Potenza Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    RobiD said: “This is why Rossi doesn’t want to do public demonstration, even if God in person will tell you that the COP is greater than 1 you will say that he is a liar.
    I have a suggestion for you. Stop reading about LENR and Cold Fusion, go outside, have fun with your friends and your girl, and coming back, let’s say, in a couple of years.”

    -
    Rossi first announced his ecat in early 2010. How long did you say we have to wait? Have we not waited long enough while enduring a virtual avalanche of ridiculous claims, each more outrageous than the previous one? Here is the Rossi chronology in case you’ve forgotten it (how soon believers forget!):

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiTimeline.shtml

    • Al Potenza Reply

      October 21, 2012 at 11:57 pm

      Weird… it looked as if this message failed to post and then some time later it appeared. Maybe the fault is my browser cache. Who knows?

  12. Al Potenza Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    The forum is again refusing to post messages with even a single link. I tried to link the Rossi time line from Krivit’s site to educate ardent believer robiD (from the previous string) who has obviously forgotten it.

    You can google rossi and timeline to find it.

    robiD suggests waiting two more years. So how many years have Defkalion and Rossi been claiming to have dozens of kilowatts on the desktop? (Hint: more than two years and counting) And how many times have they properly proven it? (hint: ZERO)

    What about that robiD?

  13. Thicket Reply

    October 21, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    Daniel

    This is in response to your query about Michael Nelson from the previous thread.

    You ask things politely, so I will answer politely.

    You may recall Nelson’s NASA presentation regarding Rossi. While I don’t remember all the specifics, Nelson mentioned his interest in over-unity motors. This is perpetual motion. I think he also mentioned SEARL (anti-gravity) and the Papp Engine.

    Nelson describes himself: ‘I have an open mind to consider what others might consider to be impossible.’

    Nelson attendance at the Defkalion presentation is being paid for by some free energy foundation. Although I have a link to their website, it was down on Friday, and is down today. ‘Free energy’ is synonymous with perpetual motion. It’s the sanitized words currently applied to devices that break the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Nelson is standing in for Michael Melich who is known as a pseudoscience nutter.

    Nelson is hardly an impartial observer.

    Nevertheless, I don’t want to be too harsh on him yet. Despite Nelson’s desire to believe Rossi’s claims, his support was lukewarm at best after Rossi’s antics at NASA.

    I also note that Nelson’s technical credentials, while impressive in his field of study and work, do little to qualify him as a competent observer of a purported cold fusion device.

    Regardless, even a very competent observer can be fooled by a witness test run by the technology proponent. A true third party validation is needed of any breakthrough technology, and the Defkalion test was anything but this.

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 12:08 am

      Thicket –

      Your post is full of surmise, Humpty-Dumpty definitions, half remembered quotes and contentious conclusions.

      I don’t see why any of us should take it seriously.

      My observations:

      “Free Energy” (though I would argue a misnomer) has never been synonymous with “perpetual motion”.
      Cold fusion is often referred to (incorrectly) as free energy and that – if it exists – is most definitely NOT perpetual motion.

      I don’t see why a scientist can’t have a wish to investigate what others might think impossible. If that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have Einsteinian physics; powered flight; people having walked on the Moon – all sorts of stuff.

      I note you appear to think DGT is a fraudulent organisation carrying out a criminal enterprise. I can’t think of any other reason you would adopt this approach to the issue.

      Why not just say: this is an interesting test – let’s see if they can really prove they have the technology over time.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 12:48 am

        “I note you appear to think DGT is a fraudulent organisation carrying out a criminal enterprise. I can’t think of any other reason you would adopt this approach to the issue.”
        -
        Hey, you grasped it! Finally. DGT acts in every way as an investor/distributor fraud. They demand huge sums of money ($40M per country) for distributorships. They tried to get millions from Dick Smith. They claimed desktop powerful reactors almost two years ago. And this pitiful demo is the best they can come up with now? After all this time?

        “Why not just say: this is an interesting test – let’s see if they can really prove they have the technology over time.”

        -
        Why not? For a very simple reason. It doesn’t take years to go from what they claim they have to a convincing independent test. It takes weeks. They’re obviously either grossly incompetent or scamming liars or both.

  14. GreenWin Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 12:14 am

    While discussing timelines for private investment in cold fusion, let’s talk about taxpayer investment and timelines in hot fusion:

    “We are a year away from scientific feasibility of it, proving it could work. We’re a decade away of proving this at commercial scale.” Ed Moses, Director National Ignition Facility, Feb, 2012

    “Five billion dollars over its original budget and years behind schedule, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) deserves to be recognized as perhaps the biggest and fattest white elephant of all time.” National Ignition Facility: Mother of All Boondoggles? IEEE Spectrum 9/2012

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/national-ignition-facility-mother-of-all-boondoggles

    Difference of course is LENR, Rossi/Focardi et al have invested only their own money – no taxpayer money and already produce over-unity energy. But taxpayers have been fleeced for $273B over the last 60 years with ZERO, NADA, not one single watt of useable energy from hot fusionistas. Not one.

    Even those who know “Mike” have to accept, hot fusion claims these past 60 years are closer to “criminal fraud” than those who take no taxpayer money at all.

  15. Jay2011 Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 12:17 am

    There’s a joke regarding the difference between theorists and experimentalists that goes something like this: When a theorist puts forth a theory, nobody believes it except for the theorist; when an experimentalist publishes the results of an experiment, everyone believes it except for the experimentalist. In other words, experimentalists are born skeptics. At least the good ones are, if they are to anticipate all of the things that could possibly go wrong and make certain their experiment has sufficient controls and crosschecks to rule all of these things out. And even then, mistakes can be made, e.g. the CERN faster-than-light neutrinos. I don’t think one must be a PhD physicist to be a good experimentalist, although it helps. But it does take a very broad background knowledge in a wide range of disciplines, and years of experience in the school of hard knocks to get a feeling for all of the thousands of things that can go wrong. Don’t know anything about Mr. Nelson, but any one or any ten observers can be wrong, whether they are representing CERN, NASA, NRL or themselves, whether they are professors at prestigious universities or not (and I’ve known plenty of professors who were good professors but pretty hopeless in the lab). And even a good experimental scientist may not make a good independent observer, as they are often susceptible to misdirection.

    So I agree with admin’s post on this, although I don’t care for the derogatory label of ultra-skep. As far as the DGT experiment, there’s really not much to say since no data has been published. I don’t have a problem with the protocol in general. But there’s a big difference between an independent replication and and observed demo. I think admin is correct, for an observed demo to be remotely convincing it has to show something big, e.g. heat a bathtub of water with 1/10th the electricity it would take and a few grams of reactor volume, or close the loop with something like a stirling engine and show you can drive a load for an extended period of time.

    Flow calorimetry can be convincing for independent replications and is a natural method for proving excess heat if COP is only slightly greater than unity. If DGT went through a process of independently calibrating every sensor, then put the thing together and ran a few control runs showing that the numbers agree and COP = 1, then ran with H2 and demonstrated a COP significantly higher than 1 and significantly higher than the uncertanties of the calibrations, and ran for a sufficiently long time as to rule out any conventional power sources, then I would begin to take notice. But I still would withhold judgement until independent replications conducted at reliable institutions confirmed the measurements. That’s not being an ultra-skep. That’s the way any experienced experimentalist would look at things.

    And regarding control experiments, I don’t have a problem with the argon measurement, but it’s not sufficient. I would like to see other control experiments, e.g. using a known dead or inert catalyst, but still using H2 gas in the reactor.

    • spacegoat Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 1:57 am

      A good read.

      ” If DGT went through a process of independently calibrating …”

      Hopefully final reports will yield this.

  16. GreenWin Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 12:20 am

    “Nelson is standing in for Michael Melich who is known as a pseudoscience nutter.” Thicked

    Oh dear… Does the United States Navy know this??

    IGZ-2013 Thickeds Welcome

    • Al Potenza Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 12:49 am

      I suspect they do.

    • GreenWin Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 12:54 am

      JNewman, does Mike know he’s a “pseudoscience nutter??”

      • JNewman Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 1:20 am

        Does any pseudoscience nutter embrace the term? I would not think to ask him, but I am sure he thinks of himself as open-minded and not trapped by dogma. Just like you.

        • GreenWin Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 1:33 am

          Do you suppose that SECNAV agrees with Thicked and Al, that Dr. Melich is a “pseudoscience nutter?”

          • JNewman

            October 22, 2012 at 2:05 am

            I would hazard a guess that Ray Mabus has never heard of Mike Melich or most of the other multiple thousands of scientists who work at the various Navy labs and facilities. What in the world is your point?

            Actually, since I am endeavoring to answer your questions, how about you giving a straight answer to one of mine? What is the purpose of your endless tirades about hot fusion here? Put another way, do you seriously believe that there is some sort of existential zero-sum game in the universe that adds credence to cold fusion if you subtract it from hot fusion?

          • GreenWin

            October 22, 2012 at 6:16 am

            JNewman, from a slightly less oblique angle let’s see how you’ve answered your own question:

            “What is the purpose of your endless tirades about [cold] fusion here? Put another way, do you seriously believe that there is some sort of existential zero-sum game in the universe that adds credence to [hot] fusion if you subtract it from [cold]fusion?”

            Elementary, isn’t it? And while you might “hazard a guess,” it is worthless to adherents of the scientific method. But not to viewers of IGZ-2013!

          • JNewman

            October 22, 2012 at 1:15 pm

            That is your idea of a straight answer? Oh well…

          • Ivy Matt

            October 23, 2012 at 1:51 pm

            “What is the purpose of your endless tirades about [cold] fusion here? Put another way, do you seriously believe that there is some sort of existential zero-sum game in the universe that adds credence to [hot] fusion if you subtract it from [cold]fusion?”

            If you seriously believe any of the skeptics here are so possessed of magical thinking that they actually believe that, then I must congratulate you for having spent so much time here without having learned a blessed thing.

  17. Quax Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 12:23 am

    I really enjoyed spacegoat bringing up (not endorse) the Uri Geller story. He is certainly the gold standard and ultimate case model for how scientific authorities can be bamboozled. Also it ties neatly back to this forum as I recall Doug mentioning once that Dick Smith got involved in the Australian skeptics society due to Uri Geller (please correct me if I misremember this). Bet there’s a good story there.

    Anyhow, he didn’t fool Richard Feynman (and fortunately there were no explosions involved).

    • Frank Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 1:28 am

      I’m sure that even ‘open minded’ ones don’t believe that David Copperfield can actually overcome gravity when he shows some levitation tricks on stage – and they try to find in that perfect illusion the strings attached. Anyone who would state that he is certain that David Copperfield is able to fly, would be called a fool..

      But when some doubtful individuals demonstrate in a sloopy way their ‘revolutionary free energy’ gadgets, we should uncritically believe them ??? The ones who demand solid proof get called patho-sceptics???

      Defkalions flow meter was about 10% off – how many other flaws (e.g. wrong power measurement of the el. spikes by the spark-plugs etc.) in their test setup do we have to expect? Not to talk about plenty of possibilities for intentional deception…

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 2:45 am

      I don’t recall him fooling manyu professors of physics at ancient seats of learning…perhaps you remember otherwise…

  18. GreenWin Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 12:52 am

    “…the gold standard and ultimate case model for how scientific authorities can be bamboozled.”

    On the contrary, Geller’s tricks never fleeced the taxpayer. The political, scientific and military authorities that have been bamboozled by the hot fusion scam, make IT by far the gold standard.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 1:38 am

      What crappolla! Geller never tried to fleece the government. I’m sure the thousands or millions of people he fooled with phony spoon bending, moving compass needles with hidden magnets, and claiming to influence the outcome of sporting events netted him dozens of millions of dollars before you even get to his idiotic books and lectures. He’s a wealthy man and he didn’t get there legitimately.

      But he did fleece tax payers technically in the sense that the millions of people who he flummoxed undoubtedly paid taxes including, in Uri Geller’s case, a stupidity tax.

      • GreenWin Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 6:25 am

        The hot fusion scam has cost taxpayers $273+ Billion over 60 years. The return in promised “unlimited energy” is ZERO. Geller earned his money just as a magician, or (sorry Al) professional denialist does… making believe.

        IGZ-2013 Take Swim Lessons Al!

        • Al Potenza Reply

          October 22, 2012 at 4:31 pm

          Geller lied to people and cheated them. He claimed his performances were real where in reality, they were sleight of hand. Bad and obvious sleight of hand.

    • Quax Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 8:01 am

      Greenwin, military authorities have hot fusion toys aplenty with their H-bomb arsenal. They are just not allowed to play with them any more, hence the NIF.

  19. General Zaroff Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 12:59 am

    May I present to you General Zaroff’s theory that Ransompw is, in fact, Andrea Rossi.

    Consider the evidence. Ransompw:
    1. Has spent years in court, probably lying for a lot of that time.
    2. He has claimed affiliation with NASA to gain credibility.
    3. He makes outlandish claims, like how he has learned a lot of science in the past couple of years.
    4. He refuses to prove those claims, even when third-party independent verification is offered for free.
    5. He gets furious with those who disagree with him, calling them names.

    If you don’t believe me, just ask yourself, have you ever seen Ransompw and Rossi in the same place at the same time? I haven’t.

    • GreenWin Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 1:19 am

      Generale,

      1) Where is your proof? Notarized by at least two witnesses.

      2) NASA’s support for AGW and LENR somehow tarnishes credibility, no?

      3) Two years of science is about all a graduate with a BS degree actually does.

      4) Military despots such as yourself do not constitute “independent verification.”

      5) His name calling seems quite justified.

      The “Ancient Symbols” quiz on IGZ beckons Generale. Think of the pickup lines you’ll have at hand with a big TV-Q rating!

    • Al Potenza Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 1:35 am

      ROTFWL!

    • Ransompw Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 5:17 am

      The General’s posts always have a surreal aspect to them but he seems to be getting further and further from reality. General if you and your coherts think I have been name calling, I think a little self evaluation may be in order.

    • Alexvs Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 7:04 am

      Well eh… he does not write in capitals.

  20. Production Engineer Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 2:16 am

    Any ecatnews from ecatnews.com on Rossi’s amazing 1 mill. Ecat per annum robot factory?

    DGT have turned LENR ‘research’ into a free ticket out of a lie-riddled, imploding Greece to Canada … what’s that worth?

    Lie-riddled, imploding Italy is the other bastion of Ecat research we are told.

    NDA, claims, counter-claims, lies, half-truths. In the end, if you lie down with dogs you get fleas. Truthful, honest people do not behave like DGT and Rossi, who clearly have zero respect for others but only their own selfish interests (whatever they maybe).

    Move on, the atom will give up its secrets to anybody …. but the world will only listen to truth-tellers.

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 2:40 am

      Italy’s finances are improving. Please keep up with the business pages.

  21. Pierre Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 2:23 am

    No proof.

    • Alain Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

      marc gibbs, a skeptic, have called the author Nelson, and the author said that he was missioned by a NGO…

      1- he did not deny having attended the test
      2- he did not reject anything from the test results

      So Nelson is clearly supporting, that this report is his own, and thus, either it is truth, or Nelson is a liar and organize the fraud with DGT.

      please compute.

  22. Methusela Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 7:18 am

    Looking at Gibb’s latest article, “Joshua Cude” is spamming the comment section. The sneering style is exactly the same as Popeye’s.

    • JNewman Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 10:40 pm

      Other than to say “and so?”, I grant that you have much expertise in the area of sneering styles.

      • Methusela Reply

        October 25, 2012 at 7:11 am

        Same style of block quoting vast tracts of another person’s comments, and sneering at them.

  23. Alexvs Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Very fair from you Mr Admin.

    A possibility about Defkalion / Rossi claims might be that perhaps once upon a time as both were collaborating (I cannot provide the link but believe me, there was a time they were working together), an experiment had been successful for a short period of time not knowing why. In the absence of a solid theory, without having controlled all environmental conditions surrounding the experiment, they became so enthusiastic to involve theirselves in a commercialization race which drives nowhere. So that they are now in the same point as months ago, i.e. trying to replicate after success/error method a non understood phenomenon.

  24. spacegoat Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 7:39 am

    From Quax’s link on the great R. Feynman’s visit to U. Geller:

    “the only way to find the trick is to be damn sure it’s a trick, and not to be ready to think that it might not be”

    Perhaps this is the essential distinction we have been looking for between Believer and Skeptic. Perhaps that quest can now halt? Feynman’s writing is notably absent of sneering and insults.

    On another subject, Arthur Clarke’s three “laws” of prediction:

    1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
    2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
    3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    All three of these laws appear to condemn the pathoskeptic to ignorance.

    • Alexvs Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 7:46 am

      Please revisit “Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können” (eng. Prolegomena to a coming metaphysics that could appears as a Science).
      Immanuel Kant’s authority also does count.

      • spacegoat Reply

        October 22, 2012 at 1:46 pm

        What is Prolegomena?
        Please remind us what Kant said on this subject.

    • Thicket Reply

      October 22, 2012 at 4:28 pm

      Arthur C. Clarke was a great science FICTION writer.

      • Methusela Reply

        October 24, 2012 at 8:08 am

        So are YOU!

  25. Bernie Koppenhofer Reply

    October 22, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    The quote below is from the 11/29/2011 article in Ny Teknik written by Mats Lewan
    This proves to me whatever Defkalion has it was stolen from Rossi. It is my opinion Defkalion is a shell game, Rossi is the real deal.

    “- Let’s say I have Rossi’s formula, but I do not say it officially. My scientists have found a way to accomplish it. They need three months.
    It said Alexandros Xanthoulis, representative of Defkalion Green Technology ‘s owner, the New Technology in a telephone call on August 5 this year.
    - I know what is in the reactor. I know everything. It was done with spectroscopy at Siena University of Padova (…) They tested the reactor without [Rossi] knew what they were doing, he continued.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>