This was three days late, but that is now legally moot. (But see Better late than never, or better let sleeping dogs lie?)
I have compiled a merge of the IH Counter-Complaint with the Rossi Answer paragraphs, so that they may easily be seen together, and I added links to exhibit files, again for convenience. This now outlines the counterclaim case.
Those who have been looking for a Wabbit won’t find it here, the Answer is mostly formulaic denial. (But something is described below that is truly remarkable, amazing that Rossi counsel let this by. It’s not a Wabbit but a Toad, as in “I toad you so.”
There are some claims of interest, but almost no specific evidence is indicated. There are no attachments.
Continue reading “Rossi answers the countercomplaint”
This is a DRAFT. I’m publishing it in case some corrections might appear, but this has not been put into final form, necessarily.
In this case, the “devil” is the late Douglas Morrison. I have seen a cold fusion advocate express the opinion that Morrison is roasting in hell. However, of course, if Morrison is the Devil, he would simply be sitting beside a fire at home…. or in it, and not suffering, since Satan is made of fire.
I don’t wish hell for any human, because … what if I make mistakes myself? What if am as stupid as a flounder? We all can be seriously stupid when we become personally involved, the attachments make us stupid.
I’ve read that discussion before, but I found it confusing. Why? Idiotic ideas can be confusing, to be sure, but did Fleischmann’s arguments stand out as the soul of clarity, clearly visible against the backdrop of Morisson’s alleged stupidity? Apparently not. Why not? Is it because Fleischmann was wrong? I don’t think so. I think there were other causes, and that’s what I will be looking for, here.
Continue reading “Sympathy for the Devil, part 1”
One of the common afflictions of internet discussion is trolling. Trolling is behavior that generally seeks to irritate or enrage participants, it is a move in a social game that seeks to win by upsetting the opponent. It is possible, at least in theory, for a troll to be ‘sincere,’ but merely ignorant. Having no mind-reading crystal ball, I assess trolling by effect, both actual and inferred.
A characteristic of trolls is that argument is endless. No matter what has come before, the troll will assert that his points have been completely established, and that resistance is futile, and stupid.
When trolling is allowed, discussion quality declines. There is, however, a strong anarchist bent to internet communities, and so trolling may be permitted. There is an audience that loves to see the conflict.
Lenr-forum traffic appears to have declined, there are fewer comments than I was accustomed to seeing. However, today brought these, so far. I will examine them from the point of view of trolling.:
Continue reading “Trolling on lenr-forum”
Kirk Shanahan is the last critic of LENR to be published on the topic in a peer-reviewed journal. Jed Rothwell is a long-standing supporter of LENR, an editor of scientific papers and translator from Japanese.
A post on lenr-forum from THHuxley looks at conflict between Jed Rothwell and Kirk Shanahan and draws conclusions about LENR. First of all, the participants:
Continue reading “Commentary: Details matter”
I have been “permanently banned” on lenr-forum.com, a major LENR discussion site. I have already been commenting here on some issues raised there, this is now a necessity, if I’m to comment at all. Criticism and commentary is welcome here or there. I am continuing to watch lenr-forum.com at this time.
So this first post on lenr-forum.com will cover the ban. What preceded it?
Continue reading “Commentary: Lenr-forum.com”
Krivit is a co-author of this Scientific American article, but this is mostly about Krivit’s point of view. Ravnitzky is relatively unknown, he is an editor for Krivit’s new book series. The new books are published by Pacific Oak Press. I find no books other than Krivit’s published by this publisher. All it takes is money.
This is a review of the article.
Continue reading “Scientific American hoaxed”
Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces
This is a Widom-Larsen paper, published on arXiv in 2006, last version 2007. From comments by Widom and Larsen on New Energy Times, the intention was to submit this to a refereed journal. That apparently never happened.
This is the beginning of a review of that paper.
Continue reading “Critique: Widom-Larsen Theory”
Let’s just start with the Mpemba effect. This is totally cool!
Wikipedia, current article.
I came across this from a comment on E-catworld.com in a discussion of Water Behavior Surprises — Freezing at High Temperatures in Carbon Nanotubes
Continue reading “The Mpemba effect and cold fusion”
In Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society.
My interest being community process, always, I decided to study the comments on this article as they stand today. I may update this. Italics indicate quoted material. I have quoted the comments in their entirety, because cherry-picking (even if motivated without intention to bias) could create bias.
Continue reading “Discussion on C&EN”
This was written as a response on lenr-forum.com, but became long and I decided this is worth a post here.
AlainCo wrote: If you came with 1% error, and an anomaly of 10%, a skeptic will bash you as “you have unaccounted error sources”, which is probably right, but not by 10%.
I consider it necessary in this field to stop worrying about skeptics, be skeptical oneself, and design controlled experiments for testing hypotheses, including exploring the parameter space, not for proving things to skeptics.
Continue reading “COP is a red herring – what matters is reality of an effect”
A discussion on lenr-forum led me to this musing. Eddington was quoted there.
“Never trust an experimental result until it has been confirmed by theory.”.
This led me to look at a 1978 New York times article, For a Nobel Math Prize, by Paul R. Chernoff, a mathematician, of course.
I guess I give it away by the post title. This later was the subject of a reaction: The most bizarre article
(and how is it connected with “Cold fusion community.”)
Draft. If you are reading this on an archive site, be sure to check the original URL for updates, corrections, retractions, etc.
Continue reading “What is Infusion Institute?”
Michael W Wolf Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax • 21 hours ago
It is said that a good lawyer could represent either side. What arguments can you give in rossi’s favor. Or are you just an IH hack? If all you can give is pro IH interpretation, then you are not a good lawyer at all. Well, you spend a lot of time here, so….
I’m not a lawyer at all, much less a “good” one. However, I decided to give this a shot.
Continue reading “Argument in Rossi’s favor”
When I engage with a topic, beginning to read about it and comment, researching points, being corrected, and all that, there comes a time where I have a relatively deep knowledge. And then people show up with obviously much less knowledge, but totally certain of their position and contemptuous of others.
This post is about a plea for civility and a defense of Rossi, and my response looks to the roots of belief.
Continue reading “Sympathy for the Inventor”
I was asked on lenr-forum, “Which, by the way, disproved the arguments you used to make about Woodford’s involvement, as now we see they did see the plant, twice, and then decided to invest–there was direct interaction. If there were tensions and troubles, why did Darden bring them by in August?”
This question has often been asked by Planet Rossi, following Rossi himself, who attempts to make hay with the visits and what he imagines that Darden told the Woodford representatives.
— Alcoholics Anonymous saying.
I just built this and it’s quite a mess, but … I’m just going to sit and wait for someone to show up; until then I’ll just do what I feel like doing, but one thing is certain. Here, I’ll stay out of trouble. Or will I? Wanna help?
This domain is dedicated as a place for the community of interest in cold fusion to meet and discuss and perhaps even to cooperate and collaborate. All are welcome. This is a human community and will doubtless have some rules, but … don’t worry, be free, we will let you know if you break the as-yet-unwritten rules, and you’d have to try hard to get yourself kicked out. Or at least you would know you were doing it.
Continue reading “All it takes to start a meeting is a resentment and a coffee pot.”