Conversations: Sam

Sam has posted ten comments on this blog. One today happens to bring up some issues that I think are worthy of a post, so I’ll be quoting it here and commenting in indented italics as in the Conversations series. Also, Bob responded to him, I’ll quote that also. Welcome, Sam, you have the floor.


Hi Abd
I think Fan boy gives some balance to the Ecat debate on Lenr Forum.
The same as Jed Rothwell can do on Ecat world.
If the blogs are one sided they are not as interesting to read.
Maybe we should pick teams and have the great Ecat debate.
Actually I think it would be better if they forgot about the Doral test and start fresh with the Quark X.
Regards
Sam

Let’s deconstruct this:

I think Fan boy gives some balance to the Ecat debate on Lenr Forum.

Fair and balanced was the motto of a news network that was neither fair nor balanced. “Balance” depends on an understanding of the middle, of a “balance point.” For some people, themselves far from the middle, that network was fair, giving more voice to their opinions — and to fact that supported those opinions, or if they were extreme enough, not even going far enough to balance out the total garbage and lies from the “other side” that dominate mainstream media.

To understand the problem with  “balance” as to “sides,” I’ll declare that facts do not take sides. Fact is fact, no matter what implications one might make from it. A naive approach to “balance” will give equal time to “facts” on “both sides,” but it must then decide what side a fact is on. If there is more fact supporting one side, from this point of view, what is to be done? Suppress some fact on the heavier side, or search for and show more fact from the other side?

What actually happens is that opinions are chosen to fill out the balance. And then, too often, there is no vetting, some opinions are more or less obvious conclusions from factual evidence, some are wild imaginations and fantasies. To be “fair and balanced,” do we treat these equally?

The same as Jed Rothwell can do on Ecat world.

Jed has claimed that his comments disappear. I have not verified this, he has not pointed to any deleted comments. Wait, how could he do that? Apparently deleted comments remain in the Disqus profile. The comment will say “removed.” Following the link to the comment goes to the thread, but there is no error message. Here, one of my very few removed comments. Jed has more than 4600 Discus comments, the vast majority not on ECW. He rarely comments there.

If the blogs are one sided they are not as interesting to read.

True. On the other hand, if being “not one-sided” means they are full of junk, trolling, and misinformation, maybe “interesting” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Learning what a bunch of fanatics think might be interesting in some way, but useful for what? For feeling superior? What?

Maybe we should pick teams and have the great Ecat debate.

How about people who either know something or are willing to research it collaborate on gathering and organizing information and analysis? Debates are about winning and losing, and are only occasionally truly educational. Mostly they are huge time-wasters, except for the few who actually research and study and learn from that. And if the “debate” itself remains scattered and disorganized, it is of little or no general benefit.

Actually I think it would be better if they forgot about the Doral test and start fresh with the Quark X.

Better for whom? At this point, the Quark X only exists on Planet Rossi. That is, all information about it comes from Rossi. There is no independent source. While someone may want to collate all that information — a reasonable project, perhaps, and it could be done here, ask! — debating it would be mostly futile. People believe Rossi or don’t. With Rossi v. Darden, there are facts to discuss and review, from multiple sources, independently confirmed or at least verifiable.

The Doral test is just one test, really, but the lawsuit is about much more than that. We are learning what was hidden for years. It is simply no wonder that the thread I started on LENR Forum, Rossi v. Darden developments, had 427 comments when Barty shut them down, creating “part2.” “For better clarity I splitted the long previous thread,” which Alan Smith liked. Of course he liked it, he was irritated at constantly seeing my profile in in Unread Posts, even though he’d banned me… and now the thread has 2449 more comments and continues at a rapid clip. Even though many (most?) comments are clueless and useless, this is possibly the most popular thread ever on LENR-Forum. A total of almost 3000 comments so far in the two parts.

(Splitting a thread and shutting down commentary in the old one made it difficult to respond to any existing posts, including ones that were very recent. If someone was watching the closed thread, suddenly they were getting no notifications. Nothing is improved by splitting a major topic into parts. E-Cat World is a colossal mess, very difficult to research, because of comments not being paged, as they are on LENR Forum. Splitting would make sense there. But not on LF. What was really happening was personal. Alan Smith, in particular, had expressed disgust that Rossi v. Darden was being discussed. It would not be unfair to point out that anything that might make the Rossi Effect look bad could be bad for his business, Looking for Heat.)


Turning to a comment that Bob wrote:

In reply to Sam.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to debate on the QuarkX.

We have no information what so ever other that a fuzzy blue photo and “Rossi Says”.
“Rossi says” has proven to be completely unreliable. Period. I am not saying that he lies about everything, but there is absolutely no way you can discern his lies from what may be truth.

Without factual information, debate is meaningless. It simply becomes a preaching of faith that accomplishes nothing but the creation of tribal thinking. Creating the “believers” versus the “skeptics”. You must have at least some basis of factual information to have a constructive debate.

Debate can discuss facts and still draw different conclusions… Fact: “we ran a test and the temperature increased 50C.” Debate: “What caused this increase?” However, if you have zero fact, I do not see what the purpose of any debate would be.

The QuarkX has zero facts, zero precedence and the inventor zero credibility. Until something substantiated comes along, then there is nothing to debate in my opinion! (But again, that is simply my opinion!) It does not further the field of LENR.

I’ll insert that this is not anything negative about Quark X. It might be the Next Amazing Breakthrough. Or it might be nothing. The point is that we do not know except for Rossi Says, and that is simply a fact, as far as anything I have seen. Even that fuzzy blue light was from Rossi.

“Information” like this harms the field if presented as important, because normally skeptical readers will immediately notice that not only are the claims amazing, truly extraordinary, there is only the very weak evidence of Rossi Says. This then rubs off on other claims from LENR supporters. There is actually no harm to Rossi and Quark X from a general opinion that he is a fraud. If he has a real invention, that general opinion could not stop him. He cannot be prosecuted for Being Wrong, nor even for Making False Claims — unless he takes money under false pretenses. There is no punishable offense: Fringe Lunatic, nor even one of Self-Promoting Liar. Unless he actually sells something unlawfully.

I would encourage people to investigate MFMP more. They publish data and you can ask questions! Advancement CAN be made there. Brilliouin and Cravens, etc. While not as public, there are good sources of good information.

Yes. MFMP is interesting, and they are maturing. There is an actual Report from SRI, recently. I have issues with that report and an article is being reviewed. (Because of the major political significance, I’m not just publishing it without review.) Brillouin is much more solid, even though it does have the usual problems with a level of secrecy, i.e., I still would not consider this “science.” Cravens is easily accessible. Etc.

I would recommend possibility building a good relationship with Dewey Weaver! Once the lawsuit is over, perhaps IH could be encouraged to start a forum that allows information to be published about the work they are subsidizing! It might be possible and that would be interesting indeed! Perhaps Mr. Weaver could work with Mr. Lomax to oversee the responsible and accurate communication of their LENR research to the “Cold Fusion Community” at large?

hint..hint.. Mr. Weaver, Mr. Lomax….. 🙂

I will say that I’m happy with my relationship with Dewey. I have asked him for nothing. I assume that if I see some need, something that would support the field, I’d be welcome to ask. Meanwhile, this blog exists to seed community and to support community efforts, including providing “community advice” for Industrial Heat — and all players. I’m in this for the long haul, as long as I can.

This is what I would like to see! Not debate on unfounded speculation fueled by desire.

Most debate is founded on a firm belief in “I’m right,” often combined with “You are wrong.” To the extent that we debate from those positions, we have left science outside in the cold. We can do better. Let’s!


And then Sam replied:

Hi Bob
Maybe Mr Weaver and Mr
Lomax with a strong man
Boss over them to keep them in line.

We have that. There is a Strong Man over both of us, though we might have different names for him or it. Dewey might call him God, I call it Reality. Both of us are dedicated to serving him or it. Does it matter what we call this?

I’m the trustee for this blog, at this point, but I am dedicated to serving what has been called in other contexts, “a loving God [in more secular programs, a higher power] as manifest in our group conscience.”

Without thorough discussion and open and honest expression, there is no group conscience, there are just a bunch of opinions, often fighting each other. To create that discussion takes special conditions. I have extensive experience with that. So this is a place for that. The door is open, who has anything to share?

Nobody has been excluded here (but useless comments by spammers are deleted as such). Peter Gluck ejected himself, frothing at the mouth because I had dared to tell him the truth about the reactions he has been creating. It was stated that way, as a reaction, an occurring, and not as truth or a wish. He is not banned. Newvortex still exists, and Mary Yugo left in a huff when put — temporarily — on moderation for offensive comments. “She” was not banned. We are seeking unity, so we cannot ban except for clear necessity. But, as in a face-to-face meeting, we might demand — and enforce — order, decorum, behavioral guidelines. But we will not ban for infractions, again, unless a clear necessity appears. Not merely strong disagreement. Not as punishment.


Abd here. Today I noticed on JONP:

  • Brenda

    Dr Andrea Rossi
    IH continues to make comments in the blogs saying your technology does not work.
    Why don’t you react?
    Brenda

  • Brenda:
    I cannot comment in the blogs the events related to the litigation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    I could have left the response off, it’s standard. However, Rossi deletes comments he doesn’t want. He leaves what says what he wants said, so that he can say it without saying it. A masterpiece. And probably even more reliably created by him, either he is “Brenda” or someone asks these for him, it would be easy to find someone willing to do that. While there are real people commenting on JONP, these “questions” are unlike ordinary blog comments in a number of ways. I’ll leave how they are different as an exercise for the reader.

    Here, I notice what I have noticed about many similar comments: the inquirer is lying, presenting a highly misleading and incomplete picture for Rossi to comment on.

    First of all, IH is not and has never commented on any blogs. They don’t do that. There is only one person associated with IH who is commenting at all, and that is Dewey Weaver, and he has explicitly disclaimed that he represents IH, and it is unclear that IH approves of what he writes. It does not actually benefit them. Dewey works for them in an entirely different way, far more important, interfacing with researchers.

    Now, who is saying that the Rossi “technology doesn’t work”? It’s rare for Dewey to say that. It is mostly being said by others. And what they say varies greatly. Many think that Rossi technology has, sometimes, worked, but that something was drastically off with the Doral test.

    One of the major alternative IH stories, as presented in the court documents, is that the technology may work, at least sometimes, but that Rossi has not taught IH how to make it work, and Rossi’s own comments support this idea. (Murray was a spy? Of course he was! What is the problem with IH learning what was going on in Doral?)

    It is, in fact, very clear from evidence that there are major problems with the “ERV report,” and that the Doral test was founded in fraudulent representation, the “customer” was fake, a sham company set up for Rossi and funded by Rossi and definitely not independent, and that Rossi has been lying about all this.

    This has no direct connection with “the technology doesn’t work,” but only the rather obvious, “If the technology worked, why was that deception necessary?” It is actually not difficult to think of possible reasons, but … they all boil down to Rossi being paranoid and not trusting that simple honesty and straight dealing would be better than asserting personal control, “making it happen no matter what.”

    Obviously, if the whole thing as a fraud from start to finish, if, indeed, Rossi technology doesn’t work, then the sham would be necessary to continue to extract money from the plan. That’s not what I’m saying and is not the majority opinion on LENR Forum, and there is no other “blog” that would be a likely source for the remark.

    Rather, many factual issues are being examined that lead to serious questions about the claims. This is very poorly summarized as “saying your technology doesn’t work.”

    How about “They are saying that you have been lying to your followers for years, from Hydro Fusion on, lying to Industrial Heat, and then lying to the Court in your Complaint, and purporting to show this with evidence.” I wonder if he would allow that comment to appear.

    (Or more to the point, say, a question focusing on the Hydro Fusion affair, where Rossi admitted deceiving Hydro Fusion … or was lying to Industrial Heat about it, pointing to his “smoking gun” email. I read that email to a long-time supporter of his, who was astounded that he would actually have written it. The underlying facts, yes, those were not surprising!)

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

8 thoughts on “Conversations: Sam”

  1. And on the Rossi side, Mats Lewan has republished his essay from October 2016 as https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/02/25/world-affairs-cold-fusion-an-impossible-invention/ so he stands by what he said then as regards believing that the Doral test worked. I would have thought he’d have reconsidered his opinion based on the evidence. Unlike most of us, though, he is an eyewitness, at least for some demonstrations. IIRC the amount of steam the early versions produced was a lot less than it ought to have been for the claimed power, too.

    1. Yes. I as well am somewhat perplexed by Mr. Lewan’s steadfast belief in the eCat. While the article states it was written in Oct. 2016, Mr. Lewan did put it on his site 3 days ago and did not include any updates. So I must assume that he still holds by it’s content.

      It is possible that this type of thinking is related to comments that I have made about religion and faith. Not that I am attempting to denounce anyone’s religion, but that I am interested in how the human mind processes thought, belief systems and even reality.

      Jim Jones somehow had enough influence over people that 918 died in 1978. Either by suicide or by some murdering others! This was done via a basis of belief, how thought processes where conducted in individuals and their perception of reality. Extremely sad but amazing.

      I once worked with an engineer for several years who was extremely smart, sociable and from most outward appearances, completely “normal”. Except that he belonged to a cult and one which had some very, very strange beliefs! I used to talk to him about some of these far out beliefs and to him, they seemed not only plausible, but reality! I am talking weird stuff here!

      He was very open to discussion and when I would talk about facts, lack of facts and logic about some of these beliefs, they simply did not seem to register with him. Such as wearing a particular amulet in a certain way, would keep bad fortune from befalling him. So when his car transmission failed, it was not the amulet’s fault, but his, because he must not have worn it quite correctly one day!
      We are talking a guy with a master’s degree in chemical engineering and was quite smart!

      I play music. I play by ear. I play several instruments and it seems to come natural to me. I know some people who have no musical ability at all. Some people excel at math and others find it difficult to perform the most basic equations. I believe that like music or math, “reason or common sense” is likewise different in people. I think some people’s reasoning can become clouded or possibly just does not computer like mine or yours might! And especially when it falls into the nebulous region of “faith”.

      Some people are tolls and just like to argue. Some people do not have information and argue from a point of “ignorance”. But here are some people who seem to argue with sincerity and against the facts. To some of these people 2 + 2 = 5! Logical arguments are not going to sway them because the logic circuit in the brain is wired differently than mine. We probably are all that way to some extent.

      Please note that I am not saying they are defective or that I am “superior” to them in anyway. No more so that I am superior because I can play music or someone can excel at math. It is simply a difference in how people’s brains are (possibly physically) wired.

      It is my current “likely answer” to why Mr. Lewan and I see the same evidence and come to such opposite conclusions. There is one Christian Bible and it has a static text in it. Yet there are Catholics and Protestants. There are many different Protestant groups. They all read the same words and come to various degrees of different conclusions. Some of those quite vast.

      The eCat has become a religion to many, falling outside the scope of data, facts and logic. This has been supplanted by faith. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Heb. 11:1 KJV

      (I am not knocking people’s religious views!)

      1. Bob – yes, the various belief systems do seem to make people blind to some evidence, and this also applies within science subjects where a well-established theory is attacked. I notice this also in myself, so when coming up against some new idea that is against theory I try to see whether the underlying assumptions are defensible. The problem is the hidden assumptions that I don’t spot, either in my thinking or the textbooks. I found such hidden assumptions in thermodynamics and it’s somewhat hard getting others to see that some assumptions are false.

        Mats is a journalist. Yes, he’s a technical journalist but I suspect he hasn’t boiled enough water to internalise the quantity of steam he ought to be seeing for a certain power-input and maybe doesn’t realise just how much power 1MW is in human terms, and how hard you have to try to get rid of it if you want to keep living in a room with that amount of power. He’s also treating Rossi as if he were a scientist where by tradition scientists don’t lie. He’s missing the clues because he’s not got the hands-on experience, I think.

        It would of course be good if Rossi was correct and we were wrong on this. Cheap power and fewer children with cancer…. I can’t however see solid evidence for the heat, and IH would have been happy if their copies had produced any results better than the Null Hypothesis, as far as I can see. If you have something that works and a lot of money, you can make it work better.

        If we try hard, we can find some sort of explanation for a lot of what RossiSays, but explaining all of them takes a pile of improbabilities. We can argue that the steam pipe size isn’t really known, and it could have been 150mm rather than 40mm which wouldn’t have carried the flow rate of around 45 m³ per minute or 750 litres per second. That’s a pretty high flow rate…. Still, several people have dissected each statement where we have data, and the faithful remain… faithful. I don’t understand this either.

    2. Thanks for the link. I had noticed that essay before, but now it is ripe for comment, so I intend to do that. Lewan knows enough to shift his position, but hasn’t, and I don’t know why. He’s explained, but the explanations don’t particularly make sense. Anyway, I’ll save this for that study.

  2. Hi Abd

    You said this.

    Dewey might call him God, I call it Reality. Both of us are dedicated to serving him or it. Does it matter what we call this?

    If Mr Weaver is a Christian and believes in Christ as Mr
    Rossi says he does then it
    does matter.

    Luke 6:27 – But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

    Mark 11:25 – And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses

    Mathew 5:44

    But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    Regards
    Sam

    1. Yes, Sam. I think you may have missed the point. Does Jesus care about what name he — or God — are called? My view: no. He doesn’t care about that. Or wouldn’t, and since Reality is here, by definition, present if not necessarily fully knowable by humans, it is our relationship with Reality that matters. That’s how I’d say it. Dewey might just say Yes, or he might put it differently. Again, does it matter how we express this? Do you see some contradiction in what you wrote? Is Rossi relating to others through Christ? He is obviously not careful about truth. Truth and Reality are the same. Jesus is the Word, i.e., Truth, identified with Reality. Now, Rossi is a Christian, and some Christians rely on being forgiven their sins. I’m not a Christian and don’t see that this forgiveness is automatic, just because of something we have said. See Matthew 25:31-46 and notice those who call the King “Lord” are cast into the fire, and the phrasing there is quite similar to the Qur’an. There is one Reality, not many. What matters is our relationship with it. A Christian might say “him.” The Semitic languages, though, the languages of revelation, are gendered, everything is either he or she. No special “it.” So I could call Reality “him.” Easily. Trust him!

      I am not judging Rossi as Christian or not, and, indeed, Reality forgives much. I am not Rossi’s judge; more to the point is his relationship with reality, not my judgment of it, whatever that may be. I was a prison chaplain and I have lived out giving a cup of cold water to the least, I have played both roles, the giver and the recipient, I have lived out turning the other cheek (or “doing good to those who hate you,”) and I know the truth of Jesus directly, but I don’t call myself a Christian as such, but simply one who loves his company and the company of those who follow him. And that makes me a Muslim.

      Now, where were we? Cold fusion? LENR? Rossi v. Darden, an actual lawsuit taking place in a real court in Florida, with evidence being presented, soon to be, I assume, formally attested and duly entered? What do we know? My training is to be careful about this.

      In another post today, I expressed anger at a pseudoskeptic, because he was writing on LENR Forum with obvious arrogance. This could be a trillion dollar issue. How much is a human life worth? I mean Really. I.e, how much will we spend to avoid an unnecessary death? What’s the number? Children die for want of a few dollars worth of food. Children die for want of medical care, sometimes a few dollars worth — sometimes more, but not a million dollars. A trillion is a million million. So, does all this matter? That pseudoskeptic claims it is all stupid. There are two basic principles in what God has allowed: one is balance, i.e, to return what is given, also called qisas in Arabic, expressed in the Bible as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. As with what Jesus brought, there is a better way, sometimes, and the Qur’an repeats this, but “retaliation” is the limit. Not the goal. If someone calls others stupid, I consider it lawful to point out their stupidity. Otherwise it would be quite rude, and rudeness is an aspect of disbelief and rejection of reality.

  3. Maybe the problem with trying to present facts in relation to Rossi is that nearly all the relevant data is obfuscated, and there is enough evidence that what RossiSays is often intentionally wrong that we have to try to divine the truth by looking at gaps in our knowledge.

    Only believers will accept the figures for the Lugano test, since photos showed that the colour-temperature was inconsistent with the claimed temperature and also that the internal type K thermocouple would have melted before that temperature was reached. However, in the lead-up to that test Rossi claimed that two previous attempts had failed – one melted down and the other didn’t start, IIRC. Paradoxically, maybe, those previous failures (and thus delaying the test) made me think that possibly Rossi had at least something. Parkhomov tried to replicate what he thought Rossi had done, and though the measured COP reduced as the measurements were improved there were isotopic changes in the fuel (that disagreed with Rossi’s figures) that imply that *something* was happening.

    One consequence of JONP is that Rossi gets a lot of suggestions of how to improve things. Most of them may be useless, but some could be helpful. There are a lot of open-source replications around, too. I’d suggest that Rossi may be using this resource of free information to try to solve his problems, and with the uncertainty of what he actually is using he can claim to have been doing *whatever* all along if he actually does teach the horse to sing. That also removes the need to credit the people who gave him the ideas, so he can claim them as his own. If this is indeed what’s happening, it’s a pretty clever strategy.

    A while back Jed said that we can’t write off Rossi as not having anything. Despite the Doral test demonstrating that Rossi failed to produce 1MW as claimed, and that the figures were produced by deliberately bad measurements, I’d still take Jed’s advice even though he himself seems to have come down hard on the “Rossi has nothing” side. In this court case, I don’t see the possibility of any Wabbit being produced, and I don’t believe the QuarkX will either work or rescue him, but if he escapes jail time then it is still possible that a Wabbit may at some point emerge.

    It’s a pretty complex situation. Rossi must by now have a lot of information on what doesn’t work, so has maybe a better chance than most of finding something that does work. He will no doubt have little problem in continuing to get support (and money) from his believers. I’ve seen that some “Free Energy” projects have continued for decades without a definitive demonstration (see WITTS) and have kept their promoters well-fed.

    For the court-case, I would expect Rossi to use delaying tactics as much as possible, in the hope that he can find the answer before the case is finished. I don’t expect him to succeed, though. He’s raised peoples’ expectations too high with 1MW and a COP of >100, so getting a COP of 1.1 at a few watts may not wash even if it’s real this time. One way or another, though, I expect Rossi will keep popping up in the news for years with some new claims. And maybe the horse will sing.

  4. I was not going to reply again since this blog is interactive.

    Per your quote above -> “Now, who is saying that the Rossi “technology doesn’t work”? It’s rare for Dewey to say that. It is mostly being said by others”

    On “who the others are”?

    Rigel is saying it whether he is right or wrong. So it is very clear whatever Rossi has regardless if it is cold fusion, he AND THE BIG others in the field have not been able to demonstrate that Ni-H Cold Fusion is OverUnity. I am not trying to insult other peoples beliefs here.
    I firmly believe that several types of CF exists, I have come along way spent many hours drilling down. Maybe I am grumbling or mumbling too much. We have no data to prove that Ni-H CF works at this point using rigor.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield