subject:"\[Vo\]\:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit"

RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-06 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

Kevin:

 

Think about these clues:

1)  At this time, noone has indicated that Blaze has taken any of their $.  I 
doubt that anyone has even bothered to offer, except you, of course.  Why do 
you suppose that is?

 

2)  You stated, “***Then WTF are you doing on such a thread where that is the 
point of the discussion?”

Clue#1 implies that the vast majority of Vorts are NOT interested in its 
probability of being real.  In fact, those who have done their homework are 
pretty much convinced that it *IS* real (i.e., probability=1.0, or close to 
it), so discussing the probability of it being real is pretty much a waste of 
time. 

 

3)  Given #2, it should be obvious that the MAIN purpose of this discussion 
group, at least as far as LENR is concerned, is the SCIENCE, not whether its 
real or not.

I’m here for the same reason that most Vorts are here, which is to discuss the 
SCIENCE; to try to connect the dots...

 

You wrote:

“… you choose some peripheral waste-of-time bullshit issue to focus on, rather 
than the original subject of the thread”

You might think that how we treat each other is a ‘peripheral waste-of-time 
bullshit’ issue, but I, and I would wager most other Vorts, think that it’s an 
important issue… or, in all your ranting and raving did you forget my whole 
point which was to simply ask you to leave out any personal derogatory 
statements?

 

If you want to continue to engage Blaze on the topic of wagering on LENR, knock 
yourself out, but Blaze has also contributed to discussions on the science of 
LENR, so treat him in a civil manner… is that too much to ask?

 

-Mark Iverson

 

From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:09 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

 

 

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

All Vorts:

Have any of you lost money to Blaze, or even took him up on a bet???

***Yes.  I did.  I took him up on his bet immediately when he offered 10:1 
odds, and then he quickly backtracked, citing (insert some favorite bullshit 
here) that there had been news in the meantime that changed his mind.  There 
had been ZERO news.  The only thing happening in LENR at that time was that I 
was schooling him.  

Kevin:

Perhaps you need to go back and read the rules regarding vortex postings…

***Mark:  Perhaps you need to get a clue.  If pointing out that Blaze needs a 
Cephalorectomy, then you just kicked Jed and others off this board.  Do you 
really want to do that?  

 

I have no desire to debate probabilities of LENR/Rossi being real… 

***Then WTF are you doing on such a thread where that is the point of the 
discussion?  

it’s a waste of time as far as I’m concerned, and I would guess that most here 
feel the same, 

***But it doesn't stop you from logging onto such a thread.  So you've logged 
onto a thread that you consider to be a waste of time so that you don't comment 
on the subject of the thread but you choose some peripheral waste-of-time 
bullshit issue to focus on, rather than the original subject of the thread.  
Talk about wasting time.  You appear to be professional at it.  


since you and Blaze seem to be the only ones who contribute to that topic...  I 
think it’s you who needs to ‘get a clue’.

-m

***I have the clue, you don't.  For instance, why don't you post to Blaze that 
you're prepared to take him up on his offer of 40%?  So that means you put $40 
down for Blaze to match with $60, to make $100 that will be donated to a 
LENR-honorable organization such as MFMP or LENR-CANR.org.  For grins, you can 
say that Rossi being real will be measured by the vote of vorticians within 
10 days of the receipt of the TIP report we all anticipate.  If Vorticians vote 
that it is a positive for Rossi, then Rossi Is Real.  If Vorticians vote that 
it is a negative for Rossi, then Rossi is a scam artist or something else.  Let 
us see how Blaze squirms off that deal, which is far from the 10:1 odds 
originally offered with a $5000 pot.

 

Or is all this stuff a buncha waste-of-time bullshit that a nanny-state 
intervener such as yourself would consider to be below him? 

 

 

From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:51 AM


To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

 

If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him.  It's his sandbox.  In the meantime 
your free advice is worth what I paid for it.  

If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places, go 
ahead and defend him from such an ugly onslaught of horrible personal attacks 
that you'd invoke the name of the High One.  You''re the one trying to act like 
the parent here.

Or perhaps you could spend your time *actually* commenting on the *actual* 
subject at hand.  After all, that is one of my objections to Blaze on his *own* 
thread.

 

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-06 Thread Peter Gluck

I like sincerely Blaze's personal and original interpretation
of probability; if Rossi is realand/or useful is open tp
explanations: excess heat,how much,  at what cost (COP), manageable
going on the markets (which?), safe... many open questions
which will receive step-wise (non)answers

Peter


On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:12 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 Kevin:



 Think about these clues:

 1)  At this time, noone has indicated that Blaze has taken any of their
 $.  I doubt that anyone has even bothered to offer, except you, of course.
 Why do you suppose that is?



 2)  You stated, “***Then WTF are you doing on such a thread where that is
 the point of the discussion?”

 Clue#1 implies that the vast majority of Vorts are NOT interested in its
 probability of being real.  In fact, those who have done their homework are
 pretty much convinced that it **IS** real (i.e., probability=1.0, or
 close to it), so discussing the probability of it being real is pretty much
 a waste of time.



 3)  Given #2, it should be obvious that the MAIN purpose of this
 discussion group, at least as far as LENR is concerned, is the SCIENCE, not
 whether its real or not.

 I’m here for the same reason that most Vorts are here, which is to discuss
 the SCIENCE; to try to connect the dots...



 You wrote:

 “… you choose some peripheral waste-of-time bullshit issue to focus on,
 rather than the original subject of the thread”

 You might think that how we treat each other is a ‘peripheral
 waste-of-time bullshit’ issue, but I, and I would wager most other Vorts,
 think that it’s an important issue… or, in all your ranting and raving did
 you forget my whole point which was to simply ask you to leave out any
 personal derogatory statements?



 If you want to continue to engage Blaze on the topic of wagering on LENR,
 knock yourself out, but Blaze has also contributed to discussions on the
 science of LENR, so treat him in a civil manner… is that too much to ask?



 -Mark Iverson



 *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 8:09 PM

 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit





 On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:

 All Vorts:

 Have any of you lost money to Blaze, or even took him up on a bet???

 ***Yes.  I did.  I took him up on his bet immediately when he offered 10:1
 odds, and then he quickly backtracked, citing (insert some favorite
 bullshit here) that there had been news in the meantime that changed his
 mind.  There had been ZERO news.  The only thing happening in LENR at that
 time was that I was schooling him.

 Kevin:

 Perhaps you need to go back and read the rules regarding vortex postings…

 ***Mark:  Perhaps you need to get a clue.  If pointing out that Blaze
 needs a Cephalorectomy, then you just kicked Jed and others off this
 board.  Do you really want to do that?



 I have no desire to debate probabilities of LENR/Rossi being real…

 ***Then WTF are you doing on such a thread where that is the point of the
 discussion?

 it’s a waste of time as far as I’m concerned, and I would guess that most
 here feel the same,

 ***But it doesn't stop you from logging onto such a thread.  So you've
 logged onto a thread that you consider to be a waste of time so that you
 don't comment on the subject of the thread but you choose some peripheral
 waste-of-time bullshit issue to focus on, rather than the original subject
 of the thread.  Talk about wasting time.  You appear to be professional at
 it.


 since you and Blaze seem to be the only ones who contribute to that
 topic...  I think it’s you who needs to ‘get a clue’.

 -m

 ***I have the clue, you don't.  For instance, why don't you post to Blaze
 that you're prepared to take him up on his offer of 40%?  So that means you
 put $40 down for Blaze to match with $60, to make $100 that will be donated
 to a LENR-honorable organization such as MFMP or LENR-CANR.org.  For grins,
 you can say that Rossi being real will be measured by the vote of
 vorticians within 10 days of the receipt of the TIP report we all
 anticipate.  If Vorticians vote that it is a positive for Rossi, then Rossi
 Is Real.  If Vorticians vote that it is a negative for Rossi, then Rossi is
 a scam artist or something else.  Let us see how Blaze squirms off that
 deal, which is far from the 10:1 odds originally offered with a $5000 pot.



 Or is all this stuff a buncha waste-of-time bullshit that a nanny-state
 intervener such as yourself would consider to be below him?





 *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:51 AM


 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit



 If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him.  It's his sandbox.  In the
 meantime your free advice is worth what I paid for it.

 If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places,
 go ahead

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-06 Thread Kevin O'Malley

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:12 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 Kevin:



 Think about these clues:

***Mark, go down the street to the corner store and purchase a clue.




 1)  At this time, noone has indicated that Blaze has taken any of their $.

***First of all, that's because of me keying up on him and showing him to
be the shyster he is.  Second of all, you're changing your ragabout
requirements because originally you asked had anyone  took him up on a
bet???  I did, and he reneged, acting like someone who's targeting a group
of true believers in order to fleece them.  He basically admitted this.  So
now that you're backtracking, how far will you backtrack?




 I doubt that anyone has even bothered to offer, except you, of course.
 Why do you suppose that is?

***Duhh, it's because I brought it out into the light of day what his
agenda was.  You're as addlepated as a long tailed cat in a room full of
rocking chairs.




 2)  You stated, “***Then WTF are you doing on such a thread where that is
 the point of the discussion?”

 Clue#1 implies that the vast majority of Vorts are NOT interested in its
 probability of being real.

***Again, addlepated one:  If the probability of being real discussion
isn't of interest, then why are you showing interest?  If it's such a waste
of Vort time, why are you wasting your time on it?  You should be sending
your harangue to the guy who introduced it in the first place:  Blaze.  But
instead you're keying up on the guy who is forcing Blaze's feet to the
fire.  Perhaps you should purchase 2 clues instead of just one, because
you'll no doubt lose the clue you get as soon as you get a clue.






 In fact, those who have done their homework are pretty much convinced that
 it **IS** real (i.e., probability=1.0, or close to it), so discussing the
 probability of it being real is pretty much a waste of time.

***Yet, we find you wasting your time on it, not bitch-slapping the guy who
introduced the timewaste but rather going after his opponent.  Maybe
there's more than one candidate for a Cephalorectomy here.





 3)  Given #2,

***Ridiculous reasoning.  #2 is not given.  It's full of holes, so you
can't say it's given.




 it should be obvious that the MAIN purpose of this discussion group, at
 least as far as LENR is concerned, is the SCIENCE, not whether its real or
 not.

***POTO, pointing out the obvious.  The last refuge of the scoundrel and
the pedant.  And yet, the discussion of the probabilities DOES further the
science, you just can't see it.




 I’m here for the same reason that most Vorts are here, which is to discuss
 the SCIENCE; to try to connect the dots...

***Then discuss the science, key up on the guy who wastes your time with
his ridiculous probabilities, and stop bothering the guy who went after the
scoundrel time-waster.



 You wrote:

 “… you choose some peripheral waste-of-time bullshit issue to focus on,
 rather than the original subject of the thread”

 You might think that how we treat each other is a ‘peripheral
 waste-of-time bullshit’ issue, but I, and I would wager most other Vorts,
 think that it’s an important issue…

***Then you, of all people, should appreciate how a person who ADMITS to
trying to make money off Vorts, who by your own admission wastes your time,
and who mistreats Vorts in other ways, that person should be the object of
your wrath.




 or, in all your ranting and raving did you forget my whole point which was
 to simply ask you to leave out any personal derogatory statements?

***Perhaps you will be keying up on Jed Rothwell for posting exactly the
same personal derogatory statement?





 If you want to continue to engage Blaze on the topic of wagering on LENR,
 knock yourself out,

***That's part of the annoyance of dealing with this bullshitter, he won't
engage on his own topic.




 but Blaze has also contributed to discussions on the science of LENR, so
 treat him in a civil manner…

***When Blaze discusses science I treat him with respect.  Or have you lost
sight of that in your haste to condemn me?  Yup, it looks like you lost
sight of it.



 is that too much to ask?

***Yes.   But at least now I'm having some fun in my interactions with you,
so it hasn't been a complete waste of my own time.  Have you purchased your
2 clues yet?  I hear Blaze is offering baitswitch pricing on clues.  Best
of luck with that.

RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they want 
to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our govt does 
enough of that already.

I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all 
Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t  imply he’s got his head in 
dark places.

 

“The rules bend under such circumstances.”

I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless idiots if 
you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal attacks… its 
really pretty simple.

 

-Mark

 

From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

 

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

Kevin,

Lighten up.

***NO.  

Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from your 
pocket and every other vortician's pocket.  

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html


He even admits to wanting to take your money.  

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html

The rules bend under such circumstances.  Lighten up becomes Get a clue.

RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Steve High

Well put, and I  feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill B is 
invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the avenging 
angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a pretty sight, 
leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut the place down for 
five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly chastised and this would be 
a historically bad time for that to happen. Hence the heartfelt request: please 
play nicely in the sandbox(smiley emoticon)

Steve High

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Carl High

Well put, and I  feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill B
is invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the
avenging angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a
pretty sight, leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut
the place down for five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly
chastised and this would be a historically bad time for that to happen.
Hence the heartfelt request: please play nicely in the sandbox(smiley
emoticon)


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:17 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they
 want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our
 govt does enough of that already.

 I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all
 Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t  imply he’s got his head
 in dark places.



 “The rules bend under such circumstances.”

 I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless
 idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal
 attacks… its really pretty simple.



 -Mark



 *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM

 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit



 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Kevin,

 Lighten up.

 ***NO.

 Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from
 your pocket and every other vortician's pocket.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html


 He even admits to wanting to take your money.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html

 The rules bend under such circumstances.  Lighten up becomes Get a
 clue.

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Carl High

Aw Shucks this was supposed to be in response to the ZeroPoint message
posted above, so I resent it.


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Steve High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well put, and I  feel constrained to point out that once the name of Bill
 B is invoked it's a lot like speaking the name JHWH. In short order the
 avenging angel will arise and impose His terrible swift justice. Not a
 pretty sight, leaves one shuddering in one's boots. One time He even shut
 the place down for five days so He could clean house. We all felt duly
 chastised and this would be a historically bad time for that to happen.
 Hence the heartfelt request: please play nicely in the sandbox(smiley
 emoticon)

 Steve High

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Kevin O'Malley

If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him.  It's his sandbox.  In the
meantime your free advice is worth what I paid for it.

If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places,
go ahead and defend him from such an ugly onslaught of horrible personal
attacks that you'd invoke the name of the High One.  You''re the one trying
to act like the parent here.

Or perhaps you could spend your time *actually* commenting on the *actual*
subject at hand.  After all, that is one of my objections to Blaze on his
*own* thread.


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they
 want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our
 govt does enough of that already.

 I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all
 Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t  imply he’s got his head
 in dark places.



 “The rules bend under such circumstances.”

 I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless
 idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal
 attacks… its really pretty simple.



 -Mark



 *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM

 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit



 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Kevin,

 Lighten up.

 ***NO.

 Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from
 your pocket and every other vortician's pocket.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html


 He even admits to wanting to take your money.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html

 The rules bend under such circumstances.  Lighten up becomes Get a
 clue.

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Lennart Thornros

To Jed,
I agree with you all entrepreneurs are not the same. In a way that
describes an entrepreneur - if all entrepreneurs were alike they would not
be entrepreneurs.
 I happen to like change. I try to avoid being caught repeating myself and
I like personal freedom to change as I want. I do drive over the speed
limit not because I am in a hurry, but because I dislike someone telling me
what to do when it is not required,
Many of your examples deal with having tenacity. I think that is another
must for an entrepreneur.
In order to protect ones sanity it certainly help if you accept failure as
a way to reach success. I can witness to that. A common problem with true
entrepreneurship is that it is hard to know when there is balance between
price and wisdom achieved. I agree with Edith Piaf (whom I actually saw
singing in a restaurant many years ago) Non, 'je ne regrette rien'.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

  Jed,



 I've just read your modus operandi, and again I find myself wanting to say:



 Have you considered putting together a historical account of the Saga of
 Cold Fusion? You've already written a book 10 years ago on how Cold Fusion
 has the potential to transform the world for the better. You obviously know
 how to go about assembling such a project.



 It would not be just about assembling dry facts, though obviously a
 smattering of such fiddly bits would be an important contribution.



 It seems to me that should it become a generally accepted fact that CF (or
 whatever the popular culture end up calling it) is a legitimate technology,
 many will begin to thirst for a historical account of how the technology
 came about in the first place. Many will wonder why the hell it took so
 long. I can think of no better person who could help explain to the general
 public why it is taking so long to manifest. IMHO, your grasp of general
 history is impressive. Your ability to see the history of CF in context
 with the rest of your knowledge of general history is the key.



 No doubt this will take several years to assemble, particularly since so
 much is yet to happen. However, I'm absolutely sure you will get help from
 many who would be honored to help proof-read such an endeavor.



 Regards,

 Steven Vincent Johnson

 svjart.orionworks.com

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Jed Rothwell

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:

 Have you considered putting together a historical account of the Saga of
 Cold Fusion? . . .

 It seems to me that should it become a generally accepted fact that CF (or
 whatever the popular culture end up calling it) is a legitimate technology,
 many will begin to thirst for a historical account of how the technology
 came about in the first place.

Honestly, I do not know much about it. History, as I see it, is the story
of people -- their personal lives and interactions. I do not know much
about the researchers because I deliberately avoid poking into their
private lives. Many of them have tangled lives, with divorces and so on. I
don't want to invade their privacy. A historian gets to read through memos,
diaries, letters and (in the future) e-mails that I have no access to now.
I wouldn't want access to it. I need to work with these people as an
editor, which means being neutral and professional.

Marianne Macy has conducted many interviews with researchers. She has loads
of information. She and I have talked about writing a book sometime. We
were going to write one about Rossi, but Lewan beat us to it. We are both
pleased with his book. We can write about him eventually. If cold fusion
succeeds there will eventually be dozens of books about Rossi, just as
there are about Edison. (Amazon.com lists 199 books about Edison.)

 Many will wonder why the hell it took so long. I can think of no better
 person who could help explain to the general public why it is taking so
 long to manifest.

Well, it hasn't happened yet. If it happens I guess I can write about it.

But again, to tell the story properly, I guess I would need access to
Robert Park's e-mail. I need to answer the key question: What were these
people thinking?!? It is easy to speculate that the skeptics have this or
that motivation. I have concluded they are sincere. They really do think
cold fusion is fraud and the researchers are lunatics. Other people say,
no, that is just academic politics. Who is right? If you ask Park I
expect he would say: I am sincere. I honestly believe the researchers are
lunatics. As to what he thinks in his heart of hearts . . . I guess we
will have to wait until we can read his e-mail.

I wonder if Park himself can say whether some of his wild accusations are
bluster, or whether he really means it.

 IMHO, your grasp of general history is impressive. Your ability to see the
 history of CF in context with the rest of your knowledge of general history
 is the key.

The main thing about history, it seems to me, is that it is not one story,
or one narrative. There are as many different versions as there are people
involved in the events. Cold fusion is an academic dispute. The most famous
and long-lasting academic dispute heretofore has been the debate about
evolution versus what is now called creationism. One of the most famous
incidents early in this history was the debate between Thomas Huxley and
the Bishop of Oxford Soapy Sam Wilberforce in 1860. Stephen J Gould wrote
an essay about this titled Knight takes Bishop?

Note the question mark. Did Huxley take the Bishop? He did if you believe
modern accounts and BBC television dramas. Such as:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXq8LZ3b2YQ

This event lasted only a few hours. There were many witnesses. Gould looked
through contemporary letters and descriptions. We know the general outline
of what happened. There is no transcription, but we know who said what. But
what effect it had, and whether Huxley could be considered the winner of
this debate is a matter of opinion -- contemporary opinion of the audience
members. Whether Huxley made a good impression or a bad impression on the
crowd is impossible to judge. Even some of the scientists in the audience
thought that Huxley made a poor showing.

Nowadays, Huxley is considered the winner because in the longer history of
biology Huxley won. The issue is now settled. Wilberforce looks foolish in
retrospect. We project our present settled worldview on the past.

This is the mistake amateur historian Conrad Black did in his book about
FDR, in which he asserted that in 1943 in 1944 Roosevelt, Churchill and
Eisenhower knew perfectly well they would win World War II and they knew
they could have invaded any time. They held back for political reasons.
That is preposterous. Black knows how things turned out. He knows that the
Normandy invasion turned out to be easier than Churchill and others thought
it might be. It was not the Battle of the Somme all over again, which is
what Churchill feared. Read original sources and you will find confusion
and doubt in the memos passed back and forth between FDR Eisenhower and
others. They guessed wrong about countless things. They thought they would
encounter difficulties where things turned out to be easy, and they did not
see where the real difficulties would be.

Along similar lines, if you look through my email, you will

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Terry Blanton

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places, go
 ahead and defend him

Or her.

RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread MarkI-ZeroPoint

All Vorts:

Have any of you lost money to Blaze, or even took him up on a bet???

 

Kevin:

Perhaps you need to go back and read the rules regarding vortex postings…

 

I have no desire to debate probabilities of LENR/Rossi being real… it’s a waste 
of time as far as I’m concerned, and I would guess that most here feel the 
same, since you and Blaze seem to be the only ones who contribute to that 
topic...  I think it’s you who needs to ‘get a clue’.

 

-m

 

From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:51 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

 

If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him.  It's his sandbox.  In the meantime 
your free advice is worth what I paid for it.  

If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places, go 
ahead and defend him from such an ugly onslaught of horrible personal attacks 
that you'd invoke the name of the High One.  You''re the one trying to act like 
the parent here.

Or perhaps you could spend your time *actually* commenting on the *actual* 
subject at hand.  After all, that is one of my objections to Blaze on his *own* 
thread.

 

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they want 
to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our govt does 
enough of that already.

I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all 
Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t  imply he’s got his head in 
dark places.

 

“The rules bend under such circumstances.”

I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless idiots if 
you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal attacks… its 
really pretty simple.

 

-Mark

 

From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM


To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

 

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

Kevin,

Lighten up.

***NO.  

Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from your 
pocket and every other vortician's pocket.  

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html


He even admits to wanting to take your money.  

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html

The rules bend under such circumstances.  Lighten up becomes Get a clue.

RE: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson

from Jed:

 

...

 

 Well, it hasn't happened yet. If it happens I guess I can write about it.

 

...

 

I watched the video and read your Lessons from cold fusion archives and from 
history. Thanks.

 

IMHO, your professed self-doubt is precisely one of the principle reasons I 
continue to believe you would be very good at assembling a historical account 
of the CF saga. I think you have acquired a profound understanding of the 
pitfalls associated with the retelling-of-accounts, of just how subjective and 
open to personal interpretation the art of history really is.

 

At least I know you are thinking about it. That's good enuf for me. I suspect 
there may come a time when you will feel ready to embark on the project in 
earnest. Perhaps sooner than you expect! ;-)

 

Changing the subject, I hope I get around to reading Lewan's book soon. 
Everyone has had good things to say about it. My excuse for not reading it: 
Insufficient free time. Making final preparations to retire has turned out to 
consume far more of my personal resources than I had originally thought such an 
endeavor ought to take. But that's ok. Gotta get it done. The final nail in the 
coffin occurred last November as the result of a very specific and unpleasant 
encounter with management, this after enduring a string of prior stress-filled 
encounters where I continued to hold on to hope that things would eventually 
sort themselves out. Alas, it didn't. The November encounter made it very clear 
to me that for the sake of my own personal health and well-being it was time to 
get the hell out. I'm looking forward to my exit. I have many creative research 
projects that I would like to tackle, such as in the artistic-creative mediums, 
but also in specific fields of physics. I love performing theoretical research. 
I love assembling computer simulations just so that I can be surprised at what 
I stumble across. I probably have way too many personal projects than I can 
adequately explore with what time I have left, and that's saying a lot 
considering the fact that I'll turn 62 this August. I'm still quite young. I 
may have to do some culling. ;-)

 

My pumpkin date is still a state secret insofar as management is concerned. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.orionworks.com

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Kevin O'Malley

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:22 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:

 All Vorts:

 Have any of you lost money to Blaze, or even took him up on a bet???

***Yes.  I did.  I took him up on his bet immediately when he offered 10:1
odds, and then he quickly backtracked, citing (insert some favorite
bullshit here) that there had been news in the meantime that changed his
mind.  There had been ZERO news.  The only thing happening in LENR at that
time was that I was schooling him.







 Kevin:

 Perhaps you need to go back and read the rules regarding vortex postings…

***Mark:  Perhaps you need to get a clue.  If pointing out that Blaze
needs a Cephalorectomy, then you just kicked Jed and others off this
board.  Do you really want to do that?




 I have no desire to debate probabilities of LENR/Rossi being real…

***Then WTF are you doing on such a thread where that is the point of the
discussion?




 it’s a waste of time as far as I’m concerned, and I would guess that most
 here feel the same,

***But it doesn't stop you from logging onto such a thread.  So you've
logged onto a thread that you consider to be a waste of time so that you
don't comment on the subject of the thread but you choose some peripheral
waste-of-time bullshit issue to focus on, rather than the original subject
of the thread.  Talk about wasting time.  You appear to be professional at
it.





 since you and Blaze seem to be the only ones who contribute to that
 topic...  I think it’s you who needs to ‘get a clue’.



 -m

***I have the clue, you don't.  For instance, why don't you post to Blaze
that you're prepared to take him up on his offer of 40%?  So that means you
put $40 down for Blaze to match with $60, to make $100 that will be donated
to a LENR-honorable organization such as MFMP or LENR-CANR.org.  For grins,
you can say that Rossi being real will be measured by the vote of
vorticians within 10 days of the receipt of the TIP report we all
anticipate.  If Vorticians vote that it is a positive for Rossi, then Rossi
Is Real.  If Vorticians vote that it is a negative for Rossi, then Rossi is
a scam artist or something else.  Let us see how Blaze squirms off that
deal, which is far from the 10:1 odds originally offered with a $5000 pot.

Or is all this stuff a buncha waste-of-time bullshit that a nanny-state
intervener such as yourself would consider to be below him?







 *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:51 AM

 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit



 If Bill wants to beg to differ, let him.  It's his sandbox.  In the
 meantime your free advice is worth what I paid for it.

 If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark places,
 go ahead and defend him from such an ugly onslaught of horrible personal
 attacks that you'd invoke the name of the High One.  You''re the one trying
 to act like the parent here.

 Or perhaps you could spend your time *actually* commenting on the *actual*
 subject at hand.  After all, that is one of my objections to Blaze on his
 *own* thread.



 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:

 All here are smart enough to determine for themselves whether or not they
 want to part with their $... don’t need you to act like our parent; our
 govt does enough of that already.

 I think your interaction with him has been MORE than enough warning to all
 Vorts, and, you can still engage him, just don’t  imply he’s got his head
 in dark places.



 “The rules bend under such circumstances.”

 I think Bill B. would beg to differ… you can still ‘warn’ us clueless
 idiots if you really feel compelled to do so, just lay off the personal
 attacks… its really pretty simple.



 -Mark



 *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:17 PM


 *To:* vortex-l
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit



 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
 wrote:

 Kevin,

 Lighten up.

 ***NO.

 Ever since Blaze first showed up, he's been trying to steal money from
 your pocket and every other vortician's pocket.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg83682.html


 He even admits to wanting to take your money.

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93969.html

 The rules bend under such circumstances.  Lighten up becomes Get a
 clue.

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Be careful, Terry.  Mark might key up on you with the ultimate YHWH
reference post to put you on the defensive...  even then, would such a
thing contribute to Blaze pulling his head out of a dark place???


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  If you don't like the implication that Blaze has his head in dark
 places, go
  ahead and defend him

 Or her.

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread Kevin O'Malley

Several groups which tested the Rossi device found no heat, so they stopped
the tests ahead of schedule.
***When you write your book, you'll hopefully explain which groups these
are.

And that eventuality of writing your book will be coming VERY soon in your
perspective.  Ya might as well get started now... And if I know you like I
think I do...  You've already started.So try to keep up.  Time's a
wastin'.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 Another reason to think the results are positive is that it is taking all
 this time. The researchers would have cut short the tests long ago and
 published.


 I meant that if there were no excess heat, they would have cut short the
 tests after a few weeks. I suppose.

 Several groups which tested the Rossi device found no heat, so they
 stopped the tests ahead of schedule.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-05 Thread James Bowery

If, as Carver Mead believes, the magnetic vector potential turns out to be
not only physical but essential for coherent thinking about the physical,
Oliver Heaviside's contribution will be thrown into question as it was he,
more than anyone else, that discounted Maxwell's insistence that it was
physical (which would have directed 19th century physics to quantum theory)
rather than a mere mathematical artifact.

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote:

I think you guys are on to what I call the difference between an
entrepreneur (a very misused word) and not an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs
are fearless about new things. However to be a successful entrepreneur you
need to be logical and the hardest . . .

Yeah. One caution though. A personality is not unified. A person can
boldly accept change in one aspect of life, but reject it in another.
Perhaps the best example of that was Franklin Roosevelt. He was
conservative and he loved traditions, yet he was also innovative, bold and
willing to try anything. Martin Fleischmann used to say, Stan and I are
painfully conventional people. He meant it. In many ways, they were.

Oliver Heaviside was one of the boldest and most unconventional physicists
in history. His personal life was the opposite. He held one job for a few
years, and then spent the rest of his life at home. He was a recluse,
following routines, never marrying. Perhaps he needed to hang on to dull
routine to counterbalance his bold exploration of the unknown.

I myself like to do the same thing every day, like clockwork, living a bit
like a monk. I eat pretty much the same foods, and go to the same places
for vacation. Quiet and boring places. I would make a good teacher because
I do not mind repeating myself. I loathe taking any kind of unnecessary
risk, such as driving faster than the speed limit. On the other hand, I
have spent decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars on cold fusion and
I have absolutely nothing to show for it -- not a milligram of success! But
no regrets. I would do it again without hesitation. If I live another 20
years still capable of it, I will be doing it the last day of my life, even
if I am certain there is no hope of success.

I am with Winston Churchill on this. As he said in 1941: . . . never give
in, never give in, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large
or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/103-never-give-in

And Édith Piaf: Non, je ne regrette rien.

Regarding life's Important Decisions and Turning Points, I agree with
Satchel Paige: Don't look back; something might be gaining on you.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Alain Sepeda

One reason for the scientist, like for Elforsk boss, is not taking risk to
be wrong but very probably they already know what they are (right or
wrong), and that they did not take the opportunity to flee the debate is an
information.

If the test was a flop, the boss of Elforsk would have said : I did not
call for that test, and we will see the result, and if money was wasted I
will change internal policy. and he will thank the radio for the whistle
blowing.

And the testers would say : sorry I'm busy on another serious project,
cannot say more., and you will see update on their Linked-in account.

The main reason to support the:  Test will be either positive or negative,
but previous indication could not remove the possibility it works, so we
investigated is to look neutral , not already convinced.

Of course they have an opinion, a rational opinion, based on what they
observed... Not having an opinion would be a lack of realism.
But pretending to be neutral give their voice more credibility if the
result is positive.

For the skeptics who convinced the masses, the LENR supporters are not
realist basing their opinion on facts, but a gang of believers who bend
evidence to support their dream.

Another reason of their formulation is that the show that NOT PURSUING
INVESTIGATION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC.
It is an attack against the don't look into the telescope motto of the
skeptical authorities, an absurd anti-scientific position.



2014-06-04 4:15 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com:

 I don't know why they replied. Since (as Jed pointed out) they ran the
 test for the full duration it was most likely positive.

 The only reason I can think of is that the Swedish coverage  might
 influence journal editors, but I think a solid paper and a cover letter
 would serve the same purpose.

 I sincerely doubt that a journal will pick it up, so it will most likely
 be self-published (again) and generally ignored (again).

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Daniel Rocha

The oddest thing about this new affair it is that ecat's report should be
released soon... So, it's almost like this scam calling was done on
purpose, right before its release.



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Blaze Spinnaker

Yeah, crazy stuff.   I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40%
though on the account of the scientists speaking out.  They sound confident.


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 The oddest thing about this new affair it is that ecat's report should be
 released soon... So, it's almost like this scam calling was done on
 purpose, right before its release.



 --
 Daniel Rocha - RJ
 danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Jed Rothwell

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

I sincerely doubt that a journal will pick it up, so it will most likely
be self-published (again) and generally ignored (again).

I think there is no chance any journal will publish this. Self-publication
is fine. It will be ignored, but that does not matter either. Important
people are aware of this, and they will act if the results are positive.

As I have often said, a tight conspiracy is fine at this stage, as long as
it includes People With Money. That is what we have been missing for the
last 25 years. At this stage, we do not need support from general public or
the readers of *Nature* magazine.

Later, if it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, the
conventional energy industry will attack the research. At present, only the
plasma fusion scientists attack it, because they are the only ones
threatened by it. Once it becomes generally known that Rossi devices run at
kilowatts for months at a time, at high temperatures, you can be sure that
the oil companies, coal, wind, conventional fission, and other energy
producers will come down on cold fusion like a ton of bricks.

The record of the energy industry shows what will happen. The Koch brothers
and other vested interests in energy spend hundreds of millions fighting
progress in the energy sector, and working to discredit climatology and
global warming research. They pay for political campaigns, advertising, and
they work behind the scenes buying off politicians and journalists. Not
only do they fight against regulating CO2, they work to prevent the
reduction of conventional air pollution from things like sulfur, and to
stop North Carolina and other states from regulating coal ash dumps which
threaten the entire state with massive release of with toxic chemicals.
They managed to stop the development of electric cars until the Nissan Leaf
came out. They battle against efficiency in light bulbs, refrigerators and
automobiles. They encourage science-illiterate journalists such as George
Will, who recently wrote that replacing incandescent lights with CFL and
LED lights, . . . has no effect whatever on the planet, but it makes
people feel good about themselves.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/may/11/george-will/george-will-incandescent-light-bulb-has-no-effect-/

I am sure the industry will ramp up these attacks 10-fold, or 100-fold to
stop cold fusion. They will do everything in their power to cut research
funding, slander the researchers, and prevent commercialization.
Fortunately, commercialization will be paid for by a small number of
powerful, wealthy people who will not be swayed by advertising campaigns.

Once the political attacks begin, we will definitely need the general
public! At that point, everything will depend on politics, and on rival
public relations campaigns. Without broad public support there is no chance
cold fusion will be commercialized.

I doubt that the energy industry has prevented research up until now. I
doubt they even knew about it, other than a small number of energy industry
people who visit LENR-CANR.org. For the last 25 years research was stymied
by people such as Robert Park, the Jasons and others in the physics
establishment. I know for a fact these people have been pulling strings and
interfering in normal funding and journal publication. Heck, they brag
about doing that!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Jed Rothwell

Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

Yeah, crazy stuff.   I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40%
 though on the account of the scientists speaking out.  They sound confident.


They are confident, but we cannot be sure they have a positive result this
time. Even assuming the results really were positive last time, with no
experimental error, that is no guarantee the thing worked this time.

I meant that Rossi devices are unpredictable. They work in some tests, and
then they stop working. Everyone I know who has tested them says that.
Readers may recall a test we discussed at length where it took several
hours for the thing start up. The data shows the anomalous heat starting
up, then stopping. Finally it turned on and stayed on.

During the second ELFORSK test, the reaction went out of control, the cell
turned incandescent, and then melted.

I do not think Rossi will admit even to himself how poorly controlled the
devices are.

This is what you expect from a prototype machine exhibiting a novel,
unexplained phenomenon.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Blaze Spinnaker

A reasonable point.   They may report high, uncontrollable COP.  The
isotopic analysis should stlll be be interesting though, if they actually
did it.


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yeah, crazy stuff.   I'm increasing the % here of Rossi being real to 40%
 though on the account of the scientists speaking out.  They sound confident.


 They are confident, but we cannot be sure they have a positive result this
 time. Even assuming the results really were positive last time, with no
 experimental error, that is no guarantee the thing worked this time.

 I meant that Rossi devices are unpredictable. They work in some tests, and
 then they stop working. Everyone I know who has tested them says that.
 Readers may recall a test we discussed at length where it took several
 hours for the thing start up. The data shows the anomalous heat starting
 up, then stopping. Finally it turned on and stayed on.

 During the second ELFORSK test, the reaction went out of control, the cell
 turned incandescent, and then melted.

 I do not think Rossi will admit even to himself how poorly controlled the
 devices are.

 This is what you expect from a prototype machine exhibiting a novel,
 unexplained phenomenon.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Steve High

I agree with having an interested public.   I also think that having a highly 
interested stakeholder could prove useful in the political realm. To that end I 
have been trying to get the trade association for the drought ravaged central 
California growers interested. If the coastal cities had enough available 
energy to economically suck on a straw from the Pacific, then the growers would 
have enough water to grow their veggies and stay in business. Not surprisingly 
I have yet to receive a nibble in response. But if the upcoming report is 
impressive I will take another crack at it. 

Steve High

[Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Ian Walker

Hi all

On the matter of scepticism:

No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR
but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and
put your eye to the telescope.

For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been
published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks, is
further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party
test report:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it at
the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main
stream media as these and others did:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says

Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific
scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or
critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence
that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third
Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first
Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the
fundamental principles of the scientific method:

 In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on
empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of
reasoning.

This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report
are engaged in religion not science.

The Experiment is king.

To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and put
your eye to the telescope.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Axil Axil

The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and
operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently
and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long
as possible.

When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me.

LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering.

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all

On the matter of scepticism:

No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR
but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and
put your eye to the telescope.

For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been
published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks,
is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party
test report:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it
at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main
stream media as these and others did:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says

Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific
scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or
critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence
that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third
Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first
Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the
fundamental principles of the scientific method:

In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on
empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of
reasoning.

This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report
are engaged in religion not science.

The Experiment is king.

To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and
put your eye to the telescope.

Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread Ian Walker

Hi all

In reply to Axil Axil

The point I was making was clearly about the the lack of scientific basis
of the Radio Reporter critique of a third party report that has not yet
been published, so hence no basis on which to make their critique and about
the use of ad homonym attacks rather than critique of testing methodology.

On the matter of black box testing Rossi's pre loaded dry Ni/H reactor.
That black box approach is a perfectly valid methodology in science and has
been used in testing computer algorithms for decades and is the basis for
the double blind tests that underpin modern medicine, I presume you are not
saying that the Lancet does not engage in using scientific method?

In point of fact all scientific experimental discovery is black box without
exception, because until you establish effect you have no basis on which to
discover cause.

Kind Regards walker


On 4 June 2014 16:40, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 The Galileo Test cannot be one on the Ni/H reactor. Its design and
 operating principles are top secret. We are at the religion stage currently
 and the builders of the Ni/H reactors want to keep it that way for as long
 as possible.

 When asked :how does it work the builders will then ask you tell Me.

 LENR is not science, it is top secret project engineering.


 On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Ian Walker walker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all

 On the matter of scepticism:

 No one is denying people the right to be scientifically sceptical of LENR
 but to be a sceptical scientist you must conform to the Galileo Test and
 put your eye to the telescope.

 For the radio reporter to speak out against a report that has not been
 published, is evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

 For the radio reporter to further compound this with ad homonym attacks,
 is further evidence that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

 If the radio reporter has read the publication of the first Third Party
 test report:
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

 and reported on the first set of third party tests and then critiqued it
 at the time, the reporter did not, as others did and reported it in main
 stream media as these and others did:

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/


 http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/


 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says

 Then that critique would apply to that report as part of valid scientific
 scepticism. The fact that the radio reporter did not report on the paper or
 critique it on scientific methodological grounds at the time, is evidence
 that the reporter is engaged in religion not science.

 Arguing, as the radio reporter is doing, that the second six month Third
 Party test, dealing with those critiques of the methodology of the first
 Third Party report should not be published, is to go against the
 fundamental principles of the scientific method:

  In order to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on
 empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of
 reasoning.

 This is the most damning evidence that those involved in the radio report
 are engaged in religion not science.

 The Experiment is king.

 To be scientifically sceptical you must conform to the Galileo Test and
 put your eye to the telescope.

 Kind Regards walker

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Professors Chomping at the Bit

2014-06-04 Thread James Bowery

We're at the magic stage.

Science, anyone skilled in the art can reproduce it.

Magic, only some skilled in the art can reproduce it.

Religion, no one can reproduce it.

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: