Russ, I am not proposing 'science by mob rule'. There is "some" credible analysis being done on data released to the public. When the Lugano report was released, the analysis that ensued was valuable in understanding the significance of what had been done. The Lugano researchers, processing science by ordinary means, left the analysis with gaping errors. The field would have been substantially misled had the internet analysis not occurred.
Yes, there will be trolls and crap that is posted, but there will also be credible analysis, and it is reasonably easy to tell which is which. For myself, I would like to see and analyze the data from the 350 day test so that I can put it into proper perspective for its impact on the future of LENR - not to take sides in a legal battle. I also realize that I am not entitled to the data in any way. That doesn't make me want to see it any less. On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob, It seems your proposal is for ‘science by mob rule’. Such suggestions > ignore the fact that the internet is a swirling cesspool,vortex, that is > easily overwhelmed by those willing to post outlandish lies > distortions/spin. To suggest that some semblance of truth can be arrived at > via the net is absurd. The best the net has to offer is some difficult to > sort tidbits that come at the expense of having to sift through endless > piles of shit. > > > > However if your correct then there is plenty of ‘data’ already on the net > in this current kerfluffle over e-cats. The evidence is being presented in > a quasi-real fashion highlighted by the Rossi/IH legal papers. > > > > That Rossi has precipitated the release of said papers is clear evidence > that he, who is the only person at risk in the matter, is clear evidence > that he must believe he has the proof in hand. That IH spent so much time > and money associating with and selling Rossi in such a determined and > profitable fashion, as in raising $50 million from one big fund, is clear > they had access to the convincing ‘scientific data’ necessary to make such > commitments. To suggest they were misled is preposterous. > > > > The present legal situation is certain proof that IH is engaging in a > legal ploy to circumvent both the letter and spirit of the promises they > made to Rossi. That word “SPIRIT” has enormous re’purr’cussions in law, > especially at it pertains to E-Cats. > > > > Those who want to reproduce Rossi and have been constantly seeking > short-cuts to investing the time and effort to do so as Rossi’s (and all > pioneers of cold fusion) history has demonstrated is required and all their > grousing about and poking at Rossi to reveal all is science at its worst > but also sadly normal condition. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, April 9, 2016 10:07 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb > > > > It is amazing that there are so many lofty positions being taken on the > basis of little-to-no released data. If IH and Rossi each believe their > positions, then I say, "PUBLICLY RELEASE THE RAW DATA ALONG WITH OBSERVER > COMMENTS". Play chicken. See who objects to release of the data. > > Let the internet use its thousands of eyes to dig out the real truth. > There is a great wealth of technical acumen in the internet - many of whom > really want to know the truth. There will be analyses of the data that > reveal the truth, which could range from validation to ambiguity to > deception. In the absence of data we can concoct a position to support any > of these - as we are seeing in this forum. Phrases like, "at times had a > COP of 50", are specious propaganda and meaningless. Of course, there > could be bursts of COP=50, and what is not said would make all the > difference - for example, were the bursts of COP=50 more than averaged out > by long bursts of COP=0.9? > > > > The actual data would speak for itself. > > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:29 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > wrote: > > Have a look at Mats Lewan's analysis. It seems much more comprehensive > and less biased to me > https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/ > He is a science reporter who is MUCH more knowledgeable about LENR than > Wang. > > Jones, further to your belief in Clarke's analysis of the Lugano > experiment. I have had hundreds of on-line duels with him over the years. > He is absolutely certain LENR is impossible and no experiment has ever > shown anomalous heat. Also absolutely certain that the IPCC is right about > global warming and the effect of CO2. > > >
