Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
Your hunch amounts to overwhelming evidence? Rossi is public figure? You think you can accuse someone of fraud and not be subject to possible suit? As a practicing lawyer, your comments make me shudder! Ransom Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Eric Walker wrote: >> In my opinion, people should not bring up fraud unless they have specific >> and compelling evidence. I do not know what the law (e.g., US law) says >> about the permissible boundaries for discussing possible fraud in a public >> forum, but we should not recklessly put this one at risk. > > It is not a problem. Both Levi and Rossi are public figures. E.g. Obama does > not sue you if you are accusing him a liar from false basis or that you think > that Obama has secretly visited Mars in 1980's. > > For me the evidence is overwhelming against Rossi and if Rossi is a scammer, > this makes also Levi as a partner. Note that this does not imply that Rossi > and Levi are doing something that is criminal ― they are just making money! > > Note also that evidence is only for me overwhelming. This means that my > opinion is strong. However I do not claim that I have positive evidence for > the fraud. It is just that my hunch is pointing towards scam. > > ―Jouni > >
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Jun 4, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > In my opinion, people should not bring up fraud unless they have specific > and compelling evidence. I do not know what the law (e.g., US law) says > about the permissible boundaries for discussing possible fraud in a public > forum, but we should not recklessly put this one at risk. > It is not a problem. Both Levi and Rossi are public figures. E.g. Obama does not sue you if you are accusing him a liar from false basis or that you think that Obama has secretly visited Mars in 1980's. For me the evidence is overwhelming against Rossi and if Rossi is a scammer, this makes also Levi as a partner. Note that this does not imply that Rossi and Levi are doing something that is criminal ― they are just making money! Note also that evidence is only for me overwhelming. This means that my opinion is strong. However I do not claim that I have positive evidence for the fraud. It is just that my hunch is pointing towards scam. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Berke Durak wrote: I love the mailing list format as its dependence on third-party > infrastructure is minimal and replaceable but it's a bit too easy for > opponents to flood and derail discussions. > One thing that recently occurred to me is that there is a very nice feature of the mailing list format, which makes it preferable in some ways to a forum hosted on Google or Yahoo!. Any correspondence to the list is not centralized in once place and goes out to a large number of recipients, all of whom will have redundant copies of whatever was sent out. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
I have opened a dispute notice on Wiki. As far as I know, anyone can join the fray (at the bottom.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Energy_Catalyzer_discussion
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:31 PM, "a.ashfield" wrote: > > In fact an independent test has been carried out. > > This is not true. The test was arranged in Rossi's facilities and by > Giuseppe Levi. And problem is that we do not know what is financial > relationship between Rossi and Levi, so Levi, who has been chief scientist > in all ecat tests, cannot be considered as independent entity. > > Therefore it is factually correct to state that there has not been > arranged independent test. > On one level, I disagree with this statement. I do not think we have enough information to conclude for sure whether it was a fully independent test; I'm inclined to think it sufficiently independent to not have to worry about the measurements that were made. On another level, I agree with you. Wikipedia is not a suitable place to air parisan views as fact. Ideally, it would either not contain controversial statements, or it would uncontroversially summarize different sides to a controversy. Since the latter is probably not possible right now in a highly charged Wiki article such as that for LENR, in think the former is a reasonable course. The implication is that the Wiki article should not refer to the Levi et al. report as "independent," even if many of us here think it was sufficiently so to be useful. > My personal opinion is that that Levi must be also key player in ecat scam. It occurred to me recently that we put Bill Beatty and Eskimo.com at risk by pursing the fraud angle without clear evidence to back such allegations up. In my opinion, people should not bring up fraud unless they have specific and compelling evidence. I do not know what the law (e.g., US law) says about the permissible boundaries for discussing possible fraud in a public forum, but we should not recklessly put this one at risk. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
Jouni Valkonen wrote: "This is not true. The test was arranged in Rossi's facilities and by Giuseppe Levi. And problem is that we do not know what is financial relationship between Rossi and Levi, so Levi, who has been chief scientist in all ecat tests, cannot be considered as independent entity. Therefore it is factually correct to state that there has not been arranged independent test." No surprise to find you were wrong about this. Elforsk, who are the Swedish equivalent of EPRI, funded the test and posted this on their site. "Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi. The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk."
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
Jouni Valkonen wrote: And since there is no radiation, I do not see that it is plausible have > claimed levels of excess heat. So, you dismiss the entire body of cold fusion research? Is that what you are saying? Do you think that all of the other researchers are also frauds, or do you suppose they made mistakes? > Also Rossi lost his final bits of credibility forever when he childishly > threatened Wikipedia with lawsuit. It worked. They removed the article. For the cost of having a lawyer write one letter, the article is gone. That's not childish or crazy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:31 PM, "a.ashfield" wrote: > In fact an independent test has been carried out. This is not true. The test was arranged in Rossi's facilities and by Giuseppe Levi. And problem is that we do not know what is financial relationship between Rossi and Levi, so Levi, who has been chief scientist in all ecat tests, cannot be considered as independent entity. Therefore it is factually correct to state that there has not been arranged independent test. My personal opinion is that that Levi must be also key player in ecat scam. If Levi is honest, I do not think that it is possible for Rossi to fool him so many times and Levi not requiring more careful measurements. And since there is no radiation, I do not see that it is plausible have claimed levels of excess heat. Also Rossi lost his final bits of credibility forever when he childishly threatened Wikipedia with lawsuit. Only lunatics behave such a way and this is very common pattern for conspiratorial trolls to react when forum moderators do not listen them. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:57 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Berke Durak, > My interest was to get Wiki to correct their entry. Not clear to me how > Reddit can help that. The idea is that pro-LENR people could collaboratively work on a wiki where they have editorial control, whose contents would compete with Wikipedia on search engine results, eventually forcing Wikipedia (and society) to be more willing to accept the relevant information. Unlike other wikis, the Reddit wikis are tightly coupled with the rest of the subreddit where discussions and link-sharing can take place. It would thus be more community-forming, and its exposure to the younger generation is high. Edits on Wikipedia proper could also be coordinated from there. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
Berke Durak, My interest was to get Wiki to correct their entry. Not clear to me how Reddit can help that.
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Having tried to edit something on the wiki E-CAT page and having it > immediately deleted, I ended up writing this on the "Topic Talk" page. It > probably won't do any good but if enough people do this (anyone can) > They say there are 1000- 7000 hits per day on the E-CAT page. Just a quick semi-relevant comment. There is a LENR group on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/lenr and Reddit provides a Wiki facility for subreddits (= Reddit groups). I don't know how sympathethic the owners of that subreddit (e.g. the LENR subreddit moderators) are to the cause, but you can create your own subreddit and edit its Wiki as you see fit. I have used Reddit's Wiki facilities and while they are not as extensive as those of Wikipedia they are good enough. Reddit is also very good for having discussions thanks to its voting system that keeps trolls and spammers at bay while still giving everyone a chance to voice their opinion (using a combination of throttling and votes.) It also allows anonymous discussion which is good for controversial, career-endangering fields such as LENR. I love the mailing list format as its dependence on third-party infrastructure is minimal and replaceable but it's a bit too easy for opponents to flood and derail discussions. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
Having tried to edit something on the wiki E-CAT page and having it immediately deleted, I ended up writing this on the "Topic Talk" page. It probably won't do any good but if enough people do this (anyone can) They say there are 1000- 7000 hits per day on the E-CAT page. This discussion page rambles to the point it is difficult to follow. There are two main points that are clearly wrong. 1, The statement that no independent test has been carried out. You can't prove a negative and so can't possibly know that. In fact an independent test has been carried out. The paper is available for viewing or downloading at arXiv:1305,3903 It was paid for and commented about by Elforsk on their official site. Elforsk is a large, well known R&D organization, equivalent to EPRI. It can't get much more official than that. It doesn't matter that it has not been peer reviewed yet, or that some don't like the experimental procedure. An independent test HAS been run. There are various secondary sources of confirmation mentioned, such as Gibbs in Forbes magazine. I expect that several other tests have been run by large organizations doing their due diligence. 2. The comment on an independent test is followed by a very negative commentary taken from a blog site run by Ugo Bardi. The comments to his post were uniformly negative. Mine was censored. What is the justification for this? I can point to several other blogs run by scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner and a Chief Scientist at NASA, that come to the opposite conclusion. One can only conclude that there are several editors on this topic that are so convinced that LENR is impossible that they favor anything negative about it. For example, the selective quote from Elforsk given. The full quote is shown below. (Google translation) Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst - E-cat "Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi. The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk." For those the prefer peer reviewed papers, there are several hundred listed that confirm LENR here. lenr-canr.org Rossi forecast at the beginning that nothing would convince the skeptics until working E-CATs were out in the market and he was right. I wonder what you will say when Defkalion demonstrate their Hyperion at the National Instruments Week in August. LENR has now been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This negatively biased wiki entry on the E-CAT is doing a great disservice to thousands of viewers.
