Dear Alain, I am just writing an editorial about progress blindness e.g. Jed Rothwell is unable or unwilling to see any progress in what Rossi did achieved starting from 2011 and accusing Rossi of possible amnesia- in the best times he was able to get excess heat but later not, aat the 1year 1MW Test there was no trace of excess heat, this being obvious because there are rust stains on the static vanes of a flowmeter that was not opened but Murray had seen them- miraculously. posed to the 10 months average results published by IH, saying results are as Rossi claims.
However I want to show that you are aon a contrary position with what you call: good old electrolytic method. ENEA and SKINR have performed indeed high level and quality materials science studies however progress in reliability and reproducibility remains in the best case incremental. A friendly advise please re-analyse what can PdD wet offer scientifically and technologically, do not be the prisoner of the glorious but non-developing past. I am ready to publish what you want about the progress of PdD. amities, peter On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > On the opposite, maybe not specifically in Italy, but results get more and > more reliable. > for ICCF15 ENEA reported results where success evolved from unreliable to > more than 60% success because of cristallography surface choice. > > as I read the litterature of PdD, it seems more and more reliable for good > old electrolythic method. > > what is changing however is the reduction of budgets. > first experiments were done in the 90s with short but noticeable budgets, > but then it became very hard to work., in the 2k period it seems budget is > the big problem. > > for NiH maybe your notice apply and we must take the consequence. > > 2016-08-30 23:09 GMT+02:00 David L. Babcock <olb...@gmail.com>: > >> I am struck by a curious parallel between many investigational endeavors >> in science, the 'soft sciences', near science, and maybe-science (cold >> fusion may or may not be in this last category). All are troubled by a >> sequence comprising initial success, followed by a long irregular slope >> down into no-results-above-noise. >> >> The soft sciences are abuzz right now with a huge failure-to-replicate of >> all kinds of findings that were thought to be rock solid. Sort of as though >> the more you look, the less you see. Wish I could give a link. Google on >> failure to replicate. >> >> In parapsychology, there is the researcher who after years of at first >> very good results, then worse results with the same tests, until at last >> results so bad she decided it was all mistaken. >> >> In comes the coyote, the Trickster. In "*The Trickster and the >> Paranormal", (George Hansen) *-which I did not read, but read about- a >> good argument is made that err, "something", is at work screwing up the >> works, by either giving good results where none is warranted, or subverting >> good results over time to discredit/stymie/trick the researcher. I take >> the liberty, at lest for this exposition, of taking this out of the >> paranormal "box" and jamming it helter skelter into particle physics. Or >> whatever physics covers LENR. >> >> For a brain transition enhancer, think poltergeist. (If you check into >> the 'Glitch in the matrix' Reddit, there is a lot there to suggest trickery >> in the numerous reports of moving or hiding small objects.) >> >> Enter Rossi. A prime target. The master of trickery, of (a least!) the >> trickery of moving small objects, gives Rossi a tantalizing glimpse of fame >> and fortune by shuffling atomic particles around. And keeps it up until >> Rossi is backed into a serious corner, totally tricked. Totally conned, he >> is a prime target because he is himself a showman, a conman. Other >> researchers suffer only frustration and, some, heartbreak. Less hubris? >> >> This does not tell us whether cold fusion is real or not, but it may be >> implying strongly that successfully deploying it may involve a major >> paradigm shift, perhaps of the nature of a core of true believers at each >> power site, in constant prayer (or chanting, candle lighting, pigeon >> slaying). >> >> On 8/30/2016 8:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >>> If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded >>> performance with time? >>> >> >> Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot >> how to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older reactors >> to make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record of what he had >> done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat. >> >> It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have >> enough information to judge. >> >> - Jed >> >> >> >> >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> >> Virus-free. >> www.avast.com >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> >> > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
