On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>

> This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders.
> If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the
> theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the
> methods, like in Lugano.
> Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the test was
> conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
> him of his intellectuel property.
> As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it
> would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
> it is even more disgusting.
> I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned
> by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to
> verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!
> only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
> reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.
> LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
> Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
> Parks.
> It have to stop.
> as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
> modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
> This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020
> I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I
> even hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys,
> but first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
> temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
> they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.

Let me re-phrase what you wrote, so others are clear on what you are
actually saying here (please do correct me if I'm off the mark):
(However, don't object to my re-phrasing you below, if it's simply the case
that you did not understand the implications of your own statements...)

* Proprietary, secretive Science is not really proper science, per se --
because it is not open and reproducible.
  (At best, opening up your results YEARS later ONLY after having attempted
commercializing them, can be seen as being pretty cruddy, third-rate
'Science' praxis.)

* ALL *real* Science is OPEN and PUBLIC -- and therefore open to
_immediate_ attempts at reproducibility.
   Because that's what REAL Science -- and the Scientific Method -- *is*.

> 2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>:
>> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,

Reply via email to