Predictions are very dicey, especially about the future -- evidence very fallible, especially unsubmitted, especially nonexistent -- conclusions rather premature, especially imagined... while the feverish delirium of racing on hobby horses suggests dreaming -- the joint production evolving as a self-generating expanding random fractal of weird situations -- reality shows now reality -- not just Rossi or CF, but mainstream economics and politics and cosmology -- ie, FaceBook has gone from a college dorm room to 800 members worldwide in some 8 years -- it's a 'social game' ! -- becoming the largest social entity of all -- I find using dashes the best way to sort my thoughts these wonder full strange days... not just a pragmatic skeptic, but a bamboozled flummoxed amazed one... here I stand, for I know not which way to turn... Rich ?
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Peter Heckert <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 25.11.2011 22:28, schrieb Peter Gluck: >> >> Have you read Piantelli's publications see my Taxonomy on the blog Ego Out >> and on lenr-canr, there are many.papers. > >> What do you think about the Pontignano Poster I have sent today? > > I have not seen it, sorry and dont know where to look. > My doubt about Piantelli is this: > I have read many times in the web, Piantelli got an OU factor of two or > three reliably. > Because this is not enough to make electricity he does not want to go public > with this. > This is what they write and I dont know, if it is true. > > Now, if he is a /real/ scientist, then he must know, how groundbreaking > important such a result is for the whole science and for the whole world. > > So then he should do a blackbox demonstration and change the future of > science and of the world by doing so. > As a /real/ scientist he had the moral obligation to do so, if these reports > are true. > > I cannot read all papers. Even if I understand them it is still unclear if I > can trust them. > I have seen scientists and engineers doing big nonsense in my life and > sometimes I have also found myself doing big nonsense, but not > intentionelly. But I have seen people that do this carelessly or > intentionelly and have fun doing it. > > I want to see this same fundamental proof of efficiency from Defkalion and > from Piantelli and from any other researcher that I want to see from Rossi. > A convincing blackbox test Energy in < Energy out, documented without gaps > and independently trutable witnessed. > > Anything inside the blackbox can stay secret and undocumented, if the test > is run long enough to exclude hidden energy sources or hidden energy > storage. > > Chan & Defkalion have nothing else delivered than verbal claims, I dont > understand why you believe them. > (Defkalion has made many definitely false announcements and claims in their > forum and this is a strong reason for disbelieve.) > > Peter > > > >
