using various spawar, nasa GRC 89/2005, toyota/mitsubishi, NI, celani, Piantelli, Focardi, ENEA, Rubbia/DeNinno... we are at level 3 since long... after the 30% successful replication following F&P we were at 2 (negative replication have no meaning except it does not work). after NASA GRC 89, we were at 2+
but groupthink denial is so strong that 2 is not even accepted. can someone here tell me what can make the collective claims of Nasa GRC 1989&2005, Spawar&replicator, iwamura&replicator, and even the latest replication discussed at ICCF17, plus the NI and 200 total, not a perfect replication of the minimal of LENR : "there is anomalous heat unexplained by usual theories and not chemical, probably nuclear or else alien"... ->> I'm serious about that question, since on http://lenrforum.eu, I'm preparing an openletter to call some local media http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=429 I don't want to look stupid, so I must have all data needed to argue Does my claim, that even NASA GRC 89+2005 is enough. that SPAWAR+replication is too ? independently ! that Iwamura+replicator is too ? independently! can you add some other pair of replication ? thanks in advance. 2012/8/19 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote: > > I apologize for the first part of no interest for LENR, but something >> frightening >> has happened- it seems that a gang of local politicians, leftists and >> rightists united >> have stolen or bought second hand our MMMM and try to apply it very fast. >> I fear >> they cannot be stopped and this makes the future very dim. I had to write >> about this >> as a citizen. >> > > The negative comments in your first section are well-taken, Peter. I > would just add that I think "celebrity," as you refer to it, has an > important role for someone trying to make sense of the traffic going > through this forum, in particular. It is an unrealistic ideal to ask > people to rely upon their own competence and expertise, from start to > finish, when it comes to a difficult problem like LENR (or, LENR+, if you > like). > > Presumably it is possible for a nonspecialist to have reasonable assurance > that a problem has advanced through one or more of these stages: > > 1. As one claim in a huge mass of claims about anything under the sun. > 2. As something for which there is prima facie evidence that sets it > apart from all of the other unsubstantiated claims. > 3. As something that has received rigorous, independent confirmation. > 4. As a verified phenomenon the existence of which there is general > consensus. > > It is very difficult for a nonspecialist, on his or her own, to know > whether a phenomenon has moved from (1) to (2). If you are not to > overreach the limitations of your own knowledge and experience, you will > have to rely upon the expertise of others who seem trustworthy to you. > Such people can obviously make mistakes or have a conflict of interest, so > you will not get a free ride, here, and you obviously can't just be an > unthinking fanbot. But the scope of human knowledge is far too large for a > nonspecialist to effectively go it alone. > > In light of that, I don't see a problem with referring to and relying upon > authorities, all else being equal. They are just people that you trust are > particularly competent. An implication is that you will want to be careful > in who you choose to trust. > > Eric > >
