Nope. You have posted SUSPICIANS about ONE LENR researcher. All of Rossi's transgressions are financial, none related to any research or technical work that he has done.
There is ONE proven hoax in all LENR research, and that was done by anti-LENR researchers at MIT.
"This isn't shouting down anyone."
Your entire mode of presentation is nothing more than that.
"Scientists have an obligation to point out to interested laymen and other scientists not necessarily schooled in a particular field when they are being scammed. It is unethical to do otherwise.
Actually I agree. Which is why I post on LENR threads, and why YOU are the charlatan.
"In addition to doing that, I have also repeatedly provided citations from other scientists, just in case you don't believe me.
LOL. You've certainly never done so with me.
"I don't personally believe you have one...."
Another point where you are wrong, like much else.
"But credentials are irrelevant for the reason given; the quality of argument is all that matters here, and other than sloganeering you've never produced any.
Nope. What matters is the quality of the DATA. The quality of the argument, like credentials, as you say, means zip.
Oh, but since you're an experimentalist, AND "experiment trumps theory," try this on for size: the manufacturer of the spectroscopy equipment BLP uses has been saying for years that their equipment cannot measure the wavelengths claimed by this "experimentalist."
As I have already told you, my interest in BLP is essentially zip. I have not studied their claims, either theorertical or experimental. My presence here is to see any responses that relate to LENR.
Contrary to the nonsense you constantly post, that "extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary proof," the fact is that if you want to challenge literally thousands of experiments and a whole edifice of scientific thought which is interconnected with additional supporting evidence, experimental and theoretical, then YES, you must provide extraordinary proof of your claims, part of which includes at least a plausibility argument for why earlier experimenters results supports a theory which yours doesn't.
Another wrong (and VERY pseudoscientific) notion. Science does NOT require extraordanry proof. That statement was cooked up by people debunking psychic research, and was popularized by another physics charlatan...the guy with "billions and billions" of galaxies.....too bad "nuclear winter wasn't real.
As to the interconnectedness of science....experiment often tears out big chunks of that spiderweb. And LENR is just about to do it again.
"Instead, you and Charlatan #1 jump around like a bunch of aborigines in war paint around a campfire screaming "Experiment Trumps Theory! Experiment Trumps Theory!" NO. IT DOESN'T.
Nope. It does NOT. And your saying so simply points up your pseudoscience.
The ultimate proof of ANY physical phenomenon comes from experiment.
"Not when that theory explains countless other experiments which themselves imply that the experiment you're touting IS WRONG.
See above about tearing out chunks of the spiderweb
Good theories and good experiments support each other."
Of course they do. That is why, when experiment contradicts theory, no matter how "beautiful" the theory is, it gets tossed.
"The "absolute trumping" of theory is only valid science in very young fields when there is no previous experimental work held together by mutually supporting explanations.
More pseudoscience bullshit.
"Your idea of "science" is troublingly immature and naïve for someone who claims to have a PhD. [And one of the reasons I don't believe you do.]
My "idea of science" is absolutely mainstream. Your notion that "theory trumps experiment" is at odds with REAL science.
"And please don't quote Feynman to me. Feynman was not a child, and the oversimplification he felt necessary to explain complex scientific principles and the scientific method for public consumption doesn't mean he believed a few people diddling with electrodes should overturn quantum electrodynamics.
How about Einstein?? He said the same thing. And since Feynman had been dead for months before P & F surfaced, it would be sort of hard for him to have an opinion....unless "you" have psychic powers and can communicate with the dead.
However, Feynmann shared the Nobel Prize with another physicist, who "did" live long enough to be involved in theoretical work on cold fusion. That would be Julian Schwinger.
Here is what he thought, and what happened to him as a consequence (http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html). And yes, you'll have to copy/past the link.
So, do you consider your knowledge of physics superior to that of Schwinger???
"Do you seriously believe that if an experimenter came up with a result that seemed to contradict the basics of atomic theory that every scientist in the world -- including all but a handful of experimentalists would throw up their hands and say....
No. It takes a minimum of TWO (it's called "replication) experiments.
"I have read the theoretical papers of LENR advocates. AND THEY ARE NONSENSE.
Perhaps you should spend some time reading the papers on EXPERIMENTAL work, which actually mean something.
"We have literally hundreds of thousands of experimental results which say that low energy nuclear reactions CAN NOT HAPPEN, and we have a number of theories which support each other, from basic classical nuclear understanding of 100+ years ago, through non-relativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and quantum field theory to say why this is so. These theories all come at this issue from different perspectives, and they all reinforce each other, and they explain the countless experiments.
I don't doubt it.
"And they say that overcoming the Coulomb barrier does not, under any circumstances we understand, happen at low energies.
The crux here is "...under any circumstances we understand...". LENR is a phenomenon that "we" do NOT understand.
Case in point. A recent paper at the latest (at least I think it was the latest) ICCF (yes, that's "cold fusion") summarized work in which some physicists had bombarded a deuterium-loaded palladium foil with a low-energy beam of deuterons (far below the energy levels required for "kinetic fusion") and determined the cross-sections for various hydrogen isotope reactions. They found that the reaction cross-sections were "orders of magnitude" greater than expected from "kinetic fusion" theory, and that the branching ratios were also greatly different.
Now, this experiment "is" beyond my capability to judge, as it is well outside my knowledge bases, but the experiment certainly seems to be a good approach to studying the phenomenon, and completely different from a calorimetric approach.
"And until YOU have a workable theory which explains why we should overturn countless well established experiments by competent researchers, no one gives a sh!t about some silly, badly reported, very problematically duplicated heat anomalies in a handful of cases. And simply rerunning those experiments doesn't make them any more convincing, nor supply any explanation for why we should believe them.
And the above is precisely where you fail. "Rerunning those experiments" is essential (replication, y'know) to proof.
"In addition to which, your problem is compounded by the fact that BLP, Rossi, and many other cold fusion "researchers" are frauds and conmen. Rossi is a convicted tax cheat and conman."
"...many other cold fusion "researchers"..." Who might they be. WITH proof.
"Frankly, I'll put my scientific ethics up against yours any time of the day, pal.
"I" read papers on experiments...the sine qua non of scientific proof. You do not. Therein lies the difference.
"Finally, I'll tell you this: I myself was not a high energy physicist, and in fact most practicing physicists aren't. They suck most of the air out of the room in terms of money, public awareness, and public interest, and given the fact that almost all actually useful science being done in physics is being done by condensed matter physicists and materials researchers, and not by cosmologists and particle guys, I actually have no particular use for them, knew very few of them when I was in the life, and don't feel any compulsion to defend them ... but ... Contrary to the lies told by faux fusion fanbois, hot fusion researchers have NEVER claimed they were on the brink of producing a controlled fusion.
Well, they have certainly managed to spend a lot of money for something they had so little faith in.
All of Rossi's transgressions are financial, none related to any research or technical work that he has done.
I stopped reading your post right there, and from here on you should be warned that posting some ridiculously long screed to me is going to be a waste of time as soon as I see a lie.
Rossi was convicted and sentenced to two years and eight months for a fraudulent misrepresentation of taxable assets, AND for failure to deliver on a fraudulent claim that his reclamation system would clean up toxic waste. I have posted a link to the pdf showing the court record three times now. I'm not posting it again.
Just like Kevmo, you're a liar.