I think what you're saying is the secret ingredient is cooties rat semen?Joseph Chikva wrote:too many secrets
10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
I can not follow to your sarcasm. It is only that my very primitive logic can explain me. The second quote is: people are like kids when you say them that Santa is not real (c)quixote wrote:I think what you're saying is the secret ingredient is cooties rat semen?Joseph Chikva wrote:too many secrets
Whose semen? Coyote’s?
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Quixote, have to say I knew what you were refering to.quixote wrote:Sorry, it was a movie reference that was meant to be light-hearted. I forget sometimes that not everyone is a pop culture buff.
As to the secret sauce and Rossi, I'm reserving my opinion, though I'm pretty skeptical.
The leonardo corporation the new Setec Astronomy??
It is ironic that (pseudo) skeptics are presenting this guy as their poster child.
If Rossi had simply said that his reactor worked by "windom-larsen theory" (absurd) then krivit would be on his knees slobbering all over Rossi with every post.
This guy is the biggest nutjob associated with cold fusion, and there are a lot of nutjobs associated with cold fusion!
While he has definitely taken a personal tone, I still find him vastly more credible than Sterling and his "Obama has gone to mars" garbage.Crawdaddy wrote:It is ironic that (pseudo) skeptics are presenting this guy as their poster child.
If Rossi had simply said that his reactor worked by "windom-larsen theory" (absurd) then krivit would be on his knees slobbering all over Rossi with every post.
This guy is the biggest nutjob associated with cold fusion, and there are a lot of nutjobs associated with cold fusion!
I find him more credible than Charles Manson too.ScottL wrote:While he has definitely taken a personal tone, I still find him vastly more credible than Sterling and his "Obama has gone to mars" garbage.Crawdaddy wrote:It is ironic that (pseudo) skeptics are presenting this guy as their poster child.
If Rossi had simply said that his reactor worked by "windom-larsen theory" (absurd) then krivit would be on his knees slobbering all over Rossi with every post.
This guy is the biggest nutjob associated with cold fusion, and there are a lot of nutjobs associated with cold fusion!
He is, however, infinitely less credible than well educated serious scientists like Levi, Focardi, Essen, Kulander etc.
They don't think the device is obviously a fraud. I prefer not to listen to crackpots on both sides.
I consider those people suspect at best, but I have my reasons.Crawdaddy wrote:I find him more credible than Charles Manson too.ScottL wrote:While he has definitely taken a personal tone, I still find him vastly more credible than Sterling and his "Obama has gone to mars" garbage.Crawdaddy wrote: It is ironic that (pseudo) skeptics are presenting this guy as their poster child.
If Rossi had simply said that his reactor worked by "windom-larsen theory" (absurd) then krivit would be on his knees slobbering all over Rossi with every post.
This guy is the biggest nutjob associated with cold fusion, and there are a lot of nutjobs associated with cold fusion!
He is, however, infinitely less credible than well educated serious scientists like Levi, Focardi, Essen, Kulander etc.
They don't think the device is obviously a fraud. I prefer not to listen to crackpots on both sides.
!. Levi held up the hose in the Krivit video saying "look steam" which was clearly not the amount they were claiming. He knows this, we know this, that demonstration was a charade and leads me to believe he may be dishonest.
2. Focardi has submitted the base work of Rossi's reactor to other universities as well as CERN and all have rejected his anonmalous heat claims stating that while heat is generated, it's within the known expected parameters of the experiment.
3. Essen and Kulander I'm mixed on as well. They say how much this could be a break through, but leave the possibility it is not what is claimed. Every interview I've watched, they refuse to say something along the lines of "this works, I stake my reputation on it, it is a sure thing". Instead they walk around the "if it works" only mentioning that there is an IF still once or twice in the interviews.
1. This reasoning is deeply flawed. No professor would ever jeopardize their career deliberately trying to scam people in such a manner. This is not even close to enough proof to lower Levi's credibility to the same order of magnitude as krivitsScottL wrote:
I consider those people suspect at best, but I have my reasons.
!. Levi held up the hose in the Krivit video saying "look steam" which was clearly not the amount they were claiming. He knows this, we know this, that demonstration was a charade and leads me to believe he may be dishonest.
2. Focardi has submitted the base work of Rossi's reactor to other universities as well as CERN and all have rejected his anonmalous heat claims stating that while heat is generated, it's within the known expected parameters of the experiment.
3. Essen and Kulander I'm mixed on as well. They say how much this could be a break through, but leave the possibility it is not what is claimed. Every interview I've watched, they refuse to say something along the lines of "this works, I stake my reputation on it, it is a sure thing". Instead they walk around the "if it works" only mentioning that there is an IF still once or twice in the interviews.
2. Have you even read these papers you keep talking about? The CERN paper admits that after they opened their reactor for the first time after a year of experiments they found a visible layer of zinc on their nickel rod! They admit to using brass contacts, that, as anyone who actually knew what they were talking bout can tell you, when heated under vacuum will redeposit zinc over every internal surface almost immediately. Their experiment was deeply flawed and showed absolutely nothing! They couldn't even reproducibly load hydrogen into their device. Pathetic experiment. An article like that one that claimed to reproduce the effect would never be published.
3. Essen and Kullander have limited access to the device (much less than Levi and Focardi). Of course we are talking about IF the device is not a fraud. The two professors are exactly right when they say that the device is consistent with an actual cold fusion reactor based on the available evidence. That does not mean that they discount the possibility of being tricked by fraud! Of course the device could be a fraud! Only a blithering idiot or crackpot would claim to know based on the limited information available to the public whether the device is a fraud or not. Focardi and Levi are not blithering idiots or crackpots do they have information we do not?