10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote: Giorgio,

Remember that you are talking to a man who believes that if you take a series of postulations that have "low probability" and rename them to be "unlikely" then they lose their multiplicative implications.

Regards
Now you see, here we are trying to have a serious discussion and you go and say something idiotic like that. Shame on you.
Do you have data to base said "probabilities" on? If not, then you are trying to multiply opinions; and multiplying infinite opinions doesn't make it fact.
If you HAVE such data, the please do as I requested politely many (what seems like hundreds of) pages ago, provide it.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Giorgio wrote: Yes, I agree, and that's why I said I didn't find it logical.
As I said, the issue relies in the IF you place in support of your logic.
Too many IF and your logic (and hence the chances of it being true) just crumble.

In Rossi case I personally feel there are too many uncleared "IF" to give it any chance. IMBW, but with every new info we get I get more convinced of it.
I guess we just have a totally different understanding of logic. Logic doesn't depend of the number of variables. My statement was definately logical, the only question is whether it is true or false.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

MSimon wrote:
“If the grandmother is virgin, the father is Jesus”
Very nice. I'm going to blog it and give you credit.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/11/iffy.html
Thank you.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Post by Ivy Matt »

Frank Acland
November 16th, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

The site http://www.ecat.com is now saying it is “In Association with Andrea Rossi”. They have an order form for E-Cats, also. Do you have an official relationship with this site?

Thank you!

Best wishes,

Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi
November 16th, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Dear Frank Acland:
Yes, it is the website of our North Europe commercial Branch.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Kahuna wrote:You needn't call me unintelligent mate, the first time around you didn't even complete the thought. You wrote: "Sellings to very happy customers are in progress but you still if grandmother is virgin?" not the “If the grandmother is virgin, the father is Jesus" you claim now. So to get it I would not only have to be intellegent, but clairvoyant. Just say'n to you in those immortal words of Dirty Harry: "A man has got to know his limitations".
Yes, we all have limitations of our own outlook. But nature limitations are much stricter. I can not see excess energy there where you can. As by my primitive thinking heat should be simply measured. Without long and unnecessary reasoning. Then we can discuss any other things. But till now I only hear "If that works".
Then if that works, much better trained in this field people than me or Kiteman would develop the theory.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Kahuna wrote:To clarify, this statement was just made by some anonymous blogger on the 22 Passi site which is rich with E-Cat yarns. Some have proven to be true, others not.
That's not really a site I would quote. Apart from some rare posts once in a while it is just a community of wishful "free energy" thinkers.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote: Yes, I agree, and that's why I said I didn't find it logical.
As I said, the issue relies in the IF you place in support of your logic.
Too many IF and your logic (and hence the chances of it being true) just crumble.

In Rossi case I personally feel there are too many uncleared "IF" to give it any chance. IMBW, but with every new info we get I get more convinced of it.
I guess we just have a totally different understanding of logic. Logic doesn't depend of the number of variables. My statement was definately logical, the only question is whether it is true or false.
Your logic statement was based on assumptions, assumptions are variables.
Hence your logic was based (and depending) upon your variables being correct or not.
What is your statement that you deemed "logic" and free of variables?

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: Giorgio,

Remember that you are talking to a man who believes that if you take a series of postulations that have "low probability" and rename them to be "unlikely" then they lose their multiplicative implications.

Regards
Now you see, here we are trying to have a serious discussion and you go and say something idiotic like that. Shame on you.
Do you have data to base said "probabilities" on? If not, then you are trying to multiply opinions; and multiplying infinite opinions doesn't make it fact.
If you HAVE such data, the please do as I requested politely many (what seems like hundreds of) pages ago, provide it.
You just repeated what I said. Funny.

Some things are so unlikely that reasonable people don't bother to investigate them. When noone investigates them, there is no data.

Saying where's the data doesn't make those things any more likely or the people who can't be bothered to provide it to you any less reasonable. And it most definitely doesn't change the logic that a series of such things is even more unlikely.

In these cases the burden of proof/data rests elsewhere. That elsewhere is Rossi, and he feigns being willing to provide it, yet fails to do so when doing so would be easy, thereby adding another unlikely to a long list of multiplications.

Not recognizing the above, dismissing the simple logic, insulting reasonable people, arguing the language, and speculating on Rossis behalf is what is truly idiotic and sadly comical.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Giorgio wrote:Your logic statement was based on assumptions, assumptions are variables.
Yup, that is what I said
Giorgio wrote:
Hence your logic was based (and depending) upon your variables being correct or not.
Ah, hence the rub. The logic does not depend on the truth/falsity of the variables. Only the RESULT depends on the truth/falsity of the variables. The logic can be perfect and still be wrong. The statement "if X then Y is a perfectly good logical statement. But if NOT X, hmm?
Giorgio wrote: What is your statement that you deemed "logic" and free of variables?
This is totally baffling to me. What in the heck are you talking about here?
Last edited by KitemanSA on Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

seedload wrote: You just repeated what I said. Funny.

Some things are so unlikely that reasonable people don't bother to investigate them. When noone investigates them, there is no data.
Such people have been the bane of civilized progress since Ughugh the apeman said there was no way to handle that hot stuff that happens after lightling strikes, after all, no-one ever has, and that proves it!.
seedload wrote: Saying where's the data doesn't make those things any more likely or the people who can't be bothered to provide it to you any less reasonable.
Their opinion is theirs to flash. But when they say it is fact, I have EVERY right to demand, "where's the data". Their laziness does not entitle them to lie.
seedload wrote: And it most definitely doesn't change the logic that a series of such things is even more unlikely.
Unlikelyness is opinion, You can play with your opinion all you want (just beware of going blind :lol: ). All your playing however won't make your opinion FACT.
seedload wrote: In these cases the burden of proof/data rests elsewhere. That elsewhere is Rossi, and he feigns being willing to provide it, yet fails to do so when doing so would be easy, thereby adding another unlikely to a long list of multiplications.
IMHO, the burdan of proof lies on whoever purports to convey "FACT". If you make statements of FACT, it is up to you to support it or retract it, unless of course you also claim to be a big a con man as you SEEM to think Rossi is.
seedload wrote: Not recognizing the above, dismissing the simple logic, insulting reasonable people, arguing the language, and speculating on Rossis behalf is what is truly idiotic and sadly comical.
As I stated, you are intitled to your opinion, mistaken as it is.

JoeP
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Post by JoeP »

It is a probabilities question, since data and facts are contaminated/incomplete/obfuscated from Rossi. You must make certain assumptions to continue the discussion. Logic is fine if one presumes certain things are true to proceed. IF this THEN that. This whole thread is an exercise in that kind of speculation.

Chikva sort of says the same thing a few posts back:
Joseph Chikva wrote:...As by my primitive thinking heat should be simply measured. Without long and unnecessary reasoning. Then we can discuss any other things...

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote: You just repeated what I said. Funny.

Some things are so unlikely that reasonable people don't bother to investigate them. When noone investigates them, there is no data.
Such people have been the bane of civilized progress since Ughugh the apeman said there was no way to handle that hot stuff that happens after lightling strikes, after all, no-one ever has, and that proves it!.
seedload wrote: Saying where's the data doesn't make those things any more likely or the people who can't be bothered to provide it to you any less reasonable.
Their opinion is theirs to flash. But when they say it is fact, I have EVERY right to demand, "where's the data". Their laziness does not entitle them to lie.
seedload wrote: And it most definitely doesn't change the logic that a series of such things is even more unlikely.
Unlikelyness is opinion, You can play with your opinion all you want (just beware of going blind :lol: ). All your playing however won't make your opinion FACT.
seedload wrote: In these cases the burden of proof/data rests elsewhere. That elsewhere is Rossi, and he feigns being willing to provide it, yet fails to do so when doing so would be easy, thereby adding another unlikely to a long list of multiplications.
IMHO, the burdan of proof lies on whoever purports to convey "FACT". If you make statements of FACT, it is up to you to support it or retract it, unless of course you also claim to be a big a con man as you SEEM to think Rossi is.
seedload wrote: Not recognizing the above, dismissing the simple logic, insulting reasonable people, arguing the language, and speculating on Rossis behalf is what is truly idiotic and sadly comical.
As I stated, you are intitled to your opinion, mistaken as it is.
What are you quoting and capitalizing the word "fact" for? I even went so far as to search for the word fact in my posts and I can't find it in the context of this discussion at all. Yet, you attribute it to me in quotes and in CAPITALS. And I am the liar?!?!

Stop demanding data from me because I have none to provide on your inane speculations. Stop calling me lazy for not giving it to you because I have never argued that it exists. Stop telling me that I am arguing facts that aren't facts because I never called them facts. Stop saying that my logic is flawed because they are not facts, because I don't care if they are or not and my arguments don't depend on them being so. Stop calling them opinions because I KNOW they are opinions. Stop taking some linguistic high ground, because you just look like a fool doing it. Stop acting like you are superior because you are far from it.

You, sir, are like every other pseudo intellectual I have ever met, so possessed with your own false internalization of having won an argument as to have never considered the FACT that your own perception of the outcome doesn't f'ing matter. An argument is only won through understanding, and that involves both parties winning. Your little linguistic technicalities of "I got him" victories are not really victories at all no matter how pathetically you imagine them to be. They are simply sad.

Your arguments are debate club pathetic.

This discussion is pointless because you, sir, are not discussing this in good faith. You are arguing to argue. You are arguing to win. And the argument is not an argument at all, but is a matter of simple contradiction. The winner, as you are approaching this, is simply the last person standing. So, congratulations. You win.
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

Giorgio, could you be so kind as to do a paraphrase translation of this:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/let ... os-al.html

Evidently it is Chris Stemenous addressing UoB not starting E-Cat testing yet. The Google translate is not too good on this one.

Thanks

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Kahuna wrote:Giorgio, could you be so kind as to do a paraphrase translation of this:

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/let ... os-al.html

Evidently it is Chris Stemenous addressing UoB not starting E-Cat testing yet. The Google translate is not too good on this one.

Thanks
The problem with this letter is that he makes it seem like UoB is declining to accept and test the eCat, which we know is not the case. UoB has stated that they're waiting on Rossi to deliver the ecat and the promised funding for research. Unfortunately I don't believe Rossi has any intentions of providing either and this will be another in a long line misdirects and misinformation. I'd be overjoyed if he did allow them unfettered access to test and validate the device.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

JoeP wrote:It is a probabilities question, since data and facts are contaminated/incomplete/obfuscated from Rossi. You must make certain assumptions to continue the discussion. Logic is fine if one presumes certain things are true to proceed. IF this THEN that. This whole thread is an exercise in that kind of speculation.
True, but we seem to have a different definition of "probability". As I learned it, "probability" requires the manipulation of RELEVANT TECHNICAL DATA. Since we seem to be agreed that Rossi is making the extraction of meeaningful technical data close to impossible, I see no DATA to manipulate. Thus I am relegated to making judgements based on my FEELINGS. Such judgements are "opinion" which is defined by "likelihood" not "probability". If you tell me that this is a low "probability" situation, I will ask for your relevant technical data. If you say this is a low "likelihood" situation, I will respond (and have repeatedly) "I tend to agree with you". Simple, no?

Post Reply