psi wrote:In this thread (of which I have admittedly only sampled given its great length -- which is *itself* a testimony that something of importance may be happening here) I've seen a depressing amount of a priori character assassinations of Mr. Rossi
Rossi had documented dubious character before making LENR claims
and not nearly enough gathering of factual information from other internet sources that would actually help the participants to make an informed judgement about how to assess Rossi's claims, or those of Defkalion,
The point is that Rossi & Defkalion, unlike all the other LENR people, claim things which if true could be easily demonstrated as provably something new. Too much enbergy for anything chemical.
That is why this thread is so long. The other LENR stuff is mired in possibility of experimental error, alternate explanations for excess heat, etc.
In this context Rossi's a priori bad character, and bad behaviour over his claims, are all highly relevant.
or of MIT, NASA, or SRI. That is what the bright technical minds on this forum should be helping us do.
I agree. Evaluating this stuff is important. It is highly unclear that such an evaluation leads to positive results.
The theories proposed are essentially unfalsifiable, because in absence of an understood mechanism any negative result can be explained as needing very specific but unknown conditions not met.
How long, in that case, should people go on evaluating them? Probably we come back to it whenever significant new evidence is claimed. Like Rossi.
The blithe cliche of ringing changes on the "since I don't believe in it, it doesn't exist" is getting tiresome.
Well yes, but no more tiresome than the equally strong "I do believe it, so it is true".
Opposing LENR because you don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion is fine as long as you don't start accusing anyone of fraud.
The difficulty here is that when people make almost certainly untrue claims we cannot usually determine whether there is fraud. But it is still proper to point out that the possibility of fraud is more likely than the claims being true, if this is the case.
You don't have to be scientifically informed to do this. Lens is not so, but notes that claims of this general class have been made many times before and always turned out false.
At that point, as far as I am concerned, you are at the limits of responsible exercise of free speech. Like I said, Tec, nothing personal.
Free speech must include the right to question dubious claims. If a parties behaviour fits may previous cases where fraud has ocurred, it is proper to point that out. You don't have to say fraud is certain.
The reverse argument is poisonous. It goes: I can't think how Rossi's claims could be false, given all he has said, without Rossi being a fraud. I cannot prove him a fraud. Therefore his claims must be likely.
You can see why this is disliked on this thread.
Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2
(Only dummies assume this)