I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side. You're being a crank.
My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one doing it. If we had a group of credible people (more credible than I with real track records of estimating this sort of thing) doing it, than the numbers would amount to something interesting. I refuse to let the fact that I'm the first stop me from continuing to estimate. I'd think LENR scientists would appreciate that. On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ransom Wuller <rwul...@peaknet.net> wrote: > Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who > follow this? > > Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are > considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive > replication is in essence positive. > > Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added > to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. > > So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is > nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also > meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless > of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed > replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really > depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the > tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the > results. > > Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on > E-Cat News. > > Ransom > > > I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as > > this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this > > without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I > > apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as > > of yet that I could find. > > > > The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker > > <blazespinna...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications > >> > >> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker > >> <blazespinna...@gmail.com > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing > >>> context. > >>> > >>> There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer > >>> reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer > >>> reviewed scientists and someone who has not. > >>> > >>> Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the > >>> latter > >>> category. > >>> > >>> I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi > >>> editted > >>> his comment from "I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot > >>> comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect”" to "I > >>> do > >>> not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible > >>> that > >>> the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published > >>> in the > >>> Report of Lugano." was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to > >>> be > >>> credible. > >>> > >>> Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find > >>> this > >>> guy credible at all. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> See: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >
