On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders. > If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the > theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the > methods, like in Lugano. > > Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the test was > conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud > him of his intellectuel property. > As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it > would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true, > it is even more disgusting. > > I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned > by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to > verify, but we have the verification, BASTA! > > only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face > reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among. > > LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco. > Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or > Parks. > > It have to stop. > > as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with > modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research. > This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research: > https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020 > > I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I > even hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys, > but first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to > temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data > they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts. > Let me re-phrase what you wrote, so others are clear on what you are actually saying here (please do correct me if I'm off the mark): (However, don't object to my re-phrasing you below, if it's simply the case that you did not understand the implications of your own statements...) * Proprietary, secretive Science is not really proper science, per se -- because it is not open and reproducible. (At best, opening up your results YEARS later ONLY after having attempted commercializing them, can be seen as being pretty cruddy, third-rate 'Science' praxis.) * ALL *real* Science is OPEN and PUBLIC -- and therefore open to _immediate_ attempts at reproducibility. Because that's what REAL Science -- and the Scientific Method -- *is*. > > > 2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>: > >> >> >> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere, >> >
