self looped motor generator in the Philippines

[JouleSeeker]

Really? You really want to know what I think of that statement? I think it's a remarkable logical fallacy.

They cannot explain their results, having not found "artifacts" that could explain them,  therefore they "must" conclude that an unknown source of energy exists.

NO.... they WANT to conclude that, so they do. But in actual fact, they cannot explain their results, therefore they cannot conclude ANYTHING except that they have unexplained (not unexplainable) results. They cannot use results whose causes they cannot understand to support their hypothesis !!

The street is wet outside my house; I know this because the dog is wet and the newspaper she just brought in is also soaked. Since I cannot find any other reason for the street to be wet, I must conclude that it is raining outside, or has done so quite recently. Right?

Of course this is not right. Perhaps I didn't actually go outside to look, and so I failed to notice that the sky is blue, the sun is hot and the kids have opened the fire hydrant and the street is wet for that reason.

I don't know what the evidence indicates, it's not my speciality nor is it my particular area of interest. I've read enough scientific reports to know that they frequently err, even in describing the actual data generated, so for unusual claims, if it is "big science" that I can't approach personally I have to wait for good replications and the test of time, before I can decide upon the reality of what is claimed. However, I know a bogus conclusion when I see one, and whether the actual case IS or IS NOT that CF/LENR exists, this "must conclude" thing is a fallacy and should be withdrawn, as it presents an entirely false view of what the data even _could_ indicate, much less what it does indicate.

A "remarkable logical fallacy", TK?  because they see anomalous heat along with RF generation, but NO nuclear products are
observed -- so they straightforwardly say this heat comes from an "unknown source of energy" - and that's "logical fallacy"?
  I see this as scientific humility, not logical fallacy.  They make the measurements over and over, but have not been able to pin down the source of the anomalous heat.  They are practicing careful science, IMO, not "logical fallacy".

The street is wet outside my house; I know this because the dog is wet and the newspaper she just brought in is also soaked. Since I cannot find any other reason for the street to be wet, I must conclude that it is raining outside, or has done so quite recently. Right?

No, you should say "there was an unknown source of water", until you find out where the water came from.  This is what these scientists are doing when they say "unknown source of energy" at this stage.

  I happen to know that the lead author, who will be speaking at the conference, was VERY skeptical about the "anomalous heat" claims just a few years ago.  But because of his own experiments and data and re-checking, he has changed his views -- as have I.

But - as Mark Dansie says -

Lets wait and see
Mark

[TinselKoala]

The way you put it, it is simply a tautology, which is another fallacy of reasoning.

"We believe our measurements are showing a source of energy. We don't know where this energy is coming from, so we must conclude that we have an unknown source of energy."

Open the Champagne!

(I have found, in my journey through this life, that Physicists in particular often have little or no clue about the realities of Experimental Design, the nature of Inference, or the logic of Null Hypothesis testing. Many PhD physicists have never had coursework in inferential statistics (as opposed to descriptive statistics) or experimental design, and wouldn't know how to operationalize a construct if they woke up next to one.)