The Playground

Quote from Curbina

Editorial work is as important as the technical “peer review”. A scientific paper needs to be not only techcnically right but also be readable.

When I have peer reviewed I focus in the technical aspects but I also add my personal engineering point of view. As an example, if I see something that is technically correct and ingenious, but I fail to see how it could be implemented in practice or economically, I ask the author to add a comment on his perspective of how this aspect could be boarded.

One annoyance is that many Peer Reviewers tend only to pay attention to "their slant" on what is done - where your work intersects theirs - and this may be partial or not very relevant. But that can easily be dealt with - it does little harm - and you also get reviews which are not so focussed and give very useful overall "here is what I think from the outside" help on how to make the arguments stronger or clearer.

Quote from THHuxleynew

One annoyance is that many Peer Reviewers tend only to pay attention to "their slant" on what is done - where your work intersects theirs - and this may be partial or not very relevant. But that can easily be dealt with - it does little harm - and you also get reviews which are not so focussed and give very useful overall "here is what I think from the outside" help on how to make the arguments stronger or clearer.

Peer review will only get better when AI is incorporated into the process, ending any bias. So far in limited use AI has pointed out many errors in peer review methods as well as in the conclusions. I have to agree with the author that to this point peer review has failed.

Quote from THHuxleynew

One annoyance is that many Peer Reviewers tend only to pay attention to "their slant" on what is done - where your work intersects theirs - and this may be partial or not very relevant. But that can easily be dealt with - it does little harm - and you also get reviews which are not so focussed and give very useful overall "here is what I think from the outside" help on how to make the arguments stronger or clearer.

All things considered, peer review is always as good as the peer reviewers are. Unfortunately, not all peers are created equal.

If done properly, I think is a great tool, but it is, more often than not, done improperly.

Curbina >> "Unfortunately, not all peers are created equal"

...worthy of George Orwell, that one!

He's just a bloody liar, lying to himself.

Quote

• Andrea Rossi December 18, 2022 at 4:47 PM

  Anonymous:

  1- around 300

  2- every day

  Warm Regards,

  A.R.

• Anonymous December 18, 2022 at 4:44 PM

  Dr Rossi:

  How many Lux did you measure recently ? How many times did you make this measurement ?

Display More

Rossisez/Believe it or not:

2. Does the off-grid version need some sort of energy source to start like a battery?

2. no

...

it can be switched off and on anytime,

Quote from h_l

He's [..] lying to himself.

Someone asked him this same question, back in early Nov i think, and the reply was approx 300 Lux at 50cm

This is how the lamp ought to look to achieve 300 Lux at 50 cms:

compared with how the demo lamp actually appears, in the dark.

This test was made in a darkened room which became somewhat lit by the LED under test

(v low-end) H4 LED matrix, driven at 4.4W [as shown on PSU];

produces approx 300 Lux at 50cms from LED;

ISO200, f2.0, shutter1/17;

with camera 91cms [3ft] from lamp = approx distance of camera-to-lamp in miniSKLep streaming demo

(NB. both this test and AR demo use a single surface of LED diodes in a matrix - the matrix in the miniSKLep demo is mounted outside the back of the reflector, pointing directly at the camera, through the lens, but not positioned at the designed focal point - replicated with similar arrangement in the test here)

Quote from nul-points

Someone asked him this same question, back in early Nov i think, and the reply was approx 300 Lux at 50cm

This is how the lamp ought to look to achieve 300 Lux at 50 cms:

compared with how the demo lamp actually appears, in the dark.

Display More

This link seems not working, it requires permissions.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Rossisez/Believe it or not:

2. Does the off-grid version need some sort of energy source to start like a battery?

2. no

...

it can be switched off and on anytime,

Display More

Many on ECW believe that Rossi found the magic switch that enables ZPO (or energy out of nothing) to drive his Ecat and its AI... he is not only about to write histoy in physics, but invented completely new electronics, switches, circuit boards, cables etc. that work without any kind of power source. Hilarious, what will come next? Hard to imagine something that can beat this....

Maybe he was inspired by this song? Sam will like it, I am sure...

Quote from truth

This link seems not working, it requires permissions.

Thanks! ...fixed now hopefully

Quote from JedRothwell

However, I am a copy editor and translator of cold fusion papers. I have edited hundreds

301, to be exact.

Quote from Fm1

Peer review will only get better when AI is incorporated into the process, ending any bias.

So far, AI has often been highly biased, and it is very difficult to remove bias. AI models so far, such as the highly successful ChatGPT, are entirely based on human generated text. They have no opinions or ability to detect, reduce or eliminate bias, any more than a thermocouple can of it own volition eliminate instrument bias. Thermocouples don't think, and neither does ChatGPT. ChatGPT did not even realize that an event in 1868 came before 2019. I asked it whether it has any temporal knowledge or ability to sort out the order of events. It said no, it does not.

If you ask ChatGPT about cold fusion, it will give you a middle of the road view, depending on what you ask. Examples:

Q: What is cold fusion?

A: Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at or near room temperature. . . . The idea of cold fusion was first proposed in the 1980s, but it has not been conclusively demonstrated and remains a subject of scientific controversy. Many scientists are skeptical of the claims made about cold fusion, and some believe that it is impossible based on our current understanding of physics.

Q: Why do some scientists think that cold fusion is real?

A: Some scientists think that cold fusion is real because they have observed evidence that suggests that it is possible. This evidence typically comes in the form of excess heat and the detection of small amounts of helium, which are both products of the fusion reaction. . . .

If you were to retrain ChatGPT from scratch entirely with the content of Wikipedia and the archives of Nature, it would say that cold fusion does not exist, cannot possibly exist, it was never replicated and it all fraud and lunacy. On the other hand, if you were to train it from scratch with the documents at LENR-CANR.org, it would tell you that cold fusion does exist. It would explain why in exhaustive detail. In other words, it would be completely biased against cold fusion in the first case, and in favor of it in the second case. I do not know what they trained it on, but it must have been legitimate, mainstream sources of scientific information such as Encyclopedia Britannica, because those two answers are right as far as they go. They reflect the scientific consensus, although the first one is mistaken.

ChatGPT says it has not been given free rein access to the internet. I read somewhere they have not given it Wikipedia. That's good. Wikipedia is sewer of misinformation.

Quote from JedRothwell

ChatGPT says it has not been given free rein access to the internet.

I recall years ago (a decade perhaps) a guy that gained certain notoriety in certain web corners because he claimed to had developed a software that used the whole of the web (uncluding forums, chats, etc.) to gain knowledge and “predict the future”. It was hilarious to see his predictions fail sistematically and him squirm to try to blame all in our lack of capacity of interepretation of the outputs of his AI software.

The guy believed in the expanding Earth theory and therefore had a huge bias on his interpretations.

Quote from zorud

Many on ECW believe that Rossi found the magic switch that enables ZPO (or energy out of nothing) to drive his Ecat and its AI... he is not only about to write histoy in physics, but invented completely new electronics, switches, circuit boards, cables etc. that work without any kind of power source. Hilarious, what will come next? Hard to imagine something that can beat this....

Maybe he was inspired by this song? Sam will like it, I am sure...

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

What come next is the conclusion of Discovery and proceed to the action.

Quote from JedRothwell

301, to be exact.

So far, AI has often been highly biased, and it is very difficult to remove bias. AI models so far, such as the highly successful ChatGPT, are entirely based on human generated text. They have no opinions or ability to detect, reduce or eliminate bias, any more than a thermocouple can of it own volition eliminate instrument bias. Thermocouples don't think, and neither does ChatGPT. ChatGPT did not even realize that an event in 1868 came before 2019. I asked it whether it has any temporal knowledge or ability to sort out the order of events. It said no, it does not.

If you ask ChatGPT about cold fusion, it will give you a middle of the road view, depending on what you ask. Examples:

Q: What is cold fusion?

A: Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at or near room temperature. . . . The idea of cold fusion was first proposed in the 1980s, but it has not been conclusively demonstrated and remains a subject of scientific controversy. Many scientists are skeptical of the claims made about cold fusion, and some believe that it is impossible based on our current understanding of physics.

Q: Why do some scientists think that cold fusion is real?

A: Some scientists think that cold fusion is real because they have observed evidence that suggests that it is possible. This evidence typically comes in the form of excess heat and the detection of small amounts of helium, which are both products of the fusion reaction. . . .

If you were to retrain ChatGPT from scratch entirely with the content of Wikipedia and the archives of Nature, it would say that cold fusion does not exist, cannot possibly exist, it was never replicated and it all fraud and lunacy. On the other hand, if you were to train it from scratch with the documents at LENR-CANR.org, it would tell you that cold fusion does exist. It would explain why in exhaustive detail. In other words, it would be completely biased against cold fusion in the first case, and in favor of it in the second case. I do not know what they trained it on, but it must have been legitimate, mainstream sources of scientific information such as Encyclopedia Britannica, because those two answers are right as far as they go. They reflect the scientific consensus, although the first one is mistaken.

ChatGPT says it has not been given free rein access to the internet. I read somewhere they have not given it Wikipedia. That's good. Wikipedia is sewer of misinformation.

Display More

Present day I agree but bias in AI is now being tackled by many

How To Use AI To Eliminate Bias

How To Use AI To Eliminate Bias

AI merely exposes and amplifies implicit biases that already existed, but were overlooked or misunderstood.

www.forbes.com

What if AI is actually part of the solution to bias?

A better understanding of the phenomenon of bias in AI reveals, however, that AI merely exposes and amplifies implicit biases that already existed, but were overlooked or misunderstood. AI itself is agnostic to color, gender, age, and other biases. It is not vulnerable to the logical fallacies and cognitive biases that trouble humans. The only reason we see bias in AI at all is because of heuristical errors and biased data that humans sometimes train it with.

Since the discovery of the biases stated above (a PR disaster, I assure you), all of the major technology companies have been working to improve datasets and eliminate bias. One way to eliminate bias in AI?—by using AI! If that seems unlikely, read on.

Quote from nul-points

Someone asked him this same question, back in early Nov i think, and the reply was approx 300 Lux at 50cm

This is how the lamp ought to look to achieve 300 Lux at 50 cms:

compared with how the demo lamp actually appears, in the dark.

This test was made in a darkened room which became somewhat lit by the LED under test

(v low-end) H4 LED matrix, driven at 4.4W [as shown on PSU];

produces approx 300 Lux at 50cms from LED;

ISO200, f2.0, shutter1/17;

with camera 91cms [3ft] from lamp = approx distance of camera-to-lamp in miniSKLep streaming demo

(NB. both this test and AR demo use a single surface of LED diodes in a matrix - the matrix in the miniSKLep demo is mounted outside the back of the reflector, pointing directly at the camera, through the lens, but not positioned at the designed focal point - replicated with similar arrangement in the test here)

Display More

Just curious. What does the lamp look like when it is 300 lux at 0 cm?

Quote from Fm1

Present day I agree but bias in AI is now being tackled by many

How To Use AI To Eliminate Bias

https://www.forbes.com/sites/g…ate-bias/?sh=3ead07dc1f1f

What if AI is actually part of the solution to bias?

A better understanding of the phenomenon of bias in AI reveals, however, that AI merely exposes and amplifies implicit biases that already existed, but were overlooked or misunderstood. AI itself is agnostic to color, gender, age, and other biases. It is not vulnerable to the logical fallacies and cognitive biases that trouble humans. The only reason we see bias in AI at all is because of heuristical errors and biased data that humans sometimes train it with.

Since the discovery of the biases stated above (a PR disaster, I assure you), all of the major technology companies have been working to improve datasets and eliminate bias. One way to eliminate bias in AI?—by using AI! If that seems unlikely, read on.

Display More

If you get the chance of watching the last episode of volume 3 of Love Death Robots, it presents an hilarious dark humor perspective of what AI visiting a post end of our world Earth might think of humans in a distant future when we are all long gone. It really cracked me up.

Quote from nul-points

Someone asked him this same question, back in early Nov i think, and the reply was approx 300 Lux at 50cm

This is how the lamp ought to look to achieve 300 Lux at 50 cms:

compared with how the demo lamp actually appears, in the dark.

This test was made in a darkened room which became somewhat lit by the LED under test

(v low-end) H4 LED matrix, driven at 4.4W [as shown on PSU];

produces approx 300 Lux at 50cms from LED;

ISO200, f2.0, shutter1/17;

with camera 91cms [3ft] from lamp = approx distance of camera-to-lamp in miniSKLep streaming demo

(NB. both this test and AR demo use a single surface of LED diodes in a matrix - the matrix in the miniSKLep demo is mounted outside the back of the reflector, pointing directly at the camera, through the lens, but not positioned at the designed focal point - replicated with similar arrangement in the test here)

Display More

A first glance rough calculation:

Reading 300 Lux (I am considering it as an average value)

with an overall light beam aperture of about 150 degrees

at distance of 0.5 meter

we gets 350 Lumens from LEDs.

Considering a LED efficiency in the range 90-100 Lumen/Watt, it means a power range from 4 to 3.5W.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Just curious. What does the lamp look like when it is 300 lux at 0 cm?

[Late Edit]

The Lux rdg distance is approx 8 cms from the LED surface, tho', due to the (empty) lens/reflector assembly between LED and light meter

With this setup the rdg was 301 Lux at front of lens with 7.8V on PSU output direct to LED surface; current shown as 0.000A (Watts shown as 0.000W) but it's just below the first ADC threshold, so the actual rdgs are approx 12mA and 94mW

(click on thumbnail to view full photo)

Camera settings: ISO 800; f2.0; shutter 1/17

The camera-to-LED distance is approx 91cms (approx same as miniSKLep demo)

(The Lux rdg is on HOLD and meter moved to the side, to leave unobscured view of lamp for photo)

So - it's possible that AR is reading 300 Lux at the lens front, but if he is then the LED is likely to be operating closer to this test, around 100mW, and not even close to his 'conservative estimate' of 1W

Quote from truth

A first glance rough calculation:

Reading 300 Lux (I am considering it as an average value)

with an overall light beam aperture of about 150 degrees

at distance of 0.5 meter

we gets 350 Lumens from LEDs.

Considering a LED efficiency in the range 90-100 Lumen/Watt, it means a power range from 4 to 3.5W.

Display More

Yes, that agrees with these test results

The demo lamp however appears to be operating at a much lower power drive-level, as indicated in the side-by-side comparison photo. My 'conservative estimate' would be nearer 100mW (measured) instead of a 'conservative estimate' of 1W (unmeasured!)

Now he has a new image that doesn’t show anything that he claims from his kitchen table.