The Playground

Quote from Alan Smith

Stephen - I am not required to explain anything. I am just telling you what 5 physics professors and a senior technician plus an unknown number of their colleagues did. With all due respect, MFMP doesn't have that firepower.

Fair enough...I guess for some..."someone says" trumps actual repeatable proof of something...I tend to believe the latter....

Quote from Alan Smith

There is no intention to engage with the nay-sayers and right-fighters like Thomas Clark, which they consider to be a waste of time.

This attitude, if held by the Lugano team, is unfortunate. The aim should be to get at the truth of the matter. It would strain credulity to suggest that none of the amateur analyses (if this is what they are — some have been done under pseudonym) have merit.

Example:

Quote from randombit0

Have you ever seen a melt down so precise to transform a Delta to wye without destroying the resistors ?

Have you ever been in a laboratory ? (as a Scientist)

I am pleased to agree with you that the delta to wye is a quite crazy idea, I was only looking for a justification for the funny numbers in the Lugano report.
I remind you: Joule heating on the connecting wires increasing by six times from dummy run to experiment run, but reactor consumption only increasing by two.
This would be perfectly explained by one reversed clamp after reconnecting, but I don't insist down that path: the mistaken spectral emissivity suffices to explain the apparent COP without suspecting extra input power (which I think happened only temporarily, after which the Joule heating numbers and PCE830 plot were not corrected or replaced as they weren't significantly changing the conclusions).

I lead an engineering lab since 16 years and worked in one for 26 years, as an engineer and not a scientist. Indeed resistors will break open most likely, but I never tried 3-phase on wound coils that close to each other.

The relevant point is that there exist no plausible explanation for the joule heating values of the Lugano report!

And this alone says everything about the test/report.

Quote from Alan Smith

I have no strong opinions on this matter - you are mistaken if you think so. I was merely reporting facts about events as I understand them. Who is right and who is wrong is a game for others.

My comment was not directed at you personally, and only at the general possibility that the Lugano team had such an attitude.

One of my colleagues in Sweden has been doing some research on Sifferkoll and found a brief clip from what appears to be one of his previous online explosive frenzied paroxysms:

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

One of my colleagues in Sweden has been doing some research on Sifferkoll and found a brief clip from what appears to be one of his previous online explosive frenzied paroxysms:

Looks like the one, one of my friends found of you.

Please let me know if you think that is an ad hom and I will delete it and apologise.

Shalom
Best regards
Frank

Wow Keiu - your anonymous friend is good - someone must have tapped my mirror. If you look closely, I was logging into JNOP using your name via our top secret secure comms system.

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Wow Keiu - your anonymous friend is good - someone must have tapped my mirror. If you look closely, I was logging into JNOP using your name via our top secret secure comms system.

Isn't that identity fraud? Did Darden et al teach you how to do that? Well nothing surprises me now, but I am a bit surprised you would stoop to identity fraud, I did think your social engineering exploits were a bit questionable but not that.

Shalom
Best regards
Frank

We're on a roll! My interplanetary opposition research group has just intercepted and forwarded a skype transmission between the man himself another one of his favorite bloggers getting affordable discovery instructions. Here's a sneak peek:

Dewey

I knew it wasn't this planet you lived on all along! Nice photo of you by the way!

Shalom
Best regards
Frank

Quote from Dewey Weaver

One of my colleagues in Sweden has been doing some research on Sifferkoll and found a brief clip from what appears to be one of his previous online explosive frenzied paroxysms:

What is the cost of such research? Is it tax deductible? Can you claim the cost of defamation as legal costs, discrediting a person that is not a potential witness? Who establishes a budget for opposition research? Does the PR firm get a fee for their recommendations for application of funds? Is the dirty tricks method being used the same as that uses in political campaigns?

I don't think that Rossi uses this method. Do you believe that Rossi will ultimately lose his case because he does not employ these methods?

Axil

I think we should leave Dewey alone, I suspect Darden has had a word with him by now (its gone quiet) for revealing the 'social engineering bunker' they have been using to 'poke' Rossi into saying something incriminating and it seems to have backfired.

I think we should all put on our tin hats. When he returns its not going to be a pretty site.

I'm going to take a vacation.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Alan Smith

Quote from stephenrenzz: “Alan, if all basic data passed examination, how do you explain MFMP achieving a COP of ~3 with an unfueled Lugano style device when the camera emissivity value was set to that which was used in the Lugano test? I think this is…

Alan,

I know you are just passing along information. On the face of it, it seems compelling. However, where are the answers to the problems raised by MFMP, TC, and others? You can't just sweep this away by saying, "we had other experts look at our report and they agreed." It is like they are saying, "We're convinced. We don't care about anything else, and we won't even tell you that."

From a scientific perspective, I'm compelled to go with published criticisms that, to my knowledge, have not been refuted publicly.