The Playground

Quote from Eric Walker

The "s/he" stuff is getting close to doxxing, which we don't like....

....Unless it's Dewey doing the doxxing, in which case it's fine.

Z46 - Another Planet Rossi modus operandi is "accuse others of that which you do". Did ya'll learn that from the "White Left"?

Is that some kind of Trumpism?

Z46 - Negative. Its a Chinese coined term used in their official media.

Yes, I agree with the Wye/Delta issue which explains that weird resistance change as nothing else does. In fact TC noted this possibility rather paranthetically.

I agree with you that such a change, together with just current measurements, might indeed have been used to exaggerate COP in the active test relative to dummy. It is the sort of thing I'd expect from Rossi.

However my guess is that this was queried by others in the testing team and so more accurate power-based measurements were made. In the report there is then almost no sign of the issue, with the varying currents an obscure fingerprint. Luckily Rossi still had the IR temperature miscalculation.

That is only a guess, it is highly speculative, but it nicely fits the facts.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

OK, lets try this out:

At the same "input" current, same heater wire resistance, a delta makes 1/3 the power of a wye, and the voltage will be higher across any two "input" leads in the wye than a delta using the same amount of current. This is because a delta winding has lower current in the resistance portion of the circuit than a wye with the same resistance in all three phases. And Joule heat is proportional to current.

So going from a delta to a wye (not the other way around) might be a better way to get an apparent 3X heat gain using a simple current-only comparison trick... (The PCE will not be fooled by this.)

I consider and treat two important parts of the Lugano Report quite differently: a) Measured Values and b) Calculated Values. Measured values I take at face value, otherwise one might as well forget trying to deal with any analyses at all regarding what is written in the report. Measured values could have minor (IE: transcription) mistakes, but I assume that these are really what was seen and/or recorded on measurement equipment for the most part. Calculated values can have all sorts of errors, like use of wrong formulas, etc., but can be reversed, when the calculations are made explicit, to derive the original Measured Values if enough other complimentary Measured Values are in agreement.

I hypothesize that the Lugano device was set up as a wye for the dummy, and a delta for the Active Run(s), and this is consistent with the current and power reported in the report. This does not explain "excess heat" (fake or real), but explains the otherwise ~1/3 apparent resistance drop in the Active Run when assuming a delta configuration for both Dummy and Active Runs for the power levels reported. (The delta circuit is effectively a series connection for purposes of calculating the internal delta resistances).

In addition to the apparent 1/3 resistance drop of a delta compared to wye at a common current, the C2 cables (in the Lugano arrangement) dissipate 2/3 of the power in a delta compared to a wye version, resulting in a 1/3.3 difference when the Active Run is compared to the Dummy run, using the Wye to Delta hypothesis. This differentiates this hypothesis from a reversed clamp hypothesis, as well as dove-tailing perfectly with the IR camera emissivity problem.

(Some alternate hypotheses explain the excess heat by holding the effective heater resistance in the Active Runs equal to the Dummy version calculated value, a delta configuration for both Dummy and Active Runs, and therefore 3X more power generated than reported, but this conflicts with the emissivity error in that then 1/3 of the IR-calculated heat power is developed compared to electrical power consumed, after the IR-emissivity power corrections are made, as well as reported power consumption values (Measured Values) which are not arbitrary, but nearly exactly accounted for [quasi-confirmed] using alternate methods.)

Display More

Dewey wrote "Z46'

520 or 748?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Internet_slang

Quote from Zeus46

....Unless it's Dewey doing the doxxing, in which case it's fine.

I wish Dewey didn't blatantly flaunt the rules here. In this case I suspect Dewey is wrong about the identity of ele, Ahlfors, and others, in addition. But I'll only warn people if I intend to follow through with further steps if there is subsequent misbehavior. Rightly or wrongly, I put Dewey in the same category that I would Rossi or Fabiani, if I thought they were posting here under some account. Because they're close to the action, they get more leeway, even if I'm not happy with the result. It's a tossup: do you warn and then ban someone who has interesting information because his behavior is problematic and chase away a source of information, or do you hold him to a different standard than people who are not as close to the action? So far I've been defaulting to the latter, which I think makes sense. But the result is an uneasy double standard that is hard to justify and explain.

Quote from Eric Walker

I wish Dewey didn't blatantly flaunt the rules here. In this case I suspect Dewey is wrong about ele, Ahlfors, and others, in addition. But I'll only warn people if I intend to follow through with further steps if there is subsequent misbehavior. Rightly or wrongly, I put Dewey in the same category as I would Rossi or Fabiani, if I thought they were posting here under some account. Because they're close to the action, they get more leeway, even if I'm not happy with the result. It's a tossup: do you warn and then ban someone who has interesting information because their behavior is problematic, or do you hold them to a different standard than people who are not as close to the action? So far I've been defaulting to the latter, which I think is the right thing to do. But the result is an uneasy coexistence of two sets of expectations.

Dewey is the same category has Rossi, Levi, etc would be if he posted under his real name.

Which means IMHO considerable latitude. You could however argue for a consistent standard of politeness from all participants. I'm not myself bothered.

Re Dewey's speculations about ele, Ahlfors, etc I agree. We have a more plausible candidate for Ahlfors. Ele = Rossi does not quite fit, though since Ele behaves as somone close to the action (his/her own posts sometimes imply this) it is fair to treat him/her as that which means if not Rossi somone close.

One issue about doxxing is this. We have a strong rule against doxxing non-principals here. However, arguably, that should not extend to doxxing of principals (Rossi, Darden, Dewey, etc) posting under aliasses. However this is a difficult distinction to make. Who is a principal here and who not? Practically the only fair thing is to allow all aliasses protection from doxxing.

With Internet people, you have to keep the rules really simple, or the nuance will be missed on some and things will then boil over into a war of all against all.

Funnily enough Eric, I agree with you. Just good to get an idea of the rules.

I'd weigh in on the Ele debate, but then ultimately we're just back to doxxing him.

Bocijn: tuhao

Quote from Bob

I personally would support the moderators not having double standards.

Bob, I fully relate to the sentiment in your post above. But I think having something different from a double, or, in this case, a graduated standard, would be unworkable. There are certain valuable contributors here who are tetchy, for example, and who will sometimes behave quite uncivilly in the heat of a debate. But I think having them here is on the whole better than warning and then banning them and in the process risking their not coming back afterwards.

So perhaps the point is, to the extent that someone brings a perspective informed by actual involvement in what's being discussed, the responsibility falls upon that person to voluntarily follow the rules, within very flexible limits. I don't like all of the results of this kind of context-dependent application of the rules, but a strict and thoughtless application of the rules seems like a recipe for dumbing down the conversation.

Visibility wise we still have uphill to climb with LENR energy. Totally dismissed from concrete energy plans in many countries.

Here is an example about Small Modular reactors (700MW) planned in Great Britain using traditional fission or Molten salt.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…actors_for_british_power/

Good news is that if LENR gains traction before they fuel them, reactors can be reused as scrap metal, and steam turbines can be re-used for LENR reactors...

Quote from Argon

Visibility wise we still have uphill to climb with LENR energy. Totally dismissed from concrete energy plans in many countries.

Here is an example about Small Modular reactors (700MW) planned in Great Britain using traditional fission or Molten salt.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…actors_for_british_power/

Good news is that if LENR gains traction before they fuel them, reactors can be reused as scrap metal, and steam turbines can be re-used for LENR reactors...

SMRs are very exciting. If the new ideas work they will make nuclear fly (well - only on big planes - but anyway it will be the future).

Of the ones here some are very speculative:

Tokomak fusion - great if it can be got to work but little evidence of this

Molten salt reactor - great idea but there are many issues about materials and longevity with molten salt use, since this is new.

But I'm for them all, and hope one works well.

Quote from Thetruemonty

Eric Walker: when was the last time Dewey provided useful information?

Dewey has given us information about (1) IH's involvement in the upcoming ICCF conference; (2) that IH test where there was a dummy reactor that seemed to have a >1 COP; (3) sundry details about the lawsuit and IH's position with regard to settling, in addition to other things.

It's been a while; maybe 3-6 months ago?

Quote from Eric Walker

Dewey has given us information about (1) IH's involvement in the upcoming ICCF conference; (2) that IH test where there was a dummy reactor that seemed to have a >1 COP; (3) sundry details about the lawsuit and IH's position with regard to settling, in addition to other things.

In the past week, Dewey has declared (again) that IH is determined to NOT settle this case out of court. This is an example of new information (albeit small). (I'm saying it's new, even if it's repeat info., since circumstances change over time).

As someone who is gratified that instead of 'Rossisays', we now have mountains of actual evidence entered into a Federal Court due to a lawsuit (ironically started by Rossi), it is encouraging and reassuring to have that tidbit of information. This 'not settling' increases the chance that more objective information will continue to come out of Rossi vs. Darden.

Yes, Dewey's insult, innuendo, and snarkiness-to-info ratio is high. I'd prefer it to be lower too, and think doing so would probably help his 'cause' (Just sayin', Dewey).

But I'm just a peanut gallery bystander, so I'll take what I can get.

At least the moderators (often) move Dewey's contentless snark to the playground.

I really appreciate that.

And I also think that having a 'playground' which implies 'playing' rather than contributing anything productive, is welcome and appreciated.

If I choose to post in the playground, that's on me. I'm always free to ignore posts here, which I often tend to do.

Of course there is some line where aggressive or substantially offensive comments should be removed and commentors warned or banned, even if it's posted here. And this has happened.

The moderators could consider deleting Dewey's doxxing posts as a matter of policy.

In general, though, I think the moderators are moderating this well, seem to be learning and getting better, and I certainly appreciate their work and this Forum.

I do agree that some level of 'insider privilege', especially when it's from a non-anonymous insider, is appropriate and can be managed in a way that improves the interest and information of the Forum.