The Playground

  • Come on Eric be real. You're totally anti-Rossi, which by default makes you pro IH.


    I suspect you believe that anyone that is not for Rossi is totally anti-Rossi. I still allow for the possibility (pretty much academic at this point) that Rossi could redeem himself. I'm not holding out hope for this to happen. Whether that eventually happens, I do feel that his behavior has been abhorrent and not the kind of thing to be encouraged in others who might seek to copy him. But this is separate from the question of whether he has or has ever had something. But since the only thing we have to go on with respect to the latter question is what has actually happened up to this point that we know about, the outlook is murky and highly doubtful.


    Watching Rossi's misadventures for six years will put some doubt in one's heart about his intentions.


    One need not be "anti-Rossi" and by default pro-IH, although I am very happy that IH have come along. Why so? Because I've seen that LENR researchers are generally happy that IH have come along, and because I gather from what information that I have that Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow who has the capacity and willingness to do the footwork needed to infuse capital into this field, which I view as a worthy investment. So I am "pro-IH," if we're going to use simple categories.

  • Isn't it also amazing how the socks go quiet when there is a hearing - is somebody busy or something?

    Dewey is quite amazing how you can go on insulting.

    My feeling is that in your deep you know that IH will lose the trial and you want only to make a "bold" voice.

    Well, I'm not impressed.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • Dewey is quite amazing how you can go on insulting.

    My feeling is that in your deep you know that IH will lose the trial and you want only to make a "bold" voice.

    Well, I'm not impressed.

    Rossele,

    What is truly amazing is your ability to get inside the mind of AR. I can hardly tell the difference. You are able to think like him with impressive skill. Have you ever considered running an energy scam? I bet you could be quite successful.


    Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric

  • One need not be "anti-Rossi" and by default pro-IH, although I am very happy that IH have come along. Why so? Because I've seen that LENR researchers are generally happy that IH have come along, and because I gather from what information that I have that Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow who has the capacity and willingness to do the footwork needed to infuse capital into this field, which I view as a worthy investment. So I am "pro-IH," if we're going to use simple categories.

    Eric,

    Regarding LENR researchers that's probably true. On the other hand, I would be interested to know what kind of information you have that "Tom Darden is a pretty decent fellow". To be honest, I don't have any direct information, but I have to ask, does this "information" include the fact that IH created multiple shell companies (including in Europe which is Rossi's territory) and filed for patents behind Rossi's back? Does it include Cherokee's history of being sued by local townships for not keeping up their end of the bargain? If Tom is a sincere, decent investor who has been scammed by Rossi I feel sorry for him. (On the other hand, I wonder about his "due diligence". I also wonder about the money he apparently raised ("Stellar! Stellar!" he apparently told the Woodford investors when they were visiting Doral, according to Rossi) based on claims that Rossi's technology was working.) A few other "pro-Rossi" comments to put things in context. It is my understanding that Rossi sold one of his businesses and put a million dollars of his own money into the E-cat technology long before obtaining a manufacturing agreement with IH. Am I wrong on this? While Rossi may well be deluded, does this sound like the behavior of a scammer? To be even more of a Devil's advocate, I know that this is far-fetched, but is it not conceivable that one or more of the following may be true:

    (i) IH DID acquire a significant amount of IP (but perhaps not all of the IP) from Rossi but didn't want to pay the $89M

    (ii) IH for now is not interested in manufacturing until they can divest themselves from fossil-fuels and other investments

    (iii) IH may be using small investments in LENR researchers as a cover for "developing" IP they already had from Rossi so they don't have to pay?


    Edit: I've just re-read Tom Darden's speech at ICCF19 which seems to me to be sincere and somewhat moving, and clearly indicates a history (and desire) of fostering (primarily as a lawyer and investor) anti-pollution and pollution-cleanup technology. I was also impressed by his mention that he had built an experimental airplane (is this true?) On the other hand there are some apparent dichotomies in his speech which confuse me. One is his claim to be creating an environment at IH that fosters "open sharing" between scientists, which seems at odds with what I've seen and with IH's business practices. The other is IH's general secretiveness (coupled with the shell-company issues I mentioned above).


    2nd Edit: for those who are interested, here is the link to the text of his speech at ICCF19: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…speech-on-lenr-at-iccf19/

  • quizzical , yes — my main sources of information on Tom Darden are the ICCF talk you cite as well as this Infinite Energy article by Marianne Macy. (There are also lots of transcripts and emails in the lawsuit docket, but I have not read through these beyond that progress report that went out to investors.) It is hard to pass judgment on the Cherokee lawsuits without further information; I know that in some lines of business lawsuits are common. I'd want the opinion of one or two people in the real-estate development business to get a sense of whether accusations of shady behavior have any merit. It is also possible that Darden and IH are playing hardball with Rossi and want to cheat him somehow. This is not the impression I come away with, but I could be mistaken. I do not dismiss the possibility out of hand.


    About Rossi, it's impossible to peer into his soul and know what he's thinking. I almost don't think it matters. It was in watching the developments relating to the E-Cat that I started to want to move beyond character assessments, which are difficult, and just look at outward behavior and whether there are hard data available to assess claims that people make.

  • Rossele - I'm not trying to impress you, we're taking you out of the game. Your father must have been a glassmaker because it is way too easy to see right through you along with your nasty little socks. And what's with putting Rossahi on deep freeze? I wasn't finished having fun with him yet.


    40 years of criminal enterprise is a bad life's work and you should have quit while you were "ahead", so to speak.

  • Hi P,


    I don't think this is true, because the I and V measurements on the three phases will measure power transferred correctly irrespective of Wye or Delta. You do get a difference if you just use V and I measurements without phase, or if you calculate power from just I, but the PCE-830 will use all info correctly.


    Maybe for some tests Rossi was using V & I measurements on 3 phase without a PCE-830. That would be another error mode I'd not considered...

    I stated that poorly and wrongly in my haste to get out the door. That comment of mine was not well thought out. It has been a while since I thought about the electrical characteristics of the Lugano demonstration.

    I mixed up the 1/3.3 resistance thingy with the power measurements, so you are correct. The PCE should measure the power correctly in both delta and wye as long as clamps facing the correct way.


    I will have go dig around in my old files to find the delta wye comparisons to make a more accurate statement regarding constant resistance and switching from wye to delta at either constant current or voltage. The handy web calculator with a nice diagram that I liked to use for helping to explain this (and was easy to change values around in) is longer available.

  • 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.)

  • 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.


  • ....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.

  • 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.

  • But the result is an uneasy double standard that is hard to explain.

    My two cents worth, which may not be worth even that! :)


    It is indeed, interesting and sometimes entertaining, having posts from a verified insider. The lure is indeed strong. However, I personally do not feel that this justifies a double standard.

    Double standards are too common and acceptable in our society these days and to which, in my opinion, has eroded our social integrity. Some here post that Rossi is "justified" in many of his actions because

    of "IH evilness". This in my opinion, is BS. The ends do not justify the means. We should therefore hold ourselves to a higher standard as well.


    One can make their position known with civility and still be very clear and pointed. (I realize that as I point a finger here, I have four pointing right back at me!)

    Truthfully, I believe statements without provocative and insulting terms, but instead based with fact and common sense, is much more powerful and taken more seriously as a whole. The world would indeed be a better place if we "treated others as we would have them treat us".


    While I think I can somewhat understand Mr. Weaver's animosity towards an overall event that is causing personal harm to his friends and possibly even his personal investment, I also would encourage him to rise above the temptation to ridicule and provoke. I would encourage him to show himself as a good example for his position. Sincere, honest, even tempered, without false motive and one deserving of respect!


    I personally have no issues drawing strong pictures of a false philosophy, stream of thought or basic bad logic. But hopefully I can avoid connecting people personally to my diatribe and equating the person with the error or devaluing the person because of it. I always disliked Sifferkol's continual personal "labeling" of people by his name references. I must also denounce Mr. Weaver's practice of late as well. It does no good for the cause or truth.


    My opinion only. Again, I encourage Mr. Weaver to reconsider his approach and I personally would support the moderators not having double standards. Even if they applied to me for I certainly am not without guilt! :thumbup:

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • I was digging through Deweys posts now that you mentioned ICCF and the dummy reactor issue and I couldn't find anything related to these two examples in the last 12 months.

    So the "not settling" argument is still valid.

    I am not critizising the work of the admins. I just say that the sentence "Dewey Weaver gives out valuable information" maybe is a case of selective perception.