The Playground

  • 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.