I think you're searching too narrowly, @Thetruemonty . I'm pretty sure (?) those topics have been discussed here (timeline unclear); surely the dummy reactor, and recently in that case. I don't have the time to dig through his posts to support this claim, but there are many people here who have also read his posts and can correct me if I'm mistaken.
The Playground
-
-
Yeah, can be i didnt look for the right keywords. Still maybe you overestimate his contributions?
There is nothing else than Deweysays for the dummy incident. The ICCW is quite obvious and the "we wont settle" fact is .... well .... consistent.
-
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.
Com'on: This is the Muppet show thread: Easy to asign a character: Fonzzi bear, Gonzo, the old boys, ore miss Piggy?? Kermit? Just relax!
-
Are you aware that MFMP's Optris vs Alumina experimental data from a few months back completely validated THH's Lugano emmisivity recalculations?
If is the test in which they heated the Alumina inside an Oven than is ridiculous.
Anything (even machined aluminum) would appear as a black body inside an oven because the oven itself is almost a perfect BB.
-
This is the Muppet show thread: Easy to asign a character: Fonzzi bear, Gonzo, the old boys, ore miss Piggy?? Kermit? Just relax!
May be is the Muppet Forum
It's time to play the music
It's time to light the lightsIs time to turn on discussion on this forum tonight
-
In the past week, Dewey has declared (again) that IH is determined to NOT settle this case out of court.
Should we take that as an official declaration from IH. Did they know that they risk to pay more ?
-
Should we take that as an official declaration from IH. Did they know that they risk to pay more ?
So does Rossi
-
If is the test in which they heated the Alumina inside an Oven than is ridiculous.
Anything (even machined aluminum) would appear as a black body inside an oven because the oven itself is almost a perfect BB
It was the Dogbone test... No ovens involved.
Anything (even machined aluminum) would appear as a black body inside an oven because the oven itself is almost a perfect BB.
It wouldn't - in the real world reflectance varies with wavelength.
-
Yeah, can be i didnt look for the right keywords. Still maybe you overestimate his contributions?
There is nothing else than Deweysays for the dummy incident. The ICCW is quite obvious and the "we wont settle" fact is .... well .... consistent.
Well, this site is really easy for doing searches. All you do is go to the general search, enter an author's name, for example 'Dewey Weaver' and then enter a search term, like 'ICCF'.
You will then get at least 12 hits. Several of them made this year (2017), and these include comments with information that nobody who's not an insider would have.
You might consider putting slightly more effort into it. Who knows, you might learn something.
-
Should we take that as an official declaration from IH. Did they know that they risk to pay more ?
Gosh, maybe they never thought of that! Somebody needs to warn Dewey. Ele, maybe you should private message him?
-
Wasn't Eric speaking about the involvement of IH in the upcoming ICCF?
i know Deawey is an insider. Thats not the point.
But what valuable information did come from him?
-
Wasn't Eric speaking about the involvement of IH in the upcoming ICCF?
i know Deawey is an insider. Thats not the point.
But what valuable information did come from him?
OK Monty, 'put on your big boy pants' and search and read for yourself. There's plenty of interesting insight into IH and other personalities in the network in those posts.
In the fifth post down in the search I shared a screen shot of, Dewey talks about IH's involvement with other LENR investigators (without going into detail) and mentions the upcoming ICCF.
From history, we know you two like to trade insults.
Just think how boring this site would be if you didn't have that possibility.
Did you try using 'dummy' as a search term? (Be careful about that!)
-
TTM - here is some very valuable information for you:
1. Buy low - sell high
2. Don't eat the yellow snow.
3. Rossi is a convicted fraudster.
4. Don't spit to the wind.
5. Don't pull on Superman's cape.
-
Dewey Weaver: now we're talking. thats the standard i got used to from u
-
A ghost poster in the LF playground has standards? Who knew?
TTM - what are the standards the you expect of your hero the R'ster?
-
That is true
But I do say when I'm speculating. All the things I say about Rossi, for example, are documented non-speculative. It is generally others who speculate that because of Rossi's motivation one thing or another is not possible...
In other words I'm right, I know I'm right--even if I'm wrong.
Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
-
RR - you'd have more luck with Eric there if you'd given some evidence for where I was wrong - even speculation...
I'm sure there are possibles!
-
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.
Eric, there is nothing interesting about Dewey's information, his behavior or even Dewey himself. All of his information is at the very least biased if not downright dishonest. His behavior is totally objectionable in any case. As for myself I could do without anything he has to say. Just my 2 cents worth thank you.
-
Your animus towards him prevents you from evaluating information that comes from him objectively.
-
Yeah, can be i didnt look for the right keywords. Still maybe you overestimate his contributions?
There is nothing else than Deweysays for the dummy incident. The ICCW is quite obvious and the "we wont settle" fact is .... well .... consistent.
We won't know about the "settling" question until we do, or don't.
