The Playground

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!)

  • 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

  • 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.

  • What's disturbing you? The fact I'm a lawyer, the fact I'm Italian or the fact I think Rossi is sincere? You can do better! Law is my field and I don't need to insult people (as you do) to substain my opinion 👏👏👏

    I think the relevant info for this post should be quotes of your previous statements.


    Let's review:


    Maybe Quarkx is just an evolution of Ecat as you think, maybe it's a totally different things... but that's no the point.


    That's not the point.....................

    Well according to every Legal document in this case, That IS the point.

    This IP may or may not include future evos so you (as a joke lawyer) cannot dismiss it.

    Lawyers do not ignore what is written. Hence, you are not a lawyer.


    Also,


    "The decision to develop something different, from my point of view, could be explained with the will to maintain the control over his IP"

    Since when do REAL lawyers have a "from my point of view".


    Busted you fraud.


    Pete

  • 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).

    Open sharing? Darden is a good storyteller, he says to the audience who faces what it wants to hear. I find nothing sincere in his speeches.

  • The 'open sharing 'is between IH's paid staffers and those scientists who take the shilling, nobody else, in fact they only want to work with inventors they get 100% attention from. Don't confuse any of this with 'open science''


    I don't know many scientists who plaster every raw datum over the internet. MFMP need to do this because they are amateurs and crowd-source expertise. Most scientists stand or fall by published work, or if working commercially by product. the problems arise when you get somone like Rossi who claims product with no independent evidence. You'll find me every bit as hard on IH LENR guys as you are should that happen - but I see no sign of it.

  • THHuxleynew


    You do get some odd ideas at times. I am not being remotely critical of scientists who choose to work for IH. I have met and corresponded with a couple of them in the past. Nor am I critical of their business model. It's their business after all. I was merely correcting the idea that TD was being duplicitous when he mentioned 'open sharing', which seems to have confused a few people who seeing the word 'open' think we all get to see stuff. Darden is a businessman after all, and if researchers need to take his cash to pursue their research so be it. One might as well criticise Lockheed for having a 'skunk works'.


    The sad part about the commercial approach is that we will in all likelihood see little published other than patents.


    ps. I am told that my cheque is in the post.

  • Anybody who expected this system to work on the first shot is not ready for what happens next. If possible, I would run it for 100 cycles

    before giving up unless someone spots something obviously and mortally wrong.


    Maybe had you afforded Mr. Murray the same kind of latitude and time for testing his own modified version of the e-Cat, the Rossi/IH dispute would have never come about--or at least might have been worked out much sooner than it has. ;)

  • IHFB - you know how to screw up a conversation faster than anybody on the internet.

    Joe Murray had extraordinary leeway and the number of shots attempted in trying to get anything of Rossi's to work

    were beyond patient, reasonable and the call of duty. Maybe someone else will have better luck with the QX.

  • IHFB - you know how to screw up a conversation faster than anybody on the internet.

    Joe Murray had extraordinary leeway and the number of shots attempted in trying to get anything of Rossi's to work

    were beyond patient, reasonable and the call of duty. Maybe someone else will have better luck with the QX.


    So enough shots to you means the time that Darden secretly loaded Murray's modified e-Cat with fuel, which was then tested by Murray for a few months, and then boxed up? Come on. Dameron was still running the IH-Rossi-built reactor in the same building. Did Dameron like running non-functioning reactors for 2+ years? And you give Murray a few months then box everything up? Doesn't sound like Murray had enough time to replicate properly the IH-Rossi-built reactor. Is it reasonable to expect anyone--even Einstein himself--to successfully build and test a modified e-Cat reactor within just a few months?

  • IHFB - you're a pure troll who spins tales with tidbits of truth conveniently leaving out 98% of the rest of the story just so you can direct your mindless invective.

    You don't really have any idea what you are saying which is evident to all now but a drawer full of socks. Take your teardown babble elsewhere.