Why was the one-year test performed?

Quote from zeus46

And talking of George's, Abd, I suggest you read and practice 'Orwells five rules of effective writing', as opposed to what you got taught inside this mysterious international cult you keep dropping hints about...

It is not mysterious and it is not a cult and I did not learn to write there, nor is any part of the work and curriculum about writing.

there is a technique called "vivid sharing," which is about the in-person practice of speaking. And I occasionally lose context -- lose presence in speaking -- and then do go on and on. It's become rare, as my personal awareness, my "presence," expanded.

Writing in this context is not that. There is no intention that this be "vivid sharing." This serves very different purposes, and, as I pointed out, pleasing zeus46 (who is that?) is not one of them. I do not write for everyone, here. I do it, often, on Quora.

There are some really excellent writers who know that "international technology," however, one of the most popular writers on Quora is almost always writing from that background. But she never mentions the training. (Most people who are trained don't mention it, except under certain circumstances.) I know people who have much of it instinctively or by osmosis or through other sources, so at first I thought it was just that, not specifically that she had been trained. Over time, though, it's become quite obvious and she occasionally uses some give-away language.

I have followed her for a long time, occasionally making comments, which would (as I'd expect) light her up. She finally followed me. She has 42,000 followers but only follows 509, so I was honored. She is getting 4 million page views per month.

I have over a thousand followers on Quora and some of them are excellent writers. That means that excellent writers want to see what I write. I only have about 2.3 million page views, it's not been rising so fast lately because I've been spending a lot of time here and researching Rossi v. Darden.

Lousy writers, people with nothing to say but willing to say it extensively, don't follow me. They often dislike what I write and tell me I write too much.

My friends, when I write too much for them at the moment, simply tell me that.

I can write polemic. My Current Science paper was polemic. It's a lot of work, but, of course, the purpose merited the work.

I have one specific purpose for being here at the moment, it is to identify change agents, people who will lead the coming transformation in power technology, starting with the science behind it. There is work to do. Who is up for that?

Quote from zeus46

I seem to recall that Rossi was actually finger-pointing at your finger-pointing.

Or your 'bestialities', as he humorously put it.

I've been engaged with on-line "conferencing," we used to call it, since the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s, where I was a moderator. I noticed something. For the first time, the entire record of interaction was available. When dispute would arise, about what had happened, it was obvious. People did not look back, but relied on their memories. After all, they were there! They had read it.

In real life, we do this, and we have no record. In the training, it is pointed out how flawed our impressions are. How we remember what occurred to us, our immediate reactions and judgments, instead of what actually happened, and part of the transformation that is create is through encouraging people to focus on and look at "what actually happened." I saw major traumas resolved quickly! The trauma is not held in the sensory memories, but in remembering the response, the reaction.

So, here, zeus46 obviously does not look back, but tells us what he "recalls." However, I just reread all that. And I had read it at least three times before, writing about it.

What had I written that Rossi called a "bestiality"? He never actually quoted it. What he responded to was "finger pointing," i.e, some clown -- maybe Rossi himself, some here thought that and it is possible -- wrote that I had written what I had not written. Very basic failure to be connected with reality. It was so far off that I wondered if Rossi had read what I'd written. Yet he made the claim of my being paid, as if he knew that. I think he must have looked, i.e., to see who I was and then to follow Sifferkoll's opinion -- or his own if he reads this forum regularly, which he may do.

If you care anything about hewing to reality, how about looking back and seeing what you find and reporting it? Above, I gave a link to the original post, or you could track it back. You can also read the entire history on new vortex. But we already know you are allergic to long posts, i.e., "evidence." Not being able to read and follow lengthy reports and discussions is not a good sign for your ability to understand LENR. You would be, and may be, more at home on e-catworld, where the software is a bit more designed for short posts, "sound bites". Here, a short post is mostly a waste of page space.

Now, I've looked over your contributions and am finding the value density to be low. As I discover that users here lead to useless distraction, I'm starting to block them, so that I'm not distracted. I assume that if they say something of value, someone else will quote it. Is this exchange of any value? You tell me -- and show me.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

zeus46 wrote:

Sounds expensive. I would tend to think 12kWh/d (12 kW per second per 86400 seconds) would be much better, unless it very cold in Wyttenbachs's area, or he is heating a canvas tent house in winter. Or maybe a castle?

For heating a house, a power of 12 kW would be a bit over half the available power with 220V/100A service. At the old figure I used to use, it may be off now, of ten cents per kWh, that would $1.20 per hour, or up to $29 per day if that were on all the time. But it would not be. All the time, yes, it would be expensive. almost $900 per month. It is cold here and if someone were so foolish as to heat a large home, not well insulated, with electricity, and keep it nice and toasty, they could suffer that bill. Much more likely, he was talking about peak power. The rated power of the heaters. Electric heating is very efficient, one good thing about it. If I turn on an 1800 watt electric heater in a room, the entire 1.8 kilowatts heats the room, except for what is lost by drafts, poor insulation, etc. We use double-paned windows here in Massachusetts, it can make a big difference.

The other idea, 12 kWh/day, would be $1.20 per day. That's way cheap, not enough power for any serious heating of a house. So I think 12 kW as peak heating power for a home was probably about right. Which is the same as 12 kWh/h.

In fact it is the same as 12 kW-sec/sec. Or 12 kW-year/year.

Now what is this equation of "12kWh/d" with "12 kW per second per 86400 seconds"? At 12 kW, the daily energy is 12 kW-day. What is "12 kW per second?" 12 kW is a instantaneous power level, or it could be an average power level or some other power level, but it is power. For energy, multiply the power by time. (If the energy is varying, integrate the power with respect to time). 12 kW only makes sense to me as a rate of change of power, and 12kW/sec ... this thing will explode shortly! In 100 seconds it is a frikkin' megawatt! That is not what is meant, obviously.

12 kWh/d is a power of 12 kWh/d times one day per 24 hours, so it is a half-kilowatt, the "days" and "hours" cancel.

This understanding of how to convert and cancel units is part of understanding how to keep these calculations straight. The fraction 1 day/24 hours is obviously an identity, so the figure can be multplied by this unity o simplify the expression.

The point I was making with covering the Rossi flap over kwh/h was that basic education in physics requires a solid grasp of this handling of units, and if Rossi ever had it, he lost it.

Quote from zeus46

And my ”recall” is better than yours, trust me. Unfortunately kWh/h isn't an acceptable search string, otherwise I'd be able to find your ”bestialities” and prove you are talking nonsense

Your "recall" might be better than mine, but I don't rely on mine, I only use it as a guide, and that can make a huge difference. I actually read stuff again. And again. And I've been doing this for many years. I first started really experiencing how poorly I -- and apparently almost everyone else -- remembered what happened in discussions, it was over thirty years ago, when, interested in group process, I recorded a contentious meeting, about two busy hours, and then transcribed the whole thing. I had missed *a lot.* As to reading, I had gone over the recent Magistrate's Order many times. Maybe a half dozen. And I had missed a highly relevant fact from it. It simply sailed right by. What counsel had argued what subpoenas? I would not have known, if I were asked if that information was there, and I could easily imagine denying it was there.

Except this is what I know: when someone asserts verifiable fact, and I see a disagreement with my memory or what I think I know, I verify it. I never assume I was right. Usually, in fact, I am, but not always.

I am running Chrome on Windows with Google. The search string "kwh/h" -- with quotation marks, that's important! -- works. Now, I said that I searched. And that I found hits. And I described them. However, zeus46, what you are doing is reacting to the latest comment you see, out of your accumulated store of reactions. You are not present with reality. It's very common, by the way, essentially boring. But this is how people get stuck. It suppresses your learning rate to about zero.

Here are the first few results:

Quote

About 70,500 results (0.32 seconds)

Search Results
power - Does it make sense to use MWh/h as unit of measure ...electronics.stackexchange.com/.../does-it-make-sense-to-use-mwh-h-a...

Stack Exchange

Oct 11, 2010 - kWh and MWh are alternatives to joules for representing an amount of energy, * kWh/h and MWh/h are alternatives to kW and MW for ...

kW and kWh Explained - Understand & Convert Between Power and ...www.energylens.com/articles/kw-and-kwh

kW = kWh h. Also: time = energy power. or: h = kWh kW. Given a value for any two of the following: average power (kW), total energy (kWh), hours (h), you should ...

How to convert kWh to kW? - RapidTables.comwww.rapidtables.com › Conversion › Electrical calculation

... to the energy E in kilowatt-hour (kWh), divided by the time period t in hours (hr): P(kW) = E(kWh) / t(hr). So. kilowatt = kilowatt-hour / hour. or. kW = kWh / h ...

Interconnector - Units converter - keywww.interconnector.com/operational-data/tools-guides/key-to-units/

Interconnector

kW (kWh/h), Kilo (10^3) Watts (1 kW = 1 kWh/h). MW (MWh/h), Mega (10^6) Watts (1 MW = 1 MWh/h). Tonne LNG/d, Tonnes of liquefied Natural Gas per day.

kWh/h - Wikipediahttps://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWh/h

Translate this page Norwegian Wikipedia

kWh/h, eller mer vanlig MWh/h, kan oppfattes som en anomali, men er en betegnelse som benyttes av kraftprodusenter for å beskrive produsert elektrisk energi ...

Define 1 Kwh. H is this unit of energy related to 1 Joule. - Freeshiksha ...www.freeshiksha.com › Home › Questions

1 Kwh is the amount of electrical energy consumed when an electrical appliance having a power rating of Kilowatt is used for 1 hour. 1 Kwh = 3.6 X 10^6 J.

Display More

In case you are temped to think that 70,500 ghits is a lot, this is the result with "kwh".

Quote

About 51,300,000 results (0.51 seconds)

The first result is the Wikipedia article on "kilowatt hour." (For kwh/h, the first hit is a discussion that starts off with, roughly, "it's used sometimes, but ... makes most of the points I have made here.) That Norwegian Wikipedia article calls the term an "anomali." In context, that means "not normal."

On a hunch I checked Wikipedia for kwh/h. I got the best results using quotes. The first hit for "kwh/h": The Energy Catalyzer article Talk page, of course. The Rossi trope!

Quote from Alan Smith

zeus46 wrote:

No doxxing please.

Alan, that could read like a confirmation of what he wrote. Do you realize that? In fact, that post is complete insanity. I am a Quora user:
https://www.quora.com/profile/Abd-Ul-Rahman-Lomax
What does the number of followers and page views I have there have to do with being the next "David Koresh"?

It's respectable, my daughter took me out to dinner when it hit a million, which was especially impressive because she never had done it before, and she invited her sister -- whom she did not always get along with -- and she paid the bill without telling me she would. And she' was 14. That's her looking over my shoulder in my Quora profile photo.

But I mentioned another Quora User who has 42 million page views, accumulating now at 4 million per month. She is extremely popular and none of what she writes would appear "cult-like" to anyone. She is, quite simply, an excellent and inspiring writer. I don't want to say her name because I revealed what I can tell about her, here, but that has nothing to do with any "cult," that is this troll's fantasy.

It is an international training corporation, not cheap but not expensive, and it's easy to find out what it is, because I write a lot about it on Quora. She does not write about it, except she is displaying what one finds when one does the training, consistently.

In any case, I wrote my last response to zeus46, still holding on to the possibility that this user might not be a pure troll. That is gone, so I'm blocking the user.

Quote from Alan Smith

Zeus thought he was being funny. So did I. As a Quora user btw, is it any good for removing unsightly stains?

Moderator troll. Fascinating. Now I find out what happens if, concluding that the noise and temptation to respond outweigh the value of contributions, I block a moderator. I like finding things out actually, instead of just guessing.

Quora is good for reading and communicating with some of the best writers on the planet. Real-name accounts are required. Real expertise may be disclosed, and is respected. Civility is strictly enforced.

I often write long Answers on Quora. I never hear, "too long." Instead, I get compliments for taking such care to write a thorough answer, and I get people upvoting and following me as a result. Which then snowballs, generating more page views, etc.

Quote from Shane D.

You are such a meany. Do not know why I bother after 5 years of your insulting me, but for what it is worth, again, I stopped believing in Rossi early 2012 after the Nato Colonel bit. Then along came IH and I latched onto them, thinking they must be seeing something.

Pseudoskeptics pick vulnerable targets, where, it appears to them, there is some possibility of error. They are not true skeptics, see the Wikipedia Marcello Truzzi article for a real skeptic (one of the founders of CSICOP).

Real skeptics reserve judgment, but remain open. Not so open that their "brains fall out," but open. If something seems too outrageous to them, they just ignore it. They do not create fake impossibility arguments. They do not blame others for being open-minded. They do not become obsessed.

Your response to the IH involvement was realistic. It was certainly not a proof of the reality of the Rossi Effect, just an indication. We learn in Real Life to distinguish between indications and proof. "Believers" and pseudoskeptics are cut from the same cloth, the cloth of "I'm right and others who may seem to differ are wrong." Sometimes "wrong" is about heavy moral judgment.

Crucial to genuine skepticism is postponement of judgment when there is inadequate evidence. If you read the 1989 DoE review, and set aside certain mistakes made -- everyone makes mistakes! -- it was, overall, as presented, a skeptical review, not a 'debunking" as is often claimed by pseudoskeptics -- or others who don't read it carefully. It clearly allowed the possibility of reality for the FP Heat Effect, but postponed judgment. Huizenga clearly had beliefs that affected his judgment, but he also kept attending ICCF conferences.

I have now blocked Mary Yugo, along with a few other trolls, and I just included Alan Smith, a moderator here, because he was clearly trolling (i.e, deliberately attempting to incite outrage, -- because he thought it was "funny" -- something not expected of a moderator). By blocking, I am less tempted to waste time responding to the obvious obvious. I will effectively respond, sometimes, because someone else quotes a troll. And, of course, I can always change my mind, it takes less than a minute to change the setting, and I can temporarily unset it if I want to read a response.

On Quora, what one learns to do with trolls is to either ignore them, block them from commenting on your Answers, or report them, or sometimes a sarcastically positive response will not violate civility policy. "Thanks for sharing" is a common one. Nobody has ever been blocked for saying that. As well, authors may delete, for any reason or no reason, comments on their Answers. That drives trolls crazy! "What? Are you afraid of criticism?" Delete. It can be quite satisfying! Even more satisfying, I must admit, is to report incivility and see the user delete their own comments (obviously having been warned, even this is not public information ) or get blocked or banned.

(Quora has real-name accounts, but there are plenty of socks registered, and they can escape notice for substantial periods. Writers who are reactive to trolls and who insult them are often warned or blocked for it. Even some of the best writers have been "banned" which is supposed to be permanent but isn't if properly appealed, and it helps if the writer is popular! On the other hand, some very popular writers have been banned permanently because they refused to lay down the cudgel. -- or, some think, they offended the Power that Be at Castle Quora.)

Here, there is very little penalty for trolling, so it is endemic. I may be saving as many as a few hours a day by blocking certain users. If anyone thinks that some comment needs informed response, let me know! Private message, or I'm accessible in many ways.

In typical fashion, Abd is eventually going to be reading mainly his own posts.

Ah well... I measure energy in Cow-Weeks -- the amount of energy provided by means of methane farting by one cow for one week. It's about as good as kWhr/hr and makes a lot more sense.

Shane:

Quote

I stopped believing in Rossi early 2012 after the Nato Colonel bit. Then along came IH and I latched onto them, thinking they must be seeing something.

Logical fallacy... appeal to authority. Dumb.