People do not use logic on the site. Rossi knows that the nuckel melted in the core of the Lugano reactor because he peeled a large melted particle off the side of the reactor's core when he removed the ash sample from the reactor. randombit0 does not accept that the core at Lugano melted. Ergo, randombit0 is not Rossi or anybody who watched Rossi take the ash sample.
Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)
-
-
You know Abd, in the post above you go way too close to doxxing, in that if Randombito is AR, then you are definitely doxxing
The word "doxxing" derives from "document." Meaning someone digs up documents on the internet that point to facts or allegations about another person, or the identity of a person who wishes to remain anonymous. Abd has not done anything like that. No documents are described. No proof is offered. He is merely speculating that this person is Rossi or someone close to Rossi, based on the content of her statements, and on her spelling and punctuation. Anyone can see that she resembles Rossi, and she is not a native speaker of English. So this speculation is not unfounded.I do not see how such speculation resembles doxxing.
-
@axil,
Your logic is too limited.
Perhaps your conclusion would be different if perhaps randombit0 believed, for example, that thermocouple data did not support the idea that temperature required to melt nickel was achieved. Like an intact, small diameter, Type K thermocouple, that survived 20 Days at a location immediately adjacent to a temperature supposedly above the melting point of said thermocouple. And quite possibly was used to indicate a temperature on a display on the grey control box with the Industrial Heat sticker on it. -
@Jed,
You're interpreting doxxing too literally. That may have been the definition twenty years ago. It is now more general:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dox
The spirit of doxxing as it is now used is to try to make a case that so and so on the forum is such and such a person or otherwise divulge personal information against their wishes. If the case is a compelling one, or if the speculation is otherwise correct, it makes anonymous participation a little bit pointless, because often it is possible to get at someone's real identity even if they wish anonymity. I personally would only partly mind requiring everyone to establish their real identity on this forum. I would mind somewhat because it would make it hard for people with high-quality posts to be here who don't want to have their names associated with this stuff, e.g., because it's controversial. If this site is going to allow anonymity, it should allow real anonymity, including for trolls and for people whose communication is off in some way.
-
The spirit of doxxing as it is now used is to try to make a case that so and so on the forum is such and such a person or otherwise divulge personal information against their wishes. If the case is a compelling one . . .
I do not see where Abd is forcing this person to admit anything. She is ignoring him. Abd's case does not seem compelling to me.The definition you cited says:
QuotePersonal information about people on the Internet, often including real name, known aliases, address, phone number, SSN, credit card number, etc.
I do not see any of that in Abd's comments. There is no information at all, only speculation. No address, phone number, and no solid proof this is actually Rossi. There are no threats or accusations. She is ignoring him with impunity. For that matter, there is no harm in being Rossi. It would not be a crime for this person to be Rossi while pretending not to be. Suppose I speculate that you are actually Barack Obama. Suppose I even believe it. It would be crazy but I don't see how that would harm you.Okay, you might find it insulting if I accused you of being Donald Trump.
-
I do not see where Abd is forcing this person to admit anything.
'Forcing to admit' has nothing to do with it. Accusation alone (making the case) is doxxing. As Eric pointed out.
The spirit of doxxing as it is now used is to try to make a case that so and so on the forum is such and such a person or otherwise divulge personal information against their wishes.
-
I first read this as "a hot tub device." I envision a bunch of researchers lounging around in a hot tub. That would be a change of pace!
Badly needed in the field. We also need stand-up comics.Really. ICCF-18 was mostly boring. (What was fun was actually meeting people that I'd only read or had email correspondence with.) With most speakers -- there are exceptions -- I have a tolerance for about 5 minutes. What I would want to see is that speakers would distribute the text of their remarks before the talk, people would read it, and then the entire live session would be interactive, probably with moderation to keep it on track. But there are traditions for "scientific conferences," that probably help keep conferences in the dark ages.
-
I did suggest that this be moved elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
QuoteDoxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents),[1] or doxxing,[2][3] is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information (especially personally identifiable information) about an individual or organization.[3][4][5][6][7]
The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to internet vigilantism and hacktivism.
Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, extortion, coercion, harassment, online shaming, and vigilantejustice.[8][9]
Generally, doxxing is prohibited on WMF wikis; however, there are exceptions. A charge of conflict of interest, for example, may be asserted, which may necessarily require disclosing the real-life identity of a user who might be violating COI rules.Doxxing does not normally refer to identifying public figures like Rossi. It generally is prohibited because it can cause real-life harm, but that is not at issue here. There is no harm, and all that is really asserted is a coherence of ideas and approaches, and that is routinely asserted, as an example, against me, that I'm somehow parroting an "IH line" and therefore must be paid by them. And the same is said about Jed, and about others. As I mentioned, the user in question did acknowledge being a part of Rossi's team. (this was clear, not merely some suspicion.) That is actually enough for my purposes. We have no other person active here who has acknowledged that or even who looks like that. Engineer48 is about as close as it has come -- he has acknowledged working with Rossi on some engineering issues relating to an alleged installation. To point that out is not a claim of moral terpitude.
To assert that the user here is Rossi is not to denigrate him, it is more to attempt to communicate honestly with Rossi, hoping that this is him.
There is no attempt to drive the user away. I have dealt with real cases of doxxing, where people were shamed and even banned as a result. (Wikipedia prohibits doxxing, but then allows it if the charges against the person are considered very serious, even if they have actually been misleading. People have been banned because they were doxxed. People have been harassed in real life because of doxxing, and high-level WMF functionaries have been involved in doing this. Real doxxing is far different from what I did here. I simply stated the basis for my comments, in what is known.
Judgement based on superficial resemblances (i.e., rigid rules that lose sight of the purpose of the rules) will never create a strong forum.
For me, the issue is whether or not I can write openly and civilly (was my comment uncivil? -- that would be a different issue) about what I observe and think. As I wrote, I'm fully willing to accept a consensus here. I'm not seeing it, so far.
Consider this: I could take my post and place it on newvortex, and then link to it here, deleting the information here. Would that still be "doxxing" and prohibited? What then about links to Sifferkoll's blog, full of attempts to doxx while actually denigrating and attacking? What about links to Peter's blog, which often contains links to Sifferkoll's blog and which makes other claims about users here that could be considered offensive?
The real problem that this forum must face if it is to create and maintain long-term utility: incivility and lack of discipline, both of which create long and disjointed threads that are not clean threads, they wander all over the map. Doxxing has possiby damaged the participation of Thomas Clarke here, but has this inhibited the user in question here? Was the exposure of Clarke's real-life affililations -- harmless in themselves, if anything, making his writing more authoritative -- the same as claiming that an obvious sock of Rossi here is a sock of Rossi?
(In WMF parlance, "sock" includes what is called a "meat puppet," i.e,. a different user who is nevertheless acting in concert with another. Wikipedia will often treat an alleged meat puppet the same as a proven sock.)
-
such and such a person or otherwise divulge personal information against their wishes.
You seem to be missing my point. She has not divulged anything. She is ignoring Abd. He is not being rude or insistent, which makes it easy to ignore him. Her wishes are to remain behind a pseudonym, and everyone here seems okay with that, including Abd. He is just saying he thinks she is actually Rossi. What harm is there in saying that? She might be Rossi. It does seem that way, although frankly, I couldn't care less who she is.If Abd were trying to dig up any form of proof you would have a point, but his unsupported opinion is not proof of anything.
-
There is no harm, and all that is really asserted is a coherence of ideas and approaches, and that is routinely asserted, as an example, against me, that I'm somehow parroting an "IH line" and therefore must be paid by them.
The harm as I see it is that when you have a polarized discussion, partisans on both sides will readily take the same liberties that one takes with someone one feels deserves to be outed. Try to out randombit0, and someone else will try to out THH or one of the other anonymous users with strong opinions who wish to remain anonymous. In a polarized discussion such as this one, you need simple, clear boundaries. In this particular case there is neither sufficient manpower nor shared vision to apply more subtle moderation.(I am quite happy that forum topics tend to wander as much as they do. I do not feel that it is to their detriment. Because of what freedom there is, the forum feels more like a conversation over the dinner table, which is the kind of thing that tends to wander rather than stay on topic.)
-
The real problem that this forum must face if it is to create and maintain long-term utility: incivility and lack of discipline, both of which create long and disjointed threads that are not clean threads, they wander all over the map. Doxxing has possiby damaged the participation of Thomas Clarke here, but has this inhibited the user in question here? Was the exposure of Clarke's real-life affililations -- harmless in themselves, if anything, making his writing more authoritative -- the same as claiming that an obvious sock of Rossi here is a sock of Rossi?
Abd, you are simultaneously the chief rambler and the one who complains most about 'off topic' posts. And you insist on making yourself right, even when you are obviously wrong. Just give it a rest, no more doxxing please.
-
Abd, you are simultaneously the chief rambler and the one who complains most about 'off topic' posts. And you insist on making yourself right, even when you are obviously wrong. Just give it a rest, no more doxxing please.
My posts generally stay on the thread topic except when it has already been diverted. I do sometimes "ramble" from some points of view, and this has commonly irritated the small-minded who don't understand the connections. And, of course, not everyone irritated is small-minded. I do not think that I am any more of an offender in this regard -- actually going off-topic -- than, say, Alan Smith, so pot, kettle, black. I claim that off-topic posting is a problem here and I do not exempt my own posts from that. It's a problem whether I do it or someone else does it. This is not properly about censorship, but strong moderation would easily deal with this, simply by sorting posts. That is work, and it doesn't appear that there is a moderator willing to do it. So far.As to making myself right, that's something odd? It is actually normal human behavior. And, yes, it can be harmful, whether I do it or someone else. Alan is here essentially arguing that he's right about "doxxing" and that I'm wrong. Or is he talking about something else? In any case, I do not consider what I did to be "doxxing," and if we want a clear rule here, well, it would need to be clarified. What I did does not meet the standard internet definition of doxxing, and the general reasons for prohibiting doxxing does not seem to apply. So, I've said I would respect consensus, but Alan Smith seems to think that the declarations of a few are consensus if he agrees with them (and disregards other opinions). No, that is not how I understand consensus. Do we have any consensus process here? Do we need it?
Those are actually questions I have faced and addressed for about thirty years on-line, starting as a moderator on the W.E.L.L. I'm not new to this!
-
Ahem, that is rambling, after admitting to rambling. Probably the small minded people did not notice, but I did.
Nothing wrong with rambling BTW. When necessary, I have been guilty of such. Best though, was Joshua but I digress.
-
randombit0,
Emissivity charts are an assembly of information.Yes Paradigmoia, as any book, any encyclopedia or the whole Internet.
The Optris can no more see the entire IR band than your eyes can see the whole IR band.
I have tried to explain this point to you is a question of calibration. Regarding human eyes: all of you has attempted to evaluate temperature from color ( of a photograph ! ) so in fact you are using some sort of calibration against the black body and even note that Alumina is partially transparent at high temperature (read MFMP site).
if you cannot differentiate between total and partial (spectral) then you might find difficulties in all sorts of things. Like totally full pipes and partially filled pipes, or totally dry steam and partially dry steam, or totally fulfilling contracts and partially fulfilling contracts.
Is very difficult for me to understand your surprising and foolish statement.
Are you thinking that I'm Rossi ? ( from the fact yo used the word "contract". )
For obvious reasons I will neither confirm nor deny any information about my identity.
But I can tell you that our company knows very well what emissivity is and how to use it. Spectral and Total.
In the Lugano case Total emissivity was the one to use. -
@randombit0,
You continue to repeat a false statement as though it is fact.Using total emissivity for a selective emitter will result in the wrong measurement of temperature by the Oprtis, which is spectrally limited.
Total emissivity is not used for almost any IR camera, because almost no cameras can see the entire IR band (This requires the object to be in vacuum to be done correctly, among other problems).
Sometimes the total normal emissivity can be close to the emissivity correct for the spectral range of a type of IR camera, but most real materials are not even grey bodies. (Selective emitters are sometimes known as 'real bodies'). Perhaps you would like to go over these emissivity charts (below). If the emissivity is not the same in all the IR band columns for each specific material, then the total emissivity will not be the same as the spectral emissivity for various bands for that material (each IR band column is for a different type of IR camera detection band (spectral sensitivity).
**Note the comment on the bottom of the emissivity charts, reproduced below (emphasis added)**http://www.raytek.com/Raytek/e…EmissivityTableMetals.htm
-
Is very difficult for me to understand your surprising and foolish statement.
Are you thinking that I'm Rossi ? ( from the fact yo used the word "contract". )
For obvious reasons I will neither confirm nor deny any information about my identity.
But I can tell you that our company knows very well what emissivity is and how to use it. Spectral and Total.
In the Lugano case Total emissivity was the one to use.
RB0 is surprised that someone might think he is Rossi? That is even more "difficult to understand." Rossi has claimed that I am paid to discredit him. I'm not -- and I would certainly know! -- but I can understand why someone might think so, I have no difficulty with it. In one place I was accused of being a sock puppet of Jed Rothwell, and it was insane, but I understand why the person thought so. Ignorance, mostly. If two people seem to be supporting the same idea that is considered crazy, why, maybe there is only one person!Nobody is requiring him to admit (or deny) that he's Rossi.
Bottom line: RB0 is actually claiming expertise, for himself and "his company," yet, of course, identity is not disclosed. In other words, the claim is a mere claim with no support other than what is revealed in the arguments.
There is an obvious problem with using total emissivity, and this has been pointed out, over and over, I'm not repeating it.
I conclude that the RB0 arguments are designed to fool those who don't study and think for themselves, and that matches arguments made by ... Rossi.
That two people make the same arguments does not prove that they are the same, of course. Nor does it really matter. However, my habit is to care about people, and that includes Rossi.
Rossi has never openly participated in free discussion anywhere else than on his blog, and, there, the use of sock puppets is obvious. What is it like to believe that one must communicate in this way?
The lawyers essentially told Rossi to STFU, it has been delicately expressed. So he states through socks what he might want to say himself, and then he can directly say, Thanks, or I can't comment. Each individual case of this might be plausible as someone independent showing up, but the collection is not plausible. Why would so many people only comment on his blog and not elsewhere? Indeed, how do these people find the blog? And they use Rossi tropes and show various characteristic idiosyncracies.
Relevant to this thread, there is Rainier Rander, the other-wise unknown author of the E-catworld comment, and then RB0, arguing the same. See Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander) on this, which cites JONP and which connects Rainer Rander and Randombit0.
Rossi is in great danger, but not from external enemies, rather, from his own fears and what they lead him into. I don't like to see anyone stuck in that.
Rossi is correct that the market is the ultimate decider. Whether or not Lugano was a complete mess or was an example of excellent science actually has little or no effect on Rossi's future. Lugano is not going to be widely accepted, there is no sane hope of that.
One operating E-cat in independent testing would make Lugano totally moot, and could have done that five years ago. So what has prevented that from happening? There is no way to blame IH for this situation.
-
Relevant to this thread, there is Rainier Rander, the other-wise unknown author of the E-catworld comment, and then RB0, arguing the same. See Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander) on this, which cites JONP and which connects Rainer Rander and Randombit0.
Randombit has not only suggested that we are excited about the post she wrote on EW, but she also successfully predicted the update to the post several hours ahead of its appearance on EW.
Slightly off topic, I found another example of a "contributor" to JoNP that signed off as AR...
-
Those are actually questions I have faced and addressed for about thirty years on-line, starting as a moderator on the W.E.L.L. I'm not new to this!
I'll bet a large sum that you have been banned from more forums than you have moderated...In one place I was accused of being a sock puppet of Jed Rothwell
I once saw you described as being "Jed's Dungbeetle"! -
Here's a fun weekend project:
Make an alumina test block, and cook it ( get it glowing !), and test the ε.
Fun for the whole family !!
( This one is at least a year old) -
I am getting sick and tired of the endless bickering about the properties of alumina based temperature determination.
My understanding of the Rossi LENR process (aka my theory) postulates that there are other sources of light other than black body radiation from alumina that are produced by the Lugano reactor. The polariton condensate has been proven to emit two other frequencies that would complicate the determination of temperature from an active LENR reactor as those frequencies would mix with the light emissions of alumina. One source is Hawking radiation produced by a Bose condinsate, the other is a photon channel whose frequency is determined by the pumping level of the polariton condinsate. The Hawking radiation is a low frequency infrared thermal light source and the other is a variable light source that changes based on the energy production of the bose condinsate.
See
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-s…einstein-condensates.html
The pumped optical signal is referenced here
QuoteThey observed high-energy side-peak emission that cannot be explained by two mechanisms known to date: Bose-Einstein condensation of exciton-polaritons, nor conventional semiconductor lasing driven by the optical gain from unbound electron hole plasma.
I know that the alumina theory of temperature is incomplete and underestimates the temperature of the reactor's core because molten nickel ash was found in the core of the Lugano reactor.
The MFMP test of the accuracy of the Lugano temperature measurement would not include light that was generated by the LENR reaction itself and is therefore inaccurate. Rossi has said that his QuarkX reactor, a more advanced version of the Lugano reactor produces abundant LENR reaction based light that is independent of alumina thermal emissions. This revelation by Rossi about the light production of the QuarkX tends to support of and lends credence to my theory of the LENR reaction and discredits the alumina only light generation theory.
