If an idea or a critique is interesting and/or valid, what possible difference does it make who it comes from? This fascination with doxing and identities is most often seen on religious sites and sites dealing with psychic mediums and "after death communications" -- ie. fraud. Those sites can't focus on facts so they focus on identities. Do most users of this site agree with RussGeorge that this is a good idea? Why does anyone need personal information? To annoy and harass people more easily?
Clearance Items
-
-
I do not agree with Russ.
-
String theory came into being as a mathematical model of the flux tube that keeps quarks confined inside the particle. This theory has evolved over time.
In my biased opinion string theory came into being as a form of mental masturbation, along with a desire to hog funding.
You should read Woits blog.
-
No one with earnest and honest intentions begins by lying about their identity and then demands that they deserve any iota of respect. Anonymous lying is the very essence of despicable personalities with mental illness commonly known as trolls. That anyone might pay any attention what-so-ever to such creatures is beyond me. This forum needs a built in filter where each user might select to have other members posts made invisible to them, I for one would immediately tag all anon members to be eliminated. Rossi, in his wisdom, has made use of his own forum to benefit from those with worthy, honest, and earnest ideas from the WWW. I'd happily do the same if there were someone willing to assist me in setting up such a forum in which honesty in identity is the first and foremost requirement for membership.
didn't Tom, Clarke get fired when his real identity was exposed on this site?
Lest we forget
QuoteAnd the rules about doxxing kind of shifted after the Sifferkoll incident with Tom Clarke. The hope is that by allowing genuine anonymity, we'll be able to keep people around with relevant expertise who otherwise wouldn't want their names to be associated with LENR or would simply like to remain private.
-
If an idea or a critique is interesting and/or valid, what possible difference does it make who it comes from?
I have thought about this a little and apologize up front to all the “anons” out there who are trying to help but I do agree with Russ (on this). Ideas are more than words – they are words backed by character and experience. For example I would read a book of fiction anonymously written – but not a non-fiction book (or paper) because I would have no way of judging the life-experience … and therefore bias behind it.
One of the reasons I do not participate more here is because of anonymity and “trollism”. These are not, obviously, synonymous. But if I see something anonymous that looks like attention-seeking I completely ignore it. I have responded to “interesting”, constructive, anonymous comment, and have even given a thumbs up, but would never engage in a conversation. It would be like talking to a ghost or a mirror … a clear sign of insanity (or hubris). I have also responded to “clearly wrong” (from my perspective) signed comments in areas I thought important.
For this reason I submit that anonymous participants hurt themselves more than they hurt this forum. But if an open conversation were started where every participant stood behind their ideas I would jump to it the minute an adult quorum convened.
-
I have thought about this a little and apologize up front to all the “anons” out there who are trying to help but I do agree with Russ (on this).
I have mixed feelings about this. I prefer to see people's names. But cold fusion is a special case. Some professionals are interested, and they wish to contribute, but they are scared of being associated with it. Scared for good reason! Early in the history of the field, one of them approached Bockris and asked Bockris to present his results because he was afraid to go public.
Anonymity is not allowed in academia. Normally no one would present a paper at a conference anonymously, or publish anonymously. However, in some extreme cases anonymity is allowed. For example, people writing about North Korea might remain anonymous to avoid revealing their informants, who will be killed.
For example I would read a book of fiction anonymously written – but not a non-fiction book (or paper) because I would have no way of judging the life-experience … and therefore bias behind it.
That is an interesting example. I too would like to know the professional qualifications of the author of a non-fiction book. On the other hand, I can't talk! I have zero qualifications for my contributions to this field, such as my book "Cold Fusion and the Future." I did not even list my background, which is programmer and translator. When people ask me if I am qualified to write about cold fusion, I say, "I suggest you read my papers at LENR-CANR.org and judge for yourself." See, for example, the paper about Miles:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf
Naturally, I got a lot of help from Miles and Mallove with this.
Book:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf
I suppose no one is qualified to predict the future. Arthur Clarke was the best futurologist of the 20th century. He was professionally qualified. See:
-
With an open to the air reactor I am not using the mercury reaction fuel, I added coal dust 1 to 1 and then added tissue to the 3 to 1 thermite mix. basically a briquette.Also I added a pil inside each ball. a bit of fireplace mortar and plaster of paris to grow hair vain to the outer shell. Hopefully this will allow a full burn and the reactor will not restart unsuspectingly .
-
-
You all are acting like you need your DNA Genomic count to post, Looking for that rare count are we? "Mike Smith"~ pointless.
-
Character is written by wounds rather than by DNA
-
We will see~
-
-
I have to agree with Jed here. Anonymity, when it comes to LENR has it's place. Yes, there are exceptions where some have pursued the science without any repercussion, but the history is filled with true accounts of those who have not been so fortunate. Because of that alone, IMO, we should be tolerant of those who decide it is in their best career interest to remain anonymous. That is their decision to make, and ours to respect.
The same could be said for the others. Let them have their privacy here without bias, if that is what they wish. They have their reasons, and who is it for us to question their decision? I say judge each member by their contribution, and forget what avatar they go by. Too much talent to waste by picking only those going by their real names.
-
I took this conversation about anonymity to heart and added my real name and contact info to my profile, if anyone really cares. I don't know how to change my screen name. But I have a lapsed undergraduate understanding of engineering physics from my major so I think my screen name is a good description of myself. I believe LENR is real but it is not proven yet. And sometimes I like making trollish remarks that I find funny to myself at least. [Time to get off soapbox now]
-
if anyone really cares.
I care, Paul
perhaps you will be a cold fusion Apostle one day
-
So how do you tell when a complex line of rationalisations is on the right track and when not?
I’m more interested in the rationalisations involved in, on the one hand, providing continued pontifications about a topic... Whilst on the other hand, ignoring an invitation to view said topic of interest close up.
-
I’m more interested in the rationalisations involved in, on the one hand, providing continued pontifications about a topic... Whilst on the other hand, ignoring an invitation to view said topic of interest close up.
Which is a shame Zeus46, because science is more interesting than internet arguments - though perhaps comments on Rossi, given his unusual character - make an honourable exception. Neither you nor I have such interesting characters - I'd venture to suggest you would agree?
-
Which is a shame Zeus46, because science is more interesting than internet arguments - though perhaps comments on Rossi, given his unusual character - make an honourable exception. Neither you nor I have such interesting characters - I'd venture to suggest you would agree?
‘tis all in the eye of the beholder Huckers.
The book has already been written about Rossi. Literally. However, for you and I...
-
Looking for heat,
Another interesting reaction of a hematite aluminum mix. when you have a fuel that will not sustain itself alone, using a daisy chain design to allow the burst of heat from one fuel cell to shower the next cell in line may allow a slow reaction from a normally quick,maybe very slow and maintain extremely high temperatures.Coal thermite mixes that will not stay lit that are put next to each other may allowing a constant interchange of energy between them. Clay,sand,tissue paper copper,Aluminum,iron ox ect.
Best to use a welding helmet...will burn your retina~
-
Add a little zinc oxide - but be carefull- zinc oxide and aluminium alone can make an explosive mix.
