colwyn Member
  • Member since Jun 28th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by colwyn

  • The Playground

    Quote from stephenrenzz




    Mr Renzzz, your brand of trolling involves more than just posting pictures, as you seem to guiltily acknowledge above yourself.


    Also, you were challenged to publish your "data", but like Joseph Smith and his golden tablets of Mormon, no-one else has ever seen it. You merely prefer to drop hints pretending that you even collected this so-called "statistical data" in the first place. ;)


    But that's beside the point. The prophesy said you would never publish your data, and Hark! No data has been published yet. Prophesy 1, You 0


    Your final sign off sounds a lot like trolling to me..... That makes Prophesy 2, You Nowt!
    lso your comparison seems a bit of a silly metric. I suppose next you'll be claiming you have a bigger penis than me or something? .....And, your 490 upvotes are mainly from your trolling buddies!

  • The Playground

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax droned on /

    Consider the predictions I made about the Motion to Dismiss. Strictly, I got 5/8 right. Or one could claim 5/9... Anyway, who else predicted anything that was right?...


    Abd, 5 out 9 is pathetic! It's a monkey mark! (The score a monkey would probably get in a yes/no multiple choice test)


    Come on. Did you spend all your time playing footsie with Feynman in your Statistics classes?!


    If you want to see some real fortune-telling, read this and weep....




    So to recap, that's an 80% hit-rate, or as you might say, Abd: 100%, if we use your method of adjusting the denominator down by 1.


    Pretty good huh?


    Unfortunately my scrying ball doesn't allow me to predict when any more predictions will be arriving, but...


    MARK MY WORDS. There's going to be some eggs on some faces.

  • The Playground

    @peterE: Sifferkoll®'s name is common knowledge unless you are either a johnny-come-lately, or you haven't been paying attention. It begins with a T.


    But that is not important... It's time for...


    SOME PREDICTIONS:


    1) Thomas Clarke will be back. And soon. Anyone who has made 1500+ posts is a didact addict, plain and simple. (And I give it a maximum of 30 days before he's jonesing badly).


    2) Despite numerous threats Hank Mills will never leave. (And neither should he have to).


    3a) Renzzzzzie will return to his trollish ways very shortly. (And likely before the Third Coming of TC).
    3b) The Renzzzzzzzer will never publish his secret statistical proof about Randombit0. (See here and here. Mainly because it only exists in his head).


    4) The next member getting banned is "ShaniaBaby"


    MARK MY WORDS. YOUR ORACLE HATH SPOKEN!!!


    (F9 Suckers)


  • The Playground

    Hank Mills. What a pest!


    Out of 96 posts (so far), over 50 of them are hassling ME356 to release information a couple of weeks early, and 5 are threats to quit the forum. Many of them are excessively long, and contain some fairly tenuous reasoning and metaphors. A good advert for his books, they are not.


    Even a Buseyism was thrown in at one point. Only Gary Busey should make Buseyisms -- leeway is given because he has an unfortunate long-term brain injury.


    Whatever happened to:


    Quote from Ages ago Hank Mills

    I'm going to make the following plea ONE FINAL TIME.


    Quote from Hank Mills

    I personally am done with this forum and the entire community if Me356 doesn't agree to share a few paragraphs with us. I'll have this account deleted, make my final post on the JONP, make a final short article on E-Cat World, and leave for good.


    Quote from Hank Mills

    And I'm not threatening to leave. I'm going to leave. I've already made my mind up on that. There is no purpose in hanging around any longer. I'm just waiting for the moderators to delete my account on this forum.


    :rolleyes:


    If my children acted this way, I'd feel I had failed as a parent.


    Also why is it necessary to have all your posts deleted? (Admittedly I would also delete them if I had written them). Just delete them yourself!!

  • Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    And a long cold lonely winter.


    Quote from beckett

    Mr Darden collects investments in companies that end up dissipating the money of the investors with the excuse that the business is not gone well.


    And Dewey is his bag-man.


    Quote from anonymous

    A jury pool will be 6 or 12 random citizens with no particular interest one way or another in LENR. Maybe 25% will be scientifically literate.


    I think you overestimate Florida... Hopefully >25% will be literate.


    http://www.americanliteracy.com/Image/samplefloridapg.jpg

  • jeff: Celani-Type Replication

    Tom, as with any belief ("an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof") you are free to hold it.


    Providing a neutral context was necessary for every part of the quote to make sense. The context was also a direct quote, the factualness of which is backed up by Joshua's response.


    Having read "the rules" I understand to avoid aggressive or insulting (or repetitive) language. Yes, perhaps it was off-topic, so maybe a deeper verbatim analysis of Joshua's motivations is worthy of it's own thread? If he so wishes, that is.

  • jeff: Celani-Type Replication

    I would agree that your reply seems to support 'ransom's' position, as it offers a justification, as opposed to a refutation.


    I only disagree that an honest person could deem their own words to be a criticism of them self.

  • jeff: Celani-Type Replication

    I fail to see how quoting you verbatim, without adding any commentary of my own, could be construed as a personal criticism. I merely want to help you get your point across, in as honest a way as possible.

  • jeff: Celani-Type Replication

    Quote from TheGomp

    Joshua, your response is a perfect example of non productive pouting.. ..What can I take from your reply which is any way or manner constructive? What is your intent here? To merely criticise as it would seem? Or better yet to have it all stop and go away?


    TheGomp, you might find the following quote enlightening:


    Quote from Joshua Cude, when accused of "behaviour contributing to the demise of (another) forum",

    Given that (in spite of my own regrettable participation) I think any forum on the subject of LENR or the ecat is beneath contempt, therefore, any reduction in the number of believers participating is an improvement.


    This forum would reach its epitome if all LENR cult members were afraid to post here, and it went silent. I would regard that as a victory for evidence-based science, and a defeat for pseudo-science. (December 23, 2015)

  • FP's experiments discussion

    Quote from joshua cude

    Anyway, don't they say x/beta emissions thermalized in lead? The lead would produce most of the bremsstrahlung, but would have characteristic peaks at 73, 75, and 84 keV


    What?


    Another "skeptic" who chooses to pontificate before he has properly read what he is talking about. :rolleyes:

  • FP's experiments discussion

    You missed out number 7.


    Joshua said (as a caricature of skeptics' beliefs):



    Beta-minus bremsstrahlung, genius?

  • FP's experiments discussion

    Quote

    I'm writing all this not having looked at their results :rolleyes:


    Why even bother? I mean, it's not going to change your mind.



    This 'hits the nail on the head' perfectly, as far as I'm concerned, and no amount of long winded sophistry will change it.


    Also:


    Quote

    7. The craters found on electrodes were created by a multi-headed mythical creature.

  • Richtopia: Tom Darden & Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR)

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Meanwhile. I am still working on getting my FOIA request done... I am told I should have the report this week. We will see...


    "This week" eh? Long week...


    Possibly it has been received already, yet you prefer to suppress it, because it doesn't fit your unique narrative, à la Gary Wright?


    Or possibly you won't be around here long enough to publish it? Two strikes already by my count... Although maybe that's the plan, to save face?

  • Experimental Evidence on Rossi Devices

    Thanks Tom, that helps. No worries about getting distracted. Sorry to have badgered you!


    I'm more interested in the values calculated by your script than the rougher answer given by (0.95/0.4)*L(Tx) = L(1525)... I think I understand the changes that I need to make to calculate the data points I am interested in.


    For what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation of the emissivity issues as compared to Bob Higgins' paper. My goal is just to assess, or perhaps calibrate your model with real word alumina/optris data from MFMP, hence the seemingly strange questions.


    I'll have another go at getting it a Python interpreter running. It surely can't be as hard as I appear to be making it!


    I assume I can paste your script into a .txt file, rename it as a .py, and (if all the correct libraries are installed - cheers for the SciPy tip) it should work...?


    .