Posts by Zeus46

    The point of surface treatment is to improve the wear characteristics whilst retaining the toughness of the bulk material. Yes you could boronise a knife, say, but is it worth it? Ceramic knives are wear resistant without constantly snapping, and stainless steel knives can be sharpened when worn out. (Also, sharpening a boronised blade sounds like a recipe for problems, so would it really improve lifespan)?

    You and others might try reading why it is that IH's value appears to have increased.


    Because they sold some further shares at a higher value those previously. Pretty simples, huh?


    It is entirely meaningless and artifactual.


    No it isn’t - anyone who cashed in their stake in Woodfords funds recently has received direct monetary benefit based on the increase in value of those IH shares.


    Personally, I think IH's real value is close to zero.


    So what? You have demonstrated you can’t understand a very simple email, never mind high technology or corporate finance: Your ‘thoughts’ are those of an idiot.

    Great! Bitcoin transfer OK? Best these kind of dealings are kept anonymous, I reckon.


    Although it all might be a moot point seeing as no-ones been daft enough to stump up any readies yet. You should advertise it on ecatworld perhaps? That lot aren’t exactly known for their critical thinking skills.

    I do not have to be the one going to London to do this. Anyone near there can use this money and visit the lab.


    Fine... I’ll do it... If you insist.


    Just send me 10K so I can get a helicopter there and back. Seems pretty fair.


    Think of it as a favour Kev. I imagine you’re one of those people who aren’t very good at being on a plane. ‘Escorted off by police' as the newspapers say. Probably in Ireland to avoid putting up with you for an extra hour.

    2b22c2980e7848003633d9922677ba8d.jpg


    Please correct me if I missed it because, of course, I never read anything, in fact I can't read at all so be sure to include more pictures.

    But then, I never read anything, remember?


    You're far beyond parody Yugo. Wilfully ignorant, and almost unworthy of any response at all.


    I have genuinely been wondering recently whether you are more deserving of pity than mockery. But ultimately - you're such a tool, that it's hard to resist.


    Suffice to say we're only two months into the year, and already there's been two 'anti-reading denials'... Boors Bingo 2019 is shaping up to be a good 'un.


    Two lines are filled in already, I think the four corners, and maybe even The Big X. Your 'scatalogical issues' are off the charts. Even more so than last time, unbelivably.

    I think the 'pecking order' for dividends is flat, the different share classes are more to do with voting rights and later share issuances than anything else.


    Interestingly, George Miley (Lenuco LLC) owns a lot of shares (2.5x Dewey & JT Vaughan put together). Presumably he had a strong negotiating position.

    Even measuring the temperature of a tube has been got wrong in the LENR field (Lugano) and not picked up until somone from outside LENR queried it!


    That’s hardly a good example, as for *some reason* a pointlessly convoluted method of measurement was chosen, and then not calibrated properly. Most normal people would have used a thermocouple. In fact a thermocouple was used for control loop feedback in the Lugano Ecat.



    So what (if anything) does this post from Neil Woodford's blod suggest to you?


    Are you suggesting that Dewey has gone quiet to avoid 'doing a Musk' in the face of an Industrial Heat IPO? (Or why he's 'very busy', as he put it).


    Is this the "managed news event" hinted at previously?


    Might explain all the patent leaks, at least.


    If it is, I have grave concerns for Hody... Somebody had better break it very gently to him, as if his reaction to the Brillouin video was anything to go by, this news will probably finish him off.

    Huxley:

    “I don't think you can compare algorithmic trading with science. The reason science is normally (not exclusively) open is that it is difficult, and when breaking new ground validation from independent others is the only way to get things right.“


    Why bring “science” into this? It’s for chin-strokers who see some benefit to being first in a list of authors (Some might say). It’s different from the art of “making things”. No one accused the Wright brothers, or many other innovators, of being scientists, so why try and frame other endeavours that way?


    Given enough trades, its fairly easy to quantify whether a trading algorithm works, and whether newer code iterations have improved its performance.


    It’s also fairly easy to measure the temperature of a tube.


    Self-proclaimed Scientists (the criteria for professional accredition are very loose - there are no academic requirements, for instance), will no doubt spend a disproportionate number of their presumably frequent coffee breaks* coming up with endless tenuous reasons as to why it’s difficult to measure a variation in temperature: Shanahan’s magic broken-then-unbroken thermocouple springs to mind here.


    This degree of navel gazing is likely the reason why a large proportion of world-changing inventions come out of some person’s shed/workshop/kitchen. (With computers, plastics, nuclear bombs, and bioscience being honourable exceptions).



    * As measured by post count?

    "Peer-review game" is wrong. If true, republic of researchers must know - internet blogging don't fit the job.

    Academia is a variable bouillabaisse - it appears you taste from the wrong side of the dish. From Max Planck to Heitler, to London, to Feynman...

    In the real world, unless things are so simple the research is all done, understanding things is done best by writing them up as though you were going to publish... ...BTW 80% of LENR write-ups do not reach this standard, and therefore do not provide that help.


    Sorry, back off-topic, for one post at least...


    There’s a new paradigm offered by the internet, and it should be taken advantage of. Whilst it’s maybe too soon for such a provactive comparison, I don’t see many papers by Edison in the academic corpus.


    Say what you like about Rossi, but he has a point with “in market veritas” (apologies to any Latin scholars out there).


    Whilst it’s abviously true that academia has achieved some great things, there’s also some truth to the aphorism “Those who can, do... And those that can’t, teach.”

    (And those that can’t teach, teach Phys. Ed.).


    ...In a field that I’m interested in (algorithmic trading) the majority of people don’t publish their ideas. Why should they, it (theoretically) breeds competition and dilutes our edge. I don’t see why this should differ from any other competitive field, and anyway, why bother typing up several pages of text, when your limited time is likely better spent coding a new trading strategy.

    (Ideally the font size would match the previous paragraphs);)



    As for Woodford, it’s only because his unlisted investments are doing so well that he finds himself in this position.

    Poor georgehants - such a reasonable question and yet no-one answers it


    But what do you expect? I mean, it called e-cat world.... they’re fully committed to the whole Rossi-as-saviour narrative, which at this stage (and plenty previously) involves a pathological belief - and that won’t change because someone managed to post an elliptical doubting comment...

    SOT originally wanted to see 100 watts, so he was shown the Roulette paper. He claimed he couldn't understand Roulette's graphs, and then 'moved the goalposts' with a bunch of extra demands about what would 'convince' him. What a joker.