Posts by Zeus46

    So you confirm that you are calling me a liar because my 'employment history' illustrates the 'why' of why I picked 17 mph as my maximum ventilation rate in my parametric study of the incident. To remind you, the quotes from the post you were responding to with the above comment pointed out your insinuation of lying on my part.

    I’ve explained this supposed ‘insinuation’ already. Just move on and stop acting so crazy. Sheesh.

    that means that using any temperature over 30C inacurrately represents a possible scenario for the situation? I think you are the one who is unqualified and delusional on top of that! You know that 1000C is '>100C' right? As is 1,000,000C. , etc. etc. Given that highly accurate reporting, I was highly reasonable to use temps of <100C.

    I'd like to remind you what I said here:

    even if a 7.5kg steel reactor was so hot that it was literally glowing red (i.e. ~600C), if it were then placed in 15L of cold water, the equilibrium temperature of the water (and reactor) would only be 40C.... (Assuming no further energy production, of course).

    You could confirm these numbers yourself, if you choose to. It's called equilibrium of temperature.

    Do you finally understand that JR says the bucket was at 100C or greater for around 15 days?

    The bucket, or the reactor? Do you believe this is true? How do you explain it if so?

    All you are actually doing is proving you are deliberately trying to convince people I am wrong when I'm not.

    You are wrong to suggest the observed evaporation could be due to known natural causes.

    And lastly, in the comfort of my living room, from my perspective there is only one wind "around here" - the intricacies of your employment history don't figure much into this.

    You accuse me of character assassination,

    And I am sorry to hurt your pride,

    But in truth this was a self creation,

    It was more like character suicide.

    But let's not dredge up morbid memories,

    It happened long ago, by all reports,

    And it's in poor taste to the extremities,

    For you to continually defile it's corpse.

    Raised up like some foul rabid zombie,

    The ceremony was gruesome, no doubt,

    Voodoo science writ large almost surely,

    Last seen moaning & foaming at the mouth.

    It's a little bit strange to accuse me of screaming, and then fill your post with ANGRY CAPS, à la fellow mouth-foamer, "Mary Yugo".

    And qualification assassination? This has more the appearance of qualification suicide, if you ask me.

    I did say I was trying to seewhat placing a ‘hot object’ in said bucket would do,

    No you're not. Your doing the opposite: Starting off with high numbers (60 C), in order to explain abnormal evaporation rates - without being able to justify a number that high.

    Then... when this is pointed out to you, your response is always a long, obfuscating post that addresses every sentence, but somehow avoids answering the main point that your wild guess of 60 C* is nowhere near what's predicted by basic science (broken thermocouple/over-heated reactor or not), and this leads to the collapse of your model.

    * Or is it now 75 C? - Again, you need to publish your sums, instead of forcing me to reverse-engineer them: More "unscientific" behaviour from yourself. Although at this stage, you are possibly just defiling the corpse - to continue the metaphor.

    “If someone assumesthere's continuous output from a 'heater' in the bucket, they can argue forwhatever water temperature they like.”

    Exactly, so when oneis examining the ramifications of that, one must use more than a very narrowband of temperatures. Ditto for otherimportant parameters like air flow rate, relative humidity, etc.

    So to confirm, you are now claiming there is a 'heater' in the bucket, that could raise the water temperature beyond 20-30 degrees? Although this heater isn't due to LENR, it's due to some anomalous, undefined and previously unknown process? Sounds like ATER revisited. Classic!

    RE your (a) - (q): I'm with you up to (n), probably. I say probably because we've never seen your sums yet, despite several requests. And I particularly agree with your point (h), - that assumed values need to be reasonable.

    Which directly contravenes (m), where you say some "sets of parameters imply an elevated water temperature for some period of time".

    The only way this could happen is due to a lethally high air temperature, or a breakdown in the laws of physics. Or a 'heater' in the bucket, perhaps.

    But at this stage, this is a pointless discussion. As I said, lets see your sums: Put up or shut up - It's really that simple. ...Thermodynamics is a science, not an art - and without seeing your calcs, the only 18mph breeze around here is emanating from your mouth. (Via your fingers, of course).

    What I was doing was exploring what it took to evaporate the claimed quantities of water. One thing I did in that process is assume different temperature values for use in the evaporation rate calculation (same one you used). I did so because there was lots of talk about the 100C (and greater) temperature being maintained for many days. Thus technically speaking, any temp from 100C down to 0C (winter) could be used to explore the resultant evaporation rates. You however, somehow drew a line in the sand and said "No! Only temps between x and y are allowed!" Under what authority you do that I have no idea, but I decline to accept it. So, you resort to ridicule to counter what I write. Not very scientific of you.

    ...It's thanks to the authority invested in me by the laws of thermodynamics - I suggest you read them sometime. Oh wait, you decline?? And you say I'm 'un-scientific'!

    If someone assumes there's continuous output from a 'heater' in the bucket, they can argue for whatever water temperature they like.

    When you assume there is no continuous heat output in the bucket, a line in the 'water-temperature' sand is immediately drawn by nature. You could, if you wanted, and were able, calculate where this line is. It's somewhere below 30C. You failure to understand this, even now - as evidenced by your above statement, despite several very simple explanations - is blatantly ridiculous, and leaves you open to some well deserved ridicule.

    Everyone's allowed the occasional howler, and apparently yourself more than most, but if you repeatedly make the same mistake, in my book, that's the very definition of dumbness. It's not an ad-hom to say this - it's fact - and should be pointed out, if only for your own sake.

    Basically, you repeatedly ignore nearly 200 years of science all to protect your own ego. This makes me laugh, and that spills over into ridicule. Yes, I know this doesn't exactly help you from an ego standpoint. But you need to let go of that, if you ever plan on attaining nirvana - or just appearing competent, really.

    A) Jed and I acknowledge it. (You might not, but then, your opinion on the matter is likely less valid, c.f. the Dunning-Kruger effect)

    B) Your problem is you say stupid, um, "out-of-the-box" things like 'the water would of had an average temperature of 60 C for an extended period'... Presumably this temperature could only be maintained by a similar air temperature, because, you know, the laws of thermodynamics and that. Such an air temperature would certainly kill most people.

    If humanity manages to stay alive until the year 10 000 000 AD we will find that Maxwell's equations still describe electromagnetic phenomena with high precision. And, as far as we know, they will be valid not only here on earth but in the whole of the universe that we inhabit.

    Newtons laws still apply, but that doesn't negate Einstein.

    This idea that science is settled and unchanging is odd, to say the least. Lets cancel all future Nobel prizes if so.

    3) Estimates of chemical enthalpy available are not reliable when nanoparticles are used because surface reactions can be very different from bulk and therefore have a relatively higher enthalpy than expected from bulk hydride formation.

    Isn't chemical enthalpy proportional to the mass of the material, not it's surface area?

    Sure, the rate of a chemical reaction would be related to the surface area, but then, isn't that more akin to power density, than total energy content?

    Still, there seems to be no other support to the claimed findings than results from CR-39 chips.

    Other than the excess heat, tritium, X-rays, and gamma rays, of course.…ar/U%20of%20Mo/spawar.ppt…80.6033&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    If it can be made certain that neutrons are produced it will be big news.

    But producing them in quantities sufficient to run a nuclear reactor is a VERY tall order, much like an impossible invention.

    Wouldn’t a nuclear reactor help out by producing it’s own additional neutrons, chain reaction style?

    BTW, we have discussed the Genie concept before and I repeat, it is a pipe dream based on a few tracks in a CR-39 plastic detector.

    H-G, whilst your efforts to ape Mary Yugo (albeit a saner, more relevant, and less scatalogical version) are not unappreciated, you should avoid his ludicrous habit of not bothering to read the source material before passing comment...

    “Real-time gamma ray measurements were conducted during the course of the experiment. Changes in the baseline of the spectra and the shapes of the lines indicated that neutrons were generated, at a sufficient flux, to damage the detector. Neutron elastic scattering by Ge nuclei was modelled and the average energy of the neutrons was estimated to be 6.3-6.93 MeV. This was corroborated by the CR-39 results which showed the presence of triple tracks”…=Mosier-Boss-Pamela-1.pdf

    From nine posts up

    Hi Can, do you mean something like:

    “The Penon report is invalid and not credible, and the 1MW test was a failure, if not 100% unconvincing.” ...?

    As an aside, I was surprised at a few of the leaps in logic, so tried to capture them as verbatim as possible.

    Some selected highlights:

    The Penon report is valid and very credible, and the 1MW test was a success, if not 100% convincing.

    The "customers" secret room in Doral was filled with some very credible innovative technology.

    Abd's information about Rossi is based on a series of assumptions that aren't true.

    Mats is keeping an open mind that Rossi could either be mistaken or a fraudster... So far he hasn't found any information which confirms either case.

    But Mats also says it's a waste of time reading information about Rossi, because "if some of it can be debunked, potentially all of it can be". Although he is definitely keeping an open mind as to the possibility of fraud, just to be safe.

    Rossi is convinced the QuarkX will be ready this year... And Mats says Rossi has nothing to gain from telling him this.

    And even though the Stockholm demo/DPS wasn't convincing, Mats still considers the QuarkX viable, and thinks the only way it can be ready this year is if Rossi really has discovered 'the key' to the reaction.

    This Russ George ?

    Some Nutter wrote:

    Darcy Russell George was born on Dec. 6, 1949. He grew up in Utah. On some Web sites, he has listed himself as D.R. George. However, he has no college degree.

    Oh the horror! What an outrage!

    S.B. Krivit wrote:

    To Russ George: Is Scott Chubb working with you?

    ... later...

    To Scott Chub: I talked with Russ today. … He says you're working for D2.


    Umm yeah, ‘journalism’ at its finest... No wonder Larsen cut off his stipend.

    (Personally I’ve been a fan of RG since his supposedly ill-advised dumping of tonnes of iron into the Caribbean sea... Each to their own, I guess.)

    1、 容器温度异常升高现象,因为没有测到多余热量,分析为容器内部辉光放电位置漂移所致。

    1. The abnormal increase of temperature of the container is caused by the measurement of not excess heat ,However, no excess heat was shown in the calorimetric measurement, which is caused by the shift of the position of the glow discharge in the container.

    How does one say ‘CCSH’ in Japanese?...

    That article by The Hill is daft. To say that the US government is offering grants or subsidies to ‘Tesla’ is completely ridiculous... For two reasons:

    Their money goes to all electric vehicle manufacturers, not just Tesla.

    Almost 20% more of that money has ended up in the pocket of GM... And, that’s excluding their previous TARP bail-out.

    Abd has pointed out he said in the podcast that Hagelstein is working with IH, not Swartz. He also reckons he hasn’t linked Swartz to IH previously - in which case, I misinterpreted this:

    Abd wrote:

    Few would buy it [Swartz’s NANOR], if any, but IH might — and, in fact, I would not be surprised to find out that they have already arranged independent testing. They are working with Hagelstein and the connection between Hagelstein and Swartz is close enough that Hagelstein would not talk with me, because Swartz. He did not explain, but it was obvious.

    And predictably, Abd Ul-Prolixity wasted two paragraphs arguing that my use of the term “currently withholding good news” is vastly and outrageously different to his preferred euphemism: "not yet talking about good news”... Still sounds like the same thing to me though.

    And no Abd, that wasn’t me writing on 'your' rationalwiki talkpage. It’s probably someone trying to goad you into an argument so they can ban your latest sock account. I have zero interest in wiki-fiddling.

    Although last time I claimed someone was impersonating me (on, no less), I was attacked and repeatedly called a liar by His Lordship, so I guess we’ll see what happens this time...

    I also take umbrage with the following:

    Lomax wrote:

    Rossi v. Darden, far from being useless noise, revealed a great deal that was, previously, secret and obscure. Those who only want to make brief smart-ass comments, though, and who don’t put in what it takes to review the record, will indeed end up with nothing useful.

    Which seems to imply that I have taken 'nothing useful' from the Rossi v Darden case. Which is actually probably true, as the only thing that was really 'revealed' was that Rossi is FOS, and that didn't take a genius to deduct, even before the pre-trial hearings started (Perhaps Abd would like to list his Top Three Previously Obscure Facts, if he disagrees with that statement).

    At best, all the trial revealed was ‘a great deal of previously secret and obscure useless noise'. Quite why it deserved 30+ mins of jaw flapping, compared to <10mins for the rest of IH's investments, Texas/SKINR, and the heat vs. helium topic is beyond me.

    PS. It turns out the allegedly scurrilous rumour about the shovelling of the well-worn Feynman anecdote into the podcast was 100% true! ...Who would have thought!

    Cryptocurrency has a lot of now-wealthy but still-naive youngish investors who are willing to put their cryptowealth into any ‘alt’coin with a half decent story (at least until bitcoin rises exponentially). Even clear parody-token ICO’s are sometimes worth a punt, as historically there is often a "greater fool” who will purchase on when the coins arrive on an exchange.

    I’m sure the inherent mix of idealism and momentum will work out just fine - for Synthestech.