Posts by Zeus46

Quote from THHuxleynew

So these measurements prove absolutely nothing of use here, except that it is not turbulent flow (that would not have the centre portion flat velocity profile).

A flat velocity profile signifies turbulent flow. Not a surprising result when measured downstream of the radial fan. (The inlet orifice, a hole through the thin perspex wall, would always have a flat velcity profile when measured at the outside face).

Quote from JedRothwell

If the flow rate is wrong, the weight of air will be wrong, and the answer will be wrong. There is no getting away from that. It is not possible that both the weight of air and the temperature are wrong, and they just happen to balance out and give the right answer at every power level.

Very true.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Seriously. IRRC, they are over 3 million words

For real? That's six War & Peace's. An embarrasing amount, really... With or without Rossi writing half of it himself.

But no need too feel to superior - It would seem that with ~25,000 posts on this forum devoted to repetitively jabbering about Rossi, the true extent of the madness is much worse, by many multiples.

Quote from RobertBryant

How many people have actually asked SOT about LENR?

I did once...

Then I visited a circus clown for some medical advice.

Quote from Shane D.

I am curious myself to see how much support Rossi still has. Aren't you?

Yes, so I felt a little cheated when I responded but the totals were hidden from me.

Too many words, not enough pictures?

errr... 'yes'. Why not try Googling each item in your copypasta list of blood tests, along with the term "immunoassay"? It will involve reading something, so, good luck, but if you do, you might learn something.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

These are not every day clinical laboratory tests but rather immunoassays or DNA SNIP identifications.

The multi billion dollar prize will go to whoever is the first to perform on a single drop of blood the actual tests used to evaluate health in a clinical laboratory setting. According to Scripps Health, these would include (in no particular order):

Comprehensive metabolic panel (see below)

Vitamin D 25-Hydroxy,

TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) test

Complete blood count (CBC)

HbA1C (blood sugar)

Occult blood in stool and urinalysis

HDL and LDL levels

High sensitivity C-reactive protein

NMR Lipoprotein testing (advanced cholesterol test)

Prostate specific antigen – PSA (men)

Display More

It would seem that all the tests on the comprehensive metabolic panel can be performed by immunoassay nowadays - even blood counts. For TSH, immunoassay is now the recommended testing method, and the others are either regular tested by immunoassay, or such tests are being assesed for accuracy by researchers.

And is the "NMR" lipoprotein test really all that necessary, or are Scripps Health just trying to cash in with expensive tests? The Havard Medical School seems to think so:

"It sounds like you had advanced lipoprotein testing, which is a more detailed and also more expensive version of a standard cholesterol or lipid test. In general, I'm not a fan of this type of testing, because there is no solid evidence that the results are useful in any concrete way or provide information that can improve a person's health." https://www.health.harvard.edu…ipoprotein-testing-useful

I would imagine that Genalyte already use several immunoassays from the above list in the 60 or so tests they currently perform.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

So show me a reference that these and more can all be done on the same one drop of blood (0.02 - 0.05 ml).

And please, unless you profess to be psychic, don't tell me what I know and don't know.

Seems you don’t know about a company called Genalyte. 128 tests on 0.05ml, fast results. Unlike Theranos they have published lots of information about their technology works and given demonstrations.

Not much point in fishing out a link for you SOT, the avid non-reader, but those with an interest can google ‘Genalyte 128’ or something similar.

Kinda like how e-catworld doesn't upset the peace with Rossi?

Quote from THHuxleynew

A starting point would be whether they cite the correct material...

...I'm expecting that "correct practice to get D-Pd working" is now well enough understood and written down. In which case I'd expect such to be referenced by the google guys.

Two references found in 5 minutes by googling “reproducible LENR experiment”:

1. Highly reproducible LENR experiments using dual laser stimulation (559) | February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF. Letts, Dennis

2. DTRA: INVESTIGATION OF NANO-NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN CONDENSED MATTER FINAL REPORT. June 2016

...“The Pd/D co-deposition process has been shown to provide a reproducible means of manufacturing Pd-D nano-alloys that induce low energy nuclear reactions (LENRs)”

Quote from seven_of_twenty

The problem with Celani's experiments is that his claim is that he barely makes more power than he puts in.... blah blah blah..... whatever you want to call the power out/power in ratio would go up a factor of blah...

Wow... Celani’s wires, again? Really? After numerous exhortations that you often read about, and understand, LENR topics, you bring up the classic counter-example which proves that you don’t read, and certainly don’t understand, much.

If you had bothered to read, and understand, Celani’s work, you would have learnt that he claims roughly double the output power compared to the input. (Yes, that’s “COP” = 2, for any neurotypicals out there).

50 Watts in, 100 Watts out, is a typical result.... SOT characterises this as “barely more power than he puts in”.

...I characterise him as a wilfully ignorant fool.*

No doubt he won’t bother to properly read the link provided above (9th time now, I think), and will likely just repeat the same old nonsense in a few weeks/months time.

‘So it goes.

* Some assume he can’t help it, and that I should be less harsh on him. I say, if one is able to write, one is able to read... Assuming one wants to.

Well, always keen to give the impression he actually reads things, it’s would seem that seven_of_twunty managed to make it through the seven-line abstract at least. No doubt his eyes glazed over shortly after those first few sentences, so he missed the bit about detecting neutrons.

Although some others argue that he is incapable of understanding such technicalities, surely Google (and heaven forbid, some more reading) could be his friend here.

But overall, some positive, if small, steps towards reading a whole paper... A big improvement - Well done!

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Complete nonsense again. What I write gives ample proof that I not only read but understand what I choose to read.

Um wat? Probably the best example of you “understanding what you choose to read” is the Roulette paper...

Quote from maryyugo

Ya know, I keep looking at the Roulette paper and I don't see 100W out without input power for days? Which text or figure from the paper has those results exactly? That's before we even get to replication. What is it with this zeal to cite papers that don't seem to show what the proponent SAYS they do? At least not in any overt and obvious manner.

Of course, that wasn’t the first time you struggled to get your head around that paper...

Quote from JedRothwell

That paper seems clear to me, but you said you don't understand it. So I explained it to you, twice. I cannot think of a way to explain it any more clearly. I am afraid you must go through life without understanding this experiment.

There are other papers about heat after death, but if you don't understand this one there is no point to reading the others.

Somewhat Interesting article on Woodford:

https://www.moneyobserver.com/…-woodford-patient-capital

Basically says that some big investors are buying in, as the fund is trading well below its Net Asset Value, ie you can get hold of their basket of shares for almost 20% cheaper than if you bought them all on an open market.

Also the point is made that: ‘It’s called Patient Capital, so quit your whining’.... Which is hard to argue with, really.

———————

And, in other news, I decided to completely reevaluate some recent contributions of one of our more ‘esteemed’ members - exploring the remote possibility that he might actually know what he’s talking about....

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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

Inspired by the above quote, and following an evening hunched over a calculator, I have been able to revalue a company that I am director of, as being worth Several Million pounds! Yes, literally overnight!!!

Other shareholders weren’t to concerned about this - I assume - as they didn’t ask to see any audited accounts.

Or absolutely anything audited at all. Idiots. But then, it’s not like they are professionals with over 25 years of wealth management expertise. They love it, in fact, as they are now also rich, obviously.

Currently trying to decide on Ferrari versus Porsche GT, from the proceeds of my financial genius. Or maybe some exotic 2-stroke 500. Or maybe a Cypriot passport... Just to cover all eventualities. Potential prosecutions, whatever.

Thanks SOT!

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)?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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?

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

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.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Shane D. . the Forever Optimist: I doubt that Woodford's shareholders see much good in holding IH shares.

You’re such a fool... Do you realise IH is one of Woodford’s biggest winners? Up 357% since he invested.

It should be obvious (to anyone sane) that his investors are grateful, for that one pick, at least.

It will likely compound his troubles with unlisted shares too... When clients pull money out, he needs to sell shares quickly in order to pay them. Much easier to find buyers at short notice for his market-traded stocks.

One shudders to think of what he might do with it when it arrives... I don’t imagine he’s growing roses. The rumour is that he’s swelling up a big vegetable of some description, although that’s currently unconfirmed.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

If the suggestion is that IH is largely bull poop, I'll buy that.

I, Hody?