Trying out hypothes.is with LENR Forum

I’ve been seeing spots of interest — and bubbles of mishe-gas — on LENR Forum and missing the hot format of immediate comment, even though, long-term, what I’m settling into here is much more useful.

I started using hypothes.is for commentary because Steve Krivit filed a copyright violation notice on a copy of a page of his here. It’s an interesting tool.

I will create tools here to link to my hypothes.is comments (or others if contributors take it up), and here are some to start. (If you don’t see annotations after following a link, look for a small “>>” link at the top right. That should open up annotations.)

Look down the page as linked through hypothesis.is. The page should show highlights on text on which there is public comment. With a hypothes.is account one may create comments or reply to existing ones. It’s a browser extension allowing one-click setup of annotation of any web page.

The links below are actually all the same, they point, through hypothes.is to the same LF page.

response to Zeus46.

response to joshg

response to IH Fanboy

comment on Paradigmnoia just giving a link

And more.

and then  The next IH page.

Comments may be made here, or, with a hypothes.is account, comment replies can be entered with the annotations.

 

How to find Rossi v. Darden documents

On LENR Forum, Zeus46 wrote:

Is there a Barry West or Dewey deposition somewhere amongst this document avalanche?

Someone might point out to this fellow that the docket reference here is annotated. On that page, a browser search for Barry West immediately pops up the deposition. It’s about 92 pages out of 235.

Dewey Weaver is mentioned in a number of annotations; the third is the deposition. Unfortunately, it’s just six pages out of what must be more than 250.

I plan to extend and expand the annotations.

I’d go crazy if not for that index. Okay, okay, I’m crazy anyway, spending days creating study documents from the Motions for Summary Judgment. But this is how I learn stuff, by often-boring exposure, I become familiar with it. (Those documents should be ready by the end of this week. The core of the Rossi study is published as a draft, but when I realized there is a good chance that whole thing will need to be rewritten, I stopped work on it and started on the IH Motion.

And Abd’s favorite topic

Abd!

Being busy writing about Rossi v. Darden or mishegas here and there, I had entirely missed the LENR Forum trolling of Zeus46, joined by Alan Smith. I’m amazed at the research Zeus46 has obviously done, he must think I’m worth all that effort. I’m adding the More link before going on because the only importance that I see here, other than bringing up nostalgia for me, is how LENR fora attract really unpleasant people whom I have very little interest in ever meeting, and especially some moderators. However, there are others I’d love to spend time with. And some I have been blessed to meet in real life. Continue reading “And Abd’s favorite topic”

Conversations: Sam

Sam has posted ten comments on this blog. One today happens to bring up some issues that I think are worthy of a post, so I’ll be quoting it here and commenting in indented italics as in the Conversations series. Also, Bob responded to him, I’ll quote that also. Welcome, Sam, you have the floor.


Hi Abd
I think Fan boy gives some balance to the Ecat debate on Lenr Forum.
The same as Jed Rothwell can do on Ecat world.
If the blogs are one sided they are not as interesting to read.
Maybe we should pick teams and have the great Ecat debate.
Actually I think it would be better if they forgot about the Doral test and start fresh with the Quark X.
Regards
Sam

Let’s deconstruct this:

Continue reading “Conversations: Sam”

The boiling point of water

Well-established, eh? There are complexities, some of which I knew, some not. Thanks to Paradigmnoia, who is almost always informed and informative, if not always transparent at first. He’s kind of an anti-Abd, the kind which, when combined with an Abd, can generate pure energy.

He pointed to The Myth of the Boiling Point, by Hasok Chang of the University of Cambridge. I highly recommend this article for the history of science and as an example of a scientific approach where ideas are tested and confirmed (or rejected) by experiment, instead of by just shoving words around.

And then I look at how all this applies to Rossi’s work, and turn to an explanation of what this blog is, what the “cold fusion community” is, and how we will transform the scientific mainstream, powerfully and effectively. Or, at least, take the first steps in that direction. Continue reading “The boiling point of water”

Conversations: Simon Derricut 5

Simon writes long, thoughtful comments. Another. My comments, thoughts, reactions are in italics, indented.

Abd – it’s been obvious for a long time that Peter ignores evidence he doesn’t like. I’ve tried to show him that the evidence for 1MW doesn’t exist except for what Rossi’s metering shows, and I’ve given him calculations of how much water would be required to put that much energy down the drains (to both keep the locked room suitable for life and to avoid a heat-plume being visible and measurable by an IR survey), yet he still thinks that Rossi will provide an explanation that will be physically possible. As an experienced industrial engineer, he should be able to do the calculations himself and recognise that the claims are absurd as they stand. There comes a time when it’s not worth the time spent analysing the claims since Peter will not accept the results if they show that Rossi does not have LENR+. Of course, that’s what any sober analysis will show. Continue reading “Conversations: Simon Derricut 5”

Incoming!

Steve Krivit filed a DMCA takedown notice against content here, see Critique of articles – copyright issues. In my training — which he knows about — it is said that if you are not being shot at, you are not doing anything worth wasting ammunition on. So thanks, Steve, for the compliment. It has led me to discover hypothes.is, so I may now write a much more extensive critique of the entire NET site, and the nature of hypothes.is display is such that I will probably write briefer and more pointed critique.

It’s all good. Continue reading “Incoming!”

Zeus46 trolling

This is a study of a lenr-forum post by Zeus46. Zeus46 is quite likely the user who has commented here as Zeus45. Both of them sometimes make useful comments. Both also show possible troll behavior. Zeus46 is the user who asked me a question on lenr-forum, which I answered straightforwardly in context (as other users noted), and for which answer I was first banned.

(Asking a straightforward question which has a clear answer that can be seen as uncivil is a classic trolling technique. I have seen master writers with high experience sucked into answering. In a sane community, with sane administration, it would not be a problem, but … communities do not always have sane administration. This happens on Quora.com.)

He continued to troll, me and others, with no clear response from lenr-forum moderation. I previously looked at this behavior on Trolling on lenr-forum.

Summary: Zeus46 is Zeus45 here, and most of his commentary is trolling, often through presenting a fact that has an obvious and very misleading interpretation. Sometimes the “fact” is blatantly false, and he would reasonably know it. Trolls, however, are not necessarily reasonable. Continue reading “Zeus46 trolling”

Ratings

The blogroll has ratings. Where did these come from? Can they be changed?

Right now, the ratings are a result of score voting by all registered participants, requiring participants to be registered users of this site. This is not at present automatic. However, ratings will be updated on request and users may propose their own rating, on a scale of 0-9, for any link. Explanations are not necessary, but are certainly allowed. If this gets complicated, pages will be created for each link. “Votes” are not anonymous. Get over it. Take responsibility.

Account Policies

To register an account here, use the Register option in the META sidebar section.

All accounts must provide a working email address (which may be on an anonymous email provider like yahoomail or gmail). Accounts registered using an email provider that is actually a black hole will be deleted when these are noticed. Other accounts may occasionally be subject to an email verification, occasionally. If there is no response, the account may be deactivated, and, long term, may be deleted. This is not punitive and an account deleted for this reason may re-register, but should contact site administration by email, of course!

New accounts are given the Subscriber privilege, which allows reading the site, and posting comments for approval, but after there is one approved comment, these accounts may comment freely, subject to site content policies.

Users who intend to make serious contributions to site content may request the Author privilege, which provides the ability to create posts and pages, to edit their own pages. until published, these are drafts and may also be private. Once published, these pages may not be deleted by the author, admin assistance should be requested. However, they may be edited to replace content with a note. Authors may upload files for use here. The Author privilege, because actions are reversible, may be granted with relative freedom.

CONTENT POLICIES

1. All content here is subject to administrative review for civility and relevance. Critique should be limited to constructive purpose that serves the LENR community. Gratuitous insults and trolling will not be permitted if there is any objection. Review process will be provided for review of administrative decisions, and, generally, user content will not be fully deleted but will remain recoverable, and the writer of a post will generally be entitled to receive a copy of content that is proposed for full deletion.

2. Users will not be banned from this site, but privileges may be restricted, requiring approval of posts or comments. If a user is persistently disruptive, however, a defacto-ban may be created, where all content from the user is hidden or reclassified to a “junkyard.” The goal of administration on CFC.net is always service to the community, not dominance of it.

If user contributions are considered by an administrator or editor to be disruptive, the user will be warned and guided, and the user will not be “punished.” The goal would be to assist the user in making positive contributions, while preventing and reducing harm.

Archive

all our posts, latest first (Pages not included):