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

  • Quote

    Whilst it may be accurate to say Levi has delivered inaccurate results, IMHO it is an 'ad hom' to suggest this is because he designs microcontrollers for pinball machines.


    You are quite right, that was a sarcastic comment which just slipped out. Apologies, I should not have said it. However, the pinball machine information is (otherwise) relevant since it speaks to his Euro 45K in one year lack of independence.

  • Quote

    Thomas is incapable of making valuable scientific comment on the Lugano tests because he is an engineer not a scientist; which of course would clearly be an 'ad hom'


    For one thing it would be a factually incorrect deduction. Engineers can be better or worse than scientists at evaluating tests (it depends on the competence and speciality in both cases). Most (not all) engineers would be worse then experimental scientists but better than theoretical scientists, or experimental scientists working way outside their normal field.


    And, more importantly, it would be very unlike the Levi case because whether my comment on the Lugano results is valuable or not can be fully evaluated without reference to who I am. Every part of it is transparent and can be checked by others. Unlike Levi's tests.

  • Peter


    Yes, but introducing magnetic monopoles (forbidden by Maxwell's Gauss law for B-fields from 1861) to LENR takes more than a statement.


    So, it also requires 'comedy' for clarification?


    With all due respect I suggest you leave out the sarcasm and stick to 'discovery'. You see how inappropriate use of innuendo can take us off at a tangent which is unwelcome for all of us.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Thomas


    For one thing it would be a factually incorrect deduction.


    Exactly the same as Levi being incapable of proper 'Lugano' testing because he designs microcontrollers for pinball machines is factually incorrect. Okay I know you have apologised for that, but you see your logic is not anywhere close to 'Bayesian' more like 'cherry picking'.


    Tom, you do a good job. Don't destroy the reputation you have with some of us (including me) by diluting your very informative observations with what amounts to 'mud slinging'.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • With all due respect I suggest you leave out the sarcasm and stick to 'discovery'. You see how inappropriate use of innuendo can take us off at a tangent which is unwelcome for all of us.


    OK, I apologize I someone was offended. I hope we get less of monopoles, strange particles and black holes. This is supposed to be a serious discussion on LENR.


    By the way, the acronym LENR. Is it deliberate that Nuclear became Nanoscale?

  • I just discovered this thread. It has gone off topic, albeit in a good way. I don't really want to bother with a point-by-point rebuttal of Thomas's response, but it should be clear to anyone with critical thinking skills that his response is both internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with the assertions that have been made by people with inside information. It may be that I have misunderstood or misconstrued those insider assertions, but nobody has stepped forward to make that claim. Either Darden is a rube, or the story that we are being drip-fed by insiders is wrong.

  • Peter


    By the way, the acronym LENR. Is it deliberate that Nuclear became Nanoscale?


    Perhaps it is a chosen approach in the patent application field but you can see from the list below (see link) of LENR patents that they mention LENR, Fusion, Cold Fusion and nanoscale particle accelerators and nuclear reactions.


    My opinion? It does not matter what you call it, its what you can discover about 'it', harness it' and bring 'it' to market, whatever 'it' is; that matters.


    http://kb.e-catworld.com/index…of_important_LENR_patents


    Best regards
    Frank

  • I want to make a comment that is directed at people like Ekstrom and Joshua. Back in March on ECW I posted a sketch of a new explanation for LENR based on a theory of physics that is in many ways at odds with current models (but is consistent with existing empirical research).


    What has become clearer to me over time is the core irony of that explanation, which is this: fusion/decay and the nuclear byproducts of LENR reactions (whether in the form of free neutrons, alpha particles, tritium, or other radiation like X-rays) are not the (primary) cause of anomalous heat, but rather the byproduct of the processes that cause excess heat (which I call the amplification and tuning of charge).


    As Joshua and others rightly point out (along with Steven Jones, whose name will forever be synonymous with calumny in cold fusion circles), there does not appear to be enough byproducts of nuclear reactions to account for the anomalous heat. The explanation I'm proposing addresses those concerns head on by stating that those nuclear reactions are an effect or byproduct of the anomalous heat process, not a (primary) cause of it.


    Here is a link to an updated version of the paper I posted on ECW, which includes an update on my thinking and also now includes an appendix with my attempt at nuclear diagrams of several of the nuclei and compounds involved in the Ni-Li-H LENR process.


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lc3kkcb4zbkfkkv/Mathisian Physics and LENR - A Preliminary Guide - May 2 draft.pdf?dl=0


    I am reluctant to bring this up again and post this here, since every time I have tried to discuss Miles Mathis's scientific work in on-line forums, people come out of the woodwork to try every way imaginable to discredit and dismiss him, yet I have yet to encounter a single substantive critique of his scientific theories as they relate to understanding LENR. One almost gets the impression sometimes that there is an active attempt to suppress his work.


    Yes, Miles has written very controversial and polemical things, both on science and on other topics as well (he is quite the conspiracy theorist, for example). I am not going to try here to defend him or his "out there" opinions on these matters. I will simply say that his scientific work should stand on its own, to be assessed and critiqued on its merits without resort to ad hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments. I mean, Newton is well known for filling notebooks with delusional rantings (he likely suffered from bi-polar disorder), but his scientific work is monumental. I don’t think Miles is delusional. He may not be (and almost certainly isn't) right about everything, but I am 100% convinced that he is onto something big and revolutionary. Thus if you find mistakes in some of his work, I would encourage you not to dismiss all of it -- don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I believe his theories can be used productively to harness LENR and make the world a better place, and that is why I am trying to gain a wider exposure for his work.


    Having said that, people are still going to respond with ad-hominem attacks trying to discredit him. I know that. I am not going to respond to those, because I have neither the time nor the energy, and I don't see the point. If you are going to be swayed by people's attacks rather than reading and assessing for yourself, then that's your problem. After my experience on ECW, I have decided to engage active LENR scientists and theorists one-on-one with this theory, and I am having some initial success, though I do not have much time to devote to it.


    Undoubtedly someone will bring up his work on Pi, but again I have yet to hear anyone actually explain why his work is wrong. All I hear are people who mischaracterize and misunderstand it. And in any case it is completely irrelevant to the aspects of his theory that can explain LENR. For anyone wishing to read about his work on pi, I refer you to the following papers (especially pi4.html where he shows how according to NASA's own calculations he is correct):


    http://milesmathis.com/pi.html
    http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
    http://milesmathis.com/pi4.html
    http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
    http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf


    If people have substantive questions or want to engage in the substance of his theories, I will be more than happy to reply to the best of my abilities.

  • Sounds like this is the place for only the most serious problems-solvers and truth-seekers which is fine. I didn't realize that the tone needed to be so buttoned up over here but will try and take heed. If you need some comedic relief then ECW over the weekend was pretty entertaining. Many of Rossi's friends showed up. The heat dissipation exchanges were apparently very useful though as it gave Rossi an awareness on the subject for his "QuarkX" as evidenced by all the Q&A on JNOP in the past 30 hours or so.


    Sadly, Frank cut off a really good information tap over there after blocking nckhawk midway thru the debate on the 1MW pictures string.

  • Quote

    Exactly the same as Levi being incapable of proper 'Lugano' testing because he designs microcontrollers for pinball machines is factually incorrect. Okay I know you have apologised for that, but you see your logic is not anywhere close to 'Bayesian' more like 'cherry picking'.


    Frank, no I can't see that. I'm not claiming the logical connection you say I am, see above. The pinball issue is because of the 45K and speaks to the lack of independence, also relevant, but not the same as lack of competence.


    And, I agree, such Levity is not a suitable response to Levi's performance doing tests. Hence the apologies.

  • joshg


    The topic is straying off I suppose. But to analyse relevant influences that add or distract from "Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute" will invariably touch on how we communicate, being a 'rube' is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey,_Rube!


    But I go back to my original assessment:


    These are the facts IMHO:


    Industrial Heat applied for a patent with information property which Rossi sold to them which they believe is 'their' property and so the patent application is legal, in their application they claimed it 'worked' and was 'useful' which they have to do otherwise the patent will not succeed. This is the evidence that IH believe in the Rossi effect. They have not broken any contract conditions doing this. Industrial Heat believe Dr Rossi's invention works and have not questioned the ERV report at least not directly and in public. However, they can't make it work for themselves. Even with the assistance of other LENR competitors of Rossi. They can only conclude Dr Rossi has not given them the necessary intellectual property and technical assistance, as is required under the contract, to make it work so they have 'legitimately' withheld the $89 million.


    But now we know that the ERV provided 3 monthly reports apparently along the lines of the final report and that Darden et al far from raising a red flag used the information in their fund raising and investment programme.


    Hardly the actions of someone who does not believe Rossi's invention works; unless of course you are involved up to your neck in a 'scam'.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • JoshG wrote:

    I just discovered this thread. It has gone off topic, albeit in a good way. I don't really want to bother with a point-by-point rebuttal of Thomas's response, but it should be clear to anyone with critical thinking skills that his response is both internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with the assertions that have been made by people with inside information. It may be that I have misunderstood or misconstrued those insider assertions, but nobody has stepped forward to make that claim. Either Darden is a rube, or the story that we are being drip-fed by insiders is wrong.


    Alas it is not so clear, to me at least.


    My critical thinking skills as far as I know exist. So as is often the case in these disagreement the issue is probable implicit assumptions.


    For example: I may be making implicit assumptions with which you disagree.


    Or: you may be making implicit assumptions with which I agree.


    Or: I do not know since you have not yet given the reasons for your wholescale dismissal of my comment - there is the possibility that your critical thinking skills are deficient - though as I have said, implicit assumptions are more likely the issue here.


    Working through these same arguments on Mats site there were quite a number of implicit assumptions, that I believe to be unfounded, which many supporting your points made.


    I'm happy to explore that again here - especially because the site allows typo correction - but to begin you'd need to provide specifics of your assertion that I am either internally or externally inconsistent.

  • I didn't realize that the tone needed to be so buttoned up over here but will try and take heed.



    Yeah, kind of takes some of the fun out of it. This seems to have happened recently, as I gravitated here from ECNs only because here was a good balance between respectable decorum, and acceptable polemics -even the occasional lighthearted humorous ad-hom, at the authors discretion. I think that fine edge between the two elevates the debate and brings it to creative levels one can't achieve by "buttoning up" everyone.


    We are humans after all, not perfect little robots.