LC - Was waiting for that to be the focus of one of you folks. So bloody predictable.
Fulvio has been Rossi's righthand man for a long time. IH paid him as a contractor for a season. Are you going to next imply that he was able to switch loyalties…
Thanks for the clarification about Fulvio.
Please don't make assumptions about me. I might be biased (and you are too), but I am just trying to get down to the truth.
Dewey,
Not your finest night. You sound like a common troll. Nothing of substance as one would expect for a professed "insider", yet all the tricks of the trade one would expect of a troll . Everything cryptic, shallow, allowing for almost any interpretation.
If I were Darden, I surely would not have sent you to work the LENR blogs to make my case...Honestly. If he did, well then...you suck, and he deserves his money back. I could do a lot better, with publicly available info, without pay, and in the process not alienate the intended audience as you have somehow done.
I am not usually so blunt, so pardon me, but you are getting very irritating. Time to put up or shut up. Enough of the games...don't you think?
The classic rare branch of d-d fusion that produces helium must have a gamma ray, it's required by conservation of momentum. So is this finding impossible?
As a researcher I would ask the following two questions:
Which other particle can carry away the momentum (neutrino? other nucleus) ?
How is the energy dissipated?
Since everyone seems to use this thread for venting, I'll do so too.
For as long as I can remember, I've wanted to see a major breakthrough take place that would change the world in a fundamental way. A warp drive, contact with an extraterrestrial…
Hank. I'm very sorry that you feel this way and I hope you find something. But I honestly think putting your faith in Rossi is a foolish thing to do.
I share your thoughts about me356 but I'm now thinking that he has nothing either. It's all very sad and disappointing but keep your chin up!
Dewey Weaver wrote:
I agree that you need an attorney. Henry hired a new attorney for JM Products. A nice real estate lawyer from the sounds of things.
I suggest you stop threatening Hank. He is harmless and is just trying to get to the bottom of the matter. It makes you look small.
IH Fanboy you quoted Dewey wrong. Originally he said "I agree that you do not need an attorney" no need to pick fights when nothing happened. (Did you type the quote? Easier to select text you want to quote and click black 'quote selection' callout, and click reply.) For the rest of exchange, I don't think mr Weaver is allowed to say any real factual details directly before litigation is over, only imply things.
As linked recently above the direct statement from Rossi side is put on public in http://ecat.com/news/pressrele…-license-for-rossis-e-cat that could just be part of the 'fight', but Hydrofusion has known to be more strict on what it allows to put on public in their site. And there is a difference: it is official statement, not just a word from unofficial type of spokesperson (which Mr Weaver has clearly stated, he is IH investor, not official spokesperson).
It could explain why some of IH sympathizing people are behaving here way they do. Statement means that at least in Rossis mind IH have 'only' 89m$ dispute to defend anymore, so they have lost/are losing license to regions covering what at least 500million? people. Sad if true and if Rossis technology works.
Can someone help explain in plain english what 'Paired Magistrate' means in this context https://www.pacermonitor.com/p…ossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al
Bullet 12 says
QuoteCase Reassignment of Paired Magistrate Judge pursuant to Administrative Order(s) 2013-63 to Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan. (vp)
I don't remember seeing it before (wasn't only bullet 11 there before) and what it means that second judge was added (after first 11 reassignment change which is more clear)
Argon
See: http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/w…ness-for-Reassignment.pdf
Administrative Order 2011-18 is being entered to facilitate the orderly reassignment of cases to newly paired Magistrate Judges, and to ease the administrative burdens otherwise placed on the District and Magistrate Judges by the purely ministerial tasks of making these reassignments.
John J. O’Sullivan was appointed as Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida on April 1, 1999, and is very experienced.
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/O'Sullivan_-_J_(Mag_Judge).pdf
He will not be a 'walk in the park' for anybody.
Best regards
Frank
Thanks for the help frankwtu. So I should read this that after Senior Judge James Lawrence King was replaced by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (since recategorized as Patent case), also Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres was replaced by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan. And these entries triggers the authorative reassignment and all parties get up to date information or something alike.
I'm not native speaker and don't know US court system. I had missed latter change before and wondered mysterious date 'Wednesday 4:09 pm.' in bullet 12. Good to hear and see that John J. O'sullivan is real deal and hope he squeezes full truth out, and nail baiting on that part comes to an end. (btw forum broke your link to his pdf, but copy paste directly from your post works ok)
I was wondering when you guys were going to figure out the judge adjustment - you're not paying very good attention. Here's some homework on one of his specialties:
Dewey
Yes we know, and have done for some time. Some of us spend our time researching 'real facts'. but its nice to see you have found a corner of the 'Playground' where the 'kids' think you are the man.
John J. O'sullivan will give both Rossi and your pals Darden et al a run for their money, no amount of 'astroturfing' will make any difference.
Best regards
Frank
Frank - where've you been? Back to hurl some more invective I see. The astroturf jag of Team Rossi is exhausted. That poorly thought out deception is out of gas and the vehicle is on the side of the road. I see that you're still sitting in it though - waiting for a tow truck?
So you knew about the new judge before now - why so uncharacteristically quiet then? Rossi is basically going to have to run the table from the break to stay intact in his case (hint - impossible) and then he gets to deal with the counterstrike.
Dewey
Unlike you I am waiting on the judgement of the court, but you seem to have it all sewn up, well done.
Best regards
Frank
I was wondering when you guys were going to figure out the judge adjustment - you're not paying very good attention. Here's some homework on one of his specialties:
<a href="http://fba-sdfla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/profile-osullivan-octnov14.pdf.pdf" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fba-sdfla.org/wp-content/uploa…sullivan-octnov14.pdf.pdf</a>
Dewey thanks for additional link. That looks very good for the case, justice and truth is what we all are after, but this quote from him is cherry on top of the cake 
QuoteMobsters, drug dealers, and other criminals all try to
get money for nothing—and all of that money is taxable
On 6/2/16 Abd wrote: “There are extremely few extremely skeptical articles on cold fusion appearing in journals over the last ten years, and, in fact, beyond the Letter of Kirk Shanahan to the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, which was a critique of a review, not a primary review, I don't know of any. Shanahan ended up sputtering that the journal editors did not let him respond to the author rebuttal. The tables have been turned. If there is difficulty accessing journals now, it is is more on the skeptical side.”
Two points: Point 1. Abd believes the publishing experiences of one scientist signals a complete change in direction. Hardly… The fact is that in general and for some time, all reputable scientific journals prefer to not publish *anything* about cold fusion or LENR. Some journals with a history of publishing papers in the field are a little more lenient than the rest, but they still would prefer to not have to consider LENR papers. What has occurred in the meantime is that the cold fusion community has circled their wagons and begun publishing their own journals, which they claim to be peer-reviewed. I personally doubt the reviewer selection process is unbiased. However, the difficulty cold fusioneers face is lessened if they consider these new journals adequate media for presenting their work, which they do.
Point 2. The story of the refusal of the JEM editor to consider a response to the abortive rebuttal attempt of the group of 10 cold fusioneers was made public by me. Why did I do that and why did I want to reply to them again? Because of what Abd has done right here, which is echoed routinely I’m sure in other places that I don’t see, namely to claim that I was *successfully* rebutted. Let’s get this clear…I was NOT rebutted. In fact the 10 famous CF authors (in the CF universe) who wrote the reply simply proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are NOT doing ‘good’ science.
“How so?” you ask… Well, it is generally known that the use of what is known as a ‘strawman argument’ is a logical fallacy, yet that is exactly what they did. In all 4 of my CF-related publications (BTW, if Abd had chosen 15 instead of 10 years, he wouldn’t have been able to omit mentioning my other 3 pubs.), I present the idea that there is a systematic effect producing apparent excess heat signals in F&P-type electrolysis cells. Yet the 10 authors talk about something they call the “Shanahan random CCSH” (CCSH=Calibration Constant Shift Hypothesis, they insisted on adding the H). However, I made no ‘random’ hypothesis. That is *their* strawman. But somehow, they got it into print without reviewers noticing. Not unexpected since next to no one in the ‘mainstream’ follows CF anyway. A reviewer is anticipated to assume the 10 authors got it right instead of checking it out fully. The blatant use of a strawman argument as done here is unusual (yes, that is an opinion of how the review process works). Naturally, I expected the JEM editor to allow a clarification on that point, but he would not. Neither would he ask the 10 to submit an Erratum to correct that point. You need to look into JEM and wonder why they published the original Marwan and Krivit review to perhaps understand this. The topic is not in their normal purview. So I was left with public forums to get the message out, and I am not “sputtering”. If you all choose to believe people who use strawman arguments to support their proposals, that’s your prerogative, but that action actually invalidates any derived conclusions, such as their supposed rebuttal. Net conclusion: no evidence of any true excess heat, ever (to date). (Rossi’s failure to do good calorimetry means his work doesn’t even get folded in…) (P.S. This also means there is no valid heat-He correlation, a fact Abd can’t seem to grasp.)
Quote from IH Fanboy: “Dewey Weaver wrote:
I agree that you need an attorney. Henry hired a new attorney for JM Products. A nice real estate lawyer from the sounds of things.
I suggest you stop threatening Hank. He is harmless and is just trying…
Argon, you missed that Dewey corrected his post. His original post was what IHF quoted, hence the confusion.
@randombit0,
Since we have now reached the point of discussing the unaccounted for emissive power due to alumina transparency and the underlying emitting materials, it should be clear that the Total Emissivity used for alumina in the Lugano report is in fact incorrect. The values in the total emissivity plot used for the emissive power equation should have higher values than what was used in the report, and increasingly so with higher temperature, as the underlying material emissive power peak moves towards the shortwave region of the IR spectra.
To summarize:
The IR camera is reading a spectral range of 7.5 to 13 microns, where the alumina emissivity is quite high, arguably integrated to a greybody approximation ε between 0.8 and 0.9 to arrive at a correct surface temperature. This means that the temperature reported in the Lugano report is lower than reported due to inputting a camera emissivity setting that was too low, (which causes an overestimate in surface temperature). The effect of the alumina in the camera spectral view is similar to, but not the same as, the effect of the emissivity stickers, which is to modify the emissivity of the underlying radiant source, but only has an effect as far as the Optris can tell in the 7.5 to 13 micron range in this case, in regards to measuring the surface temperature.
The total hemispherical emissivity values used for calculating power in the report are too low, because the underlying radiant source has significant radiant power in the shortwave IR region due to metals below the alumina, which is not accounted for by a strict alumina total emissivity vs temperature plot. These broadband greybody approximation ε values, in the range of 0.4 at high temperatures, could instead possibly be as high as 0.7 (like Kanthal), 0.87 (like Inconel), but more correctly a complex integration of the areal extent of each of the materials in the layered sequence, (including the fuel layer) where the emissivity for a each wavelength trends to a "stacked" series of emissivities, the highest emissivity in each wavelength being (for the first approximation) the correct emissivity for each wavelength, to be used in calculating radiant power.
I am not sure about the timing but I do believe that you will see a true energy breakthrough in the coming years. There is plenty to be hopeful for. Folks are getting money to the right programs and progress is being made. I have no idea about timing - 5 to 10 years might be realistic or too optimistic.
Interesting statement.
Maybe Rossis Problem is that he wants a revolution rather than a (slow) roll out.
I had an interesting thought a moment ago regarding the 0.95 emissivity stickers.
The stickers are usually applied to reflective objects which can be difficult IR camera targets. The reflective objectects, especially curved ones, are extremely sensitive to the camera angle and view area. The calibrations stickers are non-reflective, preventing reflected temperatures from around the reflective object from being sensed by the IR camera.
Greybody objects should not pose too much IR camera difficulty, but the true camera emissivity setting can be calibrated also by use of the stickers by comparing the calibrated 0.95 emissivity sticker IR camera reading temperature with the non-stickered area.
However, by applying a 0.95 emissivity greybody sticker to a selective emitter, the sticker might cause an IR camera to report a higher temperature than is true for the remainder of the object, because the transmissive portion of the object's IR spectra will be converted to heat at the sticker location. This is heat energy that does not normally heat the object, now creating a hotter spot at the sticker. The same could be said of high emissivity paint, if not applied equally over the whole object that otherwise has a wavelength selective IR emission spectra. On a greybody object, this localized heat problem at the sticker location would not occur.
Renzz - where'd they all go? Another heat round lands and they scatter like spooked kittens.
They had better buck-up and get ready as IH has only served the hors d'œuvres.
