RR - you'd have more luck with Eric there if you'd given some evidence for where I was wrong - even speculation...
I'm sure there are possibles!
This is not the only thing I do. Haven't got time to write them all down.
The Playground
-
-
What's disturbing you? The fact I'm a lawyer, the fact I'm Italian or the fact I think Rossi is sincere? You can do better! Law is my field and I don't need to insult people (as you do) to substain my opinion 👏👏👏
I think the relevant info for this post should be quotes of your previous statements.
Let's review:
Maybe Quarkx is just an evolution of Ecat as you think, maybe it's a totally different things... but that's no the point.
That's not the point.....................
Well according to every Legal document in this case, That IS the point.
This IP may or may not include future evos so you (as a joke lawyer) cannot dismiss it.
Lawyers do not ignore what is written. Hence, you are not a lawyer.
Also,
"The decision to develop something different, from my point of view, could be explained with the will to maintain the control over his IP"
Since when do REAL lawyers have a "from my point of view".
Busted you fraud.
Pete
-
I've just re-read Tom Darden's speech at ICCF19 which seems to me to be sincere and somewhat moving, and clearly indicates a history (and desire) of fostering (primarily as a lawyer and investor) anti-pollution and pollution-cleanup technology. I was also impressed by his mention that he had built an experimental airplane (is this true?) On the other hand there are some apparent dichotomies in his speech which confuse me. One is his claim to be creating an environment at IH that fosters "open sharing" between scientists, which seems at odds with what I've seen and with IH's business practices. The other is IH's general secretiveness (coupled with the shell-company issues I mentioned above).
Open sharing? Darden is a good storyteller, he says to the audience who faces what it wants to hear. I find nothing sincere in his speeches.
-
The 'open sharing 'is between IH's paid staffers and those scientists who take the shilling, nobody else, in fact they only want to work with inventors they get 100% attention from. Don't confuse any of this with 'open science''
-
The 'open sharing 'is between IH's paid staffers and those scientists who take the shilling, nobody else, in fact they only want to work with inventors they get 100% attention from. Don't confuse any of this with 'open science''
I don't know many scientists who plaster every raw datum over the internet. MFMP need to do this because they are amateurs and crowd-source expertise. Most scientists stand or fall by published work, or if working commercially by product. the problems arise when you get somone like Rossi who claims product with no independent evidence. You'll find me every bit as hard on IH LENR guys as you are should that happen - but I see no sign of it.
-
You do get some odd ideas at times. I am not being remotely critical of scientists who choose to work for IH. I have met and corresponded with a couple of them in the past. Nor am I critical of their business model. It's their business after all. I was merely correcting the idea that TD was being duplicitous when he mentioned 'open sharing', which seems to have confused a few people who seeing the word 'open' think we all get to see stuff. Darden is a businessman after all, and if researchers need to take his cash to pursue their research so be it. One might as well criticise Lockheed for having a 'skunk works'.
The sad part about the commercial approach is that we will in all likelihood see little published other than patents.
ps. I am told that my cheque is in the post.
-
Anybody who expected this system to work on the first shot is not ready for what happens next. If possible, I would run it for 100 cycles
before giving up unless someone spots something obviously and mortally wrong.
Maybe had you afforded Mr. Murray the same kind of latitude and time for testing his own modified version of the e-Cat, the Rossi/IH dispute would have never come about--or at least might have been worked out much sooner than it has.
-
IHFB - you know how to screw up a conversation faster than anybody on the internet.
Joe Murray had extraordinary leeway and the number of shots attempted in trying to get anything of Rossi's to work
were beyond patient, reasonable and the call of duty. Maybe someone else will have better luck with the QX.
-
IHFB - you know how to screw up a conversation faster than anybody on the internet.
Joe Murray had extraordinary leeway and the number of shots attempted in trying to get anything of Rossi's to work
were beyond patient, reasonable and the call of duty. Maybe someone else will have better luck with the QX.
So enough shots to you means the time that Darden secretly loaded Murray's modified e-Cat with fuel, which was then tested by Murray for a few months, and then boxed up? Come on. Dameron was still running the IH-Rossi-built reactor in the same building. Did Dameron like running non-functioning reactors for 2+ years? And you give Murray a few months then box everything up? Doesn't sound like Murray had enough time to replicate properly the IH-Rossi-built reactor. Is it reasonable to expect anyone--even Einstein himself--to successfully build and test a modified e-Cat reactor within just a few months?
-
IHFB - you're a pure troll who spins tales with tidbits of truth conveniently leaving out 98% of the rest of the story just so you can direct your mindless invective.
You don't really have any idea what you are saying which is evident to all now but a drawer full of socks. Take your teardown babble elsewhere.
-
4 Posts above moved from the 'Aura' thread. Off topic.
-
Are you able to post without insulting other people? Thanks.
Moved from the Rossi v. Darden thread. Eric
-
IHFB - you're a pure troll who spins tales with tidbits of truth conveniently leaving out 98% of the rest of the story just so you can direct your mindless invective.
You don't really have any idea what you are saying which is evident to all now but a drawer full of socks. Take your teardown babble elsewhere.
After FUD, we can now see a lot of DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender
-
Roger - I'm sorry that you exist in such a negative place. In our world, its more like its explore, assess, invest, characterize, engineer and monetize.
As long as you're right some of the time then you get to keep going. We need more folks who are willing to put their time / capital at risk and lead that way. Govts and Universities have shirked their responsibilities on more than one frontier and somebody has to fill that vacuum if we can ever expect change. Getting hoodwinked on occasion goes with the territory as does dealing with the haters and the teardown artist. Capisci?
-
Perhaps by "LENR+" community, IHFB has in mind ECW readers? There's a more straightforward name for that, which is "ECW readers."
Moved from the me356: Photos of AURA control unit thread. Eric
-
Sometimes people forget older wisdoms:
Skip to 16.30 if you don't have the time to listen (though all of it is worth the time):http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00hgk3q#play
(note: you may also need to point your vpn to the UK).
-
It all depends on the error bars. As every fule do know.
Obviously but you must know the error bars, before anything. Do you know and declare the overall measurement error of test kit you/LENR Ltd sell on web?
This post and the 3 below it moved from the Me356/Aura thread- off topic. Alan.
-
Do you know and declare the overall measurement error of test kit you/LENR Ltd sell on web?
We show people how to calibrate the reactors themselves. I know the error bars of ones I use myself. What we cannot (and have no wish to) control is exactly what instrumentation people use as back up and what temperature zones people are working in. However, since our reactors are effectively differential calorimeters if used correctly the error bars are accounted for rather precisely.
-
We show people how to calibrate the reactors themselves. I know the error bars of ones I use myself. What we cannot (and have no wish to) control is exactly what instrumentation people use as back up and what temperature zones people are working in. However, since our reactors are effectively differential calorimeters if used correctly the error bars are accounted for rather precisely.
Also the differential calorimeter can show residual errors.
As seller of this kit (if people perform your suggested calibration correctly, using only hw parts included in the kit) which is residual uncertainty that users of your system still get under operative conditions ? (numbers, example absolute and relative errors)QuoteI know the error bars of ones I use myself.
What about yours?
-
What about yours?
The latest version I have on my bench (described elsewhere in this forum) has an accuracy in terms of comparison of the two separate DC power feeds required to heat thermally separated ports to the same temperature -control and test - of 1W (183W/184W) and 1C at 1000C. And that was 'as carefully built' - without tweaking. After a few hours at high temperature it got better and better due (I suspect) to absorbed moisture drying out of the foamed alumina blocks. I regard this result as 'spookily good' btw, as I never expected it to be so close, and would not expect every one to perform so well. For a $500 device it is remarkable IMHO. He said modestly.
