Jed didn't say that. He said: "They made independent tests of his reactors and found no heat." Darden's lengthy email contradicts Jed's statement. Dameron's statement under oath contradicts Jed's statement. Jed's statement is simply false.
I recommend waiting for the rest of the Dameron deposition transcript to become available before getting too carried away.
Correct, as far as people here go, with the exception of trolls, whom I have attacked.
I think this somehow relates to glass walls.
I think this somehow relates to glass walls.
Which non-troll here would you say I've attacked (with quote of the attack please)?
@THH,
Jed didn't say that. He said: "They made independent tests of his reactors and found no heat." Darden's lengthy email contradicts Jed's statement. Dameron's statement under oath contradicts Jed's statement. Jed's statement is simply false.
You are repeating the error I noted above, confusing a finding of excess heat with a single positive (through error not excess heat) result. It takes a pretty strong wish to see Jed (and IH) as in error to continue with that.
As P notes above the complete transcript, if we get it, will likely be revelatory.
Jed didn't say that. He said: "They made independent tests of his reactors and found no heat." Darden's lengthy email contradicts Jed's statement. Dameron's statement under oath contradicts Jed's statement. Jed's statement is simply false.
In experiments of this nature, you sometimes find indications of heat, or puzzling results. When these cannot be replicated you are forced to conclude there is no heat, and the earlier indications were in error.
Most people are forced to conclude that, anyway.
I.H. concluded there was no heat. That does not mean that every single test produced zero indication of heat. They may have seen a noisy positive result in one test out of many, but that is not convincing. You cannot cherry pick one result and ignore the rest. Granted, if this had been a dramatic, clear-cut success with a high signal to noise ratio, that would be compelling, even surrounded with dozens of null results from other tests. But that is not what happened.
But that is not what happened.
How do you know that? Because Dewey told you so?
From Tom Darden' Email:
Prior to beginning work in Switzerland, we saw results that were more compelling than
we had seen previously during our testing and development period, from
September, 2013 through January, 2014. Similar results were reported to have
occurred in Italy, before we were involved, but we had not seen dramatic
evidence of energy production.
If I might paraphrase this: initially we did not see much. Right before Lugano we saw some interesting things like explosions that were more compelling than before and such as was reported in Italy before we got involved. But so far we have "not seen dramatic evidence of energy production."
This in pretty much parallels MFMP's experience. Tantalizing signs (explosions, neutrons, possible excess heat) but not definitive. There is no claim of excess heat in Tom Darden's email.
I disagree with your interpretation. Darden did not say "we have not seen dramatic evidence of energy production." He said: "we had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production." The word have versus had entirely changes the meaning. As far as I know, Darden was trained as a lawyer and knows very well his grammar. By using the words "had not seen," he is indicating that at some point, they did see dramatic evidence of energy production.
Docs. 172 and 172-01, concerning a proposed order on discovery, on the docket.
I disagree with your interpretation. Darden did not say "we have not seen dramatic evidence of energy production." He said: "we had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production." The word have versus had entirely changes the meaning. As far as I know, Darden was trained as a lawyer and knows very well his grammar. By using the words "had not seen," he is indicating that at some point, they did see dramatic evidence of energy production.
Compare "we had seen previously during our testing" with his later statement "but we had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production."
I believe my interpretation is correct--he was referring both times to the same time period prior to the Lugano tests.
You are also appealing to authority in place of an actual argument.
The Hg in CFL bulbs mystery show how much larger changes, on a much smaller mass ratio, can occur.
I'm going to guess that fractionation of Hg in the case of the CFL bulbs was a hand-wavy explanation adopted to explain away a mysterious phenomenon while maintaining current understanding of nuclear physics, rather than an explanation that was necessarily adopted after having ruled out all of the alternatives (incl. LENR).
Imagine two people with lab coats:
A: What's going on with the changes in the isotopic ratios of Hg in CFL bulbs? They're regular, predictable and well above the noise floor.
B: Beats me. Maybe it's fractionation.
A: What about something nuclear going on?
B: Then you'd have all these theoretical problems, and we can't think of possible ways through them, so it has to be fractionation.
A: Ok.
Here is a typical chunk of XRF data for some NIST reference materials. When the values change from analysis to analysis, it is not from transmutation.
My hunch is that natural variance in XRF data of the kind in the NIST spreadsheet is a different situation than shifts in isotopic ratios for mercury in the CFL bulbs.
Characterising this type of argument as FUD is IMHO completely unfounded.
Agreed 100 percent.
From Tom Darden' Email:
Prior to beginning work in Switzerland, we saw results that were more compelling than
we had seen previously during our testing and development period, from
September, 2013 through January, 2014. Similar results were reported to have
occurred in Italy, before we were involved, but we had not seen dramatic
evidence of energy production
That is poorly worded and open to interpretation. I guess by the time Darden wrote this, he knew enough about LENR to know that everyone in the field writes so vaguely, that what they say is open to at least two interpretations. Give him a few more years and he will have mastered the three-body lingo that defies any interpretation. 
But Darden is definitely saying they saw some results that were compelling sometime before Lugano (Switzerland). And if one reads the rest of the paragraph from 167-02, he goes on to describe somewhat excitedly "reactors explode", although not "violently". Talks about "melting", along with exploding too, after noting the strength of SS, and how 1500C is "far beyond our operating temperatures".
No doubt to me, in Feb 2014, Darden was saying some good things about the Ecat. Nothing though, that would come close to what Rossi promised to deliver.
Darden: Prior to beginning work in Switzerland, we saw results that were more compelling than we had seen previously during our testing and development period, from September, 2013 through January, 2014. Similar results were reported to have occurred in Italy, before we were involved, but we had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production.
Peter, your interpretation is not grammatically correct.
There are multiple time periods being referred to.
1) before IH was involved
2) from September, 2013 through January 2014
3) work in Switzerland
That is the chronological order of time periods: 1), 2), and then 3), based on Darden's words (note that each time period is brought up at a different location in the paragraph, but the context and words used reveal the actual chronological ordering in time).
So, prior to 3), IH saw results that were more compelling than what they had seen during 2). Similar results (i.e., the compelling ones) were reported to have occurred in Italy before IH were involved (i.e., time period 1)). But IH had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production. The two "hads" do not somehow cancel each other out. One "had" is referring to the fact that IH saw more compelling results than what they had seen during 2), and the other "had" is referring to something entirely different: that they had not seen dramatic evidence of energy production at the point in time.
The point in time that IH had not yet seen dramatic evidence cannot possibly refer to 1), because IH wasn't even involved at that point. The point in time that IH had not yet seen dramatic evidence probably refers to 2), and the point in time that they did see dramatic evidence probably refers to 3). That is the best interpretation based on the words used.
There is a possibility, however, that the point in time that IH had not yet seen dramatic evidence refers to 2) and 3), and in that scenario, the point in time that IH did see dramatic evidence would by process of elimination have to refer to sometime after 3).
People make a good case for there not having been sufficiently strong NDAs in place for the Lugano test to prevent the Lugano team from answering critiques. How about this as a second pass:
(1) Prior to April 2016, the Swedish professors were interested in addressing critiques, especially early on. But they found it difficult to stay on the same page as Levi, who was heavily invested in the conclusions of the report. They sought to find ways to work with rather than part with him, and the slow discussions ended up extending the timeline out significantly ... (2) Until April 2016 came along, and a 267 million dollar lawsuit was initiated that gave prominence to the results of Lugano test. The Swedes were skittish about the whole thing, and lawyers and/or the Uppsala University administration instructed them not to take any risks, including addressing critiques that were not published through scientific journals, and not to speak out publicly about anything. Against their wishes, the Swedes found themselves having to backtrack on their early offer to answer questions that came up.
(Pure speculation, obviously.)
That is poorly worded and open to interpretation. I guess by the time Darden wrote this, he knew enough about LENR to know that everyone in the field writes so vaguely, that what they say is open to at least two interpretations. Give him a few more years and he will have mastered the three-body lingo that defies any interpretation.
But Darden is definitely saying they saw some results that were compelling sometime before Lugano (Switzerland). And if one reads the rest of the paragraph from 167-02, he goes on to describe somewhat excitedly "reactors explode", although not "violently". Talks about "melting", along with exploding too, after noting the strength of SS, and how 1500C is "far beyond our operating temperatures".
No doubt to me, in Feb 2014, Darden was saying some good things about the Ecat. Nothing though, that would come close to what Rossi promised to deliver.
Are you sure that the " we saw results that were more compelling than we had seen previously during our testing and development period"
is talking about the ecats or some other evidence from some other researcher. It is not clear to me.
The Swedes were skittish about the whole thing, and lawyers and/or the Uppsala University administration instructed them not to take any risks, including addressing critiques that were not published through scientific journals, and not to speak out publicly about anything. Against their wishes, the Swedes found themselves having to backtrack on their early offer to answer questions that came up.
Actually that is pretty close to the true picture. However, it doesn't mean that they won't re-appear riding a white tiger. Pure speculation of course.
OG,
I said it was confusing, and predicted Darden, given time, would make it more confusing as is the norm from LENR insiders...or a "3-body lingo" as I called it, and it looks like IHFB beat him to it! 
IHFB even has it numbered 1-3.
If you read the whole paragraph from 167-02, there is no confusion that Darden is "compelled" about something regarding the Ecat, although the time frame is in question. And after that he has some clearly supportive things to say about testing. It may take a cocktail or two to connect the dots, but nonetheless, it is there.
