Eric,
I forget who said it...probably Lewan, but the Swedes confided when questioned about the e, that Levi insisted on that thermography regimen, and then deferred to him for any further questions. Sounded like a mutiny at the time, but apparently not...unfortunately. So this theory of yours is pretty good IMO, and definitely better than the last.
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:....
I am sure I saw an actual report on this a couple of years ago. Where they actually demonstrate the isotope fractionation in CFL bulbs using actual analyses.
I don't think it is complicated at all. The method for extracting Li6 using lasers and mercury is probably similar.
Probably it would turn up on Goggle...
Here is the (original) source for the Hg in CFL fractionation. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.V31B2325M
This is Chris Mead's dissertation, where the later paper grew from (big PDF direct link: https://repository.asu.edu/att…/Mead_asu_0010E_13817.pdf
He says (page 28, [38 in PDF]): "Further, whole-lamp measurements of used CFL (not shown) are identical within error to those of unused CFL, all of which are within error of 0‰. This is as expected from mass balance and confirms that CFL are a closed system for Hg."
and
"The trapped Hg is a small fraction of the total Hg in the lamp; less than 1% of the bulk Hg is incorporated into the glass after 3600 hours (Table 3.2). Therefore, the complementary fractionation in the bulk reservoir should be approximately 100 times smaller than of the trapped Hg. These measurements conform to the expectation from mass balance; the ∆xxx Hg values of the residual pool (Figure 3.3b) are opposite in sign and roughly 100 times smaller than those of the trapped Hg (Figure 3.3a). Additionally, by comparing lamps of different ages, it is evident that the residual Hg becomes increasingly fractionated through time as more Hg is removed into the glass." - page 31 (41 in PDF)
I'll put the other one (if this above isn't it) here.
(We can to go to another thread if there is much more to this.)
IHFB,
Thank you for the edit. Maybe it would be best I think, to challenge those that think what Darden said in that particular, but singular, email, was negative regarding the Ecat, to prove their point? Perhaps that way, they can see the error, if any, of their rationale?
It is one those fine lines, but overall, I think most would hopefully set aside their preconceived opinions, and conclude as I do, that what Darden said is more positive, than negative. Especially in light of Dameron's confessing the Ecat "may" have produced excess, in line with TC's upper estimate of 1.3 COP.
I am sure I saw an actual report on this a couple of years ago.
If you can dig it up or recall the name and authors, I'll take a look at it.
See my edited post, above.
Mass balance of Hg isotopes shown by author to be conserved.
It is a fair suggestion. My view point on Darden's email is very close to yours. I am also quite cognizant of the fact that he dances around the dramatic evidence of energy production notion and does not outright say that is what they have observed. It is suggestively hinted at. There is an air of uncertainty and conservatism in his writing. This works against the idea that IH had unambiguous certainty of the high COP claims of Rossi (at least at that time). I find Darden's musings in this email to be insightful and sincere. He must have been on the edge of fascination with what he was involved with at that time. They were experiencing some compelling results. I would like to better understand what those compelling results were, and to what extent they achieved replication.
I'm very interested, as well, to better understand when the main turning point was for him. When did he turn on Rossi? Was it long before he involved the Israelis or shortly before that? Was it at the time that he sensed he was in a bind over what appeared to be amazing performance from the 1 MW plant, but perhaps without a full independent replication of those results. Was outside pressure applied in any way? How did the filing of the lawsuit alter his thinking? Was it at that time they realized that the only way to win was to trash Levi and Rossi publicly through surrogates? Etc. etc. etc.
Paradigmnoia and Sigmoidal -- your work here keeping people on track is appreciated. Even if not always acknowledged. (but I think it is)
That's one reason why there is a process of jury selection. It's not perfect, but this case is of such little significance that it will be easy to find people who know nothing about either AR's astroturfed puppet-farm blog comments or limited aspects of IH's position (as espoused by only Dewey as far as I can tell). AR is not a significant player on the world stage.
Jack Cole, Of little significance??? One of the most important, disruptive and world changing technologies of the century and you say "of little significance. That has to go down in the annals of time as one the great understatements.
As you so often do, you have given an opinion here not backed by facts. We have no idea why you think I am disconnected or the scenario I describe is unrealistic. If you have a reason, I suggest you state it.
Your Scenario isn't just unrealistic, it is ridiculous.
My understanding is that most patent issues are decided by judges.
It is up to the Plaintiff whether he will require a jury trial or accept a Judges ruling instead, just as it was in this case.
Display MoreFrom 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.
Of course not. It doesn't fit his overall strategy, to diminish the results until he can be in a position to take over the technology. It's all about control, both technology wise and monetarily.
Am I right to assume that we are to be treated to sight of DW's emails? I would love to know where he buys his pizzas.
As you perhaps do not realise: Paradigmnoia, I, many other observers here, Bob Higgins, MFMP, I'm sure IH by now if not at the start, all reckon that in order to measure temperature using a single wavelength IR instrument such as the Optris PI-160 you need the IR band emissivity, and this is not necessarily the same as the total emissivity.
Dear THH if a concept, a statement or an idea is not true, remain false even if there is a number of people promoting it.
You, IH and others promote the idea that one have to use band emissivity instead of of total emissivity. That is false and remain false even if a number of anonymous pseudonyms would sustain it.
IH for sure had interest to promote this idea in order to try to nullify the results of the Lugano report. And for sure IH is paying people to write in this forum(e.g. Weaver is working for IH) in order to diffuse this idea.
But you forgot to say that there was other people in that same forum who deny that idea. One of the many arguments is for example that having to know the exact band emissivity function of every material would make impossible to make any temperature measurement with IR devices. IR measuring apparatus have only one input number for the (total) emissivity coefficient.
there does appear to be a failure to take the internet critiques seriously,
Science, in contrast to Humanities, is not democratic. If an idea is false it doesn't matter how many pseudonym or avatar on the net sustain it.
Is natural for the Authors of the Lugano Report not to answer to the net. Probably they revised the critiques and found them ill based !
They openly put their names on their ideas while the net is full of anonymous trolls that could be driven just by economical and not scientific interest.
Why he would *allow* some of his demos to fail, and others to be successful...why not make them all successful if they were fake?
Because they were not fake,
Rossi early demos were in reality real experiments of an unknown reaction. A real scammer would have a 100% success. But everybody knows that in real high tech sometimes fails.
Rossi also went to big companies (e.g. National Instruments) with the only result that those companies were trying to have the technology for free.
Probably IH is trying the same.
Jack Cole, Of little significance??? One of the most important, disruptive and world changing technologies of the century and you say "of little significance. That has to go down in the annals of time as one the great understatements.
Yes, of little significance. He doesn't register on the radar of society. Very few people know about him or the ecat. It should be quite easy to find jurors without prior knowledge of the case, AR, or bias about the ecat.
Because they were not fake,
Rossi early demos were in reality real experiments of an unknown reaction. A real scammer would have a 100% success. But everybody knows that in real high tech sometimes fails.
Rossi also went to big companies (e.g. National Instruments) with the only result that those companies were trying to have the technology for free.
Probably IH is trying the same.
A slightly more sophisticated scammer realizes he can cover occasional discoveries that his tests are fake under the excuse you just offered.
Dear THH if a concept, a statement or an idea is not true, remain false even if there is a number of people promoting it.
You, IH and others promote the idea that one have to use band emissivity instead of of total emissivity. That is false and remain false even if a number of anonymous pseudonyms would sustain it.
Again LOL.
Bob Higgins, the MFMP, Thomas Clarke, GSVIT, etc. now are defined all "anonymous, pseudonyms".
"ele" (here just another anonymous user that supports Rossi) not, because what he/she "says" are well known words coming from the unique "mouth of truth". 
Science, in contrast to Humanities, is not democratic. If an idea is false it doesn't matter how many pseudonym or avatar on the net sustain it.
Is natural for the Authors of the Lugano Report not to answer to the net. Probably they revised the critiques and found them ill based !They openly put their names on their ideas while the net is full of anonymous trolls that could be driven just by economical and not scientific interest.
You are correct, ele, that science is not a democracy; it strives, at any rate, to be a meritocracy, where the best argument and the best data win. Perhaps you can point to where I suggested otherwise?
But in your second statement you succumb to the error in judgment I alluded to. I'm going to guess that of the Lugano group, Levi found the critiques ill-based, as we know from the recent documents submitted to the court, but the Swedes did not. For the having looked into the critiques, the Swedes will have found that they were authored by well-informed people, such as Bob Higgins and TC, people with real names and expertise whose identities can be established without too much difficulty, rather than anonymous trolls. They will have seen that there were actual experiments looking at the effects of emissivity with an Optris camera, as done by MFMP. And they will have appreciated that these were likely to be volunteer efforts rather than paid attempts to undermine the report. The Swedes will have read through some of the critiques and quickly realized that they had merit and raised some important questions.
Someone who was attached to the conclusions of the Lugano report, of course, will have had a hard time doing these things and coming to these realizations. That happens in science as well. Such people will not have benefited from the critiques and will have written them off without considering them on their merits, calling them FUD, and losing in the process the best opportunity available to improve upon the report and fix any errors; recall that the report was not published in a journal, so a published reply was unlikely.
