JedRothwell wrote:
No it's not. The problem is your continuing unsubstantiated claims taken and combined from various places to make it seem as though robust LENR is a proven fact.
You refuse to read the proofs, so what would you know.
JedRothwell wrote:
No it's not. The problem is your continuing unsubstantiated claims taken and combined from various places to make it seem as though robust LENR is a proven fact.
You refuse to read the proofs, so what would you know.
The problem is your continuing unsubstantiated claims
The claims are substantiated in the papers I have uploaded, which you can find organized in the footnotes of papers by Storms, McKubre and Hagelstein. When you say "unsubstantiated" you mean "I refuse to read them or acknowledge they exist."
Well, whatever it is you're doing is not working, is it? Thirty years and counting. Now look for the usual catalog of bad analogies from JedRothwell
Thirty years and counting. Now look for the usual catalog of bad analogies from JedRothwell
Not analogies. Published papers from major laboratories such as Los Alamos and BARC, from many of the best qualified experts on earth, such as the director of BARC. You cannot ask for better scientific proof.
Usual meaningless blustering instead of performing
the goalpost moving only seems to apply to LENR and not any other science. Of course other scientists are not in the business of making nuclear weapons of mass destruction, so the rules are different for them.
SOT originally wanted to see 100 watts, so he was shown the Roulette paper. He claimed he couldn't understand Roulette's graphs, and then 'moved the goalposts' with a bunch of extra demands about what would 'convince' him. What a joker.
Two of three allowed to trade again. IH is the one still suspended..
....
I am a little worried about IH. With leaked pre-patent strategy documents, and this trouble with the exchanges, things do not look so good to me. Hope I am wrong.
With leaked pre-patent strategy documents,
I do not understand what is going on here. Can you explain what these documents are, and why it is a bad thing they have been leaked?
Shane didn't say it was a bad thing. But DW seemed concerned about the first leaked patent application put into this forum, I don't think he was too pleased. The thing about them is that they appear to have been leaked (or whatever) while still bearing USPTO metadata -lt's a bit odd. You can see a list of some of them at post 149 just above, and there are links in this thread to what appears to be the full text of 14 of them.
Odd how it is listed with 3 Rossi entries then a string of IH entries, no other parties with patents in this category are shown.
Almost as if it has been a report resulting from a specific query of the database.
Is this publicly available, or leaked, or hacked?
What might be the motivation behind it? [Theme from the XFiles plays in the background].
Noticed the excitement and wanted to make a couple of comments:
1. All of the IH IP docs that have been posted here are from the USPTO database. The files which didn't have updated IP docketing headers were from Provisional docs that
remained in the USPTO database after conversion from Provisional filings.
2. The 3 listed Rossi filings are provisional filings from 2014 that were intentionally abandoned.
Very busy - best to all!
Good of you to set us straight Dewey. Keep us informed so we do not go off on tangents, and assume the worse. You know what they say: "an idle mind is the playground".
tinker tailor soldier spy
tinker tailor soldier spy
Intelligence gatherer, conman, skeptic, cold fusion scientist.
Starring Ahlfors as "intelligence gatherer".
Others to be announced ...
Starring Ahlfors as "intelligence gatherer".
None better than Ahlfors. No secret is safe with him snooping around. Good having him back. Now if he could only get some info on Seashore Research. Last scoop we had on them, was the shipping document for the heavy equipment Ahlfors found.
buy another one you rich m