I must say I love how you mumble. It's refreshing to me, anyway if I may segue for a sec' do you have any idea how 'the good Doctore' salted his ash? Just speculation will do. And don't truncate the ash on the Rossi I would like to know your point of view.
Thanks! you are a godsend with the info you find. If I ever see your name I just stop and read. Thanks for taking the time here to find this. I think a fair amount of us if not all follow
roomhigher temp SC. -
I am looking at Jim Gates on fermion and boson equivalence. It may help with understanding cooper pairs, but I am not sure. The first paper just had promising theory but no break through, I am going through the second paper. But we in LENR could use this.
Calling Axil to this thread
Nice find Alan, as I follow this-- but alas like many others that are showing promise or potential it is not clear since i can not read the article.
Can someone get this article? and post parts that you can? I wish no one to break the paywall but $175 is a bit steep for publicly funded research. But editors have to eat.
USPTO NASA NRC and OSHA does not give a damn about the E-cat. There is zero discussion around the water cooler. Even the word bureaucracy is not accurate, but gets the point across since it (bureaucracy) involves states rights not the Feds. The above federal entities process requests -so they just follow the proper paperwork and they will look at your request regardless of content they are obligated to if the request is filled out properly. Someone may not like the response but it would get processed.
Now if I remember correctly someone who was concerned invoked the state bureaucracy earlier in this e-cat saga with their concern of radiation. So they (state not federal) were obligated to investigate and did---then left and wrote a report. There would be an FOIA report on this. Also BTW each agency maintains a whistleblower account. There is a big difference between going to work and doing the job you are paid to do and the "grand conspiracy" to kill the e-cat. Look I wanted that thing to work also. I will leave it at that.
Quick comment, then I need to eat dead animal. I don't comment on ANY of the science, technology, etc. re: the issues involved here. I don't because (1) I am not a scientist or engineer, (2) I have not studied or familiarized myself with the science or engineering, and, most importantly (3) I don't understand most of it and won't pretend to. But IMHO it won't make a difference to the outcome of the litigation. I think that Rossi's proven fraudulent behavior, e.g., fake company, fake invoices, will doom his case. Just MHO.
I have a question for those who don't believe I am who I say I am. Will sending a copy of my bar card to a site administrator satisfy you? Happy to do so.
I usually welcome a new member I missed you. So welcome we need people like you. if I may -- kinda get the lay of the land so to speak. We have not only both sides we have all sides. It is what makes this place different.
We have a lot of carnivores and they are waiting for the end of June trial so stick please. And well some peoples mind can not be changed regardless, and we have years of trying to. Pace pace... You will get your meat, after all Dewey promised and he has not been wrong yet.
Before I drone on--- what do you think of Fred Flintstone? This is important.
"Try reading TC's paper from that link? It is quite definitive. I'll lead you through the maths if you like and others here, notably Paradigmnoia , will fill in details and point out that they have themselves verified them experimentally."
I remember that a long time ago you said either the paper had one of the equations wrong or some other error. It it is one of the equations I would like to know which one?
Also I do not want to know the answer but I spent some time on this paper and it kinda broke the camels back on Rossi for me. I would like to know what section of the paper the correction needs to be in. Just the section. I had not looked at paper for years and it still bothers me I do not see the problem. Section please.
Thank you for the link above. It will take time but I will read it. I am glad you post here. I also appreciate your help when questions arise. Other than Rossi I try to keep my ego out of it and just the facts. Others argue to argue but I argue to learn.
Which evidence are you speaking of ?
You are mixing up things just in your favor. First of all there was not only the Lugano Test, there ware also other test one of which carried by IH experts that ware positive, second as usual you are using the old argument of "Rossi the Great Enchanter" to say that all a group of professional Scientist was driven by Rossi.
Come on !
Of course as I have seen you also say that "Rossi was present ..... and blah.... blah ...blah " another old leit motive.
Rossi was necessary to operate his own device, while the group was making their measures independently from him.
If you don't understand this fact I will explain it with a simple example:
You drive a car.
Police measure your speed independently from you (and eventually make you a nice photo).
ele if Rossi was required to operate his device then it means the tests were not independent by any means. Did the test plan say
Step 1. Get Rossi?
Are you sure these are the same guys who give out the Nobel Prizes? If so, I now dispute Relativity. Now I will not let the fact that old Albert has been taken for granted and proven by experimental evidence for over 100 years, I will now assume that Einstein had to be along for taking those so called 'independent measurements'.
So now I dispute Relativity and you dispute Reality same boat kinda is it not? Sure seems like it around here.
There is a link on the ash below is this what you were referring to ?
Alan, I may be wrong but I remember a comment that MFMP was analyzing the ash and something like wait to make judgement.
If the comment above is directed to me. If not disregard. Thanks
It is like painting pictures, Howard Michael Appel, nickname woodworker ...
...a very experienced lawyer, describes his experiences inside the US law system and gives Rossi et.al no chance at all to win this trial. But, is this really the truth? Maybe, but the Americans have also elected Donald Trump, so we have to see what happened to Rossi.
Rends just so we are clear what do you think of Fred Flintstone?
My impression is that they suddenly had objectins to the ERV report several months after receiving it and when they couldn't get the device to work. Basically, Rossi pulled a Fred Flinstone on them, they were unable to get their Dinosaur rockmover to work, and they worked backwards towards where they perceived the problem. Rossi delivered the demo, the device, and the independent ERV report which is what the contract called for. What IH thought they were getting was a toehold into a $trillion business for pennies on the dollar, thinking that with all those 3 things in hand they could easily get the device working -- after all, someone as pedestrian as Rossi did it. But the contract they wrote up was for an $89M demo.
Do not talk shaite about Fred Flintstone capisci?
I would like some of you folks to spend 3:41 on this video from youtube. It is Orson Welles telling about the day he became a fortune teller. It is a great story and he is one of the greatest storytellers.. Wait for the "what is a shuteye part"
Orson Welles as a fortune teller
I was that newb, and in some regards I still am. But I like to have the critical viewpoint. Some people like to argue, some learn others just believe. I have never seen you insult someone just educate and clarify based on a careful reading of the data. Sometimes the truth can be ugly, but it should be educational.
Thanks for the response. I am not an innocent soul by any means. I have read Penons report. I think that Rossi's critics have even handedly taken IH to task on it's lack of due diligence. I think that they continue to muddle the water with the ICCF -21 lack of formal withdraw from sponsorship. I think it is coming but that I think they should just handle it and be done.
But I see now that you believe the Lugano report and discredit Tom Clarkes paper. At this point it will be decided soon either (win lose draw compromise) or ongoing appeals. I wonder what we will be talking about in 1 year from now.
You know I care for your words. I try to speak plainly and I am self aware of the snark creeping in sometimes when I post. I can not understand honestly why you but such faith in a deceiver. Why can you not separate your love of LENR from someone who is doing so much to destroy it? While a careful reading above may be true depending on view (I owe you that). It does not address that the e-cat doesn't work. This is not theory on how CF works now but instead a simple litany of deceit. He has zero competitors now he is standing on a dais and quite literally being judged next week. I feel I am not being a friend if I am not honest with you. We need to get back on the LENR ship and he as no future on it.
Not at all. I think IH would had to hire a competent engineer right away because a fact is asking investors to give money for a risky process, and another is asking them to jump in the dark. But I understand Rossi's reaction, his lack of trust in Murray's good faith. In a first moment IH trusts him and says the reactors made by them work, then when the end of the test (and therefore the payment) gets closer, IH begins to hire new staff and become less friendly. If you want to be scrupulous and rigorous, you have to do it from day one. If you do it approaching to the end, your attitude becomes suspicious.
I find this comment interesting, most engineers are a bit high strung and can be protective of their work at times. But one thing stands clear, they expect it to be properly tested and put to work. It may not work perfectly but it has to have it's basic functionality. Trust was not involved at all just a test plan.
Some times things worked and some times they failed and had to be reworked. I think that IH clearly gets that they could have done a better job, even those who criticize Rossi are pretty even handed about IH in this regard. This is how engineering works, this case is not about that. It's about a scam involving a rigged demo. Even ECW is starting to address this directly. Tell me the truth? Isn't that uncomfortable? It should be.
Lovely discourse in this thread. Makes me proud to spend time here. Are you guys 8 years old? put down the rock you will hurt yourself. Some here are continuing the conversation on R vs D.
Oh and mods, hmmm
I would like you to review your posts on this page. One is Mary classic 'you are wrong and do not know squat' The other is when you give a damn and care to contribute.
i have been trying to get people here to engage so I wanted to point this out. Don't take this wrong as it is not an insult, you have something to say and people turn off the 'you are an ass stuff quick'. You know that old joke if asses were airplanes we would have an airport. Please re-read #2617. It is informative.
This is the silliest argument I even heard here. Mainstream physics keeps many such a similar billion projects - failed indeed. At any case, the decay of proton cannot serve as a source of heat for LENR from multiple reasons. You're just collecting all esoteric stuff which you don't understand and promoting it as a theory of cold fusion.
And I must say 'he should know'
Alainco - IH, along with others, is shepherding the next ICCF21 Chairmanship into the right hands. The Elders are in agreement - all is going to be okay. At this stage, it is more appropriate for the research community to lead itself. Besides, the business guys have a temporary distraction that must be dealt with. Back to the front.
To all members:
Has there been an official announcement on ICCF21 anywhere that can be linked to? I am sorry but I do not know how or who is the steward(s) nor the process.
I get that there are issues but I have not seen a formal announcement. If there is an announcement can someone link to it? if not these elders need to get their shaite together. If there is no information available then that would be fine, but I would appreciate something hard. This is too vague for me I am sorry to say. If I missed it I apologize but I try to keep up.
I do not we think will ever understand each other. It was not bait. You have been promising to take him to court and stop this maddness. Surely you know that I think that this must happen. My fear was illustrated by Alan's comment above that they might settle. Oh and BTW good luck!
Yes, you have, but there is absolutely no experimental evidence for this. You have also stated that the e-cat works, but you have not read the Penon report, so you know nothing about it and you have no basis for this assertion either. You say all kinds of things about subjects you know nothing about. You have zero credibility.
It is as if you said: "I have stated that pink elephants have taken over the U.S. Senate, and leprechauns are in charge of the Treasury." Yes, okay, but that is nonsense. Anyone familiar with the literature can see that your statement about particle emissions is nonsense, and anyone who has read the Penon report can see that your statements about the e-cat are nonsense. Why do you bother saying things when anyone can fact-check you and see that you are wrong? What is the point? Are you trying to make yourself look ridiculous?
Be a bit more kind here.
You have always been civil and helpful, and take the high road. So try to understand why people are frustrated here. If it helps what I have done for myself is separate LENR from Rossi. Since we (all here at LF) seem to go around and round on Rossi. What would it take to disbelieve him? How much evidence and what type? Jed is pointing to the lack of experimental evidence. Having faith is a good thing but lends itself to religion, experiments are a good thing and lend themselves to science. But we can not have faith based science without good honest experiments and that is what we now have. Rossi was into each and everyone of those tests quite literally up to his elbows. The replicators have not been able to prove anything in years. So back to the point, what would it take to let go of the e-cat?
If they settle I would not want to be Dewey. He promised they were going to fix that wagon once and for all. For a revolutionary technology that has been proven beyond a doubt by
independenttests that is almost 10 years old...... and still is having trouble being replicated. I hope that the case goes to trial. I don't know which one bothers me the most, his hubris or just leading so many people astray. But at some point folks are responsible for themselves.
/edit: I meant rigged tests
I may stopped after the translate but I did not see the point, is there another reference somewhere? What is the context?
Bob best wishes as always. Anything that can be learned helps us. I hope some day you will give us a theory thread so I can understand deeper. I honestly love what you are trying to do. I have to be honest, you are the only one I have faith in now that understands that it works, we need to crack it. Your work very simply is in a league of its own.
I think you have singlehandedly raised the bar. You have big shoulders my man. Keep it going.
Stop insulting and read reports. About Lenr there are plenty of positive results from Russia, Japan, US, and Italy independently from Rossi. Read and Learn.
Jed library could be helpful in that.
ele I can not say I have read all the reports. But you will also read that I do not subscribe to -> "the you are Rossi stuff " either. I think for myself. I align myself with people that provide good logic, good reasoning and are honest in their hearts, but science is science and this is science no longer . But I read the reports, but at sometime I have to stop.
Your boy has nothing and is a crook. But you know and I know there are no new reports on his work. We are just rehashing the same old stuff, like when around the family table at the holidays reliving the old days. So incase you never heard this I believe in LENR, I have problems with the OU part. It works but can not sustain and I have read every thing I can that I feel is relevant. So please separate the field of research on anomalous evidence from just outright fraud. Okay? On other thing, I really like Axil and we are pretty opposed on this Rossi stuff spectrum wise, we agree to disagree. But we work together because we want a better future. And a better future for LENR does not have Rossi in it.
So we are clear okay? Bring something new to the table, I do and post it with an OT (off topic) label. I really hate it here when we talk past each other so I hope I am clear.
But this it the important part, I do not mind to be taken to task or educated when I am wrong. In fact I appreciate it. So do it i encourage it.