Posts by Eric Walker

    An interesting point about the second-floor window heat exchanger heat exhaust explanation is that it occurs within a sworn deposition. So if it's true, it's true. If it's a blatant falsehood, it's perjury.

    ETA: I have not been reading the exhibits closely, so the deposition detail should be vetted.

    ETA2: It appears to be Rossi himself, speaking in 207-37, according to P., although I'm having trouble locating the exact section of the transcript.

    ETA3: It's 207-36, p. 29, not 207-37.

    This is a warning, anotherTroll: please moderate the ad hominem, both with regard to forum members, and with regard to outside parties. It is always possible to state misgivings in a more polite neutral way, using language that isn't so charged.

    We know from several years of attempts that lithium is corrosive and presents difficulties that must be worked around when building a garage apparatus. Is there any basis other than Lugano and Parkhomov for continuing to use lithium? It is true that hydrogen and nickel by themselves have not shown results, but there are many other possibilities beyond NiH and Ni/H/Li that have not been explored here but still fall within the broad category of nickel-hydrogen systems. For example, there are the "Polonium, Thorium, Uranium, Plutonium, Americium and a transuranic metal in general, or a combination thereof" mentioned in one of Piantelli's patent applications.

    Could it be that lithium is making things unnecessarily difficult?

    ETA: I note that lithium is mentioned in the Piantelli patent application, and it also makes an appearance in the Unified Gravity patent application (arguably unrelated to the kind of apparatus we're discussing here). So this is not to say that there's no basis for exploring lithium. But it also does not appear to be a critical ingredient, and there may be others that are easier to work with.

    Except that Murray says exactly the opposite--that the water could not have been in liquid form.

    Except that the section of transcript you quote from Murray appears to be considering the hypothetical situation where the 0 pressure reading from the data is accurate, which is a detail that is in dispute.

    If Darden is so correct, why he sent a person wholly ignorant of the facts to speak in his place?

    Choosing a 30(b)(6) deponent who does not have much knowledge of the affairs of the corporation is recommended under certain circumstances:


    Among the most important decisions the company and its counsel must make is who to produce to testify on a designated topic. The choices are many--almost limitless under the rule--and usually, the company selects an employee who is most knowledgeable about the case and the topic on which testimony is sought.

    You may want to rethink that choice.

    (Link also provided by someone earlier on in this thread, or maybe Abd?)

    Choosing a 30(b)(6) deponent whose knowledge is limited to what they've been briefed to answer avoids a situation where the deponent gives out information that goes beyond the questions of the deposition. Give credit to/blame Jones Day for this move. Apparently the strategy has its own risks, as we saw in the present case.

    I wonder if there's a manual or discussion somewhere on the Internet in the manner of the Anarchist's Cookbook that goes into how to trick flow meters, whose recommendations parallel some of what we know about the Doral setup (other than the discussion in this site). Theoretically it's possible to read the manuals for the instruments, do whatever they tell you not to do, and then carry out some testing to make sure the instrument is giving incorrect readings. But it would be much faster and easier simply to consult a guide of some kind.

    FUD FUD FUD. We all know that Rossi is a volatile character. However, compared the business lawyer douchebags of IH and random FUD masters on the net he is pretty transparent and open about what he is doing. Your pet theory, that everyone that agrees with Rossi is decieved is pathetic, which goes for your sorry a** as well.

    Let's keep things polite.

    I had a word with someone who knows Gullstrom. FWIW they said he is a very bright guy.

    It does mean something. But the fact that someone is bright has little bearing on the credibility of the measurements that were done. Until we have some sense of what was done and what controls were carried out, a COP of 22,000 is not credible. A description of an experiment that is so paltry that one must guess at what was done is not a good experimental description. But it is indicative of someone who, however bright in some respects, isn't on top of how to report on an experiment, and, one suspects, how to carry one out. But at any rate as a rule there's no reason to take seriously the results of an experiment that has not been adequately reported. Here I'm not saying anything revolutionary and am simply mentioning what is implicitly understood.

    More speculation with few facts. Oh well.

    I wrote: "And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these [Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? ...] as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done."

    I get that you're kind of a troll here, and that you are unable for whatever reason to participate in this conversation constructively. But looking past that for a moment, do you see a third alternative to the two that I mentioned above? It is more like mathematics or logic than speculation to set out the various possibilities, but perhaps I've missed some.

    But I still do not get it. You do feel that you are able to evaluate the credibility of the Gullström papers and even to bash them, but you are not able to determine if the input side is in the range 0.01 to 1W (two order of magnitude error acceptable here) or above?

    I can readily evaluate the credibility of Gullstrom's paper, as can you, and as can anyone who knows anything about experimental method. Knowledge of electronics is not required. (1) The paper is attempting to connect mesons to poorly characterized glow discharge (hint: this is something not to do). (2) The experimental section itself lacks any discussion as to how the measurements were made, which is where expertise in electronics is relevant. A credible paper would have a credible experimental section. (3) Rossi is the second author. (4) Bob Higgins, whose opinion qualifies as expert opinion in this case (in my view at least), has strongly weighed against what details there are in the experimental section.

    Where would you like to take this cross-examination? My point about the credibility of the paper is straightforward and obvious.

    It's not a dodge to provide information that is correct and relevant that addresses an unspoken assumption of your question. But to the question, I would definitely notice heat and light, in the similar manner to the heat and light that I observe in a lightbulb. Now is the lightbulb giving off 10 W? Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? These are the kinds of questions that are necessary to answer in order to draw any further conclusions and for which I would not be of much help.

    And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done.

    And I'm saying that both you and me would notice it if it happened on the table in front of us, right?

    I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to electronics, which is central to the reported experiment, so you wouldn't want me there in the room weighing in on it. But I note Bob Higgins's strong doubts and consider his opinion to be expert opinion in the present context.

    Wyttenbach , you may have missed earlier discussions of the license agreement. I encourage you to re-read it closely for details relating to future modifications and inventions. The wording is expansive and appears to cover anything even remotely related to the E-Cat. Again, though, it is the lawyers that would need to sort out this (hypothetical) question, and it is not a question you and I will be able to resolve here.

    Are you saying Gullström is an anonymous poster on the Internet?

    (as far as I interpret it the QuarkX is a fact in his mind)

    I was referring to you of course. :) You are anonymous and you are a poster, and you have asserted with confidence that "the QuarkX is a fact." Gullstrom is not anonymous, and he is not a poster, here at any rate (an assumption on my part), although perhaps in his mind he supposes the QuarkX to be a fact. But I imagine you knew all of that and were just replying with a retort.

    Even prior to this paper, I found Gullstrom's credibility from the self-published paper he made available following upon the Lugano report to be pretty low already. The present paper attempts to connect mesons with high-level observations of something that sounds like glow discharge. We LENR watchers have grown accustomed to papers whose conclusions are a stretch and don't think much of it anymore.

    As seen in many docs they got some IP of COP in the one digit range, but obviously not the two digits that the plant produced (or five like the QuarkX), which make their IP ~worthless anyway.

    Assume for the moment that the QuarkX is what has been claimed of it (which I do not assume). I believe it will at any rate fall under the terms of the license agreement under the category of future modifications and inventions. In which case IH's IP would not be worthless, because it would include the QuarkX. Is this reading of the license agreement too broad? That is a question for lawyers, but the wording of the agreement is broad indeed.