Now what is the Denture cream product discussion? 307 p5
Pure speculation: there was an attempt to draw upon precedent in an earlier "Denture Cream Product" case (i.e., decided by another court).
Eric Walker
Verified User
- from Loveland, Colorado
- Member since Oct 5th 2015
- Last Activity:
Posts by Eric Walker
-
-
EUV continuum radiation (10–30 nm) arising only from very low energy pulsed pinch gas discharges comprising some hydrogen was first observed at BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) and reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA)
N.B.: After doing a little research a few years ago, I realized that the phrase "reproduced at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics (CfA)" refers to a replication that was done at a facility of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics. In this case the work was done by a contractor who was just making use of the facility and who had no connection to Harvard. Quite misleading.
-
Let me know if Wyttenbach takes his quasi trolling too far. He can sometimes back himself into an untenable position which he then defends with insults, but I'm not following the 62Ni subthread closely enough to know whether or not that's the case in this instance.
-
FWIW, I tried tungsten as an additive with no effect in the past. Others have tried, if I'm not mistaken, uranium from old Fiestaware plates. I think Brian Albiston tried it with null results.
I've seen tungsten mentioned. What I haven't seen is tungsten (or other heavier elements) with current applied to it, inside the reactor chamber, exposed to hydrogen. Curious if you tried that. When Brian Albiston mentioned that he had tried something with uranium or fiestaware (as I vaguely recall), it was something different than this, I think.
My advice is to wait for some real empirical evidence of a working formula instead of applying yourself to testing out all these speculations.
Despite my curiosity about heavier elements above, this sounds like good advice. It suggests that BTE-Dan and others should start from experimental writeups (e.g., from Piantelli) for experiments that witnessed (nominally) unambiguous excess heat or other interesting effect.
-
Given my set-up capabilities - any ideas?
Some thoughts: (1) Be systematic. Try controlling for one variable at a time. (2) Try adding a medium or heavy element to the "fuel," such as lead, tungsten, platinum or cesium.
I don't suggest that (2) is a particularly promising lead, but it's something I see few people trying.
-
Docs. 304 – 307 and attachments now on the docket.
-
This is not the point, Eric. I was just following your reasoning: if you believe in Darden when he says something like the story of the dummy with high COP or the story that they never had positive results from their own tests, then we are not talking about high risk but we are talking about the certainty of a technology failure. So if Darden had these certainties before even contacting investors, he would never have to raise funds from them.
Getting a high COP from a dummy reactor is not a basis for concluding with certainty that Rossi's tech did not work. One can have concluded that Rossi was not measuring things properly up to that point in all aspects and that more rigor was required (as it surely was). But one can still have held out hope at that time that Rossi actually had something despite the poor testing methodology and that the primary reason for IH not getting robust results was that Rossi had not yet fully transferred the technology. Here we are in that in-between area, where there's still some hope together with a sunk cost, as well as some doubts. -
Yes, if that is what happened and Rossi did not correct the professors as to their conclusion about the ash assays, that would be unfortunate if unsurprising. (We don't know, here in the peanut gallery, whether there was such a clarification.)
-
There is the possibility that the 62Ni coexisted with the fuel: https://goo.gl/0YxuR6. This is a different scenario than the spiking-the-ash scenario.
-
How can it appear to be cooler than the surface temperature of the reactor by 600C?
One possibility: the photo was not taken at the point in time that the authors thought that the reactor was at its peak temperature, and instead it was taken when the reactor was still warming up.
-
So a good question would be where are the 250M$ that IH has rised using Rossi technology ? What use they are doing of all that money ?
Can you provide your source for that $250 million figure?
-
After all, if you really think they were not confident that Rossi's IP worked at the start of the Doral business, you should agree with me that they have been unfair with investors.
As has been pointed out before, and which I'll take the time to point out again: (1) IH are only the trustees of the funding that was obtained from Woodford and others. They will have to cough it back up if they have not used it for the purposes for which it was obtained, e.g., if they use it instead for self-enrichment, or for buying real estate in Florida. (2) They are likely to have represented to Woodford and others that this is a promising but high-risk investment. IH need no great confidence in Rossi's tech to do (1) and (2) in good faith, only some level of hope and optimism, accurately represented as such, together with the risks. Indeed, I find it much more likely that they did not convey confidence in Rossi's tech to Woodford and others.
-
Docs. 301, 302 and 303 now on the docket. (Nothing to download for 301.)
-
Sorry for being off topic but can you please explain why you spend so much time on a LENR forum? Seriously I dont get it. Do you want to save us lost souls? ... So what is your intention? Do you think it is good for humanity to choke every crazy idea and "off the track" science?
People like THHuxley are the best people to have around for LENR. If only there were ten more of him. They help to increase the rigor of the science of LENR, to suggest improvements that can be made to experiments and to reassess findings that might require additional follow-up before getting excited. Many LENR watchers find this kind of challenge to be distressing and a profound threat, but this is due to a misunderstanding of what science entails. Skeptical challenges are no threat in the slightest, for the truth will always out. It will emerge even from an overly pessimistic analysis, and it is the truth that we should seek, whatever it is.
-
Doc. 300 and its exhibits now on the docket.
-
Moreover I remember a statement from JTV (I can not find the document now but I'm sure that it is in one of his deposition) where he explicitly says that they never cared about the Customer because they were just interested to the result of the test.
It makes a lot of sense that IH would not care (all that much) about a customer, which was a weird Rossi thing. IH were working with a loose cannon who wanted to go off to Doral, Florida, far away from Raleigh, North Carolina, and do some weird thing in a warehouse with a purported 1MW plant that would purportedly generate heat for a year, with a purported customer who was willing to pay for the heat. And all this time, IH are asking themselves, "but does Rossi's IP actually work?". This could have been determined with a much smaller setup on a much smaller timescale using rigorous methods. Which some of us have known and complained about for years. And which Rossi no doubt was not being helpful with.
This is different from saying that IH didn't care about the customer. They surely would have objected to the whole show if they knew in advance that the customer was a pretend customer. But that is only requiring that what was represented by Rossi not be completely misleading. Also, a bona fide customer testifying to a more efficient industrial process is certainly something, if the testimony ends up being credible, in contrast to nothing.
A key insight in this context is that If IH knew that Rossi's IP worked at the start of the Doral matter and were just trying to give him the short end of the stick, they would have strongly objected to Doral if they thought that it could eventually be construed in retrospect as the GPT, as it would present an 89 million dollar liability which they would have been keen to avoid, since they only hoped to bilk Rossi (by hypothesis). Even if you assign ruthless motives to IH, this is support for the conclusion that they were not confident that Rossi's IP worked at the start of the Doral business.
-
Hi Dewey, as I said before, we're moving posts that merely serve to inflame feelings and don't address substantive issues in the Rossi v. Darden thread to this thread. (I'm the one who moved your recent post.)
-
He'll certainly be able to develop and promote the QuarkX outside of IH license territory. I also think there is a likely case to be made that the QuarkX is not a further development of the ECat technology.
For the first point, perhaps. But (in our hypothetical scenario that the QuarkX is more than an LED) I don't think that precludes IH from asking Rossi to transfer the technology under the terms of the license so that it can commercialize it. (And from suing if this doesn't happen.)
Please elaborate on why you think the QuarkX is likely not to be a further development of the E-Cat IP. The license agreement (doc. 001-02, sec. 13.4) is extremely broad in what it stipulates is covered under future improvements.
-
In IH's case it looks like they felt strong enough to continue on their own and pursue their LENR adventures without the guy that taught them everything. Enter karma.
I don't think IH's position was ever that Rossi has nothing. It was that Rossi didn't transfer whatever it is that he has, and so (1) IH were unable to properly assess whether Rossi had anything, and (2) as IH tightened up its testing over time, they concluded that what technology was nominally transferred was a dud. In that sort of in-between area, I suppose it's possible to maintain hope that Rossi might have something if one is willing to look past a lot of sketchy behavior in making an assessment.
-
Directed to you since i believe you move posts the most.
Is the forum software capable of labelling a moved post? From "thread such and such" to "thread so and so".Yes -- I moved your post, which was very meta (complaining about another poster's lack of information), and a little bargain-bin-y, and not addressing a substantive matter in the thread. The post you were quoting was borderline but had a little bit of substance. I wish the software showed which admin moved a post. If there's a question when a post is moved here, feel free to ask or argue that it should be moved back. I think it's overkill for me to mention it every time.
