For better clarity I splitted the long previous thread
The previous thread was already split into 27 pages. How does further splitting improve clarity? Multiple threads on the same subject do not make navigation any easier (Just saying).
Hermes
Member
- Male
- from Europe
- Member since Jun 23rd 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by Hermes
-
-
So you think that even if I suspect that a man could damage my work revealing secrets to others, I have to let him do what he wants if I could say "someone else has the responsability for what happened"!
No I don't think that at all. If you sell the exclusive rights then the recipient of those rights can dispose of them as they wish and you have no further right to interfere. You cannot tranfer exclusive IP rights, accept payment, and also maintain undiclosed secrets.
-
the implication is (perhaps) that Murray was intent on selling information to a third party and therefore a spy
In the unlikely event that Murray was a spy it's entirely IH's responsability. So Rossi was not authorized and had no incentive to exclude him if he (Rossi) were acting honestly. I leave it to intelligent readers to work it out for themselves why Rossi wanted to exclude Murray. -
Rossi admitted to denying Murray access to the plant, but gave the reason being that Murray was there
to gather information to provide to a competitor! What competitor? What information? I cannot believe
this will sit well with the judge. I would not think paranoia is a defense.My take on this is different. Here we have Rossi claiming that there was secret information that Murray was not to see. As Rossi accepted payment to transfer ALL the IP to IH, this implies he did not comply with that agreement. What a revelation! Furthermore, how can he claim that there was a GPT if it included undisclosed secrets?
-
It was assumed that the lithium-7 would absorb one neutron, producing lithium-8 which decays (via beryllium-8) to a pair of alpha particles on a timescale of seconds! <-- wrong in Wiki!
Excuse my ignorance but what is wrong with this statement? The assumption may have been incomplete (if there are fast neutrons) but the fact there was an assumption is surely correct?
-
Nobody has suggested
that the plan has been changed or the meeting cancelled
What Dewey did say during his speech at the banquet was that the IH offer to host ICCF21 was tentative.
The fact you cannot remember crucial details of announcements is not irrelevant if you also claim to have witnessed what was said. Dewey made the announcement himself at the microphone. You seem to think that Dewey left early (true) without making the announcement himself (false).
-
It it not tentative. I.H. will host the next ICCF conference.
Jed you were present at the banquet. Evidentally you cannot remember Dewey's speech. -
it sounds instead that our Dewey was making a boast after having one too many
Formal annouincements of the next ICCF which are always made at the banquet. Did you read my earlier post which explained that it the International Advisory Committee (IAC) discusses and approves bids to host ICCFs? How could this possibly be due to drinking after one too many?
After making his formal announcement at the banquet Dewey left prematurely in order to catch a plane. I doubt if he had much time to "have one too many".
If this forum is to maintain any pretence at authoritive reporting, we really need to cut out the gossip and innuendo. Let's concentrate on verifiable facts and the science.
-
Here's Dewey in Toulouse, picking up the bill(again).
I don't see any bill in this photo and I note that IH was not cited as a sponsor of the meeting. Where did you get this information from? -
The decision on the ISCMNS side would likely have been made by the Executive Committee
As I understand the history, at ICCF14 In Washington at the ISCMNS Annual General Meeting an informal proposal was made that ISCMNS should oversee the management of ICCF conferences. At ICCF15 in Rome the matter was discussed by the International Advisory Committee (IAC) but no decision was made. Consequently it is the IAC not ISCMNS which still appoints the ICCF chairman / organizer.It appears that Abd is speculating without checking the facts.
Incidentally, Dewey Weaver made it very clear to all at the ICCF-20 dinner that his bid to host ICCF-21 was tentative. In the unlikely event he should need to withdraw I have no doubt that other US benefactors will step in. ICCF-21 will go ahead in the USA in 2018.
-
It's because of who you have to share a bed with.
Ha ha! But the conference fee including full board and lodging for a single occupant appears to be only EUR 500!
-
iscmns.org/work12/
This looks like a nice holiday in Italy! And EUR 500 for 4 nights in a 4 star hotel at EUR 500 is tempting! Has anyone had experience of these workshops? How does ISCMNS manage to offer such a good deal?
-
MFMP talk about "live open science" but at the end of the day no peer reviewed scientific publications have ever been published by the group. We get palmed off with incomplete blogs and videos. Am I being suspicious are are these concerns real?
-
The bizarre part is that people say things about the experimental record without having studied it. Hydrogen controls have been included in experimental studies. Off the top of my head, Miles and McKubre (Case). With hydrogen, no anomalous heat and no elevated helium.
Another bizarre part is that pundits think that the Q/4He ratio can be meaured when there is no heat and no helium. The fact is, nobody has tried to measure helium in heat producing natural hydrogen systems. This illustrates the the bizarre non-scientific nature of this research field. People are far more interested in appearing to be right at any cost than in discovering new science. It's pathological.I appreciate there may sometimes be non-scientific reasons for say demonstrations. But I suggest that excess heat, with or without helium has not been very successful so far and is unlikely to be so in the future. On the other hand nuclear measurements, isotopic anomalies, etc. are orders of magnitude more sensitive and allow the measurement of multiple correlated parameters. (e.g. intesity, energy, decay pattern of gamma peaks).
-
The path from a stable nuclear state/nucleon/set of nuclei to another eventually stable state/... with lower energy is almost always full of intermediate states which are not stable and emit "radiation".
Most nuclear reactions "almost always" fail to conserve linear momentum and spin without gamma emission. The fact that there is an unexpected class of reactions which do not predict radiation is intriguing. I feel you still haven't explained why energy considerations cannot explain lack of radiation. In order for Collis' ENP reactions to produce gammas, there would need to populate a low lying excited state of the appropriate spin. These are unlikely, so cases probably haven't been discovered yet. Incidentlly your comment would apply to your own theory too. -
An LENR theory must address this preference for stability independently from energetic arguments
I don't follow your logic. Why cannot energetic arguments, explain stable products, or more accurately, as Collis shows, lack of detectable radiation?I wonder if Collis' ENP model predicts gamma radiation with Rubidium? If it doesn't it may be wrong!
-
What about 87Rb -> 87Sr + e- (i.e., beta decay)? No need for proton addition. I don't find it to be a show-stopper when the ratios turn out to be the natural ones, although it's a detail to follow up on.
If there existed a mechanism in nature to accellerate natural decays so as to produce heat then we would expect a correllation of that heat with appropriate elements. I am not aware of any, nor of any theoretical justification for expecting such accelleration.
I probably missed your point about the ratios.
Well the Strontium ratios corresponded to the Rubidium ratios suggesting that Strontium was created from Rubidium (by net addittion of a proton). Lots of intriguing results in this paper! -
something might be spiking the process over the short term. Yet another reason not to ignore the paper.
Yes. Alternatively there was segregation and simply stirring changed the count rate. -
That is certainly reassuring evidence... that Rossi is going to Hell.
Maybe he will find excess heat at last! -
That would have been an inadequate basis for ignoring the paper
Well, it would have been a good reason if ALL the gammas could have been explained away by natural radio-activity. (But they cannot).I mentioned 3 issues. Number 2 is that Bush & Eagleton claimed Strontium as a products. Specifically the 88Sr/86Sr ratio was almost identical to the 87Rb/85Rb ratio. In other words it looked like a proton had been added to Rb to make Sr. I didn't like this as it would appear to imply that the rate of proton capture was the same for both Rb isotopes. That seemed like too much of a coincidence. And of course, how would you possibly justify any proton capture at all? Maybe Andrew Meulenberg has an idea?
The third issue is that the gamma decay curve is irregular - there are times when the count rate actually increases in a way incompatible with decay statistics.
Eric you may be able to guess why I changed my mind on these issues too!
