THHuxleynew I completely agree with what you posted. But the narrow point AA contested was Jed's unqualified statement that Rossi never said his E-Cat worked. Which AA could apply (reasonably or not) to any statement by Rossi anywhere (like on JoNP for example). This IS what Jed said, but he meant it in the context of the information provided on the docket regarding sworn testimony in Rossi vs Darden. So qualifying his statement within that context sharpens his point. Without the qualification, AA has a more legitimate contention.

I agree with Jed (and you) that Rossi never said the E-Cat worked in pretrial discovery that we have from RvD, but in fairness: 1) Rossi was never asked this question directly by IH lawyers (because the suit was about breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, not specifically whether it worked, as Jed correctly pointed out), and 2) we don't have the full contents of discovery evidence (because the significant parts we do have were made public as evidence from discovery supporting complaints filed by either party petitioning the court for sanctions).

Obviously, there is a boatload of evidence that Rossi is a liar and a conman, and this is available to anyone who takes the time to comb through RvD, his fake "Journal" blog, and many other sources.

My comment was made in hopes of reducing unnecessary bickering as AA and Jed argued past each other. (As opposed to the necessary bickering that we do here, I guess?)

Yes, Rossi is a clever guy - a Master of Deception. Or perhaps more appropriately, the Dottore di truffo

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, I was talking about the docket documents. Obviously Rossi has claimed that the machine works! Many times. But as Prof. Huxley points out, the case was not about whether the machine worked. It was about a contract dispute. Strictly speaking, the contract did not say "the machine must work" it said "Penon must certify that the machine worked." As you see in his report, Penon would certify anything Rossi pays him to certify. He would certify that a pet rock is a supercomputer.

Agreed. I posted my response above because though I agree with you on many things, on this issue I think your unqualified statement resulted in you and AA talking past each other, essentially about two different things. This happens a lot on blogs, but is not very interesting or productive.. I was guilty of doing something similar by misunderstanding a point AA was making when I posted one of Rossi's many lies. The evidence of Rossi's lie I provided was factual, but it wasn't actually responsive to AA's point once I re-read the comment. And so I apologized, since that confusion was due to me not reading the comment correctly.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I was answering Jed's comment "Rossi never once has said it worked"

No mention of where. Earlier Jed wrote that I had refused to look at the court documents and later that I hadn't looked at them.

All those statements are untrue. Yet you say I am confused as you try to spin the story.

I am really fed up with the babble and it was a mistake to answer you.

Actually, on this minor point I agree with AA regarding the literal statement of Jed. (Jed, I think you mispoke by not qualifying more precisely.) I think the more accurate statement is: in the evidence provided on the docket, there is no statement taken under oath by Rossi in pre-trial discovery where he claims that the E-Cat worked.

Rossi certainly has said the E-Cat works, on his blog and elsewhere, and even though Adrian's reference is to claims in the lawsuit and not a direct quote, it's not an unreasonable example that Rossi says his E-Cat worked.

Quote from Director

The concept of a QX is so simple that I'm not too interested in any video that Rossi produces. A small team of a few tech savy engineers with a properly equipped lab and a couple people with an understanding of spheromaks could produce something equally as impressive in weeks or a few months at most. Then they could actually send out cigarette sized test reactors to interested parties around the world for anyone to experiment with.

Well, you seem earnest, but I would think that you should factor in two more very relevant and damning facts regarding Rossi, Doral (and even Lugano):

1) It has been shown with excruciating detail by many over many years, but especially this blog's own Paradigmnoia, that you can "get" a 3 to 6X excess heat "effect" using the thermal camera Rossi insisted on using. Except that this "effect" is actually null (no excess heat) when properly instrumented and interpreted. In other words, under conditions which are repeatable and which we know there is no excess heat, we can repeatably and reliably "measure" substantial "excess heat" where none exists, using the thermal camera. So whether intentional or not, the thermal camera can be made to operate in a manner which is deceptive to reality.

2) IH accidentally ran a non "charged" reactor (due to misreading the label) and got exactly the same output as the "charged" reactors. Now this does require that you accept Darden's testimony under oath from Rossi vs. Darden. For numerous reasons that I won't go into, it would have been incredibly reckless and risky for Darden to lie about this.

But given these two facts, in addition to the other damning evidence you cite about the Johnson Mathey deception, the Rossi talking points to James Bass charade, the ridiculous home made bundle of pipes inside one wall of a "secret" contraption housed in a shipping container on the "customer" side of the plywood separator (that the world finally got to see photos of because of IH's counter-suit), Rossi's testimony that he never made a single product the entire year of the demonstration he tried to relabel as the GPT, and Rossi's 30 year history of fraud and failure, why do you believe that Rossi has ANY excess heat?

Given his proven history of heat measuring blunders (or intentional deception), how would Rossi even know if he had excess heat?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Ah. I suppose that when Rossi said the 1 MW plant worked and IH said it didn't in their depositions, both statements are factual.?

Almost as good as the babbler who suggested Rossi was going sue himself.

I've gad enough of this babble that I'm not going to add more to it.

Well at least you finally admit (intentionally or not) that your contributions on this topic are babble.

If you read my post, you would see that I specifically pointed out that the role of the jury is to make decisions regarding contested issues. There obviously were contested issues - it was a lawsuit with claims and counter-claims, after all.

But based on your "drive by comments" you can't even accurately describe what claims and counter-claims were made by the various parties, nor discern contested vs. uncontested evidence.

It's obvious you haven't read the documents on the docket. At least you haven't read them with any comprehension. If you had, you could answer basic questions, like:

1) How many claims did Rossi claim against IH initially?

2) How many of those were dismissed in Summary Judgement?

3) How many counter-claims did IH file initially against Rossi?

4) How many claims were filed initially by third parties against IH?

5) Who are the third parties?

6) How many counter-claims were filed by IH against third parties?

7) How many counter-claims filed by IH were dismissed in Summary Judgement?

8 ) What documents describe the content of the specific surviving claims by Rossi, IH and third parties?

9) What role does the magistrate play vs. the role of the judge?

10) What documents describe pre-trial sanctions made by the magistrate, and to which party were they made, and why?

11) What documents describe pre-trial sanctions made by the judge, to which party were they made, and why?

12) What documents on the docket indicate what evidence provided in discovery was contested by either party?

13) What documents on the docket indicate what evidence was agreed upon by both parties or ruled by the court to be uncontestable?

There were other aspects that characterized this case. For example, there were several amendments. How many would you say there were? Why is it important, when reading the documents on the docket, to know how many amendments there were, and how does that affect which documents should be used when referencing the evidence?

See, if you had actually taken the time to go through the docket and understand the legal processes, rather than ignorantly and flippantly dismissing it all as "he said/she said", you could learn a lot. But I warn you, the uncontested evidence does not put Rossi's veracity in a good light, especially when placed on a timeline and in context. And especially when compared to what Rossi was writing on his blog at the same time.

You would also realize that uncontested evidence provided in pre-trial discovery is almost certainly accurate (because both sides had huge incentives to contest any adverse evidence that they could if in fact it was contestable).

And you would understand the significance of the fact that the discovery phase was completed so that the trial could start, which meant that the deadline for both parties to agree to the uncontested evidence occurred.

Several people here took the time to go through the documents on the docket. The reason we did so is because unlike the "he said/she said" arguments that have characterized the past, the federal court case imposed rules that forced both parties to provide evidence that if false, could significantly harm their ability to win their claims. Also, if lawyers from either side were shown to knowingly provide false evidence, they would be at risk for career-ending disbarment. This significantly upped the quality of the available information. And in fact, by looking at the evidence on the docket provided by Rossi, including his own testimony under oath, you will see that he provided a lot of damning evidence harmful to his case and his character - because he knew that in instances where others could prove him wrong if he lied, he would risk losing his claims and having the counter-claims prevail.

So, when you speak of "babblers", perhaps you can consider if that term applies to your own obviously uninformed opinions regarding Rossi vs Darden, and if so, try to restrain yourself.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

ps. In the news, the technology oPetrolDragon is being resurrected, despite what you said. The top official who put Rossi out of business has been fined and sent to prison for taking over the entire waste business. (I think with the mfia.)

Oh, really? I'd be very interested in learning how Rossi's Petroldragon technology is being 'resurrected'. Especially given the 60+ million dollar cost of attempting to clean up the toxic waste dump he left. Please point me to your source(s). I am sincerely interested in learning more about this. (I attempted to find this news but was unable to find anything, yet.)

Thanks in advance.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

Two sides saying different things about the same event and you call them factual? Really? You appear to have no managerial experience and so don't know what companies get up to. This makes you sound naive.

Unlike you , who is certain nothing Rossi did has worked. I am not saying the QX and SK work. I say wait and see if they do, as we don't have enough evidence to judge it yet. I think there is a fair chance that they might.

Yes. I call those quotes _factual_. That's because they are legal facts, the contents of which are not subject to alteration or objection by either party once the trial starts (which it did). They were made by Rossi. They are not in dispute - Rossi did not deny them. In fact, Rossi was required to disclose them and/or challenge Darden's version of them as part of discovery. We can be highly confident that they are accurate because if Rossi (or Darden) was shown to have altered them, he could be charged with falsifying evidence (and the same applies to Darden of course). And since they are rather unflattering to Rossi's credibility, we can assume that he sent accurate emails (even if reluctantly) because Darden (or Rossi) could easily dispute them if they were not accurate, since as recipients, they each knew the exact wording. If either party was found to be providing falsified evidence (and both parties had the same emails since they were corresponding with each other) it would almost certainly result in some manner of court ordered sanctions against the offending party, up to and including sanctions that could result in Rossi's case being thrown out on a motion to dismiss, and IH winning their countersuit (or vice versa) due to adverse inference. You can be sure that neither side's lawyers would pass up the opportunity to charge the other with falsifying information, if they could demonstrate this, since they would be winning sanctions against their opponent before the trial even started.

Perhaps you are not able to discern the difference between this evidence which is legally considered fact, vs interpretation of evidence (which may be in dispute), because of your legal naivety? The primary purpose of a jury trial is for the jury to make decisions about disputed evidence and its implications. Pre trial discovery is the process that, in part, sorts out what is not in dispute and what is in dispute and needs to be decided by a jury. The exact wording of the emails submitted was not in dispute, and that wording would not have been subject to a jury's decision (had the trial lasted more than the actual few hours). If there was any question about this, the Judge would have instructed the jury to accept the exact wording as fact. On the other hand, weighing the implications of the email regarding the various allegations of fraud, etc. on either side would be something the jury could address, since this was central to the dispute.

We know that these emails were considered fact by the court because the case actually went to trial (briefly), meaning that the pre-trial discovery phase was completed (because it has to complete before the jury trial can start). So towards the end of the docket, you will see what was considered to be in dispute and what wasn't. This has to be done beforehand for a number of reasons not least of which is to not waste the jury's time making these determinations during trial. Once discovery has been completed, neither party can object to undisputed evidence (except under extraordinary circumstances). But don't take my word for it, you can let our resident lawyer, woodworker confirm this (or consult with any other lawyers you know).

And it's funny that you presume to guess my management experience (which exceeds 19 years) by making ignorant and unsupportable claims about undisputed evidence submitted by Rossi as required under the rules of discovery.

But your response helps me understand why you are unable to accurately interpret the Rossi vs Darden evidence. I suggest you stop asserting your incorrect understanding of evidence that was submitted as required in pre-trial discovery. In fact, given your confusion on this, I think it would be helpful for you to re-read the information on the docket with this better understanding of how discovery works. But that would assume you are interested in learning and gaining insight regarding the facts of the case. And unfortunately, you have shown little to no interest to learn anything from that evidence, electing instead to hand wave it all off as merely "he said she said", sadly, to your own self-deception.

The quotes involved are not "two sides saying different things about the same event" as you assert. They are emails by Rossi to Darden that were submitted as required under the rules of discovery. And if you understood this about the information on the docket generally, you would realize that there is a large number of undisputed facts that were revealed in Rossi vs Darden, including dozens (at least) of significant lies made by Rossi.

You are merely revealing your legal ignorance.

Quote from woodworker

I must disagree. The proper form of that citation is "RossiSays" with no spaces and a capital S in says.

As a lawyer, given the licensing involved, shouldn't it actually be RossiSays™ or would it be RossiSays®?

® ™ All rights reserved, J M Products, Limited Reliability Corporation (LRC)

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

All the babblers have done for months is is repeat their opinions about Rossi's earlier activities. I haven't seen a single new thought in ages.

I have already given my opinion about Doral and am not interested in repeating it. So there is no point in asking the same old questions again.

Actually, the quotes on the docket are not merely opinions, they are factual evidence that Rossi intentionally deceives. We know this is true because Rossi himself brags that he intentionally deceives. This is not merely my opinion (or yours), this is Rossi himself declaring such.

I understand that this puts you in an uncomfortable position. You should feel uncomfortable. It's not easy to defend the indefensible. For seven years, in newspapers and on blogs, you have been promoting the exciting news that cheap energy is just around the corner because Rossi's magnificent invention is in production, just about to be released. You scornfully criticize those who challenge Rossi's extraordinary claims.

Even now, despite the overwhelming evidence that Rossi is intentionally deceiving the hopeful, you defend him.

If you really wanted to help society, you would face the facts, apologize to those who trusted your recklessly optimistic and unrealistic assessments, and help provide expert guidance (as an engineer with experience) to those with less expertise on how to accurately interpret Rossi's unverifiable "reports", "demonstrations", and comments.

Instead, you continue to carry water for this self-proclaimed deceiver. For 7 years.

When presented with the evidence of Rossi's gross deception you refuse to respond, address, or even consider it. In fact you just keep "babbling" the same unwarranted scorn for anyone who questions Rossi and support for Rossi's extraordinary, unverfiable claims. You don't even try to qualify your support in light of the extraordinary claims, Rossi's known deception, and 7 year history of failure to deliver products he claimed were in production, just awaiting [insert lame excuse: "certifications" (unspecified) | "5 sigma" (of undefined) | license agreements | non-disclosure | etc.].

When are you going to give it up?

(Hint, it's not helping your credibility or "cause", whatever that is.)

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

sigmoidal,

JedRothwell wrote:

“You have said repeatedly that you have not read the court papers”

AA. “No I have not said that. I have read them. Show me one actual quotation, Usually you say I refused to read them. You are confused."

sgmoidal write:

Adrian Ashfield Re: Show me one actual quotation..."

Here's one that I mentioned (and Jed too). There are dozens of quotes that I and others can think of off the top of my head. But you asked for "one actual quotation"

Rossi's email to IH where he brags to IH that his deception of Hydro Fusion is a "masterpiece":

"...I got rid of the European big clicense [sic] I had to sign. I made a masterpiece making them go voluntarily .. .I will explain..."

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/236-19-Exhibit-19.pdf

Rossi's email to IH explaining in more detail how he intentionally deceived Hydro Fusion:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…11/0029.12_Exhibit_12.pdf

Was Rossi lying to Hydro Fusion, as he claims, or was he lying to IH? Or both?

Is there a plausible explanation that doesn't involve intentional deception by Rossi?

(Shane D., Forty-Two, oldguy and one other like this.)

AA, Are you out of your mind? You fail to show one quote from me where I say I refuse to, or have not read it. I was objecting to Jed repeatedly lying, making up statements I was supposed to have made.. What you wrote has nothing to do with this. Jed's and your attempted spin to change the subject does not work.

For some reason the forum’s “quote” button is not appearing, but the above are copies of what was written..

Display More

@Adrian Ashfield

OK, my mistake, AA. I thought you were asking for one quote from Rossi vs Darden where Rossi lied. Instead I guess you were asking for one quote where you claimed you had not read the evidence on the docket. I apologize for my confusion.

But since you claim you have read the evidence on the docket, do you not agree that Rossi has engaged in intentional deception? If not, why not?

Quote from sam12

1. Noble Grabow July 27, 2018 at 11:49 PM

   Dr Rossi,

   When will you deliver the first Ecats to Clients?

2. Translate Andrea Rossi July 28, 2018 at 3:43 AM

   Noble Grabow:

   Within December, I think.

   Warm Regards,

   A.R.

Display More

Since all the evidence of the past three decades demonstrates that Rossi is utterly incapable of "delivering Ecats to clients" (Ecats that work, and clients that are real), we can know with certainty that this will not happen. Instead, one or more of the following will likely happen (listed in order of increasing effort required by Rossi to achieve "plausible deniability" that he is a scammer):

a) It will be delayed (this approach has happened countless times, beginning in 2011 for the ECat if not earlier).

b) Rossi will claim he must drop working on delivering the Ecat for customers in order to focus on his new even better and more exciting ECat discovery (as he has with 10KW ECat -> 1MW ECat -> HotCat -> QuarkX -> SKat -> [wait for it ... ??]).

c) He will have a "demonstration" of a fake ECat device of some sort (as has done half a dozen times already).

d) He will 'disappear' (this would be a new approach, and it's getting harder for him to do now that he owns millions of dollars of FL condos).

e) He will claim that his fake factory had a catastrophe (fire, flood, etc.) (he did this with his previous scam genre 1996-2000: the thermoelectric device contract with the DoD where he claimed his "factory" "burned down")

f) He will create and recruit a fake 'Client'/customer and or fake staff, along the lines of J M Products (fake "independent customer" created and run by Rossi) and James Bass (fake 'Chief Engineer') in the IH scam.

g) He will get arrested, convicted of some crime, go to jail and place the blame on the corrupt government (this happened with Petroldragon - this was in the scam genre before the thermoelectric scam genre, which was before the ECat scam genre).

f) He will invent an entirely new scam genre.

Now Rossi is imaginative, I have to admit. So far, he's used his imagination, outstanding PR skills and cunning (and not so cunning) deceit to overcome shoddy stagecraft and parleyed that into millions of dollars of Florida real estate for himself, and legal fees for his Florida lawyer buddies. So he might even come up with something not on this list. But it seems that as he runs out of tricks he has no choice but to recycle them.

In December, we'll all find out what Rossi decides to pull out of his bag of tricks. (Hint: it won't be a real client with a real ECat.)

@Adrian Ashfield Re: Show me one actual quotation..."

Here's one that I mentioned (and Jed too). There are dozens of quotes that I and others can think of off the top of my head. But you asked for "one actual quotation".

Rossi's email to IH where he brags to IH that his deception of Hydro Fusion is a "masterpiece":

"...I got rid of the European big clicense [sic] I had to sign. I made a masterpiece making them go voluntarily .. .I will explain..."

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…/01/236-19-Exhibit-19.pdf

Rossi's email to IH explaining in more detail how he intentionally deceived Hydro Fusion:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…11/0029.12_Exhibit_12.pdf

Was Rossi lying to Hydro Fusion, as he claims, or was he lying to IH? Or both?

Is there a plausible explanation that doesn't involve intentional deception by Rossi?

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

It seems that some critic complained to the authorities at Stockholm that Rossi showed a working nuclear (gasp!) reactor. So he can't now get permission to show a working QX or SK at the Jan demo.

Instead the current plan is to show a video of a working industrial plant supplying heat to a real paying customer. Of course the skeptics will not believe the reactor is working. How many commercial plants would it take to convince them?

Someone has suggested setting up the QX pr SK remotely with remote control at the demo, with video showing the instrument readings.

Early days yet and all that may change. Now is your chance if you have a better idea.

Display More

@Adrian Ashfield

AA: "How many commercial plants would it take to convince them?"

For me, just one real customer with a real "commercial plant" that worked. That would do it.

But for at least 7 years you've been making the argument that "next [year or less] when a customer has one, that will [silence the critics]". I can document that you, AA, specifically made that argument to a critic in 2011 (Rossi claimed he was in full-scale production and that there would be several customers in early 2012), and you made that argument again in 2015, because Rossi said it would be available in 2016.

Rossi has claimed he had produced 13 E-Cats (about 5 years ago), and then subsequently claimed around the time of the Doral lawsuit that he had delivered 3 to "independent" customers.

It seems to not bother you (in terms of Rossi's level of veracity) that the only known verifiable "customer" was Rossi himself (as he ran the sham business J M Products).

Nor do you seem to think that it is relevant to Rossi's veracity that we have proof that he claimed that he was independent of himself(!)

Nor do you seem to think that Rossi boasting to IH that his intentionally deceptive behavior toward a contract with Hydro Fusion was a "masterpiece" of deception is relevant to the assessment of Rossi's veracity.

You just keep putting out the same old arguments, year after year after year after year, that those people who observe Rossi's repeated, provable intentional deception are just "patho-skeptics" (whatever that really means) or "babblers". And we'll all soon be proven wrong when that real customer with that real commercial plant verifies Rossi's claims.

I truly marvel at how you can be so steadfastly persistent in your determination to accept Rossi's statements, given his track record.

You seem to have given up defending other scams, like EEStor and Defkalion (while still seeming to defend BLP). Back then you were scornful of EEStor and Defkalion skeptics.

I'm truly curious as to why you still think Rossi has anything. Why do you think Rossi is different than EEStor and Defkalion?

But truly, all it would take to convince me is one real customer with a real working commercial plant.

I am highly confident that Rossi is utterly incapable of delivering such. That confidence is based, in part, on incontrovertible evidence of persistent intentional deception by Rossi.

So my question is, how long will you keep trying to support Rossi and predicting that very soon Rossi will prove all the skeptics wrong?

Quote from axil

Rydberg matter is though to carry a hexagonal crystal structure. The triangular holes produced by the flux tubes matches up nicely with the hexagonal crystal form with half of the hexagon projecting the north pole of the flux tube and the other half of the crystal projecting the south pole.

"Triangular holes produced by the flux tubes"...

No shortage of imagination, Axil, I'll grant you that.

You must feel very self-satisfied to have come up with these explanations.

But I'm off to bed. I'll leave you to your fantastic tales.

Quote from axil

Center Vortex Flux Tube Interference.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

The "Mining Diamond video" Shows that the LENR agent is moving inside the diamond. It is totally encased by the diamond and the agent destroys the diamond(makes it disappear) as it moves inside the diamond. At the end of its movement, it deposits a ball of transmuted material which is also totally encased inside the diamond. This behavior is common to many hundreds of LENR agent trails throughout the volume of the diamond.

From the tone of your criticisms, you did not look at the referenced experiment in the video.

Display More

First off, this is not YOUR video. It's Greenyers. At best you could try to argue that you are editorializing his findings. That's not original scientific discovery or theory. You have not provided any evidence, any experiments, any more-than-a few-line sentences of "theory" (actually merely assertions), no math, no explanatory physics.

Others have. Sometimes your cited sources provide these. But you never do. Yo'ure content to just throw out a few scientific-sounding one-liners as if they were factually meaningful, insightful, or explanatory.

They're not.

Here's some advice: since it's Greenyer's video, perhaps you should let Greenyer tell us what he thinks his results mean (he does). Notice Greenyer takes some time to discuss limitations of his findings. I don't agree with most of his assertions for other reasons. but I respect this more scientific aspect of his approach.

You would do well to follow his example.

Quote from axil

If the LookingForHeat reactor was radioactive, the radiation background level would be way above normal. I have seen no report that the reactor is radioactive. That fact would be news that we have not been told about.

Therefore, you are persuaded that you are justified in asserting that this is "due to the action of chiral SPP activity".

Or a million other more likely explanations, including the obvious one that the experiment is merely exothermic. Or there is experimental error. This is why it's essentially impossible to take you seriously.

If you were an actual scientist, you would first do your own evaluation of possible alternative explanations. Scientists do this to (try to) avoid confirmation bias (self deception). As a scientist, I do this all the time.

You seem to have no concept or patience for this.

Quote from Gregory Byron Goble

Wow, this site does get testy at times.

Let me take a stab at a helpful diversion... I am but a layman.

sigmoidal Angular momentum is best considered in two. A low frequency wave/particle is overtaken by a high frequency wave/particle at a convergent angle. What if it is such that a harmonic which creates standing waves is created by the angles and frequencies of a thermal gradient within the nano nuclear reactive environment of LENR? Within a multi multi body system such as Alan and Russ are playing with, who can tell. Best to observe and record and scratch your head a bit. Only release data after intense scrutiny. All good scientists do so. LENR research is full of good scientists, no?

Gregory Byron Goble Thanks for trying to be helpful, but in Axil's case, he's trying to describe the creation of magnetic monopoles from electromagnetic waves resulting from particle spin (not physical vibration as in your example). I agree with you that angular momentum is best considered "in two", especially for electromagnetic radiation (OAM and SAM) and this specific issue (flux tubes). There is an obvious problem with Axil's notion of flux tube formation that I've hinted at. It involves a certain property of transverse electromagnetic waves that does not apply to longitudinal waves. I'm fairly confident that Axil is not aware of this or he would have responded to it and would not make the declarative assertions he is making. And I admit that nearly a decade of Axil's incoherent eruptions are annoying, especially because they have an initial appearance of expertise and "special insight" when on closer examination they are not coherent, insightful, or indicative of expertise. He has a habit of interspersing various often unrelated citations with one sentence declarations as if they were factual and meaningfully bridged the disparate sources cited. Were any of these one-liners actually true and published, it would take a full manuscript to describe and support, and be potentially Nobel Prize worthy (often). Or alternatively they're just pseudo-scientific babbling. Unfortunately, because he never goes beyond the one-liners, the latter explanation is the only viable choice. A look at his posting history will confirm this, as does his most recent thread on the Purcell effect. I just deconstructed a few examples of his most recent blather which started on a different thread, but this has been going on for years.

So personally, as someone with training and experience in electro-optics, lasers and semiconductor physics, I don't find anything scientific or meritorious about Axil's contributions (exclusive of the various author's and sources he sites). He's certainly not helping to provide insight into LENR in any meaningful way.

I'm also not persuaded that "LENR research is full of good scientists". There are some good LENR scientists. And many not very good at all. And the field seems to draw a lot of "posers" as well, like Axil, Rossi, Parkhomov, etc.,

But I am enjoying some ice tea while writing.

Cooler heads, and all...

Quote from axil

I address the quark destabilization issue as follows:

Center Vortex Flux Tube Interference.

The LENR reaction is extremely complex and a comprehensive theory needs to cover every case and is therefore multifaceted.

And here is yet another example where you seem to believe you've adequately "addressed" "quark destabilization" because you had: a notion. This article does not support your "quark destabilization". At least not in any coherent way that helps explain LENR.

Having a notion after reading a wikipedia article does not count for much. Especially coming from someone who repeatedly demonstrates that they don't understand what they are reading or the implications of what they assert.

You then go into complete science-babble: "But when a LENR generated flux lines gets close to a quark interconnection flux tube, the LENR flux tube cuts the quark magnetic connection and intercepts the quark magnetic interconnection. "

Because you had a notion. That caused an assertion.

And it keeps coming:

"The LENR agent now has a direct magnetic connection to the quark(s) of one or more nucleons and holds onto them."

Suddenly, we've got LENR agents, and they're 'holding on'! (Are they anything like hydrinos?) They're holding on with "direct magnetic connection". What is the magnitude of this direct magnetic connecting force? We are not told. What is an "LENR agent"? No explanation. What repulsive forces must be overcome so that "quark(s) of one or more nucleons holds onto them."? No explanation.

No evidence, no experiments, no theory, no math, no equations.

And then there's those triangular holes. Why not assert that this supports evidence of LENR? No explanation needed. Just more one-liner assertions. With seemingly unending non-explanations masquerading as explanations.

Rudyard Kipling had a great collection of assertions that are far more imaginative and entertaining.

But I think I've wasted enough time trying to help you. If you insist on self-delusion, there's really not much I can do to help you.

(Have you thought about why it's really important to distinguish OAM from SAM? Like maybe differences in longitudinal vs transverse polarization and consequences for right or left polarization? And how this affects the polarity of flux tubes? Or how wavelet phase affects OAM? Can you articulate these theoretical effects using Maxwell's equations? If for some reason you think Maxwell's equations don't apply, can you describe why? Can you try to explain your strange fascination with the Purcell effect and why you think it somehow supports non-standard theory, or why it's OK to mis-apply it to particle physics? Those are just a start. But as I said, I'm done for now. )

Quote from axil

For example, in the LookingForHeat experiment, there is no radioactive activation apparent due to the action of chiral SPP activity. Yet gamma radiation is observed. The production of heat through the thermalization of gamma is accomplished through the action of the generation of a polariton Bose condensate. This BEC is established through increased pumping of energy into to cormation of more SPPs. Polariton BEC formation is a function of the density of SPPs and not necessarily temperature.

This is a prime example of an incoherent non-explanation masquerading as a "theory". You have no basis for positing that "there is no radioactive activation apparent due to the action of chiral SPP activity." You merely make this assertion, with no thought about the implications of this simplistic statement.

You then assert, without evidence or theory, that the thermalization is accomplished through the action of the generation of a polariton Bose condensate. No evidence, no theory.

Your assertions have a semblance of sounding intelligent/scientific to a non-technical audience.

But that's not really helpful is it? If anything, it just adds to your self-delusion that you actually have anything that could be considered insightful.

Quote from axil

The SPP generated chiral magnetic flux tube performs two basic LENR functions: 1 - destabilizes the nucleon, and 2 - stabilize any nuclear activation that the first mentioned function produces.

And this is where you go off the rails. There is nothing about these manuscripts that supports your assertions. And providing one line connectors to support your "extraordinary" claims is simply not worth responding to.

I understand that this is consistent with your past attempts (which also, if you look at them, go off in various incoherent directions).

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, not extraordinarily incoherent "theory".

I suggest you attempt to really understand the physics behind these papers and try to refrain from brutally simplistic and non-informative declarations for how they "support" a theory of LENR. (Because they don't come close).

Then you might have a chance at making a useful contribution.

In all sincerity, I hope this advice helps encourage you to try a new, more studied and serious approach.