Posts by joshg

    But if you know how to read NIST tables/levels and how to interprete them your statements are close to rubish.

    Honestly I don't even know why you bother commenting in a thread on Miles Mathis's work. You don't understand it and haven't really tried to, so there can be no meaningful conversation with you about his theories. Your statements about his work are ignorant rubbish.

    Moved from the Miles Mathis thread. Eric

    It seems that he now is reading Mills work and includes some recent findings.

    What a joke. What paper of Mathis can you point to that includes recent findings of Mills?

    What I told in the former post needs some deeper understanding, may be you should reread it first and discuss the content, before you just complain about it.

    On the contrary, it is you who needs some deeper understanding. If you understood Miles's theory, you would know that there are no such thing as electron 'orbitals' in the way we usually think about them. So-called "electron screening" should not be a problem with proper alignment.

    I did read over many of his old writeups. They had no new knowledge in it.

    You keep repeating that same statement over and over, yet you never substantiate it. Your criticism rings hollow and couldn't be more wrong.

    Wyttenbach as usual you criticize Mathis's work as being superficial and yet you haven't bothered to try to understand it in the slightest. The fact that you use the terms electron "shells" and "screening" when discussing his theories proves you don't understand its most basic features. I'm not sure that Elisha is 100% on target here, as he is borrowing from a paper on NMR resonance, which might not be directly applicable. But he's probably headed in the right direction, unlike your criticisms, which as usual fly above the surface. Try to do a little more digging into his work before you dismiss it. He has rebuilt physics from the ground up.

    I think Jed is closer to the other end of the horse.

    Does anybody ACTUALLY think that a mega corp like Mitsubishi or Toyota will pass on a trillion dollar business? Really?

    If they think there's no there there, then in their mind they're not passing on a lucrative business opportunity, but rather just a waste of time. Does anybody ACTUALLY doubt that mega corps are timid, risk-averse and reluctant to draw bad publicity?

    You may find that it is difficult but that doesn't imply that it is not true, just that you don't understand that kind of modelling and there is plenty of such models in practical use such as electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, etc.

    It's not that I can't understand it; I just find it illogical and full of question-begging. I do believe that Mills is onto something. I think he has reconfigured and discovered some mathematical formula that work and can be very useful. But I don't think the underlying model is correct. QM has allowed physicists to make many highly accurate predictions. The same logic applies: how could they have made those predictions if the underlying model was wrong? How could that happen by chance? Well, it's because their equations are finely tuned to fit experimental results, and so they are often good at prediction (though in many cases disastrously off the mark). As far as I can tell, Mills has rejiggered (some of) the equations to squeeze more accuracy out of them. It does not follow that his theory is correct. And as far as I can tell, his theory is lacking any real mechanics but full of declaration by fiat and question-begging.

    Here are some examples from

    "However, unlike a point-charge, an extended distribution of charge may, under certain conditions, accelerate without radiating. Millsian founder Dr. Randell Mills used this nonradiation condition to solve the electron as a spherical shell of charge centered on the nucleus. This is called the orbitsphere, and is analogous to a soap bubble."

    And here I thought electrons were particles with a radius and so forth. But apparently in Mills's classical derivation, they are a spherical membrane when they are "orbiting" a nucleus. Except the electron does not orbit, it simply exists as a spherical membrane like a soap bubble, which has a momentum and is made up of infinitesimally small masses. And what happens to free electrons?

    Well that's easy: Mills takes the z-projection of the bound orbitsphere to arrive at the free electron, which is a flat plane disc of circular current loops.

    How, pray tell, does the orbitsphere transform itself into this flat plane free electron, and vice versa?

    Mills is doing the same thing that QM and QED and QCD theorists have done: he comes up with a neat mathematical tricks by assigning the parameters of his equations to non-mechanical and non-physical entities without any attempt to understand or describe or theorize the underlying mechanics. Like QM, he has continued to mistake math for physics.

    I dont see the slightest chance that Mathis model is ever going to be deeply studied unless he invents a new technology with it. Reading Mathis invokes the urge to punch him hard in the face in every physicist looking into it just because of his arrogant writing style

    Sadly, I agree with you about his chances, even though his theory can tackle "the weird stuff that QM was conjured into being to tackle" like the double-slit experiment, etc. I have encouraged him to try to get involved in LENR, but so far without success. I realize that mainstream physicists like to think they have a monopoly on arrogance. I actually enjoy his tone and find his acerbic barbs against the illogic and absurdity of mainstream theories hilarious and entertaining. But to each his own.

    You might say that establishment physicists have earned the right to be arrogant, but he hasn't. I disagree. His older papers don't have that tone; they tend to be more straightforward. If you look for example at his early work on relativity I don't think you'll find that. But here's the thing: the guy spent a good 15 years digging into established, bedrock physics equations and keeps finding one mistake after another after another. Like with Einstein's special relativity paper, he found a very simply algebraic error that led to a slight change in the calculation of gamma. And then he started to put QM and other theories under inspection showing how absurd many of their postulates are and how many leaps of logic are built into the theories. He has likewise showed how case-closed experiments have been badly interpreted. So at this point, yeah, he has very little respect for mainstream science, and it shows. But he has earned his right to be contemptuous. It might not serve the goal of gaining a wider following, but he doesn't view science as a popularity contest.

    The size of an atom is on the order of Ångström. 100 times that is 10nm, today technologies discuss 5nm techniques for chip making and also there is plenty of "photos" of atoms that tell the story that the size is indeed on the order of Ångström. So I think that Miles is wrong here.

    Geez, you really should try to read and understand his argument before saying he's wrong. And also show where he's wrong. I wish more people would do that. First of all, do you even understand what the "5nm technique" is for chip making? Or what they call the 5nm node? The "5nm" doesn't actually refer to any of the dimensions of the transistor. For example, the 14nm node has 20nm gate length, 42nm height and 42nm pitch. And although the 5nm node is still in early development stage, the wikipedia page on it indicates it will have between 32-44nm gate pitch and 20-32nm interconnect pitch (compared to 70 and 52 for the 14nm process). One article I found suggested the gate length could be as short as 10nm. In short, try as I might, I could not find anything suggesting the the 5nm chip has any element that is actually 5nm. If anything, the 5nm should refer to one of the dimensions of the channel that the electrons travel through. And since the channel is an empty space, its size is less limited by the size of the atom.

    But all of this is rather beside the point. "Images" of anything at the atomic level (including the graphics you pasted) are not photographs, they are instead images constructed from data that comes from electron microscopes. The algorithms that turn that data into images and estimates of size are based, ultimately, on Rutherford's scattering equation (adjusted for Beta particles rather than Alpha particles as in Rutherford's original experiment). But because that equation doesn't take into account gravity at the quantum level, the data from alpha particles and electron scattering have been incorrectly interpreted:

    "I have discovered that the math used to analyze scattering is incomplete. I say incomplete rather than false because it is correct as far as it goes. It simply fails to take into account the presence of gravity at the atomic level. This means that although its manipulations are done correctly, its assumptions are faulty. Rutherford assumes that the force can be expressed as the Coulomb force, and that therefore it is solely an electrostatic force. I will show that this is false.

    "The intent of this paper is not to return to the Thomson model or to throw into question the usefulness of the Coulomb equation. As I admit above, the Coulomb equation allowed Rutherford to estimate the correct answer, so it must be correct as a heuristic device over some energies, at the very least. I am also not intending to question the experimental findings of the last century....

    "If the force is not only electrostatic, then the mechanics cannot be what we have assumed it is. If we mis-assign forces, we end up with wrong numbers when we start calculating down from those forces. In these scattering equations, we are not calculating energies or forces from lengths or times, we are calculating lengths or times from energies or forces. Logically, that is upside down, and it is a dangerous mathematical manipulation. It requires an assumption of complete knowledge of the field mechanics, so that we can solve down in the correct way. Since I have shown that we do not have a complete knowledge of the field mechanics, we should not be able to solve down with such complete assurance. In fact, Rutherford and those who followed him have solved down using false assumptions, and have thereby gotten the wrong numbers for their lengths."

    The results basically uses the following facts: 1) a sphere consisting of loops of spherical geodesics (large circles), all at the same velocity of constant resulting density. The loops added together yield the correct spin of the electron. To calculate the kinetic energy, use the velocities in the loop, not the resultants!! Assume the usual electrostatics. The mass is evenly distributed on the loops and results in the electronic mass....

    The basic assumption of Mills is that there is a set of great circles or geodesics with mass flow that covers the sphere such that 1) the charge is constant and sum to the electron charge. With an even mass density so that the total mass equals the electron mass and also each great circle or loop have the same velocity, even charge, radius and even mass. Not only the set of loops have each a angular momentum that sum up to the spin of the electron.

    I fail to see how this theory counts as classical. And by that I mean mechanical. If the electron is a particle, how can it exist as a sphere or geodisic or loop or whatever? How can a loop have an angular momentum or velocity? How can the properties of the electron be assigned to these geodisics and loops except by mathematical fiat? Don't properties like angular momentum and velocity belong to the electron? How can the great circle have a mass that sums to the mass of the electron?

    I'm sorry but this is all gobbledygook to me. At the end of the day I believe Mills is guilty of many of the same things he accuses mainstream science of being. Although he has moved away from QM, his theory is still far from mechanical and he is guilty of the same kind of heuristic approach as QM theorists, even if his starting postulates are "classical."

    I had high hopes that I.H. would fund research. I think they would have, but they have been derailed by the lawsuit. They fired the technical staff. They may be funding a few studies, but I doubt they will contribute significant amounts of money.

    So that R&D center they opened up near Raleigh headed by Antonio La Gatta is just a figment of our imagination?

    Mills deserves a lot of credit for making major headway improving calculations, but the foundations he's building on are are much shakier than he thinks. Since he hasn't gone back and fixed the mistakes in the very existing equations upon which his own work has been erected, there is only so far he will get.

    The hard part is to calculate the "orbiting radius" of the electrons and how this radius changes when the electron configuration of the atom changes (the radius changes because of the changing electric and magnetic interactions between "electron neighbors").

    It's especially hard because Bohr mucked it up in the first place. He thought he was calculating the radius of the electron's orbit, but he was actually calculating the radius of the electron itself. From here:

    "And now we see that the radius hidden under Bohr’s bad math is the radius of the electron, not the radius of the orbit. And the spins belong to the electron as well. But we should have known that long before. All the angular momenta have to apply to the electron, not the orbit. If the orbit was the primary cause of the various fields of the electron, then the orbit itself would show a magnetic moment and an electrical field, and so on. And if it did that, the atom wouldn’t be neutral, it would be an ion. Besides, we know that free electrons also have electrical fields and magnetic fields. So it cannot be the orbit that has all the angular momentum. The angular momentum and the magnetic moment belong to the electron, so the radius must also.

    "And the velocity must also belong to the electron. That is, it belongs to the spin, not to the orbit. The velocity in this equation is not a velocity of the electron in orbit, it is the velocity of the spin. It is the tangential velocity on the surface of the spin, or the linear velocity a point on the surface of the spin border would be going if it weren’t going in a circle. The magnetic moment, like the charge, belongs to the electron, not to the orbit!"

    It's also hard to calculate because the electron doesn't actually orbit the nucleus, neither in a probabilty density cloud nor in an orbitsphere:

    On to of that, the behavior of electrons is epiphenomenal -- meaning that electrons are not the prime movers; the charge field is. The electrons are pushed around by the charge field, and since physicists have only observed electrons while ignoring evidence of the existence of the charge field, they have assigned characteristics to electrons that properly belong to the charge field:

    Mills shares with mainstream physics both a misunderstanding of the fundamental structure of the nucleus as well as the complex ways in which charge and electrons interact with the nucleonic structure.

    My main reason for accepting GUTCP is the derivation of the hydrogen radius using only centripetal forces and electrical forces skipping the magnetic forces.

    Except that the hydrogen radius is about 100 times larger than we think. In fact, "Everything in the atomic and quantum world—including the atom, the nucleus, the proton, and the electron—is about 100 times larger than you were taught." (Take that link if you want to know where the fine structure constant comes from.) Can Mills explain the so-called proton radius puzzle that "confirms physics is broken"? I know somebody who can.

    And a bonus for anyone wanting a deeper understanding of Maxwell's equations:

    Because it's basis of Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), which is actually the most exact physical theory at all. Mills orbital models are naive, as he models everything with spheres and ovals - but the actual appearance of orbitals is way more complex and their geometry correctly predicts the chemistry of complexes and coordination bonds. It has no meaning to speculate about it, because the resolution of microscopes is already sufficient enough to observe them directly: and their appearance follows the quantum mechanical models - not these Milsian ones.


    What is pictured here? Do you have a reference for these pictures? Others like them?

    I haven't been able to dig into the testing details. Does anyone know how long before we should reasonably expect to see evidence of excess heat? I know the device supposedly reaches operating cop after 5 minutes and high temp after ten, but how long before sister test should show that the water is being heated faster than expected given power in?

    The heat caused by friction geospheres Geospheres rotation from the core type ball lightning and terrestrial electricity! The lithosphere is cooler and elektrokondesatorom planet! Earth has a power generator! Electricity produces LENR!

    Google translated one of your statements as "Electricity produces LENR." Sure, but here's the question: what produces electricity? The answer: the charge field.

    The Earth's heat is not from radioactive decay or LENR, but rather from the (recycled) charge field):

    Though of course since the charge field is the ultimate source of LENR's "excess heat" I guess you could say that the Earths heat is caused by LENR, in a way.

    Edit: Gennadiy, Miles Mathis's first book is being translated into Russian. Here is the translation of the first chapter on the (Un-)unified Field:

    the new evidence "falls into the category of legislative facts. ... these are, in essence, facts that are not directly related to the specific events in a particular case."

    "Legislative facts" may have to do with arguments that lawyers make about legislative intent: what was the intent of the legislature when they passed the law around which the trial or some ruling hinges. Legislative intent is something that judges are supposed to take into consideration when weighing judgement. It is basically a way for the lawyer to argue to the appellant judge that the trial judge made in incorrect ruling on a point of law. But more often they will cite case law. Though since I'm not a lawyer, jailhouse or otherwise, I could be totally wrong.

    The document I uploaded above is missing two slides (11 and 12) that the one sent to Darden probably had.

    Where did you get these slides? Do you remember where in the court documents the Chinese presentation e-mail attachment is mentioned?

    Josh - there is no Chinese investment - period. Pull yourself from the Planet Rossi kool-aid funnel - you're starting to bloat.

    I'm not drinking the kool-aid anymore, Dewey. I remember seeing it in the documents but might be mistaken. How do you define "investment" here? Do you mean investment in IH? Or investment in Ni-H technology? Or investment in LENR?

    On what occasion was the below attached presentation used?

    Isn't that the presentation that was attached to an e-mail sent to or from Darden in August/September 2015? I remember seeing it mentioned in one of the court documents but couldn't find it again...

    Speaking of amounts obtained by IH, from the article:

    We really need someone OCD to clear up the question of how much IH raised from various parties. My guess: not anything even close to the $250 million claimed by ele, except possibly in assurances.

    I think the confusion has to do with the Chinese investment. There I have seen the $200 million figure thrown around (no I don't remember where but I'm pretty sure it's correct). However, that money was not a (direct) investment in IH per se, but rather a commitment from the Chinese government to fund an R&D program with some (unknown) degree of collaboration with IH. I don't know how much of that was predicated on IH's rights to Rossi's IP in China. I also don't know if they followed through with that in light of the lawsuit and IH's newfound position regarding Rossi's IP.

    I assume this joint venture is related to the Nickel-Hydrogen research center that Tom Darden was involved in:…-center-in-tianjin-china/

    However, I also assume that the $200 million investment figure is icing on that cake, because the court documents show that Darden was wooing Chinese investors well into the second half of 2015 while the test was up and running (and they visited the Doral site more than once).

    But it would be wrong to say that the Chinese invested in IH. However, it would not be wrong to say that IH used the Doral site operations to raise substantial investment money -- even if that wasn't money invested directly in IH. And if it's still in operation, then that means that IH has two ongoing R&D operations related to LENR -- one with the Chinese and one with LaGatta. Damned curious to know what they are working on if Rossi's tech is bunk.

    An homage to Dewey Weaver , in memes:

    How I imagine The Dewey as he swaggers into LENR Forum ready to kick ass and take names after knocking back one too many...

    ...and proceeds to deliver another one of his diatribes with messianic fervor:

    “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities and tyranny of Planet Rossi. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds LENR through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of excess heat. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy Tom Darden and Industrial Heat. And you will know I am The Dewey Weaver when I lay My vengeance upon you.”

    And then he saunters off, too cool to even bother to look back and survey the devastation left in his wake.

    God bless you, Dewey Weaver. Don't ever change!

    If possible, I am requesting that one of the technical hots shots that frequent this site explain this paper from Rossi in language that is easily understandable.

    Axil, you are the chief purveyor of mainstream gobbledygook. If you can't parse this, nobody can. But hey, at least now you know what the rest of us feel like reading your posts! :*

    Don't think anyone can argue with that? And the polite confidence trickster, or less polite scammer, seem decent summaries for such behaviour.

    I am not arguing with that at all. Nor am I agreeing with it. It just seemed to me that somehow the idea caught on that "scammer" was the euphemism that Dewey was talking about. I don't think that's correct. I think he was saying that "confidence trickster" is a euphemism for scammer. I am not trying to defend or attack either position or criticize or support the use of one over the other. I am simply pointing out what seemed to me to be a misunderstanding that started to catch on. Could it possibly matter one way or another? No. But that can be said about most if not all of the chatter here.

    Proper words are not intrinsically euphemisms. Scam is for example, a euphemism for criminal or civil fraud, because whereas scam covers acts ranging from mischievous to Madoff, criminal fraud has an exaclt definition. Euphemisms are by definition evasive and vague substitutes for proper descriptions, which 'fraudster' while being an Americanism, is not.

    I don't think Dewey "Zappa" Weaver was saying that 'scam' is a euphemism. I think he was implying that your preferred alternative, "confidence trickster," is just a euphemism for scammer, which I suppose he prefers.

    Is our Fulvio Fabiani an "analytical chemist"?

    The chances that this is a different Fulvio Fabiani are slim in the extreme. Keep in mind that there is always a gap (often huge) between organizational charts and how organizations actually work on the ground. The fact that he was hired as a 'researcher' through the analytical chemistry wing of the chemistry dept. probably indicates that this is where they were able to find money to hire Fulvio. One presumes he is there to assist whatever ongoing research they are doing into LENR, rather than doing his own research. Universities are very bureaucratic, and I imagine Swedish universities are even more so. In this case, they may have had money allocated to hire a researcher, and that is the designation they gave him. Alternatively, they had to hire him as a researcher to satisfy the pay scale he demanded. Or, maybe he's not being paid and this is just a courtesy appointment. Hard to know, but I find any of these options more plausible than that this Fulvio is a different one. I also googled his name and the word 'chemistry' and didn't find anyone else with that name who has a career in chemistry. If there really was a chemistry researcher with that name, I think something else would have come up. It didn't.

    The fact that he is listed in the analytical chemistry unit of the chemistry department actually makes some sense. Analytical chemistry is defined as "the science of obtaining, processing, and communicating information about the composition and structure of matter." So it makes sense that the physics guys would be working with an analytical chemist, and the fact that Fabio is listed there likely indicates that someone in that faculty has been enlisted to help the physics guys with their work. After looking through the research done in that unit, my money is on Per Sjoberg, who works with mass spectrometry. On the web page of his group it's written "Mass spectrometry (MS) is a powerful analytical technique and as MS separates and measure ions in the gas phase it is of great interest and importance to understand how the detected ions reflect the sample composition." Under research areas we find that they are interested in "fundamental understanding of ionization" and "characterization and detection of non-covalently bound metal-organic complexes, especially Palladium."

    But regardless of the specific areas of research, it makes sense that they'd be working with someone who has a mass spectrometer in his lab.

    EDIT: Clearly I didn't do my due diligence with this post. Clearly the most likely suspect for Fabiani's position is Roland Petterson (Lugano report co-author), as Andrea S. pointed out a couple of posts above.

    If you want to ban astroturfers and shills how do you go about that?

    I don't want to ban astroturfers and shills, and that's not at all what I suggested. I was talking about people who accuse others of being shills and astroturfers. The absurd thing about all this is I don't really care if people accuse others of being shills or astroturfers. It doesn't bother me. But apparently it rubs Eric Walker the wrong way, and he has banned people and threatened to ban them for making such accusations. But he does so in a biased way, and my suggestion was to try to take the bias out of it.