Posts by joshg

    Thomas Clarke said: "...you do not have convincing reasons for dismissing them."


    What? Unless you show us the specific quotes and links where you got your information, then you do not have convincing reasons for stating them. You are just posting from hazy information. I said why I think the first 3 things you said are problematic (i.e., why they are not convincing), and all you did was disagree and say I'm not convincing? The burden of proof is on you to show us how your 5 things have been stated as such by IH insiders. We know you've got time on your hands, Thomas, so if you want to convince us, show us the quotations from which you reached your conclusions.


    I don't see how 5 backs up 1. So what you're saying is that Darden took Woodford and the Chinese on tours of the 1 MW and said "well, we think this Rossi guy is just blowing smoke up our asses -- we've been trying to get him to show us the goods but he refuses. But you should invest in us anyway because we've got some other risky investments in LENR?" No, sorry, I don't see how 5 backs up 1. If Woodford invested 50 million dollars in IH on that basis, it's an embarrassment.


    Also, this notion that either Fabio or Fulvio are "Rossi's guys" is not supported by any facts. It's just hearsay and gossip. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them had any working relationship (or any other kind) before they were contracted by IH, either to do the validations or to work with Rossi. I remember with Fulvio saying that he was specifically brought in by IH to work with Rossi on the 1MW. I might be wrong on that, but until someone can provide even a shred of evidence that either of them are "Rossi's guys" then I see no reason to agree with that statement. It's just a transparent and dishonest attempt to discredit them. Just because they're Italian doesn't mean they're his guys. That would be like saying that all Americans are Darden's guys. And by the way, Darden brought in an Italian to head of IH's new R&D lab, so he clearly doesn't suspect all Italians of being Rossi's guys just because they're Italian.


    And finally, yes Weaver has clarified that he is nckhawk. Actually it was hilarious, because he got so fuming mad at Sifferkol's questions about Weaver being behind Sifferkol, that he outed himself on Mats' blog, saying 'take down your libel against me on your site!' or something to that effect. He apparently got so mad that he forgot he was posting under and alias. LOL. I'm still chuckling about that one.

    I am having trouble quoting your list of facts, Thomas, but I don't think you've got them all right.


    1. I don't remember Dewey saying that Darden warned them about Rossi specifically, or said they doubted him, but just warned them of the riskiness of an investment in LENR overall.


    2. I don't remember where it was claimed that Rossi didn't allow IH tech people. In fact two of them were there the whole time.


    3. I am not sure if it was Rossi who changed the test setup/flowmeter. I believe Rossi said that the ERV is the one who did this, with IH's knowledge and approval.


    4. Sounds correct.


    5. In addition to this, it was claimed that in the entire year prior to the test (and possibly earlier) IH tried to get Rossi to prove to them that any device could produce any verifiable excess heat.


    Thomas, don't feel bad about the votes. You're only out of step with the people who care enough to use the voting system here.

    @ Thomas Clarke


    I apologize for being so dismissive. Out of all of LENR's indefatigable detractors, you are by far the most polite, respectful, thoughtful and patient, and I do believe your response to my questions deserves a substantive rejoinder. Currently I don't have time, but I will get to it...! I think your point about binary assumptions is very much on target. But based on everything we have heard so far from IH insiders, I believe that assumption has a lot of support. But I'll have more to say when I find the time for a full response.


    For now I will say that it seems clear to me (and I know I'm not alone) that the real issue at the heart of this lawsuit is that Rossi has not transferred all of his know-how (IP) to IH (and Dewey basically said as much ITT), and they are withholding final payment as leverage to have him tell them the rest. And you know what? If I was in IH's shoes, I would be pissed about that as well, since the contract clearly (to me) says that he has to tell them everything he knows. So in this scenario I can totally see where they are coming from. (But Rossi might also have good reasons for withholding, beyond his fear that they will share it with their partners like Brillouin). The main claim that I am incredulous about is the one where IH was never able to get the e-cat to produce (significant) excess heat. (And as much as some here still think that 'not substantiate' is a slippery word without precise meaning, it has been clarified by both Dewey and Jed Rothwell as meaning that they have never been able to get any excess heat from the e-cat, which I pointed out in my original post linked to at the top of the thread.)


    But on top of withholding payment, it seems to me that IH is playing hardball by engaging in a concerted effort (or as Dewey has called it, a PR war) to completely discredit Rossi's technology and ruin whatever is left of his reputation. Indeed, Dewey made a veiled threat that they might really start a campaign of character assassination that, apparently, could even invalidate his patents. So they're not just withholding payment as leverage, they've brought out the big guns (plus the pea shooters trolling the internet) and are threatening to utterly destroy him. Dewey's multiple hints on Mats' blog that Rossi is going to pull the health card during trial could also be viewed as a veiled threat, but we needn't go there. Rossi is either completely and irrevocably detached from reality, or he's got nerves of steel and grapefruit-sized cojones.


    Of course they'd prefer to work with him, as Alain has stated, but they tried that and it didn't work -- at least not to their satisfaction. And ultimately they don't need him, since they've got the license and eventually they'll be able to put together something based on Rossi's technology that they can market, assuming they are not deliberately delaying this tech breakthrough.


    BTW Thomas, I would be happy to hear your substantive critique of Miles's work on PI, but I think it is just WAY too off topic for this thread, as it really doesn't have anything to do with how his theory relates to LENR (which itself is off topic as it is). Feel free to e-mail me at the address given in the paper above if you want to say more about PI. But any comments you have about how his theory relates to LENR belongs here, I think (or in another thread), though you can feel free to e-mail those instead if you like.

    About the broken link to my paper regarding Mathisian physics and LENR, here are two new links, hopefully not broken:


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/icqo…ryGuideMay2draft.pdf?dl=0


    https://drive.google.com/open?…nqCJFoFccdOG5uTUZsa1JWcmM


    Sorry for the delay, but I am in a very different time zone from most of you, so by the time you get going I am already winding down, usually.


    @Thomas Clarke you wrote:


    "So: I'm not sure what you mean in this context. While excess heat could perhaps be viewed as the byproduct of high energy particles, it would be very difficult for high energy particles to be the
    byproduct of anomalous heat since this breaks the second law of thermodynamics."


    I don't mean that the nuclear reactions are byproducts of anomalous heat, but rather that they are byproducts of the process that generates the anomalous heat (which is not itself what we would normally define as a nuclear process). Those nuclear reactions may contribute to the anomalous heat production, but they are not necessary for the production of excess heat. But of course there's no way for you to understand what I mean until you read the document linked to above, since what the argument I'm making is based on a theory that is outside the contemporary mainstream physics paradigm.

    I want to make a comment that is directed at people like Ekstrom and Joshua. Back in March on ECW I posted a sketch of a new explanation for LENR based on a theory of physics that is in many ways at odds with current models (but is consistent with existing empirical research).


    What has become clearer to me over time is the core irony of that explanation, which is this: fusion/decay and the nuclear byproducts of LENR reactions (whether in the form of free neutrons, alpha particles, tritium, or other radiation like X-rays) are not the (primary) cause of anomalous heat, but rather the byproduct of the processes that cause excess heat (which I call the amplification and tuning of charge).


    As Joshua and others rightly point out (along with Steven Jones, whose name will forever be synonymous with calumny in cold fusion circles), there does not appear to be enough byproducts of nuclear reactions to account for the anomalous heat. The explanation I'm proposing addresses those concerns head on by stating that those nuclear reactions are an effect or byproduct of the anomalous heat process, not a (primary) cause of it.


    Here is a link to an updated version of the paper I posted on ECW, which includes an update on my thinking and also now includes an appendix with my attempt at nuclear diagrams of several of the nuclei and compounds involved in the Ni-Li-H LENR process.


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/lc3kkcb4zbkfkkv/Mathisian Physics and LENR - A Preliminary Guide - May 2 draft.pdf?dl=0


    I am reluctant to bring this up again and post this here, since every time I have tried to discuss Miles Mathis's scientific work in on-line forums, people come out of the woodwork to try every way imaginable to discredit and dismiss him, yet I have yet to encounter a single substantive critique of his scientific theories as they relate to understanding LENR. One almost gets the impression sometimes that there is an active attempt to suppress his work.


    Yes, Miles has written very controversial and polemical things, both on science and on other topics as well (he is quite the conspiracy theorist, for example). I am not going to try here to defend him or his "out there" opinions on these matters. I will simply say that his scientific work should stand on its own, to be assessed and critiqued on its merits without resort to ad hominem attacks and other fallacious arguments. I mean, Newton is well known for filling notebooks with delusional rantings (he likely suffered from bi-polar disorder), but his scientific work is monumental. I don’t think Miles is delusional. He may not be (and almost certainly isn't) right about everything, but I am 100% convinced that he is onto something big and revolutionary. Thus if you find mistakes in some of his work, I would encourage you not to dismiss all of it -- don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I believe his theories can be used productively to harness LENR and make the world a better place, and that is why I am trying to gain a wider exposure for his work.


    Having said that, people are still going to respond with ad-hominem attacks trying to discredit him. I know that. I am not going to respond to those, because I have neither the time nor the energy, and I don't see the point. If you are going to be swayed by people's attacks rather than reading and assessing for yourself, then that's your problem. After my experience on ECW, I have decided to engage active LENR scientists and theorists one-on-one with this theory, and I am having some initial success, though I do not have much time to devote to it.


    Undoubtedly someone will bring up his work on Pi, but again I have yet to hear anyone actually explain why his work is wrong. All I hear are people who mischaracterize and misunderstand it. And in any case it is completely irrelevant to the aspects of his theory that can explain LENR. For anyone wishing to read about his work on pi, I refer you to the following papers (especially pi4.html where he shows how according to NASA's own calculations he is correct):


    http://milesmathis.com/pi.html
    http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html
    http://milesmathis.com/pi4.html
    http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
    http://milesmathis.com/manh.pdf


    If people have substantive questions or want to engage in the substance of his theories, I will be more than happy to reply to the best of my abilities.

    I just discovered this thread. It has gone off topic, albeit in a good way. I don't really want to bother with a point-by-point rebuttal of Thomas's response, but it should be clear to anyone with critical thinking skills that his response is both internally inconsistent as well as inconsistent with the assertions that have been made by people with inside information. It may be that I have misunderstood or misconstrued those insider assertions, but nobody has stepped forward to make that claim. Either Darden is a rube, or the story that we are being drip-fed by insiders is wrong.

    3 cheers to your success!!


    I am wondering how long it takes you after powering on the device(s) how long it takes before you can turn on the excess heat. (Maybe there is a range depending on which device you are using.)


    One reason I'm asking is that it was reported that for Lugano, Rossi had to start up the reactor, and it took him awhile (a few hours if I recall) before getting the reaction going and turning it the controls over to the replicators. The reason given was that the start-up required some finessing and he wasn't ready to give away that secret. So how long does it take you before you can turn on the excess heat?


    Also, have you discovered any trade-offs: for example, do you get more excess heat if you wait longer before turning on the excess heat?


    THANKS!!

    Yes, clearly Parkhomov was tasked by the Russian government and sent to Padua along with two beautiful accomplices to muddy the waters and send a message to Rossi. It all makes sense now! You're a genius!


    FrankCensor, it is now abundantly clear from what you've written here that Frank censors you from e-catworld not because he disagrees with you but because you're an ignorant blowhard. He clearly doesn't want to muck up his site with your idiotic drivel.


    Folks, it's all fine and well to carry on a reasoned discussion with impassioned skeptics, but let's not feed the trolls...

    Three sets of questions:


    1. Many people are concerned that Rossi himself was the one to turn the reactor on and off and also to insert and remove the charge. Can you explain why his intervention at each of these steps was necessary? What is involved in turning the reactor on and off? Also, can you tell us what steps were taken by the researchers to ensure that the extracted charge (ash) was not somehow switched by Rossi after he extracted it from the reactor?


    2.Figure 5 of the report shows a picture of the PCE-830 device "downstream from the control unit." On the screen it appears that the unit is reporting overload ("OL") on numerous parameters, indicating that the unit is being used outside its range, which would presumably render it unreliable or simply inaccurate. What can you tell us about the OL parameters and the reliability/accuracy of the device under these conditions? Did the upstream device also show "OL" for the same parameters?


    3. Is it possible that the device drew high frequency power from the mains that was undetectable by the power meters due to being outside the measurement range of the device?