Posts by joshg

    Molecules behaving like photons. Nyer nyer.really bends the head

    Double slit experiment results are no longer mysterious or head-bending once you realize that the interference pattern is created not by the photons or electrons or molecules or whatever is channeled through the double slit. Rather, since the baryonic matter in the wall/barrier where the slits are is itself radiating or emitting charge, the gaps (slits) in the wall create an interference pattern in the radiating charge field, which then then affects the larger particles. That's why even one molecule emitted at a time creates an interference patter. It's not interfering with its other potential selves in some kind of mysterious or mystical way! It is simply guided or funneled along by the maxima and minima of the charge field interference pattern created by the double slits. To quote from

    "In every analysis of this problem and this experiment to date, the analysts have over-simplified the problem. They have assumed, without even putting the assumption into words, that the experiment is taking place in a sort of void or vacuum. The only things they look at are the slits and the photons. But the slits and the photons are not the only important players in this field. Even if you ran this experiment in a vacuum, with the walls and the photons as the only objects in the vacuum chamber, you would still not have a void, since the walls are still material objects. As such, they must be emitting an E/M field. The wall, even in a vacuum, is radiating a field all the time. It is this field that the photon must move through.

    "I have proved in several previous papers that the charge field, if defined mechanically, must have mass equivalence. If it has mass equivalence, it must have materiality. In other words, the field that mediates the charge between proton and electron must be made up of discrete particles itself. What is now called the messenger photon cannot be a virtual particle with no mass or energy. It must be a real particle and create a real field. In my most recent paper on this subject I have already given this messenger photon a new name (the B-photon) and a definite radius (G times the hydrogen radius), so I feel very qualified to use this particle to explain the two slit experiment. I have not dreamed up this field as a virtual field, a summed-over field, or an ad hoc field; I have shown the physical and mathematical necessity of it, and its place in Newton’s gravitational equation.

    "This being so, we must now recognize that our central wall in the two slit experiment must be radiating this field (I am talking about the wall ... which contains the two slits). Our single photon must be moving through this field emitted by the central wall. This changes everything in regard to the experiment. The first thing to notice is that we have interference patterns set up by the slits even before the single photon is emitted. If we know that every atom in the wall is emitting this field, as a simple bombarding field, the two slits will create an interference pattern in the field without a single particle moving through the field. The interference patterns are already there! ...

    "The only problem is that we cannot “see” this field. It does not create any lines in the far wall, since B-photons are not the same size or energy as the single photon we put through the device. Our far wall is chosen because it is made of a material that reacts when the single photons (or electrons, or whatever particles we are using) hit it. But it does not react to the foundational E/M field. It does not react to B-photon radiation. This field therefore remains invisible to us. We don’t “see” the interference patterns until a large enough particle moves through the field. The motion of this particle through the field and its reaction to the far wall give us our only data. The experiment is not set up to give us any data about the B-photon field, except indirectly.

    "It is true that the B-photon field does not create exactly the same patterns as the series of single photons. If we want to be very rigorous, we can actually draw the field set up by the B-photons and the two slits, and find the interference nodes of that foundational field. Then we let the single photons go through field, and we see how they must be funneled through that field, by direct contact with the B-photons. This funneling creates a second, dependent field. Both fields will have a definite pattern, completely determined by the primary emission, but the secondary pattern will not be equivalent to the primary pattern, for what I think are obvious reasons.

    "This simple mechanical explanation not only solves the single photon problem, it also shows why different particles are affected in different ways by the same field. It is quite easy to see that an electron will be funneled by this B-photon field in a different manner than a photon, due only to the size difference. If the photon is like a baseball moving through a field of golfballs, the electron will be like a bowling ball moving through a field of golfballs. Put simply, the electron will be funneled much less efficiently. It will resist the field more successfully, and the field will be upset by its presence to a greater degree. All this will now be visualizable, predictable, and mechanically transparent, due only to the discovery of the pre-existing interference pattern and the real field that creates it."

    that Mathis site is very interesting indeed. Can't say I understand half of it but is very interesting.

    You said you have a background in engineering. That should be more than adequate to understand his work -- it's all very clearly explained and he prefers to keep the math as simple and straightforward as possible. It's more transparent and less fudge-able that way. But here is a paper on what causes rainbows that requires no math:

    From Miles's paper on the anomalous magnetic moment:

    "So, rather than push that equation with manufactured loop corrections, we will correct it directly, by
    adding the charge field of the Earth back in. That should take the equation from a theoretical equation
    to an equation in a real field.

    "To do that, we have to realize that both e and h will be affected by the Earth's charge. In my paper on
    Millikan, I showed how the charge field of the Earth enters the equation for e, causing a .0973%
    change in e. That is, .009545/9.81 = .000973. We divide the Earth's charge by it's solo gravity to
    discover how much of the unified field is due to charge. That is our correction to e."

    This is pretty old stuff standard physics QED used 40? years ago as a first approach for the electron g-factor...

    So you want us to believe that 40-ish years ago somebody had already realized the Earth was emitting a charge field of real photons, calculated the field strength and used it to correct these equations? Nope. Sorry. Didn't happen. There is nothing standard here.

    If the train can measure Doppler effects accurately, surely in doing so it has calculated its own speed in doing so.

    Do mean that in calculating the relative doppler shifts, the train implicitly calculates its own speed in relation to the two lighting strikes? I'm not sure he would disagree with that. I think he's just saying that the train doesn't need to know its own speed prior to doing the calculations. But there is something I might be missing here. It's also possible that he's wrong on this. I think the man is a genius, but that doesn't mean he's infallible. But it would be wrong to jettison the life preservers with the ballast.

    I encourage you to read the link I provided at the end of my post to his gloss on relativity, because he has kind of a different take on it than I've seen elsewhere. It might help clear up this quandary you're having. It also includes a solution to the twins paradox just for fun.

    Compare that with the principals of a large VC, and one of the biggest ever worldwide Investment Trusts, conspiring to deceive investors...

    No, again, that's not what I was saying. The scenario I speculated on was that they were both conspiring to take advantage of an inventor they had invested in and whose IP they had partly acquired. In that scenario, Woodford would have done this for the benefit of his investors, not to deceive them. That doesn't seem so far-fetched now, does it? Or do you think something like that has never happened and it simply beggars the imagination?

    that refers to Rossi's test results not the (potential) real validation from an external customer

    Sorry, not biting. They knew well in advance that the 'external' customer that was a shell company set up by Rossi's attorney with a production process controlled by Rossi. They tell us he assured them it was Johnson Matthey, but I am frankly skeptical that Darden and Vaughn are that gullible. Again, something stinks. I also note that there is nothing in writing that corroborates their statement that Rossi told them it was Johnson Matthey. Also, Rossi allegedly told them that the customer would 'go public' 90 days into the test if they were getting positive results. So when that happened, they should have known something was wrong with the customer. By that point they had Woodford's money, but they were still bringing in potential investors AT LEAST as late as August.

    But I won't let you take my eyes off the ball, because you still haven't answered my central question: did Darden et al. mislead Woodford by failing to disclose all of their misgivings and doubts about the test? I provided evidence that they did not provide full disclosure. All I've heard in response is: "that wouldn't be logical." I can give you a bunch of examples of IH acting illogically, so that's hardly an iron-clad defense.

    If we are comparing theories, personally I am rather taken with Hotson...

    This is very interesting, Alan. Thanks for sharing. I'm still trying to digest it. It seems he and Miles Mathis are in agreement on the absurd, illogical and unphysical nature of Quantum "Mechanics" and QED. But there is much they disagree about. Below I offer links to papers of Miles as points of comparison on specific issues:

    Hotson's theory appears to be based on Dirac's equation, which is a relativistic generalization of the Schrödinger wave equation. But Miles has shown that Schrodinger's equation has fundamental flaws, and so Dirac's relativistic derivation has those mistakes built into it as well since he never corrected them. In particular, the "negative energy states" that Hotson seems to build much of his theory on appear to me to be a product of those errors. In this paper, Miles pulls apart Schrodinger's equation and pieces it back together in a relativistic formula:

    Here is another paper of his on the anomalous magnetic moment, which is relevant both to Dirac and the discussion in this thread:

    Both Hotson and Miles rail against 'fudge factors' in physics equations, but Hotson seems (at first glance) to find value in the use of i. Miles has argued that complex numbers are also used as a huge fudge factor. See the second part of this paper:

    If we're going to use Ockham's (Occam's?) razor to decide things, then Miles even has Hotson beat: 1 fundamental particle (the photon) and two forces or fields:

    Hotson also brought up pair production in his article. Here is Miles's paper on pair production, which assumes a solid knowledge of his theory but offers a tantalizing hint about 'fractionated' energy release in the final paragraph:

    Hotson also brings in Zero-Point fluctuations or energy, which Miles has also written about:

    As for the question of the aether, which Hotson also mentions, here are some papers of his on that topic, including his take on the Mickelson-Morley experiment:

    And as a bonus, apropros of nothing other than proving Wyttenbach wrong, here is Miles's paper demystifying relativity:


    And as we see here anything short of a full victory for IH (possibly even that) can be spun to support Rossi's narrative...

    This is a classic example, from THHuxleynew, of a logical fallacy that has been very common here: namely, that an attack on IH equates to support for Rossi. As I've said many times, I do not support Rossi's narrative. I think he has behaved like a snake.

    This is a classic example, from Josh, of a logical fallacy that has been very common here.

    The argument rests on the idea that anyone could be sure one way or the other....

    In the real world IH will not be certain....

    IH could not be sure about the test's value before it ran.

    This is a classic example, from THHuxleynew, of distorting the facts and twisting arguments that has been very common here. If you read the Darden deposition I linked to in my earlier post, you will see that it is quite clear that before the test ran, they were sure that the results could not be properly validated. "It was not going to be a bona fide test." In other words they knew the test's value was worthless. It's true that they couldn't know ahead of time if the results were going to come back "positive or negative," but they did know that no matter the result, it could not be trusted.

    You do add a new suggestion, that Woodford is maybe complicit in some illegal or immoral activity here. Again with zero evidence. That seems even more of a stretch to me than the IH stinks to high heaven story.

    We are in conspiracy theory territory here

    Yes, you are correct: the assumption built into the "IH wouldn't be so stupid" line is that Woodford is not complicit with IH. (The fact that something about IH's actions stinks to high heaven is not part of the assumption.) It was badly worded. And I agree it's a stretch, but it is also an unexamined assumption, and I like to examine assumptions.

    And yes it would take us into conspiracy theory territory, except that we're already there. But instead of your favored theory that "Rossi conspired with Fabiani and Penon to steal $89 million from IH and Woodford," this conspiracy theory is that "IH and Woodford conspired to steal Rossi's IP for cheap." Those two options are not diametrically opposed, you know. They can both be true. There is also a huge gray area in between.

    Wow, my post about Darden et al. knowing full well the Doral test was bogus from the beginning but still wooing investors got some hackles up. Some responses studiously ignored my contention and questions. For example:

    I disagree with those who find fault with IH because they raised (and attempted to raise) funds from investors speculating on LENR.

    I certainly have no problem with this, nor did I ever indicate that I did. What I do have a problem with is if they misrepresented or failed to disclose what they knew about the inadequacies of the test (meaning, they knew going in that they would never be able to validate the technology from the test) and that they suspected Rossi of fraud.

    We know that Darden and Vaughn were careful to NOT claim that Rossi's technology worked.

    There is a world of difference between telling potential investors that you're not sure if the technology works versus telling them that you do not think the test is bona fide and are worried Rossi is trying to defraud you. Surely you can see the difference. And if not, then there's really nothing more to discuss.

    Others have objected to my inferential leap: they say, how do you know that IH didn't inform potential investors? They must have, otherwise Woodford and others would have sued them. Examples:

    It would be stupid (and unethical if you think about it) for them to NOT inform potential investors about Rossi's stuff. We know from written communications that Darden specifically stated caveats warning that Rossi's 'technology' might not work. We know they have several other technologies they have beneficial rights to, not just Rossi.

    They would be really stupid not to give Woodford their evaluation (honest) and the state of the external validations.

    I don't know that IH were honest with investors. But there is just no evidence they were dishonest, and I can see no motivation for them to be dishonest. They would have destroyed their reputations (maybe not sued, but no-one would trust them) if they were not straight with their investors. It is their business after all, and they have a successful track record.

    If they did not, surely Woodford, the Chinese and the others will take back the money. It hasn't been spent. I expect they could get it back just by threatening a lawsuit. There is now a mountain of evidence proving that Rossi is a fraud. If I.H. represented him as real and got funding on that basis, it would be easy for them prove that happened.

    As far as I know, Woodford has not demanded his money back, so I suppose they told him all about Rossi, all along. Since they told me about their doubts about Rossi, I doubt they would have withheld that information from him.

    There are several questionable assumptions underlying these arguments:

    1. It's not clear that Woodford would sue. A lawsuit would bring a lot of publicity and make Woodford and their 2 1/2 years of "due dilligence" look very, very bad. Even worse than it does already. $50 Million is a lot of money to us but for them it's just a cost of doing business and not to put a spotlight on it by bringing a suit. Besides, if Woodford did indeed invest on the basis of Rossi and other IP that IH had acquired, then they may still be hoping the other IP works out.

    2. I'm not certain about Woodford not asking for some of their money back. I seem to recall an allusion to this in one of the depositions, but I can't find it now. I thought that shutting down Murray's engineering operation was part of that, but I could be wrong.

    3. IH's actions simply don't add up. Something about them stinks to high heaven. And no matter how many of IH's supporters repeat the company line about their pure hearts and noble intentions, it's not going to make the stink go away. Everybody is saying that IH would be stupid not to disclose everything they knew to Woodford and others. Well, maybe there is more that IH knows that they did tell Woodford and others but hasn't been revealed to us. Why should we assume that Woodford is not somehow complicit in IH duplicity? Maybe IH has found some use for Rossi's IP, and Woodford knows that?

    So why don't you attempt to substantiate? All you have done is to claim without any evidence that investors were not informed.

    Yes, I have not lost sight of the fact that I am still making an inferential leap: I don't know that IH didn't fully inform Woodford and others. I went through some of the depositions looking for discussion of a presentation for a Chinese audience that was attached to some e-mail in late summer/early fall of 2015, during the test. My recollection from the deposition was that that presentation touted IH's replications and drummed up Rossi's early results from the Doral test. That would be one piece of evidence. Here are two more I found while looking for that, and I am quite sure there is more where this came from:

    Here is Vaughn describing his site visits to Doral with Paul Lamacraft of Woodford and what he told them about Rossi's technology at that point:

    "And we were saying to Paul Lamacraft we just don't know. We've -- we've not been successful. These experts have apparently. I mean, these are their reports. Here are critiques of their reports. We don't know which way this is going to go." (236-06:242)

    You would think that if Vaughn had told Lamacraft they did not consider Doral to be a bona fide test and that they suspected Rossi of fraud, that he he might have mentioned it at that point in the deposition. But no, apparently he only told Lamacraft "we don't know which way this is going to do." But that's not true: they knew going in that they had no way of verifying the Doral test results. So they knew the results of the test could not be trusted, and they did not consider it a bona fide test from the get go. Yet all the while they are saying in their depositions that they planned on paying him (some amount of money) if the test results were positive. But they knew from the start that there was no way they could know if the results were positive. Am I the only one here who sees the contradictions here? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

    Here is Darden talking about site meetings with the Chinese and Lamacraft:


    "We had a lot of interest in -- in the -- in the technology.· And so there were people who wanted to see it so we took -- there were some Chinese visitors that wanted to come see it about the prospect of becoming manufacturing partners in China, and Woodford wanted to see it.· The Woodford team wanted to see it.

    "Q.· ·The Chinese people who visited, were they 25 interested in making an investment or a JD partnership?

    "A.· ·The real motivation was to take the technology to China.· They might have been interested in or willing to invest in a U.S. company as well.· But their primary motivation was to be the partners for developing the technology in China.· And we said to them, 'We don't know if we have a technology that works that we could use in China, but you're welcome to come see it.'" (214-10:225-6)


    So according to his testimony, he did not tell them "this isn't a bona fide test, and we think Rossi might be trying to scam us." No, he said "we don't know if we have a technology that works." Am I the only one who sees how shady this is? And if they knew the test was not bona fide from the get-go, as he testified, then why would they invite anybody to the Doral site even once, let alone multiple times? Why would you ask an investor to look at a test that you knew to be bogus and possibly being run by a scam artist? Another poster said:

    Paul and Henry (from Woodford) were touring several of IH's supported researchers. By what reason would you think that they could refuse a visit to Rossi while they were here in the states?

    If they were told point-blank "the test is worthless, and we think Rossi is trying to scam us," then why would they bother to go there on at least two separate occasions? It stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. But even if they went just on a lark, it still doesn't answer my questions about whether IH fully disclosed its misgivings about the test and Rossi.

    Lastly, there is one thing I mostly agree with:

    In this situation I think it is just very, very unfair and improper to go accusing people, who may be naive but are doing something rather noble with a long shot bet, of criminal dishonesty.

    I think based on the evidence so far, it is fair to accuse them of criminal dishonesty, though the evidence does not exist to convict. I also don't know if their alleged behavior is technically considered criminal in the eyes of the law. So rather than say 'defrauded' investors I should probably use a euphemism like 'mislead' them or 'withheld pertinent information' or 'did not make a full disclosure.'

    I merely mentioned that “QM is the most accurate theory …”.This is not me making the claim, it has been stated many times. When challengedI merely posted a link. There are many links to physicists explaining in whatsense QED can be claimed to be the most accurate theory. They seem satisfied,personally I wouldn’t know.

    To be clear, I didn't mean to accuse you of bluster and propaganda. I knew you were just quoting the standard line. I was merely trying to show why it is bluster and propaganda. And yes, they do seem satisfied with their theory. It's the best they got (as far as we know). And of course they've also been hoodwinked by the bluster and propaganda of establishment physics -- it's very effective.

    Edit: I just found MM's paper explaining how the equation you mentioned (the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron) is pushed:

    MM is quite entertaining for non physicists.

    Well an astrophysicist who works at Johns Hopkins and NASA wrote the foreward to his first book, using words like "brilliant." So apparently some real, working physicists find more than entertainment in his work.

    In ever found something new on his page, just rearranged, known formulas and a lot (huge pile) of text.

    Then you clearly didn't get very far reading his work. In nearly every paper he has written he has either corrected and rewritten known formulas, completely overturned conventional scientific wisdom, or provided deep new insights into the known formulas and longstanding mysteries and paradoxes. Yes, I find all of that very entertaining, especially his withering criticism of mainstream physics.

    Edit: here is a great example I just found of him rewriting and explaining anomalous magnetic dipole moment formula:

    I have frequently been challenged to substantiate my claim that Darden et al. basically defrauded investors by using the 1MW test to raise $50 million from Woodford (plus some kind of joint research endeavor with the Chinese plus who knows what else). I was always too lazy to go back through and try to make my case again. But here is one of the key passages. It's from 241-01 Exhibit A, Darden's Deposition Excerpts. We see clearly that IH knew from the beginning that the test was jeopardized, and yet we also know that they still brought investors to tour the plant:

    "·1 After the plant got installed in Florida and we saw

    ·2 that Rossi had removed all of the instrumentation and

    ·3 the monitoring access that we had, and as we realized

    ·4 that he was restricting access to it so it was not

    ·5 going to be a fully transparent bona fide test, at that

    ·6 point we became very suspicious.

    ·7· · · · · · ·We realized that it was -- something bad

    ·8 was going on down there.· And we don't want to get

    ·9 thrown in jail for participating in some kind of fraud

    10 so we said we don't want to receive payment from them."

    (Yeah, they only wanted to receive payment from Woodford.)

    So two key questions:

    1) Did IH inform Woodford, the Chinese and other potential investors that Rossi had removed the instrumentation and monitoring access, that he was restricting access to it, and that they felt it was not a bona fide test?

    2) Did IH inform its investors that they were so suspicious of the test being fraudulent that they declined to collect payment for the power they were generating?

    I think the smart money is on "no."

    Any astroturfing would likely be for PR purposes, outside of the trial

    Agreed. IH is not trying to take control of the narrative here to influence the outcome of the court case but simply to manage the impressions of the LENR enthusiast community. Anything short of a full legal victory for Rossi can be spun to support IH’s narrative. That's easy enough to spin but they need also to establish a narrative that puts them in the best possible light: "We are angel investors who are so committed to making the world a better place that we’d even prostitute our own mothers if there is even a 1% chance that it would make the air safe for Chinese babies to breathe. And that conniving fraudster Rossi almost ruined it by taking advantage of our pure intentions and gentle souls." But they also want to be able to spin a Rossi victory as an unfair decision, just in case.

    You see, if they want to position themselves as the saviors of LENR and maintain an active role in the LENR community and the trust of LENR researchers, they have to maintain a positive image no matter what happens with the court case. I don't think it's at all mysterious or even necessarily nefarious. Just sound business strategy and S.O.P. these days.

    The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment

    I think you are confusing measurement precision with predictive accuracy. And you are certainly confusing both with real understanding. If I follow your link, I find this:

    "Tests of a theory are normally carried out by comparing experimental results to theoretical predictions. In QED, there is some subtlety in this comparison, because theoretical predictions require as input an extremely precise value of α, which can only be obtained from another precision QED experiment. Because of this, the comparisons between theory and experiment are usually quoted as independent determinations of α. QED is then confirmed to the extent that these measurements of α from different physical sources agree with each other."

    A lot of bluster that basically means they are comparing experimental results to improve the precision of their measurements. Think of it this way: I can calculate PI to any significant digit you want. It is simply the ratio of two numbers. But then if I want to derive the value of PI by actually measuring the circumference and diameter of some circle, I would need to have very accurate instruments in order to be able to make a precise enough measurement in order to match the observed value of PI to the 'precise theoretical calculation' of PI. All they are saying is that they have been able to measure g and alpha (the fine structure constant) to a high degree of precision.

    But you know what? They don't even know what the fine structure constant is or why it has the value it does. Feynman said that the fine structure constant is "one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics--a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man... 137 has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it."

    He didn't mean that they worry about calculating it out to a precision of 15 or 20 significant digits. He meant that they (should) worry about where the number comes from, what it means, why it has the value it does. And yet to day, mainstream physicists still don't understand where the number comes from. In fac they've given up caring. But here are three papers that clearly and elegantly explains where it comes from and why it has the value that it does:

    Actually physicists tried to use the QM approach to mathematically derive the ground state energy level of helium.

    The exptal value is -79.01 eV.

    Eventually, after three decades, QM approximation methods gave almost perfect agreement with the exptal value,

    BUT the approximation method required 1078!!!!! parameters to be inserted

    Zeno, this is the perfect example of the kind of equation pushing I'm talking about. They had to add 1,078 (unassigned) terms to their equation in order to match the experimental value. Well of course we would expect it to give the right value, even to a high degree of precision: the equation was developed precisely to match the experimental value!

    Mills' IE value differs by 0.0004% from the exptal value

    BUT requires a few fundamental physical constants rather than hundreds of fudge factor parameters.

    Clearly a huge improvement. But we must remember that 'fundamental physical constants' are also fudge factors, because almost without exception their meaning is unknown. As currently used by Mills and mainstream physics, a constant is simply a number that is used in order to make equations match experimental outcomes. That doesn't mean constants aren't useful, but if you don't know what they mean or why they need to be in the equation, then it's a theoretical dodge. Unfortunately we are so used to using constants as a crutch to understanding, that we have become blind to the fact that our theoretical understanding is severely handicapped.

    In contrast, Miles Mathis has explained and derived many of the constants used in our most fundamental equations, including: G (the gravitational constant), planck's constant, the fine structure constant (see links above), c (the speed of light), Coulomb's constant (see here, here, and here), the Cosmological constant, epsilon (the permittivity of the vacuum) and others. He doesn't use a constant unless he knows what it means and why it's in the equation.

    Sure IH are VC's and like most peers will try for example to put the ignorant inventor / entrepreneur through the wringer. However, they suck at doing that. It seems that their way of working has been lousy from the very start. And other, typical VC tasks are as poorly executed.

    Basically everything we see from them is amateuristic. I cannot get my head around what they are doing right. And they should be doing something right don't you think?

    That's the puzzle that led me speculate that IH baited Rossi on purpose, whether to discredit LENR in general or just discredit Rossi while stealing his IP. Again, it's not what I believe; just speculation. It parsimoniously explains IH's keystone cops routine, along with their reluctance to let go of their control over his IP. But at this point I don't really know what to believe, other than that neither IH nor Rossi can be trusted.

    Okay, so you imagine he did not intend to file a lawsuit. So he dismantled the heat exchanger. And then a month later, it suddenly occurred to him that he needed to file a lawsuit. Too late! He already destroyed the evidence that would be needed to win the lawsuit. To save a few thousand dollars, he re-used the pipes, but by doing so he threw away the opportunity to win $267 million in the lawsuit.

    Do you really believe Rossi is so stupid that he would throw away a vast sum of money just to re-use some pipes? Do you believe it did not even occur to him to take some photos of the equipment? It just slipped his mind, even though in his deposition, he admits that without this heat exchanger his claims could not be true.

    No, Jed, I don't think he's that stupid, and I don't think it suddenly occurred to him to file a lawsuit. And if you read the rest of my post, which I assume you did, then you should know that. Same with my earlier post on this subject. So why are you taking my words out of context and twisting them around to try to portray me as believing something I don't? This is now the second time you've engaged in this dishonest debating tactic. I honestly don't understand why, because you and I agree on this point. And yet your tone is that of a rabid lapdog pit bull.

    In any case, your bluster is moot, since the magistrate rejected IH's spoliation motion--unless the judge overrules him. It will be interesting to read the court transcript of that hearing to learn why the magistrate denied their claim.

    So yet again something that you have claimed is obvious and unquestionable, even to the point of contemptuously dismissing someone who actually agrees with you, turns out to have been far more nuanced and less clear-cut than you believe. Your claim has fallen. How many times do you think that can happen before your reputation falls with it?

    ButIH faces now a central deadlock. They cheated the investors, theywanted to frustrate/cheat the others (Mizuno!) in the field and nowthey invested already at least 5mio$ for a useless defense.

    I understood from Murray's testimony that he and his team were unable to show excess heat with Mizuno and others. They went to Japan and also brought Mizuno to North Carolina. I suppose you could say they were trying to frustrate him and others. Or you could argue that once a more stringent testing methodology is established, claims of excess heat seem to vanish. I don't think we have enough information yet to be confident which one is correct. But I agree with your conclusion: beware of wolves dressed in sheep's clothing.

    6000 posts of thermodynamics arguments about flow rates trying to hide where the output of 500 magic steam kettles went. I checked its quite circular too. Stinks of bad double sided managed PR

    I have sometimes speculated on this as well: is it possible that this whole thing (not just the debate) has been manufactured to discredit LENR? If IH is out to destroy or delay LENR, as some have speculated, then nothing would discredit LENR more than showing Rossi is a scam artist. That would explain why IH let Rossi go ahead with and even paid for the test even though they knew from the beginning that it was worthless. This scenario works with and without Rossi being "in on it." Of course people will object to this as ridiculous conspiracy theory and remind us that IH are the innocent victims here. To which I will simply respond: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

    BTW, I am a criminologist by trade as well.

    He should have reasonably anticipated litigation because he was the one who filed a lawsuit! He filed it even before the money was due. Of course he knew that he himself was going do this! Or do you think he surprised himself? Do you imagine he sleepwalked into the court, and before he woke up and realized where he was or what he was doing, he had filed a lawsuit?

    Jed, please calm down. You're getting spittle on my computer screen. No, I don't imagine he surprised himself. But IIRC, about a month and a half passed between the end of the "test" and the filing of the lawsuit. He allegedly dismantled the alleged heat exchanger right after the test, so the filing of the lawsuit took place quite some time after that. It wasn't immediate. So the question then is: did he reasonably expect that he would be filing a lawsuit at the time he allegedly dismantled the heat exchanger?

    Let's suppose that at the end of the test he said to himself: if they don't pay, I'm going to sue. In that case, we would want to know if he could reasonably expect IH not to pay. And based on all the documents in IH's Limine motion (264), I would say the answer to that is clearly yes. Since IH had already made it clear several months prior that they did not consider this the GPT, Rossi had no reason to expect payment. And it's clear he didn't expect it, because the lawsuit was ready to go the moment the payment became delinquent. And it is reasonable to assume that he had planned to file a lawsuit long before that. I guess we'll know soon enough if the magistrate agrees.

    Finally, the question of whether he filed before the money was due is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much time passed between the act of (alleged) spoliation and the filing of the lawsuit, which in this case is about a month and a half. But for the record, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the timing of the filing: IIRC he filed the suit the day after the grace period for payment according to the terms of the contract. Frankly I can't be bothered to look it up, and I might be wrong on this point, but that's what I remember.