Posts by joshg

Quote from IH Fanboy

You see leaves in that? Talk about seeing what you want to see!

No, actually I did not want to see leaves in that. At first I had convinced myself that I could see the outline there of something behind the window, presumably the outlines of the alleged heat exchanger. But I was on my phone Later I looked at it on my computer screen and zoomed in, and it became clear and obvious what it really is: the reflection of the clouds framed by the shadow of trees, leaves and branches. In any case, even if you don't buy that those rectangular shapes are tree leaves, you can also see the shadowy reflection of a palm tree that runs up the entire left side of the window, reflected in both of the panes that appear to be missing in Smith's photo taken later in November.

And it doesn't matter if this is the only picture that clearly shows a reflection on all four panes. That doesn't discount the evidence. One picture is worth a thousand words, or in this case, a thousand forum posts. At this moment, this piece of evidence looks devastating to Rossi's case. It is something that any person sitting on a jury can see as unambiguously demolishing Rossi's claims and credibility. I don't see how it can be explained away, but of course I suppose it's always possible.

Here is a reflection of the similar window one door down at 7857. It's not Rossi's property, but it shows you that a similarly positioned window (middle window, second floor) at a similar angle to the google streetview camera were showing reflections:

Quote from IH Fanboy

The only way to effectively refute my position is to show views in which a reflection is present in the left two panes of the window. Showing views in which no reflection is present does not further your objectives. The best shot we have is from the Smith report, and it clearly shows two reflective panes on the right, and no panes on the left of that window. The only shot that you have that might show a reflection in the left two panes is the cloud/steam one. I provided another possible candidate for you above, but as I pointed out, it looks more like equipment behind the screen.

No, the best shot we have is from the April 2015 Google Streetview pic that Paradigmnoia found that was taken from the far side of the street, apparently later in the day. It clearly shows that there is glass in all panes of that middle window (the one that Wong and Rossi testified was the place where the hot air from the heat exchanger was vented):

Here is the pic that Eric posted via Para, followed by a cropped pic where you can clearly see the reflection in the windows (best to zoom in on your screen). The dark shapes are trees, and the lighter colored part is presumably the sky being reflected. You will notice three dark sort of rectangular shapes on top of the lower left pane under the white border. That is the reflection of leaves from a tree branch, presumably from the leafy green tree in the foreground that has the wires running through it. (I posted this on ECW and somebody said it was odd that there were only reflections in that window. But if you go to the google streetview link and take click down the street (to the right) to 7857, you will see that the same window at that address also has a reflection. I'd say Rossi's goose is cooked.)

Quote from Eric Walker

But would you agree that if the date of the Smith photo is accurate, we can probably set aside E48's suggestion (as conveyed by joshg) about there being screens in the window specifically above the doors?

Just to be clear, E48 only said there were screens in the middle door. I was the one who then made the observation that there also appeared to be screens instead of glass in the windowpanes above the door, not E48. Although he did seem to agree with me. It doesn't really matter, though, because the state of that window is not in dispute. It's the middle window, and Smith's picture quite clearly shows the top and bottom left panes are not glass, as IHFB astutely pointed out (along with calling out Smith's misdirection). But that still doesn't explain the April 2015 Google Streetview photo that Paradigmnoia dug up, which pretty clearly looks like a reflection.

I will say that In Smith's photo of the windows over the door that you pasted in, it seems to me quite clear that there is NO GLASS in the bottom left pane. All the others are reflecting quite clearly except for that one. I don't think it follows that if there was glass in the other panes in November that there was glass in them in April. He could have removed them and replaced them once he realized they would not be needed. I'm not saying that's what happened. I don't even think it's likely that it happened. But as a matter of logic, I don't think it necessarily follows.

Quote from Eric Walker

That is clearly a reflection of clouds that we're seeing, despite imaginative suggestions that it might be steam instead.

Yes, I agree that in that picture we can clearly see glass panes reflecting. And I agree with you that orange and white road construction signage (plus the dark water stains and state of the grass) all indicate it is from the same period as the April 2015 google pics. The only problem is that I cannot find that specific picture in google streetview. I agree with Jed that the "currently shown" means that the picture we are seeing comes from April 2015. One other difference is that the signs in the picture supplied by Paradigmnoia are laid out on the grass, whereas in the google streetview pictures they are standing upright on the street. I would love to get a direct link to that picture on google streetview. But yeah, if confirmed it's very damning.

Looks very interesting. Your experimental results and approaches look very promising. But in my opinion you are on the wrong track (though not nearly as wrong as the mainstream). Of course I know you won't want to hear that, since you've obviously put a lot of work into these models, and they're quite impressive. But that's what I think and no need to pull any punches.

The reason there is an 'equivalence' between between waves and particles is that waves are produced by the "spin state" of the fundamental particle that comprises all matter (a photon that actually has physical extension and is not just a point particle). In other words, as the photon/particle spins, it traces a kind of sinusoidal zig-zag through space -- a sort of wave-like shape. The problem is that we have mathematically described this wave-like motion using field wave equations, but the "wave" is actually a property of the particle as it traces out a wave-shaped path through space. There is a direct and proportional relationship to the energy carried by the particle and its 'size' in terms of wavelength.

In fact, the spin states also explain the reason why light/energy is quantized. It is also the reason why you are able to mathematically "fit" mesons into protons and neutrons: mesons are also created by a state of that fundamental particle that has a spin radius between the electron and the proton/neutron. Since spin states are simply a doubling of the radius of the previous spin state, they all have a very precise and pre-defined mathematical relationship to each other.

The electro-magnetic flux you discuss is mechanically created by the potential created by the flow of these elementary photons as they are channeled or pumped through electrons, baryons, atoms, and molecules (which can also be called b-photons or charge photons).

I realize nothing I just wrote is likely to makes sense to you. Here are some papers that will help clarify, including a critique of the conclusions that have been drawn from Rutherford's scattering equations, and my paper that tries to use this theory to understand LENR:

http://milesmathis.com/super.html

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

http://milesmathis.com/planck.html

http://milesmathis.com/quark.html

http://milesmathis.com/meson.html

http://milesmathis.com/double.html

http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf

http://milesmathis.com/proton.html

http://milesmathis.com/stack.html

http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

http://milesmathis.com/pilot.pdf

And here is my paper that tries to use Mathis's theories to understand LENR:

https://goo.gl/5kgB0G

Quote from THHuxleynew

Of course, if you have High school physics or equivalent, you can validate for yourself my post showing that Rossi's claimed heat exchanger design (22 X 10m of 15cm diameter piping and 50,000m^3/hour airflow) cannot dissipate more than 100kW. I also explain in detail why Wong's estimate is not strictly speaking wrong, but very unhelpful.

Yes I read it and followed along at home. But I don't think it is the last word. You can reach desired conclusions by cherry-picking just as much as Wong can. And I don't view either of you as neutral observers. So I was looking for more concrete data. I thought I had it with the window. But that turned out to have been cherry-picked as well...

Earlier ITT PeterMetz posted a picture from Google Streetview of the Doral facility from April 2015, apparently showing that the window with the heat exchanger was intact. I asked Engineer 42 about this over the ECW, and he posted a comparison of pictures from 2014, 2015, and 2016. They indicate that there isn't any glass in the panes in 2015, but rather screens to keep out bugs. Or in his words "There is a black mesh behind the windows that stops most of the sun and bugs entering the upper story while allowing the heat exchanger heat to pass through."

Another google images picture from April 2015 I just found from a slightly different angle shows something very interesting:

Not only did Rossi replace the middle window's glass panes with screens, he also removed the glass panes in the window above the door and put up screens. I assume he did the same with the third window behind the tree. So it appears that all three windows were open for heat dissipation.

Below is the picture where you can clearly see that although the windows above Rossi's neighbor at 7859 is intact, the panes at 7861 are not and appear to be covered (from the inside) by screens.

After I saw the picture that PeterMetz originally posted, whatever remaining credibility Rossi had completely evaporated. It has now been restored, though I still think the way he represented the customer was sketchy AF. Whatever the case, I can't believe I was duped about this, since it's actually pretty obvious. I should have done what E42 did and compare the same window across the years. Now I understand why IH did not include this in their evidence.

(edit: I realize it's possible that the glass panes are intact with black mesh behind them, but the evidence I took as devastating is no longer devastating, especially after I came to a better understanding of how the heat exchanger was supposedly set up.)

Quote from JedRothwell

aThere is no doubt he did. If he had not, Woodward would have pulled out their money by now, or sued them -- as I pointed out before.

IIRC, in one of the depositions (maybe Murray's), it was implied or stated that Woodford did take some of their money back and that was one of the reasons they had to shut down Murray's engineering operation.

Also, I'm not sure about the lawsuit. I remember when this case broke one of the people commenting on one of the boards who had a lot of experience in private equity said that lawsuits are often embarrassing to the investor so Woodford would likely not sue IH. I cannot find that statement but did not spend too much time looking. I remember it well though since I found it so surprising. Money to these people has a different meaning. Anyway Woodford would probably have a tough case since I'm sure the IH hedged their claims, so it might be hard to make a legal case that they mislead Woodford. However I am quite certain that they were not fully candid with Woodford. I simply cannot believe Woodford would have invested if Darden had been completely transparent about all his now well-documented concerns and doubts about the 1 MW test.

Many thanks, Alan Smith! Be advised that nothing brings out the internet trolls like Mathis's physics. It's almost enough to make one believe "they" are trying to bury his work...

As for the comparison to GUTCP, well I am not that well versed in Mills's model so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. I feel confident that Mills' empirical findings are compatible with Mathis's physical theories. But I find Mathis's theory superior to and more satisfying thatn Mills's. While it's true that Mills calls his theory a 'classical theory' and Mathis's approach is also classical, the similarities pretty much end there. From what I've read of Mills, I would say that Mathis goes much further in delivering a classical theory, and by that I mean he is much more concerned with actual physical mechanics that Mills is. For all his talk about classical theory, Mills still uses math that is often heuristic and that tends to obscure mechanics.

On top of that, Mathis has also gone back and corrected certain equations, many of which Mills incorporates in his work. Just to give one example, Mills accepts the Bohr radius but disagrees with the quantum Copenhagen interpretation of the probability cloud. Mathis also disagrees with the Copenhagen interpretation, but unlike Mills, he rejects the use of point particles in physics as well as the notion of electron orbits as altogether unmechanical. In addition he has shown numerous errors in Bohr's equation and reworked it, showing that (among many other important things):

"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."

I could go on and on, since his numerous corrections have enabled him to unwind and explain one scientific mystery after another with surprising clarity. But just to give one example, his corrections to the Rutherford scattering equations enabled him to solve the proton radius puzzle. As I said in my paper, before standing on the shoulders of giants, he first peered over their shoulders and checked their work. The mistakes he found will astound you.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Your attempt to argue that therefore they are maybe themselves also slimeballs does not seem to have any evidence behind it except that you can't believe they would have been so stupid as to go on backing a slimeball.

You are twisting my argument. I said they were sleazy because they raised $50+ million off of Rossi. And I said they were stupid for keeping supporting him. As for all you other points that they were fooled by the Lugano test, etc., all I can say is that my reading of the depositions led me to a different conclusion. As for IH's statement of material facts, well of course they're not going to state the facts that put them in a bad light. So that's not the document to go by. No, you have to go by Darden and JT and others' depositions, which are themselves already partial and selective but still provide a fuller picture. You are welcome to disagree with me. If I really cared I could go through the depositions and show you why I think what I think, but I don't have time for that. You can keep on spinning it any way you like, but you won't change my mind.

THHuxleynew

Your first post back gave Abd a run for the money. It is very long and yet manages to miss my core point, which is: IH raised at least $50 million and possibly as much as $250 million in investment capital during the 1MW test at least partly on the basis of the way they represented it to their investors. Do you really think Darden told them "we're giving him one last shot at this because we haven't been able to get it to work." Or in your words:

Quote from THHuxleynew

I guess he thought: one last time.

Your ability to produce a huge wall of text while avoiding this central issue is impressive.

Also:

Quote from THHuxleynew

Joshg says that IH now has a scattergun approach towards the errors and issues.

No, I don't recall saying anything like that. It was LENR Calendar who talked about IH flinging poo.

And as for this:

Quote from THHuxleynew

Josh does not like IH's own documented statements about Rossi technology. Initially enthusiastic and later turning dark. This is I think a better candidate for something that smells.

Again, my main problem is how they raised investment capital off the back of Rossi's 1MW test. Are they conspiring to kill, delay or discredit LENR? I don't know. In my mind the jury is still out, and this lawsuit won't settle it. Did they act like slimy businessmen? Sure looks that way to me... Does that mean they deserved to get out-slimed by Rossi? No. But I wouldn't exactly paint them as innocent victims.

Quote from Alan Smith

Would you mind if I were to put it on http://www.lookingforheat.com - as part of our 'research notes' ?

Please do!

Quote from BobHiggins

So, I believe Ni-H is a LENR domain which is capable of excess heat.

Thanks for taking time out to answer my question. It helps me clarify things. I did not mean to derail this thread, which is occupied with far more important and pressing matters (sorry, Alan!). I wish you the best of luck (and skill) with your experiments and fleshing out your hypotheses. I admire your dedication and abilities.

Without derailing the focus of this thread, I want to suggest that if you ever have a down moment and are looking for some interesting reading, you could do worse than the scientific work of Miles Mathis. His papers are not the usually academic slog and are often quite humorous in their biting critique of establishment physics. If nothing else it should give you food for thought. As evidence that it is not complete balderdash, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University and NASA, Tahir Yaqoob, wrote the preface to his first book. Here is my paper outlining his physics and how they can be used to understand LENR (and all "over-unity" energy schemes): https://goo.gl/5kgB0G

If you wish to discuss it further, you can e-mail me at the address given in the paper.

Amazing work you're doing here, Bob.

May I ask you a question? I take it from your comments in other places that you agree that Rossi was engaged in some kind of fraud. Do you think he had anything with the 1MW plant? Do you think he ever had anything? I'm asking because you are working so hard to replicate his technology, and yet if he was defrauding IH, maybe he never had a working technology in the first place (which Jed Rothwell sort of implies). In which case, why the attempt at replication? I'm genuinely curious as to your views on this delicate, complicated and vital subject.

So are many people I expect. But in a more appropriate thread please. Alan.

Quote from PeterMetz

Rossi's facility in Doral had 3 second story windows. Rossi claims to have used one of those windows with fans in the lower two lites to vent hot air out....

Attachment 1 is a Google Street View from April 2015 of those three windows. Attachment 2 is a Google Street View from April 2015 from a different angle.

This is by far the most devastating and dispositive evidence against Rossi that I've seen so far. I don't see how he can weasel out of this. Assuming its admissible in court, he's toast. I am surprised that IH did not include this as evidence in its spoliation motion.

Quote from sigmoidal

And I think if you can't see the difference between this alleged two-bit, three man con and theories of vast conspiracies (even if they might possibly exist in some manner unrelated to Rossi) that shows 'extreme' lack of discernment.

I can see the difference, but it is one of degree not of kind. My problem is with the attitude that a deep state conspiracy against such a potentially revolutionary technology is just completely absurd in principle, which is the impression I've gotten from many posts here.

But I agree with you: I have seen no direct evidence indicating that the deep state is conspiring to discredit Rossi. I do believe there is evidence that Darden and JT conspired to get investor's money on false pretenses, though it is not as strong as the evidence for Rossi's fraud. But you know, they can both be true -- Rossi can be a fraud and IH could have defrauded its investors. Those are not mutually opposed possibilities.

Quote from sigmoidal

If you equate Rossi's 'conspiracy' with 'deep state' conspiracies, well, 'Give me a break' as you say.

Yes, you're absolutely right, two-bit conspiracies happen all the time but "deep state" conspiracies don't exist. How silly of me!

Quote from Shane D.

Looks like we are making some headway. How about we do it this way; since Rossi is a crook, and IH is "double dealing", why don't we apportion 5 parts blame on Rossi, to every 1 part on IH? So you have to say 5 bad things about Rossi, and then you are allowed 1 about IH.

Funny! Nobody is making any headway. At least not with me. I read the documents and come to my own conclusions. The only reason I have picked on IH in my comments is that there are already at least 5 bad things being said about Rossi here for every bad thing being said about IH, and I think some balance is in order. The anti-Rossi argument has been covered and repeated ad nauseam.

As far as I can tell neither side is trustworthy in the slightest. They all seem to be a bunch of snakes. Well, for IH you can choose between being snakes or idiots. But I don't take Darden for an idiot, so I'm going with snake.

I am on the fence about a lot of the technical aspects, and I certainly won't be swayed by anybody's opinion here. I don't know any of y'all well enough to trust anyone's judgement or intent. And since I don't trust Darden and his crew, I can't say for sure he isn't trying to mislead us about Rossi's technology.

I don't like the way everyone, on both sides, seems to be pushing this into an either-or choice: if you say something bad about Darden, it means you're from Planet Rossi; and if you say something bad about Rossi it must mean you support IH. There is simply no reason to push a false dichotomy, and many reasons not to. Nobody needs to choose sides. I am wary of any narrative that promotes a false choice. It is a very effective way of controlling the debate as it is a very subtle method of thought control. (Mods: note I am not accusing anyone here of deliberately engaging in this method.)

I also find it ironic how IH is trying to make a case for a criminal conspiracy by Rossi, Penon and Fabiani, which seems to be supported or accepted by about 80% of the posters here. But at the same time those same posters get their panties in a bunch at the slightest suggestion that Darden et al. might be conspiring in some manner. "A conspiracy? Oh, I doooo declare, that is the silliest thing I have ever heard! Heavens to Betsy! What a crazy conspiracy theorist." Give me a break. It's hypocritical in the extreme.

Quote from Shane D.

Rossi played all the roles. He took us all for suckers!

Yeah, that really pisses me off. "Hey guys, guess what? We found a customer. Heh heh heh." He basically mislead all of his supporters, which included me. So I take it personally. What a schmuck! It still doesn't excuse IH's double dealing, but as I said before: nobody comes out of this looking good.

Quote from PeterMetz

I'm not sure if this is mentioned before but in Document 214 - Exhibit 23 page 8 of the document, Darden says "If Rossi is on track to earn his $89M success fee, then IH may seek up to an additional $150M as early as Q3 " in his "18 Month Business Plan", (7MB file),: http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0214.23_Exhibit_23.pdf I cannot find the date that this document was written and so it might actually refer to the GPT.

The big problem for IH is that there is tons of written and third party evidence for estoppel and only Darden and Vaughn's word for saying they told Rossi no dice. I think they know that and that's why they're so worried.