Posts by joshg

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not agree with you, and neither did I.H. Rossi was the only one who wanted to do a long-term endurance test. I.H. let him do that after they exhausted their own efforts to confirm the heat with their own tests. I think by that time they had little hope it would work -- they talked about a "1% chance."

So in that case Darden must have told Woodford that they only let Rossi do the test because they had failed in their exhaustive efforts to replicate and this was a Hail Mary with about a 1% chance of succeeding. Oh and would you pretty please give us $50 million?

Isn't that right? And if he didn't, then clearly he mislead them and the Chinese. Thank you for clarifying this issue for us, Jed, although it was already perfectly clear for anyone with eyes to see and brain to think.

Quote from JedRothwell

Rossi was the only one who wanted to do a long-term endurance test. I.H. let him do that after they exhausted their own efforts to confirm the heat with their own tests. I think by that time they had little hope it would work

IIRC, they hired Murray after the 1MW test began, and one of the things they had him work on was rigorous testing of a Lugano-style reactor. So clearly they had not exhausted their own efforts before letting Rossi proceed. In fact, Murray was quite dismissive of Dameron and IH's capacity prior to hiring him to assemble an engineering team. That was in Spring/Summer 2015. So their efforts up until then apparently left a lot to be desired. Cassarino's (Ampenergo) testimony supports his view.

Quote from JedRothwell

It reminded me of the graph in Mizuno's book showing heat after death

Murray said they also tried to confirm Mizuno without success. What are your thoughts on that?

Quote from Eric Walker

Sifferkoll banned for two weeks.

And another one bites the dust. I have to say I'm not surprised that Dewey was banned first. You know what they say: ladies first.

(I'll show myself out.)

Quote from sifferkoll

Reading through the testimonies it is obvious that IH has a carefully chosen (by JD) script to follow to build their narrative (blame Lugano, blame their own stupidity when needed, being knowledgeable when needed, etc.), while Rossi more or less tell stuff like it is.

I don't get the sense that Rossi is telling stuff like it is. But I also got the impression that there is a script IH is following to paint a particular narrative. Another element of the script you didn't mention: "if there was even a 1% chance of this working, we were willing to <insert any harebrained, nonsensical, self-contradictory, self-defeating thing we did>."

Two things I haven't found in the depositions. Perhaps someone here can point them out?

1. A statement from Rossi about what was going on between the time that the ECAT was delivered to Raleigh and the time it was shipped to Florida. He has said on his blog that they dragged their feet with the the test; they say they wanted the test to happen in their workshop in Raleigh. I wanted to hear a first-hand account about that period but didn't stumble upon it (I haven't searched far and wide for it.)

2. A statement from Rossi about why he made changes to the 1MW set-up when it arrived from Raleigh. For example, what is his explanation for why he removed the steam trap and condenser?

All I can say is that IH is really getting their money's worth from APCO Worldwide. I am not going to continue this pointless discussion because I can tell when I'm being gaslighted. If someone wants to pay me for it I'll gladly take a side and keep writing

For the record I read both summary judgments and many of their supporting documents. My opinion stands: Darden et al. raised $250 million dollars on fraudulent grounds. If they were completely honest with Woodford and the Chinese (which there is plenty of evidence against) then the accusation of pathological incompetence shifts to them.

Quote from sigmoidal

Please show how you know Darden's motivation.

Sorry, but I already wasted enough time reading through the documents. Not going to piece together a case to prove it to you. All you have to do is look at the exhibits that Rossi's lawyers cite in their motion for summary judgement for evidence that IH was treating it as a GPT. Then look at Darden's and Vaughn's statements in their depositions about this issue and see how they tap dance around it, tripping over their own tongues to worm their way out of admitting they considered it to be a GPT and represented it as such to Rossi. Maybe they are just doing that avoid getting sued for $89 million. But then that would be some kind of perjury.

It's funny, because pretty much all the pro-IH posters keep telling Rossi supporters to look themselves hard in the mirror and wake up to reality, while they themselves engage in some kind of unreflective hero worship of Darden and IH. Snap out of it! I've got news for you folks: there are no angels in this sordid saga.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What you find inconsistent is perhaps that Rossi treated this as the GPT and IH did not. Anyone studying Rossi should not be surprised at this misrepresentation.

I think one problem here is that it seems you have not read the legal documents much if at all. Or at least less than I have. So I'm basing my statements on my reading of the documents, whereas you are basing yours on... I'm not sure what.

What I've read makes it very clear that Darden et al. were trying to have it both ways: they appear to have deliberately mislead Rossi, leading him and others to believe it was the GPT while trying to make the case in their depositions (poorly, I might add) that they did not view it as such. But the evidence from some of their own personnel indicates that they viewed it as the GPT and Penon as the ERV. Basically, they wanted to have it both ways: "heads I win, tails you lose." (Where heads is 'if the test is positive' and tails is 'test isn't positive'.)

It's actually an interesting question: they say in their depositions that they didn't view it as the GPT, that the proposed second amendment was not valid and that the time for the GPT had already passed. So I wonder if they would have paid the 89 million if they felt the 1MW test was actually a success. In any case, it's quite clear that they are not innocent victims, even if Rossi is a fraud.

Quote from Shane D.

By your logic, the bank should be held accountable for being robbed...

Doing so though, may make you feel good and buy you a little more time to believe.

Shane D. : No, here is my logic: Imagine the bank President is leaving his bank and sees an armed man with a mask walking towards the door. He holds the door open and continues on his way without alerting the police, knowing that if the man robs the bank his insurance company will pay back the money plus extra compensation for damages (not a realistic scenario, but go along with it for the sake of the metaphor). The man robs the bank. The bank president collects the insurance money without telling him what he knew and did, all the while complaining about being robbed. That is a more accurate analogy. And yes, in that case I think the bank president shares some of the blame.

I'm not trying to buy more time to believe. This is not a situation where if IH is wrong, then Rossi is right or vice versa. Both sides appear to be behaving like slippery snakes, as I stated in my first post in this thread. The only side I'm on is promoting LENR for the betterment of our world and the easing of human suffering. And that's not what I see here on either side on the basis of these documents. Yet I still naively cling to the hope that at some point in the future I will be surprised by Rossi or IH or both. But I won't hold my breath.

In fact, I am now regretting I ever opened my mouth on this thread. I wish I could let all these illogical statements and misrepresentations and all-around FUD just roll off me and move on with my life, but alas I am not built like that. So I get sucked into these ridiculous discussions. I'm going round-and-round through the doors of perception with THHuxleynew . When I tell him that Darden knew the test wouldn't be valid, he tells me that Darden was betting on the customer. Then when I tell him that Darden had good reason to not trust the customer, he agrees with me and just tells me they were trying to keep Rossi happy while trying to get his technology to work back in Raleigh. I find that highly dubious. I have not seen any indication in the documents that the test was necessary to keep Rossi "sweet." I have not seen anything to indicate they would spend something like $200,000 (roughly) to make that happen. I have not seen any indication in the documents where they say that this was their motivation. But perhaps I stand to be corrected.

I nevertheless have the strong impression that Huxley is not engaged in an honest debate but merely shifts the grounds of the debate endlessly hoping at some point that I will either not know where I stand or give up. I know where I stand, because the ground here is firmly logical. But I do give up! Arguing with you is almost as bad as arguing with ... what was that guy's name? Thomas something. Oh the memories... Huxley, you may continue on with your slippery arguments and illogical conclusions without me.

See my replies interspersed below with -->:

Quote from THHuxleynew

As you say - I don't think a back and forth will help here, but equally it is worth making clear the points of disagreement. Which, from this post are:

(1) I'm not saying anything associated with Rossi is the litmus test.

--> I never said you said that. You said that the customer usage would be a litmus test.

my point about the customer is that if there is a real customer (which could reasonably be established) that and the F&P records would be independent of Rossi. This is hypothetical, and Darden did not assume this would happen, but it represents a possible good outcome from the test.

--> There's a lot of "IF's" and wishful thinking here. I have a sense that you have not read through Darden's depostion. I think it's clear from his statements that his due diligence on the customer basically amounted to having dinner with Rossi and his lawyer. You'd think if so much was riding on the customer's data, he would have been more diligent. You say all he needs is the F&P records. But what would he compare them to in order to make a conclusion about how much energy the Customer was using from the 1MW plant? Would he compare before and after records? There were none! And he had no reason to think there would be, nor did he investigate this issue. Again, was he just pathologically bad at due diligence?

(2) Darden would know whether Rossi had something through a long process of testing and retesting all of the IP provided by Rossi. These are reactors that tested some high COP in the Levi/Penon/Swede tests but did something different for IH. You will note that they had some illusory successes here getting COP > 1 on occasion. So at least till the time they signed that contract they had reason enough to hope, with the scientific evidence partly positive. At that point the criticisms of Lugano were not as clear as they are now.

One additional thing (not sure whether we agree over this). The Lugano test was a game changer. Had it been as billed, and not scientifically very wrong, it would have been the best ever indepenent demo of convincing commercial LENR. A big inducement and something that I think allowed IH significant hope, as you can see from Darden's contemporaneous letter.

--> This is all irrelevant, as Darden had no reason to believe any data he would have gotten from the 1MW test. Again, even if "it worked" he knew that he would have no way of knowing it due to Rossi's changes. I feel like we're going around in circles. So let me say it again so it's clear: Darden's belief in the possibility of Rossi's technology working (of whatever size and for whatever reason) is completely irrelevant, because he knew the data would be unreliable and the test would not be able to indicate whether the technology worked. Since he knew that he could not prove the technology one way or another with the 1MW test, there was no reason for him to allow it to proceed and PAY for it.

(3) I'm pretty sure he shared his misgivings with investors. We have information from them saying this (not sure how much of that from the Discovery data dump?) and he would be in big trouble now (more suits) if he induced investment without full disclosure. You can make up a story in which Darden was fraudulent, independent of Rossi, but it seems weird. Why would he do that? He was making quite enough money with Cherokee from genuine high-risk investment.

--> It's possible. I haven't read those parts of the documents. From what I did read it seems that the caveats to investors were very cleverly crafted. If he was completely candid with them about the fact that the data from the 1MW could not be trusted and that the customer's president was Rossi's lawyer, then the other investors would also be guilty of the pathologically bad at due diligence charge. I can come up with lots of possible motives for him to risk a lawsuit. But that's not the point. Many people ask similar questions about Rossi's motives -- why wouldn't he just take the 11.5 million and run? Why this? Why that? His actions also don't seem logical for a fraudster. I can come up with lots of possible motivations for Rossi and for Darden. But it's beside the point.

And if you listen to his public speeches it seems likely that he is a genuine altruist hoping to make money from ultra-high risk investment that might save the world.

--> Yes, it really does seem that way, doesn't it? I admit he had me sold for a time. Rossi also talks a good game and seems very genuine. So do politicians. But actions speak louder than words. Anybody can say anything they want, and some people are really good at making it seem like they really mean it. It has taken me an embarrassingly long time to learn to stop trusting what people say in the face of overwhelming evidence that I shouldn't. I guess I want to believe the best of people. I have finally absolved myself of that naive delusion.

Display More

Quote from THHuxleynew

I don't see that trusting Rossi's measurements - something no-one in their right mind would do - enters into this.

I'm tempted to get drawn into a long back-and-forth with you about the ins-and-outs of this issue, but I don't feel like it and have other things I need to be doing. My last word on it is this:

If you can't see how not trusting Rossi's measurements doesn't enter into a decision to spend tens of thousands of dollars every month, then I don't see what the point of the discussion would be. The case is clear. Darden is either a businessman with "astonishingly poor judgement who is pathologically bad at due diligence" or he had an ulterior motive (and maybe still does). It's one or the other.

You're saying that he was willing to let the customer be the litmus test for whether the thing worked, since he couldn't trust Rossi's measurements. But he had many reasons to doubt the customer's legitimacy before agreeing to the test. You want to tell me he was willing to ignore all the warning signs, cross his fingers and hope for the best because of a 1% chance that Rossi had something? How would he even know if Rossi had something?

But how much do you want to bet that he never shared these misgivings with Woodford or the Chinese? You think he told Woodford that he felt the instrumentation couldn't be trusted and that the customer's President was Rossi's lawyer who had no manufacturing experience, let alone any clue what they were going to be doing? No chance.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Darden is I guess too sophisticated to do this with normal investments but in the special once on a lifetime case here you can see how he might, and therefore continue backing Rossi enough to keep him on board until 100% sure that the stuff he had given them could never be got to work.

Except that the court documents seem to establish that Darden believed the results of the Florida test could not be trusted given Rossi's alterations to the apparatus. And he believed this before the test started. So even if he thought there was a 1% chance it could work, he apparently believed there was no way to determine if it worked at all. So it just doesn't add up. Or am I missing something?

Quote from interested observer

I have no desire to be on either team.

You can say that again. Reading through these documents, I have the feeling that I've been lowered into a snake pit to let them slither all over me. I'm going to need to take like 10,000 showers to get the ick off.

Both sides come out of this looking and sounding like they are up to no good.

I went back to look at my "Cutting Through the Fog" post from a year ago at ECW. I have not gone through all of these court documents thoroughly, but I still don't understand the motivation behind much of Darden's and IH's actions (and inactions) and in my mind most of the questions I raised in that post still stand. At some point, their line about "if it only has a 1% chance to work" just doesn't pass the smell test.

Darden says they knew from the beginning that the 1MW test wouldn't be reliable due to the changes Rossi made to the configuration of the plant after it arrived. And even before that, he was allegedly faced with other examples of Rossi's problematic relationship with the truth (like Rossi saying the Russians stole the charge from a reactor). And yet...Darden still forked over all that money to keep the test going. He still put up with Rossi's refusal to let Murray inspect the plant. And those are just two of many examples.

I completely agree with your assessment that IH looks like "a shell company of venture capitalists with astonishingly poor judgement who are pathologically bad at due diligence." The only other plausible scenario I see is that long after they soured on Rossi, they strung him along and used him to get more investment capital. So they're either incompetent or iniquitous, take your pick. Given Dewey's endearing bedside manner, I'm gonna go with option 2. (Actually there are other scenarios with a more conspiratorial flavor, but no need to go through those here.)

What has become clearer with the release of these documents is that Rossi sure appears to be a pathological liar with an unparalleled gift for fraud. But he seems to have plenty of people who still believe in him and are working with him on developing something, so I guess time will tell... I for one am not going to hold my breath.

Elisha I didn't get your e-mail. Please try again: [email protected]

Thanks

Elisha,

It's so refreshing to see someone else out there who has caught on to Miles Mathis's work. I realized about a year ago that Mathisian physics holds the key to understanding LENR in all of its forms (as well as the Suncell), but unfortunately nobody cares to listen because his work overturns so many closely held beliefs. Here is a link to the most recent update of my paper on Mathisian Physics and LENR. If you'd like to discuss it further, please e-mail me at the address given at the top of the paper.

The paper you quoted from is technically referring to NMR, but of course the accelerated beta decay is the kind of 'excess' power release we see in some LENR systems. Here is his paper with a fuller explanation of NMR. There are two more papers where he hints at the energy potential of what he calls "the charge field."

One is his paper on high efficiency LED lightbulbs where shows that they are able to "tap the charge field," although he does not go quite as far as explaining how they do so.

Another is at the end of his paper on the Weak Force, where he writes:

"Before I conclude, I must point out one other important thing. I showed that the standard model believes the weak force is 10^-11 times weaker than E/M (although it likes to hide the real numbers deep under dimensionless “coupling constants”). But it turns out they are fatally and fantastically wrong in this as well. I have recently shown that the force between the proton and electron is not 8.2 x 10^-8 N, but around 8 x 10^-27N, which is obviously not a fractional correction. Unknown to QED, gravity exists at the quantum level, at a size 10²² above their estimates, and this has skewed all the field equations by huge margins. I will not bother to restate my arguments and equations here, but this means that the force available in beta decay is around 10⁹ greater than the fundamental charge. We have already seen that the real-life energy encountered in beta decay is about 50,000 times less than this, on the order of 5 MeV. But if Fermi was correct, the maximum potential energy in this collision is around 250 GeV. This would make controlled beta decay and similar processes extremely efficient sources of energy.

"In the past few decades we have heard an ever-increasing rumor of “zero-point” energy. Unfortunately, no one knows where this energy comes from. Most stories I have heard give the energy to the vacuum, but, just as I don’t allow my niece to assign her lost toys to gnomes, I don’t allow anyone to assign anything to the vacuum. But in dismissing zero-point energy, I do not dismiss huge pools of untapped energy at the quantum level. I only point out that these pools of energy are not hidden in the vacuum, they are hidden behind decades of bad math and poorly defined fields. And they may be hidden there on purpose."

(BTW, here is a link to his paper on Zero-point energy and the Casimir effect.)

I want to address two other comments above by Zephir_AWT :

1. The pictures you posted of the "Draft Science" guy: that is not Miles. He is also NOT a follower of Miles. If anything he is a critic. (Frankly it's hard to believe you really did not realize that after making the effort to take so many screencaps of different videos of his. Didn't you notice he has 2 videos criticizing the video of the experiment? Didn't you notice he doesn't look like all those other google images of Miles you linked to in your comment?)

2. Based on your "critique" about hollow vs. filled cylinders, it's clear you don't have a clue what is going on in the experiment showing that Pi-4 for circular motion. Hint: both cylinders are hollow. Just like your criticism.

In my opinion the Pi=4 issue is something of a red herring anyway. A tempest in a teapot. Just think of the arc of the cycloid. The arc is 8r, so in essence for the cycloid pi=4. Nothing controversial about that. Miles simply says that in kinematic situations when you want to measure an orbit or motion in a curve you have to treat it like a cycloid and assign pi the value of 4 (or in other words, the distance around the circle is 8r, like in a cycloid). Frankly I don't understand why people try to use that to discredit him. It is a conclusion reached on the basis of a very deep but also very clear and logical argument. From what I've seen people who argue against it haven't really bothered to digest his papers. Either that or I guess people just have really closed minds. But if you refuse to open your mind and continue to insist he's wrong and the experiment is bogus, then you really need to do 3 things:

1. Explain why it's OK to calculate the arc of the cycloid as 8r but not a circular orbit (Ideally after actually reading his extensive papers on the topic and trying to understand his arguments).

2. Explain what's wrong with the experiment and how it is able to exactly produce the same 27.39% difference between pi and 4. Just a fluke?

3. Just see for yourself what he is able to do by making that correction to established physics equations. When you see all the discoveries he is able to make using that correction (among many others), you see that it can't just be an accident. He is right.

As one example of what he's able to accomplish with this correction, here is a paper where he shows what both the fine structure constant and planck's constant stand for and why they have the values that they do. You know, Feynman put the value of the fine structure constant on his chalkboard every morning and said all good theoretical physicists should worry about it. Here is someone who has figured it out and yet nobody in LENR seems to have the slightest interest! It doesn't even pique anyone's curiosity. I really don't understand it.

Quote from Alan Smith

You know what they say? A half-full pipe is better than no Crack.

Alan you crack me up. Hilarious!

Lightning and Super Novae:

http://www.slideshare.net/lewi…s-to-batteries-may-3-2016

Quote from Eric Walker

If Brillouin are talking about electron capture now, I wonder whether this is a new thing

I can vouch for it being at least two years old, but I'm pretty sure this has been Godes's go-to theory since day 1, more or less.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Miles Mathis simply cheated the units... N= Newton!

I am still trying to figure out the answer to your point. I am quite certain that he didn't "cheat the units,"since he is extremely fastidious about such things, much more so than most.

I will show you where I've gotten so far, and I'm spelling everything out so you can see the steps in my logic, which you can then correct if you find a flaw.

He wrote in the dark2.pdf paper that:

"1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)"

Well,

1C = A * s

The C is a coulomb, A is ampere, and a coulomb is an ampere-second.

An ampere is 2 x 10^-7N

N (newton) is equal to m*kg/s2

(It is the amount of force needed to accelerate 1 kg of mass a the rate of 1 meter per second squared.)

So an ampere can be written as 2 x 10^-7 m*kg/s^2.

But a C is an Ampere-second, so that means you multiple the ampere by seconds, in which case the (presumably) correct equation should be:

2 x 10^-7 m*kg/s

So it appears to me that your "correction" was wrong. Were you cheating like you accuse Mathis of? Or were you just mistaken? I'll assume that you were mistaken (perhaps did the math sloppily), rather than cheating. I think you should assume the same of Mathis unless he provides you with some kind of evidence that his mistakes are deliberate.

Now, I still don't think his equation in the dark2.pdf paper is mistaken. But it appears to be based on an unstated assumption that allows him to cancel out the length, or to treat it's value as 1. He is concerned here with a mass, not a force, and the additional m/s in the Newton gives you the force. I believe it's related to this statement in his paper on the fine structure constant (milesmathis.com/fine.html), where he also uses that value for Coulomb derived from the Ampere (and which I already pointed out):

"Now let's look at the dimensions. I have a force; the standard model Coulomb reduces to kg/s or Ns/m. But remember that the standard model is not too picky about its dimensions. The cgs system is still used, and in that system charge was kg or Ns2/m. Yes, before SI, charge used to reduce to mass, although they never promoted that fact. So the dimension changes with the system. It changes again with my system, so that charge is a force, not a mass. I can change the dimensions without changing the number, because s/m reduces to one in my mechanics. Charge is the mass of the photon field, but a mass cannot give us a strength of interaction or a force by itself. You need a mass and a velocity, as I have shown elsewhere. This will give you a field strength, which will give you a force. Well, velocity is m/s. If you multiply s/m by m/s, you get one, and the field dimension reduces to N."

But again, I'm not sure, and that answer arguably raises as many (or more) questions as it answers. I haven't been able to find a clear answer from any of his other papers. I will e-mail him about it and see if (and what) he answers.

In the meantime, you might find this paper on Coulomb's constant interesting: http://milesmathis.com/coul.html

Quote from Longview

The proton is, by classical measures, smaller or even much smaller than the electron

Well, that's a good point. But the statement is consistent with Mathis's perspective, since he argues (persuasively, in my view) that the proton radius has been underestimated. In this paper he dissects (or re-analyzes) the classic Rutherford experiments:

http://milesmathis.com/proton.html

Here is an important follow-up to that paper: http://milesmathis.com/prorad.pdf

At the same time, he argues that the size of the electron has been over-estimated:

http://milesmathis.com/magneton.html

http://milesmathis.com/elec3.html

http://milesmathis.com/elecrad.pdf

(And related to both of these is his paper on the Bohr radius: http://milesmathis.com/bohr.html)

As for the electron as a point particle, Mathis rejects the notion of a point particle, since a point has no physical extension. As such, it is a mathematical abstraction and has no place in a mechanical theory of physics. (Here are two nice short papers on his approach to physics: http://milesmathis.com/pre.html and http://milesmathis.com/death.html)

He has calculated a radius and mass for the most elementary particle (in his theory), which is the b-photon or charge photon. That radius is 2.74 x 10^-24 m with a mass of 2.77 x 10^-37 kg. Here is one paper on that, with links to others: http://milesmathis.com/photon.html For him, all the other particles are simply spin states of this basic sphere-shaped particle, which has mass and physical extension in 3 dimensions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

See wiki: 1C = 2 x 10-7 mkg/s2 ... Mills: 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)

This is a proposal for a measurement method, how to define an Ampere: Its not an equivalent relation between C and A. Its equivalent in the measurement...

Sorry about that.

Display More

Sorry about what? Why the smug condescension? Or are you apologizing for not being able to make an intelligible point?

Please try again, because I don't understand what you're trying to get across. I will assume the root of misunderstanding is on my end, so please be a dear and explain it so even us simple folk can understand.

Three points of confusion:

First, I assume when you write "Mills" here you mean Miles Mathis, not Randell Mills. Perhaps you should just call him Mathis to avoid confusion.

Second, I presume from you writing out two equations, one in green and one in red, you're trying to say that the one in green (from Wikipedia, you say) is correct and the one in red (from Mathis's dark2.pdf) is incorrect. Can you please give me a link to where you found the first equation or how you derived it? I cannot find it on Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). It will help me to respond.

Third, I'm sorry but I just don't know what you mean when you write "This is a proposal for a measurement method, how to define an Ampere: It's not an equivalent relation between C and A. It's equivalent in the measurement..."

Do you mean that Miles's equation is proposing a measurement method rather than an equivalent relation? Or do you mean that the equation should be understood as a measurement equivalence rather than an 'equivalent relation'? Or something else? And what do you mean exactly by the distinction between 'equivalent measurement' vs. 'equivalent relation'?

I am hesitant to say more before getting some clarification on the point(s) you're trying to make, but I will say this: Miles is trying to make an equivalent relationship between mass and charge. It's not just a matter of equivalent measurements. He argues that charge can be understood as the force generated by a mass of the charge photons. In his words:

Here are some relevant papers that might help resolve the equation disparity and the theoretical issues at stake:

On the nature of electrical charge (see especially towards the end):

http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

"I have shown that charge must have a mass equivalent. Charge is the summed mass of sub-particles that are impacting the objects being repulsed or attracted. The electrical force cannot be imparted by an abstract field or a mechanically undefined charge; it must be imparted by something capable of imparting force, and the only thing that is mechanically capable of this is mass or mass equivalence."

On Coulomb's equation:

http://milesmathis.com/coul.html

"when you get down to the groundwork mechanics, you find that you need the velocity in order to sum the force. To get the force, you have to know how many particles are hitting your object over some time interval. The density at a given volume won’t tell you that. But if you have a velocity and a density, you can calculate the force, since you then have a field strength. You have both the area of impact and the time of impact"

And also relevant is this paper on where the fine structure constant comes from and why it has the value it does: http://milesmathis.com/fine.html

This quotation from that paper might answer your question about the equation (but I'm not sure in part because I'm not sure where you're getting that equation from):

"Now let's look at the dimensions. I have a force; the standard model Coulomb reduces to kg/s or Ns/m. But remember that the standard model is not too picky about its dimensions. The cgs system is still used, and in that system charge was kg or Ns2/m. Yes, before SI, charge used to reduce to mass, although they never promoted that fact. So the dimension changes with the system. It changes again with my system, so that charge is a force, not a mass. I can change the dimensions without changing the number, because s/m reduces to one in my mechanics. Charge is the mass of the photon field, but a mass cannot give us a strength of interaction or a force by itself. You need a mass and a velocity, as I have shown elsewhere. This will give you a field strength, which will give you a force. Well, velocity is m/s. If you multiply s/m by m/s, you get one, and the field dimension reduces to N."

Here are other relevant papers:

On Maxwell's displacement current:

http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf

http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf

How to unify the constants G, k and alpha:

http://milesmathis.com/k.pdf

As a critic of quantum mechanics, you might enjoy this skewering of an article about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:
http://milesmathis.com/hup.pdf

Oh, and I forgot to link you to these other two earlier papers of his on dark matter/energy:

http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html

"To say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from the total), our current masses are deceiving. They are too small, and they are too small in the amount of the E/M field. To make the correction—to find the real mass—we have to add the E/M field to every mass in the universe. In other words, to make a correction to the total mass of the universe, we have to add the universal mass or mass equivalence of the entire E/M field. "

And here: http://milesmathis.com/mond.html