Posts by joshg

    but in reality he construct's - to my opinion - no new knowledge. A theory is new, if it allows, contrary to an "old" theory, to make 'new' predictions or it allows to better understand 'old' facts.

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest to you not to simply brush him aside after casually reading one paper. He has written hundreds. Over 6,000 pages. Also, his 'simplistic' math is a deliberate choice. He is capable of doing complicated math, but he believes (and has shown) how it's easy to obfuscate and fudge complex math, so he likes to keep it simple. Actually physics before the 20th century used to be done with straightforward algebra. It's quite remarkable what he has been able to accomplish with 'just' algebra. I view it as a sign of parsimony and clarity, rather than simple-mindedness.

    I also completely disagree with your appraisal of what Miles has accomplished. He constructs a lot of new knowledge, mainly in the form of a theory (supported by math) that provides a whole new perspective on physics. Well, it's not wholly new, since it is deeply rooted in many long-standing physics equations and solutions. And in fact much of what he has done is to go back and find errors in long-standing physics 'solutions.' Perhaps the most significant of the 'new knowledge' he has brought is his discovery of the charge field, composed of what he calls b-photons or charge photons. This discovery has enabled him to write paper after paper after paper where he is able to explain things that mainstream physics cannot explain, and in many cases explain things they haven't even asked about. And on top of that he is able to explain things they have but with his own postulates and method (such as wave-particle duality which is only the appearance of duality). I think it's quite remarkable.

    As for your point about dark matter/energy, while it's true that we don't *know* how much dark energy/matter there is, current estimates do put it at around 95%. They need it to make their equations work. You know, he didn't just accidentally multiply some numbers together to come up with 1/19. They are derived from his theory. I personally find it quite remarkable that on the basis of his theory he was able to construct an equation whose product was a number that "just happens" to hit at the right ratio. Here are a couple of papers of his that deal directly with the dark energy/matter 'vaccum catastrophe':

    But put that aside. As I said, it's only one out of many standing scientific mysteries that he has been able to solve/explain or shed light on. His explanations follow clearly and logically from his theory and are fully consistent with it. This doesn't just happen by chance. I would actually call that new knowledge.

    And as for testable predictions, there are several:

    One is in the paper I linked to on the double slit experiment:

    Another is about the heat of the Earth:

    Which had already been partly validated:

    Here is a prediction about Jupiter bending light:

    Here is a prediction related to quasi-crystals:

    Ah, and here is some correspondence he had with a scientist doing NMR where he was able to make a prediction that was tested and validated:

    Finally, and I don't know if I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I can't be bothered now to check: at ICCF-18 Steven Jones gave a talk where he said that he doesn't think the anomalous excess heat from Pd-D experiments comes from fusion, but rather from something he calls 'Freedom Energy.' Well, it's clear to me that this Freedom Energy is nothing other than Mathis's 'charge field.'…AtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf

    Can “c” be derived of a basic space property?

    Yes, in a manner of speaking: 'c' is a function of the radius of the photon and the density of the charge field:

    Here is a mechanical explanation of quantum entanglement:

    Here is a paper on photons and time:

    For other relevant papers, also see:

    And on the double-slit experiment:

    And thanks for the links to Mathis work- though here I am not so confident. I'll check out the Steve Jones link later.

    Yeah, my paper kind of reads like crazy talk, but if you actually read his papers that I link to, it makes much more sense. There are just far too many scientific mysteries he has been able to answer with straightforward logic and transparent math. No bending over backwards or obfuscation. I can't see how that could happen unless he was on the right track.

    Steve Jones talks about "freedom energy" in his presentation. Well that is just Mathis's charge field or b-photons. It's nothing mysterious, and it's all physical and mechanical. No virtual particles or tunneling through the vacuum, with particles magically disappearing and then reappearing in just the right place at the right time.

    Since the raw materials which worked best on 3 occasions were crushed coal and laundry-grade Sodium Carbonate

    Alan, interesting that you mention crushed coal. Are you familiar with Les Case's invention back in the 1990s? He was one of the forerunners of gas-based LENR systems, and he used 'coconut shell charcoal' as a catalyst. See here for example:

    Somewhere I remember seeing a documentary that shows his process of looking for a catalyst. Sadly one of those free energy pioneers who met an untimely death.

    I am not surprised that you have gotten excess heat results with a range of (unexpected) systems. It is definitely compatible with my hypotheses about LENR ( By the way, Steven Jones's presentation at ICCF-18 corroborates my view. See here for pdf of his presentation:

    See also another experiment of his:…trates_overunity_circuit/

    The standard theory is a mess and QM has fundamental flaws that is
    too unbelievable to not search for something else

    Andrea and Stefan,

    Here is a link to a paper where I try to apply the theories of Miles Mathis to thinking about cold fusion:

    As is, the document probably sounds like crazy talk, but I encourage you to read the original papers I link to where the theory is built up through straightforward exposition and clear reasoning.

    I think there is something here for both of you. Stefan, Miles shares your dissatisfaction with QM, arguing that it is largely a heuristic theory that uses math to describe experimental results but lacking a true mechanical explanation. He is especially good at exposing and picking apart the internal contradictions of established physics. I believe his theory can also be used to understand Mills's arguments, although I haven't tried to do that.

    Andrea, your theory is very impressive, and you are to be congratulated for putting it together. I actually think your theory takes you several steps in Miles's direction (Miles, not Mills). For example, you state that nuclear binding energy is electromagnetic. This is very compatible with his theory. You'll see that I talk quite a bit here about the importance of what I call "tuning," is somewhat akin to what you call "coupling," which happens at certain frequencies. Miles's theory offers a different explanation as to why those frequencies are important and what is the mechanism, but you can see that they are both compatible with this basic part of the theory. You both talk quite a bit about spin or rotation, but in his case spin is a real physical phenomenon rather than an 'intrinsic' phenomenon that is basically a mathematical abstraction. Your statement that the electron "opens up" losing all its energy can be explained by his theory. Also, I believe your notion of the hydronion is somewhat compatible with his conceptualization of particles like protons and neutrons, though he actually argues that our estimates of the size of the proton and other nuclei is wrong:

    Also, you might be interested to know that Miles's theory explains what dark energy/matter is (and answers a whole bunch of other questions in physics), and at the end of the day one could say that all LENR reactions are basically different ways of tapping into this energy (or what he calls the charge field). One big pill to swallow with this theory is that the observed transmutation or fusion reactions of LENR are really more a byproduct of the LENR process that causes anomalous heat than the primary cause of the anomalous heat itself. Fusion is more an effect than a cause, in other words.

    I find it interesting that despite your apparent attachment to QM principles, you seem to gravitate towards theories and concepts that fly in the face of QM. To give the biggest example, you refer to Cook's structural model of the Ni62 nucleus. But surely you must recognize that that model cannot be correct if the QM description of the nucleus is correct? Perhaps your defense of QM as unassailable is a bit too hasty? Or at least, I would counsel not to let it impair your ability to assess theories that reject basic tenets of QM.

    Observed phenomenons are so strange that I can't understand, how something like this is possible.Well, I understand it now, but with logical thinking it is not easy. Similar as that you can park submarine in a matchbox.So I am very amazed. Some things related with LENR are looking like a cheating in physics.

    Dear me356,

    I am very excited for you. I am convinced that LENR requires a new theory of physics to explain it. Please look at this .pdf document that outlines how a new theory of physics can be used to explain LENR:

    Since you are an engineer, you might be able to better appreciate this theory, as it is a genuinely mechanical 'billiard ball' theory of physics delivered in a very clear and straightforward writing style.

    I think this theory can also explain the "cheating" you find (it's seems like cheating according to current mainstream theory, but that's because most of current mainstream theory is off track). Partly it comes down to understanding that all particles we observe are all fundamentally the same basic charge particle with different states of spin, which correspond to different energy states. Moving from one spin state with lots of energy to another state with less energy will lead to the release of energy. I suspect this is what is going on when you say that protons 'disappear.' I don't think they're disappearing; I think their spin state is being radically altered or lowered and energy (in the form of charge particles) is then released en masse.

    Finally, I should note that according to this theory, any observed fusion and transmutation in LENR are not the primary the *cause* of excess heat, but rather an *effect* or byproduct of the processes that create the excess heat (or light, neutrons or x-rays), which are outlined in the paper I linked to. If you'd like to discuss this further, please contact me at the e-mail listed at the top of the document.

    Thanks for the answers about Thomas. On the one hand, I agree it's distasteful and well outside the bounds of internet etiquette. On the other hand, I feel like going out and buying one of these in honor of Thomas Clarke:

    And by the way, I really doubt that Thomas's academic employment could have ever been in any jeopardy from this doxxing. His position is senior teaching fellow. As long as he is living up to his contractual teaching/advising obligations, they wouldn't care how he spends the rest of his time. But at least that explains how he had so much time on his hands.

    A truly comprehensive unification (including LENR, if it exists) may be far away, as we all who read cosmological and quantum speculation may likely sense. I suspect LENR might offer a window into physics …

    Actually, it's closer than you think, but people are ignoring it: there is a comprehensive unification theory that can explain LENR (and a ton of other things). I wrote about it here, if you're interested:…nqCJFoFccdOG5uTUZsa1JWcmM


    I don't read Russian, and I don't really understand your theory. But the idea of the Earth as some kind of dynamo seems compatible with Miles Mathis's theory that the Earth and all planetary bodies (and all matter) recycles charge. In this sense, they could be thought of as producing electricity, although all they are doing is drawing in charge and emitting it back out. In a sense you are correct that this is LENR, but only because both phenomena tap into the charge field to seemingly generate energy out of nothing. In LENR, the nuclear transmutations and other apparent byproducts of fusion (when they occur) are simply byproducts of the way LENR taps into the charge field. In other words, they are an effect of the process, not a cause.

    Here are some links you might find useful (the first two are in Russian):

    On the source of Earth's heat:

    A proposed experiment to test his theory relating to heat of the Earth:

    How pyramids (and other ancient structures) could have been used to "generate" electiricty:

    On plate tectonics:

    On the Allais/Podkletnov effects and so-called "gravity shielding":

    On Mercury's magnetic field:

    For whoever asked about characterization, read this:
    <a href="" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>

    Dewey, thank you very much for your answer. I was worried that "characterize" meant "figure out how/why it works." Since everyone is barking up the wrong tree on that end, such a requirement would delay release of any device for the foreseeable future.

    I'm still curious as to how fully IH expects to characterize the reactors it hopes to bring to market. Based on the link you sent, it seems like it could take many, many years using very sophisticated methods requiring very expensive equipment. Do you have a ballpark estimate of how long it might take to characterize once a verified reactor is in hand?

    The document you linked to is from a 2006 conference on new methods for testing and characterizing fuels/materials for nuclear reactors. Of course, we've had nuclear power plants since the 1950's. Would you describe existing plants as having been fully characterized when they went on line? Certainly they can't have been characterized (at that time) using newer methods. So the question of what counts as being fully characterized is still wide open, it seems to me.

    You see, an IH skeptic might wonder, "If they had Rossi's IP and the 1 MW plant in their lab since mid-2013, why haven't they been able to fully 'characterize' it by now?" On the one hand, it makes sense that IH would want to fully characterize a reactor before putting it on the market. On the other hand, to someone suspicious of IH's intentions, it might seem that they could use the 'characterization requirement' to delay getting a product to market indefinitely: "We have finally verified it works, but we we need more time to fully characterize it!" Any light you might be able to shed on this would be appreciated.

    Question for Dewey Weaver: What is a "characterized" reactor?

    Dewey, you have often said that IH is on the lookout for a process/device/reactor that it can both characterize and verify. I think we more or less understand what you mean by verify. But could you please enlighten us as to what your or IH means by "characterize"? The term seems fairly ambiguous, and it would be helpful for us to understand IH's (unofficial) position if we had a clearer sense of what you mean by "characterize." Thank you!

    - Darden is stupid (evil and stupid to be precise)
    - US government is in a conspiracy (crony and intelligent)

    I don't attribute such stupidity to Darden, nor such intelligence to US gov

    Hilarious. Good points, Alain. I agree that Darden is not stupid. He doesn't necessarily have to be evil, either. He could be holding in exchange for more IP from Rossi, in which case he is simply being a good businessman. At worst you could say he's greedy.

    As for the US government, well, I'll save my thoughts for another time.

    Quote: “What? Unless you show us the specific quotes and links where you got your…

    No it's not a double standard. You put forth some claims about what IH insiders have said. I only responded to you saying I think you're wrong about some of it. Also, if they never said what you're saying, how am I supposed to find something they never said? I can't prove a negative. You need to back up those claims with supporting evidence; it simply won't do to dismiss criticism as "unconvincing." Or is evidence only something you care about when it supports your biases, Thomas?

    Here's one: I remember that Thomas Clarke once wrote that he thinks Andrea Rossi is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being he'd ever known in his life. Does anybody disagree with me? Sorry, I don't find that convincing, and if they want to disprove that, they'll have to find where he never said that.