frankwtu Member
  • Member since Feb 14th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by frankwtu

  • JM Chemical Products is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

    Jed


    Quote from JedRothwell

    The data in the report is obviously erroneous. It is garbage. Some of it appears to be fraudulent, such as the pressure changed to 0.0 bar. Anyone can see it is absurd. They should have no difficulty proving that. I do not think Rossi can find any expert witness who will testify that the ERV might be correct.


    Rossi will not need any expert witnesses to validate the ERV report as it was agreed by both IH and Rossi to be the trigger for payment of the $89 million. That's the contract. IH will need the expert witnesses and evidence to prove the ERV report is as you say "obviously erroneous. It is garbage. Some of it appears to be fraudulent"


    All of this will require evidence from IH not Rossi.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is incorrect. They published their first comment denying that the machine worked on March 10, 2016, before the $89 million payment was due. They told many people privately that they were unhappy with the test in 2015.


    Well, they may have mentioned that to some of their friends but what matters is that they should have formally raised it with Rossi, did they do that? If they did not then the court will wonder why.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • JM Chemical Products is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

    Jed


    Quote from JedRothwell

    No one would take Rossi's word for this without making measurements. That would be insane.


    There was no requirement to take Rossi's word for anything. The contract requires IH to pay Rossi $89 million on the production of the ERV's report of >6 COP.


    There was no agreed tool for parties to carry out there own tests and measurements (indeed Rossi's measurements would never have been believed and IH's readings would also be suspect as they would have been seen to be absent from impartiality)


    So the next step for IH is to prove the ERV report erroneous, mistaken or part of an elaborate fraud. All with evidence from experts who will be cross examined.


    If nothing else it will be good for the popcorn market.


    At it's simplest, IH began its 'sceptical' publicity campaign 'after' they refused to pay $89 million; how suspicious is that? Before that (responding to 3 interim ERV reports) everything was 'Stellar' and the money kept rolling in.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Robert E Godes: why Cold Fusion is so opposed by physicists

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Am I a pseudoskeptic? Sure. Sometimes.


    Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:


    ".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth.


    What a surprise!!


    But please let us know when, for sure, you are being a proper objective skeptic, then I think your articles and feature stories will be worth reading


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Here there is an idea that a single test is a 'successful replication," which it can be, but what IH needed was not a single test, rather an ability to make devices with reasonable reliability.


    If it is proven Rossi gave IH the IP and support as required under the contract, the fact that IH then tried to validate Rossi's invention without success will be seen as 'suspicious', not least an excuse to withhold the payment of $89 million.


    The contract was clearly a 'stepping stone' along the way to 'commercialisation' not the full package.


    Just a question, which you may be able to answer. If Penon, West and Fulvio appear in IH's counter claims will this prevent them giving evidence for Rossi?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • JM Chemical Products is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Fabaini's own words as to why he was there was to conduct R&D under Rossi's orders.


    So he would be the best persons to pass on the IP and all the support necessary to build and operate an E-cat without Rossi's involvement, to his paymasters then.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    In fact, so someone was there to check gauges, put devices together, maybe sweep the floor, so what? It's meaningless.


    I think that statement will be impossible to prove in court.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    brain function is operating out of the amygdala, not the cerebral cortex


    You seem to be an expert on that!




    Best regards
    Frank

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    Cam & Alan


    Have you seen this patent application report from Florida A&M University Division of Research?


    http://www.famu.edu/DOR_division_of_research/Weatherford - Laser Assisted Mu-Catalyzed Fusion.pdf


    Extract:
    The present proposal is to use the X-ray laser to enhance the tunneling of the muon into the continuum by Quantum Control, as
    well as to control the quantum states of collision products in a way, which will increase the fusion rate. The core idea is to use X-ray lasers in a quantum control mode to catalyze the fusion of a deuterium nucleus and a tritium nucleus, having started with dt and to eject a muon for a subsequent molecule formation (reduced sticking fraction) and fusion.


    Commercialization Status:
    The feasibility and reactor design are under study.


    Maybe they could drop in and provide expert testimony for Rossi/IH.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    Alan


    Erotic extract:


    "Achieving muon-based nuclear fusion at very low temperatures


    The muon belongs to the lepton group of elementary particles, which includes electrons. It has a lifetime of 2.2µs, and a mass one-ninth that of a proton and 207 times that of an electron. There are positively charged muons and negatively charged muons. In a material, the positive muon acts as a 'light' proton, while the negative muon acts as a 'heavy' electron.


    Muon-based nuclear fusion is conducted using negative muons. A mixed gas of deuterium and tritium is cooled to temperatures below around −250°C, causing the gas to form a liquid or solid. The injection of a beam of muons (µ) into the medium then generates muonic tritium atoms (tµ), which are similar to hydrogen atoms".


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Alain


    Quote from AlainCo

    transfer of IP is also a condition, this is in fact the most important.


    Yes it was, but was it a condition with clear 'success and failure standards'? For example, the $89 million was due on a successful ERV report. How can it be judged that IH has or has not received the required IP?


    Here is a scenario, completely hypothetical. Rossi asks the Swedes to replicate his E-cat, for this he gives them some IP which is a copy of the IP he gave to IH. The Swedes successfully replicate.


    Of course we will never know, or will we?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • JM Chemical Products is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

    Alain


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Entertainment, Frank. And your point? Why do you bother with all this? Alain began seriously following LENR a few years ago, and trusted the Rossi data. Given the lawsuit and what it revealed, so far, he has now come to realize how untrustworthy that all is.


    You said that without moving your lips!


    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    My point?


    My point is this, knowledge of the type we are looking for can only come from objective discovery using scientific principles without pre conceived opinions. I have a great deal of respect for Alain and sympathise with him and his view of Rossi, I don't think any of us can be sure of anything Rossi claims or says. But that is a long way from assuming his guilt, fraud, or simply scientific miscalculation on his part without supporting evidence. Some of course may say they have it, like Jed but for me whilst scepticism is good, it is very difficult to discern scepticism from pseudo scepticism and so the urgent need for objective validation and reproducible and verifiable experiment.


    I await news from Alan on the latest Swedish experiment.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Mary


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    There could not be a colonel in a NATO army who left no internet footprint whatever and yet showed up in public at a Rossi demo and signed his name to the dirty piece of notebook paper Rossi called The Results of the Test. It does not make sense and it did not make sense in November 2011.


    You may be right, but you may also be wrong and speculating in the way you do which is your 'hallmark' may well be 'offensive' to someone. So my opinion is that what you say must be supported by evidence or you should withdraw such speculation.


    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Jed: When Sniffex sued james Randi for defamation in a Superior Court in Texas, the judge ordered exactly the sort of thing you think they don't. The judge ordered demonstrations in front of experts to show that the Sniffex explosive detector worked. Sniffex immediately dropped the suit. I am quite confident that if this same sort of thing happens to Rossi, he also will drop the suit rather than to try demonstrating the ecat or the megawatt plant.


    The above quote is an example of what you are good at, a brilliant find. So why discredit stuff like this with unfounded and libellous accusations?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • IH considering counterclaims

    Mary


    Quote from JedRothwell

    So you best guess is that he was imprisoned, and your second best guess is that he is an out of work actor. And you really mean that. Those are widely divergent claims. Do you have any evidence at all for either one of them? A rumor, or something in the mass media? Or did you just dream that up yourself? If you dreamed it up without any evidence, then I think it is inaccurate to say these are "guesses." To guess is defined as "estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct." When you have no information at all, that would be fiction, imagination, divination, or in this case, unfounded calumny and slander, which is not something you should post on the Internet. Not even under a false name.


    Mary, looks like you are heading for the door again!


    I don't agree with Jed often but on this he has a serious point, a secondary point is that if this is how you make logical judgements and come to 'common sense' conclusions then it discredits all you say which is a shame because on a very few occasions you do appear to come up with a revelation., Alas they will now be lost in the mist.


    Best regards
    Frank