What if we provide a magnifying glass?

About the judge in Rossi v. Darden denying the requested page limits in Motions for Judgment.

Paradigmnoia wrote:

Dewey Weaver, I don’t suppose the font can be made smaller to fit more onto the limited page space…

Devious bastards think alike, we do. The same idea occurred to me, however, I know too much. I could not find the rule immediately, but pleadings must be in a certain form. That covers font size. I did find the federal appellate pleading rules, 14 point minimum for proportional spacing. Or 10.5 characters per inch maximum of a monospaced font. Pica typewriter, basically, 10 cps, for those who remember such ancient contraptions, if I’m correct (“elite” was 12 cps).

Footnotes might be smaller type, do I remember seeing that? I’ll come back and annotate this based on the record. I would want to look at the actual court rules. Do not violate the intention of the rules.

However, there is no limitation on type size for exhibits, and one could present exhibits in forms even more clearly than what has already been done, with various devices to compress and collapse. Look at the existing exhibits, they are highly wasteful. This would require care. Sometimes a rewritten copy might be submitted with a certification of “true copy” and a reference for verification. For example, deposition transcripts could be vastly condensed. More than one document could be presented in a single exhibit, easily.

I don’t think there is a limitation on the number of exhibits, however, or pages in exhibits. So for the Motion for Judgment and statement of facts, brevity will be the soul of wit.

It would take time, unfortunately, so the attorneys will be working late today, I expect. I think the filing deadline is midnight, on-line. If these include motions to seal, as seems likely, we won’t see them immediately and if the motion is denied, the clerk will delete them.

However, this is what I expect: the ruling of the Judge may lead the attorneys to focus on the strongest and simplest points. IH, for example, may bet the farm on failure to meet GPT conditions, which can be established with a few words, “There is no evidence for ….” and the exhibit is the Second Amendment, clearly requiring the signature of all parties to the starting date, and with no agreed-upon starting date for the GPT — not some preliminary setup or provisional test — there is no GPT, case closed, Rossi suit dismissed. IH may support this with some other facts, such as the “6 cylinder unit” flap that the Judge almost went for in their Motion to Dismiss.

There are other points that may seem telling to us, such as the problem of a megawatt in a confined warehouse space, but that may be difficult to establish as fact. This would, I think, depend on expert testimony, and not knowing what is in the discovery record, I can’t say. Maybe.

A trial will be needed to establish damages, other than clearly required payments, so forget about MSJs for that, is my rough non-lawyer opinion. I rather doubt that fraudulent inducement could be decided without a jury to rule on factual complexities.

Unless Rossi found or produced a Wabbit in discovery, his MSJ may produce little more than laughter. If he did, though, my guess is that trial would still be needed. MSJs are tough, like Motions to Dismiss. The requirements are similar, and most fail. My opinion has been, for almost a year, that IH had a dismissal case based on the lack of signed approval, but for reasons I don’t understand — or for no reason — they did not plead clearly based on that simple fact, if it is a fact, if there is no such document. Pleading estoppel on that, being so completely clear and agreed upon, as such an obvious necessity, could be difficult. Rossi, remember, did not plead estoppel in the complaint. He simply assumed it was all done properly.

The latest profound thought on E-Cat World is that this was all a deliberate plot by Rossi to distract IH, while he developed the Quark-X, a radically new technology, now promoted by a radically new depth in obtusion (just made that up, I like it better than “obtuseness”) for an arXiv paper. However, this is not in the least relevant to Rossi v. Darden, it would only generate a Nobel Prize, far short of $89 million.

Generate that Prize eventually, that is, not in the near term, because this is still Super Sekrit, and Nobel Prizes are not awarded for secret technology, requiring Sekrit Sauce and a bevy of Wabbits.

Carl-Oscar Gullström is presented by some as a “professor” at Upsalla, but his page there presents him as a doctoral student, who wrote a paper in 2014 giving a LENR theory, Rossi previously praised it, and with that sterling recommendation, he should qualify as full professor in no time, so why quibble?

The stonewalling of the Swedish Lugano team is producing real-world damage. Shame on them. If that test was valid, stand up for it, don’t hide! If mistakes were made, admit them. This is the straight path and the fast route to the future.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Author: Abd ulRahman Lomax

See http://coldfusioncommunity.net/biography-abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

5 thoughts on “What if we provide a magnifying glass?”

  1. Rigel – R-G isn’t “my” website, and I’m just the moderator (and occasional writer) there. I’ve passed your suggestion on to Ken and Mark, though, and we’ll see what happens. Meantime I’m flattered you mention me in the same sentence as Abd. I’m far less rigorous in my arguments and tend to more intuitive leaps. I’m however getting better at filling in the steps that I’ve leapt over, through discussions with people who can’t see my reasoning the first time through. I’ll be doing another of those fill-in articles soon that may make things clearer.

    I do not request author privileges here because my knowledge of both LENR and law is not adequate. Writing something, for me, takes a long time since it takes a lot of thinking to produce new work. Most peoples’ comments are pretty short and convey emotional responses and not much information – I appreciate those who go deeper and thus teach me something. Good questions also help in pointing out what we don’t know or is inadequately explained. As such, Abd’s Kukri really helps in sorting out which parts of a problem haven’t yet had enough thought put in.

    LENR is not actually against current science, but instead the mechanism by which it works is unexplained. The experimental evidence is that it works, and hopefully Plan B will prove that beyond reasonable doubt. The problem we’re up against, though, is not scientific evidence being inadequate, but the faith of too many people in their theories and that the Laws Of Physics are written in stone and will not change. They’re only the best we know so far, and to apply them to situations where they don’t pertain is not a good idea. Plasma fusion is essentially a two-body problem, but LENR is a multi-body system and the rules for plasma fusion do not necessarily apply.

    My guess on LENR, from looking at the dearth of intermediate products, is that the starting-point is a tetrahedral H4 (or D4) molecule that collapses through radiation of its vibrational energy. I don’t however have the maths to be able to chase down all the details of this on the theoretical side. That would imply that there should be a specific wavelength of UV/X-ray (and maybe a “chirp” of a frequency-range) that would be emitted and then thermalised within a short distance. H4 is supposed to be a conductor (and maybe a superconductor) and is within the metal lattice and so we’ll also be dealing with the “electron gas” of the conduction band and specific energies because of the work function of those electrons. I haven’t got further than this, though. Multi-body problems are notoriously difficult to solve except for those odd ones that have a lot of symmetry.

    Meantime, Rossi is confusing the field by giving out bad data, and people are spending a lot of time trying to work out how he got his results. The answer is depressingly simple, in that he looked at what people were speculating about and then wrote down data that was in reasonable agreement without looking at what was actually happening. Hope that he’s telling the truth this time seems to be the ultimate renewable resource.

  2. Abd – Simon,
    On both of your websites you should consider something like an open thread. On LENR-forum they have the ‘playground’, and on ECW they have the ‘always open’ (even if in ECW they do not tolerate a truly an open thread). You both have communities where you both “write once” but are “read by many” and are commented by some that passionately care.

    It (open threads) would help to grow ideas and have more impact.

    Anyway that said, moving along…. to digress, I like Axil’s ideas. I was kinda sad when on ECW in the ECCO thread I read that he mentioned that he “given up on educating people”.

    Whenever this happens regardless we all lose. I have lost count of how many times both of you – Adb and Simon have taken the time to explain something… and then follow up when a question was raised. Taking the time to explain something is what makes someones ideas standout. So please consider this open thread idea. “I” also think ->Abd that one of the reasons people do not request “author” privileges is the fear or expectation of your amazing ability to use language both to communicate fully and as a Kukri to dissect what was said. Challenging ones concepts is how we all learn. The problem I see in our alternative energy corner of the web is that we need to drop the burden of always being “right” all the time. So many strong intellects but such a burden of not being able to recognize another persons point of view. I would like to see this happen, but I know it is wishful thinking. I am becoming extremely critical of those in the education field that feel it is “their mission” to “top” others —-not help them understand. These “toppers” (people that have to top your idea with overwhelming correctness a.k.a. ‘you are wrong and I am right’) they are the worse kind of educators and the goal is going to “win” the argument … whatever that means.

    This alternate energy field is an ‘outside the box’ embracing group and has the brashness to confront existing science. I would not have it any other way.

    1. The newvortex mailing list may be used as an “open thread.” If that, or any other venue, sees activity, I could link to it here. I should probably list newvortex anyway, because it contains many old discussions of probably interest. Vortex-l, as well, except, of course, I’m banned there. As with other bans, I have a sock, but don’t use it to evade the ban, respecting owner rights. Even if face-palm stupid. Much, much more can be done if anyone cares to invest the effort. Depending on me as chief cook, bottle washer, and custodian will not work, long-term.

      (Right now, the comment facility here is primitive. I could also start a wiki, but Wikiversity could be used for wiki purposes, there have been no problems there and the existing cold fusion resource there could use a lot of help. Instead of building what is possible, cold fusion supporters often attempted to butt their heads against a brick wall on Wikipedia, whereas Wikiversity was better structured for creating educational resources anyway.)

  3. It’s interesting watching people trying to work out how Rossi’s latest invention works, and not noticing that the temperature was estimated from the colour of the plasma rather than by actually making tea. It’s not for nothing they have big coats on in that warehouse. The device is being driven with around 100mW of power (admitted to) and achieves a temperature well above the melting-point of the Nickel it uses. I get the impression that Rossi is having fun seeing just how far he can push his supporters before they stop believing in him. Incidentally, I understood bugger-all of the arXiv paper, and even Axil asked for someone to explain it to him at https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5172-new-paper-by-gullstr%C3%B6m-rossi-cop-22-000/?postID=52598#post52598 . Gullström has maybe an unfortunate name for someone associated with Rossi.

    On the court case, it might seem better to put a word-count limit on it than a page-count limit. We can ignore the white space, but the words need to be legible. Rossi needs to provide evidence that Doral was the GPT as described, and IH only need to point to the unsigned agreement to start the GPT and of course that they didn’t receive a valid transfer of IP to make their copies work. I’m not sure that all the things Peter wants to know will actually get specified, so I’d ask Dewey nicely if he could at least try to get the DN40 pipe-size confirmed and where the flowmeter was located. That way at least Peter would stop betting that he was always correct on this, even though he now has an LENR++++ to laud. Still, it doesn’t look like the case will turn on whether or not the Doral test actually produced heat, but instead on whether the contract was delivered on.

    I’m fascinated by the way Rossi manages to produce a new and totally-different version of feline just at the point when the previous one is reaching end of useful life. He’s somewhat of a genius at that.

    1. It is next to useless to discuss what would be better for courts. They have been doing all this for hundreds of years. Pages are easy to count, words not quite so easy! Remember, documents can be submitted on paper…. I am concerned that the deadline for Summary Judgment has not been moved as was previously requested (other than one day based on the Rossi request). Discovery is not complete, because of unresolved controversies or failures, and summary judgment before discovery is complete is problematic. We will see what happens. I may not check until the morning, but I expect to appear, tonight, either Motions for Summary Judgment or Motions to Seal (coupled with invisible filings).

      The arXiv paper is appalling. This was from Uppsala. I didn’t know they committed seppuku in Sweden. I have no comment on the physics, other than the likelihood of any random PhD candidate coming up with a working LENR theory is extremely unlikely, though surely not utterly impossible. But the experimental evidence? Really? That mess is acceptable?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield