Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Che]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> David L. Babcock  wrote:
>
>> Another simple explanation is that Rossi'S recipe died. He had enough
>> (sporadic?) heat events to drive him into a frenzy of invention, into a
>> dead end. And an ego that didn't permit him to back down. Sort of like
>> Trump...
>>
> Sorta like many lone inventors, especially Jim Patterson. I heard he could
> not make a new batch of beads work. He denied that. He told me "I can make
> a new batch anytime" but I do not think he did.
>
> I have heard that Rossi makes machine after machine, cannibalizing old
> parts and leaving no blueprints or older machines. So he may have lost the
> secret. I would not rule that out.
>
> - Jed
>
>
This model of the lone, secretive inventor -- hoping to make millions and
gain his place in history -- HAS been (thankfully) superseded by the
'Free-And-Open-Source [Software]' (FOSS) model: in the computer world, as
elsewhere.

I suggest people note this evolution and take it seriously from now on.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I have already shown many areas where Exhibit 5 was wrong.
>

So you think, but I disagree.



>   You continue to ignore that.
> It was not Penon's job to correct the mistakes.
>

Yes, it was. He was paid large sums of money to correct his own mistakes,
or to point out errors in Murray's analysis. Not only did he refuse to do
this, but he asked for his salary after refusing. That's chutzpah! (See the
quote below)



>   He handed in his report.  If Murray disagrees it is up to him to prove
> it.
> So far he hasn't.
>

How do you know this? Have you met with Murray or Penon, or read their
correspondence?

You and some others have an odd habit. If you personally have not seen a
document, a photo, or some other evidence, you automatically assume that it
does not exist.


Chutzpah from the Answer document:

"Despite have full knowledge of the flaws, Penon nevertheless issued his
false final report on March 28, 2016, claiming that guaranteed performance
was achieved – and that the COPs achieved by the Plant were literally many
multiples greater than ever claimed by anyone else (other than Leonardo and
Rossi) who had ever tested an E-Cat reactor. Not surprisingly, since the
day he left Florida in February 2016, Penon has refused to discuss his
measurements, his measurement plan and design, or his reportwith
Counter-Plaintiffs (though he has requested that Counter-Plaintiffs pay him
for his work)."

More chutzpah! This part is hilarious:

"Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data collections in
his supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For example, Leonardo
and Rossi have admitted (on their internet blog postings) that there were
days when portions of the Plant were not operating, but Penon in his final
report does not report any material decrease in output of the Plant on
those days. Rather, he makes the (inexplicable) claim in his final report
that on these days the Plant’s performance either did not change or somehow
even increased."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Woodford stated they were happy after a detailed examination and then
> contributed $50 million as proof.
>

I do not think he said he was happy with Rossi. He said he was happy with
I.H. as a whole. They are working with others, not just Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jed Rothwell]

David L. Babcock  wrote:

> Another simple explanation is that Rossi'S recipe died. He had enough
> (sporadic?) heat events to drive him into a frenzy of invention, into a
> dead end. And an ego that didn't permit him to back down. Sort of like
> Trump...
>
Sorta like many lone inventors, especially Jim Patterson. I heard he could
not make a new batch of beads work. He denied that. He told me "I can make
a new batch anytime" but I do not think he did.

I have heard that Rossi makes machine after machine, cannibalizing old
parts and leaving no blueprints or older machines. So he may have lost the
secret. I would not rule that out.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

No.  All I have from IH is second hand information from you that Murray
> says.
>

That's better than second hand information from Rossi.



>   I have pointed out errors in exhibit 5.
>

You have pointed out what you believe to be errors, but you are wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, perhaps your IH sources made a measurement of the AC power being
> absorbed by the system pumps. . . .



> This technique would appear to offer a second reality check against the
> flow meter readings.  Could you comment?
>

Only to say: That's a good idea! I do not know if they did that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

No.  All I have from IH is second hand information from you that Murray 
says.  I have pointed out errors in exhibit 5.
IH claim Vaughn was not a manager at Cherokee, but he claims he was on 
his resume.  You can't even tell how people could "see" the pipe was 
half full.  You can't provide a piping diagram.


I have seen photos of the plant, read Rossi's replies to hundreds of 
questions and heard and seen his interviews.
I have followed Rossi's demonstrations over the years and so have a fair 
outline of what his reactors are like.
How well the plant performed has yet to be proven but I expect that it 
will be made known.  I'm not about to leap to a conclusion until the 
facts are presented.


I know nothing about Industrial Heat LLD except they did a deal with 
Rossi that has gone bad.



On 8/10/2016 6:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

So all you have is Murray says?


And others, some of whom I trust a great deal.

All you have is Rossi. His credibility is zero to several significant 
decimal digits.


Think about this. Rossi has given you nothing at all. Not a single 
technical detail. You learned the flow rate, the flow meter type, the 
temperatures, and many other details from me and from I.H. Not one 
item has been confirmed by Rossi, or denied by him. He might have 
earned $89 million with a valid rebuttal of the issues raised in 
Exhibit 5, but he said _nothing_.


Since you do not believe us, and since Rossi has given you nothing, 
you have nothing to go on, and no evidence to discuss or evaluate. You 
have no basis to reach any conclusions, since you reject all 
information from us. You have made several guesses and assumptions, 
but they are wrong. You are wasting your time. You might as well bow 
out of the conversation.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Jed, perhaps your IH sources made a measurement of the AC power being absorbed 
by the system pumps.  They could compare these numbers against the published 
tables to get an estimate of the actual quantity of fluid being pumped through 
them.

This technique would appear to offer a second reality check against the flow 
meter readings.  Could you comment?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

So far I have to agree with ashfeild until a complete diagram is available to 
critic.  Goat Guy(GG) and everyone else would love to have a look at the 
customers heat sink, but apparently that is not going to happen anytime soon.

I do not agree with GG that the condenser is not a reasonable way to extract 
the heat from the incoming steam.  He suggests a water to water exchanger which 
is just an alternate method of doing the same task.

In actuality, it is more likely that Rossi's customer would use a liquid to 
liquid system unless his process requires hot air.  Of course, it has not been 
proven that Rossi's customer actually uses 1 MW of heat according to IH among 
others.  I leave that determination to the courts.

Since GG assumes cheating, he needs to prove that some of the tricks that he 
suggests are actually present.  Until that is shown, he can not be taken too 
seriously in my opinion.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 5:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!


I think GoatGuy must have been on some hallucinogen to come up with
that.  I don't believe it has any relationship with the 1 MWplant.From 
what Engineer48 has written the plant used positivedisplacement pumps that 
were computer controlled to keep the waterlevel right in the reactors.
Even Murray has not suggested there was an overflow that fed backinto 
the reservoir.


On 8/10/2016 4:56 PM, Jack Cole wrote:


  
Here is the previous post.  Again, not certainabout whether it was the 
configuration used.  








Thanks to Brad forfinding the comment from GoatGuy on Next  
  Big Future.  I have had a chance to examine and thinkthrough the 
arguments.  I'm not an engineer, so maybesomeone else can do a 
better analysis.  It seems like thisexplanation would work only if 
the plumbing connected to thewater tanks in certain ways (e.g., 
outlets connecting to thecentral reservoir near the top).  If they 
connected on thebottom of the tanks, there would be mixing and 
prevention ofair pockets.  

  
  
Jack
  

  

  

  


  
F
  
T
  
V
  
s

  
  

  

  
  

  

  


‒

  

GoatGuy2
Newcomer
13hours ago
  Hah! I got it… finally!  (I see 
how the 'trick' is very likely being  performed, and 
why  IH decided on a different testing procedure
  from the 'contract approved' one.)
  
  Its cute, subtle, and would result in an  
entirely misleading result. 
  FIRST, you need to open the ( 
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf )
  pdf file.
  
  Look at Figure 1.  In the 
center of the “reactorshelter”, is a box labeled 
“waterreservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2  
outlets. 
  
  Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
  Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
  Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and 
   then to water tank 1
  Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of   
   E-cats andthen to water tank 2
  
  All that would be needed would be for the 
 steam-condensor loop to have a BUNCH of air in 
 the line for this to be a really misleading  COP > 
1 system. Sensors that measure gas  flow cannot 
discriminate 100% steam from 50:50  steam from 0% hot 
air. Likewise, with a bit of  flim-flam, most 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

If there had been some way of determining how full the pipe was, besides 
stains, Murray would have mentioned it.



On 8/10/2016 5:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Nobody saw the pipe was half full unless they had X-Ray eyes.


You are wrong about that, but I cannot describe the details. Sorry.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

So all you have is Murray says?
>

And others, some of whom I trust a great deal.

All you have is Rossi. His credibility is zero to several significant
decimal digits.

Think about this. Rossi has given you nothing at all. Not a single
technical detail. You learned the flow rate, the flow meter type, the
temperatures, and many other details from me and from I.H. Not one item has
been confirmed by Rossi, or denied by him. He might have earned $89 million
with a valid rebuttal of the issues raised in Exhibit 5, but he said
*nothing*.

Since you do not believe us, and since Rossi has given you nothing, you
have nothing to go on, and no evidence to discuss or evaluate. You have no
basis to reach any conclusions, since you reject all information from us.
You have made several guesses and assumptions, but they are wrong. You are
wasting your time. You might as well bow out of the conversation.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Refer to the figure 1 schematic from Goat Guy's example.

Quick questions.  Is the device referred to as a water reservoir sealed or open 
to the atmosphere?  Also, why would much additional water be added to the three 
water storage devices once the system were in operation for a long period?  
Unless water is allowed to leak out, this input source would be shut off most 
of the time.

Dave

 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Nobody saw the pipe was half full unless they had X-Ray eyes.  All you 
have is Murray says about stains.

Show a diagram of the piping.
t looks like all the voluminous secret data you had boils down to just 
the above - and you apparently don't even have a piping diagram that you 
can show us.



On 8/10/2016 4:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

David Roberson > wrote:

Jed,I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be
lower than the reservoir.


Of course it could have been lower, and it should have been. But it 
was not. If it had been, it would not have been half full. Observers 
saw that it was half full. They saw rust stains, as described in 
Exhibit 5.


Rossi claimed it was lower than the reservoir. As I recall he said 
this after they informed him that it was half full. He was lying, as 
he often does. (I am not sure of the timeline. Perhaps someone more 
diligent than I could check into who said what when. Exhibit 5 was 
provided to Penon on March 25, 2016.)


This is mere speculation on my part but . . .

With this configuration I can see that it would be easy to confirm the 
flow rate by other methods, circumventing the flowmeter. It should 
also be fairly easy to confirm that the pipe is half full by various 
methods. So, I assume experts from I.H. did these things. I have not 
heard that from anyone, so I could be wrong.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Nobody saw the pipe was half full unless they had X-Ray eyes.
>

You are wrong about that, but I cannot describe the details. Sorry.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

So all you have is Murray says?


On 8/10/2016 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Your answer is too pathetic for words.
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
engineer can judge it.


Why not do it the other way? Observers saw that it was half full. They 
saw rust stains. So, you should ask a plumber how it must have been 
placed. On thing for sure it that was not installed properly, in a "U" 
lower than the reservoir inlet. It it had been, it would have been full.


(Perhaps there were multiple tricks at work to keep the pipe half 
empty. Gluck suggested that air might have been inserted into the 
fluid. I suppose they might have done that at the pretend customer 
site next door, but I am only speculating.)


Rossi made several other obvious mistakes, with this instrument and 
with others. As noted, he picked the wrong kind of flowmeter. The 
capacity is much too high. It only registers 36 times a day, which is 
ridiculous.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

I think GoatGuy must have been on some hallucinogen to come up with 
that.  I don't believe it has any relationship with the 1 MW plant.
From what Engineer48 has written the plant used positive displacement 
pumps that were computer controlled to keep the water level right in the 
reactors.
Even Murray has not suggested there was an overflow that fed back into 
the reservoir.


On 8/10/2016 4:56 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
Here is the previous post.  Again, not certain about whether it was 
the configuration used.




Thanks to Brad for finding the comment fromGoatGuyon Next Big Future.  
I have had a chance to examine and think through the arguments.  I'm 
not an engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better analysis.  It 
seems like this explanation would work only if the plumbing connected 
to the water tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets connecting to the 
central reservoir near the top).  If they connected on the bottom of 
the tanks, there would be mixing and prevention of air pockets.


Jack

 *
 o
  + F
  + T
  + V
  + s
 *
Avatar
‒
GoatGuy2Newcomer
13 hours ago


Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely
being performed, and why IH decided on a different testing
procedure from the 'contract approved' one.)

Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result.
FIRST, you need to open the (
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf )
pdf file.

Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box
labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water
tank 2

All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to
have a BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading
COP > 1 system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate
100% steam from 50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit
of flim-flam, most of the heat emitted could be combined back into
the circulating loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) →
(input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back
into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half.

In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent
stream, if needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old
misdirection-device (the "condensers", which are huge,
non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which thru
air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is
done. It all seems great because no one is alert to the
intent-to-deviate from the patent diagram.

The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of
recirculated water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't
easily revealed. No attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water
(like a small swimming pool's worth) a finite amount. The whole
thing runs at whatever rate it runs (which is carefully excluded
from the PDF). The only measure left is the misdirected one.

It is ingenious.
And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great
big air blower.

To heat the small swimming pool.
Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast.
To at least 2 sig-figs.
More than enough to expose the rat.
Or to confirm the golden goose.

Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the
testing.
Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
Which of course he's never done.
Nor will he.

Because it exposes rats.
GoatGuy


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM Jack Cole > wrote:


Dave,
There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago.  His
speculation of how it could be faked included air in the system
registering on the flow meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was
the ultimate configuration that was used.  I'll try to find it in
the archives.
Jack

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson > wrote:

Jed,I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not
be lower than the reservoir.   Do you have some form of
schematic that supports what you are describing?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield >
To: vortex-l 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Jed wrote  "Obviously it cannot be lower than the destination (the 
reservoir)."
Surely the flow meter is measuring the flow into the plant not the 
return to the reservoir.


On 8/10/2016 4:52 PM, Jack Cole wrote:

Dave,
There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago. His 
speculation of how it could be faked included air in the system 
registering on the flow meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was the 
ultimate configuration that was used.  I'll try to find it in the 
archives.

Jack

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson > wrote:


Jed,I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be
lower than the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic
that supports what you are describing?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield >
To: vortex-l >
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

Jed,
Your answer is too pathetic for words.
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
engineer can judge it.
I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else even
after I posted proof .


On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Peter Gluck > wrote:

And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?


It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the
rust marks shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it
cannot be lower than the destination (the reservoir).


Can you tell or is it under NDA?


I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You
believe Rossi instead. He gave you no more proof than I did,
but you believe him, unconditionally. So I see no reason to
give you any more information. You will reject it and demand
more, and more, and more.

I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit.
You can wait until then. But, since you do not believe what
they already published, there is no point to waiting. You have
already made up your mind that Rossi is always right, no
matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Thanks Jack, I will look into this explanation and attempt to determine whether 
or not it makes sense.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



Here is the previous post.  Again, not certain about whether it was the 
configuration used.  





Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future.  I have 
had a chance to examine and think through the arguments.  I'm not an engineer, 
so maybe someone else can do a better analysis.  It seems like this explanation 
would work only if the plumbing connected to the water tanks in certain ways 
(e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir near the top).  If they 
connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would be mixing and prevention of 
air pockets.


Jack





F
T
V
s
















‒


GoatGuy2
Newcomer
13 hours ago

Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being performed, 
and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the 'contract 
approved' one.)

Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result. 
FIRST, you need to open the ( 
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf ) pdf 
file.

Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box labeled 
“water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets. 

Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a BUNCH 
of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system. Sensors 
that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50 steam from 0% 
hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat emitted could be 
combined back into the circulating loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) → 
(input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → 
(back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half. 

In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if needed. 
The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the 
"condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which 
thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done. It all 
seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from the patent 
diagram. 

The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated water, 
reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No attempt is 
made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's worth) a 
finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs (which is 
carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the misdirected one.

It is ingenious.
And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing. 
Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big air 
blower.

To heat the small swimming pool. 
Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast. 
To at least 2 sig-figs.
More than enough to expose the rat.
Or to confirm the golden goose.

Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
Which of course he's never done.
Nor will he.

Because it exposes rats.
GoatGuy





On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM Jack Cole  wrote:


Dave,
There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago.  His speculation 
of how it could be faked included air in the system registering on the flow 
meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was the ultimate configuration that was 
used.  I'll try to find it in the archives.

Jack


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower than 
the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what you are 
describing?

Dave

 

 

 


-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



Jed,
Your answer is too pathetic for words.
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
engineer can judge it.
I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else evenafter 
I posted proof .



On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
Peter Gluck wrote:
  


  
And what exactly is the truth, where wasthe flowmeter placed?




 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

PAUL FARROW (Woodford) says:
August 18, 2015 at 9:19 pm
Hi John,

Many thanks for your comment and we’d like to reassure you that we do 
follow a thorough due diligence process for all our investments, 
irrespective of their size or the fund they are invested in.
With regard to Industrial Heat, we were, and have been, very aware of 
the scepticism about this technology. We have undertaken a rigorous due 
diligence process that has taken two and half years. The company is 
currently working with numerous scientists and is acquiring both the 
technology and teams required to maximise the potential of this, and 
other, new energy technologies.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Your answer is too pathetic for words.
> Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
> engineer can judge it.
>

Why not do it the other way? Observers saw that it was half full. They saw
rust stains. So, you should ask a plumber how it must have been placed. On
thing for sure it that was not installed properly, in a "U" lower than the
reservoir inlet. It it had been, it would have been full.

(Perhaps there were multiple tricks at work to keep the pipe half empty.
Gluck suggested that air might have been inserted into the fluid. I suppose
they might have done that at the pretend customer site next door, but I am
only speculating.)

Rossi made several other obvious mistakes, with this instrument and with
others. As noted, he picked the wrong kind of flowmeter. The capacity is
much too high. It only registers 36 times a day, which is ridiculous.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower
> than the reservoir.


Of course it could have been lower, and it should have been. But it was
not. If it had been, it would not have been half full. Observers saw that
it was half full. They saw rust stains, as described in Exhibit 5.

Rossi claimed it was lower than the reservoir. As I recall he said this
after they informed him that it was half full. He was lying, as he often
does. (I am not sure of the timeline. Perhaps someone more diligent than I
could check into who said what when. Exhibit 5 was provided to Penon on
March 25, 2016.)

This is mere speculation on my part but . . .

With this configuration I can see that it would be easy to confirm the flow
rate by other methods, circumventing the flowmeter. It should also be
fairly easy to confirm that the pipe is half full by various methods. So, I
assume experts from I.H. did these things. I have not heard that from
anyone, so I could be wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[David L. Babcock]

Another simple explanation is that Rossi'S recipe died. He had enough 
(sporadic?) heat events to drive him into a frenzy of invention, into a 
dead end. And an ego that didn't permit him to back down. Sort of like 
Trump...


Ol' Bab


On 8/10/2016 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beene > wrote:

Thus, it is very likely that Rossi “could have” and even “should
have” witnessed thermal gain at some point in his progress,
especially before Focardi died . . .


I agree. I think there is some evidence for this. It is not conclusive.


In any event, it is hard to imagine what happened to make Rossi
decide not to demonstrate gain if he was able to do so - for IH.


Rossi is unfathomable. I guess the simplest explanation would be that 
he has nothing. In that scenario, I cannot imagine why he filed a 
lawsuit. He should have taken the $11 million and run.


- Jed





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Here is the previous post.  Again, not certain about whether it was the
configuration used.



Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future.  I
have had a chance to examine and think through the arguments.  I'm not an
engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better analysis.  It seems like
this explanation would work only if the plumbing connected to the water
tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir
near the top).  If they connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would
be mixing and prevention of air pockets.

Jack

   -
  -
 - F
 - T
 - V
 - s
  -
   [image: Avatar]
   ‒
   GoatGuy2Newcomer
   13 hours ago
   

   Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being
   performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the
   'contract approved' one.)

   Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result.
   FIRST, you need to open the (
   http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf )
   pdf file.

   Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box
   labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

   Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
   Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
   Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
   Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

   All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a
   BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system.
   Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50
   steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat
   emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there
   are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank
   water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
   bottom half.

   In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if
   needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the
   "condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which
   thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done.
   It all seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from
   the patent diagram.

   The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated
   water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No
   attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's
   worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs
   (which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the
   misdirected one.

   It is ingenious.
   And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
   Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big
   air blower.

   To heat the small swimming pool.
   Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast.
   To at least 2 sig-figs.
   More than enough to expose the rat.
   Or to confirm the golden goose.

   Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
   Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
   Which of course he's never done.
   Nor will he.

   Because it exposes rats.
   GoatGuy


On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM Jack Cole  wrote:

> Dave,
> There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago.  His
> speculation of how it could be faked included air in the system registering
> on the flow meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was the ultimate
> configuration that was used.  I'll try to find it in the archives.
> Jack
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson  wrote:
>
>> Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower
>> than the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what
>> you are describing?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: a.ashfield 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
>>
>> Jed,
>> Your answer is too pathetic for words.
>> Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
>> engineer can judge it.
>> I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else even after
>> I posted proof .
>>
>>
>> On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>>
>> And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?
>>>
>>
>> It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks
>> shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it 

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You are right that nobody here knows the details of Rossi's signature 
but the plain fact is that IH was formed after Rossi's discussions only 
a couple of days before he had to sign the contract.


I have already shown many areas where Exhibit 5 was wrong.  You continue 
to ignore that.
It was not Penon's job to correct the mistakes.  He handed in his 
report.  If Murray disagrees it is up to him to prove it.

So far he hasn't.

You say you disagree you made a mistake.  What do you question?
What you wrote yourself?
The legal document sent to the court that says Vaughn was not a manager 
of Cherokee?



On 8/10/2016 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get
money from somewhere to continue.


I do not know about this, but I suppose he had enough leeway to wait a 
few days while consulting with his lawyer.


Also, It is possible that I.H. Informed him weeks before that they 
intended to start a new company. I think it would be out of character 
for them to spring this on him at the last minute. I doubt you were 
privy to the conversations or e-mail. So you would not know about 
that. (I don't know about it either.)



Exhibit 5 is full of mistakes.


If it is full of mistakes, Penon should have pointed them out. Rossi 
would have been paid $89 million. Yet Penon did not answer.


I am not aware of any mistakes in this document.


I see you still cannot bring yourself to admit you made a mistake
when you accused me of making something up and I showed a
reference that proved I was right.


I disagree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Dave,
There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago.  His
speculation of how it could be faked included air in the system registering
on the flow meter.  I'm not certain the schematic was the ultimate
configuration that was used.  I'll try to find it in the archives.
Jack

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson  wrote:

> Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower
> than the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what
> you are describing?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
>
> Jed,
> Your answer is too pathetic for words.
> Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
> engineer can judge it.
> I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else even after I
> posted proof .
>
>
> On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?
>>
>
> It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks
> shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower than
> the destination (the reservoir).
>
>
>
>> Can you tell or is it under NDA?
>>
>
> I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe Rossi
> instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe him,
> unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more information. You
> will reject it and demand more, and more, and more.
>
> I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can wait
> until then. But, since you do not believe what they already published,
> there is no point to waiting. You have already made up your mind that Rossi
> is always right, no matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Che]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Plus, in LENR we have a field where there have been successes in prior
> experiments going back 27 years, using similar parameters in metal
> hydrides, and it is very likely that from time to time, Rossi actually saw 
> true
> energy gain but could not reproduce this gain on demand.
>
> He probably believed, and there is adequate basis for it in other fields,
> that he could overcome the past reliability problem by going to a larger
> form factor. He will probably go to his grave believing that he solved
> the problems of LENR and that his work was honest, misunderstood, and
> scientifically important.
>
>
The most balanced, reasonable and succinct explanation I've read here yet.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower than 
the reservoir.   Do you have some form of schematic that supports what you are 
describing?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!


Jed,
Your answer is too pathetic for words.
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an
engineer can judge it.
I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else evenafter 
I posted proof .



On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
Peter Gluck wrote:
  


  
And what exactly is the truth, where wasthe flowmeter placed?





It was placed such that it was half full. That is what  the rust 
marks shows, and what careful testing shows.  Obviously it cannot 
be lower than the destination (the  reservoir).




 


  

Can you tell or is it under NDA?
  





I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us.  You believe 
Rossi instead. He gave you no more proof than  I did, but you 
believe him, unconditionally. So I see no  reason to give you any 
more information. You will reject  it and demand more, and more, 
and more.




I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the  lawsuit. You 
can wait until then. But, since you do not  believe what they 
already published, there is no point to  waiting. You have already 
made up your mind that Rossi is  always right, no matter what he 
says, not matter how  impossible it is.




- Jed



  

  


  

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[a.ashfield]

Woodford stated they were happy after a detailed examination and then 
contributed $50 million as proof.
I don't see any benefit providing the link as you will just ignore it 
like you have being wrong about IH claiming Vaughn was not a manager at 
Cherokee.



On 8/10/2016 3:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Russ George > wrote:

The got involved with his technology in multiple steps. Now it
seems that any puerile dilettante can surmise that Rossi’s
technology does not and never did work as reported.


Murray is not a dilettante.

All the while IH was happily hosting other people through to see
and visit with Rossi and his technology with grand success as
those ‘other people’ contributed scores of millions into IH’s hands.


Who told you this happened? Where did you get this information? I do 
not think this happened, because they were not happy with Rossi at 
that time, and they told that to many people, including me. I doubt 
they would deceive an investor.


You should probably check your sources and make sure this is true 
before repeating it. It is not a good idea to post misinformation or 
to make things up and post them.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
Your answer is too pathetic for words.
Placed so it was half full???   Show a diagram of the piping so an 
engineer can judge it.
I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else even after 
I posted proof .



On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Peter Gluck > wrote:

And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?


It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks 
shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower 
than the destination (the reservoir).



Can you tell or is it under NDA?


I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe 
Rossi instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe 
him, unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more 
information. You will reject it and demand more, and more, and more.


I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can 
wait until then. But, since you do not believe what they already 
published, there is no point to waiting. You have already made up your 
mind that Rossi is always right, no matter what he says, not matter 
how impossible it is.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I do not think this happened, because they were not happy with Rossi at
> that time, and they told that to many people, including me. I doubt they
> would deceive an investor.
>

I say this first because it would be out of character for IH to deceive
people. They are working with many researchers and these researchers agree
they are good people. Second, because the investor would take his money
back or sue them when it was revealed they were unhappy with Rossi. So far,
the investor has not taken his money back. So I suppose he knew about the
problems with Rossi all along.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get money from
> somewhere to continue.
>

I do not know about this, but I suppose he had enough leeway to wait a few
days while consulting with his lawyer.

Also, It is possible that I.H. Informed him weeks before that they intended
to start a new company. I think it would be out of character for them to
spring this on him at the last minute. I doubt you were privy to the
conversations or e-mail. So you would not know about that. (I don't know
about it either.)


Exhibit 5 is full of mistakes.
>

If it is full of mistakes, Penon should have pointed them out. Rossi would
have been paid $89 million. Yet Penon did not answer.

I am not aware of any mistakes in this document.


I see you still cannot bring yourself to admit you made a mistake when you
> accused me of making something up and I showed a reference that proved I
> was right.
>

I disagree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

The got involved with his technology in multiple steps. Now it seems that
> any puerile dilettante can surmise that Rossi’s technology does not and
> never did work as reported.
>

Murray is not a dilettante.



> All the while IH was happily hosting other people through to see and visit
> with Rossi and his technology with grand success as those ‘other people’
> contributed scores of millions into IH’s hands.
>

Who told you this happened? Where did you get this information? I do not
think this happened, because they were not happy with Rossi at that time,
and they told that to many people, including me. I doubt they would deceive
an investor.

You should probably check your sources and make sure this is true before
repeating it. It is not a good idea to post misinformation or to make
things up and post them.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Russ George]

A prophet doesn't have to have any brains. They are good to have, of course, 
for the ordinary exigencies of life, but they are no use in professional work. 
It is the restfulest vocation there is. When the spirit of prophecy comes upon 
you, you merely cake your intellect and lay it off in a cool place for a rest, 
and unship your jaw and leave it alone; it will work itself: the result is 
Prophecy.
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

 

Peter Gluck  > wrote:

 

And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?

 

It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks shows, 
and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower than the 
destination (the reservoir).

 

 

Can you tell or is it under NDA?

 

I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe Rossi 
instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe him, 
unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more information. You will 
reject it and demand more, and more, and more.

 

I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can wait until 
then. But, since you do not believe what they already published, there is no 
point to waiting. You have already made up your mind that Rossi is always 
right, no matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?
>

It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks
shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower than
the destination (the reservoir).



> Can you tell or is it under NDA?
>

I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe Rossi
instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe him,
unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more information. You
will reject it and demand more, and more, and more.

I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can wait
until then. But, since you do not believe what they already published,
there is no point to waiting. You have already made up your mind that Rossi
is always right, no matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Russ George]

Some few here have remarkably selective notions of what is reality. First off 
IH did not just engage with Rossi on a moment’s notice they worked with him 
over an extended period of time developing their trust in what he claimed and 
they wanted to invest in. The got involved with his technology in multiple 
steps. Now it seems that any puerile dilettante can surmise that Rossi’s 
technology does not and never did work as reported. IH is touted as being 
supremely capable of determining this but yet over years of engagement and 
stepwise investment they never did until the very last minute and even then 
were simply delaying any action until Rossi acted. All the while IH was happily 
hosting other people through to see and visit with Rossi and his technology 
with grand success as those ‘other people’ contributed scores of millions into 
IH’s hands.  Now the dilettantes raise a ruckus in this meaningless social 
media forum with all manner of text book spin mastering bullshit… me thinks the 
ladies protest too much. Nah they aren’t ladies at all they are clearly whores.

 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

 

From: a.ashfield 


Do you believe Pons & Fleischmann showed excess heat in their original 
experiment? Despite the "expert" hot fusion physicists from MIT and CalTech 
claims?

Actually, if you are familiar with the history of the field – and the name Gene 
Mallove of Infinite Energy magazine, you would realize that MIT did indeed 
replicate P, did find excess heat, and did “recalibrate” the results to look 
like a null experiment. That is fact.

 

And more relevant to the Rossi case, that Chuck Haldeman, the highly respected 
senior engineer at Lincoln Labs (MIT) twenty years ago, fully replicated the 
nickel hydrogen experiments of Mills at fairly high gain. Again, MIT refused to 
publish his results for fear of losing hot fusion funding. That is fact.

 

Thus, it is very likely that Rossi “could have” and even “should have” 
witnessed thermal gain at some point in his progress, especially before Focardi 
died, but either could not, or would not, share that result at a later date 
with IH. He may have been playing them for fools, as the motivation for not 
sharing is completely mysterious.

 

In any event, it is hard to imagine what happened to make Rossi decide not to 
demonstrate gain if he was able to do so - for IH. But if is pretty clear to 
any reasonable person, that if Rossi can do it now – it is self-destructive not 
to turn over a working device to a competent scientist. To hell with trade 
secrets, he is finished, otherwise.

 

Rossi may have over-played his hand, thinking IH were complete fools, who 
knows? I can tell you that there is no valid legal reason that he could not 
supply one of his old working cells, if he has one, to an independent physicist 
for testing, despite the ongoing case. University of Miami has a competent 
physics program.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Peter Gluck]

And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed?
Can you tell or is it under NDA?
peter

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Gluck quoted Rossi:
>
> "It is elementary engineering. it ws repeatedly published in many places
> blogs and it is well known:
> the flowmeter has been placed at a level lower than the source and the
> destination of the water flow, therefore it was at the bottom of a 'U': in
> such position, due to gravity, the flowmeter is always full."
>
> Rossi did claim this, but he lied. He often lies.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Gluck quoted Rossi:

"It is elementary engineering. it ws repeatedly published in many places
blogs and it is well known:
the flowmeter has been placed at a level lower than the source and the
destination of the water flow, therefore it was at the bottom of a 'U': in
such position, due to gravity, the flowmeter is always full."

Rossi did claim this, but he lied. He often lies.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[a.ashfield]

Jones,
Thank you for your polite reply.  I am indeed familiar with Mallove but 
it seems academia still does not accept cold fusion ever worked.  I know 
for a fact that DOE's office of science doesn't.  I thought the clincher 
was the published work showing relationship with Palladium loading to 
the cell working.


I don't know why Rossi refuses to hand over a working reactor but what 
he says is that even then academia would not believe it.  Also, that he 
knows any device will be back engineered and he thinks his only 
protection will be to be able to flood the market with reactors that are 
cheap enough to put off the competition.  So he will not release full 
details until he is in production.
I don't see that he has anything to lose by this strategy except bad 
press in the blogs.  I think the proof will be if he manages to get a 
working commercial unit up and running round about the end of 2016
The new QuarkX complicates the issue as Rossi seems to think this is the 
future and it does not sound like it is close to commercialization.




On 8/10/2016 1:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

*From:*a.ashfield


Do you believe Pons & Fleischmann showed excess heat in their original 
experiment? Despite the "expert" hot fusion physicists from MIT and 
CalTech claims?


Actually, if you are familiar with the history of the field – and the 
name Gene Mallove of Infinite Energy magazine, you would realize that 
MIT did indeed replicate P, did find excess heat, and did 
“recalibrate” the results to look like a null experiment. That is fact.


And more relevant to the Rossi case, that Chuck Haldeman, the highly 
respected senior engineer at Lincoln Labs (MIT) twenty years ago, 
fully replicated the nickel hydrogen experiments of Mills at fairly 
high gain. Again, MIT refused to publish his results for fear of 
losing hot fusion funding. That is fact.


Thus, it is very likely that Rossi “could have” and even “should have” 
witnessed thermal gain at some point in his progress, especially 
before Focardi died, but either could not, or would not, share that 
result at a later date with IH. He may have been playing them for 
fools, as the motivation for not sharing is completely mysterious.


In any event, it is hard to imagine what happened to make Rossi decide 
not to demonstrate gain if he was able to do so - for IH. But if is 
pretty clear to any reasonable person, that if Rossi can do it now – 
it is self-destructive not to turn over a working device to a 
competent scientist. To hell with trade secrets, he is finished, 
otherwise.


Rossi may have over-played his hand, thinking IH were complete fools, 
who knows? I can tell you that there is no valid legal reason that he 
could not supply one of his old working cells, if he has one, to an 
independent physicist for testing, despite the ongoing case. 
University of Miami has a competent physics program.

[Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-10-2016-lenr-angry-sad-comment-some.html

Greetings
,
Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Thus, it is very likely that Rossi “could have” and even “should have”
> witnessed thermal gain at some point in his progress, especially before
> Focardi died . . .
>

I agree. I think there is some evidence for this. It is not conclusive.



> In any event, it is hard to imagine what happened to make Rossi decide not
> to demonstrate gain if he was able to do so - for IH.
>

Rossi is unfathomable. I guess the simplest explanation would be that he
has nothing. In that scenario, I cannot imagine why he filed a lawsuit. He
should have taken the $11 million and run.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: a.ashfield 


Do you believe Pons & Fleischmann showed excess heat in their original 
experiment? Despite the "expert" hot fusion physicists from MIT and CalTech 
claims?



Actually, if you are familiar with the history of the field – and the name Gene 
Mallove of Infinite Energy magazine, you would realize that MIT did indeed 
replicate P, did find excess heat, and did “recalibrate” the results to look 
like a null experiment. That is fact.

 

And more relevant to the Rossi case, that Chuck Haldeman, the highly respected 
senior engineer at Lincoln Labs (MIT) twenty years ago, fully replicated the 
nickel hydrogen experiments of Mills at fairly high gain. Again, MIT refused to 
publish his results for fear of losing hot fusion funding. That is fact.

 

Thus, it is very likely that Rossi “could have” and even “should have” 
witnessed thermal gain at some point in his progress, especially before Focardi 
died, but either could not, or would not, share that result at a later date 
with IH. He may have been playing them for fools, as the motivation for not 
sharing is completely mysterious.

 

In any event, it is hard to imagine what happened to make Rossi decide not to 
demonstrate gain if he was able to do so - for IH. But if is pretty clear to 
any reasonable person, that if Rossi can do it now – it is self-destructive not 
to turn over a working device to a competent scientist. To hell with trade 
secrets, he is finished, otherwise.

 

Rossi may have over-played his hand, thinking IH were complete fools, who 
knows? I can tell you that there is no valid legal reason that he could not 
supply one of his old working cells, if he has one, to an independent physicist 
for testing, despite the ongoing case. University of Miami has a competent 
physics program.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[a.ashfield]

Jones,
Do you believe Pons & Fleischmann showed excess heat in their original 
experiment?

Despite the "expert" hot fusion physicists from MIT and CalTech claims?


On 8/10/2016 12:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

*From:*Eric Walker

…What led people to accept such a low bar for evidence?  Why are a few 
holdouts still so enamored of Rossi?  This stuff may be old hat to 
people who have been watching this field for years, but it's still 
interesting to me.  And also, when you've invested a lot of time in 
following a story, it's still nice to know what actually happened.


Eric,

Thereis a good WikiarticleexplainingRossi’s conduct…

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying_

Where itis reported that apercentage of this type 
ofafflictedindividualfullybelievesthattheirfalsepronouncements are 
literally true.The epidemiology indicates that there is an association 
withhigh-functionalADHD, whichseems to fitARs obsessivenessand skill 
level.He has charisma, energy, solid skills andextremeself-confidence 
– such thatthe combination of all of this isvery convincing to his 
apostles.


Plus, inLENRwe havea fieldwhere there have been successes in prior 
experimentsgoing back 27 years, usingsimilarparametersin metal 
hydrides,andit is very likely that from time to time, Rossi actually 
sawtrue energygain but could not reproducethis gainon demand.


He probably believed, and there is adequate basis forit in other 
fields, that he could overcome thepastreliabilityproblem by going to a 
largerform factor. Hewill probablygo to his grave believing that he 
solved the problemsof LENRand that his workwas honest, 
misunderstood,andscientificallyimportant.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed
After the agreement with Defkalion collapsed Rossi had to get money from 
somewhere to continue.  He had been funding everything himself for a 
long time.  As for Cherokee/IH's behavior, see Mats Lewan's take here. 
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/09/heres-my-hypothesis-on-the-rossi-ih-affair/


Exhibit 5 is full of mistakes.

I see you still cannot bring yourself to admit you made a mistake when 
you accused me of making something up and I showed a reference that 
proved I was right.




On 8/10/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and
short of funds when he signed the contract.


Where did you hear this?

It sure looks like dirty pool to pull that switch at the last moment.


He couldn't wait a week? He couldn't consult with a lawyer and wait 
one day? Anyway, Rossi is a master at dirty pool. This contract looks 
to me as if he wrote it.


But you will support IH whatever they do apparently.


I support them now. I was neutral until I saw Rossi's data, which is a 
travesty and obviously fraudulent. I cannot understand why anyone 
would support an outright fraud, so I assume you do not think he is a 
fraud. In that case, you have not looked closely at Exhibit 5, and you 
do not realize the customer site could not possibly had a 1 MW 
machine, or any excess heat.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

… What led people to accept such a low bar for evidence?  Why are a few 
holdouts still so enamored of Rossi?  This stuff may be old hat to people who 
have been watching this field for years, but it's still interesting to me.  And 
also, when you've invested a lot of time in following a story, it's still nice 
to know what actually happened.

Eric,

There is a good Wiki article explaining Rossi’s conduct…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_lying
Where it is reported that a percentage of this type of afflicted individual 
fully believes that their false pronouncements are literally true. The 
epidemiology indicates that there is an association with high-functional ADHD, 
which seems to fit ARs obsessiveness and skill level. He has charisma, energy, 
solid skills and extreme self-confidence – such that the combination of all of 
this is very convincing to his apostles.

Plus, in LENR we have a field where there have been successes in prior 
experiments going back 27 years, using similar parameters in metal hydrides, 
and it is very likely that from time to time, Rossi actually saw true energy 
gain but could not reproduce this gain on demand. 

He probably believed, and there is adequate basis for it in other fields, that 
he could overcome the past reliability problem by going to a larger form 
factor. He will probably go to his grave believing that he solved the problems 
of LENR and that his work was honest, misunderstood, and scientifically 
important. 

Re: [Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob Higgins wrote: … no outcome is going to release useful information to
> the LENR community….  Eric Walker wrote: If the matter goes to trial and
> additional exhibits become available through discovery, those of use who
> have been following Rossi for several years will obtain information of a
> kind and quality that Rossi would never have voluntarily parted with….
>
> Don’t hold your breath, Eric. Wouldn’t it be useless information anyway? Or
> is there a working E-Cat, somewhere in the universe? AFAIK, there is no
> solid evidence that AR has demonstrated thermal gain in a scientific
> manner. Ever.
>
I don't disagree with you.  By saying information from the court case "will
helpful for understanding how things got to this point," I'm thinking more
in sociological terms.  What led people to accept such a low bar for
evidence?  Why are a few holdouts still so enamored of Rossi?  This stuff
may be old hat to people who have been watching this field for years, but
it's still interesting to me.  And also, when you've invested a lot of time
in following a story, it's still nice to know what actually happened.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and short of
> funds when he signed the contract.
>

Where did you hear this?


It sure looks like dirty pool to pull that switch at the last moment.
>

He couldn't wait a week? He couldn't consult with a lawyer and wait one
day? Anyway, Rossi is a master at dirty pool. This contract looks to me as
if he wrote it.



> But you will support IH whatever they do apparently.
>

I support them now. I was neutral until I saw Rossi's data, which is a
travesty and obviously fraudulent. I cannot understand why anyone would
support an outright fraud, so I assume you do not think he is a fraud. In
that case, you have not looked closely at Exhibit 5, and you do not realize
the customer site could not possibly had a 1 MW machine, or any excess heat.

- Jed

[Vo]:Reality check of the day

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote: … no outcome is going to release useful information to the 
LENR community….  Eric Walker wrote: If the matter goes to trial and additional 
exhibits become available through discovery, those of use who have been 
following Rossi for several years will obtain information of a kind and quality 
that Rossi would never have voluntarily parted with….  

Don’t hold your breath, Eric. Wouldn’t it be useless information anyway? Or is 
there a working E-Cat, somewhere in the universe? AFAIK, there is no solid 
evidence that AR has demonstrated thermal gain in a scientific manner. Ever.

As far as LENR is concerned, replicators would be wise to write-off the entire 
Rossi-gate episode, stop wasting time with incessant bickering  - and focus on 
replicating the available experiments which have some gain (especially the 
NI-Week demo). The false hope of getting a MW power at high COP is the lure 
that allowed AR to repeatedly fool the gullible.

In retrospect, it is silly to think a MW was possible when Rossi could not 
scientifically prove gain at the watt level. Even today, if he could reliably 
show 50 watts out from 10 watts in, he might succeed against IH since their 
entire case circles around NEVER having seen any thermal gain. As things stand 
now, the odds are strong that the case will be tossed by the Court when Penon 
fails to appear for deposition.

One lesson for the rest of us: Be content with slight anomalous gain, realizing 
that with proper design, a high COP level is possible in the form of 
self-sustaining heat. The very first objection to Rossi – six years ago - was 
correct, in retrospect. That objection was this: if you have valid thermal 
gain, then with proper insulation almost no external power will be needed. This 
should be simple to demonstrate, and a kilowatt is superfluous. Show us 10 
watts. 

Yet when it could not be done by AR at a few watts, the best tactic becomes the 
big lie – supersize it. LOL. This is such a tragicomedy - “A Comedy of Errors” 
shall we say. 

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

It was pretty obvious that Rossi was under a lot of pressure and short 
of funds when he signed the contract.  It sure looks like dirty pool to 
pull that switch at the last moment.  But you will support IH whatever 
they do apparently.


Do you deny you made a mistake when you wrote "You made that up, and now 
you believe it."?

I showed reference that proves you were wrong.


On 8/10/2016 10:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But unknown to Rossi, IH was created by Darden 2 days before the
signing and when Rossi arrives at Cherokee to ink the deal, guess
what, he is told by Darden that he now must ink a deal with a
totally new clean skin startup, IH, which did not exist 3 days prior.

He "must ink a deal"? Why? Did they put a gun to his head? He should 
have thought about it for a week, and consulted with a lawyer.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

> But unknown to Rossi, IH was created by Darden 2 days before the signing
> and when Rossi arrives at Cherokee to ink the deal, guess what, he is told
> by Darden that he now must ink a deal with a totally new clean skin
> startup, IH, which did not exist 3 days prior.
>
He "must ink a deal"? Why? Did they put a gun to his head? He should have
thought about it for a week, and consulted with a lawyer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Background to Rossi's deal with Cherokee/IH

Engineer48 writes:

"Interesting sequence of events.

IH was formed 24 October, 2012.
Rossi visits Cherokee on 26 October to ink the deal with Cherokee that 
he and Darden had hammered out.


Rossi negotiates with Darden / Cherokee and expects to sign the License 
Agreement with Cherokee. But unknown to Rossi, IH was created by Darden 
2 days before the signing and when Rossi arrives at Cherokee to ink the 
deal, guess what, he is told by Darden that he now must ink a deal with 
a totally new clean skin startup, IH, which did not exist 3 days prior. 
Obviously from the complaint, Rossi never negotiated with nor knew about 
IH prior to Darden springing it on a unsuspecting and obviously excited 
Rossi. Well excited until the switcheroo was pulled."

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I was not suggesting the steam was vented directly to the outside. What 
I said was that it would not matter if it were.


To repeat:
AA.  "Touching faith in a company that lied about Vaughn."

Jed.  "You made that up, and now you believe it."

https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/763002369219100672/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
See the bottom highlighted in red and then repeat that I am making it up.

You owe me an apology.  Also you should quit the ad hominem attacks.



On 8/9/2016 10:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Really all that has to be proved is the water volume in and if the
output is at 102.8C at atmospheric pressure . . .


NOT possible. There were pumps pushing the water. It was not at 1 atm.

Also the electric power into the plant for the COP.  It doesn't
matter what happens after the steam leaves the plant. It could
have been vented directly to the outside air.


It would have been detected by the IR cameras and other means. It was 
not. There was NO HEAT anywhere. Not in the fake customer site or 
anywhere else. Not 1 MW. Not 100 kW. Nothing.


You cannot make heat magically vanish away.

- Jed