Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

1. I think the judgment is based on one issue and that person has many
> sides that could be better.
>

I think you are wrong.



> 2. No you do not have to judge.
>

But I can if I want to.


3. Nobody said that your judgment has any quality.
>

If you don't like my judgement, I suggest you stop reading my messages.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:

"... as I said. I.H. says
>
they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's."
>
> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
>
>
The press release! That's what I said before. The press release says
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
success."

In his press release, Rossi says the gadget produces 50 times input. If
that is true, surely that would be substantiation. Obviously the two
disagree.



> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>
>
You are not questioning any my assertions. You are asking questions about
things I never said, and issues I know nothing about. When did I talk about
people working on nuclear reactors? How would I know how many days they
spent there? Ask Rossi!

You made up this long list of imaginary claims that I supposedly said, and
now you want me to answer them?

I repeat, EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases
and legal filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.

If you are not satisfied with press releases, I cannot help you.

All I said was that the the two press releases conflict, and it is my
impression I.H. knows more about calorimetry than Rossi. That's all. Do you
understand what "impression" means? It does not mean I have their resumes
in my computer. It means I have talked to them and they seem to know what
they are doing, unlike Rossi.

You can read about Rossi's problems with calorimetry in the archives here,
such as his problems with NASA.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Lennart Thornros]

1. I think the judgment is based on one issue and that person has many
sides that could be better.
2. No you do not have to judge.
3. Nobody said that your judgment has any quality.
4. Very few people are idiots - I do not believe one of those few got that
kind of job.

Good we agree as far as we know Rossi is a great inventor and entrepreneur
who is difficult to deal with if you take him the wrong way. (Goes for many
- me included.:)

My point is that what is done so foar is just initial positioning. To
listen to the positioning and make judgment is not very smart, Down the
line we will see what is fowl and what is fish.

What you say about Rossi and IH is what you know. I am fine with that. Your
conclusion might be right, not because you have any information worth
water, but because it is a multiple choice question (Only two possible
answer as you phrase it. I think there might be many more - so I do not
judge.)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone
>> an idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012.
>>
>
> What other basis is there to call someone an idiot, other than his work?
> How else can you judge?
>
>
>
>> It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is
>> Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him.
>>
>
> When have I called Rossi a fraud? I have said he is suspicious, with a
> dodgy background, time in prison and so on. It is no wonder people think he
> is a fraud. But I am not a policeman, I have not investigated him, and I do
> not know whether he is a fraud or not.
>
>
>
>> No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo.
>>
>
> In that case, why is the status, quo?
>
>
>
>> The different sides has spoken and left all pertinent and objective data
>> out.
>> That is typical for a lawsuit in the beginning. It means nothing.
>>
>
> I have not read the lawsuit stuff carefully. It gives me a headache. I
> have not commented on it.
>
> The only thing I have said is that Rossi claims 50 times output, and I.H.
> says they could not substantiate the claims. One of them has to be right,
> and the other wrong. Based on what I know of their skills, I expect I.H. is
> right.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone
> an idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012.
>

What other basis is there to call someone an idiot, other than his work?
How else can you judge?



> It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is
> Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him.
>

When have I called Rossi a fraud? I have said he is suspicious, with a
dodgy background, time in prison and so on. It is no wonder people think he
is a fraud. But I am not a policeman, I have not investigated him, and I do
not know whether he is a fraud or not.



> No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo.
>

In that case, why is the status, quo?



> The different sides has spoken and left all pertinent and objective data
> out.
> That is typical for a lawsuit in the beginning. It means nothing.
>

I have not read the lawsuit stuff carefully. It gives me a headache. I have
not commented on it.

The only thing I have said is that Rossi claims 50 times output, and I.H.
says they could not substantiate the claims. One of them has to be right,
and the other wrong. Based on what I know of their skills, I expect I.H. is
right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone an
idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012.
It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is
Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him.

No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo.
The different sides has spoken and left all pertinent and objective data
out.
That is typical for a lawsuit in the beginning. It means nothing.

You indicate some relationship with IH that gives you access to better
information. Maybe correct but it could also be their subjective position
you are taken for valid.
No, I have no idea if that is the case.
Cease the name calling and realize you have no 'evidence'.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Ian Walker  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Should have included this in the above text.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109304.html
>
> Source for what "Jed Said"
>
> My apologies.
>
> This head cold is slowing me down :)
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 17:42, Ian Walker  wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Should have included this in the above text.
>>
>> Source for what "Jed Said"
>>
>> My apologies.
>>
>> Kind Regards walker
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> In reply to Jed
>>>
>>> "... as I said. I.H. says
>>>
>>> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
>>> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
>>> Penon's."
>>>
>>> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
>>> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
>>> accept their credentials?
>>> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
>>> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
>>> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
>>> was not working?
>>> 6) What are their qualifications?
>>> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
>>> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>>>
>>> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards walker
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>>
 Ian Walker  wrote:


> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to
> report something in the future state the source and quote what they say,
> otherwise you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to
> back-pedal the fantasy.
>

 EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and
 legal filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.

 LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
 your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
 understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
 evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
 right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
 must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
 sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
 rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.

 I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore
 what I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things
 I did not do. Stick to the facts, please.

 - Jed


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Should have included this in the above text.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109304.html

Source for what "Jed Said"

My apologies.

This head cold is slowing me down :)

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 17:42, Ian Walker  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Should have included this in the above text.
>
> Source for what "Jed Said"
>
> My apologies.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker  wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> In reply to Jed
>>
>> "... as I said. I.H. says
>>
>> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
>> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
>> Penon's."
>>
>> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
>> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
>> accept their credentials?
>> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
>> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
>> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
>> was not working?
>> 6) What are their qualifications?
>> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
>> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>>
>> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>>
>> Kind Regards walker
>>
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Walker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to
 report something in the future state the source and quote what they say,
 otherwise you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to
 back-pedal the fantasy.

>>>
>>> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
>>> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>>>
>>> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
>>> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
>>> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
>>> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
>>> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
>>> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
>>> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
>>> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>>>
>>> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what
>>> I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
>>> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Should have included this in the above text.

Source for what "Jed Said"

My apologies.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> In reply to Jed
>
> "... as I said. I.H. says
>
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's."
>
> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
> accept their credentials?
> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
> was not working?
> 6) What are their qualifications?
> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>
> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>> Ian Walker  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
>>> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
>>> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
>>> the fantasy.
>>>
>>
>> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
>> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>>
>> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
>> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
>> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
>> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
>> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
>> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
>> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
>> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>>
>> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what
>> I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
>> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jed

"... as I said. I.H. says

they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
Penon's."

1) Who at I.H. said this?
2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that
you accept their credentials?
3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the
plant was not working?
6) What are their qualifications?
7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?

Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.

Kind Regards walker


On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Ian Walker  wrote:
>
>
>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
>> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
>> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
>> the fantasy.
>>
>
> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>
> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>
> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what I
> say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Joe Hughes]

Dear Jed,

I'm sorry if I missed this in an earlier exchange, but I'm very curious 
to hear your stance on this especially in light of the events of the 
last month.


With all the information that you have been privy to especially over the 
last few weeks, what is your stance on the "Rossi Effect" - does it exist?


Also, do you believe that he has been purposefully making fraudulent 
claims these past several years?


Lastly, do you believe that he has ever been able to achieve a LENR in 
any of his tests either internal or external?



Joe

On 4/14/16 11:25 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Ian Walker > wrote:

As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact
the first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal
quite a bit about it.


I am not back pedaling about anything! This is nonsense. I never meant 
to say there is an official second report. I said the lawsuit filing 
lists 3 people involved. One of them works for I.H. I.H. strongly 
disagrees with the ERV report. They made that clear in their March 10 
statement and in their response to the lawsuit.


The Penon report claims the device produces 80 times input. That is 
what Rossi said in his lawsuit. I.H. emphatically denies that. 
Obviously their experts reached a different conclusion, as you see 
from their press releases. You do not need me to tell you that.


Why is any of what I just said controversial? You can read the press 
reports and see for yourself I am right. You know darn well what I mean.


You may be convinced that Rossi is correct and IH is wrong. But you 
have no business saying that I am back pedaling or that I have no 
reason to say what I just said.


In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Rossi is better at doing 
calorimetry than the experts at I.H. does not know either party. There 
has to be a drastic mistake here and I am sure Rossi is the one who 
made it, since he is prone to dangerous, stupid, sloppy mistakes, such 
as the one that almost killed the NASA people.


I also stand by my opinion of Penon, based on his 2012 report. He is a 
certified idiot. Read the report and decide for yourself, but don't 
tell me I have no basis for my opinion.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:


> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
> the fantasy.
>

EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.

LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in your
opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not understand
what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the evaluation. You
can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is right that the
machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts must be wrong.
That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my sources of
information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is rude and it is
against the rules. It is damned annoying.

I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what I
say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
not do. Stick to the facts, please.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:


> As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the
> first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit
> about it.
>

I am not back pedaling about anything! This is nonsense. I never meant to
say there is an official second report. I said the lawsuit filing lists 3
people involved. One of them works for I.H. I.H. strongly disagrees with
the ERV report. They made that clear in their March 10 statement and in
their response to the lawsuit.

The Penon report claims the device produces 80 times input. That is what
Rossi said in his lawsuit. I.H. emphatically denies that. Obviously their
experts reached a different conclusion, as you see from their press
releases. You do not need me to tell you that.

Why is any of what I just said controversial? You can read the press
reports and see for yourself I am right. You know darn well what I mean.

You may be convinced that Rossi is correct and IH is wrong. But you have no
business saying that I am back pedaling or that I have no reason to say
what I just said.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Rossi is better at doing calorimetry
than the experts at I.H. does not know either party. There has to be a
drastic mistake here and I am sure Rossi is the one who made it, since he
is prone to dangerous, stupid, sloppy mistakes, such as the one that almost
killed the NASA people.

I also stand by my opinion of Penon, based on his 2012 report. He is a
certified idiot. Read the report and decide for yourself, but don't tell me
I have no basis for my opinion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the first
we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit about
it. I personally think Jed has misunderstood what IH has said perhaps under
the instruction of APCO Worldwide as a spun story to trap the unwary, hence
why I think Jed is back-pedalling the supposed ERV 2.

Having said that from Jed we now know that contrary to what, various
pundits/mouthpieces said that the real ERV exists and they are now
back-pedalling the ERV 2 story.

Why does IH not publish the Real ERV?
We have seen the contract IH signed it clearly states that IH were paying
half the cost of the ER and thus have as much right as Rossi to publish the
Real ERV.

However we now know that IH have had the real ERV, the one they
co-contacted for, with people they agreed to running it.

Instead we have the mouthpieces doing ad-homonym attacks on one of the
person's involved in the ERV almost purely on the grounds he is Italian as
far as I can tell. He was so qualified that IH spent over $10 million on
his advice that they contracted him for but suddenly now his report means
IH must full-fill their contract, the spinner's mouthpieces say he is no
longer qualified or competent enough to write the very report IH
co-commissioned from him; when the mouthpieces have never seen the report.

It is not physically possible to describe something you have not seen. If
you do then you have failed science 101 and the Galileo test for you have
not put your eye to the telescope.

On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
the fantasy. A notebook or recorder is useful.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 14:47, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Dear Jed,
>>
>> Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now.
>>
>
> His explanation is nonsense, as I explained in the message titled: "Rossi
> states his reason for not publishing Penon report."
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Dear Jed,
>
> Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now.
>

His explanation is nonsense, as I explained in the message titled: "Rossi
states his reason for not publishing Penon report."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jed,

Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now.

But IH? If ERV-2 makes Rossi checkmate, why they do not publish it
now - as a fatal blow, great ace in the dispute?

It will be interesting to see how it demonstrates lak of excess heat for a
complete year.
Messy affair

Peter

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Ian Walker  wrote:
>
> 1) First of all according to what Jed Rothwell reports it was commissioned
>> solely and apparently secretly by IH with obvious risks of bias.
>>
>
> I did not say anything remotely like that! I just said IH sent experts,
> they wrote a report, and their report disagrees with Penon's.
>
> What did you expect they would do? Do you think they going to pay $89
> million without sending experts or without writing their own evaluation?
>
> If it were secret why would they tell me they wrote it? (They did not
> provide the actual report to me.)
>
>
>
>> 2) It breaks the contract, there was an agreed team and an agreed format
>> for the ERV contractually agreed and paid for by both parties.
>>
>
> As I said, only a lunatic would enforce a contract that gives Penon the
> sole decision making power, with no appeal to technical accuracy or common
> sense. As I said, he could write a report saying only:
>
> "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP
> exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>
>
> Do you think a court would enforce that?
>
>
>
>> 3) By Jed Rothwell's own post it seems the report is at best partial and
>> by its clan-destined nature likely to be flawed.
>>
>
> The Penon report is way more likely to be flawed. The guy is a certified
> idiot.
>
>
>
>> Why IH are open about this and other aspects worries me greatly.
>>
>
> You should worry about why Rossi refuses to give his report to anyone
> after he repeatedly promised to Mats Lewan and others that he would publish
> it. His reason for withholding it, which I described in another thread, is
> nonsense. He has been working on this lawsuit for a while. If there were
> any truth to this claim that his lawyer told him not to publish, the lawyer
> would have told him that weeks ago, when Rossi was still promising he would
> publish.
>
> It is just an excuse.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:

1) First of all according to what Jed Rothwell reports it was commissioned
> solely and apparently secretly by IH with obvious risks of bias.
>

I did not say anything remotely like that! I just said IH sent experts,
they wrote a report, and their report disagrees with Penon's.

What did you expect they would do? Do you think they going to pay $89
million without sending experts or without writing their own evaluation?

If it were secret why would they tell me they wrote it? (They did not
provide the actual report to me.)



> 2) It breaks the contract, there was an agreed team and an agreed format
> for the ERV contractually agreed and paid for by both parties.
>

As I said, only a lunatic would enforce a contract that gives Penon the
sole decision making power, with no appeal to technical accuracy or common
sense. As I said, he could write a report saying only:

"I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP
exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."


Do you think a court would enforce that?



> 3) By Jed Rothwell's own post it seems the report is at best partial and
> by its clan-destined nature likely to be flawed.
>

The Penon report is way more likely to be flawed. The guy is a certified
idiot.



> Why IH are open about this and other aspects worries me greatly.
>

You should worry about why Rossi refuses to give his report to anyone after
he repeatedly promised to Mats Lewan and others that he would publish it.
His reason for withholding it, which I described in another thread, is
nonsense. He has been working on this lawsuit for a while. If there were
any truth to this claim that his lawyer told him not to publish, the lawyer
would have told him that weeks ago, when Rossi was still promising he would
publish.

It is just an excuse.

- Jed

[Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Jed Rothwell is posting various comments about a supposed 2nd ERV.

As described by Jed Rothwell this report has several problems.

1) First of all according to what Jed Rothwell reports it was commissioned
solely and apparently secretly by IH with obvious risks of bias.

2) It breaks the contract, there was an agreed team and an agreed format
for the ERV contractually agreed and paid for by both parties.

3) By Jed Rothwell's own post it seems the report is at best partial and by
its clan-destined nature likely to be flawed. Why IH are open about this
and other aspects worries me greatly.

These are just my first thoughts.

I am sure that others as well as myself can see the very obvious risks IH
are taking in pursuing their current course.

Kind Regards walker