Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Patrick Ellul]

Jed,

Well, he might accept it in return for a large sum of money.
>

Why would IH pay a large sum of money for something that produced no excess
energy whatsoever?

Thank you for your insight.

Patrick

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Patrick Ellul  wrote:

Jed,
>
> If it is a matter of calorimetry as you insist, why would they ever settle
> out of court?
>

I only say that because people often settle out of court. Their lawyers may
advise them to do that to save money.


Rossi will never accept that it did not work at all.
>

Well, he might accept it in return for a large sum of money. If they do not
settle I gather the case might drag on for years, which would end up
costing him a lot. The details of the settlement would probably be kept
secret so he would never have to publicly admit that it does not work.

I have no reason to think they will settle. I have not heard that they
might. I am just saying settlements are common.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Patrick Ellul]

Jed,

If it is a matter of calorimetry as you insist, why would they ever settle
out of court?

Rossi claims it totally rocked while IH claim it totally did not work
whatsoever.

Settlement would mean that there is a middle ground in terms of success
based on calorimetry.
Settlement would mean that it worked at the very least a little bit.

Rossi will never accept that it did not work at all.

Best regards,
Patrick

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen Cooke  wrote:


> Especially when you can't discuss some things you know about the current
> context and have to instead draw on older material to which you had
> concerns about at the time but previously gave the benefit of the doubt.
>

Yes, that is the situation.



> We should try to relax I think,trust the due process and allow everything
> to be considered and let things run their course. All will become clearer
> in time . . .
>

All would have been clear weeks ago, if it were not for this damn lawsuit.
I think the people at I.H. wanted to explain their views to the public.

I hope this is settled quickly without costing I.H. much money. The
important thing is for them to continue funding research, and not to get
sidetracked with an expensive lawsuit. It might be settled out of court,
which I gather might mean the information will never be released to the
public. (I know little about lawsuits, but that is what I have heard.) That
would be a shame because researchers and the audience here would benefit
from knowing the facts about this case. Everyone should hear I.H.'s side of
the story. You may decide that Rossi is correct, but you should first hear
both sides.

As I said before, a great deal of money at stake and I.H. should do
whatever their attorneys recommend. Satisfying our curiosity is of
secondary importance.

My curiosity too. There is much that I do not know.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:


> [Dunn] seems to be more of a marketer for hydrogen fuel and renewable
> energy.  There could have been some conflict of interest with Rossi’s goals
> of marketing his E-Cat.  Who knows, maybe Rossi saw thru the $15 M offer
> Jed talks about and concluded it was not for him.
>

Jim Dunn was not offering the $15 million. That was a venture capitalist,
whose name I have forgotten. Dunn, Nelson and the others from NASA
accompanied the VC. They were doing a technical evaluation. Or trying to,
anyway.

Rossi threw them out before they got to the point of discussing the money
or a deal.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks Jed for replying, I can appreciate its not easy taking your stance and 
that it's difficult for you to explain things from this view point. Especially 
when you can't discuss some things you know about the current context and have 
to instead draw on older material to which you had concerns about at the time 
but previously gave the benefit of the doubt. 

We should try to relax I think,trust the due process and allow everything to be 
considered and let things run their course. All will become clearer in time, 
hopefully eventually all kinds of LENR tech and spin off tech will benefit 
somehow from what is done now and once all things are considered perhaps have a 
strong and accepted basis.


> On 11 May 2016, at 16:08, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jed, do you know what the temperature of the steam was? 
> 
> I know practically nothing about this device. Rossi never described it. Jim 
> Dunn never got a chance to evaluate it, because Rossi threw him out. There 
> are some photos of it at Krivit's site but no detailed descriptions.
> 
> You should talk to Jim for details. There is no point to asking Rossi.
> 
> The venture capitalists assisted by NASA experts were offering Rossi $15 
> million as I recall. Rossi refused to do a proper demo for them after the 
> first one nearly blew up. He said he "did not have time." That's pathological.
> 
> - Jed
> 

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jim Dunn’s background is identified at the following link:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:James_Dunn

His technical background does not seem to be in thermal hydraulics.  He seems 
to be more of a marketer for hydrogen fuel and renewable energy.  There could 
have been some conflict of interest with Rossi’s goals of marketing his E-Cat.  
Who knows, maybe Rossi saw thru the $15 M offer Jed talks about and concluded 
it was not for him.  

Of course Jed has a good handle on Rossi’s motives and very well may be correct 
about Dunn’s assessment.

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach 
to LENR 's existentil problems

Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote:


  Hi Jed, do you know what the temperature of the steam was? 


I know practically nothing about this device. Rossi never described it. Jim 
Dunn never got a chance to evaluate it, because Rossi threw him out. There are 
some photos of it at Krivit's site but no detailed descriptions.

You should talk to Jim for details. There is no point to asking Rossi.

The venture capitalists assisted by NASA experts were offering Rossi $15 
million as I recall. Rossi refused to do a proper demo for them after the first 
one nearly blew up. He said he "did not have time." That's pathological.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen Cooke  wrote:

Hi Jed, do you know what the temperature of the steam was?
>

I know practically nothing about this device. Rossi never described it. Jim
Dunn never got a chance to evaluate it, because Rossi threw him out. There
are some photos of it at Krivit's site but no detailed descriptions.

You should talk to Jim for details. There is no point to asking Rossi.

The venture capitalists assisted by NASA experts were offering Rossi $15
million as I recall. Rossi refused to do a proper demo for them after the
first one nearly blew up. He said he "did not have time." That's
pathological.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Stephen Cooke]

Hi Jed, do you know what the temperature of the steam was? 

I understood you mentioned that Jim said the pressure also rose, but I wonder 
if it was at air pressure if it might have explained the lack of apparent steam 
vapour? If the steam was much hotter than 100 deg C  at air pressure it would 
be relatively less dense. Once it entered the atmosphere it would disperse in 
the air and cool relatively quickly and contract in volume due to the ideal gas 
law I suppose. If so I suppose any vapour would be quite thin and dispersed and 
maybe turbulent and be relatively difficult to see compared to steam from a 
kettle say and not have high velocity high density output such as from a 
pressure cooker? This is also consistent I think with the video I saw (was it 
with Steve Krivit?) where a device was being demonstrated. Perhaps I'm wrong 
I'm not a boiler engineer and only considering it from a Physics point of view 
and I apologize if I made a wrong assessment there. Perhaps a boiler engineer 
who deals with high temp steam at air pressure knows better. Could it be they 
initially thought this was the status so and only later saw higher pressure 
indicating a blockage which meant terminating the test?

It's interesting that the room was full of steam after they switched off the 
device this could be consistent with the steam still flowing at air pressure at 
lower temperature near 100 deg C especially if there was no damage to the 
device. It seems to imply that the steam was flowing when it cooled and the 
blockage disappeared at that point?

Do you know if the steam was directly from a tank in the device or from an out 
put from a pipe of a heat exchanger?

I wasn't there so don't know what really occurred and can only speculate but I 
can imagine both sides being frustrated and upset with the situation rather 
than the people involved if something like that happened especially with so 
much was at stake. It would be easy to
make wrong assumptions about the reactions on both sides in this case.

The test and your comments have maybe highlighted something important though. 
Even devices where pressure is supposed to be low at air pressure might in some 
contingency case need a safety valve or some other way to automatically shut 
down incase of blockages or other unexpected behavior etc. This could be 
important for replicators or other LENR experimenters to bear in mind in future 
testing.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 May 2016, at 02:04, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> a.ashfield  wrote:
> 
>> "No, it was just debris or something. This sort of thing happens with 
>> experiments."
>> 
>> It would require BOTH the inlet and outlet to be blocked.
> 
> Good point. Maybe it was just a boil-off reactor? I do not know. Jim said the 
> outlet was blocked so the temperature and pressure were rising. You should 
> ask him for details.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

When a test is designed, a test plan is generated that defines what the
> test is going to do and how it is going to do it in detail. Both parties
> look at the test plan and sign off on that plan.
>
> This I.H. test plan should had the test procedures defined in detail which
> includes how energy production was to be determined. . . .
>

You attached this to the message about Jim Dunn. That had nothing to do
with I.H. That was with NASA. Maybe you just attached it to the end of the
thread . . .

Anyway, there were disagreements about the protocol. I do not know anything
about the contract or what the arrangements were. I was hoping the
differences would be resolved but apparently they were not. That is what
the March 10 announcement meant. As I said, when I read it, I thought: "the
roof has fallen in; it's over."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Axil Axil]

When a test is designed, a test plan is generated that defines what the
test is going to do and how it is going to do it in detail. Both parties
look at the test plan and sign off on that plan.

This I.H. test plan should had the test procedures defined in detail which
includes how energy production was to be determined.

If the test plan was not implemented as documented at the start of the
test, any party that has exceptions to the details of the implementation
should have resolved that exception before the test was performed.

It sounds crazy to me... that standard testing signoff procedures were not
followed in this case. I have written test plans and managed tests where
each step of the test was signed off one excruciating detail at a time. If
I.H. did not agree with the test procedure, the test should have been
terminated on the first day and redone to the satisfaction of I.H. and
restarted.

This situation comes out of La La land and violates the well established
processes of conducting a contractual based test.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> "No, it was just debris or something. This sort of thing happens with
>> experiments."
>>
>> It would require BOTH the inlet and outlet to be blocked.
>
>
> Good point. Maybe it was just a boil-off reactor? I do not know. Jim said
> the outlet was blocked so the temperature and pressure were rising. You
> should ask him for details.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

"No, it was just debris or something. This sort of thing happens with
> experiments."
>
> It would require BOTH the inlet and outlet to be blocked.


Good point. Maybe it was just a boil-off reactor? I do not know. Jim said
the outlet was blocked so the temperature and pressure were rising. You
should ask him for details.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

Surely you can answer yes or no.

" The reactor was turned off. Hours later it was cooler but when they 
opened it, the room was filled with steam."


"Hours later." Surely that tells you heat was being generated.

"No, it was just debris or something. This sort of thing happens with 
experiments."


It would require BOTH the inlet and outlet to be blocked.  The inlet was 
probably a peristaltic pump with plastic tubing that wouldn't take that 
much pressure without it being obvious.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Did anyone tell you why it was bad?


I cannot discuss this. Sorry.



> If the E-Cat test that nearly exploded was like the ones that were
> demonstrated I can understand that one would not expect it to get blocked -
> both inlet and outlet.


The outlet was blocked. Jim Dunn removed the hose and showed Rossi there
was no steam coming out. Even at that, Rossi continued to insist there was
steam. Jim held his hand right next to the outlet, and said, "look Andrea:
no steam!" Then he asked, "what is your pressure relief valve set for?" The
machine was covered with insulation, so they could not see the valve . . .
Except, it turned out, there was no valve. So they evacuated the room in a
hurry. The reactor was turned off. Hours later it was cooler but when they
opened it, the room was filled with steam.

That's what Jim told me. The others confirmed it.



>   I can't imagine how that would happen unless the reactor ran away and
> melted.
>

No, it was just debris or something. This sort of thing happens with
experiments. It was a small hose. You can see photos of it at Krivit's site.

Accidents like this happen in experiments. That is why you must have a
pressure relief valve.



> I don't see how it would be possible for Rossi to even fake that.


I don't know if he is faking it or just really bad at calorimetry, but I am
pretty sure he is wrong.



> I suppose we will find out the truth if it goes to court and is not
> settled out of court.
>

I hope so.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

Did anyone tell you why it was bad?  Yes or no.  You don't have to 
discuss it although I don't see why it should be secret..


If the E-Cat test that nearly exploded was like the ones that were 
demonstrated I can understand that one would not expect it to get 
blocked - both inlet and outlet.  I can't imagine how that would happen 
unless the reactor ran away and melted.


As far as the x50 error goes, it is the ERV reporting, who it is claimed 
used his own instrumentation, in addition to what the plant was using 
and recording.  Not to mention the customer.  This in addition to the 
staff manning the plant.  I don't see how it would be possible for Rossi 
to even fake that.   I suppose we will find out the truth if it goes to 
court and is not settled out of court.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Did anyone tell you why it was "bad"?
>

That I cannot discuss. Sorry.


I find it very hard to believe one could make an error of x50.
>

It is hard to believe. But we have all seen errors of this magnitude on a
small scale, and even on the kilowatt scale at Defkalion.

Plus, as I said, Rossi's public 1 MW reactor test proved nothing. And Rossi
has made many terrible mistakes, most memorably when he almost killed the
people from NASA. That was a kilowatt-scale mistake. There may have been no
excess heat (it is impossible to judge) but he thought there were kilowatts
of excess heat, because he thought there was fluid flowing through the
reactor carrying off heat. In fact, the flow was blocked, and the heat and
steam pressure were building up inside the reactor.

Everyone makes mistakes. I have made many, including some where I thought
there was many times input when there was nothing.

Here is the thing though. Rossi's reaction to this mistake proves there is
something deeply wrong with him. I mean it when I say he almost killed
those people (and himself). When a heavy steel boiler with no safety valve
explodes from steam, that can be devastating. The fact that he even built
the reactor without a safety pressure relief valve is extraordinarily rash.
It is senseless. If you or I or any normal person nearly triggered such an
accident, we would be mortified. We would apologize. We might fear a
lawsuit. We would do everything in our power to assure the observers that
this was a terrible mistake and it will never happen again. The people from
NASA -- who were braver than I -- offered to come back the next day to see
a properly done demonstration. It goes without saying that if you or I were
in that situation we would make every effort to fix the problem and do a
demonstration the next day.

So what did Rossi do? He flatly refused to try another demonstration, and
he demanded that they pay him millions of dollars based on what they had
just seen. When they refused, he went ballistic and threw them out. This
reaction is pathological. It is crazy. Anyone who would do that is either
mentally ill or he is an extremely stupid fraud. Anyone who would do that
cannot be trusted. His technical judgement is so bad, and he is so rash, he
is probably capable of making an error of 50 times input. I know that Rossi
is stubbornly unwilling to admit to any mistake, no matter how obvious it
is. I have seen that in my own interactions with him.

I am not going to speculate as to whether Rossi is a fraud. But this
incident, and others like it, prove beyond question that his judgement is
deeply flawed, he is a dangerous person, and you cannot believe his claims
unless they are independently confirmed.

That does not preclude the possibility that he is also a genius.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

"That is a little unclear. I mean:

I cannot describe the details, but the gist of it is, I.H. thinks that 
Rossi's calorimetry is badly done and his conclusions are invalid. 
Experts from outside of I.H. have examined the calorimetry and they told 
me they agree with I.H.


As I said before, this dispute is about calorimetry and _nothing else_. 
If I.H. thought there is excess heat, they would happy to pay the $89 
million. If they do not pay, they get no IP and they write off the $11 
million. Why would they do that if they think the machine works?!?"


Did anyone tell you why it was "bad"?  It doesn't seem too complicated 
to measure.  Was it the power input, the water input or the steam output?


I find it very hard to believe one could make an error of x50.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> can you reveal why?
>>
>
> Sorry, no I cannot describe details. I will say that sources outside of
> I.H. confirmed that the calorimetry is badly done.
>

That is a little unclear. I mean:

I cannot describe the details, but the gist of it is, I.H. thinks that
Rossi's calorimetry is badly done and his conclusions are invalid. Experts
from outside of I.H. have examined the calorimetry and they told me they
agree with I.H.

As I said before, this dispute is about calorimetry and *nothing else*. If
I.H. thought there is excess heat, they would happy to pay the $89 million.
If they do not pay, they get no IP and they write off the $11 million. Why
would they do that if they think the machine works?!?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>  I heard a few reports that I.H. was not happy.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>> can you reveal why?
>

Sorry, no I cannot describe details. I will say that sources outside of
I.H. confirmed that the calorimetry is badly done.

This sounds plausible to me, because Rossi's previous tests were terrible.
You may recall his last public test of the 1 MW reactor, with the video
webcast. It was absurd. It proved nothing. None of the critical parameters
were reported. There was a gigantic external diesel powered generator
producing who-knows-how-much input power. As I recall there were no
flowmeters. The "proof" consisted of a few sheets of paper written by some
retired military engineer saying: "everything looks great except a few of
the cells are leaking." Was that guy a licensed HVAC engineer? Did he
perform the standard, legally approved ASTM boiler test procedures? We have
no idea. Think about how simple it would be to produce rock-solid test
results that any HVAC engineering company and any court in the world would
accept unconditionally. Now, ask yourself: why didn't Rossi do that?

(The ASTM is the European version of the ASME, http://www.astm.org/)

This showed that Rossi knows how to do a gigantic impressive looking
demonstration that proves *nothing*. On March 10, I.H. more or less
announced that he did that again. I was hoping for a better outcome, but I
was not surprised.

I honestly have no doubt I.H. is telling the truth. I realize it is
difficult to believe someone could make a mistake by a factor of 50. But if
you look at how sloppy Rossi has been on the kilowatt scale, and in his
1-day megawatt test, I think you will understand how he might make similar
mistakes on a giant scale. Scaling up does not ensure you get the right
answer. Defkalion also did large scale tests that turned out to be wrong:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Jack, I respect that people change opinion. I mostly disagree with the
labels put on Rossi in this case. I do not know him as Jed points out.
However, I have met a few entrepreneurs and he certainly sounds like one.
Another thing is that I have operated as IH and I understand their dilemma.
I am sure they are unhappy. I am just a little confused over that they are
not able to find resolution.

Entrepreneurs are a little bit like artists, some of them cut of their ear,
others are socially accepted. All of them are egocentric.

I do not ask IH what they think. They would say the same as they said to
Jed. However, that might not be all there is to it. My indication is that
they do not resolve the issue.

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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>  I heard a few reports that I.H. was not happy.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>> can you reveal why?
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Axil Axil]

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

 I heard a few reports that I.H. was not happy.
>
> - Jed
>
> can you reveal why?

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> As I said -- over and over -- I know several skilled people who are
> working with I.H., and who knows what Rossi has done.
>

I mean they know what he did previously, with NASA and others. I doubt they
know about the 1-year test. Everyone knows about NASA because the people
from NASA have been to conferences and discussed their experiences freely
with anyone who asked. It is not at all secret.

Nearly every scientist and cold fusion researcher I know dismissed Rossi
long ago. I dismissed him too. Then the first Levi report come out and I
thought: "maybe I'm wrong; maybe there is something to it after all." The
Lugano report was a bust. But when I.H. supported him, I thought: "those
people seem smart. I hope they have experts conducting the tests." After
that, nothing . . . I heard a few reports that I.H. was not happy. On March
10 of this year, the roof fell in.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:

I think Jed cares about the truth and hates that the situation has turned
> out the way it has.
>

I.H. hates it way more than I do! I feel terrible for them. Fortunately, it
seems they intend to stay in the field and continue funding other
researchers. Thank goodness!



> This is not what I would have ever expected a year ago.  It is a sad time
> LENR.
>

Yes. On a few occasions over the last year I heard from I.H. and from
others that the test was not going well. No details -- just that they
disagreed with Rossi's analysis. I hoped that I.H. and Rossi would get
together and iron out their disagreements. I hoped there would be a
positive final report. That's why I agreed to take part in Mats Lewan's
symposium, which was predicated on a positive report. I would not have
agreed if I had known the outcome. Mats can tell you I was worried about
it, but I hoped things would turn out okay, and I was working on the
presentation.

Then on March 10 I.H. issued the press release, and I knew they & Rossi had
not reconciled. I thought "it's over now." I spent a few weeks trying to
convince Mats to cancel the symposium, which he finally did when it become
apparent Rossi would not release the report.

The lawsuit came as a complete surprise to me.

As I said -- over and over -- I know several skilled people who are working
with I.H., and who knows what Rossi has done. They agree with me that I.H.
must be technically right. There is no comparing the two.



> We need not wait long.  It will be interesting to see IH's response to the
> lawsuit.
>

I hope we do see it. But we may not. They might settle out of court. A lot
of money is at stake. If their lawyers advise them to settle, they should.
The rest of us will never know what happened.

Also, I gather it is easy to get an extension to that deadline. The judge
can grant one, or if the two parties agree they get one. It might drag on
for years.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jack Cole]

Lennart,

Many of us sounded different before.  It has taken us awhile to get more
information about the situation (e.g., negative replications galore,
repeated patterns of egregious mistakes made by Rossi / the people he
chooses to conduct "tests").

I very much understand the desire to believe Rossi.  Those of us who have
changed our minds about the situation have not arrived at this position
easily.

I think Jed cares about the truth and hates that the situation has turned
out the way it has.  This is not what I would have ever expected a year
ago.  It is a sad time LENR.

We need not wait long.  It will be interesting to see IH's response to the
lawsuit.

Jack

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:41 PM Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH.
> I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure
> about the situation. I still do not agree with the way you have thrown
> Rossi under the bus. Not long ago you sounded different. You have other
> info you need to present it or your say is just BS,
>
> 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Cook  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I  forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R work.  They are
>>> not above spoon feeding.  They even pay as a dessert course.  I trust you
>>> remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their
>>> experiments.
>>>
>>
>> That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been
>> retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows
>> nothing about it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that
>>> the ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system
>>> temperatures in the Japanese tests.  So much for the adequacy of HVAC
>>> knowhow.
>>>
>>
>> You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of
>> the report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a
>> few months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was
>> apparent. That is what I wrote:
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
>>
>> This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will
>> grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a
>> calibration to be sure.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to
>>> cold fusion is “simply absurd.”
>>>
>>
>> As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold
>> fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the
>> U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for
>> government support and funding. You can confirm that easily.
>>
>> Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports.
>> Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and
>> China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that
>> these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit
>> Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after
>> time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would
>> do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious
>> because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out.
>>
>> To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason
>> they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is
>> crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their
>> purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long
>> gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave
>> Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million
>> more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he
>> failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous
>> tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and
>> others.
>>
>> I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing.
>> Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it
>> worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11
>> million?
>>
>> There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does
>> not work.
>>
>> Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest,
>> knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the
>> researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH.
>

Do you mean only Rossi is working with I.H? That is incorrect. I know
several researchers funded by them.


I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure about
> the situation.
>

I told you already! I have met with the people at I.H. They told me. I
believe them, because I find them far more credible than Rossi. So does
everyone else I know who has met with them. That's all there is to it.



> I still do not agree with the way you have thrown Rossi under the bus.
>

Rossi threw himself under the bus when he rejected the Navy, NASA and
others. If you don't believe what I said about that, I invite you to
contact the people at the Navy and NASA.



> Not long ago you sounded different.
>

Nope. Not since I heard about Rossi almost blowing up the people from NASA.
I hoped earlier that I.H. and Rossi had resolved their differences, and
that he would present a reasonable final report. I agreed to present a
paper at Lewan's seminar. That seminar was only going to happen if Rossi
presented a good report. So obviously I hoped that would happen. But when
I.H. sent me the March 10 press release, I saw it had not happened.



> You have other info you need to present it or your say is just BS,
>

Of course I have other info. I said I do. Obviously I cannot present it.

If you want to know more, I suggest you visit I.H.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH.
I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure about
the situation. I still do not agree with the way you have thrown Rossi
under the bus. Not long ago you sounded different. You have other info you
need to present it or your say is just BS,

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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>
>> I  forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R work.  They are
>> not above spoon feeding.  They even pay as a dessert course.  I trust you
>> remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their
>> experiments.
>>
>
> That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been
> retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows
> nothing about it.
>
>
>
>>   As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the
>> ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system
>> temperatures in the Japanese tests.  So much for the adequacy of HVAC
>> knowhow.
>>
>
> You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of
> the report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a
> few months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was
> apparent. That is what I wrote:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
>
> This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will
> grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a
> calibration to be sure.
>
>
>
>> You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold
>> fusion is “simply absurd.”
>>
>
> As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold
> fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the
> U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for
> government support and funding. You can confirm that easily.
>
> Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports.
> Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and
> China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that
> these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit
> Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after
> time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would
> do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious
> because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out.
>
> To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason
> they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is
> crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their
> purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long
> gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave
> Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million
> more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he
> failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous
> tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and
> others.
>
> I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing.
> Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it
> worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11
> million?
>
> There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does not
> work.
>
> Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest,
> knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the
> researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:


> I  forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R work.  They are
> not above spoon feeding.  They even pay as a dessert course.  I trust you
> remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their
> experiments.
>

That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been
retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows
nothing about it.



>   As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the
> ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system
> temperatures in the Japanese tests.  So much for the adequacy of HVAC
> knowhow.
>

You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of the
report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a few
months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was apparent.
That is what I wrote:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf

This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will
grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a
calibration to be sure.



> You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold
> fusion is “simply absurd.”
>

As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold
fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the
U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for
government support and funding. You can confirm that easily.

Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports.
Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and
China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that
these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit
Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after
time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would
do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious
because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out.

To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason
they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is
crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their
purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long
gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave
Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million
more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he
failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous
tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and
others.

I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing.
Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it
worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11
million?

There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does not
work.

Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest,
knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the
researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

I  forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R work.  They are not 
above spoon feeding.  They even pay as a dessert course.  I trust you remember 
your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their experiments.  
As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the ambient 
air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system temperatures in 
the Japanese tests.  So much for the adequacy of HVAC knowhow.  

You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold 
fusion is “simply absurd.”  

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 4:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach 
to LENR 's existentil problems

Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well as 
the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you.  Most of them are the same 
government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, that has 
tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 years at the 
great expense  of civilization  IMHO.

Oh give me a break. That's such nonsense. Such unfounded, ignorant bullshit! 
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you think I was born yesterday? I can judge people and judge facts myself. I 
have independent confirmation of the events with NASA. Everyone there told me 
the same story, and even Rossi confirmed it in his own way, attacking them as 
snakes etc. I saw the documents.

More to the point, nearly every dollar of support for cold fusion has come from 
governments, mainly in Italy, but also in Japan and the U.S. DARPA, NASA and 
others are the only friends we have. Most researchers worked for the 
government. The leading people in the field such as Martin Fleischmann, Ed 
Storms, Pam Boss and Tadahiko Mizuno never worked a day in their lives for 
anyone but the government. To say that the government opposes cold fusion is 
simply absurd.

Of course there are factions in the government opposed to it. But there are no 
factions in private industry in favor of it, anywhere.


  Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D system 
which they developed and continue to develop IMHO.

There are no more reports because no one is doing research. They are all 
retired, or dead. If they were still working, I would know about it. Everything 
the government does is an open book. 


This is the only program they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest 
were dark programs in my not-so-humble opinion.

There are no dark programs. They tried to replicate Ni-H and got nowhere. They 
offered Rossi enormous support. Everything he asked for: millions of dollars 
with no strings attached. He turned them down flat, after nearly killing them.


  I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified them 
over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog. 

I have no reason to hide the names! Everyone knows I mean Jim Dunn, Mike Nelson 
and others. If you don't believe my account, ask them yourself. Why would they 
lie about this?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:


> I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well
> as the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you.  Most of them are the
> same government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan,
> that has tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27
> years at the great expense  of civilization  IMHO.
>

Oh give me a break. That's such nonsense. Such unfounded, ignorant
bullshit! You have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you think I was born yesterday? I can judge people and judge facts
myself. I have independent confirmation of the events with NASA. Everyone
there told me the same story, and even Rossi confirmed it in his own way,
attacking them as snakes etc. I saw the documents.

More to the point, nearly every dollar of support for cold fusion has come
from governments, mainly in Italy, but also in Japan and the U.S. DARPA,
NASA and others are the only friends we have. Most researchers worked for
the government. The leading people in the field such as Martin Fleischmann,
Ed Storms, Pam Boss and Tadahiko Mizuno never worked a day in their lives
for anyone but the government. To say that the government opposes cold
fusion is simply absurd.

Of course there are factions in the government opposed to it. But there are
no factions in private industry in favor of it, anywhere.



> Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D
> system which they developed and continue to develop IMHO.
>

There are no more reports because no one is doing research. They are all
retired, or dead. If they were still working, I would know about it.
Everything the government does is an open book.


  This is the only program they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest
> were dark programs in my not-so-humble opinion.
>

There are no dark programs. They tried to replicate Ni-H and got nowhere.
They offered Rossi enormous support. Everything he asked for: millions of
dollars with no strings attached. He turned them down flat, after nearly
killing them.



> I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified
> them over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog.
>

I have no reason to hide the names! Everyone knows I mean Jim Dunn, Mike
Nelson and others. If you don't believe my account, ask them yourself. Why
would they lie about this?

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well as 
the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you.  Most of them are the same 
government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, that has 
tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 years at the 
great expense  of civilization  IMHO.

Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D system 
which they developed and continue to develop IMHO.  This is the only program 
they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest were dark programs in my 
not-so-humble opinion.

I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified them 
over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog.  

Bob Cook







From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 2:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach 
to LENR 's existentil problems

Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

  IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust 
those that seem to support Rossi’s comments. 

It may seem so to you, but you are wrong. I have met with and worked with many 
people who worked with Rossi -- or tried to work with him. People from the 
Navy, NASA and elsewhere, and also venture capitalists. I know a lot about 
their interactions. I am not free to describe everything I know, but I believe 
what they told me, and based on this information, I do not trust Rossi and I 
think he is incompetent. This is not what I "want to believe." It is a 
conclusion I reached carefully after many years and dozens of conversations, 
e-mails, formal reports, proposals and so on.

Frankly, I resent it when you claim this is what I "want" to believe, and when 
others here say I am jumping to conclusions based on thin evidence. Why the 
hell would I "want" to conclude that I.H. wasted $11 million?!? Schadenfreude? 
Do you think I want to see the last, best hope for funding cold fusion 
destroyed? After devoting years of my life to this effort, do you think I 
"want" to see millions of dollars wasted?


You have no idea what I know or who I have talked to. You have no basis for 
making these assertions. Furthermore, if you know me, you will know that I am 
very careful about judging people or experiments, and I bend over backwards to 
give people the benefit of the doubt. I do not jump to conclusion. But I also 
do not deny overwhelming evidence from dozens of people describing Rossi's 
behavior. I spent three days at a conference talking informally with the people 
from NASA who Rossi almost killed. I know what happened, in detail. I know 
about the financial support they were offering him. That incident alone proves 
that Rossi is grossly irresponsible, incompetent, a loose cannon, and either 
crazy or criminal. You need to get a grip and think about what he did:

He seriously endangered people's lives.

He got angry and denied it when they showed him the pipe was clogged and there 
was high pressure steam leaking out of the welded joints.

He and everyone in the room evacuated when it became apparent there was no 
safety valve.

They later opened the reactor and proved it had been on the verge of an 
explosion.

He refused to do the test again properly!

When they told him they could not pay him millions of dollars as discussed, 
because he would not do a test, he became infuriated and he threw them out.

Rossi has done this sort of thing time after time, not just with this group but 
with others. This is only one example out of many. Based on this incident 
alone, he has no credibility and nothing he says can be believed.

The people at I.H., on the other hand, have loads of credibility. If they say 
the 1-year test produced no excess heat, and Rossi says it produced 50 times 
input, I believe them. I have abundant, well-grounded reasons for believing 
them. It is not a conclusion that I jumped to the day the lawsuit was announced.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:

IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust
> those that seem to support Rossi’s comments.
>

It may seem so to you, but you are wrong. I have met with and worked with
many people who worked with Rossi -- or tried to work with him. People from
the Navy, NASA and elsewhere, and also venture capitalists. I know a lot
about their interactions. I am not free to describe everything I know, but
I believe what they told me, and based on this information, I do not trust
Rossi and I think he is incompetent. This is not what I "want to believe."
It is a conclusion I reached carefully after many years and dozens of
conversations, e-mails, formal reports, proposals and so on.

Frankly, I resent it when you claim this is what I "want" to believe, and
when others here say I am jumping to conclusions based on thin evidence.
Why the hell would I "want" to conclude that I.H. wasted $11 million?!?
Schadenfreude? Do you think I want to see the last, best hope for funding
cold fusion destroyed? After devoting years of my life to this effort, do
you think I "want" to see millions of dollars wasted?

You have no idea what I know or who I have talked to. You have no basis for
making these assertions. Furthermore, if you know me, you will know that I
am very careful about judging people or experiments, and I bend over
backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt. I do not jump to
conclusion. But I also do not deny overwhelming evidence from dozens of
people describing Rossi's behavior. I spent three days at a conference
talking informally with the people from NASA who Rossi almost killed. I
know what happened, in detail. I know about the financial support they were
offering him. That incident alone proves that Rossi is grossly
irresponsible, incompetent, a loose cannon, and either crazy or criminal.
You need to get a grip and think about what he did:

He seriously endangered people's lives.

He got angry and denied it when they showed him the pipe was clogged and
there was high pressure steam leaking out of the welded joints.

He and everyone in the room evacuated when it became apparent there was no
safety valve.

They later opened the reactor and proved it had been on the verge of an
explosion.

He *refused* to do the test again properly!

When they told him they could not pay him millions of dollars as discussed,
because he would not do a test, he became infuriated and he threw them out.

Rossi has done this sort of thing time after time, not just with this group
but with others. This is only one example out of many. Based on this
incident alone, he has no credibility and nothing he says can be believed.

The people at I.H., on the other hand, have loads of credibility. If they
say the 1-year test produced no excess heat, and Rossi says it produced 50
times input, I believe them. I have abundant, well-grounded reasons for
believing them. It is not a conclusion that I jumped to the day the lawsuit
was announced.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust those 
that seem to support Rossi’s comments.  

Along the lines of throwing people out of offices, I was once after 
interviewing for a job thrown out of a an apparently competent engineer’s 
office.  The organization, 4 hours later, informed me that I got the job.  As a 
result of that job, I eventually realized over a million dollars without 
lifting a finger.  

I concluded in the long run that  the competent engineer was more competent 
than was evident based on the interview.  

All I can say is there are different strokes for different folks.  Rossi is 
clearly a different folk as some have suggested by highlighting his difficult 
personality.  

That competent engineer that I mentioned above mentored me with the motto “No 
friction, no motion”.  I found it to be a way to get at the truth and to get 
people to reveal their real motives, frequently hiding facts.  It did not help 
me win any popularity contests, however.  And I  doubt I will be so-honored in 
the future by winning.  

Bob Cook



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 12:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to 
LENR 's existentil problems

Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:


  
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/

  Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’

People wouldn't believe for good reason. All of Rossi's previous claims were 
either false or demonstrated so badly it is impossible to judge. I got tired of 
his shenanigans years ago. If he had what he claimed, he could have done a 
proper test and convinced everyone. Many experts advised him on ways to do a 
convincing test. He ignored them. Instead, he did test after test in ways that 
proved nothing.

When Jim Dunn and the people from NASA pointed out that he was making a 
dangerous mistake and the reactor was plugged up, and on the verge of 
exploding, he was furious with them. He refused to fix the problem or do the 
test again. He threw them out! They were offering him millions of dollars and 
he would not even lift a finger to do a proper test. After that incident there 
was no doubt left in my mind that Rossi is either very stupid or a fraud -- or 
both. Anyone who would do that has zero credibility.


  Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues:

I don't believe that guy either.

Is he an employee of I.H.? I doubt it, but if he is they should fire him.

Rossi's blog is not a reliable source of information.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:


> As best I can see from the agreement, the idea was to demonstrate a long
> term test with an average COP of at least 4.  This was (possibly)
> accomplished.
>

It was not accomplished. The device produced no excess heat. That's what
they told me, in no uncertain terms. That is what their second press
release said (perhaps not as clearly).

Perhaps his previous devices did produce excess heat. I cannot judge. The
demonstrations were so poorly done, no one can judge with any real
certainty.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--

I agree with most of what you say below.  However, my reading of the agreement 
between Rossi and IH does not include unlimited transfer of IP by Rossi.  I 
thought the scope of the IP involved was spelled out in the specific documents 
containing the IP.  I would not suppose that it entails are the subsequent 
understanding of the suggested Quark-X device and the details of that design 
developed on Rossi’s own time as a principle of the Leonardo Corp.  

As best I can see from the agreement, the idea was to demonstrate a long term 
test with an average COP of at least 4.  This was (possibly) accomplished.  The 
art of Rossi’s ability to tune the E-Cat X was not part of the agreement.  I 
think that is the main issue to be left to the Jury to decide.  

I do not see that there was agreement for “technology transfer” in the context 
you suggest.  As I note above, the promises of the written contract will be 
determined by the Jury.  I do not think that transfer of rights to a patent 
include the transfer of the “art” necessary to make the patented device work at 
an elevated performance level.  Its like saying in a patent that 20 weight oil 
is what is specified for IC motor operation under 2500 rpm.  Anybody in the 
know about IC engine operations knows that 40 weight oil works better at high 
temperatures and is required for extended engine lifetime.   

I think it happens all the time that Government researchers with government 
patents go out on their own with their own knowhow to produce a superior 
invention and may keep trade secrets associated with the superior (no-patent) 
invention to themselves  

Furthermore, it may be Rossi’s intent to provide additional operating 
instructions to IH for the E-Cat to get the 4 COP out of it,  once the $89 M is 
ponied up.   

I would think that the Jury will make clear what the agreed upon COP is.  

Finally, I totally agree with you about Focardi, and I have considered Focardi 
was an honest reporter of the excess energy produced by the Ni-H system.   

Bob Cook

From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to 
LENR 's existentil problems

Nothing I have seen reported, has proven Rossi has no technology now and never 
had any.  Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims.  Maybe even Rossi is 
deceiving himself.  Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has deceptively over 
reported his results.  I don't believe Focardi was deceived - I think Focardi 
saw real energy creation - and that is what leaves me with hope for this Rossi 
episode.  So, I am NOT willing to say at this point that I think Rossi has no 
LENR technology.  Though the case of "always net 0" is still possible.


I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working LENR 
technology using what Rossi has disclosed to them.  This is a completely 
different situation than Rossi having no technology.  We know Rossi is a 
difficult character from which to get technology transfer.  Look at his 
previous failed relationships.  I suspect that he sold the license agreement to 
IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just threw them a few 
bones of information - this is not technology transfer.


How should this be resolved?  Rossi should now be joined at the hip permanently 
with IH until he delivers what he promised them.  Rossi is claiming high COP, 
high power LENR technology.  Let Rossi start from scratch and teach every 
single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this reactor in their lab.  Their 
creation should be measured in IH's lab together and agree on the performance.  
If it doesn't work reliably, then Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + 
Rossi invents a way to make it reliable.  

It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be able 
to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them.  Rossi should 
not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and delivers this 
kind of technology transfer.  If he truly has no technology, then he is stuck 
there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he admits that he really 
has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to damages).  He will have to prove 
himself without the smoke and mirrors.  Once he has done this successfully, he 
should be entitled to the full terms of the contract.


The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his 
contract.  I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this 
situation.  Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing.


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

  a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

"I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press 
release:"

I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. 

  O