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

[Terry Blanton]

The misconception that something mysterious is going on in the hydrogen
torch results from William Lyne's book "Occult Ether Physics".  However,
this one sentence tells precisely why Lyne is wrong.  Do you see it?  (the
ans. is here  https://goo.gl/mwohke )

*It seemed odd to me that it was later suggested that the 103 calories of
dissociation energy absorbed from a very brief exposure to the arc is the
same heat as that "...required for welding" as described, and I believed it
to be more reasonable that the excess heat had to come from "elsewhere".
The dissociation energy would be analogical to a slice of bread (@4 cal.
gram), and the gross output would be equivalent to 60 loaves of bread
(@1814 cal. lb.), calorie-wise. There was too much disparity between the
two, with plenty of suspicious omissions and confusions, in an obvious
attempt to cover up the truth in between.*

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> I don’t know what to make of the Rossi soap opera but I always found it
> strange that critics were so relaxed in dismissing an effect that resembles
> Langmuir’s atomic hydrogen experiments.   I mean there must be something
> weird going on there.
>
>
>

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

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>>And there you have it!  WTF!  Is the whole “science” establishment so filled 
>>>with cowardice or dominated by ‘physics as a religion’ that no one will do 
>>>or discuss anomalies?
Exactly, but I am not afraid of speaking out. Physics has probably got too 
complicated for them, and they have missed out being taught about 18th century 
unified field theory of Boscovich; thus big gap in their knowledge that I am 
now trying to fill.
Facts about Boscovich:1. Boscovich comes from same country/area as Tesla2. 
Feynman worked from Boscovich's theory3.cold fusion can be understood from 
Boscovich theory4. Wheeler and his school of relativists working on unified 
field theory were working on Boscovich theory5. Einstein was aware of 
Boscovich's theory6. Black hole concept in context of Boscovich's theory 
becomes modified to "nearly black holes"7 Repulsive gravity in Boscovich 
theory8 attempts to explain dark matter/energy based on MOND often taken on 
elements of Boscovich theory9 etc


Prof Dragoslav lecture on Boscovich at: From Boscovich's theory to modern 
quantum theory: Prof Dragoslav Stoiljkovic

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| From Boscovich's theory to modern quantum theory: Pro... |
|  |
| View on www.youtube.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


As for modern physics: it is just full of mistakes such as maths errors that I 
point out 
e.g. 

Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its connection to Newton

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Maths contradiction in Einstein's relativity with its co... |
|  |
| View on www.youtube.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |









 

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016, 14:14, Chris Zell  wrote:
 

 #yiv7123580179 #yiv7123580179 -- _filtered #yiv7123580179 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7123580179 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 
4 3 2 4;}#yiv7123580179 #yiv7123580179 p.yiv7123580179MsoNormal, #yiv7123580179 
li.yiv7123580179MsoNormal, #yiv7123580179 div.yiv7123580179MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7123580179 a:link, 
#yiv7123580179 span.yiv7123580179MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7123580179 a:visited, #yiv7123580179 
span.yiv7123580179MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7123580179 
span.yiv7123580179EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7123580179 
.yiv7123580179MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv7123580179 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7123580179 div.yiv7123580179WordSection1 {}#yiv7123580179 
   
   I very much would like to see attempted replications of Langmuir's 
hydrogen-tungsten experiment, as well as Wendt and Irion's exploding tungsten 
wire experiment and Paneth and Peter's PdH absorption experiment.    And there 
you have it!  WTF!  Is the whole “science” establishment so filled with 
cowardice or dominated by ‘physics as a religion’ that no one will do or 
discuss anomalies?    And speaking of heresy, it seems to me that if there is 
no Creator or single “Designer” of the universe, then we should fully expect 
anomalies, ‘work arounds’, paradoxes and “that’s just the way it is”  INSTEAD 
of ‘elegant” theories.   Even if you maintain that all traces of Theology have 
been removed from scientific endeavor, I still would point out that the 
universe is ultimately ARBITRARY.  It ‘just is’ –and so said astrophysicist 
Victor Mansfield ( kinda  New Age) and Victor Stenger ( hard core atheist – as 
in his explanations of quantum correlated photons – Bell, Alain).        

  

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

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:01 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

The fact remains he is wrong.  There are numerous cases where LENR has been
> proved.   Pons & Fleischmann produced excess heat in the famous 1989
> experiment let alone later.  The diehards won't accept that.
>

I agree that Tom is wrong about LENR, but not as wrong as people think.
When he points out weaknesses in prior experiment, often they are genuine
weaknesses that should be remedied and that cast some amount of doubt on
the conclusions of the experiment.  I've walked Tom through the experiments
by Mosier-Boss et al., and he has made many good points.  I still find the
SPAWAR experiments very interesting, and he does not.  That's his
prerogative.  But if the SPAWAR team had had time to include a rigorous
statistical analysis along the lines he thought was required in their
papers, they would have had an even stronger experiment.  No one died as a
result of that discussion, and LENR did not go away.

Tom does not believe that LENR can be shown to exist on the basis of a
preponderance-of-evidence argument, by looking past various deficiencies
and concluding from a wide range of experiments that there must be
something despite any problems.  That's a philosophical position on his
part.  He's looking for 99 percent certainty.  Some will argue that there
are LENR experiments that surpass this bar.  I disagree.  But I'm persuaded
by a preponderance-of-evidence argument, unlike Tom, and so I don't need
such certainty to continue to take interest.

There is no need for Tom ever to accept that LENR exists.  As a quality
control guardian, he serves a very useful function.  And he gets people
thinking.

Eric

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

You do seem to rely on people who may be like Tom Clarke.  Very bright is
> many ways but closed minded.
>

No, I rely on my own technical judgement, and on information from people
who know that cold fusion is real.

Many aspects of cold fusion are over my head, but I do understand
calorimetry enough to judge it. Also, when Rossi refuses to do a simple
test for NASA that will bring him millions of dollars, I can judge that
something is seriously wrong with the man and with his claims.

- Jed

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

[Chris Zell]

I very much would like to see attempted replications of Langmuir's 
hydrogen-tungsten experiment, as well as Wendt and Irion's exploding tungsten 
wire experiment and Paneth and Peter's PdH absorption experiment.

And there you have it!  WTF!  Is the whole “science” establishment so filled 
with cowardice or dominated by ‘physics as a religion’ that no one will do or 
discuss anomalies?

And speaking of heresy, it seems to me that if there is no Creator or single 
“Designer” of the universe, then we should fully expect anomalies, ‘work 
arounds’, paradoxes and “that’s just the way it is”  INSTEAD of ‘elegant” 
theories.   Even if you maintain that all traces of Theology have been removed 
from scientific endeavor, I still would point out that the universe is 
ultimately ARBITRARY.  It ‘just is’ –and so said astrophysicist Victor 
Mansfield ( kinda  New Age) and Victor Stenger ( hard core atheist – as in his 
explanations of quantum correlated photons – Bell, Alain).

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

[a.ashfield]

Eric,

"On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:44 PM, a.ashfield wrote:

   You do seem to rely on people who may be like Tom Clarke.  Very
   bright is many ways but closed minded.  He has stated that LENR is
   impossible and any excess heat must be measurement error.  If you
   start out thinking that way, guess what you will get.


Despite impressions to the contrary on the part of some on LENR Forum, 
Tom Clarke is LENR hobbyists' best friend.  He is engaged and willing to 
look at good experiments. He is obsessive and will try to find any 
error.  He is polite, and for the most part sticks to technical 
arguments.  If he can be painted into a corner such that he makes even a 
small concession, the evidence under review will be ready to show to a 
wider audience."


The fact remains he is wrong.  There are numerous cases where LENR has 
been proved.   Pons & Fleischmann produced excess heat in the famous 
1989  experiment let alone later.  The diehards won't accept that.

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

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:44 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

You do seem to rely on people who may be like Tom Clarke.  Very bright is
> many ways but closed minded.  He has stated that LENR is impossible and any
> excess heat must be measurement error.  If you start out thinking that way,
> guess what you will get.
>

Despite impressions to the contrary on the part of some on LENR Forum, Tom
Clarke is LENR hobbyists' best friend.  He is engaged and willing to look
at good experiments.  He is obsessive and will try to find any error.  He
is polite, and for the most part sticks to technical arguments.  If he can
be painted into a corner such that he makes even a small concession, the
evidence under review will be ready to show to a wider audience.

Eric

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

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

"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."


Jed, You maybe right but the thing is there are not enough facts yet to 
support a definite conclusion.


You do seem to rely on people who may be like Tom Clarke.  Very bright 
is many ways but closed minded.  He has stated that LENR is impossible 
and any excess heat must be measurement error.  If you start out 
thinking that way, guess what you will get.
It reminds me of global warming.  The apparent consensus among 
scientists working in the area is that the IPCC models are correct.  
They will bend facts to hide that the models exaggerate the warming 
effect of CO2 by at least a factor of two.  But a believer could post 
most compelling "expert" quotes to support that position.

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

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

 ... I always found it strange that critics were so relaxed in dismissing
> an effect that resembles Langmuir’s atomic hydrogen experiments.   I mean
> there must be something weird going on there.


I very much would like to see attempted replications of Langmuir's
hydrogen-tungsten experiment, as well as Wendt and Irion's exploding
tungsten wire experiment and Paneth and Peter's PdH absorption experiment.

Eric

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Why the hell do you say what you are saying?
>

Because I know about Rossi. I have spoken with people who tried to deal
with him, and offered him millions. He refused to do a simple test to get
the money. This happened on at least three occasions to my knowledge. Not
counting the 1-year failed test he did for I.H. He is either incompetent,
crazy or a fraud -- or all three. I can't tell what his problem is.



> No Rossi is Rossi. He is an entrepreneur.
>

He is no entrepreneur!



> You make judgments with no knowledge or facts. Just your emotions.
>

You are completely wrong. Everything I say is based on facts. You can
contact the people at NASA and elsewhere and confirm those facts yourself
if you do not believe me.

I know more about Rossi than you do, and more about I.H. than you do. If
you wish to learn more about I.H., you will have to contact them and ask
yourself.

- Jed

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

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Why the hell do you say what you are saying?
You are disappointed. Well we all are.
No Rossi is Rossi. He is an entrepreneur.
He does thing others think are stupid.
That is how entrepreneurs are.
You make judgments with no knowledge or facts. Just your emotions.

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 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  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]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

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

[Axil Axil]

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’

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

“With the failures, I found myself having to believe in it. Why? Because
when something fails, you see the behavior of the object. The next time you
adjust it, then you see that it behaves very differently. And then you
realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed, which still
cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit pure light
that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet way. You
just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s
impressive."

Note... You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched
off. It’s impressive. Stimuli means application of superwave EMF.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> An IH employee has said that he saw a Rossi reactor melt down. How does
>> this fact fit in with your (Jed) contentions?
>>
>
> I have not heard of this. Which IH employee? Where was this written up?
>
> Levi saw a reactor melt. See p. 2:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf
>
> This is interesting but not proof of anything. You would have to know what
> kind wires were going to the cell, and what the resistance of the cell
> versus wires is. I think you would have melt several cells to show this is
> excess heat.
>
> That was not a bad report, overall. It is the best evidence for Rossi's
> claims I know of. Unfortunately, it has not been replicated as far as I
> know.
>
>
> Also: these are not my contentions. This is what I.H. says. I contend only
> that the people at I.H. are better at calorimetry, and they are more
> credible. If you have not dealt with them, you cannot judge them. You can
> judge Rossi. You can see for yourself that he has made many drastic
> mistakes, such as the time he almost blew up the people from NASA, and his
> many idiotic "demonstrations."
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

An IH employee has said that he saw a Rossi reactor melt down. How does
> this fact fit in with your (Jed) contentions?
>

I have not heard of this. Which IH employee? Where was this written up?

Levi saw a reactor melt. See p. 2:

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

This is interesting but not proof of anything. You would have to know what
kind wires were going to the cell, and what the resistance of the cell
versus wires is. I think you would have melt several cells to show this is
excess heat.

That was not a bad report, overall. It is the best evidence for Rossi's
claims I know of. Unfortunately, it has not been replicated as far as I
know.


Also: these are not my contentions. This is what I.H. says. I contend only
that the people at I.H. are better at calorimetry, and they are more
credible. If you have not dealt with them, you cannot judge them. You can
judge Rossi. You can see for yourself that he has made many drastic
mistakes, such as the time he almost blew up the people from NASA, and his
many idiotic "demonstrations."

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Jed, when have you heard the first time from IH that the plant does not
> work- in which form was this expressed?
>

I don't recall when. Many months ago. It was expressed in plain English.
With unrefined Anglo-Saxon words, as opposed to ornate Latinate
circumlocutions.



> We cannot substantiate...?
>
Rossi cannot substantiate, produce heat at all?
>

Not a watt.



> My US friends have never herad any negative gossip till the trial, sorry.
> Possibly you are better informed.
>

Evidently I am.



> Or the ERV?
>

The ERV is Penon, who is a certified idiot.

- Jed

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

[Axil Axil]

An IH employee has said that he saw a Rossi reactor melt down. How does
this fact fit in with your (Jed) contentions?

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> Jed, quick to judgment because you decide who is right before you have
>> the facts and to no value.
>>
>
> This is not a quick judgement. I heard about the situation many months ago.
>
> The facts I related about their skill levels are of great value. Anyone
> who has worked with I.H. and with Rossi will agree with me. If you have not
> worked with them, you have no way of judging this situation, and there is
> no way you can dismiss my knowledge or claim it has no value.
>
> Everyone here knows that Rossi has made many stupid mistakes in the past.
> Why should you be surprised that he made more mistakes? You have no reason
> to doubt it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> Jed, quick to judgment because you decide who is right before you have the
> facts and to no value.
>

This is not a quick judgement. I heard about the situation many months ago.

The facts I related about their skill levels are of great value. Anyone who
has worked with I.H. and with Rossi will agree with me. If you have not
worked with them, you have no way of judging this situation, and there is
no way you can dismiss my knowledge or claim it has no value.

Everyone here knows that Rossi has made many stupid mistakes in the past.
Why should you be surprised that he made more mistakes? You have no reason
to doubt it.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:


> I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working
> LENR technology using what Rossi has *disclosed* to them.
>

They said that the 1 MW reactor did not produce any excess heat. Rossi
claims it produces 50 times input. They cannot both be right. Based on what
I know about the skills and the work done by both parties, I think is
nearly certain that I.H. is correct.



> This is a completely different situation than Rossi having no technology.
>

This means his 1 MW reactor does not work. He claims it is producing 50
times input, but that is incorrect. I doubt that anything else he has now
works. Perhaps some of his previous reactors did. I cannot judge. The first
set of tests by Levi were pretty good, but far from proof of anything.



> Let Rossi start from scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get
> IH to reproduce this reactor in their lab.
>

He does not have to do that now, at this stage. He only needs to do valid
calorimetry to prove the thing works. He was given a year to do that, but
he failed.

- Jed

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

[Chris Zell]

I don’t know what to make of the Rossi soap opera but I always found it strange 
that critics were so relaxed in dismissing an effect that resembles Langmuir’s 
atomic hydrogen experiments.   I mean there must be something weird going on 
there.

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

[Lennart Thornros]

Bob well said.
Jed, quick to judgment because you decide who is right before you have the
facts and to no value. What you believe does not propel the issue forward.
Instead your hints that you know it all is doing the opposite.
Better capacity for measuring does say nothing. If yoI do not. If you have
something substantial I suggest you just tell.
You ask how I know they have not arrived at a solution. I do not. I just
think that IH wanted to tell the world ASAP that they have settled.That
must  be in their interest.
You say it is a lawsuit and that the lawsuit will end up resolving the
issue. No, Jed the lawsuit will resolve nothing for LENR and will just tie
up everybody's resources to no avail.

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 7:48 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> a.ashfield  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.
>>
>>
>> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying
>> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat.
>> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do
>> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as
>> he has been wrong so often in the past.
>>
>>
>> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now.
>>>
>>
>> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion.
>>
>>
>> Either of us could be right.
>>
>>
>> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely
>> I.H. is right. That's my point.
>>
>>
>>   The point is we don't know yet.
>>>
>>
>> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better
>> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic
>> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

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

[Peter Gluck]

Just a remark- calorimetry is a lab size measurement. When it is about kW
we can speak heat balance measurement.
Jed, when have you heard the first time from IH that the plant does not
work- in which form was this expressed? We cannot substantiate...?
Rossi cannot substantiate, produce heat at all?

My US friends have never herad any negative gossip till the trial, sorry.
Possibly you are better informed.
You are using generously "silly" or "at the intelligence level of a 6 years
old"- however on what is based your idea that IH is more expert in
calorinmetry than Rossi? Or the ERV?

Peter

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> 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 
> wrote:
>
>> a.ashfield  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.
>>
>>
>> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying
>> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat.
>> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do
>> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as
>> he has been wrong so often in the past.
>>
>>
>> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now.
>>>
>>
>> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion.
>>
>>
>> Either of us could be right.
>>
>>
>> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely
>> I.H. is right. That's my point.
>>
>>
>>   The point is we don't know yet.
>>>
>>
>> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better
>> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic
>> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>


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

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed, why so quick to judgment.
>

I am not quick to judgement. I heard many months ago that the I.H. and
Rossi disagreed about the calorimetry. They did not say why. I was hoping
the problems (whatever they are) would be addressed by the end of the test,
but I.H.'s March 10 announcement made it clear they still disagree. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741



> All parties are in this mess. I am sure that someone will dig themselves
> out of the mess.
>

I expect I.H. will show that Rossi is wrong. Or the two parties will settle
out of court.


I am amazed that IH has not found someone to get a solution.
>

How do you know this?


Evaluation of different peoples technical capacity is one thing but it
> hardly says anything about who is suppressing data or full information.
>

Whether I.H. is suppressing data or not, I am sure they are good at
calorimetry, and I am sure Rossi is bad at it. Someone decided not to
release the Penon report. I do not know whether that is Rossi, I.H., or
both.



> I am sure that something is wrong in those discussions between the parties.
>

What do you mean? How do you know this?



> I am amazed every day that goes by and IH has not come out and tell either
> that they have a solution or what they have done to resolve the situation.
>

Well, it is a lawsuit. They have to respond by a certain date -- June 10, I
think. I do not know much about lawsuits, and I know nothing about this
particular one. But I believe that in a lawsuit, the defendant will try to
file a comprehensive rebuttal, and they don't want to talk about it
beforehand.

- Jed

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

[Bob Higgins]

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  wrote:

> a.ashfield  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.
>
>
> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying
> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat.
> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do
> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as
> he has been wrong so often in the past.
>
>
> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now.
>>
>
> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion.
>
>
> Either of us could be right.
>
>
> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely
> I.H. is right. That's my point.
>
>
>   The point is we don't know yet.
>>
>
> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better
> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic
> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, why so quick to judgment.
All parties are in this mess. I am sure that someone will dig themselves
out of the mess.
I am amazed that IH has not found someone to get a solution.
I have been in IH position I am sure they want result and clarity so they
can go on.
Evaluation of different peoples technical capacity is one thing but it
hardly says anything about who is suppressing data or full information.
I am sure that something is wrong in those discussions between the parties.
I am amazed every day that goes by and IH has not come out and tell either
that they have a solution or what they have done to resolve the situation.
Just a little bit I think it weighs in Rossi's advantage, that they cannot
resolve the situation..

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 7:11 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  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.
>
>
> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying
> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat.
> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do
> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as
> he has been wrong so often in the past.
>
>
> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now.
>>
>
> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion.
>
>
> Either of us could be right.
>
>
> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely
> I.H. is right. That's my point.
>
>
>   The point is we don't know yet.
>>
>
> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better
> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic
> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  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.


Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying they
evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat. I do
not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do not
know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as he
has been wrong so often in the past.


Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now.
>

Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion.


Either of us could be right.


But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely
I.H. is right. That's my point.


  The point is we don't know yet.
>

We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better
job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic
mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
"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. Seems 
that facts are thin on the ground right now.

Either of us could be right.  The point is we don't know yet.

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

[Alain Sepeda]

Maybe it is not so important.

DGT and Rossi triggered something, pushing rational people to look at
rational science done before.
The irrational part of those two stories (I'm less sure Rossi have nothing,
but innovation is more than just technology), unlocked the irrational latch
against past rational research.
I just hope it will be confirmed soon.

Until things clear up from Miami to Raleigh, there are probably place with
more importance.
Don't bother, don't panic.



2016-05-09 14:22 GMT+02:00 Lennart Thornros :

> Hi Jed,
> I actually said that negotiations maybe under way. I certainly cannot
> prove the negative so here is what I said.
> "Maybe it is underway in a silent format.".
>
> 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 4:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for posting that.  It reinforces my recent viewpoint that this
>> area is now ripe for fraud and fantastic magicians who know of a great
>> chemical trick that confounds trained observers.
>>
>> But I take heart in Houdini's magic trick when he visited Tunisia
>> to fight piracy and challenged their  strongest men to lift the box that he
>> carried onto the stage.  4 of their strongest men couldn't do it.  Houdini
>> lifted the box easily by flicking the electromagnetic switch between him
>> and the stage.  He demonstrated American superiority in magic.  Yes, those
>> observers still believed in magic at the time.
>>
>>  I think what we have here is a modern Houdini, but far more brilliant.
>>
>>   But the outcome was electromagnetic switches, so we're all winners...
>>
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Znidarsic,
>>> I think you are being unfair to Rossi.  It has not been "A very long
>>> time" to develop what is a completely new technology.
>>> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.  You
>>> have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic about
>>> new developments.  He sued IH not the other way around.
>>>
>>> me356 said it well in his recent report.
>>>
>>> "Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long.
>>> You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are
>>> nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing,
>>> that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is
>>> not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown
>>> things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based
>>> on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly,
>>> because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much
>>> more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years,
>>> everything will be completely different."
>>>
>>
>>
>

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Patrick Ellul  wrote:


> So it's not IH as such that you trust as having more expertise, but
> Rossi's competitors.
>

No, I am talking about the people in I.H., not the others they are working
with.



> You obviously know and are in contact with some of these competitors.
>

Yes, but I also know the people in I.H.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

I actually said that negotiations maybe under way. I certainly cannot prove
> the negative so here is what I said.
>
"Maybe it is underway in a silent format.".
>

Ah, I see what you are saying.

- Jed

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

[Lennart Thornros]

Hi Jed,
I actually said that negotiations maybe under way. I certainly cannot prove
the negative so here is what I said.
"Maybe it is underway in a silent format.".

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 4:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Thanks for posting that.  It reinforces my recent viewpoint that this area
> is now ripe for fraud and fantastic magicians who know of a great chemical
> trick that confounds trained observers.
>
> But I take heart in Houdini's magic trick when he visited Tunisia to fight
> piracy and challenged their  strongest men to lift the box that he carried
> onto the stage.  4 of their strongest men couldn't do it.  Houdini lifted
> the box easily by flicking the electromagnetic switch between him and the
> stage.  He demonstrated American superiority in magic.  Yes, those
> observers still believed in magic at the time.
>
>  I think what we have here is a modern Houdini, but far more brilliant.
>
>   But the outcome was electromagnetic switches, so we're all winners...
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> Frank Znidarsic,
>> I think you are being unfair to Rossi.  It has not been "A very long
>> time" to develop what is a completely new technology.
>> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.  You
>> have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic about
>> new developments.  He sued IH not the other way around.
>>
>> me356 said it well in his recent report.
>>
>> "Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long.
>> You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are
>> nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing,
>> that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is
>> not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown
>> things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based
>> on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly,
>> because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much
>> more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years,
>> everything will be completely different."
>>
>
>

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

[Kevin O'Malley]

Thanks for posting that.  It reinforces my recent viewpoint that this area
is now ripe for fraud and fantastic magicians who know of a great chemical
trick that confounds trained observers.

But I take heart in Houdini's magic trick when he visited Tunisia to fight
piracy and challenged their  strongest men to lift the box that he carried
onto the stage.  4 of their strongest men couldn't do it.  Houdini lifted
the box easily by flicking the electromagnetic switch between him and the
stage.  He demonstrated American superiority in magic.  Yes, those
observers still believed in magic at the time.

 I think what we have here is a modern Houdini, but far more brilliant.

  But the outcome was electromagnetic switches, so we're all winners...

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Frank Znidarsic,
> I think you are being unfair to Rossi.  It has not been "A very long time"
> to develop what is a completely new technology.
> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.  You
> have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic about
> new developments.  He sued IH not the other way around.
>
> me356 said it well in his recent report.
>
> "Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long.
> You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are
> nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing,
> that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is
> not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown
> things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based
> on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly,
> because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much
> more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years,
> everything will be completely different."
>

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

[Patrick Ellul]

> There is one thing known for sure. I.H. says it does not work, whereas
> Rossi says it does. I can judge which side is probably right, based on
> their track records. I am not jumping to conclusions. I think that I.H. has
> credibility and expertise.
>
>
Jed, IH was created to buy out Rossi. IH and Rossi are highly intertwined
when it comes to credibility at least. Since then they also bought out some
of Rossi's competitors. So it's not IH as such that you trust as having
more expertise, but Rossi's competitors. You obviously know and are in
contact with some of these competitors. Best regards.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I don't find unofficial third party reports on a case this large to be
> very convincing.
>

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

"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
success."

I asked them what that means. They said it means the machine did not
produce excess heat.



>   Why would IH show it off to Woodford if it were just a sham?  Why would
> Rossi sue IH knowing that the details would come out in court?
>

I know nothing about these issues. I do not think they are relevant to
calorimetry. This dispute is about calorimetry and *nothing else*.



> Why would IH wait a year and not just shut it down if it didn't work?  Etc.
>

I have no idea. However, long before the test ended, I heard that I.H. was
not happy with the calorimetry.


There are just too many unknowns to jump to conclusions, particularly when
> we will have more data in a month or so.
>

There is one thing known for sure. I.H. says it does not work, whereas
Rossi says it does. I can judge which side is probably right, based on
their track records. I am not jumping to conclusions. I think that I.H. has
credibility and expertise. Rossi has zero credibility and his calorimetry
up until now has ranged from bad to abysmal.

The fact that the machine is large and the apparent heat is 1 MW does not
rule out a mistake. People can make stupid mistakes on any scale.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

Jed wrote:

   "In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.


Not a chance. Just looking at the facility you know there cannot be a 1 
MW heat source in it. It would cook everyone in that part of the 
building. That is enough heat for 100 dry cleaning machines. You 
couldn't fit that many in such a small area, never mind operating them.


  You have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain
   optimistic about new developments.


I.H. says they have proof. Based on my experience dealing with I.H. and 
Rossi, I find I.H. far more believable."


I don't find unofficial third party reports on a case this large to be 
very convincing.  How do you know that was the site?  Why would IH show 
it off to Woodford if it were just a sham?  Why would Rossi sue IH 
knowing that the details would come out in court?  Why would IH wait a 
year and not just shut it down if it didn't work?  Etc.
There are just too many unknowns to jump to conclusions, particularly 
when we will have more data in a month or so.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

It is in my opinion rather poorly handled in general. Why after several
> weeks are there no negotiations going on?
>

How do you know there are no negotiations going on? Where did you learn
this?

- Jed

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

[Lennart Thornros]

Hi guys,
I see no reason to decide the outcome just a few weeks before the proof
will be there. One way or the other. Yes, I understand the disappointment
as most of us would have expected a clear situation by now.
I am also optimistic.
Who is more believable?
There are too much money involved to  believe that anyone is forthcoming.
I agree with that  IH has a lot to lose  if they do not play within the
rules and that is the fact that I have a little doubt.
It is in my opinion rather poorly handled in general. Why after several
weeks are there no negotiations going on?
If IH are seriously believers in LENR then they certainly would have found
a mediator who could talk to Rossi and then continue there own path in
LENR. Rossi cannot just sit back as that will eliminate his lawsuit.
We can agree something is fishy and it should be taken care of - old fish
smells.
Maybe it is underway in a silent format.

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 Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.
>>
>
> Not a chance. Just looking at the facility you know there cannot be a 1 MW
> heat source in it. It would cook everyone in that part of the building.
> That is enough heat for 100 dry cleaning machines. You couldn't fit that
> many in such a small area, never mind operating them.
>
>
>
>>   You have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain
>> optimistic about new developments.
>>
>
> I.H. says they have proof. Based on my experience dealing with I.H. and
> Rossi, I find I.H. far more believable.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.
>

Not a chance. Just looking at the facility you know there cannot be a 1 MW
heat source in it. It would cook everyone in that part of the building.
That is enough heat for 100 dry cleaning machines. You couldn't fit that
many in such a small area, never mind operating them.



>   You have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain
> optimistic about new developments.
>

I.H. says they have proof. Based on my experience dealing with I.H. and
Rossi, I find I.H. far more believable.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

Frank Znidarsic,
I think you are being unfair to Rossi.  It has not been "A very long 
time" to develop what is a completely new technology.
In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do. You 
have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic 
about new developments.  He sued IH not the other way around.


me356 said it well in his recent report.

"Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long. 
You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are 
nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing, 
that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is 
not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown 
things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype 
based on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue 
endlessly, because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown 
and much more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 
years, everything will be completely different."

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Re your statement "COLD FUSION IS DEAD" this means two things:
> a) as you say, if Rossi E-Cat does not work, the cause is lost.
>

That's silly. Why would it be lost? There are many other fruitful
approaches and good experiments.

Rossi and Defkalion were the only ones who claimed to have scaled up. It
turns out they only scaled up mistakes. A gigantic mistake is still zero.
The scale of an experiment has no bearing at all on how good it is, or
whether it will lead to a practical source of energy. Real discoveries are
perfected on a lab benchtop scale before anyone tries to make a big device.
The only exception I know of is the tokamak plasma fusion reactor which
supposedly does not work on a small scale. It does not seem promising to me.


But here is a big IF, are you certain it does not work and why are you
> certain? Because IH says it, after 3 years?
>

IH says it for good reason. They know much more about calorimetry than
Rossi does. Rossi never published any results, good or bad. Not a single
graph or set of numbers. His demonstrations ranged from badly done amateur
tests to ridiculous tests. The first set of tests by Levi were pretty good
but the Lugano tests were a waste of time.

Forget about Rossi.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Frank Znidarsic  wrote:


> With the latest failure of Rossi nothing has come of the very long effort.
>


Only Rossi was involved in this "effort." Most researchers ignored Rossi.



> Jed is not even saying so much any more.


It is true there isn't much to report. On the other hand, Industrial Heat
is funding more research than we have seen since the 1990s.



>  It's over, cold fusion is dead, and its time to move on.
>

That's silly. Scientific truth remains true forever. Cold fusion is as
viable now as it ever was.

- Jed

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

[Axil Axil]

Frank needs to tune in on the Holmlid experiments. Like Jones, he can do
his pwn experimentation to check out his own theories. Frank, go for those
muons.

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

> Just last week someone arranged a meeting with me and two one star
> generals from the NAVY and the Army.  They took my book and said that they
> would have it reviewed.  The one said,  "If I tell them to read it they
> will read it!"  My fiancée said,  "I cant believe what just went down!
> How did that happen?"  I replied,  "I have experience in this area.
> Nothing will come of it."  She accepted that answer.  Today, I am working
> on digging out a stump and looking for a new direction.  My apps only sold
> one.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text=%22znidarsic+science+books%22=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3A%22znidarsic+science+books%22
>
> Don't hold your breath waiting for the generals.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>

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

[Frank Znidarsic]

Yes, and we have been here before with Eneco, IESI, Russ George, The Cincinnati 
Group, CETI, Rossi, NEDO, the first DOE audit the second DOE audit, and the 
list goes on.
Now we have a new list of players.




It reminds me a an episode of hit show here The big Bang Theory.  Sheldon has 
been working on string theory for a long time with nothing to show for it.  He 
realizes that it will all come to nothing and searches for a new direction for 
his life.  He is confounded,  That's were we are.


Frank

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

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Frank

Thank you for writing an answer to my blog editorial!

First a small correction- I started to work on LENR on March 24,1989
then working at an institute of chemistry- I have visited the neighboring
institute of physics and have poarticipated at discussions re two lines of
replications of the Fleischmann Pons experiment- we were hunting first of
all- neutrons.

Re your statement "COLD FUSION IS DEAD" this means two things:
a) as you say, if Rossi E-Cat does not work, the cause is lost. But here is
a big IF, are you certain it does not work and why are you certain? Because
IH says it, after 3 years?

b) The Rossiless part of LENR cold Fusion is also dead, so what is doing
ENEA, SKINR and many others is in vain, sentenced to failure?

Please explain a bit your POV's,my old friend!

Very truly yours,
Peter



On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

> Peter you and I have been working on this thing since we both took a trip
> to Los Alamos Labs in 1996.  With the latest failure of Rossi nothing has
> come of the very long effort.  Jed is not even saying so much any more.
> It's over, cold fusion is dead, and its time to move on.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Gluck 
> To: Arik El Boher ; Bo Hoistadt <
> bo.hois...@physics.uu.se>; Brian Ahern ; CMNS <
> c...@googlegroups.com>; Dagmar Kuhn ; David Daggett <
> david.l.dagg...@gmail.com>; doug marker ; Dr. Braun
> Tibor ; eCatNews ; Gabriel
> Moagar-Poladian ; Gary ; Haiko
> Lietz ; jeff aries ; Mark Tsirlin <
> tsirlin.m...@hotmail.com>; Nicolaie N. Vlad ;
> Peter Bjorkbom ; Peter Mobberley <
> petermobber...@hotmail.com>; Pierre Clauzon ;
> Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio ;
> Steve Katinski ; Sunwon Park ;
> Valerio Ciampoli ; vlad ; VORTEX <
> vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Sat, May 7, 2016 1:03 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to
> LENR 's existentil problems
>
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-07-2016-passive-vs-active-approach.html
>
> I will continue but please help me!
> Peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>



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

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

[Frank Znidarsic]

Peter you and I have been working on this thing since we both took a trip to 
Los Alamos Labs in 1996.  With the latest failure of Rossi nothing has come of 
the very long effort.  Jed is not even saying so much any more.  It's over, 
cold fusion is dead, and its time to move on.



-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck 
To: Arik El Boher ; Bo Hoistadt 
; Brian Ahern ; CMNS 
; Dagmar Kuhn ; David Daggett 
; doug marker ; Dr. Braun Tibor 
; eCatNews ; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian 
; Gary ; Haiko Lietz 
; jeff aries ; Mark Tsirlin 
; Nicolaie N. Vlad ; Peter 
Bjorkbom ; Peter Mobberley 
; Pierre Clauzon ; 
Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio ; 
Steve Katinski ; Sunwon Park ; Valerio 
Ciampoli ; vlad ; VORTEX 

Sent: Sat, May 7, 2016 1:03 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 
's  existentil problems



http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-07-2016-passive-vs-active-approach.html


I will continue but please help me!
Peter



-- 

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