Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

I did not like them, Same with me. They spoke much about conspiracies against them, holding them back, blocking their work. Never did they demonstrate a device that works. Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: You'd want to get hard data because, unlikely as it seems, it would be so > totally cool if it were all true, of course. > I for one would be very concerned to discover that grays were living under the White House.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

I remember the "box" test, or rather, I recall reading about it on Vortex. As I recall it involved placing a box (covered with aluminum foil IIRC, or maybe aluminum foil and copper foil layers, alternating) somewhere in the middle of the room and hanging a thermometer above it. The

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The other thing I (think I) recall about the brouhaha is that disagreement > over the Correas had a lot to do with it. Replication is all, and they > didn't have it. > Oh, yes. The Correas did claim to be replicating Orgone energy. See:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

You'd want to get hard data because, unlikely as it seems, it would be so totally cool if it were all true, of course. Gives a whole new meaning to the song "Cheney's in the bunker", since presumably half the "people" in the bunker with him were aliens. On 05/27/2016 11:47 AM, Craig Haynie

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, I don't think our debate is going anywhere. Next month, with luck, more data will surface that will show if you are correct about the 1 MW plant having a COP = 1

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

>>>It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are living under the White House and get some hard data. Why would you want to? Craig On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The assumption that there are aliens running the government also involves a > whole pile of (very improbable) secondary assumptions, and there's no > evidence beyond some old rather dubious photographs sourced by one

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

I'm probably misremembering all this. I didn't look back at my old email before mouthing off and it was a long time ago. The other thing I (think I) recall about the brouhaha is that disagreement over the Correas had a lot to do with it. Replication is all, and they didn't have it. Anyhow

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, Get of your high horses. You claim btter information than anyone else. You do not share data. You do not share source. You admit bias in favor o ih. Then you get upset when you don't have support for your conclusions. Your message is just a copy of ih. They might be right then you also. Let

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: > No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat. > > But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:" > > > Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject. I am quite > capable of calculating the air flows and

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed. "But there obviously was sufficient ventilation. Nobody died. It was a straw man. No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat. But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:" Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject. I am quite

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: S V Johnson. > IH have obviously attempted to make E-Cats. Who told you that? Where did you get that information? I have not heard anything about that from I.H. Granted, they don't tell me much, but I am a little surprised you have better information

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: > But there obviously was sufficient ventilation. Nobody died. It was a > straw man. > No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat. But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time: Rossi's calorimetry shows no excess heat.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Orgone energy OTOH was a contentious issue on and around Vortex in years > past. As I recall Jed was on the sign of "it's bogus", and some others, > including Gene Malov, were on the side of "it's revolutionary". > I did not look closely. Gene and

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

"Grays" were aliens associated with Area 51, IIRC, but a lot of the security around the Broom Lake region was eventually lifted, as I understand it, and no aliens ever turned up, and the whole thing appears to have been a tempest in a teapot caused by the Air Force's love of secrecy coupled

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Learned something new today. What are "grays"? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/65/96/926596fc73fadc74a03a639b60968884.jpg Craig

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: orgone energy or grays living in tunnels under the Whitehouse > Orgone energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone Learned something new today. What are "grays"? Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Steven Vincent Johnson, There are plenty of other examples. What about NANOR technology? http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/01/24/report-from-cold-fusion-101-at-mit-barry-simon/ Life's too short for me to get you up to speed. You seem too certain it is impossible. Just wait until more news

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

On 05/25/2016 11:17 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Jed, what am I missing here? If, as Jed has asserted, Rossi is a fraud, then AFAIK there is no reason to believe in the ECAT any more than there is a reason to believe in orgone energy or grays living in tunnels under the

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Thu, May 26, 2016 7:42 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H. a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would be fatal and then denying you meant that. The title of the thread that I started was: "1 MW of heat in a

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, But there obviously was sufficient ventilation. Nobody died. It was a straw man. AA "a.ashfield > wrote: This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would be fatal and then denying you meant that. The

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: > This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would be > fatal and then denying you meant that. The title of the thread that I started was: "1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal"

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, "That is not a straw man. Anyone can compute that. As I said, it is like having 26 times more heating capacity than normal for that square footage, turned on full blast with no thermostat. Obviously that will make the room too hot to survive." This started because you objected to me

RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

>From Jed: >> Alain Sepeda wrote: >> what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. > I have not heard that they tried to replicate. Oh! This is interesting news to me. I did not know that. > Perhaps they did, but I have no information on that. The only thing > I

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Alain Sepeda wrote: what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. > I have not heard that they tried to replicate. Perhaps they did, but I have no information on that. The only thing I know is that they analyzed Rossi's data and they say there is no heat in

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

a.ashfield wrote: ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial > ventilation would be fatal"" > > Why did you set up that straw man in the first place? > That is not a straw man. Anyone can compute that. As I said, it is like having 26 times more

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Daniel that did not make it clear to me. I can take critic. I just think throwing rocks when you sit in a glasshouse is less than smart. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Here is another baseball clip, but this one is from the Bad News Bears (1976) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWN1xWdKbHY Harry On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism: >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Steven, I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself. Fun - did not see the connection though. 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.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

>From Lennart: > Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to > verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse. > You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk Starting around 0:40 to 1:17 Steven

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Alain Sepeda. "but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH labs." If either works it is enough. Anyway it looks like the old E-Cat is passe and the QuarkX is the future. As is too obvious no one knows enough to do more than speculate. Roll on June and more data.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. Question is if they could not replicate anything, or just replicate something usable. Fraud is not even a problem if it works for IH. Doubt on methodology is also a problem with a test. Dubious behavior is also a possible problem,

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal"" Why did you set up that straw man in the first place?Is your source Dewey Weaver?I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have. As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have t o verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse. You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell. On May 23, 2016 18:28, "Jed" wrote: > "a.ashfield"

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

"a.ashfield" wrote: > Several of Jed's charges such as the released heat being lethal Would you PLEASE stop repeating that horseshit! I never said that! NEVER! I said that without ventilation it would be fatal, therefore the IH expert must examine the ventilation

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

SVJ, In a way this Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud. Although they made mistakes on the nuclear side I don't think there is any doubt

RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

From: Jack Cole Steven, Good post in my opinion…. Very respectful to all…. It is a painful thing to come to the realization that the hope you place in a person for changing the world is now lost (not to mention all the hours and work spent following the topic). It is a good and painful life

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

SVJ, I understand where you are coming from and Jed maybe right. But I don't consider it proven yet and object to the definitive way Rossi is accused of fraud before the court case is held. We should have more information next month, in particular IH's response to the charge. Several of

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I feel a confident of conclusions in part because professionals who are way better at calorimetry reached similar conclusions. They also have better data than I do. OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: > At present I lack

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Even if there were the case, I wouldn't consider anything lost. I can judge on technical data, not on hearsay. 2016-05-23 7:53 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole : > > It is a painful thing to come to the realization that the hope you place > in a person for changing the world is now lost >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Steven, Good post in my opinion. Very respectful to all. It is a painful thing to come to the realization that the hope you place in a person for changing the world is now lost (not to mention all the hours and work spent following the topic). It is a good and painful life lesson. When you

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

Just forget calorimetry. IH have a licend to E-cat technology and derivation. If E-cat work they will make billions of $ of benefits, sharing par with Rossi, who will also make billion on other geographic zones like EU... It would be stupid thus to be in trouble with Rossi, to risk to lose the