Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

I have followed this fairly closely and I haven't seen anything posted by Rossi that would suggest the results were flawed. He did say the temperature of 100.1C doesn't appear anywhere in the ERV's report. Show me the actual quotes from Rossi that you think are damning. As for who is

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a matter > of opinion. > I'm starting to get some energy back. Please enumerate what you've already gone over that I've overlooked, and what I've said that

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it. Eric. No. It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from seeing the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an interview where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head. If the output temperature was 116C this is a good indication that the steam was superheated and not wet. On 6/5/2016 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM, a.ashfield wrote: When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your comments. > Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents, as explained, > that was the only way to get a patent in this circumstance. Mentioning

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

It was Eric not me that claimed that IH hadn't said it didn't work. I thought they had. On 6/5/2016 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work? You might

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Come on Jed, that is not what you said. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it. The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:16 AM, a.ashfield wrote: IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later - > complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. Nothing about > the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it. > No. It

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the customer's plant. ed. Who told you that? That is not what I have heard. That is all I have read about. If you have proof of other things, please show it. In fact I also read in a comment that it was not Rossi but

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of anything. I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is not shown very well. One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind of NDA. The arguments are switching between that those

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an interview > where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head. > Nope. Not off the top of his head. Those are the same numbers he put in his calorimetry, supposedly from

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric. You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant." We don't really know this. What we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking the expert from seeing the facility. It is likely that what you say, that the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > You on the other hand are certain you know all the answers based on > information from IH. not from the independent ERV. > No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it came from Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the > customer's plant. > Who told you that? That is not what I have heard. Stopping the visit would be bad enough, in any case. > Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Well I apologize for my assumption. If the only information you have is from Rossi please give his actual quote(s) I have not seen anything from him to indicate that the plant did not operate well. If you have other numbers, what were their source? On 6/5/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work? You might > let Jed know that. > I.H. said it does not work in their motion to dismiss. They said the "reactors" are "inoperable." (I did not know there is more than one reactor.) - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:04 AM, a.ashfield wrote: > AA. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later > - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. Nothing about > the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it. > >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Well I apologize for my assumption. If the only information you have is > from Rossi please give his actual quote(s) > I already told you: I cannot. Why do you keep asking for things that you know I cannot give? What is the point? As I said, the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jack Cole wrote: > Of course there is evidence of laziness or an utterly poor understanding > of measurement instruments with the presentation of the apparently fake > measurements (3 or 4 trailing zeros according to Jed). > That's not according to me. That was Rossi

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric Walker wrote: > AA. You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it. >> > > Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas > Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent. > If he did add

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart Thornros wrote: Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of > anything. > It is an indicator that I.H. thinks there were "flawed measurements" using "unsuitable measuring devices." I have seen the data, and I agree with I.H. > I have

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a matter of opinion. Patents have not come up before. I presume you know the Patent Office has a special procedure to stop or delay patents on cold fusion as they have taken DOE's word for it that it is like perpetual

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Jack Cole wrote: Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because > they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world. > What a dream that would be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity, >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, It is not worth my time to rehash it all. It is all covered in this thread that you can read again if you want to. When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your comments. Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents, as explained, that was the only way

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > ed. Who told you that? That is not what I have heard. > > That is all I have read about. > Where did you read that? Rossi's blog? Rossi is not a reliable source of information. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, What you say does not add up. You say the information is not from IH. You say the information is from Rossi. Forgive me for doubting that he would send you confidential information that can't be published. Do you mean information from someone on Rossi's team? If so, why say it was

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, I don't think IH hired the expert until after the test started. All seemed well between IH and Rossi when the test started. On 6/5/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: My new

Re: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research

What happened to this? Four years later there could be results. I think classifying it as materials science instead of nuclear physics might be successful. Classifying it as nuclear science is very much more problematic. David On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Moab Moab

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield wrote: My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little > expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's > Law. As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around for some > way to do that. That's hilarious! As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked into the room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few minutes

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: What you say does not add up. You say the information is not from IH. > I said it was not I.H.'s data. I didn't say where it came from. I will leave that little detail to your vivid and ever-active imagination. > As for the numbers Rossi gave Lewan

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Adrian, It is entirely possible that IH hired the expert after the test started. Or maybe they hired him before the test started. Perhaps all seemed well to us between IH and Rossi. Some who have access to additional information were aware of difficulties early on. It is hard to say from the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent. If so, please share. AA. 1. Rossi says so and he is the expert. 2. There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan. It is just

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

> On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield wrote: > > Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that > Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent. If > so, please share. > > AA. 1. Rossi says so and he is the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:27 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Eric's Law. Everything Rossi says is wrong. We all know more about LENR > than he does. Interesting characterization of my position! Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Eric. > > You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not > being able to see the customer's plant." We don't really know this. What > we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Eric Walker > > Jack Cole wrote: > > Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because > they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world. > What a dream that would

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. I do not think it was 116 deg C. AA. What proof do you have that it is wrong? On 6/5/2016 12:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an interview where

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's Law. As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around for some way to do that. Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's

[Vo]:LENR heroism, LERNA Lake vs. LENRA Lake

more peaceful Sunday edition; please help me to define LENR heroism, two lakes compared http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-05-2016-lenr-heroism-lerna-lake-vs.html Fine weekend end to you all! peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric's Law. Everything Rossi says is wrong. We all know more about LENR than he does. On 6/5/2016 1:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield wrote: Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas Barker

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

What I now think happened was that IH suddenly became interested in disputing the ERV's findings/report, rather than the other way around that they were looking for evidence to boost its believabllity. as Jed suggested. Just why is not clear, but we know of 89 million reasons. As stated at the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Agreed. Except Jed now says the secret information is not from IH. On 6/5/2016 12:07 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of anything. I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is not shown very well. One side

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

From: Eric Walker Jack Cole wrote: Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world. What a dream that would be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity, and do not forget,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked into the room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few minutes would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a farce. AA. So as you claim to know what the instrumentation was, please describe it. What was the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:38 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days. He surely > would not say that now. > Yes, and Rossi said the following on March 11, only 25 days before he initiated a lawsuit against IH: Thank you for

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, Lets make this easy. 1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? Was the fluid water? There must have been a drain tap somewhere where a sample could be taken for analysis. 2. Did the steam output from

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, 25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end of the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay up. When did the EVR finish his report? Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks. He would keep these as a record anyway. Nothing

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, a.ashfield wrote: 25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end of > the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay up. When > did the EVR finish his report? > According to the complaint, the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them his report. This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on not paying all along. On 6/5/2016 6:48 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Jed, > Lets make this easy. > > 1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW > plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? . . . I cannot discuss any details that have not yet been released by I.H. or Rossi. I will

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days. He surely would not say that now. If the output temperature was 116C and the steam superheated, really all you would need to calculate the thermal output would be a flow meter for the water going in, a pressure gauge and a

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield wrote: I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to > pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them his > report. This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on not >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum of money to the cancel the test then that implies IH considered Rossi's IP to be valuable at that time. Harry On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Eric & Jed, > > Consider the time line > > Summer 2015

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart, If you were making a tacit distinction between entrepeneurs and investors then I agree. Harry On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:41 PM, H LV wrote: > Those qualities aren't unique to entrepreneurs. They can be found in other > creative people. What makes an entrepreneur

[Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

​from https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/ ​ ​<<​ The reassignment of the lawsuit to the District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga and the consulting of the economic crime specialist Magistrate John O’Sullivan, indicates that the court already has an

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric Walker wrote: *It is hard to by any stretch of imagination to describe Rossi's behavior as that of a reasonable person. Rossi has been his own worst enemy, as even his admirers will attest. He succeeded in obtaining millions of dollars in funding, with the possibility of many more, in a

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, I have no knowledge of the date. What has become clear though is that the story about the ERV's report not holding up to scrutiny being the reason for not paying is pure nonsense. IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known what was in it, before

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, That is ridiculous. You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the measurements were flawed"! ? It is starting to look like you don't have a clue what was there but are just parroting what some anonymous person told you.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > Jed, > That is ridiculous. You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or > thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the > measurements were flawed"! ? > Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you whether

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/05/2016 07:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

The 200th post is mine! 2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker : > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: > > >>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The 200th post is mine! > My apologies -- not being sarcastic, I've been a bit of a burden on the list today and yesterday. I will now bow out of this thread. Ultimately this kind of debate, where people do little more

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/05/2016 08:43 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a lawyer and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known > what was in it, before dismissing it out of hand. > Who told you that? That's not true as far as I know. Where do you get this weird stuff? Rossi's blog, I suppose. As I said,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:00 PM, a.ashfield wrote: What has become clear though is that the story about the ERV's report not > holding up to scrutiny being the reason for not paying is pure nonsense. > IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a lawyer > and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan. Time can be of the > essence when claims and counterclaims start flying. From the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Come on down! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyV_dBZHU0 Harry On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > The 200th post is mine! > > 2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker : > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric & Jed, Consider the time line Summer 2015 Rossi was offered a sum to cancel the test Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11.5 million paid and cancel IH's license. Feb 18 test of a one megawatt heat plant completed Apr 05 Rossi sues. Rossi et al v. Darden et al May 15 date Penon