Re: [Vo]:We owe Steven Kirvit an applogy

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:21 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

I think we came to loggerheads over the whole McKubre M4 issue. I never
> felt comfortable with Krivit's analysis (actually, I would say: Krivit's
> opinion) on the matter.


I found Steven Krivit's supporting material relating to the changes in
Michael McKubre's M4 graph very interesting.  It was Krivit's thesis that
was silly.  He wanted to make it out as though McKubre had done something
unsavory.  What was clear from the changes over the years was
that McKubre was revisiting earlier interpretations and presentations of
the data, in a way that seemed to me to be quite appropriate.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Harry,

 

Thanks for sharing your work on orbital mechanics geometry with me and with the 
rest of the Vort Collective.

 

Wow! That is a really fascinating animated geometric construct. Incredibly 
elaborate. You appear to be quite gifted in your ability to build complicated 
animation concepts. My complements! And now, here's my critique! (Don't worry. 
I'm still extremely impressed.)

 

I desperately wanted to be able to stop your animated gif at various points. 
There are many, MANY, lines and circles you are generating here as you try to 
get your point across. I keep getting lost. I can't keep up with what you are 
trying to reveal. I suspect your construct would be better understood and 
appreciated by the general public (and me too) if you could break the steps 
down into more digestible chunks. I would also recommend adding some 
descriptive wording here and there as you pause after something important has 
or is about to happen.

 

One lesson I've had to learn the hard way about my own Kepler related work is 
that we, the researcher, can become somewhat isolated (blinded) by the fact 
that if we throw a bunch of data too quickly at the novice observer, the person 
will not be able to follow all the steps. It's not their fault. It's just too 
much data for a novice to digest in one meal. When they get lost, they give up. 
We forget that in our own heads what now looks so utterly clear and simple to 
us still looks utterly confusing to a novice. We have spent weeks and months 
working out all the geometry in our own brain. The information has essentially 
become hardwired in our understanding of all the crucial geometry involved. 
Alas, a new observer has not yet had the chance to build such hardwiring into 
their own wetwiring. 

 

I'm interested in what you are attempting to reveal because I want to 
understand if there might exist a relationship with your work and mine. It 
would appear that my application of orbital mechanics geometry reveals very 
different things than what your geometry appears to reveal. My research into 
orbital mechanics geometry appears to reveal that VELOCITY vectors can be 
discerned directly out of Kepler's elliptic construct. All one has to do is add 
a little extra geometry, and suddenly it all becomes clear. One apparent 
difference between your work and mine is that my constructs appear to be more 
simplified. I'm aiming for the same kind of simplicity that Kepler revealed in 
his three famous laws. I think I have found that simplicity too. Two of the 
three additional laws (Laws 4 & 5) are actually already known to scholars. But 
their significance is not understood (or perceived) as additional Kepler laws. 
I want to rectify that. The third new law (law 6) is, to the best of my 
knowledge, unknown to the public domain. It shows how to use the empty foci to 
construct velocity measurements.

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com

 

 

From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

 

Steven, 


I know that in the past you have wondered if the second focus of an ellipse 
could have any role to play in the determination of orbits, since it plays no 
role in Kepler laws or in Newton's derivation of Kepler laws.  Well a few years 
ago, I invented a geometrical method in which the second focus of an ellipse is 
first located prior to determining the shape and size of an orbit. Information 
about speed and escape velocity is first mapped to positions on the 
circumference of a circle and this point is used to projectively locate the 
second focus (Fe) relative to the planet which is located at the first focus 
(Fp). Once the second focus is located the shape of orbit can be computed. 
However, my computations consist of geometric constructions and a gif animation 
which you can view here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_i-KDTRAy7I9q54g6H22shW7M5e-fj36Sva_seHj75Y/edit?usp=sharing

This method of drawing conic sections is not new, but I think how I use of this 
method is new.

 

Harry

 

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

[Lennart Thornros]

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"  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 system.
>
> Why do you keep misrepresenting what I said? That is rude.
>
> >
> > It should be possible to measure the input and output of a black box.
>
> Yes. That method showed no excess heat. Therefore it was necessary to
> examine the customer machinery and ventilation. Rossi did not allow that.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

[Jed]

 "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 system.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I said? That is rude.

> 
> It should be possible to measure the input and output of a black box.

Yes. That method showed no excess heat. Therefore it was necessary to examine 
the customer machinery and ventilation. Rossi did not allow that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Dear Johannes

[H LV]

Steven,

I know that in the past you have wondered if the second focus of an ellipse
could have any role to play in the determination of orbits, since it plays
no role in Kepler laws or in Newton's derivation of Kepler laws.  Well a
few years ago, I invented a geometrical method in which the second focus of
an ellipse is first located prior to determining the shape and size of an
orbit. Information about speed and escape velocity is first mapped to
positions on the circumference of a circle and this point is used to
projectively locate the second focus (Fe) relative to the planet which is
located at the first focus (Fp). Once the second focus is located the shape
of orbit can be computed. However, my computations consist of geometric
constructions and a gif animation which you can view here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_i-KDTRAy7I9q54g6H22shW7M5e-fj36Sva_seHj75Y/edit?usp=sharing

This method of drawing conic sections is not new, but I think how I use of
this method is new.

Harry




On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> I've been retired now for almost 18 months. I'm happy to report I'm not
> bored. My on-going Kepler research project continues to consume much of my
> quality time. But alas, summer is just around the corner, and there seems
> to be a spate of honey-do projects that are about to consume a good chunk
> of my free energy.
>
>
>
> Dear Johannes,
>
>
>
> I hope you won't mind it too much if I place our work temporarily on the
> bench... perhaps for several months while I go about retouching up the
> exterior of the house. I just want you to know that I currently see at
> least three additional laws that I would like to document as additions, or
> complements, to your original three. I think you'll like the additions. I
> see a nice symmetry that enhances the simplicity and beauty of your work.
> However, the amount of computer coding and animation that I feel I'll need
> to create in order to adequately show all of these additional Keplerian
> laws feels a tad overwhelming at the moment. It feels important to me that
> I develop my animations in easy-to-understand chewable bites. Creating a
> new series of easy to chew cookies is not always an easy recipe to bake.
>
>
>
> Yours truly
>
>
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> orionworks.com
>
> http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com/
>

[Vo]:implicit appeal for fairness in LENR Land

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-23-2016-bit-more-fairness-in-lenr.html

actually regrettable things
Quite good Info.

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

RE: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.

[Jones Beene]

The answer to these questions varies wildly, according to the theorist.
There is little proof that can be called firm. The theory that appeals to me
the most is not Holmlid's but the one of Lawandy. In that theory, there must
be a dielectric support for UDH, which is always paired. A larger cluster of
pairs is possible with no electrons - instead the charge is balanced by
deflated electrons captured in the dielectric. The paper is on the LENR-CANR
site. There is no "Rydberg matter" per se, but this dense state can be
labeled as IRH or inverted Rydberg hydrogen.

 

From: Stephen Cooke 

 

Oops i meant H(0) of course

Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen:

 

Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or
is a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it?

 

Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or
would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band?

 

If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would
they look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of
protons, would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some
offset due to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and
different spin state of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to
dynamics of the proton pair?

 

Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it
sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require
interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable?

 

 

RE: [Vo]:We owe Steven Kirvit an applogy

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Jed,

 

Obviously, each Vort participant has to decide for themselves whether they 
should apologize to Mr. Krivit.

 

Having been a former NET BoD member, I had my share of interactions with Mr. 
Krivit. My experience with Mr. Krivit was that he can be tireless and dedicated 
in his desire to get to the truth of the matter. (We worked, in private, on a 
couple of interesting projects together, and those interactions were for the 
most part good productive experiences for me.) But I also came to the personal 
opinion that what one man's perceives as the truth is not necessarily the truth 
as perceived by another man or woman. I would say the two of us eventually came 
to loggerheads when I essentially critiqued what I personally felt was Krivit's 
inexperienced responses to a more experienced radio show host's questions out 
in Vortex. This was over some disputed McKubre data. As a NET BoD member at the 
time it was none of my business to have critiqued Krivit's job performance in 
such a public manner, out in Vortex. That was my fault. Krivit was quite angry 
with me. After I unloaded what I really wanted to say to Krivit in private, it 
became pretty obvious that I was not a comfortable fit in his NET organization. 
I felt extremely relieved to have been asked to leave. I wasted no time in 
fulfilling his request.

 

I think we came to loggerheads over the whole McKubre M4 issue. I never felt 
comfortable with Krivit's analysis (actually, I would say: Krivit's opinion) on 
the matter. To be blunt, I didn't think Krivit was sufficiently qualified to 
have come down as hard on as hard on McKubre in the manner that he did. I think 
it seriously hurt Krivit's reputation and standing within the CF community - 
significantly.

 

In regards to Rossi-Gate, (I love that term, Jones!) I wished Mr. Krivit would 
have focused primarily on the actual calorimetric data (or the lack of it) 
alone to prove his points... his suspicions, if you will.  But as far as I can 
tell that's not how Krivit has chosen to conduct his investigations on the 
Rossi-Gate affair. It's my understanding Krivit came away with a bad feeling 
about Rossi pretty much after his initial personal encounter. I would speculate 
Krivit came away feeling that Rossi was attempting to manipulate him into 
becoming an advocate for his holy cause.  I can certainly understand why Krivit 
came away with bad feelings and suspicions of Rossi, just as you had your own 
doubts after communicating with him from the very beginning. I remains my 
opinion that Krivit allowed his suspicions of Rossi's eccentric behaviors... 
perhaps suspicions that Rossi was trying to manipulate him, to overwhelm the 
more important task of simply focusing on the calorimetric data Rossi claimed 
he had accumulated. IMO, there exists TOO MUCH EMOTIONAL KRIVIT BAGAGE for me 
to trust that Krivit is capable of writing objective reporting on Rossi. 
Carrying around TOO MUCH EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE is a bad combination to be saddled 
with if one wants to play the role of being an objective investigative 
journalist.

 

Again, I feel no need to apologize to Mr. Krivit. I wish him well in his 
endeavors. But to apologize? Actually it would feel tantamount to enabling, or 
endorsing Krivit's personal take on the Rossi-Gate affair - which I most 
certainly don't.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks

http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com/

 

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 7:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Steve Krivit
Subject: Re: [Vo]:We owe Steven Kirvit an applogy

 

I do not know if we should apologize to Steve, but I certainly agree he was 
right and I was wrong. I have been meaning to tell him.

 

To be mealymouthed I wasn't so wrong as noncommittal. I think I said -- I hope 
I said -- I cannot judge whether Rossi is fraud or not, and it is not my 
business to do that, because I am not a policeman. His tests looked sloppy to 
me, especially when he almost blew up the people from NASA. My first impression 
of Rossi was the time he invited me and then uninvited me when I said I would 
measure the temperature and flow rates with my own instruments. That gave me a 
bad impression. 

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.

[Stephen Cooke]

Oops i meant H(0) of course

From: stephen_coo...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:19:02 +0200
Subject: [Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.




Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen:
Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or is 
a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it?

Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or 
would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band?
If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would they 
look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of protons, 
would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some offset due 
to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and different spin state 
of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to dynamics of the proton 
pair?
Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it 
sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require 
interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable?


  

[Vo]:Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen.

[Stephen Cooke]

Some questions about H(1) ultra dense hydrogen:
Is it possible for H(1) to exist as only one pair of atoms in dense form or is 
a layer of additional pairs in a vortex is required to stabilise it?

Does anyone know if H(1) matter would contain stable electron orbitals, or 
would the electrons be freely moving in a conduction band?
If it is possible to have a single pair and it has electron orbitals would they 
look familiar? i.e. I suppose they would be external to the pair of protons, 
would they there for look like orbitals from Helium atom with some offset due 
to the different reduced mass due to lack of neutrons, and different spin state 
of the nucleus? Or would they be more complex due to dynamics of the proton 
pair?
Is there a reason the protons in the pair do not repel each other? is it 
sufficient that the 2 elections stabilise them somehow or does it require 
interactions with other pairs in the vortex to remain stable?

  

RE: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal

[Stephen Cooke]

In the interest of clarity hopefully:
Here is a link containing containerised mobile boilers which you might find 
interesting. I'm not yet clear if they are used inside buildings, Also they are 
for oil and gas boilers rather than electrical ones but I think you will agree 
there is a passing resemblance.
http://www.crosshire.ie/boilers/boilers.php
Also interesting there is a calculator for these kinds of boilers incase they 
are used purely for heating. i.e not some endothermic industrial purpose. I 
haven't gone through it for heating a warehouse say heating about 10 degrees 
above ambient though as I'm not sure of the volume. It might be interesting to 
do though
http://www.crosshire.ie/calculators/
I'm not sure but perhaps this is interesting too:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/commercial_initiative/hvac_volume2_final_report.pdf
I suppose heating is not normally a big issue in Miami, but if it is needed for 
an industrial purpose and the heat is eventually released in the environment  
it is still interesting to consider its impact. I suppose the "thermal 
stratification" effects in buildings with high ceilings would also need to be 
considered, and also if the building is  effectively vented as discussed else 
where.

From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 20:09:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial 
ventilation would be fatal
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Alan Fletcher  wrote:
I accept your claim that 1MW in an un-ventilated, insulated room would be fatal.
But that is not the case : a 30,000 CPM is sufficient to ventilate it, and 
there is a fan (of similar dimensions to one particular example) on the roof. 
(Plus convective loss, which would reduce the need for ventilation).
Alan, you are missing the point!! Please read carefully:
Yes, if there is a 30,000 CPM fan in the customer room, and yes if it is 
running the temperature will not go up. THEREFORE, in order to prove the heat 
is real, Rossi has to show the I.H. expert this fan. The expert has to measure 
the air temperature and flow with an HVAC tool such as this one:
http://www.tequipment.net/ExtechAN200.asp

This confirmation is essential because Rossi's own calorimetry shows no excess 
heat.
This confirmation would be essential in any case, even if Rossi's calorimetry 
showed excess heat. No one is going to write a check for $89 million without 
taking every reasonable step to make sure the heat is real, and this is an 
important test to confirm that. You want to measure heat at the boiler, heat 
coming from the industrial equipment, and heat removed from the room by the 
ventilation equipment. These should be in reasonable agreement.
All large HVAC equipment has to be periodically tested for safety. When they do 
these tests, they measure the COP of the boilers, and they measure how well the 
chimney and fans are working. Anyone thinking of paying $89 million will demand 
the same kinds of tests.
 Rossi presented no calorimetric data to Lewan (see my separate thread), . . .
I heard he did, but I could be wrong about that. Rossi quoted enough numbers to 
allow a calculation of the fluid temperature. The numbers he quoted were the 
same as the sample I analyzed.
 Rossi filed his contract with IH with the court.  See sections 3(c) and 5 . . .
No, he did not. He is a fraud. His own data shows that his machine does not 
work. He tried to cover up additional proof of that by preventing access to the 
customer site.
 Rossi says  (and will presumably produce in court) that IH and JM signed off 
on a strict separation (double-black-box) policy.
JM is a shell company made by Rossi's lawyer. Their agreements mean nothing. 
Rossi had access to the facility.  There is NO evidence at all that ERV Penon 
is "Rossi's" man. 
Yes, there is. He is also a certified idiot. If he sticks around in the U.S. he 
will be twice an idiot, because he will probably end up in jail.
- Jed
  

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

[a.ashfield]

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 
that they produced anomalous heat.

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

[Jones Beene]

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 lesson.

Will there be a silver lining to this drama?

Probably. The field will continue inching forward, despite Rossi-gate. The 
fundamental problem with LENR/cold fusion from day one, assuming that even a 
fraction of the successful experiments are accurate - is that it represents the 
first time in the history of science where a result (and a very desirable and 
needed result) cannot be replicated 100% of the time by someone other than the 
claimant, based on a good theory. There is no accurate theory.

When you get to the watt level, it seems that LENR can be replicated some of 
the time but not all of the time. It is simply not understood well enough to 
make it reliable. Trace reactants could be involved or an unknown variable or 
parameter. Since there is no real precedent for that situation in science, 
where an experiment resists all attempts at understanding for so long in time- 
many observers are content to write the whole thing off as experimental error. 

Notably, little more than a decade from Fermi’s discover of neutron induced 
fission in 1934, a working weapon was produced. I think that short time-line is 
why the mention of the Thermacore runaway reaction hit a nerve. What the LENR 
field needs is a simple, robust experiment that can be reproduced by anyone, 
all of the time, even if the result is a molten mass of scrap metal. 

Caveat: there is no evidence that the Thermacore runaway can be replicated at 
all, much less all the time, but this is clearly the *type* of experiment which 
should be reproducible if the technology is real… and we have this 
comprehension of the nature of “critical mass” which fits well with prior 
expectations.

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

[a.ashfield]

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 Jed's charges such as the released heat being lethal and that 
it was just Rossi preventing IH from visiting the customer do not stand 
up to scrutiny.  His figures on calorimetry from IH have not been 
shown.  Mats Lewan claims others who have seen Penon's report say that 
the only way the plant did not produce a high COP is if Penen wrote a 
deliberately fraudulent report.  So it looks like the claim is that 
quite a number of people were criminal frauds. Rossi, his team. the 
customer and Penon. Jed later claimed Rossi's own figures showed the COP 
was one.  I don't see that.  Recently Rossi has stated the steam was 
superheated.  We won't know the truth without more data.


It should be possible to measure the input and output of a black box.  
Penon is an expert professional, hired by both parties, and there is no 
reason to think he did not do that unless FACTS surface to contradict 
it.  The court case should make the answer known and we should wait for 
that.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion that
> suggests ALL of Rossi's experimental devices have never worked. I realize I
> could be wrong on this point but I still find it plausible to speculate
> that Rossi may have indeed discovered excess heat emanating from some of
> his earlier experiments. Jed can correct me on this point but I believe he
> have at one time also speculated on that possibility.
>
I agree that some of his tests seem positive. As I have said, the first set
of tests done by Levi et al. look good to me. Not definitive, but good. I
do not know enough about that method of calorimetry to judge with
confidence. I was hoping they would improve on these tests, but alas, the
follow-up tests at Lugano were not as good.

I don't know what to make of that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:We owe Steven Kirvit an applogy

[Jed Rothwell]

I do not know if we should apologize to Steve, but I certainly agree he was
right and I was wrong. I have been meaning to tell him.

To be mealymouthed I wasn't so wrong as noncommittal. I think I said -- I
hope I said -- I cannot judge whether Rossi is fraud or not, and it is not
my business to do that, because I am not a policeman. His tests looked
sloppy to me, especially when he almost blew up the people from NASA. My
first impression of Rossi was the time he invited me and then uninvited me
when I said I would measure the temperature and flow rates with my own
instruments. That gave me a bad impression.

- Jed

[Vo]:many historical quotes

[Frank Znidarsic]

Many more audio quotes were lost.  I put the in rm format 25 years ago and now 
they no longer play.
Real Media is still here but the codecks are gone.


Frank Z

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

[Daniel Rocha]

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.

[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
lesson.  When
you embark on such an investment of time and effort, place value on the
process of finding the truth per se rather than on the outcome.  Fortunately,
life often affords other opportunities to use knowledge gained even in
apparently fruitless past efforts.

Jack

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:14 AM Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> 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
> license, and nobody even POTUS can pay enough to  convince someone of
> abandoning those billions.
>
> if IH have reasonable hope that E-cat works they will care not to hurt the
> personality of Rossi because they are dependent on him.
>
>
> conclusion :
> IH have never succeeded in making an E-cat work ("could not substantiate")
> IH think they will never be able to make an E-cat work as the process is
> engaged (need to force IP transfer or dump the contract).
>
> now this does not says is the 1MW*350days calorimetry was good, if the
> client was real or dummy, ...
>
> This just say this is unimportant.
>
> I don't care if Ford won Formula 1 championchip, if my Ford car cannot
> start.
>
>
> 2016-05-23 4:37 GMT+02:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net>:
>
>> I have rejoined vortex briefly to express a couple of cents. I don't
>> expect to stay her long. It's too damned addictive.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK... Regarding the latest Rossi vs I.H. saga:
>>
>>
>>
>> Having observed Jed's eclectic contributions to the Vort Collective since
>> the 1990s it's been my experience that few Vort members have been as
>> thorough, meticulously so, or as objective, as Mr. Rothwell has been when
>> it comes to evaluating basic calorimetry. Because I'm not an expert in
>> calorimetry it behooves me to carefully evaluate the opinions and
>> assessments of those who, in my opinion, are experienced experts in the
>> field. Having observed the quality of Mr. Rothwell's posts for more than
>> three decades I have no problem yielding to most of his extensive
>> experience (and opinion) on such matters. I should also mention that I'm
>> willing to listen to Ed Storm's opinions and evaluations as well,. I gather
>> Ed may have possibly concluded a very different scenario concerning Rossi's
>> alleged professional proclivities. Evaluating Mr. Rothwell's opinions,
>> combined with Ed Storms, and perhaps a few others can certainly give me a
>> lot to chew on!
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not in a position to determine whether Rossi is or isn't a fraud.
>> Meanwhile, Jed has access to crucial I.H. calorimetric data that most of us
>> in the peanut gallery don't possess. Jed appears to have come to the
>> conclusion that Rossi's recent actions concerning his dealings with I.H.
>> indicate strong fraudulent activity. Again, I yield to Jed's extensive
>> experience (and opinion) concerning calorimetric issues while I also
>> continue to keep Ed Storm's opinions on the matter in the mixture as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> One can come up with a million different reasons as to why we flawed
>> human beings occasionally behave in seemingly evasive and dishonest ways.
>> Buyer beware.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I remain fascinated by this latest Rossi saga, a saga which is
>> still unfolding, I find myself even more fascinated by the amount of
>> bargaining (of the Elisabeth Kubler-Ross kind) that I see coming from
>> certain Vort participants as they go about challenging Mr. Rothwell's,
>> latest Rossi criticisms. I remain fascinated that some of these posters
>> seem incapable of entertaining the possibility that Rossi's calorimetric
>> claims might indeed be worthless, or worse, possibly even fraudulent. Why
>> is it important to cast so much doubt on Mr. Rothwell's latest Rossi
>> assessments? I can think of one possibility:
>>
>>
>>
>> As a former member of Dr. Mills SCP Yahoo group I observed a lot of smart
>> observant posters occasionally asking difficult questions of the good
>> doctor. Unfortunately, I also observed a lot of hero worshiping of the good
>> doctor. I suspect certain posts I made concerning observations I made that
>> seemed to suggest there existed an ardent cheerleading section may have
>> contributed to me being kicked out by Dr. Mills himself. Lately, I see a
>> similar kind of hero worshipping occurring within the Vort Collective among
>> certain posters. I find myself wondering what are the chances are that any
>> of these worshipers have accumulated anywhere near the amount of
>> calorimetric 

Re: [Vo]:Apologize?

[Alain Sepeda]

This is a painful problem with skeptics, who in fact prevent sincere
questioner to think straight from evidences.

Rossi have a controversial story about Petrol dragon, but nothing
definitive except some loose behavior with taxes and environmental
regulations.
For the US Army TEG projet, there is strange things, but agains nothing
definitive.

For many previous test, there was many questions, but all was so badly done
that it could not be definitive.
Krivit, who is a sincere LENR reporter, with a tendency to amplify the
pathos and develop conspiracy theories, noticed a very important fact when
Rossi refused him to see too many things on his reactor... whether it was
IP protection, or stage magic hiding, is again an open question.

More seriously conspiracy theories, often unrealistic, hide real problems.
I remember from the Defkalion demo that Gamberale later denounced the many
conspiracy theories on electric circuits, and the self confidence of
skeptics, while there was simpàly missing data. Hopefully Luca completed
the file and make the conclusion clear.
Before we have good data, skeptics should simply have raised the
possibility of a problem, and supporters raise the possibility of a real
phenomenon, instead of both being sure of their theory.

For Lugano test, there was initial erroneous theories (inverted clamps)
against success , until Thomas found the problem of window and total
emissivity discrepancy, confirmed by MFMP test. He is still unable to admit
the inverted clamp theory was just wrong.

For isotopic test there was the stage magic theory, assuming Rossi was a
prestidigitator, but it fogged the question. the key problem in the test is
simply that what was extracted from the reactor is probably not the same as
what was put in.


The problem is that many people concluded while not leaving the question
open... open on both directions.
Concluding too early push contradictors (like me) to radicalize on the
opposite.
This does not helps me to make my own opinion.





2016-05-23 4:37 GMT+02:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

> The following commentary is not an attempt on my part to justify, or
> endorse Rossi's recent professional behavior.
>
>
>
> While some might suggest we need to apologize to Mr. Krivit I feel no
> desire to endorse let alone enable investigative reporting tactics that
> repeatedly exploit phrases like "convicted fraudster" or "convicted white
> collar criminal" to characterize Rossi's prior business activities. Does
> Rossi's prior fraud charges prove his current business actions are just as
> bogus? Sure, it's tantalizing to assume that might be the case. I can see
> why one might think it is a correct assumption to draw. Unfortunately,
> doing so is nothing more than playing the game of guilt-by-association. The
> point being: What does playing the guilt-by-association game have to do
> with investigative reporting of the current evidence? It strikes me more as
> a tactic a prosecutor attorney would attempt to exploit to build a case of
> damning evidence, assuming the court doesn't bar him from doing so due to
> irrelevance to current circumstances. It's my understanding that Mr. Krivit
> wants to be perceived as an objective independent investigator/journalist.
> If that is the case, why does his investigative reporting on Rossi
> repeatedly include phrases like "convicted of fraud" and " convicted
> white-collar criminal " over and over, typically near the beginning of
> another damming Rossi article? Doing so, strikes me as more the actions
> that a prosecuting attorney would exploit to insinuate to the jury that the
> defendant on trial is guilty. But what do such insinuations have to do with
> judging the contents of the latest experimental evidence under fire between
> Rossi and I.H? It strikes me as something an investigative reporter might
> feel inclined to include if he lacked confidence in being able to stand
> alone in his ability to deconstruct the alleged veracity of Rossi's current
> experimental claims. For that suspicion alone, I feel no inclination to
> offer apologies.
>
>
>
> It makes me think Mr. Krivit may have chosen the wrong profession to excel
> at. I hope he eventually finds his true calling. Everyone deserves to
> embark on his true calling. God only knows it's taken me damned near a
> life-time to find a few special callings of my own to slave away at until I
> die.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> orionworks.com
>
> http://www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
> http://stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>

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

[Alain Sepeda]

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
license, and nobody even POTUS can pay enough to  convince someone of
abandoning those billions.

if IH have reasonable hope that E-cat works they will care not to hurt the
personality of Rossi because they are dependent on him.


conclusion :
IH have never succeeded in making an E-cat work ("could not substantiate")
IH think they will never be able to make an E-cat work as the process is
engaged (need to force IP transfer or dump the contract).

now this does not says is the 1MW*350days calorimetry was good, if the
client was real or dummy, ...

This just say this is unimportant.

I don't care if Ford won Formula 1 championchip, if my Ford car cannot
start.


2016-05-23 4:37 GMT+02:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

> I have rejoined vortex briefly to express a couple of cents. I don't
> expect to stay her long. It's too damned addictive.
>
>
>
> OK... Regarding the latest Rossi vs I.H. saga:
>
>
>
> Having observed Jed's eclectic contributions to the Vort Collective since
> the 1990s it's been my experience that few Vort members have been as
> thorough, meticulously so, or as objective, as Mr. Rothwell has been when
> it comes to evaluating basic calorimetry. Because I'm not an expert in
> calorimetry it behooves me to carefully evaluate the opinions and
> assessments of those who, in my opinion, are experienced experts in the
> field. Having observed the quality of Mr. Rothwell's posts for more than
> three decades I have no problem yielding to most of his extensive
> experience (and opinion) on such matters. I should also mention that I'm
> willing to listen to Ed Storm's opinions and evaluations as well,. I gather
> Ed may have possibly concluded a very different scenario concerning Rossi's
> alleged professional proclivities. Evaluating Mr. Rothwell's opinions,
> combined with Ed Storms, and perhaps a few others can certainly give me a
> lot to chew on!
>
>
>
> I am not in a position to determine whether Rossi is or isn't a fraud.
> Meanwhile, Jed has access to crucial I.H. calorimetric data that most of us
> in the peanut gallery don't possess. Jed appears to have come to the
> conclusion that Rossi's recent actions concerning his dealings with I.H.
> indicate strong fraudulent activity. Again, I yield to Jed's extensive
> experience (and opinion) concerning calorimetric issues while I also
> continue to keep Ed Storm's opinions on the matter in the mixture as well.
>
>
>
> One can come up with a million different reasons as to why we flawed human
> beings occasionally behave in seemingly evasive and dishonest ways. Buyer
> beware.
>
>
>
> While I remain fascinated by this latest Rossi saga, a saga which is still
> unfolding, I find myself even more fascinated by the amount of bargaining
> (of the Elisabeth Kubler-Ross kind) that I see coming from certain Vort
> participants as they go about challenging Mr. Rothwell's, latest Rossi
> criticisms. I remain fascinated that some of these posters seem incapable
> of entertaining the possibility that Rossi's calorimetric claims might
> indeed be worthless, or worse, possibly even fraudulent. Why is it
> important to cast so much doubt on Mr. Rothwell's latest Rossi assessments?
> I can think of one possibility:
>
>
>
> As a former member of Dr. Mills SCP Yahoo group I observed a lot of smart
> observant posters occasionally asking difficult questions of the good
> doctor. Unfortunately, I also observed a lot of hero worshiping of the good
> doctor. I suspect certain posts I made concerning observations I made that
> seemed to suggest there existed an ardent cheerleading section may have
> contributed to me being kicked out by Dr. Mills himself. Lately, I see a
> similar kind of hero worshipping occurring within the Vort Collective among
> certain posters. I find myself wondering what are the chances are that any
> of these worshipers have accumulated anywhere near the amount of
> calorimetric experience that Mr. Rothwell has accumulated. Under the
> circumstances, what can an ardent worshipper do? One option is to fall back
> on a relentless campaign of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross bargaining against Jed's
> calorimetric evaluations.
>
>
>
> I suspect Jed will eventually tire of participating in this futile tactic
> since it seems clear to me that worshipers have no intention of abandoning
> their currently chosen idol. I'm astounded that Jed hasn't already given up
> on this futile task.
>
>
>
> At present I lack sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion that
> suggests ALL of Rossi's experimental devices have never worked. I realize I
> could be wrong on this point but I still find it plausible to speculate
> that Rossi may have