Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Do not need any memory, google has a lot of it.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:

> Why is relevant?
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>> so I have a good memory or not?
>> can you answer?
>> peter
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Peter Gluck 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Giovanni, just to check my memory- aren't you a known transhumanism
 author too, or it is only a coincidence of names?
 peter

 On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
 gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of
> calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody
> should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab
> code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in
> their head given that are order of magnitude estimates.
>
> Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked
> at warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions
> I could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days
> to use the energy involved in this situation.
>
> For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding
> physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the
> eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate
> energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in
> and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet
> warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use 
> reactions
> with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly.
>
> Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and
> the address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a
> commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is
> absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to 
> exchange
> it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every 
> few
> days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular
> without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are
> all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities.
>
> How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of
> material?
>
> The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on.
>
> I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will
> need hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat.
>
> But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat
> you will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building
> (and bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons
> of water every day.
> Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water
> from the faucet or down a sink.
>
> As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without
> having enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big 
> the
> piping system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the
> building. Where in the parking lot?
>
> Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how
> absurd the situation is.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Adrian,
>>
>> Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said
>> "Yes."  When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in
>> water, he responded "Yes."
>>
>> People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
>> making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest 
>> a
>> possible explanation.
>>
>> Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if
>> an open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the
>> customer side with the heat?).
>>
>> In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
>> itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
>> misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a
>>> statement like that.   Rossi said that the 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Why is relevant?


On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> so I have a good memory or not?
> can you answer?
> peter
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And?
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Peter Gluck 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Giovanni, just to check my memory- aren't you a known transhumanism
>>> author too, or it is only a coincidence of names?
>>> peter
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of
 calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody
 should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab
 code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in
 their head given that are order of magnitude estimates.

 Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked at
 warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions I
 could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days to
 use the energy involved in this situation.

 For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding
 physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the
 eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate
 energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in
 and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet
 warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use reactions
 with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly.

 Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and
 the address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a
 commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is
 absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to exchange
 it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every few
 days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular
 without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are
 all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities.

 How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of
 material?

 The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on.

 I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will
 need hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat.

 But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat
 you will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building
 (and bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons
 of water every day.
 Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water
 from the faucet or down a sink.

 As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without
 having enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big the
 piping system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the
 building. Where in the parking lot?

 Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how
 absurd the situation is.

 Giovanni



















 On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Adrian,
>
> Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said
> "Yes."  When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in
> water, he responded "Yes."
>
> People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
> making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a
> possible explanation.
>
> Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if
> an open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the
> customer side with the heat?).
>
> In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
> itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
> misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a
>> statement like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was
>> endothermic and the excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add 
>> how
>> much was by air or radiation and how much through cooling water going to
>> the drain.
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>
>> 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Peter Gluck]

so I have a good memory or not?
can you answer?
peter

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> And?
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>> Giovanni, just to check my memory- aren't you a known transhumanism
>> author too, or it is only a coincidence of names?
>> peter
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of
>>> calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody
>>> should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab
>>> code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in
>>> their head given that are order of magnitude estimates.
>>>
>>> Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked at
>>> warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions I
>>> could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days to
>>> use the energy involved in this situation.
>>>
>>> For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding
>>> physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the
>>> eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate
>>> energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in
>>> and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet
>>> warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use reactions
>>> with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and
>>> the address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a
>>> commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is
>>> absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to exchange
>>> it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every few
>>> days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular
>>> without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are
>>> all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities.
>>>
>>> How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of material?
>>>
>>> The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on.
>>>
>>> I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will
>>> need hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat.
>>>
>>> But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat
>>> you will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building
>>> (and bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons
>>> of water every day.
>>> Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water
>>> from the faucet or down a sink.
>>>
>>> As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without having
>>> enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big the piping
>>> system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the
>>> building. Where in the parking lot?
>>>
>>> Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how
>>> absurd the situation is.
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>>
 Adrian,

 Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said
 "Yes."  When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in
 water, he responded "Yes."

 People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
 making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a
 possible explanation.

 Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if
 an open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the
 customer side with the heat?).

 In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
 itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
 misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"

 Jack


 On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield 
 wrote:

> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a
> statement like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was
> endothermic and the excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add 
> how
> much was by air or radiation and how much through cooling water going to
> the drain.
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the
> heat is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments
> about Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
> Rossi claiming that the 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

And?

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Giovanni, just to check my memory- aren't you a known transhumanism
> author too, or it is only a coincidence of names?
> peter
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of
>> calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody
>> should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab
>> code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in
>> their head given that are order of magnitude estimates.
>>
>> Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked at
>> warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions I
>> could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days to
>> use the energy involved in this situation.
>>
>> For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding
>> physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the
>> eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate
>> energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in
>> and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet
>> warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use reactions
>> with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly.
>>
>> Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and the
>> address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a
>> commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is
>> absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to exchange
>> it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every few
>> days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular
>> without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are
>> all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities.
>>
>> How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of material?
>>
>> The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on.
>>
>> I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will
>> need hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat.
>>
>> But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat you
>> will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building (and
>> bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons of
>> water every day.
>> Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water
>> from the faucet or down a sink.
>>
>> As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without having
>> enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big the piping
>> system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the
>> building. Where in the parking lot?
>>
>> Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how
>> absurd the situation is.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> Adrian,
>>>
>>> Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said
>>> "Yes."  When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in
>>> water, he responded "Yes."
>>>
>>> People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
>>> making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a
>>> possible explanation.
>>>
>>> Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an
>>> open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer
>>> side with the heat?).
>>>
>>> In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
>>> itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
>>> misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a
 statement like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was
 endothermic and the excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add how
 much was by air or radiation and how much through cooling water going to
 the drain.


 On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

 Daniel,
 The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the
 heat is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments
 about Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
 Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and
 therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.
 Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.



 On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha 
 wrote:

> What 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Peter Gluck]

Giovanni, just to check my memory- aren't you a known transhumanism
author too, or it is only a coincidence of names?
peter

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of
> calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody
> should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab
> code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in
> their head given that are order of magnitude estimates.
>
> Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked at
> warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions I
> could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days to
> use the energy involved in this situation.
>
> For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding
> physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the
> eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate
> energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in
> and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet
> warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use reactions
> with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly.
>
> Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and the
> address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a
> commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is
> absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to exchange
> it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every few
> days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular
> without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are
> all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities.
>
> How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of material?
>
> The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on.
>
> I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will need
> hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat.
>
> But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat you
> will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building (and
> bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons of
> water every day.
> Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water from
> the faucet or down a sink.
>
> As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without having
> enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big the piping
> system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the
> building. Where in the parking lot?
>
> Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how absurd
> the situation is.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
>> Adrian,
>>
>> Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said
>> "Yes."  When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in
>> water, he responded "Yes."
>>
>> People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
>> making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a
>> possible explanation.
>>
>> Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an
>> open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer
>> side with the heat?).
>>
>> In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
>> itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
>> misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"
>>
>> Jack
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a
>>> statement like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was
>>> endothermic and the excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add how
>>> much was by air or radiation and how much through cooling water going to
>>> the drain.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel,
>>> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat
>>> is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about
>>> Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
>>> Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and
>>> therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.
>>> Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show"
 that cold fusion is bullshit.

 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :

> I have a PhD in 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of
calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody
should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab
code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in
their head given that are order of magnitude estimates.

Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked at
warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions I
could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days to
use the energy involved in this situation.

For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding
physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the
eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate
energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in
and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet
warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use reactions
with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly.

Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and the
address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a
commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is
absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to exchange
it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every few
days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular
without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are
all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities.

How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of material?

The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on.

I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will need
hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat.

But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat you
will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building (and
bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons of
water every day.
Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water from
the faucet or down a sink.

As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without having
enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big the piping
system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the
building. Where in the parking lot?

Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how absurd
the situation is.

Giovanni



















On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> Adrian,
>
> Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said
> "Yes."  When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in
> water, he responded "Yes."
>
> People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
> making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a
> possible explanation.
>
> Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an
> open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer
> side with the heat?).
>
> In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
> itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
> misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a statement
>> like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was endothermic and the
>> excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add how much was by air or
>> radiation and how much through cooling water going to the drain.
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>
>> Daniel,
>> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat
>> is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about
>> Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
>> Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and
>> therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.
>> Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show"
>>> that cold fusion is bullshit.
>>>
>>> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :
>>>
 I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy,

>>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Adrian,

Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said "Yes."
 When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in water, he
responded "Yes."

People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse
making for him.  He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a
possible explanation.

Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an
open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer
side with the heat?).

In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend
itself to future contradiction.  For example, "Oh, I must have
misunderstood the question.  Language differences.  he, he, he"

Jack

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a statement
> like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was endothermic and the
> excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add how much was by air or
> radiation and how much through cooling water going to the drain.
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat
> is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about
> Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
> Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and
> therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.
> Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show"
>> that cold fusion is bullshit.
>>
>> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :
>>
>>> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy,
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Higgins]

While the engines example of energy production is frequently used, the
engines would have to be running full bore constantly.  I like Peter Van
Noorden's example of the energy for 1MW for 350 days - about 1/3 the energy
of a Hiroshima size nuclear bomb.  That is truly a lot of Joules to hide.

If I had to pick a reason for running a 1MW LENR experiment, it would be to
make so much heat that the excess and anomalous heat outcome would be
unmistakable and clearly beyond possible error.  Yet, in typical Rossi
fashion, he has made yet another experiment that is questionable to the
point as to make it inconclusive.  Validating the outcome should have been
part a core reason for having an independent customer - to provide a
verification of the  heat delivered.  It is insane to make the customer's
side secret - it should have been a second independent measure of the heat
production.

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> 2 or 3 large trucks motors can use up to 1MW.
>
> 2016-08-15 0:23 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :
>
>> I will come up with other type of physical processes and chemical
>> reactions in the next few days and we can see how many tons of chemicals
>> you will need.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Daniel Rocha]

2 or 3 large trucks motors can use up to 1MW.

2016-08-15 0:23 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :

> I will come up with other type of physical processes and chemical
> reactions in the next few days and we can see how many tons of chemicals
> you will need.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Daniel Rocha]

There is an exit in the ceiling. It's simple.
2016-08-14 21:34 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :

>
> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat
> is dumped.
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

A.ashfield please check my thread "customer warehouse" for simplified
physics models of energy dumping and what all the energy would do to that
warehouse.
I used the real dimension of the warehouse the "customer" used and filled
it full of water. In 16 days the water would boil.

I filled with ice and it takes 12 days to melt the entire building if it
was a huge cube of ice, 3000 K tons of it. You will need 30 times this
amount for an entire year assuming you could flush the water and fill the
room again in zero time.

I will come up with other type of physical processes and chemical reactions
in the next few days and we can see how many tons of chemicals you will
need.

So far these back of the envelope calculations show how ridiculous Rossi's
statements are.

Giovanni

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:09 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a statement
> like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was endothermic and the
> excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add how much was by air or
> radiation and how much through cooling water going to the drain.
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat
> is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about
> Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
> Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and
> therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.
> Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
>> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show"
>> that cold fusion is bullshit.
>>
>> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :
>>
>>> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy,
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a 
statement like that.   Rossi said that the customer's process was 
endothermic and the excess heat beyond that was vented.   He didn't add 
how much was by air or radiation and how much through cooling water 
going to the drain.


On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Daniel,
The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the 
heat is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated 
arguments about Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and 
therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.

Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.



On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha > wrote:


What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to
"show" that cold fusion is bullshit.

2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi
>:

I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy,

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Daniel,
The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat is
dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about
Coulomb barrier shielding and so on.
Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and therefore
this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs.
Plain bs. No field of expertise needed.



On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show" that
> cold fusion is bullshit.
>
> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :
>
>> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy,
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Daniel Rocha]

What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show" that
cold fusion is bullshit.

2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :

> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy,
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy, power and so
on. And I do not need a PhD in physics to understand that the Rossi
statements are bs.

By the way it seems crazy you are saying I use ad hominem (please mention
where that happened exactly) and then you use ad hominem attacks on me. LOL

Are you serious?


On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 6:32 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> I looked well enough.  As I surmised you have zero plant and operating
> experience.
> In your recent comments you continue with ad hominems and I understand the
> meaning of that phrase very well too.
>
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 6:13 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> You didn't look good enough.
>
> I have a PhD in Physics. My original field of expertise was astrophysics
> and in particular gravitational waves. Half of my dissertation was on
> astrophysics of neutron stars (so I know 1 or 2 things about nuclear
> reactions) and the other was on improving signal detection of gravitational
> waves detectors. I come up with a new way of using resonant bars to
> increase signal to noise ratio. This second part of my dissertation was
> mostly engineering.
>
> I have taught physics at the college level (a lot of my students were
> engineers) , won NASA grants to send stratospheric payload (again mostly
> engineering problems) and continued to work on data analysis for the last
> 25 years.
>
> I eventually switched field and went to neuroscience. I'm a researcher at
> Northwestern but I work in the modelling and data analysis of EEG that is
> an imminently physics and engineering problem.
> I have a patent pending invention that is based on Phase Locked Loop that
> again is an engineering problem. I'm writing papers on applying
> thermodynamics principles to neuroscience. I'm also launching my own
> startup in the field of neurostimulation.
>
> So I may not have experience with industrial engineering but as you see I
> have plenty of qualification to evaluate some basic physics and engineering
> issues. In fact, many of the problems with Rossi statements can be
> evaluated from an introductory physics point of view, no extensive
> experience in any particular field is necessary.
>
> I resisted to use my qualification to respond to your question simply
> because I really resent when people use their so called experience to win
> an argument on the internet without addressing the substance of the
> argument raised. It is really bad form.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 5:57 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> The only Giovanni Santostasi I saw on Google was an associate
>> neuroscientist at Northwestern University working on sleep disorders.  If
>> that's you, you appear to have no relevant experience regarding the 1 MW
>> plant.
>>
>> Knowing you disbelieve anything I write, here is a published footnote at
>> the end of my paper on Cleaning up the Nuclear Waste at Hanford.  I will
>> send you a photocopy of the last page that shows it if you send me your
>> email address.
>>
>> "Footnote
>> Adrian Ashfield is collaborating with Larry Penberthy in this project.
>> He previously headed engineering for Canning Town Glass in the U.K.
>> Domglas in Canada.  Anchor Hocking and Wheaton Industries in the U.S.
>> before starting Ashfield Associates in 1981."
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/2016 4:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>
>> A link to a CV or linkedin takes a second. Not acceptable answer that you
>> did this on the past.
>> You are using your claim of experience right now.
>> What is your real name?
>> It is you that is using arguments from authority. Mine stand on their
>> own.
>> And as I said, you can google my name and see what is my experience in
>> science and technology. I'm 100 times more transparent than you are.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have already done so on this blog in the past.  Please answer the
>>> question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2016 4:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides what I have said about using "argument from authority" as a way
>>> to win a debate, can you please give us a link to your CV a.ashfield?
>>> Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 A.ashfield:

 "Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the
 "Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what
 you think it means".

 I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have
 a PhD.
 I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and
 that is at least sloppy and probably misleading.

 It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.

 So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
 hominem attack is 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

I looked well enough.  As I surmised you have zero plant and operating 
experience.
In your recent comments you continue with ad hominems and I understand 
the meaning of that phrase very well too.



On 8/14/2016 6:13 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

You didn't look good enough.

I have a PhD in Physics. My original field of expertise was 
astrophysics and in particular gravitational waves. Half of my 
dissertation was on astrophysics of neutron stars (so I know 1 or 2 
things about nuclear reactions) and the other was on improving signal 
detection of gravitational waves detectors. I come up with a new way 
of using resonant bars to increase signal to noise ratio. This second 
part of my dissertation was mostly engineering.


I have taught physics at the college level (a lot of my students were 
engineers) , won NASA grants to send stratospheric payload (again 
mostly engineering problems) and continued to work on data analysis 
for the last 25 years.


I eventually switched field and went to neuroscience. I'm a researcher 
at Northwestern but I work in the modelling and data analysis of EEG 
that is an imminently physics and engineering problem.
I have a patent pending invention that is based on Phase Locked Loop 
that again is an engineering problem. I'm writing papers on applying 
thermodynamics principles to neuroscience. I'm also launching my own 
startup in the field of neurostimulation.


So I may not have experience with industrial engineering but as you 
see I have plenty of qualification to evaluate some basic physics and 
engineering issues. In fact, many of the problems with Rossi 
statements can be evaluated from an introductory physics point of 
view, no extensive experience in any particular field is necessary.


I resisted to use my qualification to respond to your question simply 
because I really resent when people use their so called experience to 
win an argument on the internet without addressing the substance of 
the argument raised. It is really bad form.


Giovanni








On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 5:57 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


The only Giovanni Santostasi I saw on Google was an associate
neuroscientist at Northwestern University working on sleep
disorders.  If that's you, you appear to have no relevant
experience regarding the 1 MW plant.

Knowing you disbelieve anything I write, here is a published
footnote at the end of my paper on Cleaning up the Nuclear Waste
at Hanford.  I will send you a photocopy of the last page that
shows it if you send me your email address.

"Footnote
Adrian Ashfield is collaborating with Larry Penberthy in this
project.  He previously headed engineering for Canning Town Glass
in the U.K.  Domglas in Canada.  Anchor Hocking and Wheaton
Industries in the U.S. before starting Ashfield Associates in 1981."



On 8/14/2016 4:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

A link to a CV or linkedin takes a second. Not acceptable answer
that you did this on the past.
You are using your claim of experience right now.
What is your real name?
It is you that is using arguments from authority. Mine stand on
their own.
And as I said, you can google my name and see what is my
experience in science and technology. I'm 100 times more
transparent than you are.

Giovanni



On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

I have already done so on this blog in the past. Please
answer the question.



On 8/14/2016 4:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Besides what I have said about using "argument from
authority" as a way to win a debate, can you please give us
a link to your CV a.ashfield?
Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
Thanks,
Giovanni




On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
> wrote:

A.ashfield:

"Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene
from the "Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I
don't think it means what you think it means".

I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down
Penon not to have a PhD.
I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is
not true and that is at least sloppy and probably
misleading.

It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.

So let me reflect this back at you given you don't
understand what ad hominem attack is and instead you are
using your supposed experience to make an argument (and
trying to disqualify my arguments too as a consequence)
and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
"argument from authority".

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

You should be able to see my gmail address. I see yours.


On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> You didn't look good enough.
>
> I have a PhD in Physics. My original field of expertise was astrophysics
> and in particular gravitational waves. Half of my dissertation was on
> astrophysics of neutron stars (so I know 1 or 2 things about nuclear
> reactions) and the other was on improving signal detection of gravitational
> waves detectors. I come up with a new way of using resonant bars to
> increase signal to noise ratio. This second part of my dissertation was
> mostly engineering.
>
> I have taught physics at the college level (a lot of my students were
> engineers) , won NASA grants to send stratospheric payload (again mostly
> engineering problems) and continued to work on data analysis for the last
> 25 years.
>
> I eventually switched field and went to neuroscience. I'm a researcher at
> Northwestern but I work in the modelling and data analysis of EEG that is
> an imminently physics and engineering problem.
> I have a patent pending invention that is based on Phase Locked Loop that
> again is an engineering problem. I'm writing papers on applying
> thermodynamics principles to neuroscience. I'm also launching my own
> startup in the field of neurostimulation.
>
> So I may not have experience with industrial engineering but as you see I
> have plenty of qualification to evaluate some basic physics and engineering
> issues. In fact, many of the problems with Rossi statements can be
> evaluated from an introductory physics point of view, no extensive
> experience in any particular field is necessary.
>
> I resisted to use my qualification to respond to your question simply
> because I really resent when people use their so called experience to win
> an argument on the internet without addressing the substance of the
> argument raised. It is really bad form.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 5:57 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> The only Giovanni Santostasi I saw on Google was an associate
>> neuroscientist at Northwestern University working on sleep disorders.  If
>> that's you, you appear to have no relevant experience regarding the 1 MW
>> plant.
>>
>> Knowing you disbelieve anything I write, here is a published footnote at
>> the end of my paper on Cleaning up the Nuclear Waste at Hanford.  I will
>> send you a photocopy of the last page that shows it if you send me your
>> email address.
>>
>> "Footnote
>> Adrian Ashfield is collaborating with Larry Penberthy in this project.
>> He previously headed engineering for Canning Town Glass in the U.K.
>> Domglas in Canada.  Anchor Hocking and Wheaton Industries in the U.S.
>> before starting Ashfield Associates in 1981."
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/2016 4:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>
>> A link to a CV or linkedin takes a second. Not acceptable answer that you
>> did this on the past.
>> You are using your claim of experience right now.
>> What is your real name?
>> It is you that is using arguments from authority. Mine stand on their
>> own.
>> And as I said, you can google my name and see what is my experience in
>> science and technology. I'm 100 times more transparent than you are.
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have already done so on this blog in the past.  Please answer the
>>> question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2016 4:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides what I have said about using "argument from authority" as a way
>>> to win a debate, can you please give us a link to your CV a.ashfield?
>>> Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 A.ashfield:

 "Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the
 "Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what
 you think it means".

 I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have
 a PhD.
 I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and
 that is at least sloppy and probably misleading.

 It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.

 So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
 hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience to
 make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a
 consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
 "argument from authority".

 Giovanni





 On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield 
 wrote:

> Giovanni,
> Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and
> reflect badly on you.
>
> I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

You didn't look good enough.

I have a PhD in Physics. My original field of expertise was astrophysics
and in particular gravitational waves. Half of my dissertation was on
astrophysics of neutron stars (so I know 1 or 2 things about nuclear
reactions) and the other was on improving signal detection of gravitational
waves detectors. I come up with a new way of using resonant bars to
increase signal to noise ratio. This second part of my dissertation was
mostly engineering.

I have taught physics at the college level (a lot of my students were
engineers) , won NASA grants to send stratospheric payload (again mostly
engineering problems) and continued to work on data analysis for the last
25 years.

I eventually switched field and went to neuroscience. I'm a researcher at
Northwestern but I work in the modelling and data analysis of EEG that is
an imminently physics and engineering problem.
I have a patent pending invention that is based on Phase Locked Loop that
again is an engineering problem. I'm writing papers on applying
thermodynamics principles to neuroscience. I'm also launching my own
startup in the field of neurostimulation.

So I may not have experience with industrial engineering but as you see I
have plenty of qualification to evaluate some basic physics and engineering
issues. In fact, many of the problems with Rossi statements can be
evaluated from an introductory physics point of view, no extensive
experience in any particular field is necessary.

I resisted to use my qualification to respond to your question simply
because I really resent when people use their so called experience to win
an argument on the internet without addressing the substance of the
argument raised. It is really bad form.

Giovanni








On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 5:57 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> The only Giovanni Santostasi I saw on Google was an associate
> neuroscientist at Northwestern University working on sleep disorders.  If
> that's you, you appear to have no relevant experience regarding the 1 MW
> plant.
>
> Knowing you disbelieve anything I write, here is a published footnote at
> the end of my paper on Cleaning up the Nuclear Waste at Hanford.  I will
> send you a photocopy of the last page that shows it if you send me your
> email address.
>
> "Footnote
> Adrian Ashfield is collaborating with Larry Penberthy in this project.  He
> previously headed engineering for Canning Town Glass in the U.K.  Domglas
> in Canada.  Anchor Hocking and Wheaton Industries in the U.S. before
> starting Ashfield Associates in 1981."
>
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 4:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> A link to a CV or linkedin takes a second. Not acceptable answer that you
> did this on the past.
> You are using your claim of experience right now.
> What is your real name?
> It is you that is using arguments from authority. Mine stand on their own.
> And as I said, you can google my name and see what is my experience in
> science and technology. I'm 100 times more transparent than you are.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> I have already done so on this blog in the past.  Please answer the
>> question.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/2016 4:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>>
>> Besides what I have said about using "argument from authority" as a way
>> to win a debate, can you please give us a link to your CV a.ashfield?
>> Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
>> Thanks,
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
>> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A.ashfield:
>>>
>>> "Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the
>>> "Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what
>>> you think it means".
>>>
>>> I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have
>>> a PhD.
>>> I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and
>>> that is at least sloppy and probably misleading.
>>>
>>> It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.
>>>
>>> So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
>>> hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience to
>>> make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a
>>> consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
>>> "argument from authority".
>>>
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Giovanni,
 Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and
 reflect badly on you.

 I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam,
 finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the E-Cat
 produces considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the performance of the 1
 MW plant has yet to be proven.

 Having headed engineering for large corporations and later consulting

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

The only Giovanni Santostasi I saw on Google was an associate 
neuroscientist at Northwestern University working on sleep disorders.  
If that's you, you appear to have no relevant experience regarding the 1 
MW plant.


Knowing you disbelieve anything I write, here is a published footnote at 
the end of my paper on Cleaning up the Nuclear Waste at Hanford.  I will 
send you a photocopy of the last page that shows it if you send me your 
email address.


"Footnote
Adrian Ashfield is collaborating with Larry Penberthy in this project.  
He previously headed engineering for Canning Town Glass in the U.K.  
Domglas in Canada.  Anchor Hocking and Wheaton Industries in the U.S. 
before starting Ashfield Associates in 1981."



On 8/14/2016 4:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
A link to a CV or linkedin takes a second. Not acceptable answer that 
you did this on the past.

You are using your claim of experience right now.
What is your real name?
It is you that is using arguments from authority. Mine stand on their 
own.
And as I said, you can google my name and see what is my experience in 
science and technology. I'm 100 times more transparent than you are.


Giovanni



On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


I have already done so on this blog in the past.  Please answer
the question.



On 8/14/2016 4:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Besides what I have said about using "argument from authority" as
a way to win a debate, can you please give us a link to your CV
a.ashfield?
Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
Thanks,
Giovanni




On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
> wrote:

A.ashfield:

"Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from
the "Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't
think it means what you think it means".

I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon
not to have a PhD.
I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not
true and that is at least sloppy and probably misleading.

It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.

So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand
what ad hominem attack is and instead you are using your
supposed experience to make an argument (and trying to
disqualify my arguments too as a consequence) and therefore
committing another known fallacy , i. e. "argument from
authority".

Giovanni





On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Giovanni,
Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify
the issues and reflect badly on you.

I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011,
without steam, finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW 
is good proof that the E-Cat produces considerable excess

heat.  As I've said, the performance of the 1 MW plant
has yet to be proven.

Having headed engineering for large corporations and
later consulting around the world, doing due diligence
for organizations like GRI, EPRI, OECD and the World
Bank, I have considerable experience in judging people
and new technologies.
What experience do you have?

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

A link to a CV or linkedin takes a second. Not acceptable answer that you
did this on the past.
You are using your claim of experience right now.
What is your real name?
It is you that is using arguments from authority. Mine stand on their own.
And as I said, you can google my name and see what is my experience in
science and technology. I'm 100 times more transparent than you are.

Giovanni



On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> I have already done so on this blog in the past.  Please answer the
> question.
>
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 4:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> Besides what I have said about using "argument from authority" as a way to
> win a debate, can you please give us a link to your CV a.ashfield?
> Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
> Thanks,
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A.ashfield:
>>
>> "Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the "Princess
>> Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it
>> means".
>>
>> I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have a
>> PhD.
>> I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and that
>> is at least sloppy and probably misleading.
>>
>> It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.
>>
>> So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
>> hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience to
>> make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a
>> consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
>> "argument from authority".
>>
>> Giovanni
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Giovanni,
>>> Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and
>>> reflect badly on you.
>>>
>>> I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam,
>>> finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the E-Cat
>>> produces considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the performance of the 1
>>> MW plant has yet to be proven.
>>>
>>> Having headed engineering for large corporations and later consulting
>>> around the world, doing due diligence for organizations like GRI, EPRI,
>>> OECD and the World Bank, I have considerable experience in judging people
>>> and new technologies.
>>> What experience do you have?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

I have already done so on this blog in the past.  Please answer the 
question.



On 8/14/2016 4:20 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
Besides what I have said about using "argument from authority" as a 
way to win a debate, can you please give us a link to your CV a.ashfield?

Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
Thanks,
Giovanni




On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
> wrote:


A.ashfield:

"Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the
"Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it
means what you think it means".

I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to
have a PhD.
I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true
and that is at least sloppy and probably misleading.

It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.

So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what
ad hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed
experience to make an argument (and trying to disqualify my
arguments too as a consequence) and therefore committing another
known fallacy , i. e. "argument from authority".

Giovanni





On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

Giovanni,
Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the
issues and reflect badly on you.

I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without
steam, finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof
that the E-Cat produces considerable excess heat.   As I've
said, the performance of the 1 MW plant has yet to be proven.

Having headed engineering for large corporations and later
consulting around the world, doing due diligence for
organizations like GRI, EPRI, OECD and the World Bank, I have
considerable experience in judging people and new technologies.
What experience do you have?

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Please answer mine about your CV given that you are the one saying you have
all this experience. Being a fanatical supporter of Rossi it is expected
that evidence means nothing to you.

Giovanni

PS
Differently from you, I'm very easily googable.



On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:21 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Please answer my question.  What experience do you have?
>
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> A.ashfield:
>
> "Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the "Princess
> Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it
> means".
>
> I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have a
> PhD.
> I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and that
> is at least sloppy and probably misleading.
>
> It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.
>
> So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
> hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience to
> make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a
> consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
> "argument from authority".
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Giovanni,
>> Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and
>> reflect badly on you.
>>
>> I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam,
>> finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the E-Cat
>> produces considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the performance of the 1
>> MW plant has yet to be proven.
>>
>> Having headed engineering for large corporations and later consulting
>> around the world, doing due diligence for organizations like GRI, EPRI,
>> OECD and the World Bank, I have considerable experience in judging people
>> and new technologies.
>> What experience do you have?
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Please answer my question.  What experience do you have?


On 8/14/2016 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

A.ashfield:

"Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the 
"Princess Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means 
what you think it means".


I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to 
have a PhD.
I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and 
that is at least sloppy and probably misleading.


It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.

So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad 
hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience 
to make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a 
consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e. 
"argument from authority".


Giovanni





On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Giovanni,
Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues
and reflect badly on you.

I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam,
finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the
E-Cat produces considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the
performance of the 1 MW plant has yet to be proven.

Having headed engineering for large corporations and later
consulting around the world, doing due diligence for organizations
like GRI, EPRI, OECD and the World Bank, I have considerable
experience in judging people and new technologies.
What experience do you have?

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Besides what I have said about using "argument from authority" as a way to
win a debate, can you please give us a link to your CV a.ashfield?
Can you back up your claims to have such expertise?
Thanks,
Giovanni




On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> A.ashfield:
>
> "Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the "Princess
> Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it
> means".
>
> I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have a
> PhD.
> I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and that
> is at least sloppy and probably misleading.
>
> It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.
>
> So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
> hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience to
> make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a
> consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
> "argument from authority".
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Giovanni,
>> Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and
>> reflect badly on you.
>>
>> I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam,
>> finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the E-Cat
>> produces considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the performance of the 1
>> MW plant has yet to be proven.
>>
>> Having headed engineering for large corporations and later consulting
>> around the world, doing due diligence for organizations like GRI, EPRI,
>> OECD and the World Bank, I have considerable experience in judging people
>> and new technologies.
>> What experience do you have?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Also I don't want to hear anymore about Levy and any other so called
scientific experiment unless the experiment was fully open and under the
control of the experimenter.

I don't know of any real experiment that is done in that way. It is true
that in some double blinded experiments the experimenters are not aware of
some of the conditions of the experiment but we are talking about something
completely different here.
I already addressed how scientists are not trained to detect direct fraud.
So Levy and all the other scientific experiments on the eCat are null and
void unless the scientists had control of the details of the experiment
that it was not the case at all.

Giovanni







On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> A.ashfield:
>
> "Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the "Princess
> Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it
> means".
>
> I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have a
> PhD.
> I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and that
> is at least sloppy and probably misleading.
>
> It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.
>
> So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
> hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience to
> make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a
> consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
> "argument from authority".
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Giovanni,
>> Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and
>> reflect badly on you.
>>
>> I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam,
>> finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the E-Cat
>> produces considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the performance of the 1
>> MW plant has yet to be proven.
>>
>> Having headed engineering for large corporations and later consulting
>> around the world, doing due diligence for organizations like GRI, EPRI,
>> OECD and the World Bank, I have considerable experience in judging people
>> and new technologies.
>> What experience do you have?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

A.ashfield:

"Ad hominem" attacks. To quote a famous immortal scene from the "Princess
Bride": "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it
means".

I didn't attack anybody at hominem. I didn't put down Penon not to have a
PhD.
I simply stated that Rossi saying he has a Doctorate is not true and that
is at least sloppy and probably misleading.

It doesn't reflect negatively on me at all.

So let me reflect this back at you given you don't understand what ad
hominem attack is and instead you are using your supposed experience to
make an argument (and trying to disqualify my arguments too as a
consequence) and therefore committing another known fallacy , i. e.
"argument from authority".

Giovanni





On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Giovanni,
> Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and
> reflect badly on you.
>
> I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam, finding
> a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the E-Cat produces
> considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the performance of the 1 MW plant
> has yet to be proven.
>
> Having headed engineering for large corporations and later consulting
> around the world, doing due diligence for organizations like GRI, EPRI,
> OECD and the World Bank, I have considerable experience in judging people
> and new technologies.
> What experience do you have?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Giovanni,
Your string of ad hominem attacks do nothing to clarify the issues and 
reflect badly on you.


I find Dr. Levi's 18 hour test of an E-Cat in 2011, without steam, 
finding a COP 15 -20kW peaking at 130 kW  is good proof that the E-Cat 
produces considerable excess heat.   As I've said, the performance of 
the 1 MW plant has yet to be proven.


Having headed engineering for large corporations and later consulting 
around the world, doing due diligence for organizations like GRI, EPRI, 
OECD and the World Bank, I have considerable experience in judging 
people and new technologies.

What experience do you have?

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:


> Not that you need a PhD to be a good engineer. Most engineers do not have
> a PhD.
>
> But I want to point out again how sloppy (in the best of interpretation)
> or intentional misleading Rossi is in repeating that Penon has a Doctorate.
>

Thank you for digging that up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

So here it is:
Penon CV:
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123620809_1.pdf

I realize now (from reading old posts online that raised similar issue)
this is an old topic that come out previously. I can verify Laurea is not a
Doctorate and this is what Penon has, a Laurea.

Not that you need a PhD to be a good engineer. Most engineers do not have a
PhD.

But I want to point out again how sloppy (in the best of interpretation) or
intentional misleading Rossi is in repeating that Penon has a Doctorate.

Just a detail but very telling.


Giovanni








On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

> Notice what Rossi does in his response to Rends. He talks in a misleading
> way about the qualificatications of Penon (Rossi says Penon has a doctorate
> when he does not).
> Then he goes in saying that IH was ok with the quarterly reports for 3
> quarters and only at the time of the 4th report they complained.
> Even if this were true (IH actually said in the legal documents they had
> concerns all along and they were worried about methodology, access to the
> plant, they could not replicate results and so on) it means absolutely
> nothing.
>
> Scientific results are not a matter of consensus. Or they are supported by
> evidence in a statically significant way, they can be reproduced over and
> over by independent parties, all over the world, at different times, or
> they are not.
> Even if IH agreed (and Dardeen is not a scientist or an engineer) with the
> results of the report based on the assumption of good faith of the
> reporter, this doesn't have any impact at all on the validity of the
> scientific claims of Rossi. It just shows that IH was operating in good
> faith and they were open and trusting of Rossi, that is all.
>
> If anything this speaks well of IH as a partners (even if they should have
> known better and not trust Rossi's on face value).
>
> But it has nothing to do with the question if the eCat really works or
> not. Rossi doesn't answer that question at all, just gives his words that
> the entire bs story he talks about (in particular that IH was fine with the
> 3 quarterly reports) is true.
>
> I can tell you as an Italian person I know this type. I can see even
> through the English translation how he uses language to mislead. He uses
> convoluted stories full of excuses to persuade people he is honest. I can
> pick up stuff that I think are really cultural behind his behavior that I
> think many foreigners cannot. But that is just an aside and what I said
> above stands on its own.
>
> Again, it should be obvious to everybody that Rossi's own words, behavior,
> way of thinking is just absolutely dishonest, not straightforward, always
> misleading and never addressing the real issues.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>
>> Either Rossi or IH are lying.  I hope the ERV's report will shed some
>>> light on who is telling the truth.
>>>
>>
>> The ERV claims the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg per day, the pressure
>> 0.0 bar, and the system produced 1 MW on days when Rossi said it was turned
>> off, and eyewitnesses confirmed it was off, and on days when it was running
>> with half the reactors off. If you think could be the truth, you have a
>> screw loose.
>>
>> Now we have Rossi officially claiming that that heat was magically
>> swallowed up by an endothermic industrial process. What? Did he melt ice
>> all day long, and no one noticed truckload after truckload of ice coming
>> in? If you seriously believe that you have another screw loose.
>>
>> It is time for you to admit that Rossi played you for a fool.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Notice what Rossi does in his response to Rends. He talks in a misleading
way about the qualificatications of Penon (Rossi says Penon has a doctorate
when he does not).
Then he goes in saying that IH was ok with the quarterly reports for 3
quarters and only at the time of the 4th report they complained.
Even if this were true (IH actually said in the legal documents they had
concerns all along and they were worried about methodology, access to the
plant, they could not replicate results and so on) it means absolutely
nothing.

Scientific results are not a matter of consensus. Or they are supported by
evidence in a statically significant way, they can be reproduced over and
over by independent parties, all over the world, at different times, or
they are not.
Even if IH agreed (and Dardeen is not a scientist or an engineer) with the
results of the report based on the assumption of good faith of the
reporter, this doesn't have any impact at all on the validity of the
scientific claims of Rossi. It just shows that IH was operating in good
faith and they were open and trusting of Rossi, that is all.

If anything this speaks well of IH as a partners (even if they should have
known better and not trust Rossi's on face value).

But it has nothing to do with the question if the eCat really works or not.
Rossi doesn't answer that question at all, just gives his words that the
entire bs story he talks about (in particular that IH was fine with the 3
quarterly reports) is true.

I can tell you as an Italian person I know this type. I can see even
through the English translation how he uses language to mislead. He uses
convoluted stories full of excuses to persuade people he is honest. I can
pick up stuff that I think are really cultural behind his behavior that I
think many foreigners cannot. But that is just an aside and what I said
above stands on its own.

Again, it should be obvious to everybody that Rossi's own words, behavior,
way of thinking is just absolutely dishonest, not straightforward, always
misleading and never addressing the real issues.

Giovanni


















On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Either Rossi or IH are lying.  I hope the ERV's report will shed some
>> light on who is telling the truth.
>>
>
> The ERV claims the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg per day, the pressure
> 0.0 bar, and the system produced 1 MW on days when Rossi said it was turned
> off, and eyewitnesses confirmed it was off, and on days when it was running
> with half the reactors off. If you think could be the truth, you have a
> screw loose.
>
> Now we have Rossi officially claiming that that heat was magically
> swallowed up by an endothermic industrial process. What? Did he melt ice
> all day long, and no one noticed truckload after truckload of ice coming
> in? If you seriously believe that you have another screw loose.
>
> It is time for you to admit that Rossi played you for a fool.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

I think Rossi is refering to Penon when he talks about the guy that got a
Doctorate in Nuclear Engineering at 23 years old. The guy is too old
actually to have a Doctorate given that they didn't exist in Italy when
Penon was in his twenties. Laurea was all what you needed to be called a
Doctor (but it is not like a Doctorate at all, more like a master).

Again I point out this as one of the things that make believing Rossi
impossible. He should know that it is a misreprensation to say Penon has a
Dottorato. At most he has a Laurea that is not the same thing. If Rossi
doesn't know this concept (that I doubt) is sloppy, if he knows he is
misleading. And if he misleads in relative important things like this, you
can expect him misleading in some many other things.




On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:

> Who is the guy that got the doctorate in nuclear engineering?
> Rossi is likely lying and misleading about this or at minimum being sloppy
> as usual.
> In Italy we have Laurea (that is like a master that you start after high
> school) that in a hard field like physics or engineering can take up to 6-7
> years. A Dottorato di Ricerca happens after the Laurea and it is highly
> selective. You need to do real research and publish to receive a Dottorato
> and it really cannot be less that 3 years given you have to get the data,
> write the dissertation and publish.
> Given that high school usually ends in Italy when you are about 19 years
> old it is unlikely that this guy that Rossi mentions (without giving a
> name) has a Doctorate. Probably just a Laurea.
> But this shows again how misleading, clueless Rossi can be even in
> secondary details like this.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Either Rossi or IH are lying.  I hope the ERV's report will shed some
>> light on who is telling the truth.
>>
>>
>> On 8/14/2016 11:31 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>> (1) Rossi might not be telling the truth. (2) Rossi does not really
>> answer Rends's question. :)
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:05 AM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric, I had read your comment before answering.
>>> Further to my comment about the negative things written about Rossi and
>>> the ERV on this blog, particularly by Jed giving IH's point of view, it
>>> might even up the score a little to show what Rossi wrote recently.
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Andrea Rossi
>>>August 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>Felix Rends:
>>>I have dedicated to this work the second part of my life and part of
>>>my health. I am no more the same of one year ago.
>>>About the Lugano Report: the test has not been made by me, nor has
>>>been the report and for the truth of it speaks the life of the nuclear
>>>physicists that made it, their honesty, their professional skill matured 
>>> in
>>>two among the highest rated Universities and in the CERN of Geneva where
>>>all of them have worked. About the test of one year of the 1 MW Plant, 
>>> the
>>>measurements have been made for one year by a nuclear engineer, who got 
>>> his
>>>doctorate in nuclear engineering when he was 23 years old in the 
>>> University
>>>of Bologna with 110/110 summa cum laude, then worked as a nuclear 
>>> engineer
>>>in a nuclear power plant, then, taking advantage of such experience, 
>>> became
>>>a professional specialized in certifications and validations of 
>>> industrial
>>>plants and industrial products. He has been chosen, as proven by copious
>>>documents, in agreement between IH and us to make the ERV and he made it
>>>with all his professional skills and with the integrity that 
>>> characterized
>>>all his life, that is immaculate under any point of view, as I 
>>> investigated
>>>when I knew him because I had to choose a trusted professional to make 
>>> the
>>>safety certification of my products years ago; he resulted to be the best
>>>in absolute among all his colleagues for preparation, honesty,
>>>confidentiality. This is also the reason why he has been chosen to make 
>>> the
>>>ERV, in agreement between IH and us. By the way, IH has totally agreed 
>>> upon
>>>his report released after 3 months of test, and has cited such report in
>>>interviews released by Tom Darden. Same thing happened after 6 months of
>>>test, when the second quarterly report has been released by the ERV, same
>>>thing again happened after 9 months, when the ERV released the third
>>>quarterly report: please note that during 9 months of the test IH
>>>repeatedly accompanied to visit the test their investors, explaining to
>>>them how the ERV was measuring the performance, showing the seals of the
>>>flowmeter, showing the temperature measurement system ( agreed upon
>>>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Who is the guy that got the doctorate in nuclear engineering?
Rossi is likely lying and misleading about this or at minimum being sloppy
as usual.
In Italy we have Laurea (that is like a master that you start after high
school) that in a hard field like physics or engineering can take up to 6-7
years. A Dottorato di Ricerca happens after the Laurea and it is highly
selective. You need to do real research and publish to receive a Dottorato
and it really cannot be less that 3 years given you have to get the data,
write the dissertation and publish.
Given that high school usually ends in Italy when you are about 19 years
old it is unlikely that this guy that Rossi mentions (without giving a
name) has a Doctorate. Probably just a Laurea.
But this shows again how misleading, clueless Rossi can be even in
secondary details like this.



On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:44 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Either Rossi or IH are lying.  I hope the ERV's report will shed some
> light on who is telling the truth.
>
>
> On 8/14/2016 11:31 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> (1) Rossi might not be telling the truth. (2) Rossi does not really answer
> Rends's question. :)
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:05 AM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Eric, I had read your comment before answering.
>> Further to my comment about the negative things written about Rossi and
>> the ERV on this blog, particularly by Jed giving IH's point of view, it
>> might even up the score a little to show what Rossi wrote recently.
>>
>>
>>1. Andrea Rossi
>>August 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM
>>
>> 
>>
>>Felix Rends:
>>I have dedicated to this work the second part of my life and part of
>>my health. I am no more the same of one year ago.
>>About the Lugano Report: the test has not been made by me, nor has
>>been the report and for the truth of it speaks the life of the nuclear
>>physicists that made it, their honesty, their professional skill matured 
>> in
>>two among the highest rated Universities and in the CERN of Geneva where
>>all of them have worked. About the test of one year of the 1 MW Plant, the
>>measurements have been made for one year by a nuclear engineer, who got 
>> his
>>doctorate in nuclear engineering when he was 23 years old in the 
>> University
>>of Bologna with 110/110 summa cum laude, then worked as a nuclear engineer
>>in a nuclear power plant, then, taking advantage of such experience, 
>> became
>>a professional specialized in certifications and validations of industrial
>>plants and industrial products. He has been chosen, as proven by copious
>>documents, in agreement between IH and us to make the ERV and he made it
>>with all his professional skills and with the integrity that characterized
>>all his life, that is immaculate under any point of view, as I 
>> investigated
>>when I knew him because I had to choose a trusted professional to make the
>>safety certification of my products years ago; he resulted to be the best
>>in absolute among all his colleagues for preparation, honesty,
>>confidentiality. This is also the reason why he has been chosen to make 
>> the
>>ERV, in agreement between IH and us. By the way, IH has totally agreed 
>> upon
>>his report released after 3 months of test, and has cited such report in
>>interviews released by Tom Darden. Same thing happened after 6 months of
>>test, when the second quarterly report has been released by the ERV, same
>>thing again happened after 9 months, when the ERV released the third
>>quarterly report: please note that during 9 months of the test IH
>>repeatedly accompanied to visit the test their investors, explaining to
>>them how the ERV was measuring the performance, showing the seals of the
>>flowmeter, showing the temperature measurement system ( agreed upon
>>directly between Mr Tom Darden and the ERV) and IH collected many million
>>dollars of investments from Woodford after the officers of Woodford 
>> visited
>>the test twice, during the first 9 months, and repeatedly accompanied
>>Chinese top level investors and engineers to visit the test. The results 
>> of
>>the first three quarterly reports, obviously, were substantially equal to
>>the results of the fourth and final report, that IH now is renegating.
>>Eventually, IH paid the first three quarterly reports, but did not pay the
>>final one. The first three reports determined the allowance to IH of
>>enormous investments and they loved them. The fourth report determined the
>>obligation of IH to pay us and they discovered the results were wrong: 
>> what
>>a strange coincidence.
>>You have my honour word that what I wrote here is the truth.
>>I totally sympathyze with you and with all the persons like you and
>>also this is 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Either Rossi or IH are lying.  I hope the ERV's report will shed some light
> on who is telling the truth.
>

The ERV claims the flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg per day, the pressure
0.0 bar, and the system produced 1 MW on days when Rossi said it was turned
off, and eyewitnesses confirmed it was off, and on days when it was running
with half the reactors off. If you think could be the truth, you have a
screw loose.

Now we have Rossi officially claiming that that heat was magically
swallowed up by an endothermic industrial process. What? Did he melt ice
all day long, and no one noticed truckload after truckload of ice coming
in? If you seriously believe that you have another screw loose.

It is time for you to admit that Rossi played you for a fool.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Either Rossi or IH are lying.  I hope the ERV's report will shed some 
light on who is telling the truth.


On 8/14/2016 11:31 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
(1) Rossi might not be telling the truth. (2) Rossi does not really 
answer Rends's question. :)


Eric


On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:05 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Eric, I had read your comment before answering.
Further to my comment about the negative things written about
Rossi and the ERV on this blog, particularly by Jed giving IH's
point of view, it might even up the score a little to show what
Rossi wrote recently.

1.
Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM




Felix Rends:
I have dedicated to this work the second part of my life and
part of my health. I am no more the same of one year ago.
About the Lugano Report: the test has not been made by me, nor
has been the report and for the truth of it speaks the life of
the nuclear physicists that made it, their honesty, their
professional skill matured in two among the highest rated
Universities and in the CERN of Geneva where all of them have
worked. About the test of one year of the 1 MW Plant, the
measurements have been made for one year by a nuclear
engineer, who got his doctorate in nuclear engineering when he
was 23 years old in the University of Bologna with 110/110
summa cum laude, then worked as a nuclear engineer in a
nuclear power plant, then, taking advantage of such
experience, became a professional specialized in
certifications and validations of industrial plants and
industrial products. He has been chosen, as proven by copious
documents, in agreement between IH and us to make the ERV and
he made it with all his professional skills and with the
integrity that characterized all his life, that is immaculate
under any point of view, as I investigated when I knew him
because I had to choose a trusted professional to make the
safety certification of my products years ago; he resulted to
be the best in absolute among all his colleagues for
preparation, honesty, confidentiality. This is also the reason
why he has been chosen to make the ERV, in agreement between
IH and us. By the way, IH has totally agreed upon his report
released after 3 months of test, and has cited such report in
interviews released by Tom Darden. Same thing happened after 6
months of test, when the second quarterly report has been
released by the ERV, same thing again happened after 9 months,
when the ERV released the third quarterly report: please note
that during 9 months of the test IH repeatedly accompanied to
visit the test their investors, explaining to them how the ERV
was measuring the performance, showing the seals of the
flowmeter, showing the temperature measurement system ( agreed
upon directly between Mr Tom Darden and the ERV) and IH
collected many million dollars of investments from Woodford
after the officers of Woodford visited the test twice, during
the first 9 months, and repeatedly accompanied Chinese top
level investors and engineers to visit the test. The results
of the first three quarterly reports, obviously, were
substantially equal to the results of the fourth and final
report, that IH now is renegating. Eventually, IH paid the
first three quarterly reports, but did not pay the final one.
The first three reports determined the allowance to IH of
enormous investments and they loved them. The fourth report
determined the obligation of IH to pay us and they discovered
the results were wrong: what a strange coincidence.
You have my honour word that what I wrote here is the truth.
I totally sympathyze with you and with all the persons like
you and also this is why I work like a beast, even now that is
Saturday, as tomorrow Sunday, and always on this endevour..
After all these years you merit to go in a shop and buy an
E-Cat, damn !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
Let me add that both the tests of Lugano and Doral have been
performed for long timespans, respectively 1 month and 1 year,
with the obvious consequent considerations.




On 8/13/2016 8:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Aug 13, 2016, at 19:21, a.ashfield 
  wrote:

Come on Eric.   The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.  
Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it that way.

Have you had a chance to 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

(1) Rossi might not be telling the truth. (2) Rossi does not really answer
Rends's question. :)

Eric


On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:05 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Eric, I had read your comment before answering.
> Further to my comment about the negative things written about Rossi and
> the ERV on this blog, particularly by Jed giving IH's point of view, it
> might even up the score a little to show what Rossi wrote recently.
>
>
>1. Andrea Rossi
>August 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM
>
> 
>
>Felix Rends:
>I have dedicated to this work the second part of my life and part of
>my health. I am no more the same of one year ago.
>About the Lugano Report: the test has not been made by me, nor has
>been the report and for the truth of it speaks the life of the nuclear
>physicists that made it, their honesty, their professional skill matured in
>two among the highest rated Universities and in the CERN of Geneva where
>all of them have worked. About the test of one year of the 1 MW Plant, the
>measurements have been made for one year by a nuclear engineer, who got his
>doctorate in nuclear engineering when he was 23 years old in the University
>of Bologna with 110/110 summa cum laude, then worked as a nuclear engineer
>in a nuclear power plant, then, taking advantage of such experience, became
>a professional specialized in certifications and validations of industrial
>plants and industrial products. He has been chosen, as proven by copious
>documents, in agreement between IH and us to make the ERV and he made it
>with all his professional skills and with the integrity that characterized
>all his life, that is immaculate under any point of view, as I investigated
>when I knew him because I had to choose a trusted professional to make the
>safety certification of my products years ago; he resulted to be the best
>in absolute among all his colleagues for preparation, honesty,
>confidentiality. This is also the reason why he has been chosen to make the
>ERV, in agreement between IH and us. By the way, IH has totally agreed upon
>his report released after 3 months of test, and has cited such report in
>interviews released by Tom Darden. Same thing happened after 6 months of
>test, when the second quarterly report has been released by the ERV, same
>thing again happened after 9 months, when the ERV released the third
>quarterly report: please note that during 9 months of the test IH
>repeatedly accompanied to visit the test their investors, explaining to
>them how the ERV was measuring the performance, showing the seals of the
>flowmeter, showing the temperature measurement system ( agreed upon
>directly between Mr Tom Darden and the ERV) and IH collected many million
>dollars of investments from Woodford after the officers of Woodford visited
>the test twice, during the first 9 months, and repeatedly accompanied
>Chinese top level investors and engineers to visit the test. The results of
>the first three quarterly reports, obviously, were substantially equal to
>the results of the fourth and final report, that IH now is renegating.
>Eventually, IH paid the first three quarterly reports, but did not pay the
>final one. The first three reports determined the allowance to IH of
>enormous investments and they loved them. The fourth report determined the
>obligation of IH to pay us and they discovered the results were wrong: what
>a strange coincidence.
>You have my honour word that what I wrote here is the truth.
>I totally sympathyze with you and with all the persons like you and
>also this is why I work like a beast, even now that is Saturday, as
>tomorrow Sunday, and always on this endevour..
>After all these years you merit to go in a shop and buy an E-Cat, damn
>!
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>P.S.
>Let me add that both the tests of Lugano and Doral have been performed
>for long timespans, respectively 1 month and 1 year, with the obvious
>consequent considerations.
>
>
>
>
> On 8/13/2016 8:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2016, at 19:21, a.ashfield  
>  wrote:
>
> Come on Eric.   The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.  
> Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it that way.
>
> Have you had a chance to read the answer yet?  If not, I highly recommend you 
> do. The denials of allegation are for the most part extremely succinct, and 
> they are numerous. Despite that, IH straight up say that Rossi did not meet 
> the terms of the GPT. Perhaps they are lying in their Answer, presumably a 
> very dumb thing to do. I'm not betting on that.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Eric, I had read your comment before answering.
Further to my comment about the negative things written about Rossi and 
the ERV on this blog, particularly by Jed giving IH's point of view, it 
might even up the score a little to show what Rossi wrote recently.


1.
   Andrea Rossi
   August 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM
   


   Felix Rends:
   I have dedicated to this work the second part of my life and part of
   my health. I am no more the same of one year ago.
   About the Lugano Report: the test has not been made by me, nor has
   been the report and for the truth of it speaks the life of the
   nuclear physicists that made it, their honesty, their professional
   skill matured in two among the highest rated Universities and in the
   CERN of Geneva where all of them have worked. About the test of one
   year of the 1 MW Plant, the measurements have been made for one year
   by a nuclear engineer, who got his doctorate in nuclear engineering
   when he was 23 years old in the University of Bologna with 110/110
   summa cum laude, then worked as a nuclear engineer in a nuclear
   power plant, then, taking advantage of such experience, became a
   professional specialized in certifications and validations of
   industrial plants and industrial products. He has been chosen, as
   proven by copious documents, in agreement between IH and us to make
   the ERV and he made it with all his professional skills and with the
   integrity that characterized all his life, that is immaculate under
   any point of view, as I investigated when I knew him because I had
   to choose a trusted professional to make the safety certification of
   my products years ago; he resulted to be the best in absolute among
   all his colleagues for preparation, honesty, confidentiality. This
   is also the reason why he has been chosen to make the ERV, in
   agreement between IH and us. By the way, IH has totally agreed upon
   his report released after 3 months of test, and has cited such
   report in interviews released by Tom Darden. Same thing happened
   after 6 months of test, when the second quarterly report has been
   released by the ERV, same thing again happened after 9 months, when
   the ERV released the third quarterly report: please note that during
   9 months of the test IH repeatedly accompanied to visit the test
   their investors, explaining to them how the ERV was measuring the
   performance, showing the seals of the flowmeter, showing the
   temperature measurement system ( agreed upon directly between Mr Tom
   Darden and the ERV) and IH collected many million dollars of
   investments from Woodford after the officers of Woodford visited the
   test twice, during the first 9 months, and repeatedly accompanied
   Chinese top level investors and engineers to visit the test. The
   results of the first three quarterly reports, obviously, were
   substantially equal to the results of the fourth and final report,
   that IH now is renegating. Eventually, IH paid the first three
   quarterly reports, but did not pay the final one. The first three
   reports determined the allowance to IH of enormous investments and
   they loved them. The fourth report determined the obligation of IH
   to pay us and they discovered the results were wrong: what a strange
   coincidence.
   You have my honour word that what I wrote here is the truth.
   I totally sympathyze with you and with all the persons like you and
   also this is why I work like a beast, even now that is Saturday, as
   tomorrow Sunday, and always on this endevour..
   After all these years you merit to go in a shop and buy an E-Cat, damn !
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.
   P.S.
   Let me add that both the tests of Lugano and Doral have been
   performed for long timespans, respectively 1 month and 1 year, with
   the obvious consequent considerations.




On 8/13/2016 8:29 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Aug 13, 2016, at 19:21, a.ashfield  wrote:

Come on Eric.   The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.  
Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it that way.

Have you had a chance to read the answer yet?  If not, I highly recommend you 
do. The denials of allegation are for the most part extremely succinct, and 
they are numerous. Despite that, IH straight up say that Rossi did not meet the 
terms of the GPT. Perhaps they are lying in their Answer, presumably a very 
dumb thing to do. I'm not betting on that.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

> On Aug 13, 2016, at 19:21, a.ashfield  wrote:
> 
> Come on Eric.   The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.  
> Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it that way.

Have you had a chance to read the answer yet?  If not, I highly recommend you 
do. The denials of allegation are for the most part extremely succinct, and 
they are numerous. Despite that, IH straight up say that Rossi did not meet the 
terms of the GPT. Perhaps they are lying in their Answer, presumably a very 
dumb thing to do. I'm not betting on that.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Come on Eric.   The basic case is that Rossi said IH failed to pay him.  
Obviously if there had not been a contract IH would have answered it 
that way.



On 8/13/2016 7:51 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


If there had been no contract this would have been mentioned in
the motion to dismiss - and the casewould have been thrown
out.  Do you really think Rossi made it up about the $89 million?


If there is such a contract, hopefully it will come to light.  I don't 
argue that there isn't one. But this detail would not be relevant to 
the Motion to Dismiss, for IH were not allowed to introduce new 
evidence at that time, i.e., factual statements, such as "No contract 
was signed for the Guaranteed Performance Test."  They were permitted 
only to address the allegations that Rossi had raised on their legal 
merits, assuming, along with the court, that the allegations were 
true.  Hence the footnote in the MTD, which alluded to other facts but 
did not elaborate, since that was not the place for it.


In the Complaint, Rossi alleged that there had been an agreement 
between him and IH to the GPT and that he had met the conditions 
needed to start it. In their Answer, IH succinctly deny these 
allegations.  I suppose at a later stage they will elaborate on why 
they disagree with Rossi about this.  Note that IH denied so many of 
Rossi's allegations, that it's almost like two entirely different 
accounts were being presented.  As I said earlier, I think the judge 
is going to become irritated with one of the parties as more 
information comes to light.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

If there had been no contract this would have been mentioned in the motion
> to dismiss - and the casewould have been thrown out.  Do you really
> think Rossi made it up about the $89 million?
>

If there is such a contract, hopefully it will come to light.  I don't
argue that there isn't one.  But this detail would not be relevant to the
Motion to Dismiss, for IH were not allowed to introduce new evidence at
that time, i.e., factual statements, such as "No contract was signed for
the Guaranteed Performance Test."  They were permitted only to address the
allegations that Rossi had raised on their legal merits, assuming, along
with the court, that the allegations were true.  Hence the footnote in the
MTD, which alluded to other facts but did not elaborate, since that was not
the place for it.

In the Complaint, Rossi alleged that there had been an agreement between
him and IH to the GPT and that he had met the conditions needed to start
it. In their Answer, IH succinctly deny these allegations.  I suppose at a
later stage they will elaborate on why they disagree with Rossi about
this.  Note that IH denied so many of Rossi's allegations, that it's almost
like two entirely different accounts were being presented.  As I said
earlier, I think the judge is going to become irritated with one of the
parties as more information comes to light.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

If there had been no contract this would have been mentioned in the 
motion to dismiss - and the casewould have been thrown out.  Do you 
really think Rossi made it up about the $89 million?



On 8/13/2016 7:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:59 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


The case would have been thrown out of court already if there
weren't some sort of contract for the performance test.


That's incorrect.  There has been no assessment of facts as of yet.  
There was the Complaint, with its exhibits and allegations, and the 
back and forth with IH's Motion to Dismiss, which considered the 
allegations on their legal rather than factual merits, and now the 
Answer, which has denied allegations from the Complaint and raised new 
ones.  In the Motion to Dismiss and the reply to that motion, which 
are the only instances in which the court has weighed in on the matter 
so far, everything stated in the Complaint was interpreted in the most 
favorable light possible for the plaintiffs, assuming all allegations 
were true.  Now I suppose there will be discovery, where the two 
parties request various kinds of documentation and get depositions 
from key witnesses, along a similar series of replies and rebuttals 
from Rossi's side, considering the legal merits of the allegations 
IH's Answer.


All this time, and for a long time to come, no assessment of facts, 
e.g., whether there was a contract for the performance test.  But I 
doubt that such a separate document will need to be produced, for the 
testing is spelled out in general terms both the License Agreement and 
the Second Amendment (which IH deny is applicable, and which mentioned 
the Six Cylinder Unit rather than the 1MW Plant).


Rossi said he was waiting in vain for IH to come up with a
customer and it does seem strange to me, that with all their
contacts, they didn't.
Apparently we will have to wait for the court for the details to
come out.  Keep in mind Rossi was the one taking it to court and
he knows that the details WILL come out.


Rossi has said many things.  But I interpret the situation as 
generously as possible, given what are most likely to be the fact in 
the matter.  In that light I suspect that Rossi's motives for 
initiating the lawsuit are not transparent.  I think he was trying to 
put pressure on IH to back out of the License Agreement, and that the 
lawsuit was his last move for applying pressure to that end as well as 
his endgame.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:59 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

The case would have been thrown out of court already if there weren't some
> sort of contract for the performance test.
>

That's incorrect.  There has been no assessment of facts as of yet.  There
was the Complaint, with its exhibits and allegations, and the back and
forth with IH's Motion to Dismiss, which considered the allegations on
their legal rather than factual merits, and now the Answer, which has
denied allegations from the Complaint and raised new ones.  In the Motion
to Dismiss and the reply to that motion, which are the only instances in
which the court has weighed in on the matter so far, everything stated in
the Complaint was interpreted in the most favorable light possible for the
plaintiffs, assuming all allegations were true.  Now I suppose there will
be discovery, where the two parties request various kinds of documentation
and get depositions from key witnesses, along a similar series of replies
and rebuttals from Rossi's side, considering the legal merits of the
allegations IH's Answer.

All this time, and for a long time to come, no assessment of facts, e.g.,
whether there was a contract for the performance test.  But I doubt that
such a separate document will need to be produced, for the testing is
spelled out in general terms both the License Agreement and the Second
Amendment (which IH deny is applicable, and which mentioned the Six
Cylinder Unit rather than the 1MW Plant).

Rossi said he was waiting in vain for IH to come up with a customer and it
> does seem strange to me, that with all their contacts, they didn't.
> Apparently we will have to wait for the court for the details to come
> out.  Keep in mind Rossi was the one taking it to court and he knows that
> the details WILL come out.
>

Rossi has said many things.  But I interpret the situation as generously as
possible, given what are most likely to be the fact in the matter.  In that
light I suspect that Rossi's motives for initiating the lawsuit are not
transparent.  I think he was trying to put pressure on IH to back out of
the License Agreement, and that the lawsuit was his last move for applying
pressure to that end as well as his endgame.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

The case would have been thrown out of court already if there weren't 
some sort of contract for the performance test.
Rossi said he was waiting in vain for IH to come up with a customer and 
it does seem strange to me, that with all their contacts, they didn't.
Apparently we will have to wait for the court for the details to come 
out.  Keep in mind Rossi was the one taking it to court and he knows 
that the details WILL come out.



On 8/13/2016 5:27 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Why didn't IH/Cherokee come up with a customer for a whole year?
They forced Rossi to do something himself.  It looks to me that
they never wanted the test where they might have to pay Rossi $89
million but wanted to profit from the IP thy had obtained for $11
million.


I have reviewed the license agreement and the two amendments, and 
there is no mention that I can find of a third-party customer as being 
a requirement for the Guaranteed Performance Test.  Exhibit 17 to the 
Answer sets out the terms that were signed between IH and Rossi for 
his engagement with JM, the customer [1].  No mention is made of the 
Guaranteed Performance Test. In an email included as Exhibit 16, Rossi 
makes the case for relocating to Florida, arguing that it will look 
good for there to be a customer that is paying for the heat. Again, no 
mention of the Guaranteed Performance Test.


In that same email from Rossi to Darden, Vaughn, Dameron and others, 
Rossi says "Your proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by 
yourself at least until recently is dramatically less convincing."  It 
looks like Darden et al. might have made space available for the 
plant, possibly for the GPT, and Rossi had other ideas.


The connection between the GPT and a customer appears to be a Rossi thing.

The negative folk like you always phrase it that you KNOW the
answer, that Rossi is a fraud and the outcome is certain.  I don't
think it is.


Perhaps you will be able to point to some instances where (1) I've 
said that I know the answer or (2) I assert that Rossi is a fraud or 
(3) I assert that the outcome is certain.  My position is a different 
one:  I think Rossi's behavior has been self-destructive and possibly 
bad for the prospects of LENR, and I don't discount IH's accusations 
of fraud.  My hope is that the consequences can be contained and 
whatever value he might have found be realized, although I am 
profoundly skeptical that anything will come of it.  I think that IH 
have done the field a great service in diving in and funding several 
LENR researchers, with little expectation of a return on their 
investment.  And I hope that this tangle with Rossi does not 
negatively impact that effort.


Eric


[1] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jack Cole]

Bob,

We don't know how often Penon was there do we?  It seems to me like he
wasn't often there but was said to be remotely monitoring.

Fabiani, one of the contractors, was named as a co-counter defendant by
IH.  I have a feeling West was not a lackey of AR, since he was not named
in the counter-claims.  Fabiani is from Italy and had prior history with AR
as I understand it.  It seems his primary alliance (or only) all along was
to AR.

These things are addressed in the counter-claims by IH.  The agreement
makes clear that any derived technologies are to be shared with IH and
licensed by IH.  He has no right to keep that from them, but it doesn't
matter anyway.  It is a magic machine that generates anything you want
(i.e., too good to be true).  Part of Fabiani's contract included sharing
any modifications or advancements of the E-Cat IP with IH, which he did not
do.  He refused to turn over raw data as he was contractually obligated.

Jack

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:55 PM Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What has happened to the two IH employees that manned the plant with
> Rossi, the ERV and the other Rossi helper?   I think that  they were part
> of the IH team Rossi frequently spoke of.   As I recall they were impressed
> with the plant’s performance.
>
>
>
> I would bet their actions and input to the plant ops are on video tape.
> It seemed to me that Rossi was intent on recording everything that went on
> to insure against naysayers.   That’s what I would have done,  if I were
> spending a year of intense effort to prove the plant operated as necessary
> to earn the additional $89 M.
>
>
>
> As I have said before,  if the Quark-X technology is successful, it would
> upstage the E-Cat.  However, that IP was Rossi’s and not part of the IP
> Rossi was selling to IH IMHO based on  reading the Agreement.  The one-
> year test was not intended to pertain to the Quark-X technology.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
> *Sent: *Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:14 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
>
>
> As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the
> ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.
>
>
>
> On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something
>> about it until after the test was completed.
>>
>
> It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things
> long before the test ended.
>
> Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that
> means they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does
> not exist. This is a delusion.
>
>
>
>> You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still
>> no piping diagram, still no ERV report.
>>
>
> 1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data.
> It is as believable as the ERV report itself.
>
> 2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the
> summary is inadequate.
>
> 3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report,
> you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are
> lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible
> we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source
> except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the
> ERV report. You would insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are
> forgeries.
>
>
>
>> The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was
>> on any particular day is another story.
>>
>
> The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As
> Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single
> day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned
> off, and days when witnesses saw it was off.
>
>
>
>> I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee
>> means Vaughn was not a legal manager.
>>
>
> Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a
> court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Why didn't IH/Cherokee come up with a customer for a whole year?  They
> forced Rossi to do something himself.  It looks to me that they never
> wanted the test where they might have to pay Rossi $89 million but wanted
> to profit from the IP thy had obtained for $11 million.
>

I have reviewed the license agreement and the two amendments, and there is
no mention that I can find of a third-party customer as being a requirement
for the Guaranteed Performance Test.  Exhibit 17 to the Answer sets out the
terms that were signed between IH and Rossi for his engagement with JM, the
customer [1].  No mention is made of the Guaranteed Performance Test. In an
email included as Exhibit 16, Rossi makes the case for relocating to
Florida, arguing that it will look good for there to be a customer that is
paying for the heat.  Again, no mention of the Guaranteed Performance Test.

In that same email from Rossi to Darden, Vaughn, Dameron and others, Rossi
says "Your proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by yourself at
least until recently is dramatically less convincing."  It looks like
Darden et al. might have made space available for the plant, possibly for
the GPT, and Rossi had other ideas.

The connection between the GPT and a customer appears to be a Rossi thing.

The negative folk like you always phrase it that you KNOW the answer, that
> Rossi is a fraud and the outcome is certain.  I don't think it is.
>

Perhaps you will be able to point to some instances where (1) I've said
that I know the answer or (2) I assert that Rossi is a fraud or (3) I
assert that the outcome is certain.  My position is a different one:  I
think Rossi's behavior has been self-destructive and possibly bad for the
prospects of LENR, and I don't discount IH's accusations of fraud.  My hope
is that the consequences can be contained and whatever value he might have
found be realized, although I am profoundly skeptical that anything will
come of it.  I think that IH have done the field a great service in diving
in and funding several LENR researchers, with little expectation of a
return on their investment.  And I hope that this tangle with Rossi does
not negatively impact that effort.

Eric


[1] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5ZV0oKQafY4bHhOZHlBZFZ4MG8

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Dave,
Cavitation would not be a problem if the flow meter was situated ahead 
of the pump, well below the liquid level in the holding tank.The 
pipe is 80mm ID and would remain full.   There is a potential problem 
with turbulence when a flow meter is mounted downstream of the pump, 
that is usually taken care of by having several feet of straight pipe 
ahead of it.
Until we have a piping diagram this is a pointless discussion.  Why this 
should be secret baffles me.   As manager doesn't mean manager in 
legalese perhaps turbulence and cavitation have different meanings to 
super lawyers too.


Having headed engineering for several major corporations and listened to 
top level discussions I am persuaded that "follow the money" has a lot 
of truth.



On 8/13/2016 2:47 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely 
accurately monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the 
flow setting component to be located downstream of the flow meter 
which should be down stream of the main pumping function.  The pump 
would then ensure that positive pressure is applied to the flow meter.


But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the 
water flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  
As previously stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait 
until the proper system information is released.


Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not 
the flow through the meter is continuous or in bursts. A burst system 
, if present,  will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I 
recall discussion of dynamic pump control for each module as being 
part of the overall control system.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David

You noted the following:
"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it 
needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the 
flow meter down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on 
the flow meter.  In addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a 
constant flow might be included down stream from the flow meter.


The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO 
not as reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve 
would be the best option to control flow.


Bob Cook

*From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>>
*Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:l...@eskimo.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to 
wonder why he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using 
fractional data?


It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average 
instead of making an effort to track the true data if he did not think 
anyone would care.  Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and 
extreme COP calculations that he did not believe that anyone would 
become too demanding?  I do not know.


Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract 
the data as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to 
do so.  How could you explain to the judge that your data was known by 
you to be inaccurate?


Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to 
think that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he 
really believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.


I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been 
faked out by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how 
to use this device does mention that it needs to be kept free of 
negative pressure and cavitation conditions.  My current theory is 
that a restriction of some type is located ahead of the meter which 
limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through the meter.  
This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.


When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might 
cause the incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a 
hydraulic pump is greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.


So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree 
by this process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we 
need a diagram of the compete system which includes the location of 
all the pumps, meters, and holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know 
the power being drawn be these pumps and tables of their operational 
parameters as a function of power input.


Dave




-Original Mess

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

Dave

A design drawing of the piping system as well as a schematic diagram and design 
flow calculations should come out in the trial as deposed information.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: David Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely accurately 
monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the flow setting 
component to be located downstream of the flow meter which should be down 
stream of the main pumping function.  The pump would then ensure that positive 
pressure is applied to the flow meter.

But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the water 
flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  As previously 
stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait until the proper system 
information is released.

Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not the flow 
through the meter is continuous or in bursts.  A burst system , if present,  
will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I recall discussion of 
dynamic pump control for each module as being part of the overall control 
system.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David

You noted the following:
"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."

I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.

The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:l...@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:l...@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

What has happened to the two IH employees that manned the plant with Rossi, the 
ERV and the other Rossi helper?   I think that  they were part of the IH team 
Rossi frequently spoke of.   As I recall they were impressed with the plant’s 
performance.

I would bet their actions and input to the plant ops are on video tape.  It 
seemed to me that Rossi was intent on recording everything that went on to 
insure against naysayers.   That’s what I would have done,  if I were spending 
a year of intense effort to prove the plant operated as necessary to earn the 
additional $89 M.

As I have said before,  if the Quark-X technology is successful, it would 
upstage the E-Cat.  However, that IP was Rossi’s and not part of the IP Rossi 
was selling to IH IMHO based on  reading the Agreement.  The one- year test was 
not intended to pertain to the Quark-X technology.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: a.ashfield<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:14 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the 
ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.


On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something 
about it until after the test was completed.

It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things long 
before the test ended.

Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that means 
they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does not exist. 
This is a delusion.


You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still no 
piping diagram, still no ERV report.

1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data. It 
is as believable as the ERV report itself.

2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the 
summary is inadequate.

3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report, you 
would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are lying 
when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible we read a 
column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source except Rossi. So 
there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the ERV report. You would 
insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are forgeries.


The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was on any 
particular day is another story.

The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As 
Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single day, 
including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned off, and 
days when witnesses saw it was off.


I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee means 
Vaughn was not a legal manager.

Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a court 
case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Bob,

You are describing a connection that would be ideal and likely accurately 
monitor the water flow rate.  The key ingredient is for the flow setting 
component to be located downstream of the flow meter which should be down 
stream of the main pumping function.  The pump would then ensure that positive 
pressure is applied to the flow meter.

But, is this what the schematic diagram shows?  Jed's theory that the water 
flow rate is much less than registered would suggest otherwise.  As previously 
stated, the answers to our questions will have to wait until the proper system 
information is released.

Another issue that eventually requires addressing is whether or not the flow 
through the meter is continuous or in bursts.  A burst system , if present,  
will further complicate the analysis.  Previously I recall discussion of 
dynamic pump control for each module as being part of the overall control 
system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 13, 2016 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



David 



You noted the following: 

"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.

 

The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.


Bob Cook


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
 

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave







-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:



So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.


By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Eric,
"Their position, that Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed 
Performance Test, "


Why didn't IH/Cherokee come up with a customer for a whole year? They 
forced Rossi to do something himself.  It looks to me that they never 
wanted the test where they might have to pay Rossi $89 million but 
wanted to profit from the IP thy had obtained for $11 million.


You say I always take a negative view of IH.  This is because what I 
read here is always a negative view of Rossi.  I don't know who is 
right   The negative folk like you always phrase it that you KNOW the 
answer, that Rossi is a fraud and the outcome is certain.  I don't think 
it is.



On 8/13/2016 12:02 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise


Yes.  They're venture capitalists.  They don't maintain in-house 
expertise.  I suppose they have a nice office with coffee machines and 
other venture capitalists, and maybe a massage room.


so hired gunman Murray.


Ok, so your reading is that Murray is a hired gunman. You go to great 
lengths to read IH's actions in as negative a light as possible.  Have 
you been effective in persuading people here or elsewhere to your 
position?


Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as an
IT guy does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is
criticizing.  He was probably pissed that he had not been allowed
in the plant before.


IH were probably irritated as well that one of the people they hired 
to introduce some technical rigor into their relationship with Rossi 
was not permitted, acting as an agent of IH, to have access to a 
facility that was, by Rossi's claims, the location of the Guaranteed 
Performance Test.  This story is too strange to turn into a movie. 
People would roll their eyes and not take it seriously. Perhaps it 
would work as a B movie on the USA Network.


By sometime in 2014, I would not be surprised if IH did not take any 
action without first consulting their lawyers and thinking carefully 
through each next step.  They surely saw that Rossi was a loose canon 
and that he was capable of doing all kind of things.


I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without
seeing Penon's report.


I don't hope to persuade you of anything, and I doubt that you can be 
persuaded.  For the benefit of anyone here who has not had time to 
really look into the details, I'm addressing points you attempt to 
make for their sake.


Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering
x millions.  Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million
to buy back the license/IP, but IH refused.


It is true that the Complaint and the Answer presented strikingly 
different pictures.  I was taken aback about how many allegations IH 
denied; I would have imagined that there would be more that they could 
have agreed upon with the plaintiffs.  One of the parties to this case 
is presenting a very distorted picture of things.  I suppose the judge 
is going to become quite irritated with one of them once enough 
information comes to light.


The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak.  I
expect we will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply.
Before that it is silly to leap to conclusions that the plant
didn't work.


The arguments that IH have come up are very strong.  Their position, 
that Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed Performance 
Test, left for Florida on the pretext of selling power to a fake 
customer, and then went through the motions of the Guaranteed 
Performance Test over IH's objections and without renegotiating the 
terms of the test, looks compelling.  Until that position is tested, 
it would be premature to conclude that IH will win this case. But that 
does not mean that one cannot step back and get a general impression 
of things.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as the
> ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.
>

1. The report was signed. For some reason the signature was not included in
the Exhibit.

2. The ERV was also being paid by I.H.

3. The ERV report has a large number of impossible claims, as described in
Exhibit 5. The fact that they are impossible should be apparent to anyone.
They are impossible regardless of how skillful Penon might be. In other
words, the report speaks for itself, and to say that something else might
be "as good as" it makes no sense. It is terrible. Nothing could be worse.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

As you think an IT's unsigned,report, who worked for IH, is as good as 
the ERV's report there is no point in discussing this further.



On 8/13/2016 11:57 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do
something about it until after the test was completed.


It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various 
things long before the test ended.


Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, 
that means they did nothing. You think that information you have not 
seen does not exist. This is a delusion.


You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.
Still no piping diagram, still no ERV report.


1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report 
data. It is as believable as the ERV report itself.


2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove 
the summary is inadequate.


3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV 
report, you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that 
Murray and I are lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. 
(It is not possible we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do 
not trust any source except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you 
a piping diagram or the ERV report. You would insist the piping 
diagram and the ERV report are forgeries.


The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What
it was on any particular day is another story.


The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the 
next. As Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for 
every single day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the 
machine was turned off, and days when witnesses saw it was off.


I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for
Cherokee means Vaughn was not a legal manager.


Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This 
is a court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Bob Cook]

David


You noted the following:

"The manual describing how to use this device does mention that it needs to be 
kept free of negative pressure and cavitation conditions."


I would think that the design of the flow system would position the flow meter 
down stream of the pump to assure a positive pressure on the flow meter.  In 
addition a calibrated orifice to help provide a constant flow might be included 
down stream from the  flow meter.



The use of gate valves to control flow is not uncommon, however, IMHO not as 
reliable as an orifice for flow control.  A throttle  valve would be the best 
option to control flow.


Bob Cook


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.

That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.

By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I think 32,400 kg is 
used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, why not 20% or 90%?

It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated temperatures and 
1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog said the reactor was turned 
off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was actually off. If you are going to commit 
fraud, you should at least try to make it look convincing. These people were 
just phoning it in!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:


> My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise


Yes.  They're venture capitalists.  They don't maintain in-house
expertise.  I suppose they have a nice office with coffee machines and
other venture capitalists, and maybe a massage room.

so hired gunman Murray.


Ok, so your reading is that Murray is a hired gunman.  You go to great
lengths to read IH's actions in as negative a light as possible.  Have you
been effective in persuading people here or elsewhere to your position?

Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as an IT guy
> does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is criticizing.  He was
> probably pissed that he had not been allowed in the plant before.
>

IH were probably irritated as well that one of the people they hired to
introduce some technical rigor into their relationship with Rossi was not
permitted, acting as an agent of IH, to have access to a facility that was,
by Rossi's claims, the location of the Guaranteed Performance Test.  This
story is too strange to turn into a movie.  People would roll their eyes
and not take it seriously.  Perhaps it would work as a B movie on the USA
Network.

By sometime in 2014, I would not be surprised if IH did not take any action
without first consulting their lawyers and thinking carefully through each
next step.  They surely saw that Rossi was a loose canon and that he was
capable of doing all kind of things.


> I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without seeing
> Penon's report.
>

I don't hope to persuade you of anything, and I doubt that you can be
persuaded.  For the benefit of anyone here who has not had time to really
look into the details, I'm addressing points you attempt to make for their
sake.

Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering x
> millions.  Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million to buy back
> the license/IP, but IH refused.
>

It is true that the Complaint and the Answer presented strikingly different
pictures.  I was taken aback about how many allegations IH denied; I would
have imagined that there would be more that they could have agreed upon
with the plaintiffs.  One of the parties to this case is presenting a very
distorted picture of things.  I suppose the judge is going to become quite
irritated with one of them once enough information comes to light.


> The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak.  I expect we
> will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply. Before that it is
> silly to leap to conclusions that the plant didn't work.


The arguments that IH have come up are very strong.  Their position, that
Rossi went outside of the terms of the Guaranteed Performance Test, left
for Florida on the pretext of selling power to a fake customer, and then
went through the motions of the Guaranteed Performance Test over IH's
objections and without renegotiating the terms of the test, looks
compelling.  Until that position is tested, it would be premature to
conclude that IH will win this case.  But that does not mean that one
cannot step back and get a general impression of things.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do something
> about it until after the test was completed.
>

It would be inconceivable to me, too. But I know they did various things
long before the test ended.

Once again, you assume that because you do not know what they did, that
means they did nothing. You think that information you have not seen does
not exist. This is a delusion.



> You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated.  Still
> no piping diagram, still no ERV report.
>

1. The proof is in Exhibit 5. It is a good summary of the ERV report data.
It is as believable as the ERV report itself.

2. Just because you have not seen the EVR report, that does not prove the
summary is inadequate.

3. Even if I.H. or someone else were to hand you a copy of the ERV report,
you would reject it, claiming it is fake. You claim that Murray and I are
lying when we say the report lists 36,000 kg per day. (It is not possible
we read a column of numbers incorrectly.) You do not trust any source
except Rossi. So there is no point to giving you a piping diagram or the
ERV report. You would insist the piping diagram and the ERV report are
forgeries.



> The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was on
> any particular day is another story.
>

The ERV report shows no significant variation from one day to the next. As
Murray pointed out, the data shows 1 MW and a COP of 50 for every single
day, including days when Rossi said in his blog that the machine was turned
off, and days when witnesses saw it was off.



> I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee
> means Vaughn was not a legal manager.
>

Is there a problem with that? "Manager" has a legal definition. This is a
court case. Legal, formal definitions should be used.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

If IH had real concerns it is inconceivable to me they didn't do 
something about it until after the test was completed.


You have never provided proof the flow was less than Rossi stated. Still 
no piping diagram, still no ERV report.


The contract called for ~ 1MW with a COP>6 for 340(?) days  What it was 
on any particular day is another story.


I see that IH are now claiming being manager of Investments for Cherokee 
means Vaughn was not a legal manager.



On 8/13/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

So it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute . . .


Alarms were raised throughout the test, and made known to many people, 
including me. Your assertion that this happened only at the end is 
factually incorrect. I expect you will go on repeating it, but it is 
wrong.



The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the
flow meter giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed
makes much of, was simply the average flow calculated by dividing
the total by the number of days.


First, I make "much of it" because the actual flow was something like 
3 to 10 times lower than this, as shown by the rust and by various tests.


Second, if the flow varied significantly, then an "average flow" would 
be worse than useless for calorimetry. You compute the heat by 
multiplying the flow rate by the heat of the water or steam. Since the 
temperature varied, you would be multiplying the wrong flow rate, and 
the results would be meaningless.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Eric,
My reading is that IH had very little in-house expertise so hired gunman 
Murray.  Murray apparently felt the need to justify his existence and as 
an IT guy does not seem to have expertise in the areas he is 
criticizing.  He was probably pissed that he had not been allowed in the 
plant before.


I don't buy your argument that the plant didn't work without seeing 
Penon's report.
Rossi maintains it was IH who were keen to stop the test, offering x 
millions.  Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11 million to buy 
back the license/IP, but IH refused.


The arguments that IH have come up with have all been weak.  I expect we 
will know just how weak after Rossi files his reply. Before that it is 
silly to leap to conclusions that the plant didn't work.



On 8/13/2016 9:32 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

The revised answer from IH says:
"82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in 
February 2016 and examined the Plant,"


So it doesn't look like Murray got access to the plant until after it 
was shut down.  It looks like IH didn't think there was much wrong 
before that or presumably they would have done something about it.  So 
it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute, which explains 
why IH didn't make the payment or at least start negotiating and 
appear to have been caught with their pants down when Rossi took it to 
court.


The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow 
meter giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much 
of, was simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by 
the number of days. I would be surprised if the ERV doesn't have a 
detailed record that was probably automatically logged on his computer.


AS repeatedly stated, we need to see the ERV's report and a piping 
diagram before deciding what actually happened.
Rossi sounds confident that he can answer all the points brought up by 
IH so we will probably get more information when his rebuttal is filed.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> So it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute . . .


Alarms were raised throughout the test, and made known to many people,
including me. Your assertion that this happened only at the end is
factually incorrect. I expect you will go on repeating it, but it is wrong.



> The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow meter
> giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much of, was
> simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by the number of
> days.


First, I make "much of it" because the actual flow was something like 3 to
10 times lower than this, as shown by the rust and by various tests.

Second, if the flow varied significantly, then an "average flow" would be
worse than useless for calorimetry. You compute the heat by multiplying the
flow rate by the heat of the water or steam. Since the temperature varied,
you would be multiplying the wrong flow rate, and the results would be
meaningless.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 8:32 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

The revised answer from IH says:
> "82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February
> 2016 and examined the Plant,"
>
> So it doesn't look like Murray got access to the plant until after it was
> shut down.  It looks like IH didn't think there was much wrong before that
> or presumably they would have done something about it.  So it was Murray
> who raised the alarm at the last minute, which explains why IH didn't make
> the payment or at least start negotiating and appear to have been caught
> with their pants down when Rossi took it to court.
>

IH hired Murray in the middle of 2015 (para. 80).  In July 2015 Rossi
denied Murray access to the plant (para 81), so he was hired sometime
before this.  July 2015 is 4-5 months after the start of the purported
test.  It is straightforward to assume that IH had concerns at or before
the time that Murray was brought on.  Indeed, it is straightforward to
assume that IH had serious concerns as far back as 2014 or 2013, and that
they felt they had a situation to manage.

If we go with the Answer, Rossi appears to have believed that he could
initiate the GPT without IH's participation or consent.  My idle
speculation is that he was putting pressure on IH to back out of the
license agreement on terms that would allow him to keep the 11.5 million
dollars by going through the motions of a GPT that he knew they would not
agree to but whose outcome was not straightforward to predict if the matter
went to court.

The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow meter
> giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much of, was
> simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by the number of
> days. I would be surprised if the ERV doesn't have a detailed record that
> was probably automatically logged on his computer.
>

IH appear to agree with you.  In the Answer, they say that Fabiani agreed
to send them "raw data," but that he didn't do this (para. 88).  That
detail alone should be enough to give onlookers a sense of how strange
things got.  This is the stuff of reality TV.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

The revised answer from IH says:
"82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in 
February 2016 and examined the Plant,"


So it doesn't look like Murray got access to the plant until after it 
was shut down.  It looks like IH didn't think there was much wrong 
before that or presumably they would have done something about it.  So 
it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute, which explains 
why IH didn't make the payment or at least start negotiating and appear 
to have been caught with their pants down when Rossi took it to court.


The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow 
meter giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much 
of, was simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by the 
number of days. I would be surprised if the ERV doesn't have a detailed 
record that was probably automatically logged on his computer.


AS repeatedly stated, we need to see the ERV's report and a piping 
diagram before deciding what actually happened.
Rossi sounds confident that he can answer all the points brought up by 
IH so we will probably get more information when his rebuttal is filed.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Penon wasn't in line to receive the 89 mil, nor any significant fraction
> of it, so why would he care?
>

Perhaps Rossi offered him a share. He could afford to be generous with $89
million.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

My two cents  I would suspect Penon knew it was all fraudulent, and 
in fact was hired by Rossi preciesely to produce fake data to sustain 
the fraud.  But Penon wasn't getting anything out of it except what 
Rossi was paying him, and seriously didn't give a damn about Rossi 
beyond his pay.  And he knew the whole thing was bogus anyway, so he 
just totally slobbed the numbers, and did the minimum he could get away 
with.


When you put someone in a position where they can have zero pride in 
their work they're likely to produce work that nobody could take pride in.


Penon wasn't in line to receive the 89 mil, nor any significant fraction 
of it, so why would he care?



On 08/12/2016 05:03 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud. You have to 
wonder why he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using 
fractional data?


It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average 
instead of making an effort to track the true data if he did not think 
anyone would care.  Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and 
extreme COP calculations that he did not believe that anyone would 
become too demanding?  I do not know.


Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract 
the data as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to 
do so.  How could you explain to the judge that your data was known by 
you to be inaccurate?


Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to 
think that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he 
really believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.


I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been 
faked out by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how 
to use this device does mention that it needs to be kept free of 
negative pressure and cavitation conditions.  My current theory is 
that a restriction of some type is located ahead of the meter which 
limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through the meter.  
This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.


When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might 
cause the incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a 
hydraulic pump is greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.


So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree 
by this process thus leading to a large meter error. To be sure, we 
need a diagram of the compete system which includes the location of 
all the pumps, meters, and holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know 
the power being drawn be these pumps and tables of their operational 
parameters as a function of power input.


Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became
extremely bored making the same readings day in and out until he
placed data into the log that assumed everything continued as it
had for many long previous periods of time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start 
repeating, and then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the 
same for every single day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did 
not start off off recording actual values with variations, and then 
later repeating values. He stuffed 36,000 kg into every day, for the 
entire test.


By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily 
reduced the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I 
think 32,400 kg is used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, 
why not 20% or 90%?


It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated 
temperatures and 1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog 
said the reactor was turned off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was 
actually off. If you are going to commit fraud, you should at least 
try to make it look convincing. These people were just phoning it in!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Che]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I don't understand is why there are not ongoing criminal
>> investigations for Rossi, Fabian and Penon, the fraudulent gang, instead of
>> only civil law implications.
>>
>
> This is something I've been wondering myself.  I would not be surprised if
> there is an FBI investigation under way, and they're still looking into the
> situation.  I think they like to keep things under wraps for as long as
> possible.
>
> I'm having trouble tracking down the amount of money involved, but I got
> the impression somewhere that there was less money involved when the FBI
> raided Inteligentry.
>
> Eric
>


A trending Rossi 'perp walk' video -- and accompanying sensational story --
will do wonders for LENR.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:31 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

More idle speculation.  Wait until Penon's report surfaces and let's see
> what he really said.
>

Hardly idle speculation!  Just pointing out the obvious.  It does not
appear to be obvious to you.  Once the report comes out, I suppose it will
be one of those three cases I just identified.

Presumably the flow meter goes on reading the running total and the average
> flow rate mentioned is simply the total divided by the number of days -
> less 10% that Rossi persuaded Penon to reduce the number by in order to be
> conservative.
>

Which would be totally ridiculous if it were being read off by hand, and
not collected with a data acquisition system.  It's also pretty silly that
there was a 10 percent discount.  What would be needed would be the
accurate raw data.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

More idle speculation.  Wait until Penon's report surfaces and let's see 
what he really said.
Presumably the flow meter goes on reading the running total and the 
average flow rate mentioned is simply the total divided by the number of 
days - less 10% that Rossi persuaded Penon to reduce the number by in 
order to be conservative.



On 8/12/2016 6:04 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:59 PM, David Roberson > wrote:


So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became
extremely bored making the same readings day in and out until he
placed data into the log that assumed everything continued as it
had for many long previous periods of time.


I do not dispute your accounting of the bored meter reading 
technician.  But this is 2016, and Rossi had 11.5 million dollars at 
his disposal.  There's zero reason that there wasn't a fully automated 
data collection system in place, collecting data from all data sources 
at a frequency of 1 sample per second or more.  I see three 
possibilities: (1) there was such a system in place, and IH were given 
some strange and inaccurate summary, provided for reasons that only 
Rossi knows; (2) there was no such system in place, because Penon was 
not the right person for the job; or (3) there was no such system in 
place, because Rossi interfered and prevented Penon from setting up 
such a system.


In all three cases, things look quite bad.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:59 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became
> extremely bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed
> data into the log that assumed everything continued as it had for many long
> previous periods of time.


I do not dispute your accounting of the bored meter reading technician.
But this is 2016, and Rossi had 11.5 million dollars at his disposal.
There's zero reason that there wasn't a fully automated data collection
system in place, collecting data from all data sources at a frequency of 1
sample per second or more.  I see three possibilities: (1) there was such a
system in place, and IH were given some strange and inaccurate summary,
provided for reasons that only Rossi knows; (2) there was no such system in
place, because Penon was not the right person for the job; or (3) there was
no such system in place, because Rossi interfered and prevented Penon from
setting up such a system.

In all three cases, things look quite bad.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

I agree that it would be better to improve the fraud.  You have to wonder why 
he did not at least go to that level of expertise by using fractional data?

It would be far more believable to suspect that he used the average instead of 
making an effort to track the true data if he did not think anyone would care.  
Could Penon be so convinced of the 1 MW and extreme COP calculations that he 
did not believe that anyone would become too demanding?  I do not know.

Of course, I probably would assume that now it is too late to retract the data 
as reported since it will do great harm to the court case to do so.  How could 
you explain to the judge that your data was known by you to be inaccurate?

Penon is acting in a strange manner, the only way it makes sense is to think 
that he did not expect a problem to develop with IH.  Perhaps he really 
believes that the COP was great and the power met the requirements.

I am still attempting to understand how the flow meter may have been faked out 
by being less than full of water.  The manual describing how to use this device 
does mention that it needs to be kept free of negative pressure and cavitation 
conditions.  My current theory is that a restriction of some type is located 
ahead of the meter which limits the amount of liquid that can be pumped through 
the meter.  This problem is common in hydraulic systems where a clogged filter 
starves the hydraulic pump.

When starved, the pump lowers the input port pressure which might cause the 
incoming liquid to vaporize.  The life expectancy of a hydraulic pump is 
greatly reduced when cavitation of this type exists.

So, I am suspecting that the return water is vaporized to some degree by this 
process thus leading to a large meter error.  To be sure, we need a diagram of 
the compete system which includes the location of all the pumps, meters, and 
holding tanks, etc.  We also need to know the power being drawn be these pumps 
and tables of their operational parameters as a function of power input.

Dave



 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:



So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating, and 
then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every single 
day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off recording 
actual values with variations, and then later repeating values. He stuffed 
36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.


By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily reduced 
the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I think 32,400 kg is 
used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, why not 20% or 90%?


It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated temperatures and 
1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog said the reactor was turned 
off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was actually off. If you are going to commit 
fraud, you should at least try to make it look convincing. These people were 
just phoning it in!


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became
> extremely bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed
> data into the log that assumed everything continued as it had for many long
> previous periods of time.


That might be true of the temperatures, which vary, then start repeating,
and then vary again. But the flow rate and pressure was the same for every
single day of the test, as noted by Murray. Penon did not start off off
recording actual values with variations, and then later repeating values.
He stuffed 36,000 kg into every day, for the entire test.

By the way, as Rossi noted in the Lewan interview, Penon arbitrarily
reduced the flow by 10% down to 32,400 kg. Both numbers are shown. I think
32,400 kg is used to compute heat. If a 10% reduction is valid, why not 20%
or 90%?

It was sloppy of Penon to record positive flow rates, elevated temperatures
and 1 MW heat production on days when Rossi in his blog said the reactor
was turned off. Eyewitnesses confirm that it was actually off. If you are
going to commit fraud, you should at least try to make it look convincing.
These people were just phoning it in!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Let me mention a real life occurance that I have witnessed.  The FCC requires 
AM and FM transmitters to maintain their RF input powers at a certain level.  
Many years ago I noticed that the technicians would take a glance at the 
voltage and current meters every so often to enter that information into the 
station log.  A properly operating transmiter system hardly varies at all, so 
some guys would just copy the previous data into the log assuming that it 
remained the same throughout the period.

I think of this behavior as the bored meter reading technician.  It appears to 
be a form of complacency that typically takes place in many similar situations 
in life.  Another is the guy that is on guard duty at a location that never 
experiences problems.  Of course, most of the time all of these guys are going 
to be fine.  But, on rare occasions, big problems can creep up and bite them in 
the behind.

So, it would not surprise me too greatly to find that Penon became extremely 
bored making the same readings day in and out until he placed data into the log 
that assumed everything continued as it had for many long previous periods of 
time.  I am not saying this would be a good policy for him to follow, but one 
that might actually occur.  He likely gets bored just like everyone else.

I suspect that most folks would tend to perform in the manner described after 
months of extreme boredom.  All the experimental data should not be dismissed 
just because small portions might be in question.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!




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


  
It is fairly simple why.  The only unbiased observer, the paidexpert 
ERV Penon, says the plant worked. 




He also said the flow was exactly 36,000 kg per day, and the reactor produced 
heat on days when Rossi informed the world it was turned off. How on earth can 
you call that "unbiased"?!? On what planet is that not brazen, in-your-face, 
outrageous fraud?


Quoting the Answer again:




"Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data collections in his 
supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For example, Leonardo and Rossi 
have admitted (on their internet blog postings) that there were days when 
portions of the Plant were not operating, but Penon in his final report does 
not report any material decrease in output of the Plant on those days. Rather, 
he makes the (inexplicable) claim in his final report that on these days the 
Plant’s performance either did not change or somehow even increased."




- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

There are 3 logical possibilities:
1) a.ashfield is a troll, he is doing this just for fun,
2) a.shfield is a shrill paid by Rossi
3) a.shfield is  a self-deluded believer of Rossi crackpottery at any cost.

Possible combinations of 1 to 3 are also possible.


On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:36 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> It is fairly simple why.  The only unbiased observer, the paid expert ERV
> Penon, says the plant worked.
> Rossi took IH to court, where the facts will be made known, because IH
> failed to pay him what they had agreed on.  It wasn't IH taking Rossi to
> court.  You have it backwards.
>
>
> On 8/12/2016 10:44 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
> What I don't understand is why there are not ongoing criminal
> investigations for Rossi, Fabian and Penon, the fraudulent gang, instead of
> only civil law implications.
> It is likely that Rossi and company activities were criminal and not just
> bad business practices.
> It saddens me to say this about my Italian compatriots but all the
> evidence points to the fact that Rossi did it again: another criminal scam.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective
>>> Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation . . .
>>>
>>
>> True. But you don't have to prove it. You just have to show it is very
>> likely, with the fewest entities (Ockham's razor). Science is not about
>> absolutes, or perfect assurance.
>>
>> Some philosophers of science go so far as to say that whether something
>> is objectively true in the real world does not even matter, as long as it
>> is true as far as you can tell, or more true than any rival hypothesis. You
>> can't tell if it is "really" true, and it doesn't matter. True enough is
>> good enough.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

It is fairly simple why.  The only unbiased observer, the paid expert ERV
> Penon, says the plant worked.
>

He also said the flow was exactly 36,000 kg per day, and the reactor
produced heat on days when Rossi informed the world it was turned off. How
on earth can you call that "unbiased"?!? On what planet is that not brazen,
in-your-face, outrageous fraud?

Quoting the Answer again:

"Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data collections in
his supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance. For example, Leonardo
and Rossi have admitted (on their internet blog postings) that there were
days when portions of the Plant were not operating, but Penon in his final
report does not report any material decrease in output of the Plant on
those days. Rather, he makes the (inexplicable) claim in his final report
that on these days the Plant’s performance either did not change or somehow
even increased."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

It is fairly simple why.  The only unbiased observer, the paid expert 
ERV Penon, says the plant worked.
Rossi took IH to court, where the facts will be made known, because IH 
failed to pay him what they had agreed on.  It wasn't IH taking Rossi to 
court.  You have it backwards.



On 8/12/2016 10:44 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
What I don't understand is why there are not ongoing criminal 
investigations for Rossi, Fabian and Penon, the fraudulent gang, 
instead of only civil law implications.
It is likely that Rossi and company activities were criminal and not 
just bad business practices.
It saddens me to say this about my Italian compatriots but all the 
evidence points to the fact that Rossi did it again: another criminal 
scam.


Giovanni


On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


Craig Haynie > wrote:

But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an
Objective Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some
computer simulation . . .


True. But you don't have to prove it. You just have to show it is
very likely, with the fewest entities (Ockham's razor). Science is
not about absolutes, or perfect assurance.

Some philosophers of science go so far as to say that whether
something is objectively true in the real world does not even
matter, as long as it is true as far as you can tell, or more true
than any rival hypothesis. You can't tell if it is "really" true,
and it doesn't matter. True enough is good enough.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Russ George]

Define senior citizen. senior citizen synonyms, senior citizen pronunciation, 
... curmudgeon - a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn 
ideas. hmmm

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

 

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

 

I have maintained from the beginning it was too early to tell the performance 
of the plant until more FACTS were available

 

The facts are now available.

 

 

Saying that you know but it is secret doesn't wash.

 

All of my important secrets were revealed by Exhibit 5. There are only a few 
minor details left. You may doubt that the assertions in Exhibit 5 are correct, 
but I know that they are. If you will assume for the sake of argument this 
document tells the truth, you will see why I say Rossi is lying and his claims 
are nonsense.

 

 

  You were wrong about Vaughn not being emp;poyed by Cherokee.

 

That is not a technical issue. It has no bearing on calorimetry, data, or the 
instruments. I do not know why you are hung up on it, but I suggest you ignore 
it. I suggest you concentrate on facts such the fact that Rossi and Penon 
stuffed their data tables with identical & impossible numbers, and they showed 
excess power on days when Rossi in his blog said the machine was turned off. 
Think about the fact that no heat was detected coming from the pretend customer 
site. If you cannot explain these facts, and they seems to indicate fraud to 
you, that is because it is fraud.

 

Do not tell me these things are lies, or misunderstandings or not true. I 
expect you believe that, but it is not a valid argument to dissuade me. I know 
these things to be true. I have seen proof of various types. There is no point 
to telling me I have not. At best you should say that you are still not 
convinced Rossi actually wrote 36,000 kg in every day, including days when the 
reactor was turned off. You don't believe it. Fine, but don't tell me I should 
not believe it, because I have seen proof.

 

 

  The so called secret things that came out with Exhibit 5 all seem to have 
faded except the half full pipe.

 

Nothing has faded. Every claim is confirmed by Rossi's own data and by other 
eyewitness observers. The fact that Rossi & Penon never responded, even though 
valid answers would have brought them $89 million, proves beyond doubt that the 
claims are real. If there was any way to disprove them, Rossi would have.

 

 

  As I've said before only a diagram of the piping will allow an engineer to 
judge the lightly hood of problems.

 

Nonsense. Half full pipes are common. Anyone can tell a pipe is half full by 
watching the water fall from it, and by various other means.

 

 

  Your second hand info from Murray means nothing.  

 

How do you know it is second hand? Rossi's own data confirms most of it. What 
better source could there be?

 

 

Why should I believe an electronics guy employed by IH over a qualified 
independent expert like Dr. Penon?

 

Because it physically impossible for a flow rate to be EXACTLY 36,000 kg a day 
for months; because the flow meter was obviously unsuited to the task and an 
idiotic choice; because the pipe was half-full; because ambient temperature in 
a Florida warehouse are never EXACTLY the same for days on end . . . and for 
many other reasons. This is not Murray versus Penon, to be judged on their 
professional qualifications. This is case of blatantly fake data and a 
ridiculous travesty of a test. You don't need Murray. You, I, or anyone else 
looking at the data and the facts presented in Exhibit 5 could instantly see it 
was bullshit. I saw that in a few minutes. If you cannot see that, you are not 
a good judge of experiments or engineering.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> You left out most of what I wrote, cherry picking like Murray does.
>

I will not respond in detail because you apparently think I am a liar.
There is nothing I can say in response to that accusation. Any fact I bring
to light you will disregard, claiming it is also a lie.



> You claim to know what I WILL think.  What you write is not believable.
>

There: you just said it. "Not believable." What I said, for example, is
that the flow rate is listed as 36,000 kg every day. It is not possible
that Murray I made a mistake reading that. Therefore "not believable" can
only mean we are lying. It is logically impossible for me to dispute that
accusation. You will dismiss anything more I say as just another lie.

If I upload a sample of data, you will say I fabricated it. There is no
method I can use to prove I am not lying, because everyone knows that I
could fabricate a table, quite easily.

So, as I said, the conversation is at an end. There is nothing more I can
say.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

How somebody can read the following email of Rossi and still not "get it"?
He has a conniving mind, zero loyalty and it is evident he is capable of
manipulating experiments, "making up discussions" whatever that means,
taking advantage of people and situations.
Given his already tattered past, it is more than clear he should not be
trusted under any circumstances. Yes, he "did a masterpiece" as he claimed,
a masterpiece of fraud and manipulation having so many people believing in
him and his bullshit.

Rossi's lies, manipulations and scheming:

"With this company Hydrofusion we [meaning Leonardo and Rossi] had agreed
upon a draft to sell them IP, know how and manufacturing license for Europe
but Germany, France and Italy. By our law, if you send a proposal you are
engaged to accept if the proposee accepts all the conditions of the
proposal. After receiving your last text at the end of August I decided to
go ahead with you, therefore I had to get rid of this engagement. The only
way out was to invite them to a test, ask them to bring with them their
consultant. I made the test abort, maintaining the temperatures below the
starting limit. Then I made up some discussions, I said they made a wrong
test, they escaped, I am free. We did not have damages of image, because,
knowing what was on the road, I had made before their test a disclaimer,
saying that the Hot temperature E-Cat was just a prototype, still under
test and validation and subject to modification, thing that I am repeating
everywhere. Now I am publishing that I am surprised of all this ado for
nothing, since I already said that for the Hot Cat we needed more tests
before saying it is a product ready for the market. At this point we can
organize with Cherokee a world strategy, since all the other licensees are
just commercial: for example in Africa we will have just to pay a royalty
to the local agent upon our sale price, but they all are very good and they
can sell either energy or plants. Nobody has rights upon the IP, know how,
manufacturing and so on. Warmest Regards, Andrea"

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> You left out most of what I wrote, cherry picking like Murray does.
> You claim to know what I WILL think.  What you write is not believable.
> You are wrong about that too.
>
>
>
> On 8/12/2016 9:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> Jed  Rossi and Penon stuffed their data tables with identical &
>> impossible numbers, and they showed excess power on days when Rossi in his
>> blog said the machine was turned off.
>> AA How can one tell that without seeing Penon's report?  Second hand info
>> from Murray is not proof.
>>
>
> You have second hand info from me and from Murray. If that is not proof
> enough, you will not believe Penon's report either. You will say it is fake.
>
> What you are saying here is that Murray and I are liars. There is no
> response I can make to that which will change your mind. The conversation
> is at an end.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:


> What I don't understand is why there are not ongoing criminal
> investigations for Rossi, Fabian and Penon, the fraudulent gang, instead of
> only civil law implications.
>

If there were such investigations, I doubt we would hear about them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You left out most of what I wrote, cherry picking like Murray does.
You claim to know what I WILL think.  What you write is not believable.
You are wrong about that too.


On 8/12/2016 9:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed Rossi and Penon stuffed their data tables with identical &
impossible numbers, and they showed excess power on days when
Rossi in his blog said the machine was turned off.
AA How can one tell that without seeing Penon's report? Second
hand info from Murray is not proof.


You have second hand info from me and from Murray. If that is not 
proof enough, you will not believe Penon's report either. You will say 
it is fake.


What you are saying here is that Murray and I are liars. There is no 
response I can make to that which will change your mind. The 
conversation is at an end.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Giovanni Santostasi 
wrote:

What I don't understand is why there are not ongoing criminal
> investigations for Rossi, Fabian and Penon, the fraudulent gang, instead of
> only civil law implications.
>

This is something I've been wondering myself.  I would not be surprised if
there is an FBI investigation under way, and they're still looking into the
situation.  I think they like to keep things under wraps for as long as
possible.

I'm having trouble tracking down the amount of money involved, but I got
the impression somewhere that there was less money involved when the FBI
raided Inteligentry.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Giovanni Santostasi]

What I don't understand is why there are not ongoing criminal
investigations for Rossi, Fabian and Penon, the fraudulent gang, instead of
only civil law implications.
It is likely that Rossi and company activities were criminal and not just
bad business practices.
It saddens me to say this about my Italian compatriots but all the evidence
points to the fact that Rossi did it again: another criminal scam.

Giovanni


On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective
>> Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation . . .
>>
>
> True. But you don't have to prove it. You just have to show it is very
> likely, with the fewest entities (Ockham's razor). Science is not about
> absolutes, or perfect assurance.
>
> Some philosophers of science go so far as to say that whether something is
> objectively true in the real world does not even matter, as long as it is
> true as far as you can tell, or more true than any rival hypothesis. You
> can't tell if it is "really" true, and it doesn't matter. True enough is
> good enough.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Jed  Rossi and Penon stuffed their data tables with identical & impossible
> numbers, and they showed excess power on days when Rossi in his blog said
> the machine was turned off.
> AA How can one tell that without seeing Penon's report?  Second hand info
> from Murray is not proof.
>

You have second hand info from me and from Murray. If that is not proof
enough, you will not believe Penon's report either. You will say it is fake.

What you are saying here is that Murray and I are liars. There is no
response I can make to that which will change your mind. The conversation
is at an end.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
AA ,I have maintained from the beginning it was too early to tell the 
performance of the plant until more FACTS were available

Jed  The facts are now available.
AA.  Oh Yes?  Where can I see Penon's report or a piping diagram?

AA  You were wrong about Vaughn not being emp;poyed by Cherokee.
Jed  I do not know why you are hung up on it, but I suggest you ignore it.
AA  Because you said I made it up and I then showed you proof the IH had 
lied about it and you were wrong.


Jed  Rossi and Penon stuffed their data tables with identical & 
impossible numbers, and they showed excess power on days when Rossi in 
his blog said the machine was turned off.
AA How can one tell that without seeing Penon's report?  Second hand 
info from Murray is not proof.


AA  As I've said before only a diagram of the piping will allow an 
engineer to judge the lightly hood of problems.
Jed  Nonsense. Half full pipes are common. Anyone can tell a pipe is 
half full by watching the water fall from it, and by various other means.
AA  Watching the water fall from a pipe in a closed system? That's even 
weaker than the stains.


AA  Why should I believe an electronics guy employed by IH over a 
qualified independent expert like Dr. Penon?
Jed  Because it physically impossible for a flow rate to be EXACTLY 
36,000 kg a day for months; because the flow meter was obviously 
unsuited to the task and an idiotic choice; because the pipe was half-full;
AA  I don't know that without seeing Penon's report and a piping 
diagram.  Why was the flow meter unsuitable when it has been shown to be 
accurate at those flow rates?

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I have maintained from the beginning it was too early to tell the
> performance of the plant until more FACTS were available
>

The facts are now available.



> Saying that you know but it is secret doesn't wash.
>

All of my important secrets were revealed by Exhibit 5. There are only a
few minor details left. You may doubt that the assertions in Exhibit 5 are
correct, but I know that they are. If you will assume for the sake of
argument this document tells the truth, you will see why I say Rossi is
lying and his claims are nonsense.



>   You were wrong about Vaughn not being emp;poyed by Cherokee.
>

That is not a technical issue. It has no bearing on calorimetry, data, or
the instruments. I do not know why you are hung up on it, but I suggest you
ignore it. I suggest you concentrate on facts such the fact that Rossi and
Penon stuffed their data tables with identical & impossible numbers, and
they showed excess power on days when Rossi in his blog said the machine
was turned off. Think about the fact that no heat was detected coming from
the pretend customer site. If you cannot explain these facts, and they
seems to indicate fraud to you, that is because it *is* fraud.

Do not tell me these things are lies, or misunderstandings or not true. I
expect you believe that, but it is not a valid argument to dissuade me. I
know these things to be true. I have seen proof of various types. There is
no point to telling me I have not. At best you should say that you are
still not convinced Rossi actually wrote 36,000 kg in every day, including
days when the reactor was turned off. You don't believe it. Fine, but don't
tell me I should not believe it, because I have seen proof.


  The so called secret things that came out with Exhibit 5 all seem to have
> faded except the half full pipe.
>

Nothing has faded. Every claim is confirmed by Rossi's own data and by
other eyewitness observers. The fact that Rossi & Penon never responded,
even though valid answers would have brought them $89 million, proves
beyond doubt that the claims are real. If there was any way to disprove
them, Rossi would have.



>   As I've said before only a diagram of the piping will allow an engineer
> to judge the lightly hood of problems.
>

Nonsense. Half full pipes are common. Anyone can tell a pipe is half full
by watching the water fall from it, and by various other means.



>   Your second hand info from Murray means nothing.
>

How do you know it is second hand? Rossi's own data confirms most of it.
What better source could there be?



> Why should I believe an electronics guy employed by IH over a qualified
> independent expert like Dr. Penon?
>

Because it physically impossible for a flow rate to be EXACTLY 36,000 kg a
day for months; because the flow meter was obviously unsuited to the task
and an idiotic choice; because the pipe was half-full; because ambient
temperature in a Florida warehouse are never EXACTLY the same for days on
end . . . and for many other reasons. This is not Murray versus Penon, to
be judged on their professional qualifications. This is case of blatantly
fake data and a ridiculous travesty of a test. You don't need Murray. You,
I, or anyone else looking at the data and the facts presented in Exhibit 5
could instantly see it was bullshit. I saw that in a few minutes. If you
cannot see that, you are not a good judge of experiments or engineering.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[a.ashfield]

I have maintained from the beginning it was too early to tell the 
performance of the plant until more FACTS were available
Saying that you know but it is secret doesn't wash.  You were wrong 
about Vaughn not being emp;poyed by Cherokee.  The so called secret 
things that came out with Exhibit 5 all seem to have faded except the 
half full pipe.  As I've said before only a diagram of the piping will 
allow an engineer to judge the lightly hood of problems.  Your second 
hand info from Murray means nothing.
Why should I believe an electronics guy employed by IH over a qualified 
independent expert like Dr. Penon?



On 8/11/2016 8:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If there had been some way of determining how full the pipe was,
besides stains, Murray would have mentioned it.


There are other ways, and he did mention them. But not to you. Not yet.

Again, you suffer from the illusion that fact X which you personally 
have not seen cannot exist.


Has it occurred to you that you may not have heard the whole story?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> If there had been some way of determining how full the pipe was, besides
> stains, Murray would have mentioned it.
>

There are other ways, and he did mention them. But not to you. Not yet.

Again, you suffer from the illusion that fact X which you personally have
not seen cannot exist.

Has it occurred to you that you may not have heard the whole story?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective
> Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation . . .
>

True. But you don't have to prove it. You just have to show it is very
likely, with the fewest entities (Ockham's razor). Science is not about
absolutes, or perfect assurance.

Some philosophers of science go so far as to say that whether something is
objectively true in the real world does not even matter, as long as it is
true as far as you can tell, or more true than any rival hypothesis. You
can't tell if it is "really" true, and it doesn't matter. True enough is
good enough.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Che]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

>
>
> On 08/11/2016 06:21 PM, Che wrote:
>
>
>
> But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective
>> Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation, and
>> that the people around you are real. You can't prove your axioms. That's
>> why they're axioms. We take it on faith that what appears to be an
>> objective Universe, with rules which are the same for everyone, is true.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. Your metaphysical claims
> demand more than intellectual wankerism.
>
>
> I'm not making an extraordinary claim. You are! You're claiming we live in
> an objective Universe; a claim you can't prove.
>
> Axioms can't be proven either way. This is why they are axioms. Otherwise,
> they would be deductions from other axioms.
>
> Craig
>

Medieval Schoolman logic in response to Science marks its return...

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Craig Haynie]

On 08/11/2016 06:21 PM, Che wrote:



But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an
Objective Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some
computer simulation, and that the people around you are real. You
can't prove your axioms. That's why they're axioms. We take it on
faith that what appears to be an objective Universe, with rules
which are the same for everyone, is true.

Craig


Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. Your metaphysical 
claims demand more than intellectual wankerism.


I'm not making an extraordinary claim. You are! You're claiming we live 
in an objective Universe; a claim you can't prove.


Axioms can't be proven either way. This is why they are axioms. 
Otherwise, they would be deductions from other axioms.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Craig Haynie]

On 08/11/2016 05:47 PM, Che wrote:



On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:




Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.

Craig


Having faith in things which can be proven to be true or not true -- 
i.e. Science --  is not at all the same thing as having blind faith.


That is religious.


But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective 
Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation, 
and that the people around you are real. You can't prove your axioms. 
That's why they're axioms. We take it on faith that what appears to be 
an objective Universe, with rules which are the same for everyone, is true.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Che]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

> On 08/11/2016 05:47 PM, Che wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
> Having faith in things which can be proven to be true or not true -- i.e.
> Science --  is not at all the same thing as having blind faith.
>
> That is religious.
>
>
> But this is the point: You can't prove that we live in an Objective
> Universe. You can't prove that you're not in some computer simulation, and
> that the people around you are real. You can't prove your axioms. That's
> why they're axioms. We take it on faith that what appears to be an
> objective Universe, with rules which are the same for everyone, is true.
>
> Craig
>
>
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs. Your metaphysical claims
demand more than intellectual wankerism.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Che]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> The word "faith" has several definitions. It means different things.
>

The #1 reason why people argue futilely (in good 'faith'; deception is
irrelevant here) -- anywhere, for any reason -- is because at least one of
them does not understand the actual context of the terminology used in the
argument.

Simple as that.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Che]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

>
> >>>The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.
> >>>
> >>>- Jed
>
>
> Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.
>
> Craig
>
>
Having faith in things which can be proven to be true or not true -- i.e.
Science --  is not at all the same thing as having blind faith.

That is religious.

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[David Roberson]

Good idea.  We need to understand what mechanisms are possible.

Perhaps MFMP can monitor the AC input power to the motor as a function of the 
pipe fill.  That may be a simple way to verify the flow meter readings to a 
first order.  I am assuming that these guys connect both the proper pump and 
flow meter together for a reliable test.

An ideal test would also include placing a strong flow restriction ahead of the 
flow meter and pump combination.  It seems logical that such a restriction 
would lead to cavitation within the pump as the flow rate of the water is 
reduced.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 11, 2016 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!



The enemies of LENR will persist in using this flow meter meme until it is 
shown to be a fantasy.


Bob Greenyer mentioned that it might be time to verify the Rossi flow meter to 
see how it could be defeated in experiments. MFMP can then become a friend of 
the court and offer unbiased experimental experience to confirm or deny the 
accusations made about the 1 year test.








On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:

the manual warns agains dispersion of air in the pipe not flowing half full.
I have a plumber friend indeed but he will not know how to make this strange 
thing. Are yo aware of what you say? Do you take responsibility? I understand 
everything- your role in this affair, your methods, your nastuiness, youyr 
hatred but telling this half full ineptness is unbelievable, I am seriously 
worried for you. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS INDEED?
If yes you have to take a test 


peter




On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:


Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

and how could they been seen as having rusty stains demonstrating your absurd " 
half full" idea?



Half full pipes are common, not absurd. If they were absurd, the manufacturer 
would not warn against them in the manual.


How were they seen . . . Interesting question. If you wanted to look inside a 
flow meter, how would you do it? Can you think of a way?


 


NOT Rossi has said this!




Rossi has not admitted to any of the problems in Exhibit 5, but all of those 
problems are real. I saw many of them myself, looking at sample of the data. 
Murray saw much more than I did.


 


Retract it and remember you was once a LENR faithfull!



I did not say it, so I can't retract it. The people at I.H. said it.


The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.


- Jed










-- 

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

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Axil Axil]

The enemies of LENR will persist in using this flow meter meme until it is
shown to be a fantasy.

Bob Greenyer mentioned that it might be time to verify the Rossi flow meter
to see how it could be defeated in experiments. MFMP can then become a
friend of the court and offer unbiased experimental experience to confirm
or deny the accusations made about the 1 year test.



On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> the manual warns agains dispersion of air in the pipe not flowing half
> full.
> I have a plumber friend indeed but he will not know how to make this
> strange thing. Are yo aware of what you say? Do you take responsibility? I
> understand everything- your role in this affair, your methods, your
> nastuiness, youyr hatred but telling this half full ineptness is
> unbelievable, I am seriously worried for you. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS INDEED?
> If yes you have to take a test
>
> peter
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> and how could they been seen as having rusty stains demonstrating your
>>> absurd " half full" idea?
>>>
>>
>> Half full pipes are common, not absurd. If they were absurd, the
>> manufacturer would not warn against them in the manual.
>>
>> How were they seen . . . Interesting question. If you wanted to look
>> inside a flow meter, how would you do it? Can you think of a way?
>>
>>
>>
>>> NOT Rossi has said this!
>>>
>>
>> Rossi has not admitted to any of the problems in Exhibit 5, but all of
>> those problems are real. I saw many of them myself, looking at sample of
>> the data. Murray saw much more than I did.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Retract it and remember you was once a LENR faithfull!
>>>
>>
>> I did not say it, so I can't retract it. The people at I.H. said it.
>>
>> The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> >>>The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.
> >>>
> >>>- Jed
>
>
> Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.
>

I think that is more confidence than faith. Per David Hume's philosophy.

The word "faith" has several definitions. It means different things. I
would say #1 below applies to science somewhat, but the others do not:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning
honesty. . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Craig Haynie]

>>>The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.


- Jed



Actually, you have to have faith in an objective Universe.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Peter Gluck]

the manual warns agains dispersion of air in the pipe not flowing half full.
I have a plumber friend indeed but he will not know how to make this
strange thing. Are yo aware of what you say? Do you take responsibility? I
understand everything- your role in this affair, your methods, your
nastuiness, youyr hatred but telling this half full ineptness is
unbelievable, I am seriously worried for you. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS INDEED?
If yes you have to take a test

peter

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> and how could they been seen as having rusty stains demonstrating your
>> absurd " half full" idea?
>>
>
> Half full pipes are common, not absurd. If they were absurd, the
> manufacturer would not warn against them in the manual.
>
> How were they seen . . . Interesting question. If you wanted to look
> inside a flow meter, how would you do it? Can you think of a way?
>
>
>
>> NOT Rossi has said this!
>>
>
> Rossi has not admitted to any of the problems in Exhibit 5, but all of
> those problems are real. I saw many of them myself, looking at sample of
> the data. Murray saw much more than I did.
>
>
>
>> Retract it and remember you was once a LENR faithfull!
>>
>
> I did not say it, so I can't retract it. The people at I.H. said it.
>
> The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> and how could they been seen as having rusty stains demonstrating your
> absurd " half full" idea?
>

Half full pipes are common, not absurd. If they were absurd, the
manufacturer would not warn against them in the manual.

How were they seen . . . Interesting question. If you wanted to look inside
a flow meter, how would you do it? Can you think of a way?



> NOT Rossi has said this!
>

Rossi has not admitted to any of the problems in Exhibit 5, but all of
those problems are real. I saw many of them myself, looking at sample of
the data. Murray saw much more than I did.



> Retract it and remember you was once a LENR faithfull!
>

I did not say it, so I can't retract it. The people at I.H. said it.

The word "faithful" has no place in science or engineering.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Peter Gluck]

thanks,
and how could they been seen as having rusty stains demonstrating your
absurd " half full" idea?

Sincerely this is the most stupid idea heard in this year- why do you
insist?
You risk to become "half full Jed."

NOT Rossi has said this!
Retract it and remember you was once a LENR faithfull!
peter


On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> do you know exactly what are and what function have "static vanes"
>>
> and where are they placed in the piping?
>>
>
> I do not know. It sounds like part of the rotor mechanism that does not
> turn. Perhaps it is the thing called the "łożyska twarde" (Polish) in the
> diagram on p. 2, here:
>
> http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Przetworniki_
> przeplywu_do_cieplomierzy/MWN130-NC_MP130-NC/karta-mwn-nc130.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

do you know exactly what are and what function have "static vanes"
>
and where are they placed in the piping?
>

I do not know. It sounds like part of the rotor mechanism that does not
turn. Perhaps it is the thing called the "łożyska twarde" (Polish) in the
diagram on p. 2, here:

http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Przetworniki_przeplywu_do_cieplomierzy/MWN130-NC_MP130-NC/karta-mwn-nc130.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Peter Gluck]

Jed,

do you know exactly what are and what function have "static vanes"
and where are they placed in the piping?
peter

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> No.  All I have from IH is second hand information from you that Murray
>> says.
>>
>
> That's better than second hand information from Rossi.
>
>
>
>>   I have pointed out errors in exhibit 5.
>>
>
> You have pointed out what you believe to be errors, but you are wrong.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

No.  All I have from IH is second hand information from you that Murray
> says.
>

That's better than second hand information from Rossi.



>   I have pointed out errors in exhibit 5.
>

You have pointed out what you believe to be errors, but you are wrong.

- Jed