Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield wrote: It is not that clear. Rossi maintains IH have not fulfilled the terms of > the agreement and his lawyer has issued a public statement saying that IH's > license has been withdrawn for said reason. So who owns what will

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

No. What you said, many times, categorically, was that it was impossible to measure the output without knowing where the generated heat went. If as you now agree it was possible, why didn't IH insist on doing it? I don't buy that ii was Rossi's refusal. The ERV could have been persuaded

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Rossi has alway wanted to run his own manufacturing operation. Inventing a LENR reactor is just a step to that goal. It is inevitable that Rossi and IH would come to loggerheads over LENR reactor production. Rossi wants to call the shots. It was inevitable that Rossi and IH would part ways. Rossi

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Axil Axil wrote: Clearly, Rossi's reaction is LENR active. It has been replicated by many > people. > Not as far as I know. Who has replicated it? Other people have observed heat from nickel, but they did that before Rossi. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Axil Axil wrote: A number of Russians, a number of Chinese, and Me356. > I have been in close contact with the Russians and two of the Chinese. I do not believe their results. I have no knowledge of Me356. (Nor would I deal with him or her or it. I never deal with people who

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:56 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Which bit of "DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR." do you not > understand? > Please state why that has any relevance to the purchasing of fish, or the construction of furniture, or Rossi's obtaining funding to

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > AA. Don't be silly. I was saying that technically I could instrument a > black box to measure the steam/water output. > Well of course you could! So could I; so could anyone. But Rossi did not do this, and he refused to let anyone else do this. >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:58 PM, a.ashfield wrote: As I said, this is lawyer fodder. The Chief Justice once said "The law is > an ass" so anything might happen. > Perhaps. But the larger point is that Rossi is not acting upon a realistic assessment of what lies within

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

The best witness to Rossi overunity is IH who awarded him 11.5 million for a test of the reactor that meet or exceeded a COP of 6. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > A number of Russians, a number of Chinese,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, a.ashfield wrote: I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the trial. > The question is, do you? > There are the legal questions, and there are the questions of behavior. Rossi may be found innocent by a court of law,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

I don't recall that. Care to give an actual quote they felt that way at the BEGINNING? Press statements a year later don't hack it. On 6/4/2016 4:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: You keep on about IH's expertise: why

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

I don't understand the first paragraph. What you wrote was: "As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is ultimately a legal question rather than a technical question, given what we know of the absurd circumstances of the test. And my bets are on Jones Day with regard to any legal

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Eric. If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous > testing. > > AA. Why the hell should he? He doesn't owe you anything and it is not in > his interest to do prove it to academia. I rather doubt

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything. No one outside his team does. I am outside of his team, and I know he has nothing. Anyone who read his statement to Lewan about blocking the door can see he has nothing. That plus his magically round numbers show

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Eric. There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of > what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any scientist > with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests. > > AA. Oh yes?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Looks like Jed sort of maybe believes in Clarke's Law. On 6/4/2016 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil > wrote: A number of Russians, a number of Chinese, and Me356. I have been in close contact with the Russians and two of the Chinese.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

The fact is academia examined Fleischmann and Pon's results and declared it pseudo science. DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR. What more proof do you need? Which of Jed's comments was "cogent"? The ERV's report is technical not legal. What "absurd" circumstances for the test?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: If IH says something that may not be true either. > True, but they have more credibility than Rossi. More important, the most damaging information against Rossi comes from statements that Rossi himself made. His blocking the door and his magical round

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. But the real reason was because others replicated them AA. The real problem was because early flubbed attempts to replicate them failed. Plus it was not understood how it could be possible. Jed. Since all other methods showed no excess heat, it was necessary to measure the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

My conclusion is that Rossi's behavior has been abominable, and that he shouldn't be given a free pass. If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous testing. He seems to want to take shortcuts and to undermine any tests that are carried out, in private or in public. And he

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric. If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous testing. AA. Why the hell should he? He doesn't owe you anything and it is not in his interest to do prove it to academia. I rather doubt that would be possible anyway, as they think LENR is impossible.Think

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > Eric. If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous > testing. > > AA. Why the hell should he? He doesn't owe you anything and it is not in > his interest to do prove it to academia. > He owed it to I.H. It was his contract

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > AA. Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is not > acknowledged to this very day. > They persuaded hundreds of scientists within a year. Granted they had credibility. But the real reason was because others replicated them. No

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Good point! But it is a 7 day demo On 6/4/2016 4:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote: He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for them right now as we speak. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: Axil, It

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

What "atrocious behavior"? Or are you looking for an excuse to bring up ad hominems about his ancient legal troubles in Italy? On 6/4/2016 5:13 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: I KNOW the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Which bit of "DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR." do you not understand? I have been through Jed's arguments and found they didn't stand scrutiny. I have no desire to repeat them all once again. If you have a specific problem show it and I will answer. On 6/4/2016 5:50 PM, Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > Jed. Since all other methods showed no excess heat, it was necessary to > measure the dissipation. > > AA. That would be all that's need if it were true. > I think you mean if the other methods show no excess heat, it would be needed. Yes. If you

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have allowed the year long test to go forward, or at least they should have formally told Rossi that they would not respect the results of the test even if Rossi insisted on performing the test. harry On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:19 PM,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

This is a civil case. No one is guilty on either side. Criminal law does not apply so let's forget about the issue of innocent until proven guilty. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 4, 2016 5:09

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Clearly, Rossi's reaction is LENR active. It has been replicated by many people. This concern is...is the Rossi tech at a sufficiently advanced stage where it able to be commercialized? IH for whatever reason does not want to commercialise Rossi's tech. This does not mean that Rossi's reactor

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for them right now as we speak. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Axil, > It looks like Rossi is now planning to go ahead b himself, using ABB > robotics. With the new QuarkX being so small

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the trial. The question is, do you? On 6/4/2016 4:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: Like Jed, you conclude he is guilty until

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Rossi regretted the IH hookup very early on in the deal and that got Rossi's defence mechanisms fired up way before the 1 year test was designed. We might think of that test as the first stage of a court battle to come from the first days that the test was conducted. All the interfaces and

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: No. I meant that if the ERV's instrumentation showed no heat, if the > instrumentation was proper and in good working order, there would be no > need to look further > The expert wanted to give Rossi every possible opportunity to prove his point, so

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

As I said, this is lawyer fodder. The Chief Justice once said "The law is an ass" so anything might happen. On 6/4/2016 1:34 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: It is not that clear. Rossi

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, You are ignoring what I said. I wasn't talking about Rossi stopping IH from visiting the customer's premises, but whether he could stop IH from insisting on proper instrumentation through the ERV before the test even started. You keep on about IH's expertise: why did they agree to what

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > You keep on about IH's expertise: why did they agree to what was done? > They emphatically did not agree! That is what they said their press releases and motion to dismiss. > What he owed to IH was what an ERV provided. > Not according to the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Axil, It looks like Rossi is now planning to go ahead b himself, using ABB robotics. With the new QuarkX being so small it is possible for him to do so. I would have thought that he would need a rich partner as starting production will probably cost more than he estimates. Perhaps one is

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

So you don't have an answer to my question about why expert IH did not insist on proper instrumentation at the start. No. Complaining about it a year later, no matter how formally, does not hack it. On 6/4/2016 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

No. I meant that if the ERV's instrumentation showed no heat, if the instrumentation was proper and in good working order, there would be no need to look further I note you now claim to have seen several million bits of data and Rossi's analysis. Care to share that? On 6/4/2016 7:41 PM,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

H LV wrote: ​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have allowed > the year long test to go forward . . . > Apparently they could not stop it. I do not know why. I know nothing at all about the contract or agreements or why Rossi ended up in charge.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > We will see soon enough. I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will give > positive results. If that happens it will alter the game. > I kind of doubt these tests are underway, or that the QuarkX exists. But I wouldn't know. > I gather that you are

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > I said that IH had signed an agreement not to enter the customer's > premises for IP reasons. > I doubt they signed any such contract, but signing one "for IP reasons" makes no sense whatever. If the customer had any IP it could easily be hidden from

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

For those that think I am blindly supporting Rossi, my position is as follows. I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything. No one outside his team does. I think it likely that he does because of what he has demonstrated and that others have reproduced to some extent. Also his E-Cats can get a

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Eric Walker wrote: [Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What "absurd" >> circumstances for the test? You know what the ERV did? >> > I misquoted myself, above. That was Adrian, not me. The ERV report is presumably

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, a.ashfield wrote: I don't understand the first paragraph. What you wrote was: > "As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is ultimately a legal > question rather than a technical question, given what we know of the absurd >

[Vo]:Saga of the Rossi Cheer Leading squad

Once again I have temporarily rejoined Vortex while I wait for my primary PC to be fixed at the repair shop. Something Jed recently stated, I think, bears repeating: > It is possible Rossi is a genius, an inventor, a fraud and a con man > -- all at the same time. That is how I would

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Like Jed, you conclude he is guilty until proven innocent. > Rossi is suing IH, which are the ones to be assumed innocent until proven guilty under US law. By contrast, we have five years of Rossi's comments and behavior

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Axil Axil wrote: He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for them right > now as we speak. > Where did you get this information? If you heard this from Rossi, and there is no independent confirmation, I advise you to be careful. It may not be true. -

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric. There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any scientist with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests. AA. Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is not acknowledged to this

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: I don't recall that. Care to give an actual quote they felt that way at > the BEGINNING? > The did not reveal that fact until the March 10 press release. However, I and some other people were aware they were not happy with the tests. As I said here

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, a.ashfield wrote: The fact is academia examined Fleischmann and Pon's results and declared it > pseudo science. DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR. What more > proof do you need? > You seem to have mistaken another position for

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

We will see soon enough. I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will give positive results. If that happens it will alter the game. I gather that you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work. I don't consider that proven. On 6/4/2016 2:12 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:58

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, It is quite another for you to repeatedly assert that Rossi must have a legitimate reason to block the door AA. We have been though this at least three times. Why? I said that IH had signed an agreement not to enter the customer's premises for IP reasons. Also that it was not

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: No. What you said, many times, categorically, was that it was impossible to > measure the output without knowing where the generated heat went. > I said it is impossible with this configuration. Obviously, HVAC engineers measure the heat without

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

A number of Russians, a number of Chinese, and Me356. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > Clearly, Rossi's reaction is LENR active. It has been replicated by many >> people. >> > > Not as far as I know. Who has

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

If IH says something that may not be true either. On 6/4/2016 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil > wrote: He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for them right now as we speak. Where did you get this

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Credibility? https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4258.pdf http://www.willkie.com/~/media/Files/Publications/2015/11/SEC_Brings_Additional_Enforcement_Actions_Related_to_Private_Equity.pdf

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:32 PM, a.ashfield wrote: What "atrocious behavior"? > I do not wish to go into ad hominem with regard to Rossi more than I already have. But anyone who has followed this list for more than a year will either know what I'm talking about or will

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow improper > instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin with. It doesn't make > sense. > They did not want to allow this. It was a bone of contention. Rossi wanted one set of instruments

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

H LV wrote: > I am sure they did tell him that! >> > ​​ > > ​You know they did, or you presume they did?​ > They told me they did. Why wouldn't they? - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric Walker wrote: We don't have more than a vague clue what was said and by whom, sitting in > the peanut gallery. > I.H. has not said much, but their statements have been clear. > For example, IH might have told the ERV that his proposal for > instrumentation wasn't

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:31 PM, a.ashfield wrote: No. that is not what I said or meant. To repeat it, why wouldn't IH have > told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wouldn't be satisfactory > before the test started? IF they accepted it, it's no good

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Jed, it doesn't matter how many times you make the same charges. IH says > one thing and Rossi another. Until there are actual facts to look at. like > the instrumentation used and the results, it is not possible to know the > truth. > I have looked

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion. Another story is that IH never tried to find a customer and then blamed Rossi for starting late. Or maybe didn't get all the partners to sign the agreement with the modified test procedures so they could claim it was invalid? Of accepted

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

No. that is not what I said or meant. To repeat it, why wouldn't IH have told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wouldn't be satisfactory before the test started? IF they accepted it, it's no good complaining later. Further, we only have Jed's secondhand word for it that is was

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > H LV wrote: > > ​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have allowed >> the year long test to go forward . . . >> > > Apparently they could not stop it. I do not know why. I

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Ah. You're sure of it so that's case settled. Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime? On 6/4/2016 10:30 PM, H LV wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: H LV

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:50 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion. > I got that impression from observing Rossi's poor behavior over many years, and from observing what seems like forbearance on the part of IH, especially as seen from

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Yes, it seems ridiculous on the surface. Keep in mind the ERV was the referee too. Seems inconceivable to me he would not listen to valid objections from IH, so it is not a question of Rossi refusing - he would have to refuse. The guy was well enough qualified to understand the situation.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Because it would have been crazy to run a test where the outcome was not known. Half the ERV's salary was paid by IH. If they found him incompetent they should have hired someone else. On 6/4/2016 10:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: H LV >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, it doesn't matter how many times you make the same charges. IH says one thing and Rossi another. Until there are actual facts to look at. like the instrumentation used and the results, it is not possible to know the truth. You talk about "the expert" but I believe you are talking about

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Sorry Jed. No one would accept the situation you describe. If the > situation was unacceptable they should have hired another ERV. > They DID hire another expert, for crying out loud! Rossi told you they did. You don't even believe him? They sent in

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

"Jones Beene must be a lawyer..." He was - and possibly still is. ;-) On 4 June 2016 at 05:06, Axil Axil wrote: > Jones Beene: "Their opinions are* de minimis..." * > > Jones Beene must be a lawyer of at least work with them alot. > > My lawyer oftentimes describes

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/03/2016 11:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: ... his instruments produce magically round numbers. *His machine produces exactly 1 MW!* Oh wow. I missed that. That's hilarious -- totally lightened up an otherwise dreary morning!

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, Your comment “I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for the money” is an ad hominem that serves no useful purpose.If Rossi were in it for the money he could have retired long ago.He is now 66.He started by putting close to $1 million of his own money in the project from the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > Your comment “I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for the > money” is an ad hominem that serves no useful purpose. > That is my informed opinion. Furthermore, if you say that, I say your ad hominem attacks against I.H. serve no useful

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

+Jed, I have not seen much entrepreneurial spirit in your comments here. I did not know you were an entrepreneur - you hide that well. You are a believer in the governments ability to innovate and run business. Sorry, but it sounds to me as the opposite. However, I might be wrong about your

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. Your statement about having to know how the generated heat is dissipated is not true. Jed. It is the only possible way to estimate the heat production. AA. Really? I could do it but your "experts" from IH couldn't?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:52 AM, a.ashfield wrote: What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and > that was why Rossi locked his part of the building. IH became the owner of the 1MW plant with the first payment of 1.5 million dollars. Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > +Jed, I have not seen much entrepreneurial spirit in your comments here. I > did not know you were an entrepreneur - you hide that well. You are a > believer in the governments ability to innovate and run business.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA.Your comment “I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for the money” is an ad hominem that serves no useful purpose. Jed.That is my informed opinion. AA. I know it is your opinion.What useful purpose does it serve? Jed.Furthermore, if you say that, I say your ad hominem attacks

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Harry, You are right. However, that label does not say anything about the persons character or mental capacity. Entrepreneurship does not come down to good or bad. I base it on : Determination. Optimism. Stubborn. Unpredictable. Result oriented before money oriented. and a few other things I think

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > Jed. It is the only possible way to estimate the heat production. > > AA. Really? I could do it but your "experts" from IH couldn't? > No, you could not, except perhaps by ESP. Or -- what the heck -- you could just come up with some round numbers

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

Daniel Rocha wrote: So, if the heat is very small, smaller than the precision, this radiation > could be a way to measure that. > I do not think this would work with electrolysis. The background heat from electrolysis is so large, a tiny amount of excess heat measured in

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA .What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and that was why Rossi locked his part of the building. Eric. IH became the owner of the 1MW plant with the first payment of 1.5 million dollars. AA. There is the small matter of whether Rossi gets paid $89 million

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Those qualities aren't unique to entrepreneurs. They can be found in other creative people. What makes an entrepreneur special is their need to succeed in the marketplace. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Harry, > You are right. > However, that

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

My point is a narrow one. Presumably with ownership of the plant, it is/was within rights of IH to park it in a field in Nebraska, or to make a sculpture out of the scrap metal, or to drop it off of a bridge in connection with a television show. In this context, one wonders on what basis Rossi

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. It is the only possible way to estimate the heat production. AA. Really? I could do it but your "experts" from IH couldn't? Jed. No, you could not, except perhaps by ESP. Or -- what the heck -- you could just come up with some round numbers with 3 or 4 zeros, the way Rossi did.

[Vo]:LENR and the limits of analytical science

Andrea Rossi answers to the Dismiss accusations re the Test I get my portion of accusations too and I answer my way Life is still interesting Evviva LENR! peter http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-04-2016-lenr-and-limits-of.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

It is not that clear. Rossi maintains IH have not fulfilled the terms of the agreement and his lawyer has issued a public statement saying that IH's license has been withdrawn for said reason. So who owns what will be income for lawyers for a long time I imagine. There maybe IP in the new

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

I was just looking for some clarification. Harry On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > H LV wrote: > > >> I am sure they did tell him that! >>> >> ​​ >> >> ​You know they did, or you presume they did?​ >> > > They told me they did.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: No. that is not what I said or meant. To repeat it, why wouldn't IH have > told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wouldn't be satisfactory > before the test started? > They did. >IF they accepted it, it's no good complaining later. >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I have the impression I.H. was bending over backwards, trying to make him > see the light and act reasonably. I think they gave him one opportunity > after another. That is only an impression ... > Yes, this is the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Sorry Jed. No one would accept the situation you describe. If the situation was unacceptable they should have hired another ERV. They should have put it i writing, at the start, that it was not acceptable. The fact that IH have not claimed this means it is unlikely they took that action.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Because it would have been crazy to run a test where the outcome was not > known. > If the outcome is known, it isn't a test. > Half the ERV's salary was paid by IH. If they found him incompetent they > should have hired someone else. > They did

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > Of accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and then at > the end complained about it? > They complained about it all along, as I said. But you don't speak language, so you don't get that. > In the circumstances described by Jed