Jed,
you can now prove that you have good sources of information;
can you please explain Item 49 from the Miami Court pacermaker
explaining us what has Cherokee et al withdrawn and especially WHY?
Is this an "elastic" withdrawal?
Anyway it sounds not well for "somebody" claiming to have 6 aces in
Peter Gluck wrote:
you can now prove that you have good sources of information;
> can you please explain Item 49 from the Miami Court pacermaker
> explaining us what has Cherokee et al withdrawn and especially WHY?
>
I know nothing about laws or lawsuits, and I have not
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-18-2016-lenr-from-incompatibility.html
wishing you a fine weekend-end
peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Thanks! What has surprised me (beyond the genuine legal
aspects) was the chlorotic (weakling) character of their arguments as I
have shown in my EGO OUT editorials of:
Sep 06- "A Stake in Dracula's Heart..(Exhibit 5);
Sep 13- Myths of proofs
You cannot go to a Trial with incredible storiesas
dear Jones,
some 10% of the sum in dispute usually goes to the attorney, lawyers,
hudges...everywhere.
Te problem depends on the reality of the technology of Rossi and on the
billionaire or not statuses of Darden and Vaughn.
peter
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Jones Beene
To be brutally honest – why should any of us waste time over the minutiae of
this case? It’s all about “billable hours” … and if anything changes before the
trial, usually it’s less likely to favor the plaintiff.
The going rate for top corporate law firms is over $1000 per hour. (Forbes
Peter Gluck wrote:
You cannot go to a Trial with incredible storiesas half full pipes in the
> plant (you defended it heroically but I am convinced you do not take it
> seriously)
>
Of course I am serious. I have uploaded photos of half-full pipes. This
pipe is not
The is no power requirement defined in the licence agreement. As long as
the steam temperature is 100C and the COP is greater than 4, then
requirements are meet. The reactor could be off for 23.95 hours, be when it
functions, it must been the "100C and the COP is greater than 4"
requirement. Your
From: Peter Gluck
Ø dear Jones, some 10% of the sum in dispute usually goes to the attorney,
lawyers, hudges...everywhere.
Very funny. I mistook this for a serious discussion… unless you are implying
that this trial will cost Rossi and IH together about $10 million, no matter
what
Axil Axil wrote:
The is no power requirement defined in the licence agreement. As long as
> the steam temperature is 100C and the COP is greater than 4, then
> requirements are meet.
>
A COP of 4 would mean the output is 80 kW. The room would be quite warm if
there were this
An power output of 3 KW would still meet the licence requirements. Can't
you understand that power level is not required? Your arguments are
classic red herring propaganda.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Axil Axil wrote:
>
>
I mean to say:
1.4 tons of steam cannot magically disappear. It has to be released to the
atmosphere, and NO heat plume was detected.
No plume of hot air or steam. This would be easy to detect. It would be
impossible to hide. There is no reason why Rossi would hide it, as I said.
He claimed that
Jed,
The photos up;oaded have nothing to do with the plant, you must know well
the diagram and half full pipes are not good even as joke
The idea of not pressurized is a new ineptness. Kind of kitschy vaudeville.
Are you aware that if Rosi does not explain thee nergy consuume to the
Judge the
Peter Gluck wrote:
> The photos up;oaded have nothing to do with the plant . . .
>
You are wrong. Those are photos of the plant, and the plant ceiling, which
has no ventilation equipment capable of removing 1 MW, or even 100 kW.
I am sure those are photos of the plant.
On 09/18/2016 04:54 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Peter Gluck
Ødear Jones,some 10% of the sum in dispute usually goes to the
attorney, lawyers, hudges...everywhere.
Very funny. I mistook this for a serious discussion…
Hasn't been that, for at least a couple months.
It is clear that
Axil Axil wrote:
An power output of 3 KW would still meet the licence requirements.
>
The input was ~20 kW. Do you mean a power output of 23 kW would satisfy the
requirements?
I am sure that if I.H. had measured 23 kW with confidence, and Rossi had
transferred the IP, they
Well then, your whole line of argument involving half filled pipes,
ventilation holes, fans, people dying from heat exhaustion really is a
waste of time for yourself and everybody else. You are wasting megatones of
internet ink for no proper effect.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi might lie all the time, but if that lie is not material in meeting
> the legal requirements of the licence, then whatever Rossi might say is
> immaterial.
>
There is no excess heat. The legal requirements of the license are not met
for that reason.
Axil Axil wrote:
Well then, your whole line of argument involving half filled pipes,
> ventilation holes, fans, people dying from heat exhaustion really is a
> waste of time for yourself and everybody else.
>
What are you talking about? Rossi claimed the device was producing
Rossi might lie all the time, but if that lie is not material in meeting
the legal requirements of the licence, then whatever Rossi might say is
immaterial. Jed, you should take a course in systems engineering and
understand how requirements are meet in a test.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:59 PM,
20 matches
Mail list logo