Well,
If they want to be consistent with their statement that they would warm up
the Police Academy they need to have an industrial facility quite close to
it. There are not many other buildings that qualify.
Giovanni
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At
At 08:25 PM 12/20/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
AND HERE IT IS !
Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If
you translate from Greek this what you get:
Former Factory Atmatzidis
Defkalion says no :
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4983#p4983
Nice find. Now all we need
is someone to do a drive by and take a few photos to see the
progress of the factory.
On 21/12/11 04:30, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
So the coordinates of the Defkalion factory are:
41.1188
24.8674
On 20/12/11 20:32, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Defkalion is not only starting a company, it is
developing revolutionary technology, dealing with complex business
arrangements, and dealing with Rossi, who is a difficult person
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess there is no evidence if you cover your eyes and your ears and yell
nya, nya, I can't hear you!! like a 5-year-old.
There is plenty of evidence if you look up Ni-H experiments at
LENR-CANR.org. There is a
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
But what is wrong with that?!? Nearly every effect discovered since 1700
has started off on a small scale, and was later scaled up:
High temperature superconductivity has not yet been scaled up successfully
for
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you know these are extravagant claims?
The claims are extravagant, whether true or not. Why else is everyone so
excited about them?
If these claims were true then they were not bluster. We don't know yet.
I
On 11-12-20 08:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Oh? On-demand production of **useful** heat? From gas phase
hydrogen on nickel, with nothing but roasting to trigger the reaction?
By roasting I assume you mean gas loading
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
AND HERE IT IS !
Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you
translate from Greek this what you get:
Former Factory Atmatzidis
It will house the 1 of the 3 plants of the company
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're being pedantic here.
I love this urban dictionary definition:
3. pedantic 76 up, 45 down
Ostentatious regarding one's intelligence. Using this word also makes
you this word.
T
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're being pedantic here.
I love this urban dictionary definition:
3. pedantic 76 up, 45 down
Ostentatious regarding one's
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Careful Terry. Mark will complain you're wasting precious Vort bandwidth...
or S/N ... or some such. Or maybe he only chases after me?
No, he knows I am the jester -- the doty old fool.
Jes doin' my yob mon.
T
Well, this is what we know at this point: there is a Police Academy in
Xanthi, there is a building that is an industrial facility at a reasonable
distance near by, somebody labeled the factory as associated with
Defkalion.
Also the article from a local Xanthi newspaper I have indicated mentions
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
But I agree with you all this doesn't prove that they will.
It just shows that if they are creating an elaborate scam they take at
least care to have some minimal props for it.
If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Careful Terry. Mark will complain you're wasting precious Vort
bandwidth...
or S/N ... or some such. Or maybe he only chases after me
Jed,
My assessment was based on what I found on the web about some of the
factual evidence as the existence of the Police Academy, industrial
buildings near by, local newspaper article and so on.
The article also mentioned the intention of the company to hire scientists
and other personnel.
Didn't you say before that they were there just to check the reactors and
not do testings? Wouldn't days count as a test? I don't get it.
2011/12/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
* Invited experts to see this for days at a time and managed to fool them.
This alone would be an astounding
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to
you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it
factual evidence at this point.
Why not?
Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
Article on Defkalion from a local Xanthi newpaper:
http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8221-o-antiktipos-gia-ti-defkalion-stin-xanthi-i-epomeni-parousiasi.html
That was from June 28, 2011 and IIRC was
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't you say before that they were there just to check the reactors and
not do testings? Wouldn't days count as a test? I don't get it.
No, I said No tests were done by this observer (actually observers)
meaning they did not bring their own
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?
The thing is we don't know. I doubt your above rather extreme propositions
but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to erroneous
With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The
path of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little
about constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of
this information one can apply it for useful science.
I think in general the
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to
erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible
as the proposition that the information is correct.
Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a
On 11-12-21 03:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com
mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
All the other statements you make are based on your witness's
report to you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I
don't consider it factual
But there is also scientific fraud, Unfortunately it happens everywhere
even in prestigious institutions. There are even Science and Nature
articles that have been retracted because the results described were shown
later to be fraudulent.
Scientists that have put a lot of stakes in a line of
Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
Harry
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The path
of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries.
Not always. In many cases, only one witness sees them. In all cases of
birdwatch sightings, or right whale sightings, only one observer sees them.
Until LENR is something
When the technology gets to that stage, it will be powering your home.
Amazing that you suggest successful replication by amateurs is needed
before main stream science acceptance. Oh BTW that happened in 2002:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#HighSchoolStudents They saw
excess heat and
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to
erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible
as the proposition that the
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
Ah, but this is *im*plausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it
until every amateur enthusiast can reproduce the effect. That is a novel
standard! I think he made it up on
On 11-12-21 03:50 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
. . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I remember that Defkalion used someone else's (Piantelli's?) images of high
vacuum equipment in one of their news releases as if it were their own.
No, they did not do that. A news organization did.
I am suggesting your contact may have misconstrued what
Harry,
I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you
that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true
is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite).
I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life from
people making
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
LOL (well, snickering a little, anyway). Entertaining thought -- makes
it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne boondoggle may have
been more apposite than I realized at the time; it bears repeating:
Did a computer expert go to
From Giovanni:
Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
of pseudoscience.
I disagree with that assumption. What the hell do amateur enthusiasts
have to do with validation?
Assuming the technology is valid, all I
Jed please, for prcision sake, allow me to make a small correction to one
of you sentences. You forgot only 2 words
*If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. *They
said* they have:
*
*
and so on.
*
2011/12/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Giovanni
Jed,
What I meant that you need to accumulate a lot of reports around the world
and over time to infer a pattern and make a useful inference about the
phenomenon. For example, if many witnesses over the years see meteorites
coming from a particular location in the sky and during a particular time
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you
that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true
is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite).
I have been disappointed so much in
I have seen a lot of pseudoscience products in WallMart as healing magnetic
bracelets, shoe soles that can extract toxins from your body and so on.
There is a lot of crap available commercially that makes all kind of claims.
But while some amateurs don't know what they are doing, many of them
On 11-12-21 04:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
LOL (well, snickering a little, anyway). Entertaining thought --
makes it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne
boondoggle may have been more apposite than
Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed please, for prcision sake, allow me to make a small correction to one
of you sentences. You forgot only 2 words
*If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. *They
said* they have:
*
*
and so on.
*
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
Ah, but this is implausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it
until every amateur enthusiast
Jed,
I do want LENR to be true. I have said that. In fact, because I consider
such possibility so important that I want it to be true and verifiable and
not something we desire to be true. This why my high standards.
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
would
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Yes. For long enough to get through the contract awards process, and, as
far as I can tell, for several years after that.
If Paradyne had delivered on time and on budget the fake would never have
been noticed.
The article says:
When Paradyne
Simpler explanation:
Jed's witness is not telling the truth.
We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is completely
possible that he is saying things that are not true.
Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one witness
would not be enough) we cannot say
Are you kidding, or what?
On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way
I would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and
blind methods
blind methods ???
What, you
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and blind
methods would be acceptable.
This has been done for 22 years. High
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in
physics. It's nutty to even suggest it.
Actually, ahem Miles, Boss, Mizuno and some others did do blind testing.
Single blind. That is to say, they knew the history of the
Giovanni recently expressed the following proclamation:
Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
of pseudoscience.
Soon afterwards, Mr. Rothwell followed up with:
I suspect you [Giovanni] are making up unreasonable
Stephen,
From your previous posts I guess you are joking.
But if Rossi's can do it (and he is a clumsy amateur after all, maybe with
some good machinist skills learned as a youth in his father shop) everybody
should be able to do it, right?
Fission is not that difficult to happen, just get a
At 01:38 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
Simpler explanation:
Jed's witness is not telling the truth.
We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is
completely possible that he is saying things that are not true.
Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that
OK, look, the Paradyne thing wasn't meant to be an exact analogy. But
none the less, the thing it's being compared with is a site visit in
which tests were *not* *performed*.
The visitor supposedly verified that there was lots of nifty equipment
on site, but didn't see it actually do
Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is
completely possible that he is saying things that are not true.
Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one
witness would not be enough) we cannot say for sure what is going on.
blush Oh, er, yeah, that kind of blind testing... yes, that makes
quite a bit of sense, after all, doesn't it.
On 11-12-21 04:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist
could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at
instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
They have many highly qualified professional scientists -- They
had at least two people who said they were scientists, and sounded
technically reasonable
Who told you there are only two?!? Where did you get that information?
I know more than two people there
Blind tests are not done just in the social sciences.
I work in the field of gravitational waves that coincidentally is another
somehow controversial field. Just because it is controversial, just because
it has a history of past false claims the almost 700 scientists, working in
the scientific
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and
post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience.
That will never happen. But
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
ps : On the demonstration front -- I once demonstrated a new
Engineering Workstation --- schematic entry, logic simulation
We were still coding the night before the exhibition floor opened (DAC
1983).
Nobody noticed that after issuing a redraw of a complicated
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Iron has 10 times lower specific heat than water. It would store less
heat, not more. It could not be heated more than a few hundred degrees with
this equipment, so total heat storage would be less than it would with a
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
And remember, ... you're the person who thought the Rossi demo of October
6 was iron clad.
I still do. So do many others.
It probably did involve some iron (or steel) but hardly was conclusive.
Iron has 10
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming the technology is valid, all I think that would be necessary
for LENR to escape the realm of pseudoscience is for products that
exploit the technology to be sold off the shelves of Home
Maybe I'm missing something but it is not claimed over and over that LENR
are tabletop experiments that are achieved with relatively simple
equipment? Is not the incredible interest in LENR by supporters due to the
fact that it could change energy production in such way that every
household could
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Giovanni:
Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
of pseudoscience.
I disagree with that assumption. What the
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote a message that I happened to
notice:
Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it
from someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly.
This is
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't matter. Heat stored in water is useless to keep water boiling.
Heat stored in steel at a much higher temperature can keep water boiling
until it cools down to the boiling point of water. Don't you now anything?
And this is why LENR is on the edge of pseudoscience. Because it is so damn
difficult to do and when it happens (often randomly) it is not certain what
really happened if anything.
Giovanni
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude
On 11-12-21 05:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
They have many highly qualified professional scientists -- They
had at least two people who said they were scientists, and sounded
technically reasonable
Who told you there are only two?!? Where did you get that
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote a message that I happened to
notice:
Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
Maybe I'm missing something but it is not claimed over and over that LENR
are tabletop experiments that are achieved with relatively simple
equipment? Is not the incredible interest in LENR by supporters due to
As far as I am concerned, I am looking for information that I would be happy
to present to a 'friendly' member of staff in our Physics dept as reasonable
evidence that there is something interesting going on that might be worth
looking at.
The reports of someone having visited Defkalion is
That would not stop amateurs from trying to reproduce the results and even
improving on design, fuel and so on.
Are you aware of the phenomenon of biohacking?
People are fooling around with genetics in their home labs.
This is actually pretty cool and I support the emergence of these citizen
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
People are fooling around with genetics in their home labs.
This is actually pretty cool and I support the emergence of these citizen
scientists.
Sorry- not cool: terrifying. How soon we forget the legend of
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
Are you kidding, or what?
On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote a message that I happened to
notice:
Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky,
I agree with Joshua well explained arguments. In particular I don't believe
for a second that there is a overall scientist conspiracy against LENR.
Maybe some strong skepticism due to the past of the field and the nature of
the claims made that go beyond known physics but not outright close
The biggest problem with the early PF replication attempts was the lack of
respect given to the reactants. People trying to replicate did not understand
that it was a surface phenomenon. They did not understand that the cathode
could be easily poisoned. They did not understand that the
It isn't necessary to to have a strong desire for LENR to be true.
You only need a desire to seriously examine the evidence, and if it
isn't satisfactory to YOU, then move on to something else.
What else do you want? If you need help processing your past
disappointments then seek therapy.
I have
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Then call up MaryYugo, and invite her to dinner and a show. Show her it
works, and serve up some crow.
I prefer civet de lapin.
Just out of curiosity, was there an RFG involved in the early experiments?
believe that
Rossi had, in one of his blog posts, claimed that he'd always used it.
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion
From: maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Robert
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote a message that I happened to
notice:
Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky,
At 02:45 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
If LENR is real it would be a perfect ground for citizen scientists.
Lets see ... poisonous nano-nickel powder, explosive high-temperature
hydrogen, gamma rays (are you sure that you'll get eCat-level 500KEV,
and not Celani's needle-pegging
Robert,
According to Newtonian gravity the unwarping would happen instantaneously
(Newton of course didn't think of warping, he said I will not make any
hypothesis about gravity's nature but only on how it works). But the
unwarping happening in a finite time is one and the same with gravitational
The staff?
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.1684.1323189515!/image/ehrsson.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/ehrsson.jpg
harry
No, it is not necessary but I'm saying that to claim I have nothing against
LENR per se. I was ecstatic when the FP announcement came out for the fist
time. I was at my first year in Physics in Bologna and I thought I lived in
an amazing time. The entire thing turned out to be pretty
What makes Rossi's better than a good science amateur?
Giovanni
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At 02:45 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
If LENR is real it would be a perfect ground for citizen scientists.
Lets see ... poisonous nano-nickel
At 04:54 PM 12/21/2011, you wrote:
What makes Rossi's better than a good science amateur?
Well, he hired Focardi to check on the radiation. So it WAS done
under adult supervision.
Defkalion asked an independent expert to contact me and discuss some
aspects of the company and their technology. This person is well known to
me and I trust him completely. For the time being he asks to remain
anonymous, for good reasons.
The expert has examined the machines and discussed their
Yes, we know this all.
Serious companies do always forward this stuff anonymously on lists like
Vortex L.
Ok, sometimes they use better more prominent channels like PESWIKI or
Freeenenergytruth.
This is a definitive proof of reliability and truth.
Thank you very much!
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Their upcoming products are revolutionary. They are the best LENR
implementations ever produced. The expert says the prototype products are
consistent with the specifications described in the web site.
No tests were
On 2011-12-20 21:09, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The expert has examined the machines and discussed their business plans.
He has made an independent in-depth evaluation lasting several days. He
Do you mean that this person actually went there an examined the
machines in person? Sorry if I'm being
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Defkalion is not only starting a company, it is
developing revolutionary technology, dealing with complex business
arrangements, and dealing with Rossi, who is a difficult person to do
business with.
So they *are*
I#39;m a little shocked by this. It isn#39;t information nor opinion - more
some kind of propaganda. You#39;ve heard from somebody you trust completely
but can#39;t say who and that somebody shared an opinion with you based on
Defkalion asking him/her to do so, right? Who is protecting who? And
On 11-12-20 03:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Defkalion asked an independent expert to contact me and discuss some
aspects of the company and their technology. This person is well known
to me and I trust him completely. For the time being he asks to remain
anonymous, for good reasons.
OK, so
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Any idea WHEN your consultant might do some tests?
Soon, I hope.
How can an independent in-depth evaluation lasting several days NOT
involve doing tests?
It is what engineers call a site visit meaning a formal evaluation or
planning session made in
A site evaluation is something like what Matts Lewan did?
2011/12/20 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Any idea WHEN your consultant might do some tests?
Soon, I hope.
How can an independent in-depth evaluation lasting several days NOT
involve
On 11-12-20 03:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Any idea WHEN your consultant might do some tests?
Soon, I hope.
How can an independent in-depth evaluation lasting several days
NOT involve doing tests?
It is what
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
OK, so you cite someone you know, who is unnamed, who claims to have met
someone he now knows, but whom you haven't met . . .
How do you know who I have met, and not met?
The engineering and business operations at Defkalion are highly promising.
In this case we have to give Jed some slack.
What he described is what he was told by a persons he trusts as competent.
And what Jed was told is that an initial fist visit was done and everything
seems to be ok and as advertised.
It is just an initial, first inspection in preparation for a more
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
