Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Here is a link to Rossi's lawyers reply to IH's motion to dismiss. It seems to be well written, covering exactly the points raised and putting Vaughn and Darden in a poor position regarding fraud/theft of Rossi's IP.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

David Roberson wrote: > I followed the link and was not able to locate any significant test data > to conclude anything of importance. Most of the information appeared to be > associated with the old test of October 6, 2011 which may or may not be > relevant. > You are

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

I think even a COP which is insignificant would be useful. If the radiation emission from the nuclei is between 10

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

remain out of reach. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Could you d

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Jed, > > nothing about the details- it is an essential question: > Is the excess heat different from zero Yes or No? > Based on Rossi's instruments and data it is impossible to say for sure. They were intended to produce a meaningless answer. But

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

David Roberson wrote: Could you direct me to a site that contains the test data that you are > referring to? No, sorry. It is all a big secret. I have some limited data from before the brouhaha under an NDA. Rossi gave some information during his interview with Lewan. I

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 11:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1 Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Jed, Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are simple something or no

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Dear Jed, nothing about the details- it is an essential question: Is the excess heat different from zero Yes or No? Forget instruments, good or bad Forget the suicidal setup. peter On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Apparently the seven day test of the three QuarkX reactors for an unnamed potential partner/customer has been extended for another week. I take this as a good sign that the customer is still interested. Rossi also commented that the p/c was "optimistic" and the results during the test were

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Jed, > > Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are > simple something or nothing, excess heat or NOT excess heat- zero, nada, > niente nihil etc. > In the moment you accept that it was a small excess heat you are accepting >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Dear Jed, Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are simple something or nothing, excess heat or NOT excess heat- zero, nada, niente nihil etc. In the moment you accept that it was a small excess heat you are accepting implicitly that by adequate means it can be increased.. no

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

How do you know the same numbers were shown to Lewan? 2016-06-07 10:57 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > This data was selected by Rossi. These are same numbers and conclusions he > quoted to Lewan. >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Daniel Rocha wrote: It is important, since one can select data to deceive you. There were times > of malfunctioning that lasted a few days. > This data was selected by Rossi. These are same numbers and conclusions he quoted to Lewan. This dataset does not show what he

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 09:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: In their motion to dismiss, I.H. mentioned multiple "reactors" that apparently all failed. I did not know there were multiple reactors. I know nothing about the others, but if you take their word for it, there were multiple failures, and no

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

No Jed, My morals or ethics require more than rumor before I make such very serious acqusations. I do not know Rossi. Investors need to do their due diligence. I do not need to tell them that and I doubt your advice will weigh very heavy. Rossi's performance will. I agree with you we do not need

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

It is important, since one can select data to deceive you. There were times of malfunctioning that lasted a few days. Also, Allan Fletcher and I showed that the device can work in a small place. 2016-06-06 23:20 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > > Where I got it from is

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Daniel Rocha wrote: Dewey Weaver, from who Jed likely got his data, works for an IH investor. > Where I got it from is irrelevant. The data originated with Rossi, because it has the same numbers he quoted to Lewan.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Dewey Weaver, from who Jed likely got his data, works for an IH investor.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively > correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members and > general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is *very probably* correct > in his assertions about

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart Thornros wrote: > Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', > 'scammer', :'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to . . > . > So, by your "morals" we shouldn't calls idiots, scammers and criminals what they are. Why not?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, in my opinion, which I understand you already know more about than I do (quick to judgement and throwing stone sitting in glasshouse); Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', 'scammer', :'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to.--.In addition you

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 05:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: Jed, You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there are still many unknowns. For the last time: I am pretty sure I know the answers

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Jed, > You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there > are still many unknowns. > For the last time: I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA. You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there are still many unknowns. I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and that is the only reason I have replied to you. On 6/6/2016 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it. > > Jed. What basis do you have for doubting that? > > AA. Because you say you have not seen the report. > I said I have seen sample data from it, and the configuration. A large enough sample that I am

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it. Jed. What basis do you have for doubting that? AA. Because you say you have not seen the report. On 6/6/2016 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: AA. You keep repeating this

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: AA. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back > it up. > > Jed. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't > he publish the ERV report? > > AA. He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong. He

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up. Jed. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't he publish the ERV report? AA. He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong. He is taking IH to court to prove he's right. AA.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > > You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't he publish the ERV report? Why doesn't he at least tell you what instruments he used, and how they were

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked into the room and looked at the choice of instruments and configuration would see that in a few minutes. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up. Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1 If this is the same Cherokee Investment trying to do remediation in Pennsauken, NJ……

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Craig Haynie wrote: > Jed, I believe you have information that indicates this is true. However, > it just doesn't explain the unusual behavior from IH. What about all the > previous tests, going back to 2012? > In my opinion some of these tests may have shown excess

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat: IT DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did the device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or you could collect 6 months of data

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Chris Zell wrote: > Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee. > I am not aware of sketchy finances or politics by Cherokee. What do you refer to? Questionable conduct by Rossi. Too much ambiguity… > There is no ambiguity regarding the test results.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Craig Haynie wrote: > It doesn't take a 350 day test to prove that something works. That test > was to prove the reliability of the device. That's also the only reason > that Darden would have agreed to a test using an ERV of Rossi's choosing. > I do not know why

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

The Rossi Saga is looking more like the Rashomon effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee. Questionable conduct by Rossi. Too much ambiguity…

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: As for IH then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was > rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed) > The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked into the room and looked at the choice of

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 10:01 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of ready money. This makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's any way they would have continued a

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of ready money. Posted by ultrasure on https://www.lenr-forum.com 2 hours ago

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Harry, If true, it implies IH didn't want to pay $89 million. It is not just that that is a lot of money, but it would mean Rossi could then build his automated production line and IH would have lost control. On 6/6/2016 12:21 AM, H LV wrote: If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 2:25 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell : > Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you > whether the pipe has a flowmeter or a thermocouple? Just a naive question. Why didn't they simply install a (high temp) gas flow meter at the exit of the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart, If you were making a tacit distinction between entrepeneurs and investors then I agree. Harry On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:41 PM, H LV wrote: > Those qualities aren't unique to entrepreneurs. They can be found in other > creative people. What makes an entrepreneur

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum of money to the cancel the test then that implies IH considered Rossi's IP to be valuable at that time. Harry On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Eric & Jed, > > Consider the time line > > Summer 2015

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric & Jed, Consider the time line Summer 2015 Rossi was offered a sum to cancel the test Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11.5 million paid and cancel IH's license. Feb 18 test of a one megawatt heat plant completed Apr 05 Rossi sues. Rossi et al v. Darden et al May 15 date Penon

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/05/2016 08:43 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a lawyer and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Come on down! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyV_dBZHU0 Harry On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > The 200th post is mine! > > 2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker : > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The 200th post is mine! > My apologies -- not being sarcastic, I've been a bit of a burden on the list today and yesterday. I will now bow out of this thread. Ultimately this kind of debate, where people do little more

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

The 200th post is mine! 2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker : > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote: > > >>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a lawyer > and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan. Time can be of the > essence when claims and counterclaims start flying. From the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:00 PM, a.ashfield wrote: What has become clear though is that the story about the ERV's report not > holding up to scrutiny being the reason for not paying is pure nonsense. > IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/05/2016 07:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > Jed, > That is ridiculous. You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or > thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the > measurements were flawed"! ? > Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you whether

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, That is ridiculous. You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the measurements were flawed"! ? It is starting to look like you don't have a clue what was there but are just parroting what some anonymous person told you.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known > what was in it, before dismissing it out of hand. > Who told you that? That's not true as far as I know. Where do you get this weird stuff? Rossi's blog, I suppose. As I said,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, I have no knowledge of the date. What has become clear though is that the story about the ERV's report not holding up to scrutiny being the reason for not paying is pure nonsense. IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known what was in it, before

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Jed, > Lets make this easy. > > 1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW > plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? . . . I cannot discuss any details that have not yet been released by I.H. or Rossi. I will

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield wrote: I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to > pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them his > report. This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on not >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them his report. This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on not paying all along. On 6/5/2016 6:48 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, a.ashfield wrote: 25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end of > the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay up. When > did the EVR finish his report? > According to the complaint, the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, 25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end of the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay up. When did the EVR finish his report? Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks. He would keep these as a record anyway. Nothing

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, Lets make this easy. 1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? Was the fluid water? There must have been a drain tap somewhere where a sample could be taken for analysis. 2. Did the steam output from

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:38 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days. He surely > would not say that now. > Yes, and Rossi said the following on March 11, only 25 days before he initiated a lawsuit against IH: Thank you for

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days. He surely would not say that now. If the output temperature was 116C and the steam superheated, really all you would need to calculate the thermal output would be a flow meter for the water going in, a pressure gauge and a

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked into the room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few minutes would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a farce. AA. So as you claim to know what the instrumentation was, please describe it. What was the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Adrian, It is entirely possible that IH hired the expert after the test started. Or maybe they hired him before the test started. Perhaps all seemed well to us between IH and Rossi. Some who have access to additional information were aware of difficulties early on. It is hard to say from the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, I don't think IH hired the expert until after the test started. All seemed well between IH and Rossi when the test started. On 6/5/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield > wrote: My new

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around for some > way to do that. That's hilarious! As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked into the room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few minutes

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: What you say does not add up. You say the information is not from IH. > I said it was not I.H.'s data. I didn't say where it came from. I will leave that little detail to your vivid and ever-active imagination. > As for the numbers Rossi gave Lewan

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield wrote: My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little > expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's > Law. As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's Law. As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around for some way to do that. Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

What I now think happened was that IH suddenly became interested in disputing the ERV's findings/report, rather than the other way around that they were looking for evidence to boost its believabllity. as Jed suggested. Just why is not clear, but we know of 89 million reasons. As stated at the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Eric Walker > > Jack Cole wrote: > > Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because > they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world. > What a dream that would

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Eric. > > You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not > being able to see the customer's plant." We don't really know this. What > we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

From: Eric Walker Jack Cole wrote: Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world. What a dream that would be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity, and do not forget,

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:27 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Eric's Law. Everything Rossi says is wrong. We all know more about LENR > than he does. Interesting characterization of my position! Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric's Law. Everything Rossi says is wrong. We all know more about LENR than he does. On 6/5/2016 1:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote: On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield wrote: Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas Barker

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

> On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield wrote: > > Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that > Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent. If > so, please share. > > AA. 1. Rossi says so and he is the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. I do not think it was 116 deg C. AA. What proof do you have that it is wrong? On 6/5/2016 12:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an interview where

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Agreed. Except Jed now says the secret information is not from IH. On 6/5/2016 12:07 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of anything. I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is not shown very well. One side

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent. If so, please share. AA. 1. Rossi says so and he is the expert. 2. There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan. It is just

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric. You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant." We don't really know this. What we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking the expert from seeing the facility. It is likely that what you say, that the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart Thornros wrote: Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of > anything. > It is an indicator that I.H. thinks there were "flawed measurements" using "unsuitable measuring devices." I have seen the data, and I agree with I.H. > I have

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, What you say does not add up. You say the information is not from IH. You say the information is from Rossi. Forgive me for doubting that he would send you confidential information that can't be published. Do you mean information from someone on Rossi's team? If so, why say it was

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric Walker wrote: > AA. You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it. >> > > Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas > Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent. > If he did add

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an interview > where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head. > Nope. Not off the top of his head. Those are the same numbers he put in his calorimetry, supposedly from

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of anything. I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is not shown very well. One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind of NDA. The arguments are switching between that those

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM, a.ashfield wrote: When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your comments. > Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents, as explained, > that was the only way to get a patent in this circumstance. Mentioning

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

It was Eric not me that claimed that IH hadn't said it didn't work. I thought they had. On 6/5/2016 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work? You might

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an interview where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head. If the output temperature was 116C this is a good indication that the steam was superheated and not wet. On 6/5/2016 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > ed. Who told you that? That is not what I have heard. > > That is all I have read about. > Where did you read that? Rossi's blog? Rossi is not a reliable source of information. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:04 AM, a.ashfield wrote: > AA. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later > - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. Nothing about > the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it. > >

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Well I apologize for my assumption. If the only information you have is > from Rossi please give his actual quote(s) > I already told you: I cannot. Why do you keep asking for things that you know I cannot give? What is the point? As I said, the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the customer's plant. ed. Who told you that? That is not what I have heard. That is all I have read about. If you have proof of other things, please show it. In fact I also read in a comment that it was not Rossi but

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Well I apologize for my assumption. If the only information you have is from Rossi please give his actual quote(s) I have not seen anything from him to indicate that the plant did not operate well. If you have other numbers, what were their source? On 6/5/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work? You might > let Jed know that. > I.H. said it does not work in their motion to dismiss. They said the "reactors" are "inoperable." (I did not know there is more than one reactor.) - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jack Cole wrote: > Of course there is evidence of laziness or an utterly poor understanding > of measurement instruments with the presentation of the apparently fake > measurements (3 or 4 trailing zeros according to Jed). > That's not according to me. That was Rossi

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric, It is not worth my time to rehash it all. It is all covered in this thread that you can read again if you want to. When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your comments. Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents, as explained, that was the only way

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the > customer's plant. > Who told you that? That is not what I have heard. Stopping the visit would be bad enough, in any case. > Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > You on the other hand are certain you know all the answers based on > information from IH. not from the independent ERV. > No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it came from Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it. Eric. No. It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from seeing the

  1   2   3   >