subject:"\[Vo\]\: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 right. I got that mixed up. The longer paragraph I quoted was from
2011.

The 1 MW, 36 cubic meter per day flow, 60 deg C return temperature, and 10%
being arbitrarily subtracted were some of the same numbers I got, but not
that paragraph.

Anyway, I am sure this is the same data and configuration I analyzed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread Daniel Rocha

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

> Thanks Jed,
>
> 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.
>
> I suppose that most of us are going to have to wait a while before we will
> be able to review the privileged data you have.  In the past I have found
> you to be an honest source which I assume remains true.  For this reason,
> and for several other issues that have been argued too many times recently,
> I worry that our dream of high power LENR may remain out of reach.
>
> Dave
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread David Roberson

Thanks Jed,

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.

I suppose that most of us are going to have to wait a while before we will be 
able to review the privileged data you have.  In the past I have found you to 
be an honest source which I assume remains true.  For this reason, and for 
several other issues that have been argued too many times recently, I worry 
that our dream of high power LENR may 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 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 think he gave 
more than he intended to. See:


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/



- Jed

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 most likely No.
Anyway, you would be crazy to accept an answer from such a mess.

Based on additional information that I.H. gathered, absolutely No. Not a
chance.

> Forget instruments, good or bad Forget the suicidal setup.
>

How can you evaluate calorimetry when you "forget" the instruments and
setup?!? This is about measurements. Without the instruments and setup
there can be no answer. There cannot even be a question.

- Jed

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 think he
gave more than he intended to. See:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread David Roberson

Jed,

Could you direct me to a site that contains the test data that you are 
referring to?  Also, I would like to find out exactly what equipment was used 
for the testing.  Are either of these items available to download at any 
location that you are aware of?

Also, How many hours long is the data set that you have seen?  Does it cover a 
day's worth of operation?  And, are you confident that it is representative of 
the remainder of the data?

I would appreciate any help that you may be able to supply while keeping your 
agreements.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed 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 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 compromise here.



You misunderstand. I have been over this several times, but I will repeat what 
I said about this.

As I.H. said, Rossi uses "inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, 
and using unsuitable measuring devices." His data and configuration notes bear 
this out. The test setup is a farce. Because the test is so poorly done and so 
crude, the margin of error is gigantic. I suppose the COP might be somewhere 
between 0.5 and 1.5 if you take the numbers at face value.


However, as a practical matter I am sure the COP is less than 1. That is the 
most plausible interpretation of the data. Just because the instruments are so 
bad they could indicate practically anything, that does not justify the 
assumption that they indicate an anomaly.


I am working with Rossi's own data. I.H. says they are confident there is no 
excess heat. I presume this is because they have additional data that they 
collected themselves. I have not seen this data, but I take their word for it 
there is no heat, and I am sure they have better proof than Rossi's own 
nonsensical numbers.



Anyone could set up instruments to measure the heat properly, with reasonable 
accuracy. I assume I.H. did this. Rossi fought to prevent them from doing it, 
but I suppose they finally were able to do it.



You could answer all questions about the calorimetry by visiting the pretend 
customer site next door, because that is where the fluid is cooled down. Rossi 
fought to prevent that, as well. Given that this pretend customer conducts no 
business, has no employees, pays no taxes and has never had any equipment 
inspected, my guess is that there nothing more in the customer site than a 
radiator and fan that removes ~15 kW of heat.








I cannot describe the details, but let me illustrate what I mean with an 
unrelated example. I have a blood pressure meter that had a weak battery. It 
registered something like 180 systolic over 60, then 210 over 140, then 90 over 
20. The latter would mean I am dead. Since I am alive, it was clear the 
instrument was malfunctioning. In Rossi's case, the malfunctions are even 
larger than this. The instruments were selected and then installed in ways that 
makes it impossible to get a meaningful answer. This is either extremely 
stupid, or deliberate fraud. Since Rossi does not seem stupid to me, I assume 
it is fraud.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread Peter Gluck

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  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 implicitly that by adequate means it can be increased.. no
>> compromise here.
>>
>
> You misunderstand. I have been over this several times, but I will repeat
> what I said about this.
>
> As I.H. said, Rossi uses "inoperable reactors, relying on flawed
> measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." His data and
> configuration notes bear this out. The test setup is a farce. Because the
> test is so poorly done and so crude, the margin of error is gigantic. I
> suppose the COP might be somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 if you take the
> numbers at face value.
>
> However, as a practical matter I am sure the COP is less than 1. That is
> the most plausible interpretation of the data. Just because the instruments
> are so bad they could indicate practically anything, that does not justify
> the assumption that they indicate an anomaly.
>
> I am working with Rossi's own data. I.H. says they are confident there is
> no excess heat. I presume this is because they have additional data that
> they collected themselves. I have not seen this data, but I take their word
> for it there is no heat, and I am sure they have better proof than Rossi's
> own nonsensical numbers.
>
> Anyone could set up instruments to measure the heat properly, with
> reasonable accuracy. I assume I.H. did this. Rossi fought to prevent them
> from doing it, but I suppose they finally were able to do it.
>
> You could answer all questions about the calorimetry by visiting the
> pretend customer site next door, because that is where the fluid is cooled
> down. Rossi fought to prevent that, as well. Given that this pretend
> customer conducts no business, has no employees, pays no taxes and has
> never had any equipment inspected, my guess is that there nothing more in
> the customer site than a radiator and fan that removes ~15 kW of heat.
>
>
> I cannot describe the details, but let me illustrate what I mean with an
> unrelated example. I have a blood pressure meter that had a weak battery.
> It registered something like 180 systolic over 60, then 210 over 140, then
> 90 over 20. The latter would mean I am dead. Since I am alive, it was clear
> the instrument was malfunctioning. In Rossi's case, the malfunctions are
> even larger than this. The instruments were selected and then installed in
> ways that makes it impossible to get a meaningful answer. This is either
> extremely stupid, or deliberate fraud. Since Rossi does not seem stupid to
> me, I assume it is fraud.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread a.ashfield

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 more or less the same as he had been getting before.


Jed, I am aware you doubt the test has taken place and you don't believe 
anything Rossi says.  Others are interested however.

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
> implicitly that by adequate means it can be increased.. no compromise here.
>

You misunderstand. I have been over this several times, but I will repeat
what I said about this.

As I.H. said, Rossi uses "inoperable reactors, relying on flawed
measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." His data and
configuration notes bear this out. The test setup is a farce. Because the
test is so poorly done and so crude, the margin of error is gigantic. I
suppose the COP might be somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 if you take the
numbers at face value.

However, as a practical matter I am sure the COP is less than 1. That is
the most plausible interpretation of the data. Just because the instruments
are so bad they could indicate practically anything, that does not justify
the assumption that they indicate an anomaly.

I am working with Rossi's own data. I.H. says they are confident there is
no excess heat. I presume this is because they have additional data that
they collected themselves. I have not seen this data, but I take their word
for it there is no heat, and I am sure they have better proof than Rossi's
own nonsensical numbers.

Anyone could set up instruments to measure the heat properly, with
reasonable accuracy. I assume I.H. did this. Rossi fought to prevent them
from doing it, but I suppose they finally were able to do it.

You could answer all questions about the calorimetry by visiting the
pretend customer site next door, because that is where the fluid is cooled
down. Rossi fought to prevent that, as well. Given that this pretend
customer conducts no business, has no employees, pays no taxes and has
never had any equipment inspected, my guess is that there nothing more in
the customer site than a radiator and fan that removes ~15 kW of heat.

I cannot describe the details, but let me illustrate what I mean with an
unrelated example. I have a blood pressure meter that had a weak battery.
It registered something like 180 systolic over 60, then 210 over 140, then
90 over 20. The latter would mean I am dead. Since I am alive, it was clear
the instrument was malfunctioning. In Rossi's case, the malfunctions are
even larger than this. The instruments were selected and then installed in
ways that makes it impossible to get a meaningful answer. This is either
extremely stupid, or deliberate fraud. Since Rossi does not seem stupid to
me, I assume it is fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread Peter Gluck

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 compromise here.
peter..

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 considers a
> malfunction. He considers it a positive result. His estimate of the heat is
> listed. However, in my opinion, given the configuration and instruments, he
> greatly exaggerated the heat, and there is no excess. (Or only a small
> excess.) I agree with I.H. that the numbers do not show what he claims they
> show.
>
> I am sorry to be so vague, but until Rossi or I.H. reveal more, I cannot
> say more.
>
>
>
>> Also, Allan Fletcher and I showed that the device can work in a small
>> place.
>>
>
> I do not understand what this means.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread Daniel Rocha

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 considers a
malfunction. He considers it a positive result. His estimate of the heat is
listed. However, in my opinion, given the configuration and instruments, he
greatly exaggerated the heat, and there is no excess. (Or only a small
excess.) I agree with I.H. that the numbers do not show what he claims they
show.

I am sorry to be so vague, but until Rossi or I.H. reveal more, I cannot
say more.

> Also, Allan Fletcher and I showed that the device can work in a small
> place.
>

I do not understand what this means.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-07 Thread Craig Haynie




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 recent success.




I read this to refer to the individual small reactors that were part of 
the larger 1MW reactor.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Lennart Thornros

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 to discuss the issue. We just need to have
different opinions. I have no kill file. I do not need one.
On Jun 6, 2016 19:21, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> 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

2016-06-06 Thread Daniel Rocha

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 irrelevant. The data originated with Rossi, because
> it has the same numbers he quoted to Lewan.
>
>

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

2016-06-06 Thread Daniel Rocha

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 Rossi, and Rossi's devices *very probably* do not
> work.  (And a high probability of truth is the best we can hope for in any
> case.)
>

Thanks.

That is a bayesian analysis. That method can work well. It is recommended
by Nate Silver in his book, "The Signal and the Noise." Silver has a good
explanation for the layman about how to use this method. You should also
weigh I.H.'s credibility versus Rossi's in your analysis.

Here is a bayesian analysis of cold fusion evidence in general:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JohnsonRweightofev.pdf

> I said "do not work" rather than "failed in this instance" because to
> assume they failed in this instance . . .
>

That is the correct form of the assertion. There is evidence that previous
reactors might have worked. I can't tell.

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 recent success.

I do take their word for these other claims. I don't have to take their
word for my analysis of the 1-year test. I need only assume that Rossi's
numbers and description are reasonably accurate. Of course, my analysis
might be wrong.

I do not know how far back the I.H. assessment reaches, or whether it
includes the first Levi tests or Lugano, or that strange 1 MW test in
Italy. To be brief, I don't know a darn thing except about the calorimetry
in this one test.

- Jed

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? Because it will hurt their feelings? In Rossi's case,
not calling him out has facilitated his latest move to Europe, where he is
busy defrauding a new group of "investors" fore millions more. He won't be
stopped until some government throws him back into prison. By your fine set
of "morals" we should kiss his ass, stand by, and do nothing while he
steals more money and destroys whatever is left of the reputation of cold
fusion.

That's a great set of morals! I hope for your sake that that Rossi paying
you a commission. You and the other Rossi supporters deserve 2% of what he
steals.

> On the other hand, you are mindlessly defending this person, and that is
> somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> Your behavior is poor judgment and unproven assumptions at best.
>

How the hell do you know this? Where did you get your information about
what Rossi has done? Who are you to tell me that Rossi is innocent -- or
guilty, for that matter.

You know NOTHING and yet you have effrontery to lecture *me* about jumping
to conclusions.

To hell with you. I will add you to my kill file list, and not bothered by
your blather again.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Lennart Thornros

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 claim others should listen to you because you know and all others do
not.  It is ignorant and shows an incredible poor understanding of people
with different thinking than Jed.
You said
There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Your behavior is poor judgment and unproven assumptions at best. There is
no need to defend AR or the ERV as far as we know there are allegations
from you and that is hardly good enough. Far from mindless and fully
ethical until anything else is proven. Some people do not think they stink
so they accuse others - truth is we all stink more or less. Ashamed, did
not know you had that word might come in handy.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:35 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 BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.
>
> You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU HAVE
> NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge how much is
> unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.
>
> You and I are not on equal ground. I am informed and you are ignorant.
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I have attacked both the claims and Rossi, separately, so it is not ad
> hominem. That is defined as follows:
>
> "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
> position they are maintaining."
>
> I am not directing the arguments against the person *rather than* the
> position. I am directing separate arguments *against both*.
>
> I attacked the person because he refused access to the company, and
> because the company is a dummy corporation with no income, no business, no
> employees, and no inspections, so obviously it does not have equipment
> using 1 MW of process heat.  It is hard to imagine better proof of a
> fraud, or a better reason to attack someone!
>
> There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
> committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
> defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
> You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




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 BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.

You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU 
HAVE NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge 
how much is unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.


Actually it isn't correct that we in the peanut gallery have no way to 
judge anything.  Based solely on what we in this group know of you, Jed, 
and your reputation, and Rossi, and his reputation, and the milieu in 
which this all took place, it's not hard to compare the /assumptions/ 
which need to be made in order to conclude either that you are telling 
the truth and you are correct that Rossi's invention is a dead issue, or 
that Rossi is correct and you are mistaken and/or lying.


There would seem to be far fewer unlikely assumptions required in order 
to conclude that you're right and Rossi is wrong.


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 Rossi, and Rossi's devices /very 
probably/ do not work.  (And a high probability of truth is the best we 
can hope for in any case.)


I said "do not work" rather than "failed in this instance" because to 
assume they failed in this instance BUT actually work in general 
requires another bunch of rather unlikely looking assumptions to explain 
the unexpected failure, versus the single, rather simpler assumption 
that Rossi cheats, and so all of his successful test results to date 
have been bogus.

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 NOTHING. YOU HAVE NO
DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge how much is
unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.

You and I are not on equal ground. I am informed and you are ignorant.

> 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.
>

I have attacked both the claims and Rossi, separately, so it is not ad
hominem. That is defined as follows:

"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
position they are maintaining."

I am not directing the arguments against the person *rather than* the
position. I am directing separate arguments *against both*.

I attacked the person because he refused access to the company, and because
the company is a dummy corporation with no income, no business, no
employees, and no inspections, so obviously it does not have equipment
using 1 MW of process heat.  It is hard to imagine better proof of a fraud,
or a better reason to attack someone!

There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

- Jed

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 > 
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 confident I understand the performance.


Look here. You do not have to believe me. Go right ahead say you think 
I am a liar. But please, for all of our sakes, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN 
MY MOUTH. Stop insisting that I said X when everyone can see I said Y.


(You might want to consider the possibility that I am telling the 
truth, and Rossi is lying. Just a suggestion.)


I said I have seen data. Enough that I am sure I know the content of 
the ERV. Because this is one system, and one sample is enough to 
describe it. You don't need a year of data to do calorimetry. A few 
days will suffice.


I am sure you know damn well what I meant. You are being petulant and 
argumentative for no reason.


Stop saying ridiculous things such as "we can't judge because we have 
not seen the data." /I/ have seen the data so _I can judge_. Why is 
that so hard for you to remember? How many times do I have to repeat 
that? _You_ have not seen the data so _you cannot judge_. You are not 
me. Our names and e-mail address are different, so we are not the same 
person.


You are free to disbelieve me but please stop making idiotic 
assertions that there is something immoral, unseemly or unusual about 
reporting on information that must be kept confidential for the time 
being. It is up to Rossi or I.H. to reveal the details. Not me.


I will not respond to you again if this is what you insist on acting 
like a cranky 6-year-old. I am willing to discuss this, but I will not 
keep going over and over the same points, only to have you claim that 
I did not say what I just said, or I must have meant something other 
than what I clearly meant.


- Jed

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 confident I understand the performance.

Look here. You do not have to believe me. Go right ahead say you think I am
a liar. But please, for all of our sakes, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Stop insisting that I said X when everyone can see I said Y.

(You might want to consider the possibility that I am telling the truth,
and Rossi is lying. Just a suggestion.)

I said I have seen data. Enough that I am sure I know the content of the
ERV. Because this is one system, and one sample is enough to describe it.
You don't need a year of data to do calorimetry. A few days will suffice.

I am sure you know damn well what I meant. You are being petulant and
argumentative for no reason.

Stop saying ridiculous things such as "we can't judge because we have not
seen the data." *I* have seen the data so *I can judge*. Why is that so
hard for you to remember? How many times do I have to repeat that? *You*
have not seen the data so *you cannot judge*. You are not me. Our names and
e-mail address are different, so we are not the same person.

You are free to disbelieve me but please stop making idiotic assertions
that there is something immoral, unseemly or unusual about reporting on
information that must be kept confidential for the time being. It is up to
Rossi or I.H. to reveal the details. Not me.

I will not respond to you again if this is what you insist on acting like a
cranky 6-year-old. I am willing to discuss this, but I will not keep going
over and over the same points, only to have you claim that I did not say
what I just said, or I must have meant something other than what I clearly
meant.

- Jed

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 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.


Then he should prove it. Give the court the ERV. Give it to the 
public. I have already seen the gist of the ERV, so I know why he will 
not do that. It proves the gadget does not work. It proves that he & 
Penon are world-class idiots or frauds.


AA.   Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5
million and cancel their license?

Jed.  Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.

AA.  You were there?  How do you know?


I have my sources. How do you know I am wrong? Why would you believe 
Rossi about this -- or about anything -- after all the lies he has 
told you. If he tells you it is raining you better look outside before 
you believe it.



Jed.  Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1
MW plant.

AA.  Rossi stated that recently.  Does IH claim otherwise?


I have heard that Rossi made it.

Jed.  I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for
_me_ to say it is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a
careful analysis. It is grossly unfair for _you_ to take sides in
this, or for _you_ to declare that I am wrong. Because you have no
information.

AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.


What basis do you have for doubting that? Who told you I have not seen 
it? I have been saying for weeks that I have seen data. I have said 
that here, and in other forums. You know that Dewey Weaver and others 
from I.H. read some of these forums, as does Rossi. If I were lying 
about this, someone from I.H. would have said something by now. Have 
some common sense, at long last.


Have some common sense! Be sane! Stop and THINK about what you are 
saying! You keep yelling about how there is no need to go into the 
pretend company. Do you seriously believe that I.H., or any sentiment 
person, would pay $89 million knowing that this company has no 
employees, no sales, pays no taxes, and has no equipment? Are you 
actually, seriously telling us that us you would pay under those 
circumstances? Without investigating what is on the other side of the 
wall. On the Internet anyone can confirm this is a pretend shell 
company with nothing happening in the building.


Rossi is playing you for a fool when you buy that kind of nonsense.

Anyway I'm not saying you are wrong or that the ERV is right.  I'm
saying that you can't possibly KNOW without seeing it.


Since I have seen the data from it, I do know.

- Jed

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 is taking IH
> to court to prove he's right.
>

Then he should prove it. Give the court the ERV. Give it to the public. I
have already seen the gist of the ERV, so I know why he will not do that.
It proves the gadget does not work. It proves that he & Penon are
world-class idiots or frauds.

> AA.   Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5 million
> and cancel their license?
>
> Jed.  Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.
>
> AA.  You were there?  How do you know?
>

I have my sources. How do you know I am wrong? Why would you believe Rossi
about this -- or about anything -- after all the lies he has told you. If
he tells you it is raining you better look outside before you believe it.

> Jed.  Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1 MW
> plant.
>
> AA.  Rossi stated that recently.  Does IH claim otherwise?
>

I have heard that Rossi made it.

> Jed.  I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for *me* to
> say it is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a careful
> analysis. It is grossly unfair for *you* to take sides in this, or for
> *you* to declare that I am wrong. Because you have no information.
>
> AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.
>

What basis do you have for doubting that? Who told you I have not seen it?
I have been saying for weeks that I have seen data. I have said that here,
and in other forums. You know that Dewey Weaver and others from I.H. read
some of these forums, as does Rossi. If I were lying about this, someone
from I.H. would have said something by now. Have some common sense, at long
last.

Have some common sense! Be sane! Stop and THINK about what you are saying!
You keep yelling about how there is no need to go into the pretend company.
Do you seriously believe that I.H., or any sentiment person, would pay $89
million knowing that this company has no employees, no sales, pays no
taxes, and has no equipment? Are you actually, seriously telling us that us
you would pay under those circumstances? Without investigating what is on
the other side of the wall. On the Internet anyone can confirm this is a
pretend shell company with nothing happening in the building.

Rossi is playing you for a fool when you buy that kind of nonsense.

> Anyway I'm not saying you are wrong or that the ERV is right.  I'm saying
> that you can't possibly KNOW without seeing it.
>

Since I have seen the data from it, I do know.

- Jed

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.   Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5 million 
and cancel their license?


Jed.  Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.

AA.  You were there?  How do you know?

AA.  IH not only built the Lugano reactors they built the 1 MW plant 
too, including the fuel.


Jed.  Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1 MW plant.

AA.  Rossi stated that recently.  Does IH claim otherwise?

AA.Until it (ERV report) is released it is grossly unfair to say it is 
rubbish.


Jed.  I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for _me_ to 
say it is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a careful 
analysis. It is grossly unfair for _you_ to take sides in this, or for 
_you_ to declare that I am wrong. Because you have no information.


AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.  Anyway I'm not saying you are 
wrong or that the ERV is right.  I'm saying that you can't possibly KNOW 
without seeing it.

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 arranged?

You have NOTHING from him, yet you believe his story. Why do you consider
him a more reliable source than I.H. or me?

  Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5 million and
> cancel their license?

Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.

>   I suppose you will say that is rubbish too, but we'll have to wait for
> more hard facts to prove it one way or the other.
>

You need to wait. I already have the facts. You can believe me, or you can
believe Rossi. Ask yourself who has more credibility.

IH not only built the Lugano reactors they built the 1 MW plant too,
> including the fuel.

Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1 MW plant.

>   Rossi is on record saying he never provided any part of it.

I should have known it was Rossi! He is on record saying he is on the verge
of mass production, and that he sold units, and that in January and
February he would release the ERV, and that the pretend customer was paying
thousands of dollars for the process heat. The customer who does no
business, pays no taxes, and has no employees. He is on record lying
through his teeth on countless occasions. Why do you believe anything he
says? How gullible are you?

  So it is difficult for IH to claim Rossi never gave then the technology.
>

There is no technology. The gadget does not work.

> What IH seem unable to do do is operate an E-Cat with anything like as
> high a COP as Rossi can.

Rossi's COP is ~0.8.

>   They seem to have been careful not to go on record saying that the 1 MW
> plant has a COP~1 . . .

They have said quite clearly that the "reactors" do not work. Plus, I told
you that, based on the same data they are using.

If you do not believe me, fine, but do not claim that no one has told you
what I have told you time after time after time.

If the ERV's report is so damning why haven't IH released it?

If it is so good why has not Rossi released it? He is the one who filed the
lawsuit. He is the one who needs to show evidence if he wants the $89
million. Why didn't he file it with court papers?

(I don't know why I.H. has not, but let me speculate. Perhaps it is part of
their legal strategy.)

> Until it is released it is grossly unfair to say it is rubbish.

I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for *me* to say it
is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a careful analysis. It is
grossly unfair for *you* to take sides in this, or for *you* to declare
that I am wrong. Because you have no information.

> From what you say you haven't seen it.
>

I have seen data from the test, and the configuration. It is the data Rossi
quoted to Lewan. I am sure it is the same data shown in the report, and the
same configuration. It was a mess early on, and it was still a mess when
the test ended.

- Jed

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 to return the $11.5 million 
and cancel their license?  I suppose you will say that is rubbish too, 
but we'll have to wait for more hard facts to prove it one way or the other.


IH not only built the Lugano reactors they built the 1 MW plant too, 
including the fuel.  Rossi is on record saying he never provided any 
part of it.  So it is difficult for IH to claim Rossi never gave then 
the technology.
What IH seem unable to do do is operate an E-Cat with anything like as 
high a COP as Rossi can.  They seem to have been careful not to go on 
record saying that the 1 MW plant has a COP~1 but use vague phrases to 
suggest they are not able to duplicate its operation themselves.


If the ERV's report is so damning why haven't IH released it? Until it 
is released it is grossly unfair to say it is rubbish. From what you say 
you haven't seen it.

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Chris Zell



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 heat. It is
difficult to judge. In this discussion I am only talking about the 1 MW
reactor, and the only data I have is from Rossi, not I.H. I believe I.H.
may have additional data, but I know nothing about it. In the motion to
dismiss they refer to "reactors" (plural). I have no knowledge of other
reactors.

So my comments are limited to this one reactor and this year-long test.

> Why raise money at all, if they weren't certain?
>

To find out, I suppose. You have to do tests to become certain. You don't
get certain first. If you did, there would be no point to doing tests.

You have to take chances and risk money in business. Perhaps, in
retrospect, this was too risky and they did not do enough due diligence. I
know nothing about what transpired between Rossi and I.H. before this test,
and nothing about their business arrangements other than what was revealed
in the lawsuit, so I cannot judge.

> Isn't that a type of fraud?
>

On Rossi side, yes. I do not see how anyone can accuse I.H. of fraud for
making an $11 million mistake. Who are they defrauding? Themselves?

> Why sign the patent applications?
>

I know nothing about patent applications. But I have heard that people
sometimes submit patents for inventions that turn out to be mistakes. They
later let the patent applications lapse. Why do you think that would be
fraudulent? I suppose it would be expensive.

> Why sign the agreement with Rossi which gives Rossi's guy complete control
> over the final test?
>

It seems like a stupid agreement in retrospect. Again, this is a mistake,
not fraud.

> Why hire Rossi's other guy to observe this test? What was their role in
> the Lugano test?
>

No idea. I have not discussed this with anyone.

> Didn't they build the reactor for that?
>

I think the Lugano report says they did build the reactor.

> For a solution to be correct, all the pieces have to fit into place, and
> if money wasn't a factor in this, then things just don't all fit together
> for me.
>

I do not see how you can expect pieces to fit into place unless you are
given access to the contracts, email, notes from meetings and so on. You
have no knowledge of what went on between I.H. and Rossi. I have no
knowledge either, so I do not have a clue about any of this.

The only thing I know about is the calorimetry in the 1 MW year-long test.
I know about this because I have some sample data and information on the
configuration. People who do not have this information cannot judge the
test.

Regarding the test, yhe only thing you have to go on are a few details
provided by Rossi in his interview with Lewan. Remarkably round numbers.
One of these details should set off alarm bells is that he did not allow
the I.H. expert into the customer site, even though the expert insisted on
that. You can do a little more Google homework and you will soon discover
that the customer is a fiction. He has done no business, paid no taxes, and
has no equipment (nothing that has been inspected). So the whole thing is a
scam, and there could not be 1 MW of process heat. I do not see how anyone
can reach a different conclusion.

> I know we'll have more information as time goes on. I'm happy waiting for
> it.
>

I hope more information will be released, but if the case is settled out of
court it may never be released.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Craig Haynie




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 and you would reach the same 
conclusion. _It was not working_.


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? Why raise money at 
all, if they weren't certain? Isn't that a type of fraud? Why sign the 
patent applications? Why sign the agreement with Rossi which gives 
Rossi's guy complete control over the final test? Why hire Rossi's other 
guy to observe this test? What was their role in the Lugano test? Didn't 
they build the reactor for that?


For a solution to be correct, all the pieces have to fit into place, and 
if money wasn't a factor in this, then things just don't all fit 
together for me. I know we'll have more information as time goes on. I'm 
happy waiting for it.


Craig

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. Anyone with knowledge of
calorimetry can judge them in 5 minutes. If the data is ever published you
will see that it shows no heat, and that Rossi and Penon's methods and
conclusions are absurd.

I suppose that is why Rossi did not publish the ERV report, but I wouldn't
know. Maybe he thinks he can fool people with this kind of rubbish. He has
fooled many people for many years. His methods are crude, not
sleight-of-hand, the way Abd predicted.

(Here is nit-picking pedantic footnote about Japanese literature:

The movie is titled "Rashomon" (Gate of Hell) but that is the title of
another, unrelated short story by the same author. This short story was
called "In a thicket" (Yabu no naka) which is how Japanese people describe
this kind of situation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Grove)

- Jed

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 Darden agreed to Penon, but that has no bearing on
calorimetry. In retrospect, Penon was a poor choice.

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 and you would reach the same conclusion. *It was
not working*.

I.H. knew that. I knew that. If the ERV sincerely did not know that, he is
a world-class idiot. The ERV's analysis as described by Rossi and
summarized in the data given to me is absurd.

It is possible the reactor was producing a little excess heat at times, but
the instruments were so bad you cannot be sure.

Fortunately, I have heard that I.H. experts were able to do a better
analysis. I have no information on how they did that, so don't even bother
asking me. I am taking their word for it. I am merely speculating here, but
I suppose they used proper instruments. Anyone could fix the problems and
do proper calorimetry. They urged Rossi to do that, but he refused.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Chris Zell

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 instruments and configuration would see
that in a few minutes.

I knew that many months ago. I would hoping the problems would be fixed,
but they were not.

The Penon report cannot describe anything other than those instruments,
that configuration, and the absurd numbers they produced. There was never
any doubt what it would say, because it was written by Penon and he
designed this farcical test. (Or maybe Rossi and Penon designed it -- I
wouldn't know.)

The results & data were never secret, and never in doubt. You can read them
right off the instruments, as you can with any calorimetry with a stable
reactor. Rossi's claim that he couldn't tell if it would "pass" after
months or that it takes millions of numbers to do calorimetry are
pluperfect idiotic nonsense. Anyone can read the energy balance in a half
hour with a handful of temperature and flow readings, if the instruments
are working right. These instruments could not possibly work right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Craig Haynie




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 relationship with Rossi for the past 3 years, 
unless they were certain of the technology. 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.


The most logical explanation for the way that IH acted, is that they 
simply didn't raise as much money as they had expected to raise in the 
past year; and if Rossi is correct, they only raised around $60 million. 
They probably just didn't raise the money they were expecting.


Craig

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 
 



"better understand the culture of Tom Darden and Mr Weaver, read 
carefully the following links:


The Pennsauken project
nytimes.com/2005/10/30/nyregio…eal-new-jersey-style.html 

nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/…bpoenas_are_issued_f.html 



The two bankruptcies in Feb 2016
postandcourier.com/article/20160208/PC05/160209426 



EnCap (Owned by Cherokee Investment Partners) bankruptcy in 2008
nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/…kruptcy_filing_risks.html 



the readers will understand."

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 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  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 report given to Rossi and D/IH  (hard to pin
down exact date)
June 2 Leonardo Corp terminated license with IH

So Rossi sued Darden before either party had received the Penon's
report.
Rossi would not sue IH without getting a strong indication that IH
were not going to pay him

As for IH  then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's
report was rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (&
possibly Jed)

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 Thread Alain Sepeda

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 reactor.
If the meter only measure volume (not mass?) and assuming steam is dry,
measurement is precise.

if steam is wet, the measurement is not far from real since volume and heat
of water is small.

this would be simple and clear for steam calorimetry?

Is my reasoning too naive?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread H LV

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 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 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 we mostly agree on and have seen over the
>> years.
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornros
>>
>>
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +1 916 436 1899
>>
>> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
>> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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. Sorry,
 but it sounds to me as the opposite.
 However, I might be wrong about your entrepreneurial skills. I am sure
 that you are dead wrong when it comes to Rossi's entrepreneurial spirits. I
 might not know much about caliometry but I know an entrepreneur when I see
 one in action. Suddenly I thought maybe you are as poor judging the other
 information you have? Well, that is speculation as you keep your info
 secret.
 If that info is as bad as your constant repeating that Rossi padlocked
 the door. Then you have nada. IH was not allowed to customer's site already
 in agreement.
 Take a look at Rossi - a real entrepreneur and as such pron to be
 overoptimistic and even overstate his accomplishment. No, it is not as
 prudent as required by academic standard. However, that is why
 entrepreneurs rather than professors take as a giant step here and there.
 Judgement of Rossi is certainly still too early. I hope he has much
 more than you give him credit for. I am not going to be disappointed if he
 did not achieve the numbers he has claimed.I admit there are several not so
 clear messages from Rossi but that is to be expected. It is too little info
 to make judgement.
 Wait and see. The reality is what it is and the value in labeling
 people is close to zero.


>>> 
>>>
>>>  "real entrepreneur" is also a label.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread H LV

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  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 report given to Rossi and D/IH  (hard to pin down exact
> date)
> June 2 Leonardo Corp terminated license with IH
>
> So Rossi sued Darden before either party had received the Penon's report.
> Rossi would not sue IH without getting a strong indication that IH were
> not going to pay him
>
> As for IH  then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was
> rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed)
>
>

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 report given to Rossi and D/IH  (hard to pin down 
exact date)

June 2 Leonardo Corp terminated license with IH

So Rossi sued Darden before either party had received the Penon's report.
Rossi would not sue IH without getting a strong indication that IH were 
not going to pay him


As for IH  then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was 
rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed)

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




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. 
Time can be of the essence when claims and counterclaims start

flying.  From the description of the situation, it seems like a
lawsuit was a very likely outcome, and assuming Rossi is rational
he might very well have expected it.


I agree that it's likely that Rossi had started preparing for a 
lawsuit well before March 11.  I would be surprised if it turned out 
to be otherwise.  One suspects Rossi had a lawsuit in the back of his 
mind from the start of the test.


"No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a
lawyer".  Not in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual
default.


If you read the quote from Rossi, it's natural interpretation would be 
that IH and Rossi are on good terms.  Do you disagree?


Nah, I haven't read the quote, I've only seen it paraphrased, so I can't 
reasonably disagree.  I was mouthing off; didn't mean I knew anything.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread H LV

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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>

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 than assert their opinions
over and over and over, is pretty sterile.  I do commend Jed for sticking
it out through this kind of nonsense.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Daniel Rocha

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 description
> of the situation, it seems like a lawsuit was a very likely outcome, and
> assuming Rossi is rational he might very well have expected it.
>

I agree that it's likely that Rossi had started preparing for a lawsuit
well before March 11.  I would be surprised if it turned out to be
otherwise.  One suspects Rossi had a lawsuit in the back of his mind from
the start of the test.

> "No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a lawyer".  Not
> in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual default.
>

If you read the quote from Rossi, it's natural interpretation would be that
IH and Rossi are on good terms.  Do you disagree?

Eric

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
> what was in it,  before dismissing it out of hand.
>

What about IH's not paying as a result of its not trusting the setup of the
test, the qualifications of the ERV, and the content of the ERV's report is
pure nonsense?  Please explain.

When did IH dismiss the ERV's report out of hand?  What details are you
aware of about the conversations that took place between IH and Leonardo?
Would IH have had much confidence in the report if there was no genuine
collaboration on the setup of the test?

> Then comes the propaganda to try and justify their action, feeding stuff
> to critics about how bad the report was.
>

What propaganda are you referring to?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




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
gave them his report.  This strikes me as very strange unless IH
had planned on not paying all along.


Do you think Rossi found out IH weren't going to pay up before or 
after March 11, the date of his JONP comment?  If he found out after, 
he would have needed to prepare for the lawsuit, which was filed on 
April 5, within 25 days or less.  If he found out before, he would 
have been in the process of working with the lawyer to prepare the 
lawsuit for filing even as he said to a JONP reader that there was no 
"divorce" between him and IH, a comment whose reasonable 
interpretation was that everything was ok between them.


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 
description of the situation, it seems like a lawsuit was a very likely 
outcome, and assuming Rossi is rational he might very well have expected it.


"No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a lawyer".  
Not in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual default.


 -- SAL

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 the pipe has a flowmeter or a thermocouple?

You believe Rossi even though he has told you practically nothing. You do
not believe me because I have told you nothing more than what Rossi said.
You have a double standard!

If you are not going to believe people who do not reveal all that they
know, you should believe Rossi either.

>   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.
>

No, it isn't looking like that. Only in your imagination, perhaps. It looks
like I have agreed not to discuss anything that Rossi and I.H. have not
already revealed.

> It smells when you ask me who told me that when you won't reveal your
> source.
>

I told you my source: Rossi's data.

Why does it not smell to you when Rossi reveals nothing? Why doesn't he
give you the ERV report?

>   You say we should take your word for it but you can't take mine.
>

You have no information! You know nothing about this. No one should take
your word for anything because you are merely speculating and guessing --
and guessing wrong in most cases.

If you will not take my word for anything, then you should not take Rossi's
either. He has not told you anything more than I have.

- Jed

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 duplication of instruments, I think I remember Rossi make a comment 
about how his measurements agreed with those of the ERV.  I took that to 
mean they both had instruments.  There must have been some duplication 
as I doubt the ERV's instrument output was used for control purposes.


It smells when you ask me who told me that when you won't reveal your 
source.  You say we should take your word for it but you can't take mine.



On 6/5/2016 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 say only that I agree with I.H. that the measurements 
were flawed and the measuring devices unsuitable. As I said, the test 
was a farce.



It is ambiguous but I think the instrumentation was duplicated in
some cases.  ie Rossi and the ERV both had their own.


Who told you that? I have not heard anything like that. (I have not 
heard it is true, or that it isn't.)


I think you should not speculate about things you know nothing about.

- Jed

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, that is not a reliable
source of information.

Even if they had not seen it, they knew what was in it. They had been
discussing the calorimetry for a year with Rossi and Penon.

- Jed

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 
dismissing it out of hand.  Then comes the propaganda to try and justify 
their action, feeding stuff to critics about how bad the report was.



On 6/5/2016 7:19 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
gave them his report.  This strikes me as very strange unless IH
had planned on not paying all along.


Do you think Rossi found out IH weren't going to pay up before or 
after March 11, the date of his JONP comment?  If he found out after, 
he would have needed to prepare for the lawsuit, which was filed on 
April 5, within 25 days or less.  If he found out before, he would 
have been in the process of working with the lawyer to prepare the 
lawsuit for filing even as he said to a JONP reader that there was no 
"divorce" between him and IH, a comment whose reasonable 
interpretation was that everything was ok between them.


Eric

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 say only that I agree with I.H. that the measurements were
flawed and the measuring devices unsuitable. As I said, the test was a
farce.

> It is ambiguous but I think the instrumentation was duplicated in some
> cases.  ie Rossi and the ERV both had their own.
>

Who told you that? I have not heard anything like that. (I have not heard
it is true, or that it isn't.)

I think you should not speculate about things you know nothing about.

- Jed

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
> paying all along.
>

Do you think Rossi found out IH weren't going to pay up before or after
March 11, the date of his JONP comment?  If he found out after, he would
have needed to prepare for the lawsuit, which was filed on April 5, within
25 days or less.  If he found out before, he would have been in the process
of working with the lawyer to prepare the lawsuit for filing even as he
said to a JONP reader that there was no "divorce" between him and IH, a
comment whose reasonable interpretation was that everything was ok between
them.

Eric

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 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 Guaranteed Performance Test ended on
February 15, and the ERV published his final report on March 29.
Presumably IH's expert would have visited the plant during the
testing, so on or before February 15. If this is true, the comment
was made on JONP at least 25 days after the IH expert visited,
insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and
was told by the ERV that this detail had no importance. If we are to
believe Rossi's comment on March 11, he must not have seen that there
were problems at this point.

How long does it take to prepare a lawsuit? I suppose this could be
done in 25 days, from March 11 to April 5, in a pinch. Is your
suggestion that the lawsuit was commenced after March 11?

Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks. He would keep
these as a record anyway. Nothing strange about that.

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of the 18 volumes.

You keep on about the anonymous IH "expert" not being allowed
access to the customer. We have been through this countless
times. It is not necessary to know how the heat was used when
measuring the output of a black box. Jed even admits that.
Sounds like you are applying your first law again.

Ok, your view is that it doesn't matter whether the IH expert had
access to the customer area. Your opinion is noted. Everyone is
entitled to his opinion.

Eric

[1]
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.0.pdf

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 Guaranteed Performance Test ended on
February 15, and the ERV published his final report on March 29.
Presumably IH's expert would have visited the plant during the testing, so
on or before February 15.  If this is true, the comment was made on JONP at
least 25 days after the IH expert visited, insisted that it was important
to know where the water came from and was told by the ERV that this detail
had no importance.  If we are to believe Rossi's comment on March 11, he
must not have seen that there were problems at this point.

How long does it take to prepare a lawsuit?  I suppose this could be done
in 25 days, from March 11 to April 5, in a pinch.  Is your suggestion that
the lawsuit was commenced after March 11?

Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks.  He would keep these as a
> record anyway.  Nothing strange about that.
>

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of the 18 volumes.

> You keep on about the anonymous IH "expert" not being allowed access to
> the customer.  We have been through this countless times.  It is not
> necessary to know how the heat was used when measuring the output of a
> black box.  Jed even admits that.   Sounds like you are applying your first
> law again.
>

Ok, your view is that it doesn't matter whether the IH expert had access to
the customer area.  Your opinion is noted.  Everyone is entitled to his
opinion.

Eric

[1]
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.0.pdf

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 strange about that.


You keep on about the anonymous IH "expert" not being allowed access to 
the customer.  We have been through this countless times.  It is not 
necessary to know how the heat was used when measuring the output of a 
black box.  Jed even admits that.   Sounds like you are applying your 
first law again.



On 6/5/2016 5:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
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 spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce
between Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included
Industrial Heat. Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of
Leonardo Corporation for its Territory and I never referred to any
possible divorce. I invite anybody to disregard any innuendo,
supposition, speculation related to the licenses of Leonardo
Corporation unless they are communicated directly from Leonardo
Corporation. There is some imbecile that tries to get audience
inventing situations that do not exist. [1]


On April 7, two days after the suit was filed, Rossi claimed to have 
18 volumes of evidence in support of the case [2].  Did everything go 
terribly wrong between March 11 and April 5, and did Rossi amass those 
18 volumes during the intervening time?  You will need to decide 
whether these and other statements are true and benign, or misleading, 
or false.  Rossi says many things.


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
thermocouple to measure the steam temperature. Very basic, easy to
do things.  That is neglecting the heat required to heat the water
to boiling, as was agreed as a conservative measure.   Jed says he
knows what the instrumentation was.  Perhaps he will describe it.
This is not like Rossi's earlier demos where the output was barely
above 100C.


One awaits reliable data upon which to do calculations, which, when 
obtained, will be interesting to see.  But since IH's expert was not 
allowed access to the customer area, there is no assurance, given what 
we know, that there was even a closed circuit.


Eric


[1] 
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=71#comment-1158228
[2] 
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=89#comment-1169740

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 the 1 MW plant going to the customer have 
a thermocouple and a pressure gauge on it?


3.  How was the electrical power input to the plant measured?

It is ambiguous but I think the instrumentation was duplicated in some 
cases.  ie Rossi and the ERV both had their own.

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 spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce between
Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included Industrial Heat.
Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of Leonardo Corporation for its
Territory and I never referred to any possible divorce. I invite anybody to
disregard any innuendo, supposition, speculation related to the licenses of
Leonardo Corporation unless they are communicated directly from Leonardo
Corporation. There is some imbecile that tries to get audience inventing
situations that do not exist. [1]

On April 7, two days after the suit was filed, Rossi claimed to have 18
volumes of evidence in support of the case [2].  Did everything go terribly
wrong between March 11 and April 5, and did Rossi amass those 18 volumes
during the intervening time?  You will need to decide whether these and
other statements are true and benign, or misleading, or false.  Rossi says
many things.

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 thermocouple to measure the
> steam temperature.  Very basic, easy to do things.  That is neglecting the
> heat required to heat the water to boiling, as was agreed as a conservative
> measure.   Jed says he knows what the instrumentation was.  Perhaps he will
> describe it.
> This is not like Rossi's earlier demos where the output was barely above
> 100C.
>

One awaits reliable data upon which to do calculations, which, when
obtained, will be interesting to see.  But since IH's expert was not
allowed access to the customer area, there is no assurance, given what we
know, that there was even a closed circuit.

Eric

[1]
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=71#comment-1158228
[2]
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=89#comment-1169740

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 thermocouple to measure the 
steam temperature.  Very basic, easy to do things.  That is neglecting 
the heat required to heat the water to boiling, as was agreed as a 
conservative measure.   Jed says he knows what the instrumentation was.  
Perhaps he will describe it.
This is not like Rossi's earlier demos where the output was barely above 
100C.


On 6/5/2016 5:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

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 cheap seats what Leonardo and IH were saying to 
one another, and what they were saying among themselves.


Eric


On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:01 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


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 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 facility.


The problem precedes this suggestion.  The expert would have been
incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.

Eric

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 consultant's name and when was he hired by IH?


On 6/5/2016 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a 
farce. It was as bad as the worst of Rossi's previous tests.


  Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's facility.


A person would be insane not to insist on that. Especially after 
measuring no excess heat in Rossi's room, and knowing that "customer" 
had conducted no business, paid no taxes, had no employees, and had no 
equipment inspections. This being the 21st century anyone can confirm 
that. Would _you_ write a check for $89 million knowing all that? 
Doesn't that make you a little suspicious that the "customer" may not 
actually be using 1 MW of process heat?


- Jed

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 cheap
seats what Leonardo and IH were saying to one another, and what they were
saying among themselves.

Eric

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:01 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

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 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
>> facility.
>>
>
> The problem precedes this suggestion.  The expert would have been
> incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

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 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 facility.


The problem precedes this suggestion. The expert would have been 
incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.


Eric

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 would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a farce. It was
as bad as the worst of Rossi's previous tests.

>   Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's facility.
>

A person would be insane not to insist on that. Especially after measuring
no excess heat in Rossi's room, and knowing that "customer" had conducted
no business, paid no taxes, had no employees, and had no equipment
inspections. This being the 21st century anyone can confirm that. Would
*you* write a check for $89 million knowing all that? Doesn't that make you
a little suspicious that the "customer" may not actually be using 1 MW of
process heat?

- Jed

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 I am much encouraged to see 116C as
> the output temperature.
>

That would be encouraging, if it were true.

- Jed

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
> for some way to do that.  Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's
> facility.
>

The problem precedes this suggestion.  The expert would have been
incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.

Eric

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 facility.


This would explain what has happened.  It would be interesting to know 
who he is and when he was hired.  Presumably he also soured others at 
Cherokee like Vaughn who never seemed keen on the project to start 
with.  Recall what he said to the inspectors looking for radiation about 
Rossi.

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 beginning we will have to wait for more facts.
I remain optimistic that Rossi's current 7 day test of the QuarkX will 
open things up without a long delay.



On 6/5/2016 2:03 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
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 the expert from seeing the facility.  It is likely
that what you say, that the IH's expert later complained, but
that's a matter of speculation.


What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no
necessity for IH to visit the customer's plant.  Hardly the same
thing as the ERV "blocking" the visit.


Yes -- thank you for the clarification.  From Mats Lewan's article: 
 "IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, 
an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where 
the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this 
had no importance."


Perhaps the expert was not blocked by anyone; certainly we don't know 
that he was blocked by the ERV.  Note however that we are to 
understand from Lewan's report of Rossi's description that the ERV 
thought that access to the customer's area had no importance.  We are 
each left to our own conclusions about the objectivity, independence 
and qualifications of the ERV, given what we know from Rossi and Lewans.


Eric

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 be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity,
> and do not forget, propellant-less thrust.
>
>
>
> I think this strong desire to help the world in some way is at the heart
> of what is defeating people's critical faculties.  It is a noble impulse,
> but one should try to step back from it and gain perspective.
>
> These are the most relevant two postings in this entire tiresome thread.
> Nothing of substance will change until the court rules which will be
> months away. Why continue to flog a dead horse? My trash bin overfloweth.
>
Yes, indeed.  I can't help but think the arguments have been aired
sufficiently now, and that those pursuing them can retire in comfort,
knowing that everyone has had a chance to consider their merits over the
last few weeks.  We're really at a loss to say much about what has
transpired until more information becomes publicly available.

Eric

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 the expert from
> seeing the facility.  It is likely that what you say, that the IH's expert
> later complained, but that's a matter of speculation.
>
>
> What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no necessity
> for IH to visit the customer's plant.  Hardly the same thing as the ERV
> "blocking" the visit.
>

Yes -- thank you for the clarification.  From Mats Lewan's article:  "IH
never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert
hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came
from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance."

Perhaps the expert was not blocked by anyone; certainly we don't know that
he was blocked by the ERV.  Note however that we are to understand from
Lewan's report of Rossi's description that the ERV thought that access to
the customer's area had no importance.  We are each left to our own
conclusions about the objectivity, independence and qualifications of the
ERV, given what we know from Rossi and Lewans.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Jones Beene

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, propellant-less thrust. 
 
I think this strong desire to help the world in some way is at the heart of 
what is defeating people's critical faculties.  It is a noble impulse, but one 
should try to step back from it and gain perspective.


These are the most relevant two postings in this entire tiresome thread. 
Nothing of substance will change until the court rules which will be months 
away. Why continue to flog a dead horse? My trash bin overfloweth. 

For those vorticians who are way more interested in an important technology 
than indulging in a soap opera of personality disorders, it would be great to 
move on to anything which promotes a better understanding of LENR.

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 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.

Are we to understand that you would have us rely on Rossi's assertion in this 
instance, without querying it?


  2.  There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan.  It is just 
for other countries.

I will be very interested in seeing the painstaking analysis that you will have 
done to compare the claims in this patent application to earlier ones.

Eric

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 expert.

Are we to understand that you would have us rely on Rossi's assertion in this 
instance, without querying it?

>  2.  There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan.  It is 
> just for other countries.

I will be very interested in seeing the painstaking analysis that you will have 
done to compare the claims in this patent application to earlier ones.

Eric

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 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 instrument readings. His 
instruments produce remarkably round numbers.


If the output temperature was 116C  this is a good indication that
the steam was superheated and not wet.


I do not think it was 116 deg C.

- Jed

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 is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind 
of NDA. The arguments are switching between that those secret facts 
are the base to that Rossi's own statements makes him a scam artist.

Most of all I dislike the name calling of Rossi and the ERV.
Secondly I think the whole discussion is useless if the secret 
information is not shared.
Thirdly Rossi has kept the whole LENR community in suspense for at 
least four years, I think he has the right to explain / prove himself 
before we forget about his contribution.
Forth is the fact that IH has not handle the situation very well. In 
many juncture a firm stand would have prevented Rossi from filing a 
lawsuit. Yes, it is possible they decided to take the risk with full 
understanding of that they probably were taken for a ride. Thrm I 
suggest they are as guilty and will pay for that.
Fifth is the fact that Rossi is spending his money persuading the LENR 
solution he has. It does not make sense if his goal was to get some 
funds for a happy retirement. It just does not make any sense. If I am 
wrong here it will show very soon as Rossi needs to show his cards, 
perhaps not to us but to a new partner, who is well warned about that 
it is hard to manage Rossi and perhaps an investment is risky and 
without upside. I am sure there will be serious due diligence before 
any money change hands.

Wait and see. Speculations will not bring clarity.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)



On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:31 AM, 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 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:

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 the
ones he quoted to Lewan in the recent interview.

I have no information from I.H.

- Jed

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 for other countries.

On 6/5/2016 12:05 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
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 cold fusion would ensure it was
rejected.

Your reply above does not bear on the point that was being made about
the patents, which I raised earlier in connection with the reasonable
behavior of Rossi. I was trying to show that Rossi's behavior has not
been that of a reasonable person, as seen in part through the patent
applications that have been filed. It was a weak point, with many
counterarguments that can be made, and so the point is not one that
needs to be pursued in detail. But it is worth considering.

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 so, please share.

Eric. We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't
work; perhaps they are, in which case perhaps that will come to
light later in a court document of some kind. What we know for
sure of their position is that they haven't been able to
substantiate his claims. In hindsight, knowing Rossi, this is not
a surprise.

AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?
You might let Jed know that.

What we know from several sources is that IH do not believe that
Rossi's results have been substantiated. A press release dated April 7
says that "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to
substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat
technology – all without success." [1]. That means that from what
they've seen Rossi's stuff doesn't work, or it doesn't work to the
extent that Rossi claims. Can we conclude that IH believe that /none/
of Rossi's technology is real and has ever worked, apart from what
they themselves have taken a look at? That's a question for IH to
clarify.

Eric

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-statement-on-meritless-litigation-from-leonardo-corporation-and-andrea-rossi-300248066.html

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 IH's expert later complained, but that's a matter of speculation.


What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no necessity 
for IH to visit the customer's plant.  Hardly the same thing as the ERV 
"blocking" the visit.

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 read all the arguments from both sides.
>

No, you have not. You have seen only a little data from Rossi. Until you
see his data and configuration, you have no basis to judge this situation.
You have no idea why I.H. thinks the measurements are flawed and the
instruments unsuitable.

The only think you know is that Rossi blocked the door to the pretend
customer site, and Rossi's instruments produce magically round numbers.

> I think the reality is not shown very well.
>

You know nothing.

One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind of
> NDA. The arguments are switching between that those secret facts are the
> base to that Rossi's own statements makes him a scam artist.
>

No, Rossi's own statement about how he blocked the door show that he is a
scam artist.

> Most of all I dislike the name calling of Rossi and the ERV.
>

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether you dislike it or not. I dislike the
arrogant, ignorant, unfounded garbage you post here about me. So we are
even.

You have hardly heard the names Rossi will be called if the ERV report is
ever published.

> Secondly I think the whole discussion is useless if the secret information
> is not shared.
>

Rossi shared the information already. He told you he is a scam artist who
blocks the entrance to a pretend customer. You can find out for yourself
this customer has no employees, conducts no business, pays no taxes, and
has never had his phantom 1-MW industrial equipment inspected. The customer
is dummy corporation set up by Rossi's lawyer. With any luck, that lawyer
will be joining Rossi and Penon in prison for fraud.

> Thirdly Rossi has kept the whole LENR community in suspense for at least
> four years, I think he has the right to explain / prove himself before we
> forget about his contribution.
>

I am glad you think so! Ask him for a copy of ERV report. I have heard it
is a laff-riot.

> Forth is the fact that IH has not handle the situation very well. In many
> juncture a firm stand would have prevented Rossi from filing a lawsuit.
>

That would be like keeping a scorpion from stinging. Rossi files lawsuits
and he makes trouble. That's what he does.

- Jed

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 
from Rossi?


As for the numbers Rossi gave Lewan I am much encouraged to see 116C as 
the output temperature.  My concern was that it would be lower 
indicating the possibility of very wet steam/liquid water.


If the steam were superheated the measurement of the heat output is very 
simple.  Hard to imagine an expert would choose instruments that 
couldn't do that well.



On 6/5/2016 11:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 actual numbers are the same ones he gave Lewan. 
However, in my opinion they are bogus. I agree with I.H. that these 
were "flawed measurements" using "unsuitable measuring devices," so 
those numbers cannot be right.


  I have not seen anything from him to indicate that the plant did
not operate well.


Of course you don't! He says it operates well.

  If you have other numbers, what were their source?


I just told you!!! Rossi was the source. I have no other numbers. How 
many times do I have to repeat myself?


- Jed

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 anything, his name *must* be included in the patent. That is
a Patent Office rule. I once had to sign a patent application because I
contributed a trivial effort to the discovery. It would be declared invalid
if they had not included me. (Nothing came of the application.)

- Jed

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 instrument readings. His instruments
produce remarkably round numbers.

> If the output temperature was 116C  this is a good indication that the
> steam was superheated and not wet.
>

I do not think it was 116 deg C.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Lennart Thornros

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 secret facts are the
base to that Rossi's own statements makes him a scam artist.
Most of all I dislike the name calling of Rossi and the ERV.
Secondly I think the whole discussion is useless if the secret information
is not shared.
Thirdly Rossi has kept the whole LENR community in suspense for at least
four years, I think he has the right to explain / prove himself before we
forget about his contribution.
Forth is the fact that IH has not handle the situation very well. In many
juncture a firm stand would have prevented Rossi from filing a lawsuit.
Yes, it is possible they decided to take the risk with full understanding
of that they probably were taken for a ride. Thrm I suggest they are as
guilty and will pay for that.
Fifth is the fact that Rossi is spending his money persuading the LENR
solution he has. It does not make sense if his goal was to get some funds
for a happy retirement. It just does not make any sense. If I am wrong here
it will show very soon as Rossi needs to show his cards, perhaps not to us
but to a new partner, who is well warned about that it is hard to manage
Rossi and perhaps an investment is risky and without upside. I am sure
there will be serious due diligence before any money change hands.
Wait and see. Speculations will not bring clarity.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:31 AM, 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 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:
>
> a.ashfield < a.ashfi...@verizon.net> 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 the ones he quoted to
> Lewan in the recent interview.
>
> I have no information from I.H.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

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
> cold fusion would ensure it was rejected.
>

Your reply above does not bear on the point that was being made about the
patents, which I raised earlier in connection with the reasonable behavior
of Rossi.  I was trying to show that Rossi's behavior has not been that of
a reasonable person, as seen in part through the patent applications that
have been filed.  It was a weak point, with many counterarguments that can
be made, and so the point is not one that needs to be pursued in detail.
But it is worth considering.

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 so,
please share.

Eric.  We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; perhaps
> they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in a court
> document of some kind.  What we know for sure of their position is that
> they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In hindsight, knowing
> Rossi, this is not a surprise.
>
> AA.  Really?  We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?  You
> might let Jed know that.
>

What we know from several sources is that IH do not believe that Rossi's
results have been substantiated. A press release dated April 7 says that
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
success." [1].  That means that from what they've seen Rossi's stuff
doesn't work, or it doesn't work to the extent that Rossi claims.  Can we
conclude that IH believe that *none* of Rossi's technology is real and has
ever worked, apart from what they themselves have taken a look at?  That's
a question for IH to clarify.

Eric

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-statement-on-meritless-litigation-from-leonardo-corporation-and-andrea-rossi-300248066.html

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 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


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:

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 himself, in the Lewan 
interview:


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

Quotes:

"The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.

A total of about 31 MJ of electric energy was input. At 0,9 g/s, a 
total of about 26 kg of water was input during the test from 11 am 
until 7 pm. Heating this water from 25 to 116 degrees centigrade 
requires about 10 MJ. During the last 5 hours, 16 kg of this water was 
also evaporated, which required about 36 MJ."


See also:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg109919.html

Those numbers plus some other surprisingly round numbers were in the 
data I saw.


- Jed

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.
>
> Eric.  No.  It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from
> seeing the customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan.
>
> AA.  What do you mean "no"?  What you state was not in my sentence.
>

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 IH's expert
later complained, but that's a matter of speculation.

Eric

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 actual numbers are the same ones he gave Lewan. However, in
my opinion they are bogus. I agree with I.H. that these were "flawed
measurements" using "unsuitable measuring devices," so those numbers cannot
be right.

>   I have not seen anything from him to indicate that the plant did not
> operate well.
>

Of course you don't! He says it operates well.

>   If you have other numbers, what were their source?
>

I just told you!!! Rossi was the source. I have no other numbers. How many
times do I have to repeat myself?

- Jed

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 the ERV who stopped the IH person.  I have seen no proof of this 
either, only what you have reported from your IH source. Not so very 
long ago IH/Cherokee put out a statement that nothing should be believed 
unless it was in an official IH statement.



On 6/5/2016 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 unacceptable AT
THE BEGINNING.


I have no idea what happened at THE BEGINNING. They said it was 
unacceptable several months later. Why does it matter? Is there a 
statute of limitations? Do you have have to find problems at THE 
BEGINNING or never? That makes no sense.


You may know what the instrumentation was but you have not shared
that info and I don't know what it was.


So you will have to wait. So stop jumping to conclusions. Stop taking 
sides. Stop making up stuff, such as: "The only thing Rossi stopped 
the IH employee from doing was visit the customer's plant."



If you know it, why not list it?


Obviously because I agreed not to. Duh.

If you want information, you should ask Rossi for the ERV report.

- Jed

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:

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 the ones he 
quoted to Lewan in the recent interview.


I have no information from I.H.

- Jed

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 himself, in the Lewan interview:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

Quotes:

"The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.

A total of about 31 MJ of electric energy was input. At 0,9 g/s, a total of
about 26 kg of water was input during the test from 11 am until 7 pm.
Heating this water from 25 to 116 degrees centigrade requires about 10 MJ.
During the last 5 hours, 16 kg of this water was also evaporated, which
required about 36 MJ."

See also:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg109919.html

Those numbers plus some other surprisingly round numbers were in the data I
saw.

- Jed

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 to get a patent in this 
circumstance.  Mentioning cold fusion would ensure it was rejected.


AA.  I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's 
technology adding the name of one of their employees as inventor.


Eric.  Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent 
law, as a presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this.


AA.  You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it.

AA.  So the situation is murky to say the least.  It seems strange to me 
for IH to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet apply 
for patents saying that it does.


Eric.  We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; 
perhaps they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in 
a court document of some kind.  What we know for sure of their position 
is that they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In hindsight, 
knowing Rossi, this is not a surprise.


AA.  Really?  We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?  You 
might let Jed know that.



On 6/5/2016 10:52 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a
matter of opinion.


I'm starting to get some energy back.  Please enumerate what you've 
already gone over that I've overlooked, and what I've said that is 
simply a matter of opinion, so that together we can correct the record.


Patents have not come up before.  I presume you know the Patent
Office has a special procedure to stop or delay patents on cold
fusion as they have taken DOE's word for it that it is like
perpetual motion and impossible.  The one patent Rossi has
obtained in the US carefully avoids mentioning LENR/cold fusion in
order to get passed.  Hence some details about the LENR side of it
are missing.


Patents have come up many, many times, before, in connection with 
Rossi.  I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  I do not claim that 
there are difficulties at the US patent office getting LENR patents. 
But this has no bearing on whether a generically worded patent is 
enabling. If the patent is enabling, a person having ordinary skill in 
the art (the art, here, is presumably engineering and materials 
science stuff relating to the building of nickel hydride reactors) 
will be able to reproduce what is described in the patent.  I know of 
not a single replication of one of the embodiments in one of Rossi's 
patents.  I know of several attempted Lugano replications, which in 
hindsight are of questionable quality. But they were working from the 
Lugano test and not a patent of Rossi's. To compound matters, Rossi 
has done things like referring to a "catalyst" in a claim of a patent 
and then omitted to describe the catalyst.  In drawing up these patent 
applications, has either been (1) acting on bad legal advice, (2) 
ignoring good legal advice, or (3) writing a patent application for 
something that doesn't exist.  This is not the kind of reasonable 
behavior that I would expect, e.g., from a reasonable engineer working 
at Intel who came up with a new process and wants to benefit from this 
invention. It's some other kind of behavior, systematically carried 
out over years.


I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's
technology adding the name of one of their employees as inventor.


Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent law, 
as a presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this.


Also have taken out patents in countries where they are not
licensed to operate.


IH address this point in their reply to the complaint.

So the situation is murky to say the least.  It seems strange to
me for IH to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet
apply for patents saying that it does.


We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; perhaps 
they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in a 
court document of some kind.  What we know for sure of their position 
is that they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In 
hindsight, knowing Rossi, this is not a surprise.


Eric

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 unacceptable AT THE
> BEGINNING.
>

I have no idea what happened at THE BEGINNING. They said it was
unacceptable several months later. Why does it matter? Is there a statute
of limitations? Do you have have to find problems at THE BEGINNING or
never? That makes no sense.

> You may know what the instrumentation was but you have not shared that
> info and I don't know what it was.
>

So you will have to wait. So stop jumping to conclusions. Stop taking
sides. Stop making up stuff, such as: "The only thing Rossi stopped the IH
employee from doing was visit the customer's plant."

If you know it, why not list it?
>

Obviously because I agreed not to. Duh.

If you want information, you should ask Rossi for the ERV report.

- Jed

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 the ones he quoted to
Lewan in the recent interview.

I have no information from I.H.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1