: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test
Jed Rothwell wrote:
If he had shown them how to produce any measurable COP, even 1.1, they would
have paid him $89 million.
That is an absurd statement which has zero credibility. You are falling into
the same trap as Rossi's true believers, which
Jed Rothwell wrote:
If he had shown them how to produce any measurable COP, even 1.1, they
would have paid him $89 million.
That is an absurd statement which has zero credibility. You are falling
into the same trap as Rossi's true believers, which is to make a dubious
point at any cost.
wrote:
> I do not consider that the contractual sale of IP by Rossi included
> training IH in his POHOSITA to obtain long term performance of the E-Cat
> above a COP of 4.
>
I do not recall the details of the contract, but it covered all IP, at any
COP. It covered
in this day and
age.
Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test
Jed, You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest
comments. I don't believe that you or anyone
Jed,
It looks to me that Bob was repeating my comment. It is impossible to
be sure, one way or the other. that the E-Cat works, without having all
the data. You said I was calling you a liar because of this and stopped
replying to me.
If the instrumentation was so obviously useless on the
Bob Higgins wrote:
Jed, You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest
> comments.
>
Saying that an experiment failed is not extremist. Most experiments fail.
> I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to *prove* that
> there
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil wrote:
Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work.
It is described in the patent. They cannot get the machines in the
patent to work, therefore the patent is invalid and the IP has no
value. If someone else can make the patent
Jed, You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest
comments. I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to
*prove* that there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a contrived
"GPT". XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi claims,
but
Axil Axil wrote:
Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work.
>
It is described in the patent. They cannot get the machines in the patent
to work, therefore the patent is invalid and the IP has no value. If
someone else can make the patent work,
Axil,
Have you not seen Rossi's patent?
It doesn't even mention LENR and protects very little.
AA
On 2/18/2017 6:08 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. It is worthwhile
to verify that that patent is valid.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, a.ashfield
This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with experts.
They determined that the patent is not valid.
IH should make everything that supports this statement public so that it
can be verified by others in a public venue. IH has nothing to lose by
supporting their claims by
Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered.
>
A patent that does not work and cannot be replicated is not valid. It is
worthless. He is not protected against anything. In the highly unlikely
scenario that he actually has a positive result, he will
No one has been able to replicate Rossi or his patents.
Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work. If
someone can get it to work, then IH will benefit from that effort.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Axil Axil
Jed, "none of these replicators has succeeded. Not one."
Russian Group Claims Rossi/Parkhomov Replication Success
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/10/05/russian-group-claims-rossiparkhomov-replication-success/
AA
On 2/18/2017 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil
Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. It is worthwhile to
verify that that patent is valid.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
> Axil,
> Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds me
> of MIT and Pons &
Axil Axil wrote:
Ahern's current effort is a red herring in regard to Rossi's IP.
>
I repeat, his effort has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI, or Rossi's IP! It
predates Rossi by many years.
What the hell are you talking about here? It is not a red herring, or blue
or green
IH should want to prove that Rossi's IP is a fraud and that they want to
recover that $11 million in a case that features as evidence and expert
testimony many hundreds of failed replications as they have themselves
failed.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
Ahern's current effort is a red herring in regard to Rossi's IP. Jed, your
position is helping both IH and Rossi hide from fact finding. Why is your
aim to hide the facts. You must believe that Rossi's IP is valid and want
to protect IH from revealing it as open source.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at
Axil,
Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds
me of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann.
What happens if the experiment did work? Then IH would have given away
Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little protection he
does have.
AA
On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM,
Axil Axil wrote:
Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
> statement of verified fact.
>
Perhaps he would, but his experiment has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI. You
wrote that he is replicating. That is false. If anything, it is the other
way around.
Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their
assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth that IP is
nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and advance their case
against Rossi.
On
Axil Axil wrote:
There are dozens of well motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech
> working now including brian Ahern . . .
>
Ahern is trying to replicate an experiment that was done many years before
Rossi began work. It has nothing to do with Rossi, except for
Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with
Rossi's IP. If that were the case why would they have agreed to give
Rossi $89 million? Surely his technology, if it works, is worth more
than $11 million.
I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that
There are dozens of well motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech
working now including brian Ahern and an additional hundreds that will
enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is made available. I am disgusted
with all the innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be
Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't help to
have this run by avowed enemies. Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the
replication of Pons & Fleischmann?
AA
On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO
IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO involving
the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian Ahern as its most
prominent member to allow that community to run tests to see if Rossi's
technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in their claims
Leonart,
I agree with you. It serves no useful purpose to repetitively run down
Rossi like Jed and Brian do.
I do think Rossi has discovered something for the reasons Frank Acland
wrote here: (saves me writing it myself.)
http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
AA
On 2/18/2017
I note your pseudo skeptical certainty, but the truth will not be known
until all the data comes out in the trial. Now set for June.
AA
On 2/18/2017 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:
I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal
Brian it is not a question of being a believer. Rossi has propelled LENR
forward. If he has what says _ then great.
If he does not have it we will soon learn. Than he still has contributed. I
then have a hard time understanding why he still works on the project
Why not save the good earnings. Well
29 matches
Mail list logo