RE: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[bobcook39923]

Jones—

I have concluded that Jed frequently draws conclusions that  IMHO are not 
logical.  The one you point is one I decided not to even address, since I 
thought it was obvious to most.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 7:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [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 is to make a dubious point at 
any cost.

If IH were under no contractual obligation and paid anyway, IH's own investors 
would sue, and win for mismanaging assets. 

It makes no sense that IH would pay Rossi a dime for low COP and that is the 
most likely scenario: Rossi had low COP in the range of 150% more power-out 
than power-in (at Lugano) and nothing in Miami but that feat gets him not one 
extra dime, and it shouldn't.

$11 million is a fair price for a modest effect which was already demonstrated 
and patented by Thermacore twenty years ago. Slight gain at a low level should 
have changed physics back then but it did not and it will not change physics 
today unless it makes its way into a commercial product.

Rossi may be a scam-artist deluxe and a pathological liar, but it does not help 
to resilve the situation to lower oneself to the same low level. 

Take the high road, as the lady sez...

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jones Beene]

 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.


If IH were under no contractual obligation and paid anyway, IH's own 
investors would sue, and win for mismanaging assets.


It makes no sense that IH would pay Rossi a dime for low COP and that is 
the most likely scenario: Rossi had low COP in the range of 150% more 
power-out than power-in (at Lugano) and nothing in Miami but that feat 
gets him not one extra dime, and it shouldn't.


$11 million is a fair price for a modest effect which was already 
demonstrated and patented by Thermacore twenty years ago. Slight gain at 
a low level should have changed physics back then but it did not and it 
will not change physics today unless it makes its way into a commercial 
product.


Rossi may be a scam-artist deluxe and a pathological liar, but it does 
not help to resilve the situation to lower oneself to the same low level.


Take the high road, as the lady sez...

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jed Rothwell]

 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 everything, patented or not. There was no restriction
saying it was only up to a COP of 4. More to the point, Rossi was unable to
produce any excess heat, at any measurable COP. Not 4, not 2, not 1.01. He
tried for a year or more and got nothing.

So, what you say does not apply to this situation. Rossi had a contractual
obligation to provide all IP, without exception.

If he had shown them how to produce any measurable COP, even 1.1, they
would have paid him $89 million.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[bobcook39923]

Higgins—
  Consistent with my previous comments regarding the IH/Rossi contract, and 
with respect to Jed’s recent comment: ”You have to be a PHOSITA to replicate. 
Who that would be and what they have to know is often disputed. It is possible 
the I.H. people are not PHOSITA enough….”, I consider Rossi is within his 
rights to protect his state of the art knowledge regarding the production of 
high COP’s from his patented invention.  

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.

At one point in my engineering career I worked with an International Nickel 
Corp invented alloy called Ni-Cr-Fe Alloy 600.  It is like a stainless steel 
corrosion resistant alloy, but with superior caustic corrosion resistance.   
Several specialty metals manufactures produced the alloy, I believe under 
license to use the applicable patent.  

Material specs used to purchase the alloy 600 products were very specific and 
detailed.  However,  all heats of materials produced by the various vendors did 
not perform as well as others when subjected to   stress corrosion cracking 
testing on the specifics heat of material purchased.  However the International 
Nickel heats procured to the detailed specifications typically performed well 
under the stress corrosion testing.

Our laboratory worked over three years to finally understand why certain heats 
performed better than others.  International Nickel Corporation did not help us 
discover the understanding.  

It turned that International Nickel’s PHOSITA in production of the alloy 600 
material was apparently important in achieving the superior stress corrosion 
performance.  It involved the addition of Nb at very small levels (a few ppm’s) 
to each heat.  Nb was not specified  in the detailed material specs and not 
apparently identified in the patent for the alloy.  

It was generally known that stress corrosion was some how related to impurities 
at the grain boundaries of the alloy 600 material.  However, measuring Nb at 
the ppm level was not so easy, but our laboratory finally reverse-engineered 
the good heats and subsequently we changed the specs to require Nb at the 
necessary level.  The Nb acted to scavenge O at the grain boundaries to prevent 
stress corrosion cracking.  

As far as I know there was no legal action against International Nickel Corp 
for hiding the details associated with the introduction of Nb to their heats of 
material, even thought it cost millions of dollars.  It was recognized as a 
valid trade secret, I believe.

I find Rossi’s protection of his trade secrets quite natural 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 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 that is not the 
same as 0 XH.    

I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have demonstrated that 
there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano fuel system.  In fact, MFMP's 
Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH in the Lugano experiment - just 
not nearly as much as claimed by the Lugano experimenters (JofCMNS v21).  Since 
this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it lends credence to 
the claim that Rossi does have some working technology.  IH is duly indignant 
about the loss of $11M so far because Rossi has not taught them the high power, 
high COP technology he claims he has.  Despite all the rhetoric, I don't 
believe that even IH believes that Rossi has nothing - only that he has not 
given them anything of significance compared to what he claims.  There was even 
IH testimony in this case that there may have been some small XH measured in 
some of Rossi's replications at IH.
It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was "throwing them 
a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature technology.  I personally believe 
this works or I would not be actively developing test systems for it.  I have 
seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to him speak.  I believe he 
has working Ni-H technology.  If Piantelli has it, and Focardi said that Rossi 
had it (and I respect both of them), then it is likely Rossi has something.
Regarding patents... the present patent is nearly worthless in the scheme of 
things by itself.  It is nearly impossible to write a single broad patent when 
you don't understand how the technology works.  No matter what, you need a 
whole portfolio of patents to provide useful protection - protecting both the 
core and all of the non-LENR peripherals around it.  IH could have h

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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 1 MW plant why on 
earth did IH agree to the instrumentation recommended by the ERV and 
even show potential customers around the plant saying how well it worked?


AA

On 2/18/2017 11:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
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 was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a
contrived "GPT".


The instruments and configuration that Rossi used could not prove 
anything. There might have been excess heat, but he would never detect 
it. However, I.H. used better instruments and saw nothing.


  XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi
claims, but that is not the same as 0 XH.


There was no excess heat. That is what they say, and I am confident 
they know what they are doing. Unless they are lying to me, they got 
nothing. It is not hard to see the heat balance is zero within the 
margin of error.


I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have
demonstrated that there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano
fuel system.


I do not think so. I think they made mistakes.

  In fact, MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH
in the Lugano experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by
the Lugano experimenters (JofCMNS v21).


MFMP has not seen any significant excess heat. In retrospect, there 
were so many mistakes at Lugano I do not think it means anything.


  Since this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it
lends credence to the claim that Rossi does have _some_ working
technology.


I disagree.

Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes
that Rossi has nothing . . .


You are wrong. They say he has nothing. I agree with their analysis. 
It is possible he had something in the past, but he has nothing now.



It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was
"throwing them a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature
technology.  I personally believe this works or I would not be
actively developing test systems for it.


You have no reason to think it works. There is no experimental 
evidence for that.


  I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to
him speak.  I believe he has working Ni-H technology.


Piantelli has nothing to do with Rossi. He does not believe Rossi. 
Also, Piantelli has not been replicated, so there is no reason to 
believe his claims . . . yet.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jed Rothwell]

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 was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a contrived "GPT".
>

The instruments and configuration that Rossi used could not prove anything.
There might have been excess heat, but he would never detect it. However,
I.H. used better instruments and saw nothing.



>   XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi claims, but
> that is not the same as 0 XH.
>

There was no excess heat. That is what they say, and I am confident they
know what they are doing. Unless they are lying to me, they got nothing. It
is not hard to see the heat balance is zero within the margin of error.



> I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have demonstrated that
> there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano fuel system.
>

I do not think so. I think they made mistakes.



>   In fact, MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH in the
> Lugano experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by the Lugano
> experimenters (JofCMNS v21).
>

MFMP has not seen any significant excess heat. In retrospect, there were so
many mistakes at Lugano I do not think it means anything.



>   Since this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it lends
> credence to the claim that Rossi does have *some* working technology.
>

I disagree.



> Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes that Rossi
> has nothing . . .
>

You are wrong. They say he has nothing. I agree with their analysis. It is
possible he had something in the past, but he has nothing now.



> It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was "throwing
> them a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature technology.  I
> personally believe this works or I would not be actively developing test
> systems for it.
>

You have no reason to think it works. There is no experimental evidence for
that.



>   I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to him
> speak.  I believe he has working Ni-H technology.
>

Piantelli has nothing to do with Rossi. He does not believe Rossi. Also,
Piantelli has not been replicated, so there is no reason to believe his
claims . . . yet.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jones Beene]

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 work, that would change the 
situation. I.H. tried hard for a long time at great expense, but they 
failed.


There is a possibility that the deception runs much deeper - and Rossi 
wanted to get out of the contract with IH for a hidden reason. He could 
see that the big payout was not going to happen, but he has an ace in 
the hole. There is one detail which could hold the key to understanding 
all the strange behavior: it is Nickel-62 and the "lost IP".


The Euro patent app "Method and apparatus for carrying out nickel and 
hydrogen exothermal reactions" EP 2259998,was filed nine years ago and 
supposedly rejected, but in it Nickel-62 isotope is the secret-sauce, 
and the only thing protected. However, the supposed rejection could be a 
ploy or deception - as we do not really know what happened to it - other 
than everyone forgot about it when IH entered the picture. It hasn't 
been mentioned in years.


But what if Ni-62 actually works for excess heat - and this expensive 
isotope is the only thing that does work ? That would seem to limit 
commercial use, but maybe there is a silver lining to that dark cloud. 
The military, but not ours.


What if the whole lawsuit is designed to end the IH partnership in a way 
that Rossi can keep the $11 million and also any claim they would have 
for the lost Euro IP, which was never part of the IH contract anyway, 
and what if Rossi has another partner in the wings with a military use 
which does not really care about the high cost of isotope?


Given that his wife is a lawyer and owns this patent application anyway 
(as assignee) and understands patent law in Europe and apparently 
handles the business end of Rossi's endeavors - as evidenced by the sale 
of his other business ventures, this IP and her ownership may be the 
hidden jewel in the Rossi affair. It is a long shot but think about it. 
It makes some sense, and nothing else makes any sense.


Let's say Rossi thought he could pull off the year long contract in a 
way to get more money, but when that failed, because he was unwilling to 
use the expensive isotope and give up that secret - then he simply 
decided to become an apparent victim, and then quietly move onto 
something else with the Ni-62 technology. If Penon is in on it, then 
that could indicate a Russian connection. Supposedly he is over there 
and the Russians produce 100% of the Ni-62 in the world, and there could 
be many military and space applications for it.


Maybe the Russians will pay Rossi's wife handsomely for the Ni-62 
technology, if he can simple get rid of IH and any claims they would 
have for it. IH probably completely forgot about her anyway.


Now you are thinking that I am pulling your leg, mainly due to all the 
prior silliness in this absurd thread, right?


Maybe so, maybe not ;-)

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Bob Higgins]

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 that is not the same as 0 XH.

I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have demonstrated that
there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano fuel system.  In fact,
MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH in the Lugano
experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by the Lugano experimenters
(JofCMNS v21).  Since this fuel system and experiment design came from
Rossi, it lends credence to the claim that Rossi does have *some* working
technology.  IH is duly indignant about the loss of $11M so far because
Rossi has not taught them the high power, high COP technology he claims he
has.  Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes that
Rossi has nothing - only that he has not given them anything of
significance compared to what he claims.  There was even IH testimony in
this case that there may have been some small XH measured in some of
Rossi's replications at IH.

It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was "throwing
them a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature technology.  I
personally believe this works or I would not be actively developing test
systems for it.  I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened
to him speak.  I believe he has working Ni-H technology.  If Piantelli has
it, and Focardi said that Rossi had it (and I respect both of them), then
it is likely Rossi has something.

Regarding patents... the present patent is nearly worthless in the scheme
of things by itself.  It is nearly impossible to write a single broad
patent when you don't understand how the technology works.  No matter what,
you need a whole portfolio of patents to provide useful protection -
protecting both the core and all of the non-LENR peripherals around it.  IH
could have helped Rossi develop that portfolio, but Rossi's short-sighted
greed has cost him an important partner.

Maybe Rossi's stuff is not ready for product (which is not the same as
having nothing).  Rossi himself appears (but I have never met the man) not
behaviorally mature enough to bring whatever technology he has to product,
even with the best possible partner.  He is destroying his own technology
by his own bad behaviors.  In the end, whatever he has will leak out and he
will end up with nothing the way things are going.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you.  I think you are
digging yourself into a deep hole with extreme statements which I believe
are not support-able, even with evidence to which most of us are not
privy.  Those people that are lined up so staunchly behind Rossi seem
equally guilty of an extreme position.  Where is the scientific moderation?

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  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 lose all IP rights
> to it because he did not describe it in the patent well enough for a
> PHOSITA to replicate.
>
>
>
>> It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid.
>>
>
> This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with
> experts. They determined that the patent is not valid. No one else has been
> able to replicate. There is not a single valid example of excess heat from
> this experiment. All of the results reported so far, by Parkhomov and
> others, have been mistakes. So, as far as anyone can tell, it does not
> work. That is regrettable but that's reality.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jed Rothwell]

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, that would change the situation.
I.H. tried hard for a long time at great expense, but they failed.



> If someone can get it to work, then IH will benefit from that effort.
>

Yes, that is true. But they do not need to supply any information. On the
contrary, they *cannot* supply information. If they have to supply
information which is not in the patent, that makes the patent invalid. The
patent has to be complete or it will be ruled invalid.

As it happens, they have no information to supply. All they know is that it
does not work as described.

You have to be a PHOSITA to replicate. Who that would be and what they have
to know is often disputed. It is possible the I.H. people are not PHOSITA
enough, but neither is Rossi, since he could not get his own machine to
work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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 > wrote:


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. 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 Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

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
Rossi never had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if
I'm wrong. If so, why would Brian want to work on it?

As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all
known and we should wait for full information.  It does not
seem to be a popular view.
AA



On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

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 refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or
disproved by research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs
to do with it as they see fit. The licence agreement no
longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE
FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

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 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 about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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 following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of
Planet Rossi to abandon their hero. He is too
charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by
appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be
able to de-program the earnest followers.



*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux
by wrongly positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the
questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very
unlikely that IH has all Rossi's data and so how
would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > 

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Axil Axil]

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 public revelations.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  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 lose all IP rights
> to it because he did not describe it in the patent well enough for a
> PHOSITA to replicate.
>
>
>
>> It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid.
>>
>
> This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with
> experts. They determined that the patent is not valid. No one else has been
> able to replicate. There is not a single valid example of excess heat from
> this experiment. All of the results reported so far, by Parkhomov and
> others, have been mistakes. So, as far as anyone can tell, it does not
> work. That is regrettable but that's reality.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jed Rothwell]

 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 lose all IP rights
to it because he did not describe it in the patent well enough for a
PHOSITA to replicate.



> It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid.
>

This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with experts.
They determined that the patent is not valid. No one else has been able to
replicate. There is not a single valid example of excess heat from this
experiment. All of the results reported so far, by Parkhomov and others,
have been mistakes. So, as far as anyone can tell, it does not work. That
is regrettable but that's reality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Axil Axil]

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  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 herring. It has no connection to Rossi. Period. Not a replication.
>
>
>
>> Jed, your position is helping both IH and Rossi hide from fact finding.
>>
>
> Again, what are you talking about? How can my position contribute anything
> either way to fact finding or to the lawsuit? I have nothing to do with it.
>
>
>
>> Why is your aim to hide the facts.
>>
>
> I am not hiding any facts.
>
>
>
>> You must believe that Rossi's IP is valid and want to protect IH from
>> revealing it as open source.
>>
>
> It is not valid as far as I know. When did I say it was? No one has said
> that but Rossi. I.H. saw no heat from any of their tests.
>
> No one has been able to replicate Rossi or his patents. Obviously it is
> not valid. If you can't replicate, that means it it invalid IP. Plus
> Rossi's 1-year test did not produce any excess heat as far as anyone can
> tell. The instruments and procedures were so bad that even if it had
> produced heat, there would be no way of knowing.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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 
the materials, and Rossi was not the first to use nickel or nickel powder.


You are distorting the facts here. Plus, you should note that none of 
these replicators has succeeded. Not one.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[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 & 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. 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 Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 Rossi never had
>> anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  If so, why would
>> Brian want to work on it?
>>
>> As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all known and
>> we should wait for full information.  It does not seem to be a popular view.
>> AA
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by
>> research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see
>> fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
>> NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 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 about Rossi.
>>>
>>> Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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 following.


 "Feed a cold and starve a fever;

 argue with no true believer."

 It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
 abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by
 appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

 It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program
 the earnest followers.

 --
 *From:* a.ashfield 
 *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
 positioning an instrument

 That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
 You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has
 all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

 AA

 On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 a.ashfield  wrote:

 I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping
> drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>

 Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
 messages from you.

 Done and done.

 - Jed



>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jed Rothwell]

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 herring. It has no connection to Rossi. Period. Not a replication.



> Jed, your position is helping both IH and Rossi hide from fact finding.
>

Again, what are you talking about? How can my position contribute anything
either way to fact finding or to the lawsuit? I have nothing to do with it.



> Why is your aim to hide the facts.
>

I am not hiding any facts.



> You must believe that Rossi's IP is valid and want to protect IH from
> revealing it as open source.
>

It is not valid as far as I know. When did I say it was? No one has said
that but Rossi. I.H. saw no heat from any of their tests.

No one has been able to replicate Rossi or his patents. Obviously it is not
valid. If you can't replicate, that means it it invalid IP. Plus Rossi's
1-year test did not produce any excess heat as far as anyone can tell. The
instruments and procedures were so bad that even if it had produced heat,
there would be no way of knowing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Axil Axil]

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
inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state
of facts and evidence. John Adams


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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. Rossi was trying to replicate the Mills experiments that Ahern
> is now working on.
>
>
>
>> IH et al wound want to verify their assertion that Rossi's IP does not
>> work.
>>
>
> They did not "want" to that. That is what they accomplished. They paid a
> lot of money and did a lot of hard work to discover it did not work. They
> were not happy with that result.
>
> I have done many experiments that failed. I did not "want" that to happen,
> but it happened.
>
>
>
>> If IH is telling truth that IP is nothing, then they lose nothing
>> related to that IP and advance their case against Rossi.
>>
>
> They lost $11 million for crying out loud! That's not "nothing"!!! The IP
> they paid for is worthless. It is a terrible loss.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Axil Axil]

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 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 the
> materials, and Rossi was not the first to use nickel or nickel powder.
>
> You are distorting the facts here. Plus, you should note that none of
> these replicators has succeeded. Not one.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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. 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 Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


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 Rossi
never had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm
wrong.  If so, why would Brian want to work on it?

As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all
known and we should wait for full information.  It does not seem
to be a popular view.
AA



On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

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 refreshing to deal
with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by research. IH paid
for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see fit. The
licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

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 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 about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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
following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet
Rossi to abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and
has hypnotized a  group by appealing to their hopes and
dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able
to de-program the earnest followers.



*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by
wrongly positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the
questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely
that IH has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it. Saying that you
have the piping drawing but refuse to publish it
doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will
block any further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jed Rothwell]

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. Rossi was trying to replicate the Mills experiments that Ahern
is now working on.



> IH et al wound want to verify their assertion that Rossi's IP does not
> work.
>

They did not "want" to that. That is what they accomplished. They paid a
lot of money and did a lot of hard work to discover it did not work. They
were not happy with that result.

I have done many experiments that failed. I did not "want" that to happen,
but it happened.



> If IH is telling truth that IP is nothing, then they lose nothing
> related to that IP and advance their case against Rossi.
>

They lost $11 million for crying out loud! That's not "nothing"!!! The IP
they paid for is worthless. It is a terrible loss.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Axil Axil]

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 Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> 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 Rossi never had
> anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  If so, why would
> Brian want to work on it?
>
> As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all known and we
> should wait for full information.  It does not seem to be a popular view.
> AA
>
>
>
> On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> 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
> refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by
> research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see
> fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
> NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 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 about Rossi.
>>
>> Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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 following.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>>>
>>> argue with no true believer."
>>>
>>> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
>>> abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by
>>> appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>>>
>>> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
>>> earnest followers.
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* a.ashfield 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
>>> positioning an instrument
>>>
>>> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
>>> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
>>> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>>>
>>> AA
>>>
>>> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>>
>>> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping
 drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.

>>>
>>> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
>>> messages from you.
>>>
>>> Done and done.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Jed Rothwell]

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 the
materials, and Rossi was not the first to use nickel or nickel powder.

You are distorting the facts here. Plus, you should note that none of these
replicators has succeeded. Not one.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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 Rossi never 
had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, why 
would Brian want to work on it?


As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all known and 
we should wait for full information.  It does not seem to be a popular view.

AA


On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
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 refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified 
or disproved by research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do 
with it as they see fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. 
LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


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
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 about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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 following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet
Rossi to abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has
hypnotized a  group by appealing to their hopes and dreams of
clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to
de-program the earnest followers.


*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions
I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that
IH has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have
the piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold
water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block
any further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Axil Axil]

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
refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by
research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see
fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> 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 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 about Rossi.
>
> Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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 following.
>>
>>
>> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>>
>> argue with no true believer."
>>
>> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon
>> their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by appealing
>> to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>>
>> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
>> earnest followers.
>>
>> --
>> *From:* a.ashfield 
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
>> positioning an instrument
>>
>> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
>> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
>> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>>
>> AA
>>
>> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>
>> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
>>> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
>> messages from you.
>>
>> Done and done.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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 
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 about Rossi.


Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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 following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a
 group by appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to
de-program the earnest followers.


*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH
has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the
piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any
further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Axil Axil]

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
about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 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 following.
>
>
> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>
> argue with no true believer."
>
> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon
> their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by appealing
> to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>
> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
> earnest followers.
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning
> an instrument
>
> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>
> AA
>
> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
>> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>>
>
> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
> messages from you.
>
> Done and done.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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 12:21 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:


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 there is something there. Until 
he is proven wrong I think he needs full support. Yours and worse 
Jed's statements are not founded on anything but guesses. Wait and 
see. I am sure that you have been the target of others unfounded 
critic. Not funny or did you enjoy?

Lennart Thornros


On Feb 18, 2017 08:45, "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 following.


"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to
abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a
 group by appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.

It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to
de-program the earnest followers.


*From:* a.ashfield >
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly
positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH
has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?

AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the
piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any
further messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[a.ashfield]

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 following.



"Feed a cold and starve a fever;

argue with no true believer."


It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to 
abandon their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group 
by appealing to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.


It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program 
the earnest followers.



*From:* a.ashfield 
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly 
positioning an instrument

That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has 
all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?


AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping
drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further 
messages from you.


Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Lennart Thornros]

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 there is something there. Until he is
proven wrong I think he needs full support. Yours and worse Jed's
statements are not founded on anything but guesses. Wait and see. I am sure
that you have been the target of others unfounded critic. Not funny or did
you enjoy?
Lennart Thornros

On Feb 18, 2017 08:45, "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 following.
>
>
> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>
> argue with no true believer."
>
> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon
> their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by appealing
> to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>
> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
> earnest followers.
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning
> an instrument
>
> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>
> AA
>
> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
>> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>>
>
> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
> messages from you.
>
> Done and done.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>