Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Frank Znidarsic]

I did not like them, 


Same with me.  They spoke much about conspiracies against them, holding them 
back, blocking their work.  Never did they demonstrate a device that works.







Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

You'd want to get hard data because, unlikely as it seems, it would be so
> totally cool if it were all true, of course.
>

I for one would be very concerned to discover that grays were living under
the White House.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I remember the "box" test, or rather, I recall reading about it on 
Vortex.  As I recall it involved placing a box (covered with aluminum 
foil IIRC, or maybe aluminum foil and copper foil layers, alternating) 
somewhere in the middle of the room and hanging a thermometer above it.  
The thermometer produced an anomalously high reading (half a degree 
higher than expected, something like that).


The argument I recall was over whether the box really had some magical 
property, or whether the air currents in the room were doing something 
entirely conventional but none the less unexpected which resulted in the 
slight temperature change.  As far as I can recall it devolved into 
shouting and nothing was ever done to try to verify or contradict the 
speculation that the effect being measured was some sort of "sorting" 
effect rather than a new source of energy. I also can't recall any 
mention of a "control" experiment being done to check whether a box 
without the fancy lining would have produced the same effect.  The whole 
thing seemed pretty unconvincing to me.


(If I weren't a lazy slob I'd go dig in my Vortex email from the period 
rather than just relying on faulty memory...)



On 05/28/2016 09:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:

The other thing I (think I) recall about the brouhaha is that
disagreement over the Correas had a lot to do with it. 
Replication is all, and they didn't have it.



Oh, yes. The Correas did claim to be replicating Orgone energy. See:

http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/Orgone_Motor_Intro.php

I did not like them, their attitude or their work. They claimed the 
energy comes from the sun and goes through the earth at night, sort of 
like neutrinos. I figured if it go through the earth, it should pass 
through a detector or collector without imparting significant energy. 
I suggested they try it underground in a basement, at night. They 
didn't try that. I do not understand why someone would make that claim 
and then refuse to do the obvious test of it.


I seem to recall they did it in sunlight with a solar cell as part of 
the gadget. Maybe that was a bad dream?


However, as I recall, Gene worked with someone else who claimed to 
replicate Orgone energy. The device was basically a wooden box. It did 
not seem convincing but I paid little attention to it, so I cannot judge.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

The other thing I (think I) recall about the brouhaha is that disagreement
> over the Correas had a lot to do with it.  Replication is all, and they
> didn't have it.
>

Oh, yes. The Correas did claim to be replicating Orgone energy. See:

http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/Orgone_Motor_Intro.php

I did not like them, their attitude or their work. They claimed the energy
comes from the sun and goes through the earth at night, sort of like
neutrinos. I figured if it go through the earth, it should pass through a
detector or collector without imparting significant energy. I suggested
they try it underground in a basement, at night. They didn't try that. I do
not understand why someone would make that claim and then refuse to do the
obvious test of it.

I seem to recall they did it in sunlight with a solar cell as part of the
gadget. Maybe that was a bad dream?

However, as I recall, Gene worked with someone else who claimed to
replicate Orgone energy. The device was basically a wooden box. It did not
seem convincing but I paid little attention to it, so I cannot judge.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

You'd want to get hard data because, unlikely as it seems, it would be 
so totally cool if it were all true, of course.


Gives a whole new meaning to the song "Cheney's in the bunker", since 
presumably half the "people" in the bunker with him were aliens.


On 05/27/2016 11:47 AM, Craig Haynie wrote:
>>>It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that 
grays are living under the White House and get some hard data.


Why would you want to?

Craig

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Eric Walker > wrote:


On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence
> wrote:

The assumption that there are aliens running the government
also involves a whole pile of (very improbable) secondary
assumptions, and there's no evidence beyond some old rather
dubious photographs sourced by one person with nothing to show
they weren't a hoax, and a handful of unsupported assertions
by various people.  So, the probability that the assumption is
true appears to be very very small.


It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that
grays are living under the White House and get some hard data.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I don't think our debate is going anywhere.  Next month, with luck, more 
data will surface that will show if you are correct about the 1 MW plant 
having a COP = 1

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Craig Haynie]

>>>It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are
living under the White House and get some hard data.

Why would you want to?

Craig

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
> wrote:
>
> The assumption that there are aliens running the government also involves
>> a whole pile of (very improbable) secondary assumptions, and there's no
>> evidence beyond some old rather dubious photographs sourced by one person
>> with nothing to show they weren't a hoax, and a handful of unsupported
>> assertions by various people.  So, the probability that the assumption is
>> true appears to be very very small.
>>
>
> It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are
> living under the White House and get some hard data.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

The assumption that there are aliens running the government also involves a
> whole pile of (very improbable) secondary assumptions, and there's no
> evidence beyond some old rather dubious photographs sourced by one person
> with nothing to show they weren't a hoax, and a handful of unsupported
> assertions by various people.  So, the probability that the assumption is
> true appears to be very very small.
>

It seems that there would be a way to test the hypothesis that grays are
living under the White House and get some hard data.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I'm probably misremembering all this.  I didn't look back at my old 
email before mouthing off and it was a long time ago.


The other thing I (think I) recall about the brouhaha is that 
disagreement over the Correas had a lot to do with it.  Replication is 
all, and they didn't have it.


Anyhow that was then, this is now, and I shouldn't be dredging up the past.

On 05/27/2016 08:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:

Orgone energy OTOH was a contentious issue on and around Vortex in
years past.  As I recall Jed was on the sign of "it's bogus", and
some others, including Gene Malov, were on the side of "it's
revolutionary".


I did not look closely. Gene and I talked about this, and I saw his 
data. Based on that I have the impression it is not real. But that is 
an impression, not a careful analysis.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Get of your high horses.
You claim btter information than anyone else.
You do not share data.
You do not share source.
You admit bias in favor o ih.
Then you get upset when you don't have support for your conclusions.
Your message is just a copy of ih. They might be right then you also.
Let us hear from both parties and THEN me conclusion.
On May 27, 2016 06:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

a.ashfield  wrote:


> No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.
>
> But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:"
>
>
> Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject.  I am quite
> capable of calculating the air flows and ventilation required.  I just
> don't think what you write has been proven.
>

What hasn't been proven? What the hell is your point?!? What are you trying
to say? Look, this is really easy:

IF there is a 22" vent with a large fan, and if the air temperature in the
vent is high, THEN yes, there is 1 MW of heat. We all agree on that.

HOWEVER if there is a smaller vent, or the air temperature is low, then
there is only ~20 kW of heat.

SO the I.H. expert has to investigate the ventilation. Because the flow
calorimetry from Rossi shows no heat.

Do you understand? Why does this have any connection to your expertise in
ventilation? I suppose you would be well qualified to make this
measurement, but the point is, Rossi did not allow anyone to make this
measurement. So we have no evidence for the 1 MW claim. The only evidence
Rossi provided shows conclusively that it did not work.


If you are saying it has not been proven that Rossi's calorimetry shows
nothing, you happen to be flat-out wrong. I have seen the proof. You have
not, so you have no business contradicting me. You should say "I suppose"
or "my gut feeling is" . . . Not "I don't think." You have no basis to
think anything about anything, yet.

You do know for a fact that Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert in. He
told you that himself. Why would he block the door if the ventilation
proves his 1 MW claim is real? He knew that I.H. disagreed with his 1 MW
claim. Anyone with an ounce of sense would disagree! It is ludicrous.You
need only glance at the equipment and the data to see it can't possibly be
true. The only plausible reason he blocked the door is that it proves he is
wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.
>
> But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:"
>
>
> Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject.  I am quite
> capable of calculating the air flows and ventilation required.  I just
> don't think what you write has been proven.
>

What hasn't been proven? What the hell is your point?!? What are you trying
to say? Look, this is really easy:

IF there is a 22" vent with a large fan, and if the air temperature in the
vent is high, THEN yes, there is 1 MW of heat. We all agree on that.

HOWEVER if there is a smaller vent, or the air temperature is low, then
there is only ~20 kW of heat.

SO the I.H. expert has to investigate the ventilation. Because the flow
calorimetry from Rossi shows no heat.

Do you understand? Why does this have any connection to your expertise in
ventilation? I suppose you would be well qualified to make this
measurement, but the point is, Rossi did not allow anyone to make this
measurement. So we have no evidence for the 1 MW claim. The only evidence
Rossi provided shows conclusively that it did not work.


If you are saying it has not been proven that Rossi's calorimetry shows
nothing, you happen to be flat-out wrong. I have seen the proof. You have
not, so you have no business contradicting me. You should say "I suppose"
or "my gut feeling is" . . . Not "I don't think." You have no basis to
think anything about anything, yet.

You do know for a fact that Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert in. He
told you that himself. Why would he block the door if the ventilation
proves his 1 MW claim is real? He knew that I.H. disagreed with his 1 MW
claim. Anyone with an ounce of sense would disagree! It is ludicrous.You
need only glance at the equipment and the data to see it can't possibly be
true. The only plausible reason he blocked the door is that it proves he is
wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed.

   "But there obviously was sufficient ventilation.  Nobody died.  It
   was a straw man.


No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.

But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:"


Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject.  I am quite 
capable of calculating the air flows and ventilation required.  I just 
don't think what you write has been proven.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

S V Johnson.
> IH have obviously attempted to make E-Cats.


Who told you that? Where did you get that information? I have not heard
anything about that from I.H. Granted, they don't tell me much, but I am a
little surprised you have better information than I do.



>   How else would they check the IP they have received from Rossi?


There was no need to check the IP. Rossi's own machine did not produce any
excess heat. Ever. So they never needed to go to the next phase or check
anything. They never did, as far as I know. Why would they?



>   It is recorded that they made the Hot Cats used in the Lugano tests.
>

The Hot Cats at Lugano did not work either.



> Cherokee may not have a spotless record as you think.  I gave the link of
> them being charged over the "Medowlands"(?) project earlier . . .


That has no bearing on calorimetry. The Lugano report showed no heat, and
Rossi's own numbers show that his 1 MW machine produced no heat. I.H. could
be run the Mafia, but that would not prove or disprove the calorimetry by
Levi et al. and by Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> But there obviously was sufficient ventilation.  Nobody died.  It was a
> straw man.
>

No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.

But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:

Rossi's calorimetry shows no excess heat. That's the conclusion reached by
I.H. and independently by me.

However, suppose the calorimetry is drastically wrong and there actually is
1 MW of heat. The only way to prove that would be to measure the heat flow
from ventilation in the customer site.

Unfortunately, Rossi did not allow access to the customer site. He did not
give the I.H. expert access to the customer site. So there is no indication
of excess heat at all.

(Note that it is easy to measure the heat flow from a fan in a vent. HVAC
engineers do this routinely.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Orgone energy OTOH was a contentious issue on and around Vortex in years
> past.  As I recall Jed was on the sign of "it's bogus", and some others,
> including Gene Malov, were on the side of "it's revolutionary".
>

I did not look closely. Gene and I talked about this, and I saw his data.
Based on that I have the impression it is not real. But that is an
impression, not a careful analysis.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

"Grays" were aliens associated with Area 51, IIRC, but a lot of the 
security around the Broom Lake region was eventually lifted, as I 
understand it, and no aliens ever turned up, and the whole thing appears 
to have been a tempest in a teapot caused by the Air Force's love of 
secrecy coupled with test flights of a bunch of weird designs, including 
prototype stealth fighters and related craft.


Anyhow that's my understanding, and that's the assumption that went into 
my comment about grays under the White House.


The assumption that there are aliens running the government also 
involves a whole pile of (very improbable) secondary assumptions, and 
there's no evidence beyond some old rather dubious photographs sourced 
by one person with nothing to show they weren't a hoax, and a handful of 
unsupported assertions by various people.  So, the probability that the 
assumption is true appears to be very very small.


Orgone energy OTOH was a contentious issue on and around Vortex in years 
past.  As I recall Jed was on the sign of "it's bogus", and some others, 
including Gene Malov, were on the side of "it's revolutionary".  AFAIK 
no solid evidence for its existence ever surfaced, so it remains in the 
realm of "Joe said so" and accepting it as true requires a sufficiently 
large set of unlikely assumptions that it should be viewed as very 
improbable.


On 05/26/2016 10:13 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:


orgone energy or grays living in tunnels under the Whitehouse


Orgone energy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone

Learned something new today.  What are "grays"?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Craig Haynie]

Learned something new today.  What are "grays"?



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/65/96/926596fc73fadc74a03a639b60968884.jpg

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

orgone energy or grays living in tunnels under the Whitehouse
>

Orgone energy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone

Learned something new today.  What are "grays"?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Steven Vincent Johnson,
There are plenty of other examples.
What about NANOR technology?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/01/24/report-from-cold-fusion-101-at-mit-barry-simon/

Life's too short for me to get you up to speed.  You seem too certain it 
is impossible.

Just wait until more news surfaces before taking that leap.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 05/25/2016 11:17 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:


Jed, what am I missing here?



If, as Jed has asserted, Rossi is a fraud, then AFAIK there is no reason 
to believe in the ECAT any more than there is a reason to believe in 
orgone energy or grays living in tunnels under the Whitehouse, because 
ultimately /all/ the claims of OU power from Rossi's ECAT either can be 
traced back to Rossi, or involved materials provided by Rossi, or 
resulted from tests which were overseen and/or operated by Rossi.


When a researcher has been shown not to be trustworthy, you need to 
discard everything they have said about /anything/, and all data they 
were involved in creating, and start over from bare earth.  And in this 
case "bare earth" is a lot of solid evidence from multiple (independent) 
researchers pointing to OU behavior of gas phase and liquid phase cold 
fusion cells, but not a darn thing to indicate Rossi's devices are 
anything more than fancy ways of operating an electric heater.


Back to basics!

Ed Storms did some very cool stuff with radiation counts in gas phase CF 
just before Rossi upstaged everybody with his electrically powered space 
heater.  Anybody know if that work of Ed's has been replicated?   (I've 
been checking in on the Vort web archive from time to time and have seen 
nothing further about it.)


(And BTW I'm back.  I quit the group a few years ago, with a resolution 
to come back if and when Jed decided Rossi is bogus.)



Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[David Roberson]

Guys,

I am confident that all of us would love to see LENR advance and become a very 
important energy source in the near future.  Jed has been a tireless supporter 
of the field for many years and I appreciate his posts to this list.  Mr. 
Ashfield has also made many important contributions that I and others respect.

So, why not bury the axe and let's return to the important discussion of LENR 
science without resorting to attacks upon each other?  We will achieve far 
superior results working as a team instead of fighting among ourselves.  There 
will always be differences of opinion between the members of the list, but they 
need to be controlled in a manner that does not lead to conflict.

Jed, if you were pointing out that ventilation is required when dealing with 1 
MW of heating, then that makes sense to most of the folks on this list.  Of 
course, it would be possible to extract that amount of heat by using a second 
method of heat extraction that could have been considered.  For example, a 
second incoming source of cold water could be heated by a heat exchanger that 
then allowed for the heat to be taken away within it's exhaust stream.   No one 
really knows what happens to the heat being generated by Rossi's system since 
he would not allow IH to examine the customer's section of the building.

I also agree with Jed that IH should have been allowed access to the customer's 
equipment.  For some reason that did not take place so we find ourselves in the 
present condition where legal action is going to cloud the subject for who 
knows how long into the future.  This is very unfortunate in my opinion.  It is 
also not surprising that this lack of reasonable cooperation is raising doubts 
about Rossi and his claims; in time the truth will prevail.

I hope that my words did not offend anyone since that was clearly not my 
intention.   We are all members of the same team that want to advance the 
science of LENR.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2016 7:42 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.




a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

 
This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would be 
fatal and then denying you meant that.


The title of the thread that I started was:

"1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would 
be fatal"

See? It says "without industrial ventilation." Do you understand? Let me repeat 
that:

without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION


WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION




I said that without measuring the ventilation system, there is no proof of 1 MW 
of heat. What is so damned difficult about that? How can you possibly 
misunderstand what I mean?



 
  The title of you post suggests it was a straw man.  This is getting 
repetitive and I suggest we quit it.



I suggest you stop this pretend willful ignorance bullshit.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
But there obviously was sufficient ventilation.  Nobody died.  It was a 
straw man.

AA

"a.ashfield > wrote:

   This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat
   would be fatal and then denying you meant that.


The title of the thread that I started was:

"1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation 
would be fatal"


See? It says "without industrial ventilation." Do you understand? Let me 
repeat that:


without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION

I said that without measuring the ventilation system, there is no proof 
of 1 MW of heat. What is so damned difficult about that? How can you 
possibly misunderstand what I mean?


   The title of you post suggests it was a straw man.  This is getting
   repetitive and I suggest we quit it.


I suggest you stop this pretend willful ignorance bullshit.

- Jed"

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would be
> fatal and then denying you meant that.


The title of the thread that I started was:

"1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation
would be fatal"

See? It says "without industrial ventilation." Do you understand? Let me
repeat that:

without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
without industrial ventilation
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION

I said that without measuring the ventilation system, there is no proof of
1 MW of heat. What is so damned difficult about that? How can you possibly
misunderstand what I mean?



>   The title of you post suggests it was a straw man.  This is getting
> repetitive and I suggest we quit it.
>

I suggest you stop this pretend willful ignorance bullshit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
"That is not a straw man. Anyone can compute that. As I said, it is like 
having 26 times more heating capacity than normal for that square 
footage, turned on full blast with no thermostat. Obviously that will 
make the room too hot to survive."


This started because you objected to me saying you wrote the heat would 
be fatal and then denying you meant that.  The title of you post 
suggests it was a straw man.  This is getting repetitive and I suggest 
we quit it.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

 

>> Alain Sepeda wrote:

>> what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate.

 

> I have not heard that they tried to replicate. 

 

Oh! This is interesting news to me. I did not know that.

 

> Perhaps they did, but I have no information on that. The only thing 

> I know is that they analyzed Rossi's data and they say there is no

> heat in his test. I too analyzed it, and I agree.

 

I realize I have not kept up on all the latest Rossi vs I.H. news on this 
matter. (I have my own research to deal with.) As such, I admit the fact that I 
may be ignorant of certain crucial details.

 

I completely get it that I.H. is telling us that Rossi's data shows no COP+1 
heat. Apparently, Rossi and his colleagues claim otherwise. For, now we in the 
peanut gallery will just have to sit on our arses and hope that we may 
eventually see for ourselves which way the chips fall. We may not find out.

 

What I didn't realize was the apparent fact that I.H. may... and I repeat "may" 
not have attempted to perform their own independent replication of Rossi's 
work. I think this is a very significant fact that needs 100% CLARIFICATION 
ASAP. I had (mistakenly?) assumed I.H. HAD attempted to perform independent 
replication of Rossi's work - and that it was their own independent DATA they 
were working from and reporting on.

 

In all honesty, while I can accept the fact that I.H. is a completely honest 
and reputable organization, the fact that I.H. might have been only analyzing 
ROSSI's data leaves MANY, MANY questions unanswered.

 

In a nutshell: I obviously would not want to base my final conclusions on what 
Rossi sez. I would not want to base my final conclusion on data supplied to me 
by Rossi - or by a contraption built by ROSSI. All that has been apparently 
proven here is the fact that Rossi claims don't add up. Well... that's a well 
found suspicion that many have learned long ago! No excess heat was measured. 
Yes. I get that loud and clear. Lesson learned: DON'T BASE YOUR CONCLUSIONS ON 
WHAT ROSSI SEZ, OR ON DATA THAT ROSSI MAY HAVE SUPPLIED YOU WITH, OR BY A 
CONTRAPTION BUILT BY ROSSI.

 

If no independent replication test was performed by I.H. here, it seems to me 
we're still back at square one. Only an independent replication of Rossi's 
contraption will definitely tell us whether there is anything here or not.

 

Jed, what am I missing here?

 

 

Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate.
>

I have not heard that they tried to replicate. Perhaps they did, but I have
no information on that. The only thing I know is that they analyzed Rossi's
data and they say there is no heat in his test. I too analyzed it, and I
agree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial
> ventilation would be fatal""
>

> Why did you set up that straw man in the first place?
>

That is not a straw man. Anyone can compute that. As I said, it is like
having 26 times more heating capacity than normal for that square footage,
turned on full blast with no thermostat. Obviously that will make the room
too hot to survive.

There has to be a large fan with a 22" vent (or larger). The I.H. expert
has to examine this fan and vent, because the calorimetry shows no excess.
That's all I am saying.



> As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the
> poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and
> the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud.
>

This is not a replication. Rossi himself was unable to make the machine
produce excess heat over one year.


   It is not clear to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant
> didn't work or that that they can't duplicate the results.
>

It is 100% clear to me they are saying the 1 MW plant did not work. They
told me that. I have a sample of the calorimetry data and I agree.

If you don't believe them, and you don't believe me, that's fair enough.
But don't say "it is not clear to me . . ." You should say "I don't believe
I.H. and Jed when they say the 1 MW plant did not work."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Daniel that did not make it clear to me.
I can take critic. I just think throwing rocks when you sit in a glasshouse
is less than smart.

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 Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball
>
> Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and
> after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.
>
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :
>
>> Steven,
>> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
>> Fun - did not see the connection though.
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[H LV]

Here is another baseball clip, but this one is from the Bad News Bears
(1976)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWN1xWdKbHY

Harry

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball
>
> Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and
> after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.
>
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :
>
>> Steven,
>> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
>> Fun - did not see the connection though.
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Daniel Rocha]

It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball

Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and
after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.



2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :

> Steven,
> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
> Fun - did not see the connection though.
>
> 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)
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Steven,
I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
Fun - did not see the connection though.

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 Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:13 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Lennart:
>
> > Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to
> > verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse.
> > You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk
> Starting around 0:40 to 1:17
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> orionworks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Lennart:

> Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to 
> verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse.
> You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk
Starting around 0:40 to 1:17

Steven Vincent Johnson
orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Alain Sepeda.
"but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH 
labs."


If either works it is enough.  Anyway it looks like the old E-Cat is 
passe and the QuarkX is the future.
As is too obvious no one knows enough to do more than speculate. Roll on 
June and more data.


Adrian

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Alain Sepeda]

what seems unavoidable is that IH was unable to replicate. Question is if
they could not replicate anything, or just replicate something usable.

Fraud is not even a problem if it works for IH.
Doubt on methodology is also a problem with a test.
Dubious behavior is also a possible problem, increasing question on methods.

but who cares if the factory is made of hardpaper, if E-cat works in IH
labs.

2016-05-24 14:30 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield :

> Jed,
>
> ""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial
> ventilation would be fatal""
>
> Why did you set up that straw man in the first place?  Is your source
> Dewey Weaver?  I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have.
>
>
> As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the
> poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia and
> the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud.   It is not clear
> to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant didn't work or that
> that they can't duplicate the results.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

""[Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial 
ventilation would be fatal""


Why did you set up that straw man in the first place?Is your source 
Dewey Weaver?I see he earlier wrote many of the same things you have.



As I said, the Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where 
the poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get 
academia and the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud.   
It is not clear to me whether IH's statement is that the 1 MW plant 
didn't work or that that they can't duplicate the results.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have t o verify
anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse.
You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell.
On May 23, 2016 18:28, "Jed"  wrote:

>  "a.ashfield"  wrote:
>
> > Several of Jed's charges such as the released heat being lethal
>
> Would you PLEASE stop repeating that horseshit! I never said that! NEVER!
> I said that without ventilation it would be fatal, therefore the IH expert
> must examine the ventilation system.
>
> Why do you keep misrepresenting what I said? That is rude.
>
> >
> > It should be possible to measure the input and output of a black box.
>
> Yes. That method showed no excess heat. Therefore it was necessary to
> examine the customer machinery and ventilation. Rossi did not allow that.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed]

 "a.ashfield"  wrote:

> Several of Jed's charges such as the released heat being lethal

Would you PLEASE stop repeating that horseshit! I never said that! NEVER! I 
said that without ventilation it would be fatal, therefore the IH expert must 
examine the ventilation system.

Why do you keep misrepresenting what I said? That is rude.

> 
> It should be possible to measure the input and output of a black box.

Yes. That method showed no excess heat. Therefore it was necessary to examine 
the customer machinery and ventilation. Rossi did not allow that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

SVJ,

In a way this Rossi affair reminds me of Fleischmann and Pons, where the 
poorly executed efforts at replication were sufficient to get academia 
and the supposed experts to pile on and accuse them of fraud.   Although 
they made mistakes on the nuclear side I don't think there is any doubt 
that they produced anomalous heat.

RE: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jones Beene]

From: Jack Cole 

Steven, Good post in my opinion….  Very respectful to all…. It is a painful 
thing to come to the realization that the hope you place in a person for 
changing the world is now lost (not to mention all the hours and work spent 
following the topic).  It is a good and painful life lesson.

Will there be a silver lining to this drama?

Probably. The field will continue inching forward, despite Rossi-gate. The 
fundamental problem with LENR/cold fusion from day one, assuming that even a 
fraction of the successful experiments are accurate - is that it represents the 
first time in the history of science where a result (and a very desirable and 
needed result) cannot be replicated 100% of the time by someone other than the 
claimant, based on a good theory. There is no accurate theory.

When you get to the watt level, it seems that LENR can be replicated some of 
the time but not all of the time. It is simply not understood well enough to 
make it reliable. Trace reactants could be involved or an unknown variable or 
parameter. Since there is no real precedent for that situation in science, 
where an experiment resists all attempts at understanding for so long in time- 
many observers are content to write the whole thing off as experimental error. 

Notably, little more than a decade from Fermi’s discover of neutron induced 
fission in 1934, a working weapon was produced. I think that short time-line is 
why the mention of the Thermacore runaway reaction hit a nerve. What the LENR 
field needs is a simple, robust experiment that can be reproduced by anyone, 
all of the time, even if the result is a molten mass of scrap metal. 

Caveat: there is no evidence that the Thermacore runaway can be replicated at 
all, much less all the time, but this is clearly the *type* of experiment which 
should be reproducible if the technology is real… and we have this 
comprehension of the nature of “critical mass” which fits well with prior 
expectations.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[a.ashfield]

SVJ,

I understand where you are coming from and Jed maybe right.  But I don't 
consider it proven yet and object to the definitive way Rossi is accused 
of fraud before the court case is held.  We should have more information 
next month, in particular IH's response to the charge.


Several of Jed's charges such as the released heat being lethal and that 
it was just Rossi preventing IH from visiting the customer do not stand 
up to scrutiny.  His figures on calorimetry from IH have not been 
shown.  Mats Lewan claims others who have seen Penon's report say that 
the only way the plant did not produce a high COP is if Penen wrote a 
deliberately fraudulent report.  So it looks like the claim is that 
quite a number of people were criminal frauds. Rossi, his team. the 
customer and Penon. Jed later claimed Rossi's own figures showed the COP 
was one.  I don't see that.  Recently Rossi has stated the steam was 
superheated.  We won't know the truth without more data.


It should be possible to measure the input and output of a black box.  
Penon is an expert professional, hired by both parties, and there is no 
reason to think he did not do that unless FACTS surface to contradict 
it.  The court case should make the answer known and we should wait for 
that.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jed Rothwell]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I feel a confident of conclusions in part because professionals who are way
better at calorimetry reached similar conclusions. They also have better
data than I do.

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:


> At present I lack sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion that
> suggests ALL of Rossi's experimental devices have never worked. I realize I
> could be wrong on this point but I still find it plausible to speculate
> that Rossi may have indeed discovered excess heat emanating from some of
> his earlier experiments. Jed can correct me on this point but I believe he
> have at one time also speculated on that possibility.
>
I agree that some of his tests seem positive. As I have said, the first set
of tests done by Levi et al. look good to me. Not definitive, but good. I
do not know enough about that method of calorimetry to judge with
confidence. I was hoping they would improve on these tests, but alas, the
follow-up tests at Lugano were not as good.

I don't know what to make of that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Daniel Rocha]

Even if there were the case, I wouldn't consider anything lost. I can judge
on technical data, not on hearsay.

2016-05-23 7:53 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole :

>
> It is a painful thing to come to the realization that the hope you place
> in a person for changing the world is now lost
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Jack Cole]

Steven,

Good post in my opinion.  Very respectful to all.

It is a painful thing to come to the realization that the hope you place in
a person for changing the world is now lost (not to mention all the hours
and work spent following the topic).  It is a good and painful life
lesson.  When
you embark on such an investment of time and effort, place value on the
process of finding the truth per se rather than on the outcome.  Fortunately,
life often affords other opportunities to use knowledge gained even in
apparently fruitless past efforts.

Jack

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:14 AM Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> Just forget calorimetry.
>
> IH have a licend to E-cat technology and derivation.
> If E-cat work they will make billions of $ of benefits, sharing par with
> Rossi, who will also make billion on other geographic zones like EU...
>
> It would be stupid thus to be in trouble with Rossi, to risk to lose the
> license, and nobody even POTUS can pay enough to  convince someone of
> abandoning those billions.
>
> if IH have reasonable hope that E-cat works they will care not to hurt the
> personality of Rossi because they are dependent on him.
>
>
> conclusion :
> IH have never succeeded in making an E-cat work ("could not substantiate")
> IH think they will never be able to make an E-cat work as the process is
> engaged (need to force IP transfer or dump the contract).
>
> now this does not says is the 1MW*350days calorimetry was good, if the
> client was real or dummy, ...
>
> This just say this is unimportant.
>
> I don't care if Ford won Formula 1 championchip, if my Ford car cannot
> start.
>
>
> 2016-05-23 4:37 GMT+02:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net>:
>
>> I have rejoined vortex briefly to express a couple of cents. I don't
>> expect to stay her long. It's too damned addictive.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK... Regarding the latest Rossi vs I.H. saga:
>>
>>
>>
>> Having observed Jed's eclectic contributions to the Vort Collective since
>> the 1990s it's been my experience that few Vort members have been as
>> thorough, meticulously so, or as objective, as Mr. Rothwell has been when
>> it comes to evaluating basic calorimetry. Because I'm not an expert in
>> calorimetry it behooves me to carefully evaluate the opinions and
>> assessments of those who, in my opinion, are experienced experts in the
>> field. Having observed the quality of Mr. Rothwell's posts for more than
>> three decades I have no problem yielding to most of his extensive
>> experience (and opinion) on such matters. I should also mention that I'm
>> willing to listen to Ed Storm's opinions and evaluations as well,. I gather
>> Ed may have possibly concluded a very different scenario concerning Rossi's
>> alleged professional proclivities. Evaluating Mr. Rothwell's opinions,
>> combined with Ed Storms, and perhaps a few others can certainly give me a
>> lot to chew on!
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not in a position to determine whether Rossi is or isn't a fraud.
>> Meanwhile, Jed has access to crucial I.H. calorimetric data that most of us
>> in the peanut gallery don't possess. Jed appears to have come to the
>> conclusion that Rossi's recent actions concerning his dealings with I.H.
>> indicate strong fraudulent activity. Again, I yield to Jed's extensive
>> experience (and opinion) concerning calorimetric issues while I also
>> continue to keep Ed Storm's opinions on the matter in the mixture as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> One can come up with a million different reasons as to why we flawed
>> human beings occasionally behave in seemingly evasive and dishonest ways.
>> Buyer beware.
>>
>>
>>
>> While I remain fascinated by this latest Rossi saga, a saga which is
>> still unfolding, I find myself even more fascinated by the amount of
>> bargaining (of the Elisabeth Kubler-Ross kind) that I see coming from
>> certain Vort participants as they go about challenging Mr. Rothwell's,
>> latest Rossi criticisms. I remain fascinated that some of these posters
>> seem incapable of entertaining the possibility that Rossi's calorimetric
>> claims might indeed be worthless, or worse, possibly even fraudulent. Why
>> is it important to cast so much doubt on Mr. Rothwell's latest Rossi
>> assessments? I can think of one possibility:
>>
>>
>>
>> As a former member of Dr. Mills SCP Yahoo group I observed a lot of smart
>> observant posters occasionally asking difficult questions of the good
>> doctor. Unfortunately, I also observed a lot of hero worshiping of the good
>> doctor. I suspect certain posts I made concerning observations I made that
>> seemed to suggest there existed an ardent cheerleading section may have
>> contributed to me being kicked out by Dr. Mills himself. Lately, I see a
>> similar kind of hero worshipping occurring within the Vort Collective among
>> certain posters. I find myself wondering what are the chances are that any
>> of these worshipers have accumulated anywhere near the amount of
>> calorimetric 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Alain Sepeda]

Just forget calorimetry.

IH have a licend to E-cat technology and derivation.
If E-cat work they will make billions of $ of benefits, sharing par with
Rossi, who will also make billion on other geographic zones like EU...

It would be stupid thus to be in trouble with Rossi, to risk to lose the
license, and nobody even POTUS can pay enough to  convince someone of
abandoning those billions.

if IH have reasonable hope that E-cat works they will care not to hurt the
personality of Rossi because they are dependent on him.


conclusion :
IH have never succeeded in making an E-cat work ("could not substantiate")
IH think they will never be able to make an E-cat work as the process is
engaged (need to force IP transfer or dump the contract).

now this does not says is the 1MW*350days calorimetry was good, if the
client was real or dummy, ...

This just say this is unimportant.

I don't care if Ford won Formula 1 championchip, if my Ford car cannot
start.


2016-05-23 4:37 GMT+02:00 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net>:

> I have rejoined vortex briefly to express a couple of cents. I don't
> expect to stay her long. It's too damned addictive.
>
>
>
> OK... Regarding the latest Rossi vs I.H. saga:
>
>
>
> Having observed Jed's eclectic contributions to the Vort Collective since
> the 1990s it's been my experience that few Vort members have been as
> thorough, meticulously so, or as objective, as Mr. Rothwell has been when
> it comes to evaluating basic calorimetry. Because I'm not an expert in
> calorimetry it behooves me to carefully evaluate the opinions and
> assessments of those who, in my opinion, are experienced experts in the
> field. Having observed the quality of Mr. Rothwell's posts for more than
> three decades I have no problem yielding to most of his extensive
> experience (and opinion) on such matters. I should also mention that I'm
> willing to listen to Ed Storm's opinions and evaluations as well,. I gather
> Ed may have possibly concluded a very different scenario concerning Rossi's
> alleged professional proclivities. Evaluating Mr. Rothwell's opinions,
> combined with Ed Storms, and perhaps a few others can certainly give me a
> lot to chew on!
>
>
>
> I am not in a position to determine whether Rossi is or isn't a fraud.
> Meanwhile, Jed has access to crucial I.H. calorimetric data that most of us
> in the peanut gallery don't possess. Jed appears to have come to the
> conclusion that Rossi's recent actions concerning his dealings with I.H.
> indicate strong fraudulent activity. Again, I yield to Jed's extensive
> experience (and opinion) concerning calorimetric issues while I also
> continue to keep Ed Storm's opinions on the matter in the mixture as well.
>
>
>
> One can come up with a million different reasons as to why we flawed human
> beings occasionally behave in seemingly evasive and dishonest ways. Buyer
> beware.
>
>
>
> While I remain fascinated by this latest Rossi saga, a saga which is still
> unfolding, I find myself even more fascinated by the amount of bargaining
> (of the Elisabeth Kubler-Ross kind) that I see coming from certain Vort
> participants as they go about challenging Mr. Rothwell's, latest Rossi
> criticisms. I remain fascinated that some of these posters seem incapable
> of entertaining the possibility that Rossi's calorimetric claims might
> indeed be worthless, or worse, possibly even fraudulent. Why is it
> important to cast so much doubt on Mr. Rothwell's latest Rossi assessments?
> I can think of one possibility:
>
>
>
> As a former member of Dr. Mills SCP Yahoo group I observed a lot of smart
> observant posters occasionally asking difficult questions of the good
> doctor. Unfortunately, I also observed a lot of hero worshiping of the good
> doctor. I suspect certain posts I made concerning observations I made that
> seemed to suggest there existed an ardent cheerleading section may have
> contributed to me being kicked out by Dr. Mills himself. Lately, I see a
> similar kind of hero worshipping occurring within the Vort Collective among
> certain posters. I find myself wondering what are the chances are that any
> of these worshipers have accumulated anywhere near the amount of
> calorimetric experience that Mr. Rothwell has accumulated. Under the
> circumstances, what can an ardent worshipper do? One option is to fall back
> on a relentless campaign of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross bargaining against Jed's
> calorimetric evaluations.
>
>
>
> I suspect Jed will eventually tire of participating in this futile tactic
> since it seems clear to me that worshipers have no intention of abandoning
> their currently chosen idol. I'm astounded that Jed hasn't already given up
> on this futile task.
>
>
>
> At present I lack sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion that
> suggests ALL of Rossi's experimental devices have never worked. I realize I
> could be wrong on this point but I still find it plausible to speculate
> that Rossi may have