RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

/ Bob Cook From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 8:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' Another possibility brought up by Bob Higgins in 2015 was that the two analyses that were

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

I wrote: > Irregular samples produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same > sample sometimes come up with different results. > I mean samples with irregular shapes, or with powder. With some mass spec techniques you need good conductivity. That is what I have heard. I do not know the

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders. > If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the > theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the >

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Another possibility brought up by Bob Higgins in 2015 was that the two analyses that were carried out in connection with the Lugano test were thought by the authors to be of the ash but ended up being of the fuel instead, due to how the samples were obtained:

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Kevin O'Malley wrote: The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental > divide/watershed issues. Either he swapped the samples or there was > evidence of transmutation. There is no middle ground. > Error might be another possibility. I do not know about this

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

gt; IMHO. This conclusion reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni >> reported by the professors.. >> >> >> >> Bob Cook >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> >> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

sep...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM > *To: *Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' > > > > This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders. > > If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it i

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

with known technology IMHO. This conclusion reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni reported by the professors.. Bob Cook From: Alain Sepeda<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM To: Vortex List<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wh

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders. If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the methods, like in Lugano. Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > I agree with Bob. > It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year. > Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets. > I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

t; when IH obviously had nothing but our IP in its portfolio.” > > > > I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true. > > > > Bob Cook > > *From: *Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM > *To: *vortex-

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

rue. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' Hi Bob, I'll propose another reason for the recent silence: disappointment at an extrac

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

any fees just costs. Just an FYI. Ransom From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 4:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' Jones, yes lawyers are big winners as in all lawsuits. Agree that Rossi got what he wanted

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Eric: Thank you for sending that PM to Kirk. Like I said over there, maybe I'm wrong about you after all. Try to "suffer" through that compliment, ok? On 7/27/17, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote: > > You

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: You engage in mind reading, you assign a > motive that I make it personal when anyone can review the comments on > that thread and see that it is not personal. >

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each ***I find that surprising, Jones. I expected IH's legal bills to be at least double that of Rossi's. I wonder how they got their top notch firm so cheap? What does this mean: This similarity of bills looks like collusion on

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

You're one to talk, Eric. You are among the most unreasonable moderators over at LENR-Forum with your acknowledged "Yes some farm animals are more equal than others" and other bullshit you throw on top of Pro-LENR enthusiasts and all the outright insults you allow by the skeptopath crowd. You

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

You mean 7 million of attorney's fees or 4+11-attorney's fees? 2017-07-27 10:37 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene : > 1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Cook F*rom: *Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:38 AM *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land. The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides. Both si

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

rtex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won' Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land. The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides. Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each, hoping the judge wo

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Adrian and Lennart— I wonder who after Che will be the first to defend their former anti-Rossi “claque”? Bob Cook From: Adrian Ashfield<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Ro

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land. The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides. Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each, hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This similarity of bills looks like collusion on

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

doing what they can only dream about. Many are so arrogant they are certain they have all he answers when they don't. -Original Message- From: Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 7:22 am Subject: RE: [V

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Hi Bob, I'll propose another reason for the recent silence: disappointment at an extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

I agree with Bob. It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year. Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets. I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a true entrepreneur. He believes in his ideas. One overwhelming proof is that he settled for

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Rossi is not as sure footed as he lets on. His small low temperature > reactor cluster did not work at the start of the 1 year test. Rossi had to > substitute the quad 250,000 watts tiger reactor cluster. To this day, Rossi

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Rossi is not as sure footed as he lets on. His small low temperature reactor cluster did not work at the start of the 1 year test. Rossi had to substitute the quad 250,000 watts tiger reactor cluster. To this day, Rossi still doesn't understand why those small low temperature reactors failed to

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi claque. Bob Cook From: Che Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM To: