The fact is academia examined Fleischmann and Pon's results and declared
it pseudo science. DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR. What
more proof do you need?
Which of Jed's comments was "cogent"?
The ERV's report is technical not legal. What "absurd" circumstances
for the test? You know what the ERV did?
On 6/4/2016 5:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Eric. There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one
tenth of what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke
and any scientist with any integrity through a series of rigorous
tests.
AA. Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is
not acknowledged to this very day.
Fleischmann and Pons were talking about small COPs. Rossi has claims
of a COP of anywhere between 2.6 and 50. There's a world of difference
there. Pons and Fleischmann, even with their more modest claims, were
able to persuade the likes of Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson to
take a look. I am less pessimistic than you are about Rossi's
prospects before a jury of fair-minded scientists, if he has anything
near what he claims.
Eric, we have hints that there is a case that he sought to
defraud IH. His not allowing IH's expert to see the customer area
will not look good to the court. If anyone is able to
substantiate his claim that IH signed away the right to see that
area, that would add substance to this particular question.
AA. How many times do I have to repeat it? It should NOT be
necessary to see where the generated heat is dissipated in order
to measure the output of the 1 MW plant. The ERV was the
independent judge and you ignore him. Remember it was Rossi that
took IH to court not the other way around.
You are free to repeat anything as many times as you like. It doesn't
make it any more reasonable. Jed's point is manifestly cogent. You
ignore it to your own discredit. As to the matter of the ERV and his
report, this is ultimately a legal question rather than a technical
question, given what we know of the absurd circumstances of the test.
And my bets are on Jones Day with regard to any legal questions.
Eric
