Re: [Vo]:Brillouin, McKubre, Industrial Heat, Rossi, Jed

[Peter Gluck]

dear Patrick,

may I reproduce this in Ego Out?
Brillouin is an OTHER, alternative way to energy.

Peter

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Patrick Ellul 
wrote:

> So IH invested in Brillouin (BEC).
> BEC's team seems to have strengthened a lot.
> http://brillouinenergy.com/about/leadership/
> It includes Carl Page.
> McKubre is effectively an insider to IH.
> He/his team is probably the one who convinced IH that Rossi's thing does
> not work.
> BEC is obviously in direct competition with Leonardo Corp (LC).
> IH have chosen BEC over LC.
> Jed and McKubre are good acquaintances.
> Just saying.
> Regards.
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:I thought ERV is people, like Soylent Green

[Bob Cook]

I agree with you conclusion.

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:I thought ERV is people, like Soylent Green

I see that I made a mistake and started a brouhaha. I thought ERV is people, 
like Soylent Green. I see now there were three people involved but only one 
official report. 

Sorry for the confusion.


I confess I did not read the legal stuff carefully. Anyway the whole business 
gives me a headache and I think it is time to change the subject. This is 
terrible, regrettable, and bad for cold fusion. I hope it blows over soon.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Axil--
Your wrote:
“One prediction is the production of intense RF because the reaction is 
magnetic and RF is a result of Active NMR elements. “

I agree with this assessment. 

I think you are correct on this part of the theory of LENR.

Bob Cook




From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:17 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

I want to go on record with a theory. This theory has predictions that can 
explain experimental results. 

One prediction is the production of intense RF because the reaction is magnetic 
and RF is a result of Active NMR elements. 

Another production is the production of x-rays when an electric arc distroys 
the superconductivity that thermalized gamma rays. 

Another production is that Defkalion had of weak reaction due to the use of arc 
stimulation because they did not transmute Ni61 whereas Rossi's reaction does 
and he transmutes all nickel isotopes.

Another prediction is that high temperature LENR plasma reactions with 
temperatures of 6000C and above are possible. 

The theory also explains all the miracles associated with LENR. 





On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

  Axil Axil,
  I read what you wrote and looked up the terms I was not familiar with.  I 
don't know enough about these exotic particles to judge the likelihood of you 
being right.  It seems to me that this is speculation unless you can provide 
proof.   Certainly you have not provided a way of visualizing it.

  Axil Axil wrote:
  One critical facet of LENR is the production of a special type of 
nanoparticle: a superconductive hydride. This particle is produced by the 
extremely high pressure exerted by the chemical bonds in the lattice of a 
transition metal substrate lattice. Lithium hydride is an example of such a 
nanoparticle.

  Under extreme pressure, the hydrogen chemical bonds become symmetric, that is 
the hydrogen bonds become equal in length and symmetric around the proton.  
This metallization of the hydride produces topological superconductivity.

  Like in any nanowire, the SPPs (surface plasmon polaritons) will populate the 
surface of this superconductive nanowire. The superconductivity of the hydride 
nanowire will catalyze the entire ensemble of SPPs to readily form a Bose 
condensate which converts many individual SPPs into one super-SPP where the 
monopole magnetic beam that this BEC (Bose–Einstein condensate) SPP projects is 
focused forward from the front of the hydride nanowire. This magnetic beam is 
very powerful as a result of super-radiance. The power of this super-radiance 
goes as the total number of SPPs. 


  The production of this metalized hydride is what converts the weak LENR 
reaction into the powerful LENR+ reaction.

  Because of the BEC, the SPPs are concentrated, focused, and amplified. The 
monopole flux tubes produced by the SPPs generate a magnetic shield that locks 
the SPPs in place and solidifies the structure of the hydride nanowire.  These 
nanowires and their superconductive nature are protected by this monopole 
magnetism even at temperatures (tens of thousands C) that would completely 
ionize any other type of matter.

  There is an amazing positive feedback mechanism in play between the energy 
that the metalized hydride produces and its structural integrity. The metalize 
hydride is meta stable but as the SPP BEC absorbed power, the associated 
magnetic fields increasingly resist any disruptive force. This feature of the 
LENR reaction permits the metalized hydride to produce LENR effects even in a 
plasma environment. This is one of the little recognize miracles of the LENR 
reaction.

  This BEC on the nanowire becomes a quasiparticle acting as an analog 
monopole. As we all know, a monopole produces nucleon decay into mesons as seen 
by Holmlid.

[Vo]:Brillouin, McKubre, Industrial Heat, Rossi, Jed

[Patrick Ellul]

So IH invested in Brillouin (BEC).
BEC's team seems to have strengthened a lot.
http://brillouinenergy.com/about/leadership/
It includes Carl Page.
McKubre is effectively an insider to IH.
He/his team is probably the one who convinced IH that Rossi's thing does
not work.
BEC is obviously in direct competition with Leonardo Corp (LC).
IH have chosen BEC over LC.
Jed and McKubre are good acquaintances.
Just saying.
Regards.

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is another article about the collapse of the coal industry:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2016/04/the_u_k_is_quitting_coal_poorer_countries_aren_t.html

[Vo]:I thought ERV is people, like Soylent Green

[Jed Rothwell]

I see that I made a mistake and started a brouhaha. I thought ERV is
people, like Soylent Green. I see now there were three people involved but
only one official report.

Sorry for the confusion.

I confess I did not read the legal stuff carefully. Anyway the whole
business gives me a headache and I think it is time to change the subject.
This is terrible, regrettable, and bad for cold fusion. I hope it blows
over soon.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

1. I think the judgment is based on one issue and that person has many
> sides that could be better.
>

I think you are wrong.



> 2. No you do not have to judge.
>

But I can if I want to.


3. Nobody said that your judgment has any quality.
>

If you don't like my judgement, I suggest you stop reading my messages.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:

"... as I said. I.H. says
>
they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's."
>
> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
>
>
The press release! That's what I said before. The press release says
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
success."

In his press release, Rossi says the gadget produces 50 times input. If
that is true, surely that would be substantiation. Obviously the two
disagree.



> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>
>
You are not questioning any my assertions. You are asking questions about
things I never said, and issues I know nothing about. When did I talk about
people working on nuclear reactors? How would I know how many days they
spent there? Ask Rossi!

You made up this long list of imaginary claims that I supposedly said, and
now you want me to answer them?

I repeat, EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases
and legal filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.

If you are not satisfied with press releases, I cannot help you.

All I said was that the the two press releases conflict, and it is my
impression I.H. knows more about calorimetry than Rossi. That's all. Do you
understand what "impression" means? It does not mean I have their resumes
in my computer. It means I have talked to them and they seem to know what
they are doing, unlike Rossi.

You can read about Rossi's problems with calorimetry in the archives here,
such as his problems with NASA.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Lennart Thornros]

1. I think the judgment is based on one issue and that person has many
sides that could be better.
2. No you do not have to judge.
3. Nobody said that your judgment has any quality.
4. Very few people are idiots - I do not believe one of those few got that
kind of job.

Good we agree as far as we know Rossi is a great inventor and entrepreneur
who is difficult to deal with if you take him the wrong way. (Goes for many
- me included.:)

My point is that what is done so foar is just initial positioning. To
listen to the positioning and make judgment is not very smart, Down the
line we will see what is fowl and what is fish.

What you say about Rossi and IH is what you know. I am fine with that. Your
conclusion might be right, not because you have any information worth
water, but because it is a multiple choice question (Only two possible
answer as you phrase it. I think there might be many more - so I do not
judge.)

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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone
>> an idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012.
>>
>
> What other basis is there to call someone an idiot, other than his work?
> How else can you judge?
>
>
>
>> It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is
>> Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him.
>>
>
> When have I called Rossi a fraud? I have said he is suspicious, with a
> dodgy background, time in prison and so on. It is no wonder people think he
> is a fraud. But I am not a policeman, I have not investigated him, and I do
> not know whether he is a fraud or not.
>
>
>
>> No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo.
>>
>
> In that case, why is the status, quo?
>
>
>
>> The different sides has spoken and left all pertinent and objective data
>> out.
>> That is typical for a lawsuit in the beginning. It means nothing.
>>
>
> I have not read the lawsuit stuff carefully. It gives me a headache. I
> have not commented on it.
>
> The only thing I have said is that Rossi claims 50 times output, and I.H.
> says they could not substantiate the claims. One of them has to be right,
> and the other wrong. Based on what I know of their skills, I expect I.H. is
> right.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

By definition AT is an organization and cannot do anything - people can
do things.

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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Joe Hughes  wrote:

> I'm not sure how you can say that AT never invented anything.
> For decades Bell Labs (Part of AT) was one of the preeminent research
> labs in the world.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> *At its peak, Bell Laboratories was the premier facility of its type,
> developing a wide range of revolutionary technologies, including **radio
> astronomy **, the **transistor
> **, the **laser
> **, **information theory
> **, the operating
> system **Unix **, the programming
> languages **C
> ** and **C++
> **. Eight Nobel Prizes have been
> awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.**[8]
> *
>
>- *1937: **Clinton J. Davisson
>** shared the Nobel
>Prize in Physics for demonstrating the wave nature of matter.*
>- *1956: **John Bardeen **,
>**Walter H. Brattain
>**, and **William
>Shockley ** received
>the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the first **transistors
>**.*
>- *1977: **Philip W. Anderson
>** shared the Nobel
>Prize in Physics for developing an improved understanding of the electronic
>structure of glass and magnetic materials.*
>- *1978: **Arno A. Penzias
>** and **Robert W.
>Wilson ** shared
>the Nobel Prize in Physics. Penzias and Wilson were cited for their
>discovering **cosmic microwave background radiation
>**,
>a nearly uniform glow that fills the **Universe
>** in the microwave band of
>the radio spectrum.*
>- *1997: **Steven Chu **
>shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for developing methods to cool and trap
>atoms with laser light.*
>- *1998: **Horst Störmer
>**, **Robert
>Laughlin **, and **Daniel
>Tsui **, were awarded the
>Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering and explaining the **fractional
>quantum Hall effect
>**.*
>- *2009: **Willard S. Boyle
>**, **George E. Smith
>** shared the Nobel
>Prize in Physics with **Charles K. Kao
>**. Boyle and Smith were
>cited for inventing **charge-coupled device
>** (CCD)
>semiconductor imaging sensors.*
>- *2014: **Eric Betzig **
>shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in super-resolved
>fluorescence microscopy which he began pursuing while at Bell Labs.*
>
> *The **Turing Award ** has
> twice been won by Bell Labs researchers:*
>
>- *1968: **Richard Hamming
>** for his work on
>numerical methods, automatic coding systems, and error-detecting and
>error-correcting codes.*
>- *1983: **Ken Thompson **
>and **Dennis Ritchie **
>for their work on operating system theory, and for developing **Unix
>**.*
>
>
> Granted they were spun out of AT in 1990's, but still a very impressive
> list.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 4/14/16 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
>
> Jed,
> Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I gave.
> The number of people  impact was infinitesimal small.
> The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to shift
> and therefore they grow.
>
> AT has never invented anything.
> Shockley was given credit I think. Not important who 

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone
> an idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012.
>

What other basis is there to call someone an idiot, other than his work?
How else can you judge?



> It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is
> Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him.
>

When have I called Rossi a fraud? I have said he is suspicious, with a
dodgy background, time in prison and so on. It is no wonder people think he
is a fraud. But I am not a policeman, I have not investigated him, and I do
not know whether he is a fraud or not.



> No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo.
>

In that case, why is the status, quo?



> The different sides has spoken and left all pertinent and objective data
> out.
> That is typical for a lawsuit in the beginning. It means nothing.
>

I have not read the lawsuit stuff carefully. It gives me a headache. I have
not commented on it.

The only thing I have said is that Rossi claims 50 times output, and I.H.
says they could not substantiate the claims. One of them has to be right,
and the other wrong. Based on what I know of their skills, I expect I.H. is
right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Joe Hughes]

I'm not sure how you can say that AT never invented anything.
For decades Bell Labs (Part of AT) was one of the preeminent research 
labs in the world.


From Wikipedia:

/At its peak, Bell Laboratories was the premier facility of its type, 
developing a wide range of revolutionary technologies, including //radio 
astronomy //, the 
//transistor //, the //laser 
//, //information theory 
//, the operating 
system //Unix //, the programming 
languages //C 
//and //C++ 
//. Eight Nobel Prizes have been 
awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.//^[8] 
 / //


 * /1937: //Clinton J. Davisson
   //shared the Nobel
   Prize in Physics for demonstrating the wave nature of matter./
 * /1956: //John Bardeen
   //, //Walter H. Brattain
   //, and //William
   Shockley //received
   the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the first //transistors
   //./
 * /1977: //Philip W. Anderson
   //shared the Nobel
   Prize in Physics for developing an improved understanding of the
   electronic structure of glass and magnetic materials./
 * /1978: //Arno A. Penzias
   //and //Robert W.
   Wilson //shared
   the Nobel Prize in Physics. Penzias and Wilson were cited for their
   discovering //cosmic microwave background radiation
   //,
   a nearly uniform glow that fills the //Universe
   //in the microwave band of
   the radio spectrum./
 * /1997: //Steven Chu
   //shared the Nobel Prize
   in Physics for developing methods to cool and trap atoms with laser
   light./
 * /1998: //Horst Störmer
   //, //Robert
   Laughlin //, and
   //Daniel Tsui //, were
   awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering and explaining
   the //fractional quantum Hall effect
   //./
 * /2009: //Willard S. Boyle
   //, //George E.
   Smith //shared the
   Nobel Prize in Physics with //Charles K. Kao
   //. Boyle and Smith
   were cited for inventing //charge-coupled device
   //(CCD)
   semiconductor imaging sensors./
 * /2014: //Eric Betzig
   //shared the Nobel Prize
   in Chemistry for his work in super-resolved fluorescence microscopy
   which he began pursuing while at Bell Labs./

//

/The //Turing Award //has 
twice been won by Bell Labs researchers:/


//

 * /1968: //Richard Hamming
   //for his work on
   numerical methods, automatic coding systems, and error-detecting and
   error-correcting codes./
 * /1983: //Ken Thompson
   //and //Dennis Ritchie
   //for their work on
   operating system theory, and for developing //Unix
   //./

/
/Granted they were spun out of AT in 1990's, but still a very 
impressive list.


Joe

On 4/14/16 5:01 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

Jed,
Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I 
gave. The number of people  impact was infinitesimal small.
The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to 
shift and therefore they grow.


AT has never invented anything.
Shockley was given credit I think. Not important who and where as it 
was many people over decades getting there - I guess the selenium 
diode was a German invention in the 30is.
Same thing for HP and TI, which actually are examples of companies 
that grow because of seeing the shift. I do not believe that there is 
a given formula for all small and all large companies.
I do know that large corporation become stagnant and inflexible at 
some point in time. That would be OK. The problem is that we do not 
let them follow the natural part and go belly up. The government comes 

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Alan Fletcher]

Siferkol reported in April 2015 
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/91-Sifferk%C3%B6ll-First-Hand-Information-from-Visitors-of-the-Industrial-Heat-E-Cat-Cus/
 

I know first hand from very reliable sources that themselves have visited the 
Rossi/ Industrial Heat E-Cat customer that the plant works very well. This has 
been verified both by measurements made by the customer and by significantly 
reduced electricity bills. The plant seems to be able to produce heat from 
electricity with a COP in the range of 20-80 depending on the level of 
self-sustain-mode applied. I guess that is what Rossi is working on right now. 

The implications of COP in this range is of course nothing less than … 
revolutionary … ”a tipping point” to quote Tom Darden 

This is a good day! 

Mats Lewan confirmed : UPDATE: Since a COP (Coefficient of Performance — output 
energy/input energy) ranging from 20 to 80 has been reported, I can confirm 
that I have got the same information. 



From: "Jed Rothwell"  
To: "vortex-l"  
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:40:18 AM 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb 

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


You write about claims of a COP of 80. My recollection was that it peaked at 60 
and we don't really know what the average was. 


You may be right. I tend to get numbers wrong. 

- Jed 

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

Chem,
Just for the fun of it; I did my military time servicing those analog
computers as I called them. They were vacuum tubes and mechanical devices.
It is partly the fact because I am old and partly because the Swedish Navy
was less sophisticated then the US ditto.

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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Just keeping Jed honest:
>
> First calculator: 2000 BC Inventor: Sumerians
>
>
> http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/history-of-the-calculator.php
>
> First Electronic Calculator:
>
> The story of the electronic calculator really begins in the late 1930s as
> the world began to prepare for renewed war. To calculate the trigonometry
> required to drop bombs ‘into a pickle barrel’ from 30,000 feet, to hit a
> 30-knot Japanese warship with a torpedo or to bring down a diving Stuka
> with an anti aircraft gun required constantly updated automated solutions.  
> These
> were provided respectively by the Sperry-Norden bombsight, the US Navy’s
> Torpedo Data Computer and the Kerrison Predictor AA fire control system.
>
> All were basically mechanical devices using geared wheels and rotating
> cylinders, but producing electrical outputs that could be linked to weapon
> systems.  During the Second World War, the challenges of code-breaking
> produced the first all-electronic computer, *Colossus*. But this was a
> specialised machine that basically performed “exclusive or” (XOR) Boolean
> algorithms.
> :)
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
>>> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
>>> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>>>
>>
>> So did many small companies.
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
>>> . . .
>>>
>>
>> The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI.
>> Those were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
>> corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.
>>
>> Small companies often lack flexibility.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Very few small companies went belly up because of those examples I gave.
The number of people  impact was infinitesimal small.
The other side is that many small companies had the flexibility to shift
and therefore they grow.

AT has never invented anything.
Shockley was given credit I think. Not important who and where as it was
many people over decades getting there - I guess the selenium diode was a
German invention in the 30is.
Same thing for HP and TI, which actually are examples of companies that
grow because of seeing the shift. I do not believe that there is a given
formula for all small and all large companies.
I do know that large corporation become stagnant and inflexible at some
point in time. That would be OK. The problem is that we do not let them
follow the natural part and go belly up. The government comes in and 'save
the jobs'.
Really they create a monster with total inflexibility.

You know there are many small companies that are inflexible. That is
because they are often managed by one individual and if he is inflexible
then the company will be and probably not do so good.
Unfortunately there are stubborn inflexible people that cannot see the
forest for all the trees.. No, Jed small companies do not lack flexibility
in general and to survive they need to be flexible.

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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
>> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
>> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>>
>
> So did many small companies.
>
>
>
>> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
>> . . .
>>
>
> The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI.
> Those were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
> corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.
>
> Small companies often lack flexibility.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[ChemE Stewart]

Just keeping Jed honest:

First calculator: 2000 BC Inventor: Sumerians

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/history-of-the-calculator.php

First Electronic Calculator:

The story of the electronic calculator really begins in the late 1930s as
the world began to prepare for renewed war. To calculate the trigonometry
required to drop bombs ‘into a pickle barrel’ from 30,000 feet, to hit a
30-knot Japanese warship with a torpedo or to bring down a diving Stuka
with an anti aircraft gun required constantly updated automated
solutions.  These
were provided respectively by the Sperry-Norden bombsight, the US Navy’s
Torpedo Data Computer and the Kerrison Predictor AA fire control system.

All were basically mechanical devices using geared wheels and rotating
cylinders, but producing electrical outputs that could be linked to weapon
systems.  During the Second World War, the challenges of code-breaking
produced the first all-electronic computer, *Colossus*. But this was a
specialised machine that basically performed “exclusive or” (XOR) Boolean
algorithms.
:)

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
>> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
>> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>>
>
> So did many small companies.
>
>
>
>> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
>> . . .
>>
>
> The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI.
> Those were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
> corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.
>
> Small companies often lack flexibility.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Axil Axil]

I want to go on record with a theory. This theory has predictions that can
explain experimental results.

One prediction is the production of intense RF because the reaction is
magnetic and RF is a result of Active NMR elements.

Another production is the production of x-rays when an electric arc
distroys the superconductivity that thermalized gamma rays.

Another production is that Defkalion had of weak reaction due to the use of
arc stimulation because they did not transmute Ni61 whereas Rossi's
reaction does and he transmutes all nickel isotopes.

Another prediction is that high temperature LENR plasma reactions with
temperatures of 6000C and above are possible.

The theory also explains all the miracles associated with LENR.





On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil Axil,
> I read what you wrote and looked up the terms I was not familiar with.  I
> don't know enough about these exotic particles to judge the likelihood of
> you being right.  It seems to me that this is speculation unless you can
> provide proof.   Certainly you have not provided a way of visualizing it.
>
> Axil Axil wrote:
> One critical facet of LENR is the production of a special type of
> nanoparticle: a superconductive hydride. This particle is produced by the
> extremely high pressure exerted by the chemical bonds in the lattice of a
> transition metal substrate lattice. Lithium hydride is an example of such a
> nanoparticle.
>
> Under extreme pressure, the hydrogen chemical bonds become symmetric, that
> is the hydrogen bonds become equal in length and symmetric around the
> proton.  This metallization of the hydride produces topological
> superconductivity.
>
> Like in any nanowire, the SPPs (surface plasmon polaritons) will populate
> the surface of this superconductive nanowire. The superconductivity of the
> hydride nanowire will catalyze the entire ensemble of SPPs to readily form
> a Bose condensate which converts many individual SPPs into one super-SPP
> where the monopole magnetic beam that this BEC (Bose–Einstein condensate)
> SPP projects is focused forward from the front of the hydride nanowire.
> This magnetic beam is very powerful as a result of super-radiance. The
> power of this super-radiance goes as the total number of SPPs.
>
>
> The production of this metalized hydride is what converts the weak LENR
> reaction into the powerful LENR+ reaction.
>
> Because of the BEC, the SPPs are concentrated, focused, and amplified. The
> monopole flux tubes produced by the SPPs generate a magnetic shield that
> locks the SPPs in place and solidifies the structure of the hydride
> nanowire.  These nanowires and their superconductive nature are protected
> by this monopole magnetism even at temperatures (tens of thousands C) that
> would completely ionize any other type of matter.
>
> There is an amazing positive feedback mechanism in play between the energy
> that the metalized hydride produces and its structural integrity. The
> metalize hydride is meta stable but as the SPP BEC absorbed power, the
> associated magnetic fields increasingly resist any disruptive force. This
> feature of the LENR reaction permits the metalized hydride to produce LENR
> effects even in a plasma environment. This is one of the little recognize
> miracles of the LENR reaction.
>
> This BEC on the nanowire becomes a quasiparticle acting as an analog
> monopole. As we all know, a monopole produces nucleon decay into mesons as
> seen by Holmlid.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
> tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
> of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.
>

So did many small companies.



> This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility .
> . .
>

The transistor was invented at AT, and the calculator at HP and TI. Those
were large corporations. Your own examples show that sometimes big
corporations are good thing, and they sometimes have flexibility.

Small companies often lack flexibility.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[a.ashfield]

Axil Axil,
I read what you wrote and looked up the terms I was not familiar with.  
I don't know enough about these exotic particles to judge the likelihood 
of you being right.  It seems to me that this is speculation unless you 
can provide proof.   Certainly you have not provided a way of 
visualizing it.


Axil Axil wrote:
One critical facet of LENR is the production of a special type of 
nanoparticle: a superconductive hydride. This particle is produced by 
the extremely high pressure exerted by the chemical bonds in the lattice 
of a transition metal substrate lattice. Lithium hydride is an example 
of such a nanoparticle.


Under extreme pressure, the hydrogen chemical bonds become symmetric, 
that is the hydrogen bonds become equal in length and symmetric around 
the proton.  This metallization of the hydride produces topological 
superconductivity.


Like in any nanowire, the SPPs (surface plasmon polaritons) will 
populate the surface of this superconductive nanowire. The 
superconductivity of the hydride nanowire will catalyze the entire 
ensemble of SPPs to readily form a Bose condensate which converts many 
individual SPPs into one super-SPP where the monopole magnetic beam that 
this BEC (Bose–Einstein condensate) SPP projects is focused forward from 
the front of the hydride nanowire. This magnetic beam is very powerful 
as a result of super-radiance. The power of this super-radiance goes as 
the total number of SPPs.


The production of this metalized hydride is what converts the weak LENR 
reaction into the powerful LENR+ reaction.


Because of the BEC, the SPPs are concentrated, focused, and amplified. 
The monopole flux tubes produced by the SPPs generate a magnetic shield 
that locks the SPPs in place and solidifies the structure of the hydride 
nanowire.  These nanowires and their superconductive nature are 
protected by this monopole magnetism even at temperatures (tens of 
thousands C) that would completely ionize any other type of matter.


There is an amazing positive feedback mechanism in play between the 
energy that the metalized hydride produces and its structural integrity. 
The metalize hydride is meta stable but as the SPP BEC absorbed power, 
the associated magnetic fields increasingly resist any disruptive force. 
This feature of the LENR reaction permits the metalized hydride to 
produce LENR effects even in a plasma environment. This is one of the 
little recognize miracles of the LENR reaction.


This BEC on the nanowire becomes a quasiparticle acting as an analog 
monopole. As we all know, a monopole produces nucleon decay into mesons 
as seen by Holmlid.

RE: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Chris Zell]

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

Jones,

There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum tube / 
transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty of big 
companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.

This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility

You seem to be describing the German Mittelstand concept.

My interest in buckyballs currently concerns taking the speculative “C60/ olive 
oil” supplement.  To stave off aging, maybe.

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones,

There is theory called the S-curve theory. Many examples from the vacuum
tube / transistor evolution and calculators mechanic / solid state. Plenty
of big companies went belly up as they did not react fast enough.

This is why large corporations are a bad thing. They have no flexibility
and there is always someone with power, who says ; "too small", "to risky"
, "will not cover any of the losses- let us steal this contract and survive
another year. You need to break out the good opportunity and make them be
concerned about their new (mostly much smaller) business. Otherwise the
established will say; "what did I tell you", at every obstacles that turn
up and close that little embryo that just divert focus and steal resources.

It is like children. Small children small problems - big children big
problems.

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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Ken,
>
>
>
> Amazing that the coal industry itself has been so near-sighted about the
> how to proceed. They should have been looking for value-added alternatives
> in the 50s at the start of the nuclear age and secured their own Manhattan
> project for coal redeployment.
>
>
>
> Emblematic of the ignorance: There was a report some time ago that one of
> Russia’s major coal deposits was absolutely loaded with bucky-balls and
> nano-diamonds – already fully formed… and yet for decades this extremely
> valuable resource was used to make coke at ~$20/ton and is now almost
> depleted.
>
>
>
> Talk about turning diamonds into ashes….
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Deboer
>
>
>
> That is exactly right, Jones!  There are several papers and patents on
> feasible ways to use coal as high value products, especially CNTs,
> activated carbon, graphene, quantum dots etc.  Here are four examples C.
> Xiang et al (J. Tour's group at Rice Univ) . Coal as an abundant source of
> graphene quantum dots. Nat. Comm. Doi.101038/ncomms3943;  J. Satterfield,
> 2015  US Pat 9108186  "Phosphoric acid treatment of carbonaceous material
> prior to activation" ; Petrik V.  2010 US pat. "Mass production of carbon
> nanostructures";  Wu et al 2012.  Efficient large scale synthesis of
> graphene from coal and its electrical properties studies. J Nanosci.
> Nanotech. 12:1-4.
>
>   I have used Wu's method to make some of this stuff in my garage without
> difficulty.  I could also make a pretty decent battery out of it.  What to
> do about coal is the biggest political issue in my state of Montana (as
> well as Wyoming) right now and your suggestion of using coal as a new high
> value product is exactly the only solution to humanely ending the coal
> burning business.  I have written essentially this same argument to the
> Governor and staff, but of course, have not heard from them.   Using a much
> smaller amount of 20 cent coal to make significant amounts of these kinds
> of much higher value, more benign, products seems like it should be a
> no-brainer, but
>
>
>
> cheers, ken
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
>
>
> 2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less
> than the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th.
> World production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion
> tons per year . . .
>
>
>
> I realize that is a silly analysis. We are not going to replace every ton
> of steel with carbon filament. In many cases it would be a bad choice of
> materials. You would not want carbon filament manhole covers. Most of the
> steel we replace would be used in transportation, making automobiles,
> trucks and railroad trains. I do not know what fraction of total steel
> production that is. Forbes tells me automobile manufacturing consumes 12%
> of steel:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/20/trends-in-steel-usage-in-the-automotive-industry/#65264c677865
>
>
>
> So, let us say carbon replaces 30% of steel, including cars, railroad
> cars, bridges, and other applications that would benefit from a
> lightweight, stronger replacement for steel. To replace that much steel
> with an equivalent mass of coal (ignoring the fact that carbon fiber is
> lighter) it would take 6% of the mass of coal we now mine. That will not
> save the industry or preserve employment.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> You write about claims of a COP of 80.  My recollection was that it peaked
> at 60 and we don't really know what the average was.


You may be right. I tend to get numbers wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Sounds to me as if you guys are planning on a huge amount of coke
> production.   Lots of sulfur, heavy metals, coal tar and creosote oil left
> over.
>

I do not see how there would be more than you get from burning the coal. I
suppose it will be less polluting than burning it. All that stuff stays in
the tank.

Since you are not burning it, perhaps you could more easily recover the
sulfur, heavy metals etc. and sell them.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Chris Zell]

Sounds to me as if you guys are planning on a huge amount of coke production.   
Lots of sulfur, heavy metals, coal tar and creosote oil left over.

You might want to site the factory in China or Africa………

RE: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Jones Beene]

Ken,

 

Amazing that the coal industry itself has been so near-sighted about the how to 
proceed. They should have been looking for value-added alternatives in the 50s 
at the start of the nuclear age and secured their own Manhattan project for 
coal redeployment. 

 

Emblematic of the ignorance: There was a report some time ago that one of 
Russia’s major coal deposits was absolutely loaded with bucky-balls and 
nano-diamonds – already fully formed… and yet for decades this extremely 
valuable resource was used to make coke at ~$20/ton and is now almost depleted. 

 

Talk about turning diamonds into ashes….

 

 

From: Ken Deboer 

 

That is exactly right, Jones!  There are several papers and patents on feasible 
ways to use coal as high value products, especially CNTs, activated carbon, 
graphene, quantum dots etc.  Here are four examples C. Xiang et al (J. Tour's 
group at Rice Univ) . Coal as an abundant source of graphene quantum dots. Nat. 
Comm. Doi.101038/ncomms3943;  J. Satterfield, 2015  US Pat 9108186  "Phosphoric 
acid treatment of carbonaceous material prior to activation" ; Petrik V.  2010 
US pat. "Mass production of carbon nanostructures";  Wu et al 2012.  Efficient 
large scale synthesis of graphene from coal and its electrical properties 
studies. J Nanosci. Nanotech. 12:1-4.

  I have used Wu's method to make some of this stuff in my garage without 
difficulty.  I could also make a pretty decent battery out of it.  What to do 
about coal is the biggest political issue in my state of Montana (as well as 
Wyoming) right now and your suggestion of using coal as a new high value 
product is exactly the only solution to humanely ending the coal burning 
business.  I have written essentially this same argument to the Governor and 
staff, but of course, have not heard from them.   Using a much smaller amount 
of 20 cent coal to make significant amounts of these kinds of much higher 
value, more benign, products seems like it should be a no-brainer, but

 

cheers, ken 

 

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I wrote:

 

2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less than 
the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th. World 
production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion tons per 
year . . .

 

I realize that is a silly analysis. We are not going to replace every ton of 
steel with carbon filament. In many cases it would be a bad choice of 
materials. You would not want carbon filament manhole covers. Most of the steel 
we replace would be used in transportation, making automobiles, trucks and 
railroad trains. I do not know what fraction of total steel production that is. 
Forbes tells me automobile manufacturing consumes 12% of steel:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/20/trends-in-steel-usage-in-the-automotive-industry/#65264c677865

 

So, let us say carbon replaces 30% of steel, including cars, railroad cars, 
bridges, and other applications that would benefit from a lightweight, stronger 
replacement for steel. To replace that much steel with an equivalent mass of 
coal (ignoring the fact that carbon fiber is lighter) it would take 6% of the 
mass of coal we now mine. That will not save the industry or preserve 
employment.

 

- Jed

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
Your faith in the law is touching.  The law is an ass (as stated by the 
chief justice)
I am not confident a judge deciding between two experts would get it 
right.  Much more likely to be decided by the wording of the contract.


You write about claims of a COP of 80.  My recollection was that it 
peaked at 60 and we don't really know what the average was.  I suppose 
you could come up with any number you wish if you choose the right time 
period with SSM.


The input power to the whole plant must be known from the electricity 
bill.  We don't know how the output was measured but we are told the ERV 
had his own instruments and so it should have been measured at least 
twice.  It is not particularly hard to do.  My guess is that it is over 
COP 6 or Rossi would not have sued.
What IH were able to do themselves is a red herring and shouldn't effect 
the court case.

.

Re: [Vo]:CNN: The largest U.S. coal company just filed for bankruptcy

[Ken Deboer]

That is exactly right, Jones!  There are several papers and patents on
feasible ways to use coal as high value products, especially CNTs,
activated carbon, graphene, quantum dots etc.  Here are four examples C.
Xiang et al (J. Tour's group at Rice Univ) . Coal as an abundant source of
graphene quantum dots. Nat. Comm. Doi.101038/ncomms3943;  J. Satterfield,
2015  US Pat 9108186  "Phosphoric acid treatment of carbonaceous material
prior to activation" ; Petrik V.  2010 US pat. "Mass production of carbon
nanostructures";  Wu et al 2012.  Efficient large scale synthesis of
graphene from coal and its electrical properties studies. J Nanosci.
Nanotech. 12:1-4.
  I have used Wu's method to make some of this stuff in my garage without
difficulty.  I could also make a pretty decent battery out of it.  What to
do about coal is the biggest political issue in my state of Montana (as
well as Wyoming) right now and your suggestion of using coal as a new high
value product is exactly the only solution to humanely ending the coal
burning business.  I have written essentially this same argument to the
Governor and staff, but of course, have not heard from them.   Using a much
smaller amount of 20 cent coal to make significant amounts of these kinds
of much higher value, more benign, products seems like it should be a
no-brainer, but

cheers, ken

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> 2. The total mass of coal needed to replace steel this would be much less
>> than the mass of coal we now burn. I estimate it would be roughly 1/5th.
>> World production of steel is 135 million tons per month or 1.620 billion
>> tons per year . . .
>>
>
> I realize that is a silly analysis. We are not going to replace every ton
> of steel with carbon filament. In many cases it would be a bad choice of
> materials. You would not want carbon filament manhole covers. Most of the
> steel we replace would be used in transportation, making automobiles,
> trucks and railroad trains. I do not know what fraction of total steel
> production that is. Forbes tells me automobile manufacturing consumes 12%
> of steel:
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/05/20/trends-in-steel-usage-in-the-automotive-industry/#65264c677865
>
> So, let us say carbon replaces 30% of steel, including cars, railroad
> cars, bridges, and other applications that would benefit from a
> lightweight, stronger replacement for steel. To replace that much steel
> with an equivalent mass of coal (ignoring the fact that carbon fiber is
> lighter) it would take 6% of the mass of coal we now mine. That will not
> save the industry or preserve employment.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:my festive issue about the new LENR Geography

[Peter Gluck]

and info, disputes as usual

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-14-2016-about-new-lenr-geography.html

Thank you for your attention!

Peter


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone an
idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012.
It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is
Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him.

No, repeating myself, there are no clear 'evidence' about the status quo.
The different sides has spoken and left all pertinent and objective data
out.
That is typical for a lawsuit in the beginning. It means nothing.

You indicate some relationship with IH that gives you access to better
information. Maybe correct but it could also be their subjective position
you are taken for valid.
No, I have no idea if that is the case.
Cease the name calling and realize you have no 'evidence'.

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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Ian Walker  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Should have included this in the above text.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109304.html
>
> Source for what "Jed Said"
>
> My apologies.
>
> This head cold is slowing me down :)
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 17:42, Ian Walker  wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Should have included this in the above text.
>>
>> Source for what "Jed Said"
>>
>> My apologies.
>>
>> Kind Regards walker
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> In reply to Jed
>>>
>>> "... as I said. I.H. says
>>>
>>> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
>>> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
>>> Penon's."
>>>
>>> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
>>> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
>>> accept their credentials?
>>> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
>>> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
>>> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
>>> was not working?
>>> 6) What are their qualifications?
>>> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
>>> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>>>
>>> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards walker
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>>
 Ian Walker  wrote:


> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to
> report something in the future state the source and quote what they say,
> otherwise you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to
> back-pedal the fantasy.
>

 EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and
 legal filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.

 LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
 your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
 understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
 evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
 right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
 must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
 sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
 rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.

 I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore
 what I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things
 I did not do. Stick to the facts, please.

 - Jed


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Should have included this in the above text.

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109304.html

Source for what "Jed Said"

My apologies.

This head cold is slowing me down :)

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 17:42, Ian Walker  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Should have included this in the above text.
>
> Source for what "Jed Said"
>
> My apologies.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker  wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> In reply to Jed
>>
>> "... as I said. I.H. says
>>
>> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
>> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
>> Penon's."
>>
>> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
>> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
>> accept their credentials?
>> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
>> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
>> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
>> was not working?
>> 6) What are their qualifications?
>> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
>> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>>
>> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>>
>> Kind Regards walker
>>
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Walker  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to
 report something in the future state the source and quote what they say,
 otherwise you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to
 back-pedal the fantasy.

>>>
>>> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
>>> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>>>
>>> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
>>> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
>>> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
>>> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
>>> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
>>> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
>>> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
>>> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>>>
>>> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what
>>> I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
>>> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

Should have included this in the above text.

Source for what "Jed Said"

My apologies.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> In reply to Jed
>
> "... as I said. I.H. says
>
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's."
>
> 1) Who at I.H. said this?
> 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that you 
> accept their credentials?
> 3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
> 4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
> 5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the plant 
> was not working?
> 6) What are their qualifications?
> 7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
> 8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?
>
> Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.
>
> Kind Regards walker
>
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>> Ian Walker  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
>>> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
>>> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
>>> the fantasy.
>>>
>>
>> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
>> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>>
>> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
>> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
>> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
>> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
>> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
>> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
>> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
>> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>>
>> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what
>> I say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
>> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jed

"... as I said. I.H. says

they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
Penon's."

1) Who at I.H. said this?
2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so much, that
you accept their credentials?
3) How did this "expert" physically perform their tests?
4) How many days of the Test running did they have access to the plant?
5) When did they decide that according to their calorimetry that the
plant was not working?
6) What are their qualifications?
7) Can you point me to a nuclear plant they worked on?
8) Can you point me to a report on LENR they have done in the past?

Just the beginning of questioning your assertions.

Kind Regards walker


On 14 April 2016 at 16:34, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Ian Walker  wrote:
>
>
>> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
>> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
>> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
>> the fantasy.
>>
>
> EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
> filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.
>
> LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in
> your opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not
> understand what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the
> evaluation. You can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is
> right that the machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts
> must be wrong. That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my
> sources of information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is
> rude and it is against the rules. It is damned annoying.
>
> I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what I
> say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
> not do. Stick to the facts, please.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
You take on many hats.
You say this is not how business is run. Sorry to disagree but that is
exactly why this is business and not government run development.
Both parties has 'married' with open eyes and then they have second
thoughts. Only one of them or both, right or not does not matter.
What matters even to the LENR community is a quick resolve, preferably with
some good conclusive scientific data.

You say it is not a sporting event. What is the difference? Here it is many
more unclear rules because this particular sport has not been played before.

Than you go on about the moral issue. I have no problem with that will come
into play. However, why suggest that Rossi can pay a bribe? If that is the
understanding then we talk fraud and I would never suggest that is a reason
even hypothetical. Too fast to judge as I said before.


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 Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> The value and quality of the ERV report is subjective, But in any contest
>> where the referee is agreed upon beforehand.
>>
>
> This is not a sporting event.
>
>
>
>> If the referee makes a call that one side does not agree with, that
>> aggrieved party cannot take their ball and go home no matter how
>> incompetent the referee is. You take the loss with good sportsmanship and
>> pay the 89M.
>>
>
> You have no idea how business is conducted, or how contracts are disputed.
> If the "referee" in this case issues a judgement call which is physically
> impossible and which any credentialed expert agrees is nonsense, NO ONE
> WILL EVERY PAY $89 MILLION. Nothing like that ever happened in the history
> of business, and never would happen. That would be lunacy. Suppose Penon
> had claimed the thing produces 100 MW, or a gigawatt? Do you think they
> should pay up in that case? Suppose he said it produces more power than the
> sun? How impossible does the claim have to become before you concede that a
> business should not have to pay on the basis of a wild, absurd, untenable
> claim made by an idiot? What would stop Rossi from handing Penon $10
> million in a bribe?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Joe Hughes]

Dear Jed,

I'm sorry if I missed this in an earlier exchange, but I'm very curious 
to hear your stance on this especially in light of the events of the 
last month.


With all the information that you have been privy to especially over the 
last few weeks, what is your stance on the "Rossi Effect" - does it exist?


Also, do you believe that he has been purposefully making fraudulent 
claims these past several years?


Lastly, do you believe that he has ever been able to achieve a LENR in 
any of his tests either internal or external?



Joe

On 4/14/16 11:25 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Ian Walker > wrote:

As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact
the first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal
quite a bit about it.


I am not back pedaling about anything! This is nonsense. I never meant 
to say there is an official second report. I said the lawsuit filing 
lists 3 people involved. One of them works for I.H. I.H. strongly 
disagrees with the ERV report. They made that clear in their March 10 
statement and in their response to the lawsuit.


The Penon report claims the device produces 80 times input. That is 
what Rossi said in his lawsuit. I.H. emphatically denies that. 
Obviously their experts reached a different conclusion, as you see 
from their press releases. You do not need me to tell you that.


Why is any of what I just said controversial? You can read the press 
reports and see for yourself I am right. You know darn well what I mean.


You may be convinced that Rossi is correct and IH is wrong. But you 
have no business saying that I am back pedaling or that I have no 
reason to say what I just said.


In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Rossi is better at doing 
calorimetry than the experts at I.H. does not know either party. There 
has to be a drastic mistake here and I am sure Rossi is the one who 
made it, since he is prone to dangerous, stupid, sloppy mistakes, such 
as the one that almost killed the NASA people.


I also stand by my opinion of Penon, based on his 2012 report. He is a 
certified idiot. Read the report and decide for yourself, but don't 
tell me I have no basis for my opinion.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Bob,
I like that you pointed that out.
I have no clue it is so, nor did I observe the Pepsi plant.
The reality is that we have too many unknown and speculations becomes very
'wide'.
We need to wait and judge until we are better informed.
It ought be a quick answer. Both parties should benefit from resolution and
continue with life (and LENR or not).

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 Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Axil--
>
> I avoided noting this.  You are too out spoken.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> PS: I have thought the Pepsi brewing plant next door to the customer  was
> the real target for the steam, it being sold by the customer at a markup.
>
> BC
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:50 PM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb
>
> Jed speculation of the heat loading in an office sounds like a lot of hot
> air.
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Patrick Ellul 
> wrote:
>
>> The location of the factory where the 1MW plant ran is not public.
>> The identity of the customer is also not publicly known, nor what they
>> used the heat for. It is suggested that the customer manufacters chemicals.
>> Jed must be speculating, or he is privy to inside information.
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:


> On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
> something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
> you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
> the fantasy.
>

EVERY DAMN THING I SAID can be confirmed in the press releases and legal
filing. I pointed to these sources again, and again and again.

LOOK HERE Ian!!! You are free to disagree with me. You can say that in your
opinion I have misinterpreted the press releases, or I do not understand
what the legal papers said about the 3 people who made the evaluation. You
can say that for thus and such reason, you think Rossi is right that the
machine is producing 80 times input, and the I.H. experts must be wrong.
That would all be fine. But DO NOT accuse me of hiding my sources of
information when I have repeatedly listed them here. That is rude and it is
against the rules. It is damned annoying.

I don't mind being told I am wrong, but I resent it when you ignore what I
say, and accuse me of saying things I did not say, and doing things I did
not do. Stick to the facts, please.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:


> As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the
> first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit
> about it.
>

I am not back pedaling about anything! This is nonsense. I never meant to
say there is an official second report. I said the lawsuit filing lists 3
people involved. One of them works for I.H. I.H. strongly disagrees with
the ERV report. They made that clear in their March 10 statement and in
their response to the lawsuit.

The Penon report claims the device produces 80 times input. That is what
Rossi said in his lawsuit. I.H. emphatically denies that. Obviously their
experts reached a different conclusion, as you see from their press
releases. You do not need me to tell you that.

Why is any of what I just said controversial? You can read the press
reports and see for yourself I am right. You know darn well what I mean.

You may be convinced that Rossi is correct and IH is wrong. But you have no
business saying that I am back pedaling or that I have no reason to say
what I just said.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Rossi is better at doing calorimetry
than the experts at I.H. does not know either party. There has to be a
drastic mistake here and I am sure Rossi is the one who made it, since he
is prone to dangerous, stupid, sloppy mistakes, such as the one that almost
killed the NASA people.

I also stand by my opinion of Penon, based on his 2012 report. He is a
certified idiot. Read the report and decide for yourself, but don't tell me
I have no basis for my opinion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
>>> prevents the application of common sense...
>>>
>>
>> But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
>> either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the report.
>>
>
> You misunderstand. The issue is not "they didn't like the report." Likes,
> dislikes and preferences play no part in this. The issue is whether the
> report is technically correct. In a court case over a technical dispute of
> this nature, expert witnesses are brought in to render an opinion on the
> analyses from Rossi and I.H. If the expert witnesses convincingly show that
> one side or the other is correct, that is how the judge will rule.
>

But again, my point is not for the present, but how the agreement was
arranged. It's not common sense to assume that one side would have been
given the option to 'opt-out'. If you're saying that there's an inference
here, that the report must meet some technical standard, even though that
wasn't specified in the agreement, then I'll defer to your legal expertise.

Re: [Vo]: MFMP have seen termal neutrons in GS5.3

[Bob Cook]

The thermal neutrons are something to crow about! IMHO.

Bob Cook

From: Alberto De Souza 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP have seen termal neutrons in GS5.3

>From http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/522-glowstick-5-3

"Robert Greenyer, 2016-04-14 14:19


Hi All,

So, just as we went through approximately 250ºC in the core from calibration 
(the temp at which excess heat onset occurs according to IH patent application) 
we saw the TCs and Optris PI160 average temp over whole cell sides diverge by 
around 1ºC in favour of the 'active' side.

During this period, we saw at least 2 thermal neutron driven bubbles form LIVE 
in the bubble tech thermal neutron detector - the first time that detector has 
shown anything since being activated a week ago."

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> IH had already paid Rossi $11.5 million, and Rossi had already given IH
>> his IP.
>>
>
> I.H. says the device does not work. Therefore the IP is worthless.
>

My point is that there were reasons, before the contract was signed, to
compel the other party to complete the agreement if the report came back
positive. Money and IP would have already been transferred.

[Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

I avoided noting this.  You are too out spoken.

Bob Cook

PS: I have thought the Pepsi brewing plant next door to the customer  was the 
real target for the steam, it being sold by the customer at a markup.

BC

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 8:50 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Jed speculation of the heat loading in an office sounds like a lot of hot air.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Patrick Ellul  wrote:

  The location of the factory where the 1MW plant ran is not public.

  The identity of the customer is also not publicly known, nor what they used 
the heat for. It is suggested that the customer manufacters chemicals.

  Jed must be speculating, or he is privy to inside information.
  Regards.

[Vo]: MFMP have seen termal neutrons in GS5.3

[Alberto De Souza]

From
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/522-glowstick-5-3

"Robert Greenyer, 2016-04-14 14:19

Hi All,

So, just as we went through approximately 250ºC in the core from
calibration (the temp at which excess heat onset occurs according to IH
patent application) we saw the TCs and Optris PI160 average temp over whole
cell sides diverge by around 1ºC in favour of the 'active' side.

During this period, we saw at least 2 thermal neutron driven bubbles form
LIVE in the bubble tech thermal neutron detector - the first time that
detector has shown anything since being activated a week ago."

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the first
we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit about
it. I personally think Jed has misunderstood what IH has said perhaps under
the instruction of APCO Worldwide as a spun story to trap the unwary, hence
why I think Jed is back-pedalling the supposed ERV 2.

Having said that from Jed we now know that contrary to what, various
pundits/mouthpieces said that the real ERV exists and they are now
back-pedalling the ERV 2 story.

Why does IH not publish the Real ERV?
We have seen the contract IH signed it clearly states that IH were paying
half the cost of the ER and thus have as much right as Rossi to publish the
Real ERV.

However we now know that IH have had the real ERV, the one they
co-contacted for, with people they agreed to running it.

Instead we have the mouthpieces doing ad-homonym attacks on one of the
person's involved in the ERV almost purely on the grounds he is Italian as
far as I can tell. He was so qualified that IH spent over $10 million on
his advice that they contracted him for but suddenly now his report means
IH must full-fill their contract, the spinner's mouthpieces say he is no
longer qualified or competent enough to write the very report IH
co-commissioned from him; when the mouthpieces have never seen the report.

It is not physically possible to describe something you have not seen. If
you do then you have failed science 101 and the Galileo test for you have
not put your eye to the telescope.

On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report
something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise
you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal
the fantasy. A notebook or recorder is useful.

Kind Regards walker

On 14 April 2016 at 14:47, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Dear Jed,
>>
>> Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now.
>>
>
> His explanation is nonsense, as I explained in the message titled: "Rossi
> states his reason for not publishing Penon report."
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

Jed wrote:
"One side or the other is definitely, drastically, 100% certainly wrong.
One says the device produces 80 times input, and the other says it produces
1 times input. As I said, I cannot imagine why anyone here thinks Rossi is
likely to be right, given his track record of making terrible technical
mistakes."

Yes, and the null result is the most likely.  You could easily find 1000's
of scientists who would assert the same without even seeing the report.
Some may argue that is the wrong approach, but it is the most likely to be
valid in this case (or in fact any case of apparent excess heat).
Therefore, you must take extraordinary measures to make sure the results
are valid.  That includes actually calibrating the plant (running it under
the full range of parameters without the fuel - flow rates, temperature
ranges, input and output powers).  Does anyone here want to go out on a
limb to assert that the test was likely properly calibrated?  Of course we
don't know for sure, but we do know calibration is not standard practice
for any Rossi-involved test.

This is not the first time a major investment has been lost for large
errors.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/10/nyteknik-reports-on-halted-swedish-investment-in-hydrofusion-following-tests/

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:15 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
>>> prevents the application of common sense...
>>>
>>
>> But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
>> either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the report.
>>
>
> You misunderstand. The issue is not "they didn't like the report." Likes,
> dislikes and preferences play no part in this. The issue is whether the
> report is technically correct. In a court case over a technical dispute of
> this nature, expert witnesses are brought in to render an opinion on the
> analyses from Rossi and I.H. If the expert witnesses convincingly show that
> one side or the other is correct, that is how the judge will rule.
>
> No judge will compel I.H. to pay if several HVAC engineers certified and
> licensed by the state of Florida testify that the Penon report is wrong;
> Penon's methods do not meet boiler inspection standards (calorimetry) set
> by the state of Florida; and the device did not produce eighty times input,
> or even 6 times input.
>
> Suppose you commission a contractor to build a house in the state of
> Florida. Six months later they say it is finished and they demand their
> money. You go to the site and you find a hole in the ground and a pile of
> rotting lumber. No judge will say "you signed a contract, they say it is
> finished, so you have to pay." Penon has worked for Rossi in the past and
> he obviously works for him now. No matter what the contract says, if
> experts testify that Penon is wrong, I.H. will be released from it.
>
> One side or the other is definitely, drastically, 100% certainly wrong.
> One says the device produces 80 times input, and the other says it produces
> 1 times input. As I said, I cannot imagine why anyone here thinks Rossi is
> likely to be right, given his track record of making terrible technical
> mistakes.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
>> prevents the application of common sense...
>>
>
> But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
> either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the report.
>

You misunderstand. The issue is not "they didn't like the report." Likes,
dislikes and preferences play no part in this. The issue is whether the
report is technically correct. In a court case over a technical dispute of
this nature, expert witnesses are brought in to render an opinion on the
analyses from Rossi and I.H. If the expert witnesses convincingly show that
one side or the other is correct, that is how the judge will rule.

No judge will compel I.H. to pay if several HVAC engineers certified and
licensed by the state of Florida testify that the Penon report is wrong;
Penon's methods do not meet boiler inspection standards (calorimetry) set
by the state of Florida; and the device did not produce eighty times input,
or even 6 times input.

Suppose you commission a contractor to build a house in the state of
Florida. Six months later they say it is finished and they demand their
money. You go to the site and you find a hole in the ground and a pile of
rotting lumber. No judge will say "you signed a contract, they say it is
finished, so you have to pay." Penon has worked for Rossi in the past and
he obviously works for him now. No matter what the contract says, if
experts testify that Penon is wrong, I.H. will be released from it.

One side or the other is definitely, drastically, 100% certainly wrong. One
says the device produces 80 times input, and the other says it produces 1
times input. As I said, I cannot imagine why anyone here thinks Rossi is
likely to be right, given his track record of making terrible technical
mistakes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> IH had already paid Rossi $11.5 million, and Rossi had already given IH
> his IP.
>

I.H. says the device does not work. Therefore the IP is worthless. If
expert witnesses testify that I.H. is correct, and the judge rules in favor
of I.H., I.H. will not have to pay the $89 million. In that case, the judge
might also compel I.H. to sign away all rights to intellectual property.
Since I.H. has concluded that the property has no value I do not think they
would mind doing that.

It would make no sense to say "it does not work" while also saying "we want
to keep the intellectual property." As I said, judges apply common sense to
situations like this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Dear Jed,
>
> Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now.
>

His explanation is nonsense, as I explained in the message titled: "Rossi
states his reason for not publishing Penon report."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

>
> It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
> prevents the application of common sense...
>

But I think we agree that 'common sense' does not necessarily mean that
either side would have the option to opt-out if they didn't like the
report. IH had already paid Rossi $11.5 million, and Rossi had already
given IH his IP. Both sides had reasons to compel the other to the
completion of the contract.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

No one would pay on that basis...
>>
>
> It would have been easy to write that into the contract. The contract
> could have said, "Both IH and Rossi have the option to do an independent
> 350 test, and the final reports with be shared. If both sides agree to the
> sale after these reports are delivered, then IH will pay $89 million."
>

It is for the courts to decide whether the omission of a clause like this
prevents the application of common sense and contrary information to an
assessment the ERV's report. Presumably the courts have lattitude here, but
US law sometimes leads to outcomes that are comprehensible only to a lawyer.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Craig Haynie]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> Some people have said that Penon is the sole ERV author listed in the
> contract and therefore whatever he says must be accepted by both sides.
> Last year I.H. said they would abide by whatever he said, so now they must
> pay up. It does not work that way. If that were the case, Penon could
> submit a two-sentence report:
>
> "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP
> exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>
>
> No one would pay on that basis...
>

It would have been easy to write that into the contract. The contract could
have said, "Both IH and Rossi have the option to do an independent 350
test, and the final reports with be shared. If both sides agree to the sale
after these reports are delivered, then IH will pay $89 million."

But they didn't.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Stephen Cooke]

Hi Jed,

Do you or your contact know by any chance who initially introduced the ERV to 
the project? Was it AR, IH, or someone else? It seems his role was not for the 
public verification of the plant but rather as an independent arbitrator 
between IH and AR. 

There have been a lot of assumptions here that the ERV and AR were previously 
acquainted. Is that really the case? It maybe I suppose and if so I guess IH 
agreed.

It seems from recent exchanged he was selected by both IH and AR from the very 
beginning and had the job of overseeing and evaluating all the tests for IH and 
AR as a kind of referee.

Even woodford seem to have been involved much earlier than we originally 
thought and say they did due diligence. Did they have any independent ERV?

Wouldn't it make sense to have ERV who understood Italian I think given its 
AR's mother tongue?

Any way I prefer to look at information and try to see facts rather than judge 
on hearsay. I especially look deeper than the surface when I feel someone is 
attacked by mob culture. Accusation by a mob is different than being guilty in 
my opinion, and some one being difficult to get along with does not make them 
wrong or guilty they can be very good and smart too. I do respect and consider 
intelligent people's points of view on both sides. Especially where like you 
they are very likely better informed than me in their view point. 

I do think where there is doubt it's for the court to settle now. I think both 
sides are intelligent to follow this route. I don't think it's in the interest 
of either side to pressure them into releasing information before they are 
ready to give it. Although like all us following LENR I have huge curiosity is 
to see and know what is in there. 



> On 14 Apr 2016, at 05:40, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Axil Axil  wrote:
> 
>> The value and quality of the ERV report is subjective, But in any contest 
>> where the referee is agreed upon beforehand.
> 
> This is not a sporting event.
> 
>  
>> If the referee makes a call that one side does not agree with, that 
>> aggrieved party cannot take their ball and go home no matter how incompetent 
>> the referee is. You take the loss with good sportsmanship and pay the 89M.
> 
> You have no idea how business is conducted, or how contracts are disputed. If 
> the "referee" in this case issues a judgement call which is physically 
> impossible and which any credentialed expert agrees is nonsense, NO ONE WILL 
> EVERY PAY $89 MILLION. Nothing like that ever happened in the history of 
> business, and never would happen. That would be lunacy. Suppose Penon had 
> claimed the thing produces 100 MW, or a gigawatt? Do you think they should 
> pay up in that case? Suppose he said it produces more power than the sun? How 
> impossible does the claim have to become before you concede that a business 
> should not have to pay on the basis of a wild, absurd, untenable claim made 
> by an idiot? What would stop Rossi from handing Penon $10 million in a bribe?
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jed,

Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now.

But IH? If ERV-2 makes Rossi checkmate, why they do not publish it
now - as a fatal blow, great ace in the dispute?

It will be interesting to see how it demonstrates lak of excess heat for a
complete year.
Messy affair

Peter

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Ian Walker  wrote:
>
> 1) First of all according to what Jed Rothwell reports it was commissioned
>> solely and apparently secretly by IH with obvious risks of bias.
>>
>
> I did not say anything remotely like that! I just said IH sent experts,
> they wrote a report, and their report disagrees with Penon's.
>
> What did you expect they would do? Do you think they going to pay $89
> million without sending experts or without writing their own evaluation?
>
> If it were secret why would they tell me they wrote it? (They did not
> provide the actual report to me.)
>
>
>
>> 2) It breaks the contract, there was an agreed team and an agreed format
>> for the ERV contractually agreed and paid for by both parties.
>>
>
> As I said, only a lunatic would enforce a contract that gives Penon the
> sole decision making power, with no appeal to technical accuracy or common
> sense. As I said, he could write a report saying only:
>
> "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP
> exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>
>
> Do you think a court would enforce that?
>
>
>
>> 3) By Jed Rothwell's own post it seems the report is at best partial and
>> by its clan-destined nature likely to be flawed.
>>
>
> The Penon report is way more likely to be flawed. The guy is a certified
> idiot.
>
>
>
>> Why IH are open about this and other aspects worries me greatly.
>>
>
> You should worry about why Rossi refuses to give his report to anyone
> after he repeatedly promised to Mats Lewan and others that he would publish
> it. His reason for withholding it, which I described in another thread, is
> nonsense. He has been working on this lawsuit for a while. If there were
> any truth to this claim that his lawyer told him not to publish, the lawyer
> would have told him that weeks ago, when Rossi was still promising he would
> publish.
>
> It is just an excuse.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Secrets of the Scientology E meter

[Harvey Norris]

 An electrical guy wants a meter to measure a current. He wants the moving 
indicator to move to the proper value and not overshoot, and not waste his  
time waiting for it to stop swinging…so he can read the value it indicates.The 
E-Meter movement electrically is a normal moving-coil design, with a standard 
100 micro amp full scale meter movement that used a taught band suspension, 
which is like a torsion bar suspension on an car.The E-meter movement’s design 
specs call for a rather loose needle, with less than normal damping. As a 
former member in charge of procuring these E meters... contacting the 
manufacturer once I got it across to him that we did not want a ‘better’ meter, 
he made us hundreds of sloppy ones!!!Arnaldo Lerma  later had some lawsuits 
against Scientology and  had worked with them to supply the "E meters"Secrets 
of the Scientology E-Meter
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| Secrets of the Scientology E-MeterSecrets are the mortar, binding lies like 
bricks together, into prisons for the mind. C O N F I D E N T I A L In 1971 I 
was in Scientology, working for them in Los ... |
|  |
| View on arnielerma.wordpress... | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |


Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/