Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I heard a few reports that I.H. was not happy. > > - Jed > > can you reveal why?
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Hi, On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:44 PM, a.ashfield wrote: You do seem to rely on people who may be like Tom Clarke. Very bright is > many ways but closed minded. He has stated that LENR is impossible and any > excess heat must be measurement error. If you start out thinking that way, > guess what you will get. > Despite impressions to the contrary on the part of some on LENR Forum, Tom Clarke is LENR hobbyists' best friend. He is engaged and willing to look at good experiments. He is obsessive and will try to find any error. He is polite, and for the most part sticks to technical arguments. If he can be painted into a corner such that he makes even a small concession, the evidence under review will be ready to show to a wider audience. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
I wrote: > As I said -- over and over -- I know several skilled people who are > working with I.H., and who knows what Rossi has done. > I mean they know what he did previously, with NASA and others. I doubt they know about the 1-year test. Everyone knows about NASA because the people from NASA have been to conferences and discussed their experiences freely with anyone who asked. It is not at all secret. Nearly every scientist and cold fusion researcher I know dismissed Rossi long ago. I dismissed him too. Then the first Levi report come out and I thought: "maybe I'm wrong; maybe there is something to it after all." The Lugano report was a bust. But when I.H. supported him, I thought: "those people seem smart. I hope they have experts conducting the tests." After that, nothing . . . I heard a few reports that I.H. was not happy. On March 10 of this year, the roof fell in. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed, "Bob Cook mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>> wrote: I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well as the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you. Most of them are the same government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, that has tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 years at the great expense of civilization IMHO. Oh give me a break. That's such nonsense. Such unfounded, ignorant bullshit! You have no idea what you are talking about." Jed, You maybe right but the thing is there are not enough facts yet to support a definite conclusion. You do seem to rely on people who may be like Tom Clarke. Very bright is many ways but closed minded. He has stated that LENR is impossible and any excess heat must be measurement error. If you start out thinking that way, guess what you will get. It reminds me of global warming. The apparent consensus among scientists working in the area is that the IPCC models are correct. They will bend facts to hide that the models exaggerate the warming effect of CO2 by at least a factor of two. But a believer could post most compelling "expert" quotes to support that position.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Bob Cook wrote: I also hope so for the sake of City dwellers in Anchorage and Fairbanks > does something. For example, the State could use eminent domain to take > over the oil leases and the pipeline from the usurious oil companies and at > least provide propane and natural gas for off grid systems until LENR comes > on. I don't know much about the situation in Alaska. I do not wish to paint electric utilities in a bad light by calling them usurious. I just saw the possibility for electricity to become uneconomical for lower income people if, following upon the exit from the grid of large numbers who can afford solar, some utilities seek to recoup their losses by raising costs for the shrinking customer base that remains. In the US context it is hard to think of a way to help them that will obtain bipartisan support. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jack Cole wrote: I think Jed cares about the truth and hates that the situation has turned > out the way it has. > I.H. hates it way more than I do! I feel terrible for them. Fortunately, it seems they intend to stay in the field and continue funding other researchers. Thank goodness! > This is not what I would have ever expected a year ago. It is a sad time > LENR. > Yes. On a few occasions over the last year I heard from I.H. and from others that the test was not going well. No details -- just that they disagreed with Rossi's analysis. I hoped that I.H. and Rossi would get together and iron out their disagreements. I hoped there would be a positive final report. That's why I agreed to take part in Mats Lewan's symposium, which was predicated on a positive report. I would not have agreed if I had known the outcome. Mats can tell you I was worried about it, but I hoped things would turn out okay, and I was working on the presentation. Then on March 10 I.H. issued the press release, and I knew they & Rossi had not reconciled. I thought "it's over now." I spent a few weeks trying to convince Mats to cancel the symposium, which he finally did when it become apparent Rossi would not release the report. The lawsuit came as a complete surprise to me. As I said -- over and over -- I know several skilled people who are working with I.H., and who knows what Rossi has done. They agree with me that I.H. must be technically right. There is no comparing the two. > We need not wait long. It will be interesting to see IH's response to the > lawsuit. > I hope we do see it. But we may not. They might settle out of court. A lot of money is at stake. If their lawyers advise them to settle, they should. The rest of us will never know what happened. Also, I gather it is easy to get an extension to that deadline. The judge can grant one, or if the two parties agree they get one. It might drag on for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Chris Zell wrote: ... I always found it strange that critics were so relaxed in dismissing > an effect that resembles Langmuir’s atomic hydrogen experiments. I mean > there must be something weird going on there. I very much would like to see attempted replications of Langmuir's hydrogen-tungsten experiment, as well as Wendt and Irion's exploding tungsten wire experiment and Paneth and Peter's PdH absorption experiment. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Lennart Thornros wrote: Why the hell do you say what you are saying? > Because I know about Rossi. I have spoken with people who tried to deal with him, and offered him millions. He refused to do a simple test to get the money. This happened on at least three occasions to my knowledge. Not counting the 1-year failed test he did for I.H. He is either incompetent, crazy or a fraud -- or all three. I can't tell what his problem is. > No Rossi is Rossi. He is an entrepreneur. > He is no entrepreneur! > You make judgments with no knowledge or facts. Just your emotions. > You are completely wrong. Everything I say is based on facts. You can contact the people at NASA and elsewhere and confirm those facts yourself if you do not believe me. I know more about Rossi than you do, and more about I.H. than you do. If you wish to learn more about I.H., you will have to contact them and ask yourself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Lennart, Many of us sounded different before. It has taken us awhile to get more information about the situation (e.g., negative replications galore, repeated patterns of egregious mistakes made by Rossi / the people he chooses to conduct "tests"). I very much understand the desire to believe Rossi. Those of us who have changed our minds about the situation have not arrived at this position easily. I think Jed cares about the truth and hates that the situation has turned out the way it has. This is not what I would have ever expected a year ago. It is a sad time LENR. We need not wait long. It will be interesting to see IH's response to the lawsuit. Jack On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:41 PM Lennart Thornros wrote: > Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH. > I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure > about the situation. I still do not agree with the way you have thrown > Rossi under the bus. Not long ago you sounded different. You have other > info you need to present it or your say is just BS, > > 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> Bob Cook wrote: >> >> >>> I forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R&D work. They are >>> not above spoon feeding. They even pay as a dessert course. I trust you >>> remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their >>> experiments. >>> >> >> That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been >> retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows >> nothing about it. >> >> >> >>> As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that >>> the ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system >>> temperatures in the Japanese tests. So much for the adequacy of HVAC >>> knowhow. >>> >> >> You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of >> the report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a >> few months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was >> apparent. That is what I wrote: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf >> >> This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will >> grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a >> calibration to be sure. >> >> >> >>> You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to >>> cold fusion is “simply absurd.” >>> >> >> As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold >> fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the >> U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for >> government support and funding. You can confirm that easily. >> >> Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports. >> Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and >> China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that >> these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit >> Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after >> time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would >> do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious >> because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out. >> >> To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason >> they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is >> crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their >> purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long >> gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave >> Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million >> more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he >> failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous >> tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and >> others. >> >> I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing. >> Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it >> worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11 >> million? >> >> There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does >> not work. >> >> Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest, >> knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the >> researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Lennart Thornros wrote: Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH. > Do you mean only Rossi is working with I.H? That is incorrect. I know several researchers funded by them. I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure about > the situation. > I told you already! I have met with the people at I.H. They told me. I believe them, because I find them far more credible than Rossi. So does everyone else I know who has met with them. That's all there is to it. > I still do not agree with the way you have thrown Rossi under the bus. > Rossi threw himself under the bus when he rejected the Navy, NASA and others. If you don't believe what I said about that, I invite you to contact the people at the Navy and NASA. > Not long ago you sounded different. > Nope. Not since I heard about Rossi almost blowing up the people from NASA. I hoped earlier that I.H. and Rossi had resolved their differences, and that he would present a reasonable final report. I agreed to present a paper at Lewan's seminar. That seminar was only going to happen if Rossi presented a good report. So obviously I hoped that would happen. But when I.H. sent me the March 10 press release, I saw it had not happened. > You have other info you need to present it or your say is just BS, > Of course I have other info. I said I do. Obviously I cannot present it. If you want to know more, I suggest you visit I.H. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH. I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure about the situation. I still do not agree with the way you have thrown Rossi under the bus. Not long ago you sounded different. You have other info you need to present it or your say is just BS, 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Bob Cook wrote: > > >> I forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R&D work. They are >> not above spoon feeding. They even pay as a dessert course. I trust you >> remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their >> experiments. >> > > That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been > retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows > nothing about it. > > > >> As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the >> ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system >> temperatures in the Japanese tests. So much for the adequacy of HVAC >> knowhow. >> > > You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of > the report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a > few months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was > apparent. That is what I wrote: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf > > This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will > grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a > calibration to be sure. > > > >> You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold >> fusion is “simply absurd.” >> > > As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold > fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the > U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for > government support and funding. You can confirm that easily. > > Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports. > Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and > China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that > these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit > Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after > time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would > do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious > because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out. > > To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason > they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is > crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their > purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long > gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave > Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million > more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he > failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous > tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and > others. > > I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing. > Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it > worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11 > million? > > There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does not > work. > > Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest, > knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the > researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed, Why the hell do you say what you are saying? You are disappointed. Well we all are. No Rossi is Rossi. He is an entrepreneur. He does thing others think are stupid. That is how entrepreneurs are. You make judgments with no knowledge or facts. Just your emotions. 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/ >> >> Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’ >> > > People wouldn't believe for good reason. All of Rossi's previous claims > were either false or demonstrated so badly it is impossible to judge. I got > tired of his shenanigans years ago. If he had what he claimed, he could > have done a proper test and convinced everyone. Many experts advised him on > ways to do a convincing test. He ignored them. Instead, he did test after > test in ways that proved nothing. > > When Jim Dunn and the people from NASA pointed out that he was making a > dangerous mistake and the reactor was plugged up, and on the verge of > exploding, he was furious with them. He refused to fix the problem or do > the test again. He threw them out! They were offering him millions of > dollars and he would not even lift a finger to do a proper test. After that > incident there was no doubt left in my mind that Rossi is either very > stupid or a fraud -- or both. Anyone who would do that has zero credibility. > > > >> Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues: >> > > I don't believe that guy either. > > Is he an employee of I.H.? I doubt it, but if he is they should fire him. > > Rossi's blog is not a reliable source of information. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Bob Cook wrote: > I forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R&D work. They are > not above spoon feeding. They even pay as a dessert course. I trust you > remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their > experiments. > That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows nothing about it. > As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the > ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system > temperatures in the Japanese tests. So much for the adequacy of HVAC > knowhow. > You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of the report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a few months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was apparent. That is what I wrote: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a calibration to be sure. > You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold > fusion is “simply absurd.” > As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for government support and funding. You can confirm that easily. Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports. Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out. To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and others. I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing. Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11 million? There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does not work. Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest, knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed-- I forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R&D work. They are not above spoon feeding. They even pay as a dessert course. I trust you remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their experiments. As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system temperatures in the Japanese tests. So much for the adequacy of HVAC knowhow. You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold fusion is “simply absurd.” Bob Cook From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 4:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems Bob Cook wrote: I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well as the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you. Most of them are the same government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, that has tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 years at the great expense of civilization IMHO. Oh give me a break. That's such nonsense. Such unfounded, ignorant bullshit! You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you think I was born yesterday? I can judge people and judge facts myself. I have independent confirmation of the events with NASA. Everyone there told me the same story, and even Rossi confirmed it in his own way, attacking them as snakes etc. I saw the documents. More to the point, nearly every dollar of support for cold fusion has come from governments, mainly in Italy, but also in Japan and the U.S. DARPA, NASA and others are the only friends we have. Most researchers worked for the government. The leading people in the field such as Martin Fleischmann, Ed Storms, Pam Boss and Tadahiko Mizuno never worked a day in their lives for anyone but the government. To say that the government opposes cold fusion is simply absurd. Of course there are factions in the government opposed to it. But there are no factions in private industry in favor of it, anywhere. Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D system which they developed and continue to develop IMHO. There are no more reports because no one is doing research. They are all retired, or dead. If they were still working, I would know about it. Everything the government does is an open book. This is the only program they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest were dark programs in my not-so-humble opinion. There are no dark programs. They tried to replicate Ni-H and got nowhere. They offered Rossi enormous support. Everything he asked for: millions of dollars with no strings attached. He turned them down flat, after nearly killing them. I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified them over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog. I have no reason to hide the names! Everyone knows I mean Jim Dunn, Mike Nelson and others. If you don't believe my account, ask them yourself. Why would they lie about this? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Bob Cook wrote: > I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well > as the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you. Most of them are the > same government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, > that has tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 > years at the great expense of civilization IMHO. > Oh give me a break. That's such nonsense. Such unfounded, ignorant bullshit! You have no idea what you are talking about. Do you think I was born yesterday? I can judge people and judge facts myself. I have independent confirmation of the events with NASA. Everyone there told me the same story, and even Rossi confirmed it in his own way, attacking them as snakes etc. I saw the documents. More to the point, nearly every dollar of support for cold fusion has come from governments, mainly in Italy, but also in Japan and the U.S. DARPA, NASA and others are the only friends we have. Most researchers worked for the government. The leading people in the field such as Martin Fleischmann, Ed Storms, Pam Boss and Tadahiko Mizuno never worked a day in their lives for anyone but the government. To say that the government opposes cold fusion is simply absurd. Of course there are factions in the government opposed to it. But there are no factions in private industry in favor of it, anywhere. > Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D > system which they developed and continue to develop IMHO. > There are no more reports because no one is doing research. They are all retired, or dead. If they were still working, I would know about it. Everything the government does is an open book. This is the only program they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest > were dark programs in my not-so-humble opinion. > There are no dark programs. They tried to replicate Ni-H and got nowhere. They offered Rossi enormous support. Everything he asked for: millions of dollars with no strings attached. He turned them down flat, after nearly killing them. > I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified > them over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog. > I have no reason to hide the names! Everyone knows I mean Jim Dunn, Mike Nelson and others. If you don't believe my account, ask them yourself. Why would they lie about this? - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed-- I think I understand why you believe NASA the Navy and elsewhere, as well as the venture capitalists—they have spoon-feed you. Most of them are the same government/energy village, not unlike the “nuclear village in Japan, that has tried to discount the LENR technology development for the last 27 years at the great expense of civilization IMHO. Why do you think that the Navy and NASA gave up reporting on the Pd-D system which they developed and continue to develop IMHO. This is the only program they were,in the past, able to discuss—the rest were dark programs in my not-so-humble opinion. I do have a good idea who you have talked to, since you have identified them over the 2 plus years I have participated in the Vortex-l blog. Bob Cook From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 2:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems Bob Cook wrote: IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust those that seem to support Rossi’s comments. It may seem so to you, but you are wrong. I have met with and worked with many people who worked with Rossi -- or tried to work with him. People from the Navy, NASA and elsewhere, and also venture capitalists. I know a lot about their interactions. I am not free to describe everything I know, but I believe what they told me, and based on this information, I do not trust Rossi and I think he is incompetent. This is not what I "want to believe." It is a conclusion I reached carefully after many years and dozens of conversations, e-mails, formal reports, proposals and so on. Frankly, I resent it when you claim this is what I "want" to believe, and when others here say I am jumping to conclusions based on thin evidence. Why the hell would I "want" to conclude that I.H. wasted $11 million?!? Schadenfreude? Do you think I want to see the last, best hope for funding cold fusion destroyed? After devoting years of my life to this effort, do you think I "want" to see millions of dollars wasted? You have no idea what I know or who I have talked to. You have no basis for making these assertions. Furthermore, if you know me, you will know that I am very careful about judging people or experiments, and I bend over backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt. I do not jump to conclusion. But I also do not deny overwhelming evidence from dozens of people describing Rossi's behavior. I spent three days at a conference talking informally with the people from NASA who Rossi almost killed. I know what happened, in detail. I know about the financial support they were offering him. That incident alone proves that Rossi is grossly irresponsible, incompetent, a loose cannon, and either crazy or criminal. You need to get a grip and think about what he did: He seriously endangered people's lives. He got angry and denied it when they showed him the pipe was clogged and there was high pressure steam leaking out of the welded joints. He and everyone in the room evacuated when it became apparent there was no safety valve. They later opened the reactor and proved it had been on the verge of an explosion. He refused to do the test again properly! When they told him they could not pay him millions of dollars as discussed, because he would not do a test, he became infuriated and he threw them out. Rossi has done this sort of thing time after time, not just with this group but with others. This is only one example out of many. Based on this incident alone, he has no credibility and nothing he says can be believed. The people at I.H., on the other hand, have loads of credibility. If they say the 1-year test produced no excess heat, and Rossi says it produced 50 times input, I believe them. I have abundant, well-grounded reasons for believing them. It is not a conclusion that I jumped to the day the lawsuit was announced. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Bob Cook wrote: IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust > those that seem to support Rossi’s comments. > It may seem so to you, but you are wrong. I have met with and worked with many people who worked with Rossi -- or tried to work with him. People from the Navy, NASA and elsewhere, and also venture capitalists. I know a lot about their interactions. I am not free to describe everything I know, but I believe what they told me, and based on this information, I do not trust Rossi and I think he is incompetent. This is not what I "want to believe." It is a conclusion I reached carefully after many years and dozens of conversations, e-mails, formal reports, proposals and so on. Frankly, I resent it when you claim this is what I "want" to believe, and when others here say I am jumping to conclusions based on thin evidence. Why the hell would I "want" to conclude that I.H. wasted $11 million?!? Schadenfreude? Do you think I want to see the last, best hope for funding cold fusion destroyed? After devoting years of my life to this effort, do you think I "want" to see millions of dollars wasted? You have no idea what I know or who I have talked to. You have no basis for making these assertions. Furthermore, if you know me, you will know that I am very careful about judging people or experiments, and I bend over backwards to give people the benefit of the doubt. I do not jump to conclusion. But I also do not deny overwhelming evidence from dozens of people describing Rossi's behavior. I spent three days at a conference talking informally with the people from NASA who Rossi almost killed. I know what happened, in detail. I know about the financial support they were offering him. That incident alone proves that Rossi is grossly irresponsible, incompetent, a loose cannon, and either crazy or criminal. You need to get a grip and think about what he did: He seriously endangered people's lives. He got angry and denied it when they showed him the pipe was clogged and there was high pressure steam leaking out of the welded joints. He and everyone in the room evacuated when it became apparent there was no safety valve. They later opened the reactor and proved it had been on the verge of an explosion. He *refused* to do the test again properly! When they told him they could not pay him millions of dollars as discussed, because he would not do a test, he became infuriated and he threw them out. Rossi has done this sort of thing time after time, not just with this group but with others. This is only one example out of many. Based on this incident alone, he has no credibility and nothing he says can be believed. The people at I.H., on the other hand, have loads of credibility. If they say the 1-year test produced no excess heat, and Rossi says it produced 50 times input, I believe them. I have abundant, well-grounded reasons for believing them. It is not a conclusion that I jumped to the day the lawsuit was announced. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed-- IMHO you seem to select those folks who you want to believe, and distrust those that seem to support Rossi’s comments. Along the lines of throwing people out of offices, I was once after interviewing for a job thrown out of a an apparently competent engineer’s office. The organization, 4 hours later, informed me that I got the job. As a result of that job, I eventually realized over a million dollars without lifting a finger. I concluded in the long run that the competent engineer was more competent than was evident based on the interview. All I can say is there are different strokes for different folks. Rossi is clearly a different folk as some have suggested by highlighting his difficult personality. That competent engineer that I mentioned above mentored me with the motto “No friction, no motion”. I found it to be a way to get at the truth and to get people to reveal their real motives, frequently hiding facts. It did not help me win any popularity contests, however. And I doubt I will be so-honored in the future by winning. Bob Cook From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 12:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems Axil Axil wrote: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/ Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’ People wouldn't believe for good reason. All of Rossi's previous claims were either false or demonstrated so badly it is impossible to judge. I got tired of his shenanigans years ago. If he had what he claimed, he could have done a proper test and convinced everyone. Many experts advised him on ways to do a convincing test. He ignored them. Instead, he did test after test in ways that proved nothing. When Jim Dunn and the people from NASA pointed out that he was making a dangerous mistake and the reactor was plugged up, and on the verge of exploding, he was furious with them. He refused to fix the problem or do the test again. He threw them out! They were offering him millions of dollars and he would not even lift a finger to do a proper test. After that incident there was no doubt left in my mind that Rossi is either very stupid or a fraud -- or both. Anyone who would do that has zero credibility. Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues: I don't believe that guy either. Is he an employee of I.H.? I doubt it, but if he is they should fire him. Rossi's blog is not a reliable source of information. - Jed
[Vo]:Objectivity - a youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtwKon9qMt5YLVgQt1tvJKg Objectivity is a youtube channel which showcases items from the archives of the Royal Society. A new item is presented about once a week. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Axil Axil wrote: https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/ > > Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’ > People wouldn't believe for good reason. All of Rossi's previous claims were either false or demonstrated so badly it is impossible to judge. I got tired of his shenanigans years ago. If he had what he claimed, he could have done a proper test and convinced everyone. Many experts advised him on ways to do a convincing test. He ignored them. Instead, he did test after test in ways that proved nothing. When Jim Dunn and the people from NASA pointed out that he was making a dangerous mistake and the reactor was plugged up, and on the verge of exploding, he was furious with them. He refused to fix the problem or do the test again. He threw them out! They were offering him millions of dollars and he would not even lift a finger to do a proper test. After that incident there was no doubt left in my mind that Rossi is either very stupid or a fraud -- or both. Anyone who would do that has zero credibility. > Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues: > I don't believe that guy either. Is he an employee of I.H.? I doubt it, but if he is they should fire him. Rossi's blog is not a reliable source of information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/ Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’ Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues: “With the failures, I found myself having to believe in it. Why? Because when something fails, you see the behavior of the object. The next time you adjust it, then you see that it behaves very differently. And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed, which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive." Note... You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive. Stimuli means application of superwave EMF. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > An IH employee has said that he saw a Rossi reactor melt down. How does >> this fact fit in with your (Jed) contentions? >> > > I have not heard of this. Which IH employee? Where was this written up? > > Levi saw a reactor melt. See p. 2: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf > > This is interesting but not proof of anything. You would have to know what > kind wires were going to the cell, and what the resistance of the cell > versus wires is. I think you would have melt several cells to show this is > excess heat. > > That was not a bad report, overall. It is the best evidence for Rossi's > claims I know of. Unfortunately, it has not been replicated as far as I > know. > > > Also: these are not my contentions. This is what I.H. says. I contend only > that the people at I.H. are better at calorimetry, and they are more > credible. If you have not dealt with them, you cannot judge them. You can > judge Rossi. You can see for yourself that he has made many drastic > mistakes, such as the time he almost blew up the people from NASA, and his > many idiotic "demonstrations." > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Bob Cook wrote: > As best I can see from the agreement, the idea was to demonstrate a long > term test with an average COP of at least 4. This was (possibly) > accomplished. > It was not accomplished. The device produced no excess heat. That's what they told me, in no uncertain terms. That is what their second press release said (perhaps not as clearly). Perhaps his previous devices did produce excess heat. I cannot judge. The demonstrations were so poorly done, no one can judge with any real certainty. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Axil Axil wrote: An IH employee has said that he saw a Rossi reactor melt down. How does > this fact fit in with your (Jed) contentions? > I have not heard of this. Which IH employee? Where was this written up? Levi saw a reactor melt. See p. 2: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf This is interesting but not proof of anything. You would have to know what kind wires were going to the cell, and what the resistance of the cell versus wires is. I think you would have melt several cells to show this is excess heat. That was not a bad report, overall. It is the best evidence for Rossi's claims I know of. Unfortunately, it has not been replicated as far as I know. Also: these are not my contentions. This is what I.H. says. I contend only that the people at I.H. are better at calorimetry, and they are more credible. If you have not dealt with them, you cannot judge them. You can judge Rossi. You can see for yourself that he has made many drastic mistakes, such as the time he almost blew up the people from NASA, and his many idiotic "demonstrations." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Peter Gluck wrote: > Jed, when have you heard the first time from IH that the plant does not > work- in which form was this expressed? > I don't recall when. Many months ago. It was expressed in plain English. With unrefined Anglo-Saxon words, as opposed to ornate Latinate circumlocutions. > We cannot substantiate...? > Rossi cannot substantiate, produce heat at all? > Not a watt. > My US friends have never herad any negative gossip till the trial, sorry. > Possibly you are better informed. > Evidently I am. > Or the ERV? > The ERV is Penon, who is a certified idiot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
An IH employee has said that he saw a Rossi reactor melt down. How does this fact fit in with your (Jed) contentions? On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Lennart Thornros wrote: > > >> Jed, quick to judgment because you decide who is right before you have >> the facts and to no value. >> > > This is not a quick judgement. I heard about the situation many months ago. > > The facts I related about their skill levels are of great value. Anyone > who has worked with I.H. and with Rossi will agree with me. If you have not > worked with them, you have no way of judging this situation, and there is > no way you can dismiss my knowledge or claim it has no value. > > Everyone here knows that Rossi has made many stupid mistakes in the past. > Why should you be surprised that he made more mistakes? You have no reason > to doubt it. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Lennart Thornros wrote: > Jed, quick to judgment because you decide who is right before you have the > facts and to no value. > This is not a quick judgement. I heard about the situation many months ago. The facts I related about their skill levels are of great value. Anyone who has worked with I.H. and with Rossi will agree with me. If you have not worked with them, you have no way of judging this situation, and there is no way you can dismiss my knowledge or claim it has no value. Everyone here knows that Rossi has made many stupid mistakes in the past. Why should you be surprised that he made more mistakes? You have no reason to doubt it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Bob Higgins wrote: > I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working > LENR technology using what Rossi has *disclosed* to them. > They said that the 1 MW reactor did not produce any excess heat. Rossi claims it produces 50 times input. They cannot both be right. Based on what I know about the skills and the work done by both parties, I think is nearly certain that I.H. is correct. > This is a completely different situation than Rossi having no technology. > This means his 1 MW reactor does not work. He claims it is producing 50 times input, but that is incorrect. I doubt that anything else he has now works. Perhaps some of his previous reactors did. I cannot judge. The first set of tests by Levi were pretty good, but far from proof of anything. > Let Rossi start from scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get > IH to reproduce this reactor in their lab. > He does not have to do that now, at this stage. He only needs to do valid calorimetry to prove the thing works. He was given a year to do that, but he failed. - Jed
[Vo]:skjetch of an essay about LENR cults, desired and bad
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-09-2016-lenr-cults-and-desired-and.html Very slow info, but 3) is really long and 1) is about an essential subject (bravo, Frank Acland!) -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Bob Higgins-- I agree with most of what you say below. However, my reading of the agreement between Rossi and IH does not include unlimited transfer of IP by Rossi. I thought the scope of the IP involved was spelled out in the specific documents containing the IP. I would not suppose that it entails are the subsequent understanding of the suggested Quark-X device and the details of that design developed on Rossi’s own time as a principle of the Leonardo Corp. As best I can see from the agreement, the idea was to demonstrate a long term test with an average COP of at least 4. This was (possibly) accomplished. The art of Rossi’s ability to tune the E-Cat X was not part of the agreement. I think that is the main issue to be left to the Jury to decide. I do not see that there was agreement for “technology transfer” in the context you suggest. As I note above, the promises of the written contract will be determined by the Jury. I do not think that transfer of rights to a patent include the transfer of the “art” necessary to make the patented device work at an elevated performance level. Its like saying in a patent that 20 weight oil is what is specified for IC motor operation under 2500 rpm. Anybody in the know about IC engine operations knows that 40 weight oil works better at high temperatures and is required for extended engine lifetime. I think it happens all the time that Government researchers with government patents go out on their own with their own knowhow to produce a superior invention and may keep trade secrets associated with the superior (no-patent) invention to themselves Furthermore, it may be Rossi’s intent to provide additional operating instructions to IH for the E-Cat to get the 4 COP out of it, once the $89 M is ponied up. I would think that the Jury will make clear what the agreed upon COP is. Finally, I totally agree with you about Focardi, and I have considered Focardi was an honest reporter of the excess energy produced by the Ni-H system. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:48 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems Nothing I have seen reported, has proven Rossi has no technology now and never had any. Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims. Maybe even Rossi is deceiving himself. Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has deceptively over reported his results. I don't believe Focardi was deceived - I think Focardi saw real energy creation - and that is what leaves me with hope for this Rossi episode. So, I am NOT willing to say at this point that I think Rossi has no LENR technology. Though the case of "always net 0" is still possible. I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working LENR technology using what Rossi has disclosed to them. This is a completely different situation than Rossi having no technology. We know Rossi is a difficult character from which to get technology transfer. Look at his previous failed relationships. I suspect that he sold the license agreement to IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just threw them a few bones of information - this is not technology transfer. How should this be resolved? Rossi should now be joined at the hip permanently with IH until he delivers what he promised them. Rossi is claiming high COP, high power LENR technology. Let Rossi start from scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this reactor in their lab. Their creation should be measured in IH's lab together and agree on the performance. If it doesn't work reliably, then Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + Rossi invents a way to make it reliable. It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be able to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them. Rossi should not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and delivers this kind of technology transfer. If he truly has no technology, then he is stuck there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he admits that he really has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to damages). He will have to prove himself without the smoke and mirrors. Once he has done this successfully, he should be entitled to the full terms of the contract. The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his contract. I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this situation. Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield wrote: "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press release:" I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying they evaluated the calorimetry, and the
RE: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
I don’t know what to make of the Rossi soap opera but I always found it strange that critics were so relaxed in dismissing an effect that resembles Langmuir’s atomic hydrogen experiments. I mean there must be something weird going on there.
[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)
Eric-- You noted: “I suppose governments will step in if things get usurious.” I also hope so for the sake of City dwellers in Anchorage and Fairbanks does something. For example, the State could use eminent domain to take over the oil leases and the pipeline from the usurious oil companies and at least provide propane and natural gas for off grid systems until LENR comes on. It could also provide a nice incentive for companies under Alaska corporate charters to locate in Alaska for manufacturing/industrial purposes to replace the extensive oil interests. As of now, that may be too progressive for the establishment in political control. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu) On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable energy and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller and cheaper. But this does not help the power companies that have already made the big investment in delivering lots of power to your home. This is why there is a war between the power companies and those promoting and using such distributed power systems. The war will last over 20 years and we are far from seeing the worst of it. Many big utility companies will go out of business before it is done. Some utility bonds will fail. And, if your earlier point turns out to be true, there will be a disproportionate impact on lower income people who are unable to afford the cost of switching to such distributed power systems. I suppose governments will step in if things get usurious. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Bob well said. Jed, quick to judgment because you decide who is right before you have the facts and to no value. What you believe does not propel the issue forward. Instead your hints that you know it all is doing the opposite. Better capacity for measuring does say nothing. If yoI do not. If you have something substantial I suggest you just tell. You ask how I know they have not arrived at a solution. I do not. I just think that IH wanted to tell the world ASAP that they have settled.That must be in their interest. You say it is a lawsuit and that the lawsuit will end up resolving the issue. No, Jed the lawsuit will resolve nothing for LENR and will just tie up everybody's resources to no avail. 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Nothing I have seen reported, has *proven* Rossi has no technology now > and never had any. Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims. Maybe even > Rossi is deceiving himself. Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has > deceptively over reported his results. I don't believe Focardi was > deceived - I think Focardi saw real energy creation - and that is what > leaves me with hope for this Rossi episode. So, I am NOT willing to say at > this point that I think Rossi has no LENR technology. Though the case of > "always net 0" is still possible. > > I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working > LENR technology using what Rossi has *disclosed* to them. This is a > completely different situation than Rossi having no technology. We know > Rossi is a difficult character from which to get technology transfer. Look > at his previous failed relationships. I suspect that he sold the license > agreement to IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just > threw them a few bones of information - this is not technology transfer. > > How should this be resolved? Rossi should now be joined at the hip > permanently with IH until he delivers what he promised them. Rossi is > claiming high COP, high power LENR technology. Let Rossi start from > scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this > reactor in their lab. Their creation should be measured in IH's lab > together and agree on the performance. If it doesn't work reliably, then > Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + Rossi invents a way to make it > reliable. > > It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be > able to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them. > Rossi should not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and > delivers this kind of technology transfer. If he truly has no technology, > then he is stuck there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he > admits that he really has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to > damages). He will have to prove himself without the smoke and mirrors. > Once he has done this successfully, he should be entitled to the full terms > of the contract. > > The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his > contract. I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this > situation. Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing. > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> a.ashfield wrote: >> >>> >> >>> "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press >>> release:" >>> >>> I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. >> >> >> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying >> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat. >> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do >> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as >> he has been wrong so often in the past. >> >> >> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now. >>> >> >> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion. >> >> >> Either of us could be right. >> >> >> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely >> I.H. is right. That's my point. >> >> >> The point is we don't know yet. >>> >> >> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better >> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic >> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)
Bob Higgins-- The political environment is all important, particularly the different environments between states. In progressive liberal states, Washington falling into this category IMHO, the utilities do not have the power that they have in states such as Florida and and the middle west and Texas. Alaska, where I vote, does not have a strong utility infrastructure and is ripe for distributed energy systems. It’s way to costly to build such a system there, except in large cities, Anchorage and Fairbanks. I have been off the grid for 16 years there. Another difference is the existence of public utilities rather than investor owned ones. The hydroelectric power in Washington is mostly publically owned and provides fairly cheap power. Even so the large cities in the West like Seattle are quite progressive and are leading the way for the support of distributed power systems. Together with the Federal government incentives, I have a solar system in Washington on a house that I use in the winter. I expect to pay off that system in 3 to 4 years. If it is as good as reliable as the solar installation I have in Alaska, it should last a long time without much upkeep costs. A large number (in the 60’s I think) of the Washington utilities have signed on to the program. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu) The problem with the strategy presented by Smith/Edison is that the big electric power utility companies have already made the big investment in distribution. Smith describes a new installation. The technology for the power management he describes is available today - you can go out and buy it for your house (not new). You can install solar, wind, etc and batteries and have a single power management station. What will be the result? You will draw less power from the electric utility. If you draw less power from the electric utility, you pay less toward maintenance of the big investment the power companies have already made (power companies profit >50% on each kWH they sell you). They will fight tooth and nail to prevent this income reduction to insure they get the return they promised their investors on the huge investment in big infrastructure. Face it, that's their job - to provide that return to the investors in utility bonds. If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable energy and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller and cheaper. But this does not help the power companies that have already made the big investment in delivering lots of power to your home. This is why there is a war between the power companies and those promoting and using such distributed power systems. The war will last over 20 years and we are far from seeing the worst of it. Many big utility companies will go out of business before it is done. Some utility bonds will fail. On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Ken Deboer wrote: Vis a vis this excellent thread, I'd be interested in people's thoughts about a new video by Robert Murray Smith on "The Internet of Energy". This looks to me to be better than Tesla's technology, and in fact, a very significant advance for, especially, widespread solar. ken On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Eric Walker wrote: As your analysis demonstrates, there's no warranty of any particular level of insight that attaches to comments in this and similar fora. You are free to leave when you like. Eric On May 5, 2016, at 13:19, Che wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: >> >>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet >>> >>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower >>> >> >> Indeed. If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it. >> >> Eric * Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus is essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence of some degree. * Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact. * These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual, unfortunately) way. And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such a basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is almost invariably and essentially tossed aside -- in favor of the usual simplistic understanding of how non-technological social issues actually operate. (i.e. 'technology will save/doom us!!', yadda...) Technology, per se, *is essentially NEUTRAL
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Just a remark- calorimetry is a lab size measurement. When it is about kW we can speak heat balance measurement. Jed, when have you heard the first time from IH that the plant does not work- in which form was this expressed? We cannot substantiate...? Rossi cannot substantiate, produce heat at all? My US friends have never herad any negative gossip till the trial, sorry. Possibly you are better informed. You are using generously "silly" or "at the intelligence level of a 6 years old"- however on what is based your idea that IH is more expert in calorinmetry than Rossi? Or the ERV? Peter On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > Nothing I have seen reported, has *proven* Rossi has no technology now > and never had any. Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims. Maybe even > Rossi is deceiving himself. Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has > deceptively over reported his results. I don't believe Focardi was > deceived - I think Focardi saw real energy creation - and that is what > leaves me with hope for this Rossi episode. So, I am NOT willing to say at > this point that I think Rossi has no LENR technology. Though the case of > "always net 0" is still possible. > > I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working > LENR technology using what Rossi has *disclosed* to them. This is a > completely different situation than Rossi having no technology. We know > Rossi is a difficult character from which to get technology transfer. Look > at his previous failed relationships. I suspect that he sold the license > agreement to IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just > threw them a few bones of information - this is not technology transfer. > > How should this be resolved? Rossi should now be joined at the hip > permanently with IH until he delivers what he promised them. Rossi is > claiming high COP, high power LENR technology. Let Rossi start from > scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this > reactor in their lab. Their creation should be measured in IH's lab > together and agree on the performance. If it doesn't work reliably, then > Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + Rossi invents a way to make it > reliable. > > It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be > able to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them. > Rossi should not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and > delivers this kind of technology transfer. If he truly has no technology, > then he is stuck there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he > admits that he really has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to > damages). He will have to prove himself without the smoke and mirrors. > Once he has done this successfully, he should be entitled to the full terms > of the contract. > > The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his > contract. I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this > situation. Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing. > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: > >> a.ashfield wrote: >> >>> >> >>> "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press >>> release:" >>> >>> I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. >> >> >> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying >> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat. >> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do >> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as >> he has been wrong so often in the past. >> >> >> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now. >>> >> >> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion. >> >> >> Either of us could be right. >> >> >> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely >> I.H. is right. That's my point. >> >> >> The point is we don't know yet. >>> >> >> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better >> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic >> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong. >> >> - Jed >> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Lennart Thornros wrote: Jed, why so quick to judgment. > I am not quick to judgement. I heard many months ago that the I.H. and Rossi disagreed about the calorimetry. They did not say why. I was hoping the problems (whatever they are) would be addressed by the end of the test, but I.H.'s March 10 announcement made it clear they still disagree. See: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741 > All parties are in this mess. I am sure that someone will dig themselves > out of the mess. > I expect I.H. will show that Rossi is wrong. Or the two parties will settle out of court. I am amazed that IH has not found someone to get a solution. > How do you know this? Evaluation of different peoples technical capacity is one thing but it > hardly says anything about who is suppressing data or full information. > Whether I.H. is suppressing data or not, I am sure they are good at calorimetry, and I am sure Rossi is bad at it. Someone decided not to release the Penon report. I do not know whether that is Rossi, I.H., or both. > I am sure that something is wrong in those discussions between the parties. > What do you mean? How do you know this? > I am amazed every day that goes by and IH has not come out and tell either > that they have a solution or what they have done to resolve the situation. > Well, it is a lawsuit. They have to respond by a certain date -- June 10, I think. I do not know much about lawsuits, and I know nothing about this particular one. But I believe that in a lawsuit, the defendant will try to file a comprehensive rebuttal, and they don't want to talk about it beforehand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Nothing I have seen reported, has *proven* Rossi has no technology now and never had any. Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims. Maybe even Rossi is deceiving himself. Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has deceptively over reported his results. I don't believe Focardi was deceived - I think Focardi saw real energy creation - and that is what leaves me with hope for this Rossi episode. So, I am NOT willing to say at this point that I think Rossi has no LENR technology. Though the case of "always net 0" is still possible. I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working LENR technology using what Rossi has *disclosed* to them. This is a completely different situation than Rossi having no technology. We know Rossi is a difficult character from which to get technology transfer. Look at his previous failed relationships. I suspect that he sold the license agreement to IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just threw them a few bones of information - this is not technology transfer. How should this be resolved? Rossi should now be joined at the hip permanently with IH until he delivers what he promised them. Rossi is claiming high COP, high power LENR technology. Let Rossi start from scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this reactor in their lab. Their creation should be measured in IH's lab together and agree on the performance. If it doesn't work reliably, then Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + Rossi invents a way to make it reliable. It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be able to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them. Rossi should not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and delivers this kind of technology transfer. If he truly has no technology, then he is stuck there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he admits that he really has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to damages). He will have to prove himself without the smoke and mirrors. Once he has done this successfully, he should be entitled to the full terms of the contract. The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his contract. I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this situation. Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > a.ashfield wrote: > >> > >> "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press >> release:" >> >> I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. > > > Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying > they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat. > I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do > not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as > he has been wrong so often in the past. > > > Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now. >> > > Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion. > > > Either of us could be right. > > > But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely > I.H. is right. That's my point. > > > The point is we don't know yet. >> > > We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better > job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic > mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable > energy and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller > and cheaper. But this does not help the power companies that have already > made the big investment in delivering lots of power to your home. This is > why there is a war between the power companies and those promoting and > using such distributed power systems. The war will last over 20 years and > we are far from seeing the worst of it. Many big utility companies will go > out of business before it is done. Some utility bonds will fail. > And, if your earlier point turns out to be true, there will be a disproportionate impact on lower income people who are unable to afford the cost of switching to such distributed power systems. I suppose governments will step in if things get usurious. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed, why so quick to judgment. All parties are in this mess. I am sure that someone will dig themselves out of the mess. I am amazed that IH has not found someone to get a solution. I have been in IH position I am sure they want result and clarity so they can go on. Evaluation of different peoples technical capacity is one thing but it hardly says anything about who is suppressing data or full information. I am sure that something is wrong in those discussions between the parties. I am amazed every day that goes by and IH has not come out and tell either that they have a solution or what they have done to resolve the situation. Just a little bit I think it weighs in Rossi's advantage, that they cannot resolve the situation.. 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > a.ashfield wrote: > >> > >> "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press >> release:" >> >> I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. > > > Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying > they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat. > I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do > not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as > he has been wrong so often in the past. > > > Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now. >> > > Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion. > > > Either of us could be right. > > > But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely > I.H. is right. That's my point. > > > The point is we don't know yet. >> > > We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better > job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic > mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)
The problem with the strategy presented by Smith/Edison is that the big electric power utility companies have *already made the big investment in distribution*. Smith describes a new installation. The technology for the power management he describes is available today - you can go out and buy it for your house (not new). You can install solar, wind, etc and batteries and have a single power management station. What will be the result? You will draw less power from the electric utility. If you draw less power from the electric utility, you pay less toward maintenance of the big investment the power companies have already made (power companies profit >50% on each kWH they sell you). They will fight tooth and nail to prevent this income reduction to insure they get the return they promised their investors on the huge investment in big infrastructure. Face it, that's their job - to provide that return to the investors in utility bonds. If you are building a new system, based on each home having renewable energy and needing less grid power, the infrastructure can be much smaller and cheaper. But this does not help the power companies that have already made the big investment in delivering lots of power to your home. This is why there is a war between the power companies and those promoting and using such distributed power systems. The war will last over 20 years and we are far from seeing the worst of it. Many big utility companies will go out of business before it is done. Some utility bonds will fail. On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Ken Deboer wrote: > Vis a vis this excellent thread, I'd be interested in people's thoughts > about a new video by Robert Murray Smith on "The Internet of Energy". > This looks to me to be better than Tesla's technology, and in fact, a very > significant advance for, especially, widespread solar. > ken > > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Eric Walker > wrote: > >> As your analysis demonstrates, there's no warranty of any particular >> level of insight that attaches to comments in this and similar fora. You >> are free to leave when you like. >> >> Eric >> >> >> On May 5, 2016, at 13:19, Che wrote: >> >> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Eric Walker >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Fortunately, looks like LENR may not be needed to rescue the planet >> >>> >> >>> http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/blog-1/cheapsolarpower >> >>> >> >> >> >> Indeed. If solar power will help humanity to squeak by, and LENR will >> allow it to build out all kinds of military capabilities, solar power may >> end up saving humanity where LENR would doom it. >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> * Dealing with an out-of-[democratic-]control Military-Police apparatus >> is essentially a _political_ issue: generally only solved by class violence >> of some degree. >> >> * Cold Fusion OTOH is a _technological_ issue: with a political-economic >> social nature necessarily attached to it, after the fact. >> >> * These two issues do NOT easily conflate. Not in this (too-usual, >> unfortunately) way. >> >> >> And IMO it is one of the great failings of this and other fora that such >> a basic understanding of fundamental societal relations is almost >> invariably and essentially tossed aside -- in favor of the usual simplistic >> understanding of how non-technological social issues actually operate. >> (i.e. 'technology will save/doom us!!', yadda...) Technology, per se, *is >> essentially NEUTRAL*. >> >> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
a.ashfield wrote: > > "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press > release:" > > I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat. I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as he has been wrong so often in the past. Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now. > Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion. Either of us could be right. But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely I.H. is right. That's my point. The point is we don't know yet. > We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Jed, "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press release:" I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said. Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now. Either of us could be right. The point is we don't know yet.
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Maybe it is not so important. DGT and Rossi triggered something, pushing rational people to look at rational science done before. The irrational part of those two stories (I'm less sure Rossi have nothing, but innovation is more than just technology), unlocked the irrational latch against past rational research. I just hope it will be confirmed soon. Until things clear up from Miami to Raleigh, there are probably place with more importance. Don't bother, don't panic. 2016-05-09 14:22 GMT+02:00 Lennart Thornros : > Hi Jed, > I actually said that negotiations maybe under way. I certainly cannot > prove the negative so here is what I said. > "Maybe it is underway in a silent format.". > > 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley > wrote: > >> Thanks for posting that. It reinforces my recent viewpoint that this >> area is now ripe for fraud and fantastic magicians who know of a great >> chemical trick that confounds trained observers. >> >> But I take heart in Houdini's magic trick when he visited Tunisia >> to fight piracy and challenged their strongest men to lift the box that he >> carried onto the stage. 4 of their strongest men couldn't do it. Houdini >> lifted the box easily by flicking the electromagnetic switch between him >> and the stage. He demonstrated American superiority in magic. Yes, those >> observers still believed in magic at the time. >> >> I think what we have here is a modern Houdini, but far more brilliant. >> >> But the outcome was electromagnetic switches, so we're all winners... >> >> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, a.ashfield >> wrote: >> >>> Frank Znidarsic, >>> I think you are being unfair to Rossi. It has not been "A very long >>> time" to develop what is a completely new technology. >>> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do. You >>> have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic about >>> new developments. He sued IH not the other way around. >>> >>> me356 said it well in his recent report. >>> >>> "Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long. >>> You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are >>> nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing, >>> that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is >>> not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown >>> things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based >>> on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly, >>> because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much >>> more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years, >>> everything will be completely different." >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Patrick Ellul wrote: > So it's not IH as such that you trust as having more expertise, but > Rossi's competitors. > No, I am talking about the people in I.H., not the others they are working with. > You obviously know and are in contact with some of these competitors. > Yes, but I also know the people in I.H. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Lennart Thornros wrote: I actually said that negotiations maybe under way. I certainly cannot prove > the negative so here is what I said. > "Maybe it is underway in a silent format.". > Ah, I see what you are saying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Hi Jed, I actually said that negotiations maybe under way. I certainly cannot prove the negative so here is what I said. "Maybe it is underway in a silent format.". 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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > Thanks for posting that. It reinforces my recent viewpoint that this area > is now ripe for fraud and fantastic magicians who know of a great chemical > trick that confounds trained observers. > > But I take heart in Houdini's magic trick when he visited Tunisia to fight > piracy and challenged their strongest men to lift the box that he carried > onto the stage. 4 of their strongest men couldn't do it. Houdini lifted > the box easily by flicking the electromagnetic switch between him and the > stage. He demonstrated American superiority in magic. Yes, those > observers still believed in magic at the time. > > I think what we have here is a modern Houdini, but far more brilliant. > > But the outcome was electromagnetic switches, so we're all winners... > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > >> Frank Znidarsic, >> I think you are being unfair to Rossi. It has not been "A very long >> time" to develop what is a completely new technology. >> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do. You >> have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic about >> new developments. He sued IH not the other way around. >> >> me356 said it well in his recent report. >> >> "Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long. >> You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are >> nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing, >> that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is >> not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown >> things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based >> on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly, >> because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much >> more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years, >> everything will be completely different." >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems
Thanks for posting that. It reinforces my recent viewpoint that this area is now ripe for fraud and fantastic magicians who know of a great chemical trick that confounds trained observers. But I take heart in Houdini's magic trick when he visited Tunisia to fight piracy and challenged their strongest men to lift the box that he carried onto the stage. 4 of their strongest men couldn't do it. Houdini lifted the box easily by flicking the electromagnetic switch between him and the stage. He demonstrated American superiority in magic. Yes, those observers still believed in magic at the time. I think what we have here is a modern Houdini, but far more brilliant. But the outcome was electromagnetic switches, so we're all winners... On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Frank Znidarsic, > I think you are being unfair to Rossi. It has not been "A very long time" > to develop what is a completely new technology. > In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do. You > have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic about > new developments. He sued IH not the other way around. > > me356 said it well in his recent report. > > "Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long. > You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are > nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing, > that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is > not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown > things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based > on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly, > because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much > more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years, > everything will be completely different." >
