Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Mats Lewan is quoted:


> <<
> ​...​
> I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that
> hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told
> me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1
> (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output
> Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake
> report in collaboration with Rossi.
>

Just based on the interview with Lewan himself I would accuse them of that!
Their statement about blocking the door to the customer convinces me. I
cannot imagine why Mats did not conclude it must be fraud. What was he
thinking?!?


Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large
> mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by
> people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).>>
>

The calorimetry and data I saw is full of holes, large enough for a mistake
on this scale. That data definitely came from Rossi, because he quoted the
same numbers in the interview.

The only question is: are those giant holes stupid mistakes, or deliberate
fraud? You can't tell from the data itself. People do make large mistakes,
after all. Heck, I've made plenty of large mistakes. Rossi has made many
large mistakes.

Based on their refusal to open the customer site, I say fraud. Other people
think it is okay to close the door, so I guess it is a matter of opinion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

The trail will cut through the FUD,
>

You mean the trial.


Rossi has already cut through the FUD in the interview. His numbers tell
you there is no excess heat. His refusal to allow access to the customer
site tells you he is running a scam.

Rossi has given you proof he is wrong, and he is lying. You refuse to look
at that proof, but it is right there.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Axil Axil]

The trail will cut through the FUD,

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed "As I said, there is clear evidence of that: Rossi refused to let
>> anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi himself."
>>
>> AA.  It seems this was the agreement written by IH before the test began.
>>
>
> 1. Rossi himself in the interview said that the I.H. expert insisted upon
> seeing the customer side. Surely you realize that this is a reasonable
> request, and that any expert would insist on it. Agreement or no agreement,
> Rossi should have acquiesced. It would have instantly proven his case. It
> would instantly resolve all doubts. There is no rational reason to deny
> this request.
>
> 2. Whatever they agreed to, it is common sense to alter an agreement in
> response to a reasonable request. I cannot imagine a more reasonable
> request than this, or one that would better serve Rossi's own purposes --
> assuming he is honest and he actually has 1 MW. Opening the customer site
> would have as many advantages to Rossi as to I.H. It makes no sense to
> enslave yourself to an agreement when it can be improved to everyone's
> benefit.
>
> 3. Rossi is not a reliable source of information. You should not believe
> his blog or his assertions about agreements. He often lies. He lied about
> me, blatantly, years before I said anything particularly bad about him in
> public, other than the fact that he refused to let me visit and measure the
> temperature and flow rate.
>
> 4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
> have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
> machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
> waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
> to open the door?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed "As I said, there is clear evidence of that: Rossi refused to let
> anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi himself."
>
> AA.  It seems this was the agreement written by IH before the test began.
>

1. Rossi himself in the interview said that the I.H. expert insisted upon
seeing the customer side. Surely you realize that this is a reasonable
request, and that any expert would insist on it. Agreement or no agreement,
Rossi should have acquiesced. It would have instantly proven his case. It
would instantly resolve all doubts. There is no rational reason to deny
this request.

2. Whatever they agreed to, it is common sense to alter an agreement in
response to a reasonable request. I cannot imagine a more reasonable
request than this, or one that would better serve Rossi's own purposes --
assuming he is honest and he actually has 1 MW. Opening the customer site
would have as many advantages to Rossi as to I.H. It makes no sense to
enslave yourself to an agreement when it can be improved to everyone's
benefit.

3. Rossi is not a reliable source of information. You should not believe
his blog or his assertions about agreements. He often lies. He lied about
me, blatantly, years before I said anything particularly bad about him in
public, other than the fact that he refused to let me visit and measure the
temperature and flow rate.

4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
to open the door?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed "As I said, there is clear evidence of that: Rossi refused to let 
anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi himself."


AA.  It seems this was the agreement written by IH before the test began.

1.
   Sebastian
   May 20, 2016 at 4:50 PM
   


   Dear Andrea:
   Why you were not able to show to Darden the Customers’ area ?
   Sebastian

2.
   Andrea Rossi
   May 20, 2016 at 5:07 PM
   


   Sebastian:
   In the agreement signed between IH and the Customer it had been
   agreed by the parties that nobody of IH was allowed to enter in JM
   area and nobody of JM was allowed to enter the area in which the
   plant was in operation. This had been agreed upon to defend the IP
   of both. This agreement has been signed by IH and JM, plus also me.
   The text of the agreement has been written by IH and accepted by JM.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[H LV]

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> No Jed I do not know the results.
>>
> The results are quoted by Rossi right here in the interview! What do you
> mean you do not know them? You can't read?
>
> Daniel Rocha did the analysis of the numbers from the interview. He showed
> the temperature is just above 100°C. The data sample provided by Rossi to
> Lewan, to me and to others shows exactly the same thing, except the numbers
> are listed directly, without extrapolation. The temperature is listed at
> just over boiling. Actually it is just below boiling, given the pressure
> and other factors.
>
>


​Matt Lewan seems to accept a different analysis of the data:

<<
​...​
I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that
hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told
me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1
(that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output
Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake
report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to
give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high
COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with
persons connected to IH).>>

taken from ​
https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/
​



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> You still do not give actual figures nor cover the unknowns.
>

Rossi gave the figures, in the interview with Lewan. If you don't believe
him, you don't believe me, and you don't believe I.H. . . . Who *do* you
believe?

As I said, I am not free to give the details, but I and other people who
are way better at calorimetry than I am went over this carefully. We did
not jump to conclusions. (They have a lot more data than I do.)



> I think it better to wait before coming to a conclusion, but you have
> already made your bed.
>

I don't need to wait because I have the data. I am sure this is Rossi's
data from his instruments, because the numbers are the same as the ones he
quoted in the interview. It is not fake data foisted on me by I.H. You need
to wait because the only thing you know so far is that the temperature was
just at boiling. How likely do you think it was that the pressure was no
more than 1 atm?

By the way, if Rossi wanted to cheat, and little antifreeze would do the
trick.



> ff the output really was zero you are saying Rossi, his team, Penon and
> the customer have all engaged in fraud.
>

Yes. That is my conclusion. As I said, there is clear evidence of that:
Rossi refused to let anyone see the customer site. You have that from Rossi
himself.

I believe the data indicates other reasons for thinking it was fraud, which
I cannot discuss.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You still do not give actual figures nor cover the unknowns.
I think it better to wait before coming to a conclusion, but you have 
already made your bed.
ff the output really was zero you are saying Rossi, his team, Penon and 
the customer have all engaged in fraud.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

AA.  That is still not enough.  What was the actual temperature (just over
> 100C doesn't hack it), what was the pressure, was there a steam trap or
> other device to take out the condensate?
>

I can only say that the answers prove there cannot possibly be 1 MW.
Rossi's data and the methods are a mess, so there could be some excess
heat. More careful analysis by other methods confirm there is none.



> I find it difficult to believe someone as qualified as Penon wouldn't
> understand the possibility of water in the steam line.
>

I expect he does understand that. I expect he and Rossi are engaged in
fraud. Either that or they are very, very stupid. Given the fact that they
blocked access to the customer, I assume it is fraud.

There are other ways to prevent boiling besides pressure, by the way. A
little antifreeze will do it.



> Also, there were periodic reports to IH: surely they would have spotted
> something as basic as that?
>

When the test ended I.H. announced in no uncertain terms that they did not
agree with Rossi's analysis. Later they announced that they were unable to
substantiate the heat. So obviously they did spot the problems. Rossi has
described only a little about the calorimetry, but you see from what he
said that he has no heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed.  "The results are quoted by Rossi right here in the interview! What 
do you mean you do not know them? You can't read?


Daniel Rocha did the analysis of the numbers from the interview. He 
showed the temperature is just above 100°C. The data sample provided by 
Rossi to Lewan, to me and to others shows exactly the same thing, except 
the numbers are listed directly, without extrapolation. The temperature 
is listed at just over boiling. Actually it is just below boiling, given 
the pressure and other factors.


   I know not to spout firm controversial judgment.

What could possibly be controversial about the boiling point of water 
for crying out loud!?


   I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your
   vague bak up of your statements

What was vague about Rossi's adamant refusal to allow people to see the 
customer equipment? What do you find vague about that what possible 
justification can you think of for it.


This is not vague. This is the clearest evidence imaginable, in words 
directly from Rossi himself, showing that he was engaged in fraud. There 
is no other plausible explanation. Or if there is, you have not provided 
it and neither has he.


This has nothing to do with me. This is now based entirely on what Rossi 
himself said in the interview. If you cannot see that you are incapable 
of elementary analyses and you do not even understand the boiling point 
of water."


AA.  That is still not enough.  What was the actual temperature (just 
over 100C doesn't hack it), what was the pressure, was there a steam 
trap or other device to take out the condensate?
I find it difficult to believe someone as qualified as Penon wouldn't 
understand the possibility of water in the steam line. Also, there were 
periodic reports to IH: surely they would have spotted something as 
basic as that?

Re: [Vo]:Relationship between Slow neutron capture cross section and neutron spallation energy

[Stephen Cooke]

Very interesting link too, I'm just reading it. Are you based in the 
Netherlands by any chance?

Sent from my iPad

> On 20 mei 2016, at 23:40, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> 
> In reply to  Stephen Cooke's message of Fri, 20 May 2016 12:04:22 +0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Is there a relationship between the cross-section for slow neutron capture 
>> in particular nuclei and the nucleus excitation energy needed in the nucleus 
>> to cause neutron spallation?
>> 
>> For example B10 has a high neutron cross-section. Is there s relationship 
>> between this and the energy needed for Neutron spallation from B11?
> 
> That's what I would expect too. Nuclei with a high neutron capture 
> cross-section
> really "want" to have that extra neutron, because they become much more 
> stable.
> Conversely, removing the neutron from the new stable nucleus should be very
> difficult.
> Compare the neutron capture energy release with that of other nuclei. I would
> expect it to be larger.
> 
> In this case, 10B+n => 11B + 11.454 MeV
> 
> (That's a lot for a single particle capture reaction).
> 
> Another high capture cross-section reaction is:-
> 
> 3He+n => 4He + 20.578 MeV
> 
> which is why He3 is used in some neutron detectors.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Daniel Rocha]

Mats does know how to do calorimeter calculations. He is an applied
physicist, that should be imprinted on his mind. I think that it is highly
unlikely that he did a mistake in calculation. It's much more likely that
he is just lying or that he has a completely different set of data.It is
possible that he has the data from the side of the customer and Jed from
Rossi's, which is probably be subjected to larger errors.

>From the perspective of the custumer, it should only get a hot tube coming
and going into a wall. Rossi's side has all kinds of parameters to control,
like steam quality, input from the electric grid (~160KW for COP 6!),
measurement of temperature and probably much more.

Re: [Vo]:Relationship between Slow neutron capture cross section and neutron spallation energy

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks Robin, 

> On 20 mei 2016, at 23:40, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> 
> In reply to  Stephen Cooke's message of Fri, 20 May 2016 12:04:22 +0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Is there a relationship between the cross-section for slow neutron capture 
>> in particular nuclei and the nucleus excitation energy needed in the nucleus 
>> to cause neutron spallation?
>> 
>> For example B10 has a high neutron cross-section. Is there s relationship 
>> between this and the energy needed for Neutron spallation from B11?
> 
> That's what I would expect too. Nuclei with a high neutron capture 
> cross-section
> really "want" to have that extra neutron, because they become much more 
> stable.
> Conversely, removing the neutron from the new stable nucleus should be very
> difficult.
> Compare the neutron capture energy release with that of other nuclei. I would
> expect it to be larger.
> 
> In this case, 10B+n => 11B + 11.454 MeV
> 
> (That's a lot for a single particle capture reaction).
> 
> Another high capture cross-section reaction is:-
> 
> 3He+n => 4He + 20.578 MeV
> 
> which is why He3 is used in some neutron detectors.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> No Jed I do not know the results.
>
The results are quoted by Rossi right here in the interview! What do you
mean you do not know them? You can't read?

Daniel Rocha did the analysis of the numbers from the interview. He showed
the temperature is just above 100°C. The data sample provided by Rossi to
Lewan, to me and to others shows exactly the same thing, except the numbers
are listed directly, without extrapolation. The temperature is listed at
just over boiling. Actually it is just below boiling, given the pressure
and other factors.

I know not to spout firm controversial judgment.
>
What could possibly be controversial about the boiling point of water for
crying out loud!?

I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your vague bak
> up of your statements
>
What was vague about Rossi's adamant refusal to allow people to see the
customer equipment? What do you find vague about that what possible
justification can you think of for it.

This is not vague. This is the clearest evidence imaginable, in words
directly from Rossi himself, showing that he was engaged in fraud. There is
no other plausible explanation. Or if there is, you have not provided it
and neither has he.

This has nothing to do with me. This is now based entirely on what Rossi
himself said in the interview. If you cannot see that you are incapable of
elementary analyses and you do not even understand the boiling point of
water.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Relationship between Slow neutron capture cross section and neutron spallation energy

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen Cooke's message of Fri, 20 May 2016 12:04:22 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>Is there a relationship between the cross-section for slow neutron capture in 
>particular nuclei and the nucleus excitation energy needed in the nucleus to 
>cause neutron spallation?
>
>For example B10 has a high neutron cross-section. Is there s relationship 
>between this and the energy needed for Neutron spallation from B11?

That's what I would expect too. Nuclei with a high neutron capture cross-section
really "want" to have that extra neutron, because they become much more stable.
Conversely, removing the neutron from the new stable nucleus should be very
difficult.
Compare the neutron capture energy release with that of other nuclei. I would
expect it to be larger.

In this case, 10B+n => 11B + 11.454 MeV

(That's a lot for a single particle capture reaction).

Another high capture cross-section reaction is:-

3He+n => 4He + 20.578 MeV

which is why He3 is used in some neutron detectors.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed I do not know the results. I know not to spout firm controversial
judgment. the  without support.
I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your vague bak
up of your statements
On May 20, 2016 17:29, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
>> Vague data and very mean conclusion.
>>
> There is nothing vague about it! Rossi's own numbers show the temperature
> of the fluid is just above 100°C. That is his own data, in the Lewan
> interview. What more can you ask for? He did not quote the pressure,
> because that would show it is hot water. That plus other data shows it is
> below 100°C. There is no steam!
>
>
>> There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
>> Just reflects back on you.
>>
> I am telling you clear-cut facts, confirmed by Rossi himself.
>
> Furthermore, you are evading, dancing around the issues, and refusing to
> face reality when you will not admit that Rossi's blocking the door to the
> customer factory proves beyond any question that he is a fraud. If there
> was a machine in there consuming 1 MW of process heat he would be thrilled
> to show it. It would be the first thing he shows everyone. There can be
> NOTHING in there.
>
> Your blather and evasions are tiresome. Rossi torpedoed himself in that
> interview. He inadvertently proved once and for all that there is no heat,
> and that the test was fake.
>
> If you disagree, tell us why he would refuse to show definitive proof of
> his own claim. Go ahead, give a reason. Amuse us. Rossi himself has not
> even tried to invent a reason. He just says "it isn't important." Do you
> buy that? Do you think it is not important? Why do you let Rossi feed you
> such arrogant, foolish nonsense?
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:We owe Steven Kirvit an applogy

[Frank Znidarsic]

His analysis and vision was much clearer than anyone had expected.


Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I have not seen any convincing proof from you either.
>

It is RIGHT THERE in the statements Rossi made in the interview! I don't
need to give you anything. Do the numbers. The temperature is just at
boiling. There is no steam.

He himself is bragging that that he blocked the door and prevented anyone
from I.H. from seeing the customer equipment. What conceivable motivation
would he have to do that if there was actually working equipment in there?
In what universe would anyone block access to definitive proof of his own
claim?

How can you possibly justify this?!?


“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence.”
>

The evidence is overwhelming and it is from Rossi himself. You do not need
a thing from me. He told you everything you need to know. He proved that
the test is fake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
> Vague data and very mean conclusion.
>
There is nothing vague about it! Rossi's own numbers show the temperature
of the fluid is just above 100°C. That is his own data, in the Lewan
interview. What more can you ask for? He did not quote the pressure,
because that would show it is hot water. That plus other data shows it is
below 100°C. There is no steam!


> There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
> Just reflects back on you.
>
I am telling you clear-cut facts, confirmed by Rossi himself.

Furthermore, you are evading, dancing around the issues, and refusing to
face reality when you will not admit that Rossi's blocking the door to the
customer factory proves beyond any question that he is a fraud. If there
was a machine in there consuming 1 MW of process heat he would be thrilled
to show it. It would be the first thing he shows everyone. There can be
NOTHING in there.

Your blather and evasions are tiresome. Rossi torpedoed himself in that
interview. He inadvertently proved once and for all that there is no heat,
and that the test was fake.

If you disagree, tell us why he would refuse to show definitive proof of
his own claim. Go ahead, give a reason. Amuse us. Rossi himself has not
even tried to invent a reason. He just says "it isn't important." Do you
buy that? Do you think it is not important? Why do you let Rossi feed you
such arrogant, foolish nonsense?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
Vague data and very mean conclusion.

There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
Just reflects back on you.
On May 20, 2016 16:45, "a.ashfield"  wrote:

> Jed,
> I have not seen any convincing proof from you either.
> “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence.”
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I have not seen any convincing proof from you either.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without 
evidence.”

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> But Jed, if you have the data why do you advice me to ask Rossi instead of
> just sending them.
>
Because I am not free to share everything yet, obviously.

You don't need anything more from me. Look at the numbers from Rossi and
the analysis from Daniel Rocha. Assume the pressure is a little high or the
temperatures a little low and most of the excess heat vanishes. The rest
goes away for other reasons.

If you want to know whether this is a stupid mistake or fraud, you need
only look at Rossi's refusal to allow people to look at the customer's
equpment. That customer was set up by Rossi's own lawyer. Rossi has the key
to the room, and he has often been seen coming and going. Why do you think
he will not let anyone in? If there was 1 MW equipment in there, why would
he not allow people to see it? It would instantly prove his claim is true!

Stop dancing around that issue. Stop making up pretend reasons why he would
prevent people from going in there. Be honest with yourself and admit that
this proves he is making it all up.

If this was anyone other than Rossi, you and everyone else would agree this
has to be fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

But Jed, if you have the data why do you advice me to ask Rossi instead of
just sending them.
On May 20, 2016 15:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree.
>>
> Show you what? You don't believe what Rossi said to Lewan? He said that
> the I.H. expert insisted, but he did not allow it. From that alone it is
> clear he is running a scam.
>
> You don't even believe the truth when Rossi admits it! Or brags about it,
> I should say. He as much as told you he is committing fraud. If anyone else
> said "no, you are not allowed to look at where the 1 MW of steam is being
> used" you would conclude that person is a crook. You must be mesmerized by
> Rossi because you give him a free pass.
>
> The calorimetry problems are pretty clear already from Daniel Rocha's
> analysis. This is hot water, not steam. There are other reasons confirming
> that, and there are other mistakes in the calorimetry.
>
> Just sitting there telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no
>> sense. Show it.
>>
> Ask Rossi for the data. Ask him for the ERV Penon report. Ask him for
> photos and a complete description of his equipment, and of the customer's
> equipment that uses 1 MW of process heat. He is the one covering up the
> facts. Despite his efforts to hide the truth, it will come to light in the
> court proceedings, unless the parties settle out of court.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree.
>
Show you what? You don't believe what Rossi said to Lewan? He said that the
I.H. expert insisted, but he did not allow it. From that alone it is clear
he is running a scam.

You don't even believe the truth when Rossi admits it! Or brags about it, I
should say. He as much as told you he is committing fraud. If anyone else
said "no, you are not allowed to look at where the 1 MW of steam is being
used" you would conclude that person is a crook. You must be mesmerized by
Rossi because you give him a free pass.

The calorimetry problems are pretty clear already from Daniel Rocha's
analysis. This is hot water, not steam. There are other reasons confirming
that, and there are other mistakes in the calorimetry.

Just sitting there telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no
> sense. Show it.
>
Ask Rossi for the data. Ask him for the ERV Penon report. Ask him for
photos and a complete description of his equipment, and of the customer's
equipment that uses 1 MW of process heat. He is the one covering up the
facts. Despite his efforts to hide the truth, it will come to light in the
court proceedings, unless the parties settle out of court.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree. Just sitting there
telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no sense. Show it.
On May 20, 2016 14:34, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
>> Because you believe?
>>
> No, because the data shows it.
>
>
>> If IH is in control they would come free . . .
>>
> I.H. is not in control. As Rossi said in the Lewan interview, the I.H.
> expert insisted he must see the customer machinery, but Rossi refused.
>
> My data comes from Rossi. His instruments. Not from I.H. The numbers I
> have are the same as the ones quoted by Rossi in the Lewan interview. What
> he does not say is that he screwed up the analysis, the configuration and
> choice of instruments, and that every expert who has looked at the data
> concluded there is no excess heat. Plus every non-expert such as me.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
> Because you believe?
>
No, because the data shows it.


> If IH is in control they would come free . . .
>
I.H. is not in control. As Rossi said in the Lewan interview, the I.H.
expert insisted he must see the customer machinery, but Rossi refused.

My data comes from Rossi. His instruments. Not from I.H. The numbers I have
are the same as the ones quoted by Rossi in the Lewan interview. What he
does not say is that he screwed up the analysis, the configuration and
choice of instruments, and that every expert who has looked at the data
concluded there is no excess heat. Plus every non-expert such as me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
Because you believe?
If IH is in control they would come free and not gossip their findings.
Tell me one reason they should not. Do not say lawsuit as it is on the
contrary if they have solid ground.
On May 20, 2016 13:53, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH reason to
>> not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.
>>
>
> Perhaps I.H. has many reasons, but the the reason they gave is that the e-
> cat does not work. There is no question this is true. The numbers quoted by
> Rossi in the Lewan article are the same ones in my sample data. These
> numbers prove that the e-cat produces no excess heat.
>
> Let us have some sanity in this conversation. Why would anyone pay $89
> million for a machine that does not work??? No sane person would pay even
> $1 for it. It has no value.
>
> Why are you searching, scraping and hypothesizing to come up with some
> other reason? The fact that it does not work is reason enough. Would you
> pay for a machine that does not work?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[David Roberson]

This situation seems to be following the theory that the heat is generated 
throughout the volume of the material while it escapes through the surface area 
of that mass.  Volume varies as the cube of the linear dimension while surface 
area is proportional to the square.

With this thought in mind, adding more of the same material is going to lead to 
a higher internal temperature as long as a reaction is taking place inside a 
mass that generates heat.   This type of experiment might actually be the best 
means available to prove that LENR is taking place, assuming the dangers can be 
overcome.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Fri, May 20, 2016 9:59 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996




H LV  wrote:



2.5 lbs of powered nickel offers a great deal of surface area for heat of 
adsorption. Also the nickel powder had been sitting in a vacuum before the 
hydrogen gas was added so this would further enhance the adsorption of hydrogen.




Yes. This is what I meant by "critical mass issue." Maybe I should call it 
"critical thermal mass."


The large mass may also enhance hydrogen adsorption, as noted. In other words, 
100 g of powder might absorb X amount, where 1000 g absorbs more than 10 times 
X.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH reason to
> not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.
>

Perhaps I.H. has many reasons, but the the reason they gave is that the e-
cat does not work. There is no question this is true. The numbers quoted by
Rossi in the Lewan article are the same ones in my sample data. These
numbers prove that the e-cat produces no excess heat.

Let us have some sanity in this conversation. Why would anyone pay $89
million for a machine that does not work??? No sane person would pay even
$1 for it. It has no value.

Why are you searching, scraping and hypothesizing to come up with some
other reason? The fact that it does not work is reason enough. Would you
pay for a machine that does not work?

- Jed

[Vo]:starting to discuss cultural history of LENR

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-20-2016-toward-cultural-history-of.html

Plus some information..

Please have empathy for me! Thank you

Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Daniel Rocha]

He would have to live in a place where he would not be extradited and make
sure he can use the money. So, he'd probably have to run away carrying some
kind precious metal, to make sure he wouldn't have problems with a closed
bank account.

2016-05-20 12:24 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :

> why does he not just walk away and live the rest of his life in peace
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Bob I think business climate is important. I have not been so
impressed by Swedish business climate in the past, but it has some
advantages to the US systems particularly the government and the
universities are only part of the equation. The Royal academy of science
and similar organization has  a say as well. They are mostly made up of the
private industry. My information is 30 years old so . . .

Jed, you think you have the answer. If you gave the background I might see
the same , but as you just continue to say the same sure thing without any
support it sounds really weak. That IH should pay if the result was
positive is not absolutely true. Many reasons has been brought up here and
on other blogs why that is not so sure. To me there is other evidence that
'proves' the opposite; i.e. when Rossi has received $10M plus and knows he
is a scammer why does he not just walk away and live the rest of his life
in peace. No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH
reason to not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.

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 Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>
>> As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous
>> patents for something—the Quark X IMHO.  When this came out IH got upset I
>> would imagine.  They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for
>> only the E-Cat IP license.  And that is where it stands now.
>>
>
> As I said, that is not what happened. The statement from IH makes it very
> clear what they claim happened: the 1 MW reactor does not work. It does not
> produce any excess heat. None of Rossi's present reactors produces excess
> heat. The one at Lugano did not, as far as I know.
>
> Why do you keep inventing imaginary reasons for this dispute when I.H. has
> clearly stated why they do not wish to pay? They have said there was no
> heat. Rossi says there was fifty times input. Surely you agree that is a
> large enough bone of contention to justify a lawsuit. If both sides
> sincerely believe what they say, you do not have to add any additional
> motivation for a lawsuit.
>
> Perhaps you are saying you do not believe there was no heat. You think
> I.H. is lying. Based on my analysis of the calorimetry I am sure you are
> wrong about that. Perhaps you will not take my word for that, but you
> should at least wait to see the calorimetry yourself before you go off
> inventing imaginary reasons for the dispute.
>
> If you have a chance to learn calorimetry, you will see that I.H. has good
> reason to believe there is no heat. As do I, for that matter. I am not just
> making this stuff up. Even assuming both sides are completely honest and
> sincere, and that Rossi made no attempt to defraud anyone, that is more
> than enough grounds for a lawsuit.
>
> There's *nothing more* to this dispute than that. It is not about Rossi
> refusing to teach his IP. It is not about a failed replication attempt by
> I.H. employees. It is not about Rossi's more recent claims. It is not about
> I.H. "stealing" patented technology and giving it to Brillouin, which is an
> absurd concept. This lawsuit came about because machine does not work.
> There is no excess heat.
>
> If the machine did work, every indication is that I.H. would be happy to
> pay the $89 million.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Other types of Crtical Mass

[Jones Beene]

"Critical mass" is a broader concept than its familiar usage in nuclear
fission. In that context, CM relates to neutron multiplication past a
threshold level - but the concept is qualitatively more than just a subset
of "positive feedback." 

There are also other contexts for critical mass, in the field of
socio-dynamics - such as is inherent in the "paradigm shift," "the hundredth
monkey," the "bandwagon effect," the "tipping point," the viral video, and
of course, the "meme" and "morphic field" of Sheldrake. 

But wait. (best Bob Mays accent): there's more.

As mentioned yesterday, in the case of quantum mechanics, there can also be
a "critical mass" equivalent which describes some or even all of the prior
runaway reactions of LENR. It is not a thermal property per se, although
heat is an obvious side effect. 

There are in fact, a number of scientific papers on "entanglement mass"
which would be the corollary in QM to critical mass. I have a feeling that
there are vorticians who have studied this niche of QM thoroughly and can
cite a relevant paper or two. and perhaps speculate on the parameters which
would promote entanglement.

For Jack's upcoming pressure cooker experiment :-) the parameter which would
promote quantum entanglement could include
1)  Magnetic field (put a big sacrificial magnet in the cooker
2)  Low temp - freezer storage and a dry ice bath could help
3)  Ageing (leave that magnet in the cold powder for a week before the
experiment).

Do not use deuterium ! and "duck and cover". (which was itself a meme from
an earlier era)

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:


> As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous
> patents for something—the Quark X IMHO.  When this came out IH got upset I
> would imagine.  They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for
> only the E-Cat IP license.  And that is where it stands now.
>

As I said, that is not what happened. The statement from IH makes it very
clear what they claim happened: the 1 MW reactor does not work. It does not
produce any excess heat. None of Rossi's present reactors produces excess
heat. The one at Lugano did not, as far as I know.

Why do you keep inventing imaginary reasons for this dispute when I.H. has
clearly stated why they do not wish to pay? They have said there was no
heat. Rossi says there was fifty times input. Surely you agree that is a
large enough bone of contention to justify a lawsuit. If both sides
sincerely believe what they say, you do not have to add any additional
motivation for a lawsuit.

Perhaps you are saying you do not believe there was no heat. You think I.H.
is lying. Based on my analysis of the calorimetry I am sure you are wrong
about that. Perhaps you will not take my word for that, but you should at
least wait to see the calorimetry yourself before you go off inventing
imaginary reasons for the dispute.

If you have a chance to learn calorimetry, you will see that I.H. has good
reason to believe there is no heat. As do I, for that matter. I am not just
making this stuff up. Even assuming both sides are completely honest and
sincere, and that Rossi made no attempt to defraud anyone, that is more
than enough grounds for a lawsuit.

There's *nothing more* to this dispute than that. It is not about Rossi
refusing to teach his IP. It is not about a failed replication attempt by
I.H. employees. It is not about Rossi's more recent claims. It is not about
I.H. "stealing" patented technology and giving it to Brillouin, which is an
absurd concept. This lawsuit came about because machine does not work.
There is no excess heat.

If the machine did work, every indication is that I.H. would be happy to
pay the $89 million.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

Yes. I agree that Agreement language is broad.  I read it several times.  I 
would note that the key to the scope of what is involved is the term “which 
relates to E-Cat IP.”   The definition of the E-Cat IP comes out in the first 
“Whereas” in the Agreement.  As you have noted it includes the Hot Cat IP as 
spelled out in the Hot Cat Patent Application in the US per an exhibit to the 
Agreement.  It does not apply to the Quark X invention.  I think that is where 
Rossi drew the line. 

As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous patents 
for something—the Quark X IMHO.  When this came out IH got upset I would 
imagine.  They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for only the 
E-Cat IP license.  And that is where it stands now.  All this happened after 
Woodford’s contribution to IH.  If they and IH decide to give up on the E-Cat 
IP development, that is surely a reasonable investment decision.  I do not 
think the IH and Darden were cognizant of the future developments when 
recruiting Woodford.  It was merely ignorance of the technology possible, 
associated with the field of LENR, as well as, the near term  obsolescence  of 
E-Cat IP. 

At the time of the Agreement signing, I doubt that IH knew the Quark X  was in 
the offing.  Or else it would have certainly been included in the scope spelled 
out in 13.4.  The Agreement did not address the idea that Rossi had to reveal 
all his knowledge—thoughts.  This would be akin to revealing undocumented trade 
secrets for anything Rossi may know.  That clearly is not spelled out and would 
probably not be enforceable, since the secrets were only ideas in Rossi’s head. 
 It’s art knowhow as provided in patent specifications.  

However, IMHO the cost to IH for even getting Rossi to license the E-Cat IP was 
$100.5 M.

In other places of the Agreement, there were limits on the time Rossi was 
obligated to help the IH team learn the art necessary to produce a COP of 6.  I 
think that obligated teaching ran out half way through the 1 year test.  In any 
case it did not IMHO apply to extra research Rossi was doing on his own time to 
perfect the Quark X invention.   Early on Rossi noted the great IH team.  This 
language stopped when his team work ended about September 2015 I think.  About 
that time Rossi may have initiated the complaint that was ready to go at the 
end of the 1 year period, knowing full well from the periodic ERV reports that 
the testing on the E-Cat with 4 modules and 52 separate reactors would work out 
positive.  

Rossi never started work on an E-Cat factory.  I think it was because he 
realized the Quark X direct electricity production was what would work best in 
society.  I think he is right.  It seems he is not proceeding along the better 
option in Sweden where he perceives his efforts will be least resisted and 
maybe even encouraged by the Swedish government.  He seems to have the ear of 
the Royal Academy and the Nobel Association, which may give him some sway 
there, more so than elsewhere.  

As Lennart will probably agree with, a good business climate with government 
support is pretty important.  

>From my standpoint, it is too bad that the United States has not been more 
>supportive, particularly in advising of  the overall acceptance of LENR 
>technology.  However, I understand that such a progressive position would not 
>be liked by the established financial interests, since it would hasten their 
>“oxen getting gored”.   

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Hi Bob, 

As I reread the relevant section of the license agreement, I am startled by how 
broad the language is.  It covers the existing IP as well as any derivative 
works and future inventions.  It is one of those paragraphs in a contract 
where, if I were the signing party, I would wonder how a negotiating party 
could ask for so much.  See section 13.4 and take a moment to read through it:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf


Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste it here.


Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

  Lennart and Eric--

  I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the E-Cat 
IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH).

  However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix to 
the agreement) is as a patent application.  The validation test in Italy  and  
the 1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat.  The Hot Cat specifications I 
have not seen written anywhere.  They may be in the patent application.  They 
are not specified in the Agreement unless its via the Patent application.

  If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of 
providing IP associated with exceeding a COP of 6 (or 

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: CONTRIBUTION FROM V. VYSOTSKII, NEW DISPUTE GENERATOR LAUNCHED<,

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

What I had in mind that, since this is a close loop, nearly at 100C, it
> might become  a self regulating mechanism, pressure rises, less steam is
> formed, pressure decreases, more steam is formed, pressure rises, and so on.
>

Sure. That sounds plausible.

Add to that, if the thermocouples are reading just a little high, you have
boiling hot water instead of steam. Industrial-grade thermocouples or dial
thermometers are often a little bit off.

Problems like this would lead Rossi to overestimate enthalpy by a large
margin.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: CONTRIBUTION FROM V. VYSOTSKII, NEW DISPUTE GENERATOR LAUNCHED<,

[Daniel Rocha]

And it keeps the transfered energy mroe ore less constant. Water has a
lower speed in tubes, so more heat exchanging surfce.

2016-05-20 10:59 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> It kind of eases explosion issues if some reactors have run away reactions.
>
> 2016-05-20 10:57 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :
>
>> What I had in mind that, since this is a close loop, nearly at 100C, it
>> might become  a self regulating mechanism, pressure rises, less steam is
>> formed, pressure decreases, more steam is formed, pressure rises, and so
>> on.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: CONTRIBUTION FROM V. VYSOTSKII, NEW DISPUTE GENERATOR LAUNCHED<,

[Daniel Rocha]

It kind of eases explosion issues if some reactors have run away reactions.

2016-05-20 10:57 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> What I had in mind that, since this is a close loop, nearly at 100C, it
> might become  a self regulating mechanism, pressure rises, less steam is
> formed, pressure decreases, more steam is formed, pressure rises, and so
> on.
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

2.5 lbs of powered nickel offers a great deal of surface area for heat of
> adsorption. Also the nickel powder had been sitting in a vacuum before the
> hydrogen gas was added so this would further enhance the adsorption of
> hydrogen.
>

Yes. This is what I meant by "critical mass issue." Maybe I should call it
"critical thermal mass."

The large mass may also enhance hydrogen adsorption, as noted. In other
words, 100 g of powder might absorb X amount, where 1000 g absorbs more
than 10 times X.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: CONTRIBUTION FROM V. VYSOTSKII, NEW DISPUTE GENERATOR LAUNCHED<,

[Daniel Rocha]

What I had in mind that, since this is a close loop, nearly at 100C, it
might become  a self regulating mechanism, pressure rises, less steam is
formed, pressure decreases, more steam is formed, pressure rises, and so
on.

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Now that you mention it, and realizing how enticing/dangerous it would be
> to a certain segment of the population . . .
>
We have seen crazy stunts with thermite and other energetic materials on
> YouTube. In a worst case, we are talking about something which could be
> far more energetic than thermite. Yikes.
>
Not just a certain segment of the population -- we need to worry about
ordinary, timid professors as well. Martin Fleischmann strongly recommended
scaling down cold fusion experiments because of incidents like this.

However, there may be a problem with scaling down. Perhaps there is some
sort of critical mass issue. I do not mean with neutrons the way a critical
mass works in a fission reaction. I mean something like the buildup of heat
in a large mass of nickel powder.

- Jed

[Vo]:Ecat

[Chris Zell]

Forgive me if this was covered in this lengthy saga but I recall wondering 
about past photos of a tube reactor glowing red and yellow.

At the time, I recall some discussion about the gauge of the wire being 
insufficient to account for the heat emitted.  Of course, in the Photoshop Era 
such images may mean little unless
Accompanied by witnesses - which I thought was the case in that instance.  
Unless a H2 flame can be asserted, it seemed a mystery.

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: CONTRIBUTION FROM V. VYSOTSKII, NEW DISPUTE GENERATOR LAUNCHED<,

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  pointed out something important:


> So, we have that an amazing coincidence 1MW (~70kW + ~930) is nearly
> *exactly* what is needed to vaporize the flux in the circuit. . . .
>

Or, if the temperatures are slightly overestimated, or there is a bit more
pressure, it is not enough to vaporize the fluid.



> Otherwise, probably the water is high pressurized and bubbling.
>

In other words is not wet steam so much as boiling water. That has much
less enthalpy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[H LV]

2.5 lbs of powered nickel offers a great deal of surface area for heat of
adsorption. Also the nickel powder had been sitting in a vacuum before the
hydrogen gas was added so this would further enhance the adsorption of
hydrogen.

harry

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Jones,
>
> Is it possible to find another source to back up what you are describing
> in this event?   A second written record would be fine if available.
>
> I have not heard of that particular thermal run away reaction that you
> have listed below but would find it interesting to follow up on.  The
> recent negative information that is coming out pertaining to Rossi is
> beginning to concern me and your example seems like just the medicine
> needed to cure that problem.
>
> It has been my intent to continuing standing by with an open mind until
> the year long test data is released by Rossi or IH and analyzed.  This is
> not an easy position to maintain at this point with all the negativity
> being expressed by Jed and others.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, May 19, 2016 2:09 pm
> Subject: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996
>
> Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details
> of the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996.
> Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the
> field, and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes
> other thermal runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia
> and Ahern. However, it was far more energetic than any of the prior
> incidents.
> This was to have been an powered experiment but they never had time to
> apply input power. This was was a follow-on to a Phase one grant from USAF
> (document in LENR-CANR library) and was simply intended to be an analysis
> the absorption reaction of a large amount of nickel powder and hydrogen
> at modest pressure. Instead, it was likely the most energetic single
> event in the history of LENR.
> Recently, Brian Ahern has been in contact with Nelson Gernert, the chief
> researcher in the new Thermacore (having gone through two changes of
> ownership) who was also in charge of the runaway. None of this has
> appeared in print before.
> Gernert added 2.5 pounds of nickel powder (200 mesh of Ni-200) into a 3
> liter stainless steel Dewar.  The Dewar weighed 300 pounds. It was a
> strong pressure vessel with a hemispherical volume. Thermacore evacuated
> the nickel under vacuum for several days before adding H2 gas at 2
> atmospheres (apparently there was no potassium but this detail needs to
> be verified).
> The most amazing thing happened next. The powder immediately and spontaneously
> heated before external power could be added. The Dewar glowed orange
> (800C) and the engineers ran for cover. No external heat had been used
> and no radiation monitors were running. The nickel had sintered into a
> glob alloyed into the vessel and could not be removed.
> The (then) owner of Thermacore, Yale Eastman was frightened that an
> explosion was imminent and that someone could be killed. He forbade any
> further work on LENR. The incident was not published.
> The Dewar was no longer safe as a pressure vessel and they junked it.
> They did not measure it for radiation. Superficial thermal analysis - 3
> liters of H2 gas at 2 atmosphere will have a heat of combustion of 74
> kilojoules when combined with oxygen (but there was no oxygen in the
> Dewar).
> Heating a 300 lb Stainless vessel to 800C requires 21 megajoules. That is
> ostensibly 289 times the possible chemical energy!
>
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 10:44:35 -0400
> Subject: Re: MILLS AND THERMACORE
> From: *na...@gwu.edu *
> To: *ahern_br...@msn.com *
> Thanks, Brian.
> I will try to get a complete copy.
> Dave
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Brian Ahern < 
> *ahern_br...@msn.com
> *> wrote:
> aLL MY COPIES LACK PAGE 4.
>

[Vo]:p and B11 colliding beam fusion

[Stephen Cooke]

Has this paper already been looked at here? apologies if it has. 

http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/ifs/ifsreports/919_wong.pdf

The resonance proton cross-sections and proton beam energies in the 100's of 
keV range look interesting to me.

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Alain Sepeda]

AFAIK this kind of reaction is regularly observed by accident in various
similar situations.
;-)

most don't know they see LENR. they just see they have to redo all again.


2016-05-19 22:53 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> Dave,
>
> You are not alone – few know of this incident. But it’s not a sensible
> choice to base anything regarding the validity of LENR on Rossi’s
> problems with IH. The technology will survive, but Rossi’s lack of
> credibility could taint the field and impede progress for years.
>
> The Thermacore runaway, as impressive as it was, has not previously been
> reported. To put it (the runaway) into context, there had already been a
> fatality at SRI a few years before (unrelated). It was not known back
> then, in the mid-nineties, whether the reaction was safe or not especially
> when drastically scaled up (2-3 orders of magnitude). The Thermacore
> incident was not reported for any number of legal and liability reasons, not
> to mention OSHA - and the project was canceled immediately.
>
> The Company was only interested in the scale-up potential of it, so it
> was nixed. Ahern’s sources of information on this are impeccable.
>
> BTW – to my knowledge, no one since then has tried an experiment with a
> similarly large mass of potentially active material but it could easily
> be the case that there is a “critical mass” equivalent, even if that term
> is shoehorned into QM (or CQM).
>
> There are in fact, a number of scientific papers on “entanglement mass”
> which would be the corollary. I’m glad they weren’t  using deuterium.
>
> *From:* David Roberson
>
> Jones,
>
>
>
> Is it possible to find another source to back up what you are describing
> in this event?   A second written record would be fine if available.
>
>
>
> I have not heard of that particular thermal run away reaction that you
> have listed below but would find it interesting to follow up on.  The
> recent negative information that is coming out pertaining to Rossi is
> beginning to concern me and your example seems like just the medicine
> needed to cure that problem.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jack Cole]

Yes, all good reasons to carefully consider the safety of such an
experiment.

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:52 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Now that you mention it, and realizing how enticing/dangerous it would be
> to a certain segment of the population, the hope is that no one gets hurt
> trying it.
>
> We have seen crazy stunts with thermite and other energetic materials on
> YouTube. In a worst case, we are talking about something which could be
> far more energetic than thermite. Yikes.
>
> *From:* Jack Cole
>
> Very interesting account.  I have occasionally had the fantasy of
> modifying a pressure cooker, adding 10 pounds of nickel powder, and adding
> hydrogen (after degassing).
>
> Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details
> of the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996.
>
> Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the
> field, and the main reason that they dropped LENR
>

[Vo]:Relationship between Slow neutron capture cross section and neutron spallation energy

[Stephen Cooke]

Is there a relationship between the cross-section for slow neutron capture in 
particular nuclei and the nucleus excitation energy needed in the nucleus to 
cause neutron spallation?

For example B10 has a high neutron cross-section. Is there s relationship 
between this and the energy needed for Neutron spallation from B11?