Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Daniel Rocha]

I did not deny that. Photons beteen 10:

>
>
> I disagree. I go with Martin Fleischmann's dictum: heat is the principal
>> signature of the reaction.
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Axil Axil]

Jones Beene: "Their opinions are* de minimis..." *

Jones Beene must be a lawyer of at least work with them alot.

My lawyer oftentimes describes aspects of my case as *de minimis*


*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
*

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Peter Gluck
>
> Do you think you are convincing many people here?
>
> Peter,
>
> Duh! Your question about JR convincing the important technologists in the
> field is almost silly, IMO. Because of his extended reputation in LERN
> over many years, his International connections, his dedication to the
> field and to maintaining an incredible library - and high skill level in
> many fields -- Jed has steered many, if not the great majority of
> scientists to his perspective. There is no other as well-respected in the
> entire field, including Storms and McKubre.
>
> He’s had less success with Rossi’s hard-core minions, but many now
> suspect that the emperor has no cloths … yet are too idealistic to give up
> easily. Their opinions are* de minimis* at best in terms of the
> technology itself. Sure, if Jed is wrong, his reputation will suffer badly but
> the same holds true for you (or any of us).
>
> There is a third possibility - that Jed will be mostly right, but not
> totally. It is pretty clear from everything which has transpired in the
> last month, that AR cannot live up to the specifics of the contract. However,
> it is difficult to believe that he has nothing to show for many years of
> effort and millions spent, in a field where there has been prior success
> by others. That would mean that Rossi is totally incompetent and probably
> mentally ill… and at best, a Svengali of sorts. He seems to totally
> captivate the Swedish mind-set, for whatever reason.
>
> Certainly Rossi can still manage to salvage his sinking ship if he honestly
> and openly demonstrates a substantial thermal anomaly with his latest
> effort, if only for a few days duration, and low COP. He would lose the
> battle with IH, but could win the war, many years down the road when
> things are better understood … unless he is mad.
>
> What he cannot do is facilitate another sham like Lugano and expect to
> maintain his loyal following, with instant creds or future investment. This
> looks like a last chance opportunity. Can he pull it off?
>
> Rossi is surely deluded in this recurrent vision of upcoming mass
> production, or even having a real customer. As to the point (as several
> have noted) – that he did manage to arouse new interest in the field and
> deserves recognition for that….well… DGT also raised interest in LENR, and in
> fact, cross-validated Rossi for a while. Several here thought DGT was
> real and had leap-frogged Rossi. Without the both of them in 2003,
> neither would have looked good.
>
> But the DGT legacy is negative. If Rossi joins them in ignominy, LENR
> will survive, but it would greatly shorten the timetable if he has
> something left in his magic box.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> The difference between you and me is that:
> I do wait and see before I decide.
>
No you do not! That's outrageous. Here you are blathering on about Rossi,
making assumption after assumption, even though you know practically
nothing about his claims. He told you only a little: that he blocked the
door, and that his instruments produce magically round numbers. His machine
produces exactly 1 MW!

You, of all people, have no business claiming that you wait and see.

If you really did wait and see, you would say: "I have no idea whether I.H.
is right, or Rossi is right. I have no opinion." Instead, you make up all
kinds of far-fetched reasons to justify Rossi, and you say "could be many
reasons for" for blocking the door -- which can only be blatant fraud. If
you really think there "could be many reasons" for that, you are
delusional. The act speaks for itself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Jed, you are repeating your argument and the one about not giving IH
> access to the customers facility is rather weak. Could be many reasons for
> that.
>
No, there could not be many reasons for that. There is only one plausible
reason: Rossi did not want the I.H. expert to see what was in the room
because he was covering up a fraud.

Why do you think the I.H. expert insisted he must see what is in the room?

Based on my analysis, I do not see how there could be anything in there
other than a ~15 kW radiator.

I am sure you have more information than I have.
>
I don't need any more information -- and neither do you. Blocking the door
proved he is a fraud. Although, in fact, I have more.

However, that information you keep to yourself and yes than it is of no
> value for anybody but Jed.
>
The information that Rossi gave out tells you all you need to know. The
information in the legal filings also tells you a lot.

I can tell you my opinion about Rossi, not that it matters but;
> He is an entrepreneur,  he is a risk taker,  he believes he has something
> and he is only taking support from other risk takers.
>
Entrepreneur my ass! I am an entrepreneur. Rossi is a fraud. He has
nothing. His machine does not work. The only risk he is running is that he
will be sentenced to prison. He has already taken large sums of money from
his next set of victims.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

Eric, I have not even read their (IH) reply. From my experience I think
they are more vague than I expected from a professional investor. That
saddens me a bit. They have not denied the accusations about using positive
results from Rossi to attract capital, which I had expected.

Jed, you are repeating your argument and the one about not giving IH access
to the customers facility is rather weak. Could be many reasons for that.
I am sure you have more information than I have. However, that information
you keep to yourself and yes than it is of no value for anybody but Jed. It
is just like the argument in the sandbox when one guy says he his dad is
stronger than yours so believe in me.
The difference between you and me is that:
I do wait and see before I decide.
I do not label people.
I can tell you my opinion about Rossi, not that it matters but;
He is an entrepreneur,  he is a risk taker,  he believes he has something
and he is only taking support from other risk takers. That is far from
being an idiot. Regardless of the outcome.
On Jun 3, 2016 19:50, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> No, Jed.
>> There are no facts.
>>
> Yes, there are. Rossi himself gave them to you. He said the I.H. expert
> insisted on seeing the customer site, but he did not allow it. If you think
> that points to anything other than fraud, you are a poor judge of people,
> business and calorimetry.
>
> Rossi as much as bragged that he is fraud! Yet people such as you and
> Gluck do not even see that he is playing you for fools.
>
> You have decided the outcome and then you make statements based on facts
>> you say are secret.
>>
> Do you have a problem with secrets? Is there something unethical about my
> making an analysis based on information that I have and you do not?
>
> Why can't you just reserve judgement? Just wait until the data is
> published. You have no business even talking about this, because you do not
> know anything about it other than the fact that Rossi bragged he locked the
> door on the customer site. Oh, and if you look at his numbers you will see
> they are surprisingly round, to 3 or 4 digits, and improbable in various
> other ways.
>
> The labeling of people is totally unsubstantiated and very biased plus
>> unnecessary rude.
>>
> Rossi himself announced to the world he is a fraud who locked the door to
> the pretend customer site -- the puppet customer set up by his own lawyer.
> And you say I insult him?!? What could I say that would be worse than what
> he said about himself? You can't insult the man. It's like trying to insult
> Donald Trump. Whatever insult you come up with, he brags about it already.
> There is no point to accusing him of being a philanderer when he writes
> books bragging about how many other men's wives he has seduced.
>
>
>> Wait and see or substantiate your claims.
>>
> Rossi did that for me already.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

This is why I am suggesting other methods to measure cold fusion, like
> finding what is the frequency of the photon emission, if this is the case.
> Not measuring excess heat by calorimetry is not the same of not having cold
> fusion.
>

I disagree. I go with Martin Fleischmann's dictum: heat is the principal
signature of the reaction. No heat, no cold fusion. I do not trust other
metrics, except tritium. I know they are supposedly far more sensitive, but
the fact is, when cold fusion heat is definitely present, and the reaction
is definitely occurring, these other metrics such as detecting neutrons
often show *nothing*. Bupkis. Goose eggs. I don't trust 'em.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> No, Jed.
> There are no facts.
>
Yes, there are. Rossi himself gave them to you. He said the I.H. expert
insisted on seeing the customer site, but he did not allow it. If you think
that points to anything other than fraud, you are a poor judge of people,
business and calorimetry.

Rossi as much as bragged that he is fraud! Yet people such as you and Gluck
do not even see that he is playing you for fools.

You have decided the outcome and then you make statements based on facts
> you say are secret.
>
Do you have a problem with secrets? Is there something unethical about my
making an analysis based on information that I have and you do not?

Why can't you just reserve judgement? Just wait until the data is
published. You have no business even talking about this, because you do not
know anything about it other than the fact that Rossi bragged he locked the
door on the customer site. Oh, and if you look at his numbers you will see
they are surprisingly round, to 3 or 4 digits, and improbable in various
other ways.

The labeling of people is totally unsubstantiated and very biased plus
> unnecessary rude.
>
Rossi himself announced to the world he is a fraud who locked the door to
the pretend customer site -- the puppet customer set up by his own lawyer.
And you say I insult him?!? What could I say that would be worse than what
he said about himself? You can't insult the man. It's like trying to insult
Donald Trump. Whatever insult you come up with, he brags about it already.
There is no point to accusing him of being a philanderer when he writes
books bragging about how many other men's wives he has seduced.


> Wait and see or substantiate your claims.
>
Rossi did that for me already.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

IH has not played there hand very wisely, which surprise me. What are they
> hiding?


If you have had a chance to read IH's reply to Rossi's complaint, which of
the original claims to you believe to survive the reply? Consider that this
is just one step in a large series of actions that IH can potentially take.
Whatever one else can conclude from IH's reply, one gets a sense that
Rossi's lawyer is inexperienced.

Rossi has a difficult situation regardless of what he can show next. At
> least do not judge before you have facts. I mean facts supported of reality
> if you want any acknowledgement of your scientific claims. The personal
> attacks are way out of line.


I suspect that Rossi has seriously miscalculated.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

No, Jed.
There are no facts.
You have decided the outcome and then you make statements based on facts
you say are secret.
The labeling of people is totally unsubstantiated and very biased plus
unnecessary rude.
Wait and see or substantiate your claims.
IH has not played there hand very wisely, which surprise me. What are they
hiding?
Rossi has a difficult situation regardless of what he can show next. At
least do not judge before you have facts. I mean facts supported of reality
if you want any acknowledgement of your scientific claims. The personal
attacks are way out of line.
On Jun 3, 2016 19:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

Peter Gluck  wrote:

How do you know what I know and what not?
>

I can tell by reading your blog.


Do you can give examples of unfounded nonsense
> and absurd mistakes I have made in this IH Rossi discussion.?
>

I gave you some examples, right in your blog. You and your Rossi-fan
readers dumped a bucket of shit on head in response, so I do not intend to
write any more comments there.

I suggested, again and again, that you should wait to hear what I.H. has to
say before judging this situation. You seem incapable of doing that, and
incapable of even imagining that Rossi is wrong or that he is a fraud.
Since you cannot wait and reserve judgement, you are not capable of
objective thinking regarding Rossi. You are driven by emotion. Rossi is
manipulating you with the lies in his blog.

You have not even addressed the fact that Rossi locked people out of the
customer site, including the I.H. expert who insisted he must have access.
There is no plausible reason for doing that other than fraud. You and other
people mesmerized by Rossi will probably think up dozens of reasons to
justify this outrage, but in the real world only one reason makes sense:
Rossi was hiding the truth about the customer site to cover up a fraud. I
expect there is no customer, no industrial equipment, and no ventilation. I
estimate there is at most ~15 kW of heat being released in the locked room.



> Do you think you are convincing many people here?
>

Only the people who are willing to look at facts, such as the fact that
Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert examine the pretend customer site.
People who refuse to think about that, or who give excuses for it, are a
lost cause.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> However, it is difficult to believe that he has nothing to show for many
> years of effort and millions spent, in a field where there has been prior
> success by others.
>
He did seem to have had positive results at various times.

Certainly Rossi can still manage to salvage his sinking ship if he honestly
> and openly demonstrates a substantial thermal anomaly with his latest
> effort, if only for a few days duration, and low COP. He would lose the
> battle with IH, but could win the war, many years down the road when
> things are better understood … unless he is mad.
>
I am pretty sure I.H. would be thrilled if he could do this. While I do not
speak for them, that's my impression. They are patient & forgiving people,
and they put up with a lot of guff from researchers. Not just from Rossi.
They might even be willing to pay Rossi large sums of money for that,
although I can't imagine they would give him $89 million right away.

I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for the money.


> What he cannot do is facilitate another sham like Lugano and expect to
> maintain his loyal following, with instant creds or future investment.
>
According to Lewan and various rumors I have heard, he has already found
his next group of victims, and he has collected money from them. I predict
he will go on defrauding people until he is imprisoned.

It is possible Rossi is a genius, an inventor, a fraud and a con man -- all
at the same time. That is how I would describe Thomas Edison and Steve
Jobs. In Rossi's case, I cannot tell whether he has actually invented
anything real.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

How do you know what I know and what not?
>

I can tell by reading your blog.


Do you can give examples of unfounded nonsense
> and absurd mistakes I have made in this IH Rossi discussion.?
>

I gave you some examples, right in your blog. You and your Rossi-fan
readers dumped a bucket of shit on head in response, so I do not intend to
write any more comments there.

I suggested, again and again, that you should wait to hear what I.H. has to
say before judging this situation. You seem incapable of doing that, and
incapable of even imagining that Rossi is wrong or that he is a fraud.
Since you cannot wait and reserve judgement, you are not capable of
objective thinking regarding Rossi. You are driven by emotion. Rossi is
manipulating you with the lies in his blog.

You have not even addressed the fact that Rossi locked people out of the
customer site, including the I.H. expert who insisted he must have access.
There is no plausible reason for doing that other than fraud. You and other
people mesmerized by Rossi will probably think up dozens of reasons to
justify this outrage, but in the real world only one reason makes sense:
Rossi was hiding the truth about the customer site to cover up a fraud. I
expect there is no customer, no industrial equipment, and no ventilation. I
estimate there is at most ~15 kW of heat being released in the locked room.



> Do you think you are convincing many people here?
>

Only the people who are willing to look at facts, such as the fact that
Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert examine the pretend customer site.
People who refuse to think about that, or who give excuses for it, are a
lost cause.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Daniel Rocha]

This is why I am suggesting other methods to measure cold fusion, like
finding what is the frequency of the photon emission, if this is the case.
Not measuring excess heat by calorimetry is not the same of not having cold
fusion.

2016-06-03 22:55 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
>
> There are microcalorimeters that can measure micro-watts or even
> pico-watts. They do not work well with cold fusion. A few experimenters
> have used them.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Any process has waste. So, for example, if the input is 1W and the output
> is 0.9W it doesn't mean there wasn't CF. The yield could be like 1mW and
> the remaining 0.099 wasted in other means.
>

With a laboratory calorimeter, you calibrate extensively to measure losses.
You establish the "recovery rate" is, say, 95%. So if you input 1 W and
there was no excess heat, you would measure ~950 mW of heat coming out. I
would conservatively assume the noise is +/- 50 mW for a typical
water-based calorimeter, especially at low power.

You could not be reasonably confident there is actual excess heat until you
measure ~100 mW excess; that is, 1.000 W in, 1.050 output. I wouldn't
believe that myself. I would hold out for ~1.100 W.



>  1mW is a big deal.
>

1 mW is far too small to measure with most conventional water-based
calorimeters. Martin Fleischmann could do that, but no one else could.

There are microcalorimeters that can measure micro-watts or even
pico-watts. They do not work well with cold fusion. A few experimenters
have used them.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jones Beene]

From: Peter Gluck 

Do you think you are convincing many people here?

Peter,

Duh! Your question about JR convincing the important technologists in the field 
is almost silly, IMO. Because of his extended reputation in LERN over many 
years, his International connections, his dedication to the field and to 
maintaining an incredible library - and high skill level in many fields -- Jed 
has steered many, if not the great majority of scientists to his perspective. 
There is no other as well-respected in the entire field, including Storms and 
McKubre. 

He’s had less success with Rossi’s hard-core minions, but many now suspect that 
the emperor has no cloths … yet are too idealistic to give up easily. Their 
opinions are de minimis at best in terms of the technology itself. Sure, if Jed 
is wrong, his reputation will suffer badly but the same holds true for you (or 
any of us). 

There is a third possibility - that Jed will be mostly right, but not totally. 
It is pretty clear from everything which has transpired in the last month, that 
AR cannot live up to the specifics of the contract. However, it is difficult to 
believe that he has nothing to show for many years of effort and millions 
spent, in a field where there has been prior success by others. That would mean 
that Rossi is totally incompetent and probably mentally ill… and at best, a 
Svengali of sorts. He seems to totally captivate the Swedish mind-set, for 
whatever reason.

Certainly Rossi can still manage to salvage his sinking ship if he honestly and 
openly demonstrates a substantial thermal anomaly with his latest effort, if 
only for a few days duration, and low COP. He would lose the battle with IH, 
but could win the war, many years down the road when things are better 
understood … unless he is mad.

What he cannot do is facilitate another sham like Lugano and expect to maintain 
his loyal following, with instant creds or future investment. This looks like a 
last chance opportunity. Can he pull it off?

Rossi is surely deluded in this recurrent vision of upcoming mass production, 
or even having a real customer. As to the point (as several have noted) – that 
he did manage to arouse new interest in the field and deserves recognition for 
that….well… DGT also raised interest in LENR, and in fact, cross-validated 
Rossi for a while. Several here thought DGT was real and had leap-frogged 
Rossi. Without the both of them in 2003, neither would have looked good. 

But the DGT legacy is negative. If Rossi joins them in ignominy, LENR will 
survive, but it would greatly shorten the timetable if he has something left in 
his magic box. 

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Daniel Rocha]

It seems that loading and deloading several times do increase the
reproducibility. But maybe both cases are OK.

My idea is that some metals come with irregularity in structure. For
example, the lattice is not perfect, it has domains where the layers have
different orientation. The zone may play compress the hydrogen in there,
since I think, there is some difference in potential when current pass
through it, depending on the angle.

2016-05-27 23:10 GMT-03:00 Russ George :

> It is most certainly NOT loading into cracks it is rather a super loading
> method for bulk material. Cracks do form but they are a defect not a
> desired condition.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The most mysterious star in the universe

[Bob Cook]

In reply to  H LV's message of Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:16:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
On May 30, 2016 6:38 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  H LV's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 15:11:52 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]

 1) I wonder if they have considered the possibility that the output of
the star
 itself is simply variable?

Given what is known about how stars work they probably consider such a
possibility even less likely  than an alien structure blocking the light.
On the other hand perhaps an alien civilisation is tinkering with the
star's internal reactions.
Harry

Perhaps, though it need not be. Another possibility is that the star has
"swallowed" foreign bodies that are interfering with it's internal reactions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:The most mysterious star in the universe

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:16:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>On May 30, 2016 6:38 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> In reply to  H LV's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 15:11:52 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>>
>> 1) I wonder if they have considered the possibility that the output of
>the star
>> itself is simply variable?
>
>Given what is known about how stars work they probably consider such a
>possibility even less likely  than an alien structure blocking the light.
>On the other hand perhaps an alien civilisation is tinkering with the
>star's internal reactions.
>Harry

Perhaps, though it need not be. Another possibility is that the star has
"swallowed" foreign bodies that are interfering with it's internal reactions.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Peter Gluck]

How do you know what I know and what not?
Do you can give examples of unfounded nonsense
and absurd mistakes I have made in this IH Rossi discussion.?
Re false accusations I have not climed that you are simply lying re the
instrumentation dispute between the parts and also have not said that you
act as a mercenary of IH for occult reasons.
Do you think you are convincing many people here?
peter

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> Excuse me but without any details what you claim is just slogans.
>>
>
> YOU of all people have no right to say this! You know nothing about these
> tests, yet you have written blog entry after entry full of unfounded
> nonsense, false accusations and absurd mistakes. I have told you many times
> you should wait to see the information from I.H. and the reports from
> Rossi. You ignore me and you make up stuff instead.
>
> If you look at Rossi's previous tests you should not be surprised he made
> huge mistakes in this test. Frankly, I think it was deliberate fraud, not a
> mistake. It was inept fraud, that anyone can see in five minutes.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> Excuse me but without any details what you claim is just slogans.
>

YOU of all people have no right to say this! You know nothing about these
tests, yet you have written blog entry after entry full of unfounded
nonsense, false accusations and absurd mistakes. I have told you many times
you should wait to see the information from I.H. and the reports from
Rossi. You ignore me and you make up stuff instead.

If you look at Rossi's previous tests you should not be surprised he made
huge mistakes in this test. Frankly, I think it was deliberate fraud, not a
mistake. It was inept fraud, that anyone can see in five minutes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Dear Jed,
> suppose I sign an NDA with you, can you then expaln me how was the
> calorimetry- heat measurement  so very flawed and has it transformed COP<1
> in COP 50-60
>

You need to ask Rossi or I.H. Now that the lawsuit has begun, I doubt they
will tell you anything.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jed,
suppose I sign an NDA with you, can you then expaln me how was the
calorimetry- heat measurement  so very flawed and has it transformed COP<1
in COP 50-60
Technically please I am a chemical engineer nd have made many such
measurements in the plants and pilot plants
Excuse me but without any details what you claim is just slogans.


peter

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> can you tell when had IH not accepted the instruments? (during the 1 year
>> test)?
>>
>
> I heard about it early in the test. I do not recall when. The problems
> were obvious, so I.H. knew about them from the beginning.  As I wrote here,
> several times, I was hoping Rossi would fix the problems, but he did not.
>
>
>
>> How long has Rosi and the ERV worked with instruments denied by IH and
>> did this not lead to  a major conflict including stopping of the test?
>>
>
> I suppose I.H. could not stop the test. I guess it wasn't up to them.
>
>
>
>> Do you consider what you say here as plausible?
>>
>
> Not just plausible -- I know for a fact this is what happened. Rossi
> described the situation to Lewan the same way I heard about it.
>
> Rossi already told you that the test was a farce. He told you that he did
> not allow people into the customer site. That's all you need to know. There
> were many other idiotic aspect of it such as the choice of instruments, but
> that fact alone proves he is a fraud. I do not know why you believe a word
> he says.
>
>
>
>> You have never alluded to such problems in 2015 so this seems to be
>> history built backwards.
>>
>
> I know many things I never discuss. I never talk about other people's
> business. The only things I have said here were revealed by the press
> releases, the legal filing, and by Rossi himself in the interview with
> Lewan and elsewhere.
>
>
>
>> IF it will be proved that the 1MW plant has given excess heat your
>> reputation built during the Cold Fusion yeasrs will be damaged very deeply.
>>
>
> It will not be proved. That is out of the question. The calorimetry was
> preposterous. The error margins are gigantic. It is possible the machine
> produced a little heat at times, but 1 MW is impossible.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Running on lava

[H LV]

"Welcome to Hell"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ETCM90yHiY

A British view of Hell ;-)

Harry

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

> I particularly like the bit toward the end, where he steps off the flow,
> and as he's taking the last step, he lifts up his foot, and the sole of his
> shoe is flaming.  (Easier to see in the slo-mo replay.)
>
> On 06/01/2016 11:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bumUw0lNOz0
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The most mysterious star in the universe

[H LV]

On May 30, 2016 6:38 PM,  wrote:
>
> In reply to  H LV's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 15:11:52 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>
> 1) I wonder if they have considered the possibility that the output of
the star
> itself is simply variable?

Given what is known about how stars work they probably consider such a
possibility even less likely  than an alien structure blocking the light.
On the other hand perhaps an alien civilisation is tinkering with the
star's internal reactions.
Harry

>
> >The most mysterious star in the universe
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gypAjPp6eps
> >
> >Published on Apr 29, 2016
> >
> >Something massive, with roughly 1,000 times the area of Earth, is
blocking
> >the light coming from a distant star known as KIC 8462852, and nobody is
> >quite sure what it is. As astronomer Tabetha Boyajian investigated this
> >perplexing celestial object, a colleague suggested something unusual:
Could
> >it be an alien-built megastructure? Such an extraordinary idea would
> >require extraordinary evidence. In this talk, Boyajian gives us a look at
> >how scientists search for and test hypotheses when faced with the
unknown.
> >
> >?Harry?
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

can you tell when had IH not accepted the instruments? (during the 1 year
> test)?
>

I heard about it early in the test. I do not recall when. The problems were
obvious, so I.H. knew about them from the beginning.  As I wrote here,
several times, I was hoping Rossi would fix the problems, but he did not.



> How long has Rosi and the ERV worked with instruments denied by IH and did
> this not lead to  a major conflict including stopping of the test?
>

I suppose I.H. could not stop the test. I guess it wasn't up to them.



> Do you consider what you say here as plausible?
>

Not just plausible -- I know for a fact this is what happened. Rossi
described the situation to Lewan the same way I heard about it.

Rossi already told you that the test was a farce. He told you that he did
not allow people into the customer site. That's all you need to know. There
were many other idiotic aspect of it such as the choice of instruments, but
that fact alone proves he is a fraud. I do not know why you believe a word
he says.



> You have never alluded to such problems in 2015 so this seems to be
> history built backwards.
>

I know many things I never discuss. I never talk about other people's
business. The only things I have said here were revealed by the press
releases, the legal filing, and by Rossi himself in the interview with
Lewan and elsewhere.



> IF it will be proved that the 1MW plant has given excess heat your
> reputation built during the Cold Fusion yeasrs will be damaged very deeply.
>

It will not be proved. That is out of the question. The calorimetry was
preposterous. The error margins are gigantic. It is possible the machine
produced a little heat at times, but 1 MW is impossible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jed,

can you tell when had IH not accepted the instruments? (during the 1 year
test)? How long has Rosi and the ERV worked with instruments denied by IH
and did this not lead to  a major conflict including stopping of the test?
Do you consider what you say here as plausible?
You have never alluded to such problems in 2015 so this seems to be history
built backwards. IF it will be proved that the 1MW plant has given excess
heat your reputation built during the Cold Fusion yeasrs will be damaged
very deeply.
peter
peter

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> But the Dismiss document is Information too
>>
> These accusations also. Why has IH accepted unsuitable instruments?
>>
>
> I.H. did not accept them! They objected strongly. They said there is no
> excess heat. They said Rossi used "flawed measurements" and "unsuitable
> measuring devices." Based on the sample of Rossi's calorimetry that I saw,
> anyone would say that. Anyone who walks into the room and sees the
> instruments would say, "what is this, a joke?"
>
> Heck, you do not even need to look at the instruments or data to see that
> this test was an outrageous farce. All you need to know is that Rossi
> refused to allow people into the customer site next door. Do you think
> there could be a legitimate reason for that? If you think that's okay, you
> would probably not see anything idiotic about the rest of the test.
>
> As Rossi said, the I.H. expert insisted he be allowed into the customer
> site. The expert agreed with me that this is outrageous.
>
>
>
>> Only the answer to this is genuine information?
>>
>
> I do not understand this sentence. The answer to what? I assume the
> information from Rossi is genuine.
>
>
>
>> I do not get the logic of this...
>>
>
> I do not know what you refer to.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

But the Dismiss document is Information too
>
These accusations also. Why has IH accepted unsuitable instruments?
>

I.H. did not accept them! They objected strongly. They said there is no
excess heat. They said Rossi used "flawed measurements" and "unsuitable
measuring devices." Based on the sample of Rossi's calorimetry that I saw,
anyone would say that. Anyone who walks into the room and sees the
instruments would say, "what is this, a joke?"

Heck, you do not even need to look at the instruments or data to see that
this test was an outrageous farce. All you need to know is that Rossi
refused to allow people into the customer site next door. Do you think
there could be a legitimate reason for that? If you think that's okay, you
would probably not see anything idiotic about the rest of the test.

As Rossi said, the I.H. expert insisted he be allowed into the customer
site. The expert agreed with me that this is outrageous.



> Only the answer to this is genuine information?
>

I do not understand this sentence. The answer to what? I assume the
information from Rossi is genuine.



> I do not get the logic of this...
>

I do not know what you refer to.

- Jed

[Vo]:Elon Musk thinks we're in a simulation.

[Blaze Spinnaker]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html

He's parroting Bostrom here, that the only chance we're not in a simulation
is that civilizations blow themselves up before they get to a point where
they can simulate things. (Because if civilizations DID get to a point
where they can simulate things, than odds are very good that we're in one
of their simulations).

Therefore, we better hope we're in a sim, otherwise we're one of those
civilizations that's about to blow itself up.

[Vo]:LENR- complex legal issues developing

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-03-2016-lenr-complex-legal-issues.html

a new stage of the Rossi-Industrial Heat dispute
IH's status is not enviable, I think they will have lots to explain
peter

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

I gather IH's response is more of a legal formality.  Trying to dismiss 
the case so they can get it ruled on by a judge rather than a jury.
My reading of the statement puts IH in a rather poor light.  It's as if 
they set out to delay the 1 MW plant test on purpose because they just 
wanted the IP.


Rumor has it this is just part one of a of a series of responses that 
will drag things out for years.  I recall speculating years ago the the 
lousy patent situation would end up giving the lawyers more money than 
the inventors.


If Rossi is successful with the QuarkX test i think it will change the 
game.  Particularly if he can start selling them later this year.  Seems 
to me the tenor of the blog posts have changed and there is a swing back 
in favor of Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Running on lava

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I particularly like the bit toward the end, where he steps off the flow, 
and as he's taking the last step, he lifts up his foot, and the sole of 
his shoe is flaming.  (Easier to see in the slo-mo replay.)


On 06/01/2016 11:51 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bumUw0lNOz0

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Peter Gluck]

yes, dear Harry- in principle.
But the Dismiss document is Information too
These accusations also. Why has IH accepted unsuitable instruments?

Only the answer to this is genuine information?

I do not get the logic of this...
peter

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:12 PM, H LV  wrote:

> Peter, this is how private R works. Neither Leonardo Corp. nor IH owe
> the public any information.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>> *dear Jed,*
>> *i have just been writing my answer to this assertion:*
>>
>> *Announced a year ago this could be an argument but even then how could
>> Rossi depart from the test plan; how many reactors were "inoperable" and in
>> which sense? Flawed measurements have to be reported immediately and what
>> unsuitable measuring instruments were used- for a long year for
>> temperature, pressure, flow- seismometers, dynamometers, microscopes?*
>>
>> *Now post-factum after 4 reports of the ERV, after alternative
>> measurements by IH employees. such arguments are dead.*
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>>
 IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the
 court case.

>>> I expect he found it by some other means.
>>>
>>> From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they have stated the E-Cat
 doesn’t work . . .

>>>
>>> It says this on p. 2, in the footnote:
>>>
>>> "Guaranteed Performance Test" that the Complaint purposely ignores (such
>>> as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors,
>>> relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices).
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[H LV]

Peter, this is how private R works. Neither Leonardo Corp. nor IH owe the
public any information.

Harry

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> *dear Jed,*
> *i have just been writing my answer to this assertion:*
>
> *Announced a year ago this could be an argument but even then how could
> Rossi depart from the test plan; how many reactors were "inoperable" and in
> which sense? Flawed measurements have to be reported immediately and what
> unsuitable measuring instruments were used- for a long year for
> temperature, pressure, flow- seismometers, dynamometers, microscopes?*
>
> *Now post-factum after 4 reports of the ERV, after alternative
> measurements by IH employees. such arguments are dead.*
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>
>>> IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the
>>> court case.
>>>
>> I expect he found it by some other means.
>>
>> From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they have stated the E-Cat doesn’t
>>> work . . .
>>>
>>
>> It says this on p. 2, in the footnote:
>>
>> "Guaranteed Performance Test" that the Complaint purposely ignores (such
>> as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors,
>> relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices).
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

*i have just been writing my answer to this assertion:*
>

Who made this assertion?



> *Announced a year ago this could be an argument but even then how could
> Rossi depart from the test plan; how many reactors were "inoperable" and in
> which sense?*
>

The 1 MW reactor is inoperative. I do not know about any other reactors.



> * Flawed measurements have to be reported immediately . . .*
>

Where did you hear this? Does the contract say flaws have to be reported
immediately? In any case, the flawed measurements were clear to the people
from I.H., and they were clear to me as soon as I saw a sample of the
calorimetry.



> *. . . and what unsuitable measuring instruments were used- for a long
> year for temperature, pressure, flow- seismometers, dynamometers,
> microscopes?*
>

The choice of instruments used in the calorimetry were not suitable.
"Seismometers, dynamometers, microscopes" are not used. (I suppose this was
sarcasm, but perhaps not.)



> *Now post-factum after 4 reports of the ERV, after alternative
> measurements by IH employees. such arguments are dead.*
>

I do not understand this sentence. I cannot comment on the ERV, but the
sample of calorimetry done by Rossi was clearly wrong. (Maybe it was done
by Penon.) The methods, instruments and data were ridiculous. "Unsuitable"
is putting it politely. I did not see calorimetry measurements by I.H.
employees; I can only judge by the sample from Rossi. I am sure it was from
Rossi because the numbers were the same ones he quoted in the Lewan
interview.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Peter Gluck]

*dear Jed,*
*i have just been writing my answer to this assertion:*

*Announced a year ago this could be an argument but even then how could
Rossi depart from the test plan; how many reactors were "inoperable" and in
which sense? Flawed measurements have to be reported immediately and what
unsuitable measuring instruments were used- for a long year for
temperature, pressure, flow- seismometers, dynamometers, microscopes?*

*Now post-factum after 4 reports of the ERV, after alternative measurements
by IH employees. such arguments are dead.*

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the court
>> case.
>>
> I expect he found it by some other means.
>
> From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they have stated the E-Cat doesn’t
>> work . . .
>>
>
> It says this on p. 2, in the footnote:
>
> "Guaranteed Performance Test" that the Complaint purposely ignores (such
> as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors,
> relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices).
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

I left out part of the footnote. It says:

1. Because Defendants are not permitted to introduce facts outside the
Complaint and its Exhibits, this motion does not address, for example, the
numerous errors in Plaintiffs’ purported “Guaranteed Performance Test” that
the Complaint purposely ignores (such as departing from the purported test
plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and
using unsuitable measuring devices)."

Krivit added a password to the Acrobat file, which makes it awkward to
quote from.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

> IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the court
> case.
>
I expect he found it by some other means.

>From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they have stated the E-Cat doesn’t
> work . . .
>

It says this on p. 2, in the footnote:

"Guaranteed Performance Test" that the Complaint purposely ignores (such as
departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors,
relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices).

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Craig Haynie]

There's nothing in the dispute which hinges on whether the device works, 
or not. That point may never be brought up.


Craig

On 06/03/2016 10:04 AM, a.ashfield wrote:


IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the 
court case.


From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they have stated the E-Cat 
doesn’t work, but complain about the delay in starting the 1 MWtest, 
the instrumentation used and complain about the old E-Cats on stand-by 
not being used.Much apparently hinges on the modified agreement for 
the test that IH are now saying they didn’t sign.


There are other gems like:

“There is no provision in the Licensing Agreement, however, that 
requires Defendants to keep the E-Cat IP confidential or to protect 
its purported secrecy.”


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossi-vs-Darden/20160602-Darden-et-al-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

IH has apparently sent Krivit a copy of their legal response to the 
court case.


From a quick scan it doesn’t look like they have stated the E-Cat 
doesn’t work, but complain about the delay in starting the 1 MWtest, the 
instrumentation used and complain about the old E-Cats on stand-by not 
being used.Much apparently hinges on the modified agreement for the test 
that IH are now saying they didn’t sign.


There are other gems like:

“There is no provision in the Licensing Agreement, however, that 
requires Defendants to keep the E-Cat IP confidential or to protect its 
purported secrecy.”


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossi-vs-Darden/20160602-Darden-et-al-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1 Legal issues

[Daniel Rocha]

They cite to much jurisprudence!!! US law is way too confusing. There
should be a patent lawyer to comment this.

2016-06-02 23:51 GMT-03:00 Bob Cook :

>
>
>
> If I were In IH’s shoes, I would be worried.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

IH's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, filed with the federal court in
Florida, is now available:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossi-vs-Darden/20160602-Darden-et-al-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Ross's attorney has issued a public statement saying that the license 
between Leonardo Corp and Industrial Heat has been terminated due to 
IH's failure to make payment for it.


http://ecat.com/news/pressrelease-industrial-heat-loses-license-for-rossis-e-cat

RE: [Vo]:New Mizuno Patent, with clear descriptions of nanostructured material and plasma reactor...

[Roarty, Francis X]

Yep, super catalysis and elements of Casimir geometry all.
Fran

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 7:49 AM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:New Mizuno Patent, with clear descriptions of 
nanostructured material and plasma reactor...

Hi,
maybe you missed the recent patent by Clean Planet/Mizuno
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3306-Mizuno-USPTO-Patent-Application-June-2-2016/

The claims are quite clear and innovative from what I understand

I feel it can be replicated.

"claims 1 is quite simple et probably a good hint for replicators


​A reactant installed in a reactor having a deuterium gas atmosphere, a heavy 
water gas atmosphere, a protium gas atmosphere or a light water gas atmosphere, 
wherein the reactant is formed from a hydrogen storage metal, and a plurality 
of metal nano-protrusions, each of which has a nano-size of 1000 [nm] or 
smaller, are formed on a surface of the reactant.


there are variations; precisions :
·nano-protrusions with a width of 300 [nm]
·the metal nano-protrusions are metal nanoparticles having a curved 
surface in which a part of a spherical particle, an elliptical particle or an 
egg-shaped particle is embedded in the surface
·a thin wire formed from the hydrogen storage metal in a reticulated 
shape, wherein the metal nano-protrusions are formed on a surface of the thin 
wire
·the reactant is electrically connected to an electric power source, 
and works as an electrode for generating plasma in the reactor
·a plurality of fine particle bodies of hydrogen storage metal, which 
are smaller than the metal nano-protrusions and are formed from the hydrogen 
storage metal, are deposited on the surfaces of the metal nano-protrusions, and 
the surfaces of the metal nanoparticles are formed to be in an uneven state 
(?()​ due to the fine particle bodies of the hydrogen storage metal.
·a plurality of fine particle bodies of hydrogen storage metal, which 
are smaller than the metal nano-protrusions and are formed from the hydrogen 
storage metal, are deposited on the surfaces of the metal nano-protrusions, and 
the surfaces of the metal nanoparticles are formed to be in an uneven state due 
to the fine particle bodies of the hydrogen storage metal. ...
·fine particle bodies of the hydrogen storage metal are formed from a 
hydrogen storage metal which is different from the hydrogen storage metal of 
the metal nano-protrusions... metal nano-protrusions are formed from any one of 
hydrogen storage metals among Ni, Pt and Pd, and the fine particle bodies of 
the hydrogen storage metal are formed from a hydrogen storage metal among Ni, 
Pt and Pd, which is different from that of the metal nano-protrusions."

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Peter Gluck]

dear Adrian,

today being Rossi's 66 birthday
"Rossi resurrected cold fusion from near death only about five years ago.
As a result several universities and several *countries* are now working on
LENR."
would make a nice Motto on my blog, if you give permission to cite you.
thanks,
peter


On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:23 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Frank Znidarsic 
> 
>   "The field of cold fusion does not need this."
>
>
> I don't know how you can say that when Rossi resurrected cold fusion from
> near death only about five years ago. As a result several universities and
> several *countries* are now working on LENR.
> In passing, Rossi says today the QuarkX test is "so far so good." I reckon
> it must be almost half way through it.
>
>
>
>
>


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