date:20160807

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:47 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Rossi doesn't sound too worried
>

Since there doesn't seem to be the long-expected constant gush of hot steam
in the works here, Rossi appears to be somewhat delusional. His ego appears
legendary.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

> I'm really curious to know why IH is providing you with so much data about
> their internal workings.
>

Much of what I report comes from people outside of I.H. who visited Rossi.
Some of it comes from Rossi. He is pissed off that I know it.

The only reason I can think of is that they are using you to spread their
> side of the story.
>

Mainly I am telling you Rossi's side of the story! That is what is ironic.
His log books and his data reveal that he is lying. Many people saw that.
36,000 kg flow per day? Exactly?!? Give me a break! Do you believe that?
How naive are you? His own operator log books show the machine was turned
off on some dates, or half turned off, yet the data log books for those
same dates show 1 MW of constant heat. That's impossible!

> Obviously one party is lying.  There is no proof yet which one and I take
> the position of waiting for facts.
>

There is tons of proof. Rossi's own statements about the customer site
being super-secret closed off is pure bosh. The notion that you could have
1 MW in that space with no ventilation and no detection of the heat is
impossible. The numbers he gave Lewan in the interview are ridiculous. His
claims are full of holes. The fact that he never responded to the questions
in Exhibit 5 show that he is an outrageous liar. The fact that he has never
given out any data should tell you all you need to know.

If you ask him about the statements in Exhibit 5, he will deny them all,
but I know them all to be true, and I have that confirmed from sources
outside of I.H., mainly from Rossi himself.

>   You apparently have already decided Rossi is guilty, without hearing his
> side of the story.
>

I have his data! I know more about his side of the story than you do, by a
wide margin. And by the way, why didn't he present his side of the story in
the lawsuit? Why is there not a single technical assertion in that? Why has
he not revealed any numbers or data in his blog? Don't tell he is
prohibited. That's absurd.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
I'm really curious to know why IH is providing you with so much data 
about their internal workings.
The only reason I can think of is that they are using you to spread 
their side of the story.


Obviously one party is lying.  There is no proof yet which one and I 
take the position of waiting for facts.  You apparently have already 
decided Rossi is guilty, without hearing his side of the story.


You wrote.  "Obviously they know (IH) that poof will be required." But 
they weren't the ones to initiate the court case.

"Poof" looks like a  Freudian slip ;-)


On 8/7/2016 9:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Rossi's answer to the claim the customer was not using the heat.
Why would Rossi make a court claim unless he was confident he
could prove the plant worked?


Why would I.H. say they measured the heat coming from the customer 
site and found nothing, unless they were confident they could prove 
there was no heat?


Obviously he knows proof will be required.


Obviously they know that poof will be required.

Look, this is simple. ONE OF THESE PARTIES IS LYING. I think Rossi is 
lying; you think I.H. is. I have seen more data than you, although you 
have now had the opportunity to look at some key documents. It seems 
you have not read them, but you could, if you wanted to make a serious 
evaluation.


I know for a fact that Murray's account is correct. I am sure Rossi 
and Penon claimed the reactor was producing heat on days when it was 
turned off and disassembled. People I trust who were there when it was 
off saw the log and could see that's what it showed. So I know that 
Rossi is lying through his teeth about many things here. I also know 
that I.H. is working with many other researchers, and they all like 
I.H. So, in my opinion, it is far more likely that Rossi is lying.


You can evaluate the facts and reach your own conclusion. Or you can 
believe any damn thing that Rossi says, mindlessly.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Axil Axil  wrote:

"I am sure Rossi and Penon claimed the reactor was producing heat on days
> when it was turned off and disassembled."
>
> One of the 4 tigers (250 kilowatt units) was off line. That single unit
> failure/repair situation is the reason for the the drop in reactor power to
> 750 kilowatts that are seen in the steam production records.
>

Axil: people who were there saw that on some days it was TURNED OFF. NOT
WORKING. Dead; inoperable; silent; inert. Do you understand? *Not
functioning*. Yet the data for those days showed that the flow rate was
36,000 kg and it was producing 1 MW the whole time.

That is not a mistake. That's fraud.

Quoting a variation of this fact in Exhibit 5:

At different points in time during the assumed 350 operational days of the
“test” you were measuring, a number of the reactors were turned off
(apparently for repair). At even more points in time, different units
within the reactors were either turned off or simply disabled. Yet there
does not appear to be any impact on the mass flow rate in the system. How
is that a credible outcome?

In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed
water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that
period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit
B. How is that plausible?"

Other people asked these questions. Rossi and Penon never answered.

Do you want to make up some kind of bullshit answer as a favor to Rossi --
as his agent? Go ahead, tell us: How is that plausible? How far into cloud
cuckoo land are you willing to go?

> If all 4 tigers dropped off line, Rossi would have started up the
> older 52 unit backup reactor.
>

Stop with the blather. Stop making up stuff. There was only one reactor.
Observers saw that at times it was turned off, yet the data shows it was
fully functional for those same times.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Fire-ing Squad

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> In this time of massive FUD production, it is near impossible to discover
> how the world really works. What is your explanation of current affairs?
>

I'm an experienced marxist. Most of it is _dead simple_ for me to
understand, actually. The problem OTOH, is that the middle-class types who
dominate the media (including the Internet. Including here) are NOT
generally interested in inconvenient facts. Up to now, anyway...

However, 'dead simple' doesn't mean that people don't have somewhat of a
steep learning curve ahead of them on that... just like the science, here.
I'm not going to be explaining or convincing you of anything, in 1 or 2 or
3 or a dozen emails, most likely.

> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Che  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Open source tech cannot garner the capital and R power to pose a
>>> product and capability replacement threat to the anti Rossi FUD interests
>>> that Rossi can. Be assured, the LENR wars have just begun.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's the Neoliberal, 'entrepreneurial' cant -- but I don't believe it,
>> and no one else should, either. It's just propaganda to keep asserting
>> that, simply because it is the path of least resistance under the present
>> circumstances, etc., yadda.
>>
>> People here should be primarily interested in the *SCIENCE*, no? -- and
>> secondarily in the politics and financing (which of course *affect* the
>> ability to DO the science... as we all should understand quite well by now).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Che  wrote:
>>>

 I understand why this list is utterly obsessed with Rossi: fraud or
 not, he has discredited cold fusion research all the more spectacularly
 than anyone else. However, what I _don't_ understand is: why is there so
 much about Andrea Rossi here -- and precious little about e.g. the Martin
 Fleischmann Memorial Project..??

>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

"I am sure Rossi and Penon claimed the reactor was producing heat on days
when it was turned off and disassembled."

One of the 4 tigers (250 kilowatt units) was off line. That single unit
failure/repair situation is the reason for the the drop in reactor power to
750 kilowatts that are seen in the steam production records.

If all 4 tigers dropped off line, Rossi would have started up the
older 52 unit backup reactor. Rossi gets paid for every day that he can
produce the power required by contract and he had enough redundancy to
insure he could produce power each and every day.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Rossi's answer to the claim the customer was not using the heat.
>> Why would Rossi make a court claim unless he was confident he could prove
>> the plant worked?
>>
>
> Why would I.H. say they measured the heat coming from the customer site
> and found nothing, unless they were confident they could prove there was no
> heat?
>
>
> Obviously he knows proof will be required.
>>
>
> Obviously they know that poof will be required.
>
> Look, this is simple. ONE OF THESE PARTIES IS LYING. I think Rossi is
> lying; you think I.H. is. I have seen more data than you, although you have
> now had the opportunity to look at some key documents. It seems you have
> not read them, but you could, if you wanted to make a serious evaluation.
>
> I know for a fact that Murray's account is correct. I am sure Rossi and
> Penon claimed the reactor was producing heat on days when it was turned off
> and disassembled. People I trust who were there when it was off saw the log
> and could see that's what it showed. So I know that Rossi is lying through
> his teeth about many things here. I also know that I.H. is working with
> many other researchers, and they all like I.H. So, in my opinion, it is far
> more likely that Rossi is lying.
>
> You can evaluate the facts and reach your own conclusion. Or you can
> believe any damn thing that Rossi says, mindlessly.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Fire-ing Squad

In this time of massive FUD production, it is near impossible to discover
how the world really works. What is your explanation of current affairs?

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Open source tech cannot garner the capital and R power to pose a
>> product and capability replacement threat to the anti Rossi FUD interests
>> that Rossi can. Be assured, the LENR wars have just begun.
>>
>
>
> That's the Neoliberal, 'entrepreneurial' cant -- but I don't believe it,
> and no one else should, either. It's just propaganda to keep asserting
> that, simply because it is the path of least resistance under the present
> circumstances, etc., yadda.
>
> People here should be primarily interested in the *SCIENCE*, no? -- and
> secondarily in the politics and financing (which of course *affect* the
> ability to DO the science... as we all should understand quite well by now).
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Che  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I understand why this list is utterly obsessed with Rossi: fraud or not,
>>> he has discredited cold fusion research all the more spectacularly than
>>> anyone else. However, what I _don't_ understand is: why is there so much
>>> about Andrea Rossi here -- and precious little about e.g. the Martin
>>> Fleischmann Memorial Project..??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

Rossi's answer to the claim the customer was not using the heat.
> Why would Rossi make a court claim unless he was confident he could prove
> the plant worked?
>

Why would I.H. say they measured the heat coming from the customer site and
found nothing, unless they were confident they could prove there was no
heat?

Obviously he knows proof will be required.
>

Obviously they know that poof will be required.

Look, this is simple. ONE OF THESE PARTIES IS LYING. I think Rossi is
lying; you think I.H. is. I have seen more data than you, although you have
now had the opportunity to look at some key documents. It seems you have
not read them, but you could, if you wanted to make a serious evaluation.

I know for a fact that Murray's account is correct. I am sure Rossi and
Penon claimed the reactor was producing heat on days when it was turned off
and disassembled. People I trust who were there when it was off saw the log
and could see that's what it showed. So I know that Rossi is lying through
his teeth about many things here. I also know that I.H. is working with
many other researchers, and they all like I.H. So, in my opinion, it is far
more likely that Rossi is lying.

You can evaluate the facts and reach your own conclusion. Or you can
believe any damn thing that Rossi says, mindlessly.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Murray lists himself as being an independent consultant.  See my earlier
> post.
>

It says "Independent Consultant June 2016 - present." The Exhibit 5 e-mail
is dated Feb. 2016. Exhibit 19, introducing Murray to Rossi, was dated July
2015. So he was not introduced as an independent consultant to Rossi; and
he did not list himself as such when these events occurred. In any case,
I.H. told Rossi that Murray was acting as their agent. They had a
contractual obligation to answer his questions.

When you have been paid $10 million -- or any agreed upon sum -- you can't
turn around and refuse to answer the client's technical questions because
you "knew he was hostile by then." It doesn't work that way.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Rossi's answer to the claim the customer was not using the heat.
Why would Rossi make a court claim unless he was confident he could 
prove the plant worked?

Obviously he knows proof will be required.

1.
   Patrick Ellul
   August 7, 2016 at 5:20 PM
   


   Dear Andrea,
   In a world of science and law, without proof or witness, no one will
   believe that the customer plant was making real use of the heat.
   If this becomes an issue in court, will you be able to exhibit proof
   or witness of what the customer was using the heat for?
   Best regards

2.
   Andrea Rossi
   August 7, 2016 at 5:31 PM
   


   Patrick Ellul:
   Obviously.
   Talking of proof and witness: in all the 66 pages of the
   countercomplaints there is not a single countercomplaint of which we
   will not be able to give evidence of its total falsity.
   The slanders that compound the substance of all the 66 pages will be
   duly processed by our Attorney.
   Obviously, I cannot enter in particulars and answer to issues to be
   discussed in Court.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Fire-ing Squad

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Open source tech cannot garner the capital and R power to pose a product
> and capability replacement threat to the anti Rossi FUD interests that
> Rossi can. Be assured, the LENR wars have just begun.
>

That's the Neoliberal, 'entrepreneurial' cant -- but I don't believe it,
and no one else should, either. It's just propaganda to keep asserting
that, simply because it is the path of least resistance under the present
circumstances, etc., yadda.

People here should be primarily interested in the *SCIENCE*, no? -- and
secondarily in the politics and financing (which of course *affect* the
ability to DO the science... as we all should understand quite well by now).

>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Che  wrote:
>
>>
>> I understand why this list is utterly obsessed with Rossi: fraud or not,
>> he has discredited cold fusion research all the more spectacularly than
>> anyone else. However, what I _don't_ understand is: why is there so much
>> about Andrea Rossi here -- and precious little about e.g. the Martin
>> Fleischmann Memorial Project..??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Fire-ing Squad

Open source tech cannot garner the capital and R power to pose a product
and capability replacement threat to the anti Rossi FUD interests that
Rossi can. Be assured, the LENR wars have just begun.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Che  wrote:

>
> I understand why this list is utterly obsessed with Rossi: fraud or not,
> he has discredited cold fusion research all the more spectacularly than
> anyone else. However, what I _don't_ understand is: why is there so much
> about Andrea Rossi here -- and precious little about e.g. the Martin
> Fleischmann Memorial Project..??
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed.
Murray lists himself as being an independent consultant.  See my earlier 
post.



On 8/7/2016 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It is not worth my time to determine the time sequence.  I didn't
think Murray was allowed in the plant until after the test . . .


You are wrong about that. In any case, many other people were in the 
plant, and they asked the same questions.


. . . and I expect Penon knew he was hostile by then.


Penon's opinion of Murray is irrelevant! Penon was being paid to 
provide information and to answer questions. He had a contractual 
obligation to answer whether he thought people were nice or naughty.


  So even if he didn't know of the pending court case he probably
didn't feel inclined to answer a third party's request for info.


Third party?!? What are you talking about? Murray worked for I.H. That 
is abundantly clear from the Answer, and from Exhibit 19. In it, 
Vaughn wrote:


"Also, I would like to introduce you to one of our new team members, 
Joe Murray."


Have you done your homework on this? Have you read the documents?

- Jed

[Vo]:Cold Fusion Fire-ing Squad

I understand why this list is utterly obsessed with Rossi: fraud or not, he
has discredited cold fusion research all the more spectacularly than anyone
else. However, what I _don't_ understand is: why is there so much about
Andrea Rossi here -- and precious little about e.g. the Martin Fleischmann
Memorial Project..??

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Rossi doesn't sound too worried

1.
   JP Renoir
   August 7, 2016 at 6:24 PM
   


   Dear Andrea Rossi,
   I have just finished to read the 66 pages of the counter complaints
   of IH, but they are just making assumption on the base of which make
   slanders. They did not bring on a single proof of what they say,
   just shoot accusations. Anyway: is there at least one accusation you
   consider dangerous or sustainable ?
   Cheers,
   JPR

2.
   Andrea Rossi
   August 7, 2016 at 6:41 PM
   


   JP Renoir:
   Honestly, there is not a single and I repeat a single point in all
   the 66 pages that we will not be able to cancel with due evidence in
   Court. I repeat: these 66 pages are a gold mine, because in all
   their points they give evidence of the vicious falsity of our foe;
   sometimes such falsity assumes comic aspects, as we’ll see in due
   time, in due place. They are not ashamed to slander persons with the
   goal to avoid to have to pay.
   By the way, to understand the way to do things of these guys, go to
   read on this blog the links in the comment of
   Jill posted on 2016/08/06 at 5:31 PM
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

2016-08-07 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

Except for the Papp engine, Piantelli, and Rossi, no LENR tech has ever
> been patented.
>

I believe Dennis Cravens has one or more patents, including one for
speeding up radioactive decay.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

It is not worth my time to determine the time sequence.  I didn't think
> Murray was allowed in the plant until after the test . . .
>

You are wrong about that. In any case, many other people were in the plant,
and they asked the same questions.

> . . . and I expect Penon knew he was hostile by then.
>

Penon's opinion of Murray is irrelevant! Penon was being paid to provide
information and to answer questions. He had a contractual obligation to
answer whether he thought people were nice or naughty.

>   So even if he didn't know of the pending court case he probably didn't
> feel inclined to answer a third party's request for info.
>

Third party?!? What are you talking about? Murray worked for I.H. That is
abundantly clear from the Answer, and from Exhibit 19. In it, Vaughn wrote:

"Also, I would like to introduce you to one of our new team members, Joe
Murray."

Have you done your homework on this? Have you read the documents?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

Except for the Papp engine, Piantelli, and Rossi, no LENR tech has ever
been patented.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> AlainCo  Mar
>> 22nd 2015
>> 
>>  states: "The patent really looks like Defkalion claims."
>>
>
> This is NOT a patent. I repeat NOT a patent. It is a patent application.
> That is quite a different thing. Most applications never become patents.
>
>
>
>> This patent sure looks like the Dekalion tech to me.
>>
>
> As I said, if it is like Defkalion, it will not work. Nothing they had
> ever worked. At all.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

*If you're such an expert on defjalions tech, expert enough to asset if
cannot work, how come you do not understand what the AirBus patent tech is
about? *

*When Defkalion principles were under extreme direst due to heath problems.
They had no strength or money to continue to fight the LENR wars. *

*Not responding is not a proof of guilt.*

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Vandenberghe wrote to *New Energy Times* that “Airbus Group has signed a
>> letter of intent” to work with his company. In recent weeks, AirBus group
>> has just patented the Dekalion design. That design had to have come
>> from Gamberale. Jed, are you acting as a unwitting dupe for these guys?
>>
>
> AirBus didn't patent anything as far as I know. They submitted an
> application. Whether it was based on Defkalion's claim or not I wouldn't
> know, but if it was, it will not work.
>
> Defkalion never responded to these accusations leveled by Gamberale and
> from others
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf
>
> They have vanished. No web site, no phone, no nothing. They cheated people
> out of millions of dollars and vanished. That's fraud.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

Axil Axil  wrote:

> AlainCo  Mar
> 22nd 2015
> 
>  states: "The patent really looks like Defkalion claims."
>

This is NOT a patent. I repeat NOT a patent. It is a patent application.
That is quite a different thing. Most applications never become patents.

> This patent sure looks like the Dekalion tech to me.
>

As I said, if it is like Defkalion, it will not work. Nothing they had ever
worked. At all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

Axil Axil  wrote:

Vandenberghe wrote to *New Energy Times* that “Airbus Group has signed a
> letter of intent” to work with his company. In recent weeks, AirBus group
> has just patented the Dekalion design. That design had to have come
> from Gamberale. Jed, are you acting as a unwitting dupe for these guys?
>

AirBus didn't patent anything as far as I know. They submitted an
application. Whether it was based on Defkalion's claim or not I wouldn't
know, but if it was, it will not work.

Defkalion never responded to these accusations leveled by Gamberale and
from others

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

They have vanished. No web site, no phone, no nothing. They cheated people
out of millions of dollars and vanished. That's fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/news/80-Airbus-Defence-Space-filed-a-LENR-patent-for-an-autonomous-reactor-in-september-/

AlainCo  Mar
22nd 2015

 states: "The patent really looks like Defkalion claims."

This patent sure looks like the Dekalion tech to me. Who would know that
tech is extreme detail if it was not Gamberale. If Defkalion "had nothing"
then why has AirBus patented that tech? Jed, don't be made a fool of.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Gamberale left Defkalion after nine months and has started his own company
> to conduct research and development in LENRs, according to his LinkedIn
> profile.
>
> Vandenberghe wrote to *New Energy Times* that “Airbus Group has signed a
> letter of intent” to work with his company. In recent weeks, AirBus group
> has just patented the Dekalion design. That design had to have come
> from Gamberale. Jed, are you acting as a unwitting dupe for these guys?
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There seems to be a pattern developing in the LENR body politic. The
>>> systems integrator discredits the LENR inventor using the same flow meter
>>> gambit.
>>>
>>
>> You are talking about Defkalion and Rossi. No one else. There is no
>> pattern. It happens that they both used flow meters to commit fraud, but
>> Rossi also used several other instruments as well. Details have not yet
>> been released. Some of his other tricks contributed more to the fake COP of
>> 50 than the flow meter did.
>>
>>
>> Then the systems integrator takes advantage of the IP of the defunct
>>> inventor to advance their business prospects.
>>>
>>
>> There is no IP. There is nothing to take advantage of. The claims were
>> lies and nonsense, with no value.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jeb seems to support without exception the systems integrator using info
>>> provided by the systems integrator involving the flow meter.
>>>
>>
>> "Without exception" meaning in these two cases, and in no other case in
>> the history of cold fusion.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The IP of the inventor eventually shows up in a patent that the systems
>>> integrator has a commercial interest in.
>>>
>>
>> There can be no valid patents. The reactors produce no heat.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

Gamberale left Defkalion after nine months and has started his own company
to conduct research and development in LENRs, according to his LinkedIn
profile.

Vandenberghe wrote to *New Energy Times* that “Airbus Group has signed a
letter of intent” to work with his company. In recent weeks, AirBus group
has just patented the Dekalion design. That design had to have come
from Gamberale. Jed, are you acting as a unwitting dupe for these guys?

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> There seems to be a pattern developing in the LENR body politic. The
>> systems integrator discredits the LENR inventor using the same flow meter
>> gambit.
>>
>
> You are talking about Defkalion and Rossi. No one else. There is no
> pattern. It happens that they both used flow meters to commit fraud, but
> Rossi also used several other instruments as well. Details have not yet
> been released. Some of his other tricks contributed more to the fake COP of
> 50 than the flow meter did.
>
>
> Then the systems integrator takes advantage of the IP of the defunct
>> inventor to advance their business prospects.
>>
>
> There is no IP. There is nothing to take advantage of. The claims were
> lies and nonsense, with no value.
>
>
>
>> Jeb seems to support without exception the systems integrator using info
>> provided by the systems integrator involving the flow meter.
>>
>
> "Without exception" meaning in these two cases, and in no other case in
> the history of cold fusion.
>
>
>
>> The IP of the inventor eventually shows up in a patent that the systems
>> integrator has a commercial interest in.
>>
>
> There can be no valid patents. The reactors produce no heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

It is not worth my time to determine the time sequence.  I didn't think 
Murray was allowed in the plant until after the test and I expect Penon 
knew he was hostile by then.  So even if he didn't know of the pending 
court case he probably didn't feel inclined to answer a third party's 
request for info.  I wasn't there.  Neither were you.


How do you know all this stuff about IH's plans?


On 8/7/2016 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


I expect Penon will answer through Rossi's lawyers.


This letter was written before Rossi filed suit. No lawyers were 
involved then. Penon had plenty of time to respond. He did not. 
Furthermore, if there was a simple error such as referencing the wrong 
flow meter model (as Daniel Rocha suggests) they would respond 
immediately, correcting the error.



Show some evidence of these other "experts" please.  Why have they
not made statements so far?


They have compiled a great deal more evidence. I do not know why this 
was not included in the papers filed by I.H. A lawyer told me this is 
probably part of their legal strategy. I know nothing about legal 
strategies so I cannot comment.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

Axil Axil  wrote:

> There seems to be a pattern developing in the LENR body politic. The
> systems integrator discredits the LENR inventor using the same flow meter
> gambit.
>

You are talking about Defkalion and Rossi. No one else. There is no
pattern. It happens that they both used flow meters to commit fraud, but
Rossi also used several other instruments as well. Details have not yet
been released. Some of his other tricks contributed more to the fake COP of
50 than the flow meter did.

Then the systems integrator takes advantage of the IP of the defunct
> inventor to advance their business prospects.
>

There is no IP. There is nothing to take advantage of. The claims were lies
and nonsense, with no value.

> Jeb seems to support without exception the systems integrator using info
> provided by the systems integrator involving the flow meter.
>

"Without exception" meaning in these two cases, and in no other case in the
history of cold fusion.

> The IP of the inventor eventually shows up in a patent that the systems
> integrator has a commercial interest in.
>

There can be no valid patents. The reactors produce no heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

There seems to be a pattern developing in the LENR body politic. The
systems integrator discredits the LENR inventor using the same flow meter
gambit. Then the systems integrator takes advantage of the IP of the
defunct inventor to advance their business prospects.

Jeb seems to support without exception the systems integrator using info
provided by the systems integrator involving the flow meter.

The IP of the inventor eventually shows up in a patent that the systems
integrator has a commercial interest in.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I posted the following; let's see if it stays or vanishes.
>
>
> You asked me several times to describe what error Rossi made with the flow
> meter. The error was described in detail in Exhibit 5 from I.H., which is
> here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E
>
> I summarized the problems here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg111082.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:first (Sun)day of total LENR war

So instead of people doing science, or following it -- we're all instead
completely and endlessly distracted by the 'legal violence' of the
proprietary Capitalist order.

Someone is indeed profiting -- handsomely -- from this state of affairs.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-7-2016-lenr.html
>
> a lot to read but not to be happy
>
> peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

I posted the following; let's see if it stays or vanishes.


You asked me several times to describe what error Rossi made with the flow
meter. The error was described in detail in Exhibit 5 from I.H., which is
here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E

I summarized the problems here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg111082.html

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

> I expect Penon will answer through Rossi's lawyers.
>

This letter was written before Rossi filed suit. No lawyers were involved
then. Penon had plenty of time to respond. He did not. Furthermore, if
there was a simple error such as referencing the wrong flow meter model (as
Daniel Rocha suggests) they would respond immediately, correcting the error.

Show some evidence of these other "experts" please.  Why have they not made
> statements so far?
>

They have compiled a great deal more evidence. I do not know why this was
not included in the papers filed by I.H. A lawyer told me this is probably
part of their legal strategy. I know nothing about legal strategies so I
cannot comment.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

Peter Gluck  wrote:

I have not deleted anything it must be some confusion.
> We are in confrontation but deleting is not my style.
>

Okay, I will try posting it for the third time.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
I expect Penon will answer through Rossi's lawyers.  That would be the 
proper thing to do in a court case.


Show some evidence of these other "experts" please.  Why have they not 
made statements so far?



On 8/7/2016 2:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Just because you think he is an expert is not proof.


You can see from the letter he knows more than Penon does. Note that 
Penon never answered. I believe he skedaddled back to Italy. Probably 
a wise move.


From his background he is an electronics engineer and you have not
shown he knows anything about fluid flow and measurement, or stains.


For the second and last time: He DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW ABOUT STAINS. 
I.H. can afford to hire more than one expert. They can afford the 
world's top experts in stains. If you were a billionaire with $267 
million at stake, you would not hesitate to hire someone who knows 
about stains.


- Jed

[Vo]:first (Sun)day of total LENR war

2016-08-07 Thread Peter Gluck

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-7-2016-lenr.html

a lot to read but not to be happy

peter

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

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

2016-08-07 Thread Peter Gluck

I have not deleted anything it must be some confusion.
We are in confrontation but deleting is not my style.

sorry for what has happened

peter

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Just from curiosity, who has deleted Jed's messages here?
>> where actually? I never delete a message except my initial sending
>>
>
> You or someone else at your blog deleted the message I posted on your
> blog. You did it twice. It was formatted differently the second time, so it
> was not a software glitch.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Just from curiosity, who has deleted Jed's messages here?
> where actually? I never delete a message except my initial sending
>

You or someone else at your blog deleted the message I posted on your blog.
You did it twice. It was formatted differently the second time, so it was
not a software glitch.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

Just because you think he is an expert is not proof.
>

You can see from the letter he knows more than Penon does. Note that Penon
never answered. I believe he skedaddled back to Italy. Probably a wise move.

> From his background he is an electronics engineer and you have not shown
> he knows anything about fluid flow and measurement, or stains.
>

For the second and last time: He DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW ABOUT STAINS. I.H.
can afford to hire more than one expert. They can afford the world's top
experts in stains. If you were a billionaire with $267 million at stake,
you would not hesitate to hire someone who knows about stains.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>

> Don't you think it would be better to wait for proof?
>

The proof is right there, in Exhibit 5. Penon never responded. If the
statements were wrong, he would have pointed out the errors.

>   How do you know the flow meter (and all Dr. Penon's the other
> instruments) were not send back for calibration?
>

I have inside information in this case.

There is no need to send it back. It is working perfectly. No one disputes
that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

exhibit 3
>

Exhibit 3 is another reactor! Read the main document, p. 11:

"Photographs accurately depicting the Six Cylinder Unit are attached hereto
as Exhibit 3. The Six Cylinder Unit remains in North Carolina."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-07 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence



On 08/07/2016 01:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/07/2016 01:06 PM, Che wrote:



On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and
running before the trial?



Good joke.  Hah hah!

What will you sat if the the sky is suddenly full of ships, and it 
turns out it's an alien invasion, and the only one they'll negotiate 
with is Rossi?  You'll *all* be talking out of the other sides of your 
mouths, when that happens!




How many years go by with a lack of even definitive 
'proof-of-concept' -- let alone the World being presented with a 
'wiz-bang' working prototype -- from these social sorts? I truly want 
to believe in Rossi & Co... but we keep being systematically 
disappointed. Year after year after year. After decade.


How much of this pathology could be FUD and sabotage, really..?

We're STILL waiting for Orbo to prove itself in some spectacular, 
definitive way, for that matter. So they have a cellphone charger... 
now. Finally. But what is that. Really. What _is_ it..?


Orbo?  You mean, from Steorn?  The dude with the battery powered 
perpetual motion machines?


That one works really well, in fact -- it has generated investment 
dollars for Steorn, fleeced from people who don't know any better, and 
that's its entire purpose in life.  And Steorn has managed to avoid 
the kind of massive, public debacle that Rossi's gotten himself into 
with the 1 MW unit, which suggests he's a more skilful conman than Rossi.


'Scuse me, I meant Shawn is a better conman than Rossi, not "Steorn"; 
Steorn is just the company name.  It's been rather a while since this 
guy was last in the news and I'm bad with names.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-07 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 08/07/2016 01:06 PM, Che wrote:



On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and
running before the trial?



Good joke.  Hah hah!

What will you sat if the the sky is suddenly full of ships, and it turns 
out it's an alien invasion, and the only one they'll negotiate with is 
Rossi?  You'll *all* be talking out of the other sides of your mouths, 
when that happens!




How many years go by with a lack of even definitive 'proof-of-concept' 
-- let alone the World being presented with a 'wiz-bang' working 
prototype -- from these social sorts? I truly want to believe in Rossi 
& Co... but we keep being systematically disappointed. Year after year 
after year. After decade.


How much of this pathology could be FUD and sabotage, really..?

We're STILL waiting for Orbo to prove itself in some spectacular, 
definitive way, for that matter. So they have a cellphone charger... 
now. Finally. But what is that. Really. What _is_ it..?


Orbo?  You mean, from Steorn?  The dude with the battery powered 
perpetual motion machines?


That one works really well, in fact -- it has generated investment 
dollars for Steorn, fleeced from people who don't know any better, and 
that's its entire purpose in life.  And Steorn has managed to avoid the 
kind of massive, public debacle that Rossi's gotten himself into with 
the 1 MW unit, which suggests he's a more skilful conman than Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and running
> before the trial?

How many years go by with a lack of even definitive 'proof-of-concept' --
let alone the World being presented with a 'wiz-bang' working prototype --
from these social sorts? I truly want to believe in Rossi & Co... but we
keep being systematically disappointed. Year after year after year. After
decade.

How much of this pathology could be FUD and sabotage, really..?

We're STILL waiting for Orbo to prove itself in some spectacular,
definitive way, for that matter. So they have a cellphone charger... now.
Finally. But what is that. Really. What _is_ it..?

>
>
>
> On 8/7/2016 12:38 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 08/07/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to
>>> jail, instead of going himself.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure I can agree with that.
>>
>> I've long since stopped believing people like Rossi (or Trump) have a
>> coherent exit strategy -- their slogan seems to be "if you're challenged,
>> double down; brazen it out.  Apologies are for wimps." Or, as Tom Petty put
>> it, "I Won't Back Down!"
>>
>>
>>
>>>  - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:20 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Your earlier defense was that Murray was an expert.  Also, that I wasn't
> there.  You weren't there either and are just relying on hear say.
> What other "experts" were on the case?  Murray was the one who wrote Dr.
> Penon.
>


Whatever any experts decide about the facts of the matter here, Andrea
Rossi remains the sort of problematic 'inventor'/entrepreneur type who
apparently creates more heat than light, wherever they go and whatever they
do.







>
> On 8/7/2016 11:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> It appears Murray's expertise is in electronics, although Jed claims he is
>> an expert on stains...
>>
>
> Oh give me a break. I never said anything like that. Do you think Murray
> is the only person assigned to this? If you had a billion dollars, and
> someone was threatening you with a $267 million lawsuit, would you hire one
> and only one person to do every aspect of the technical analysis? Or would
> you go to and find people who are experts in stains and other aspects of
> the problem?
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-07 Thread Jack Cole

The flow meter problem is just a tiny part of the picture.  You don't need
to go beyond the paragraph below to throw it all out of the window.
Despite that fact, they do go well beyond what they say below in the
document.   Best to not get hung up on a debatable matter like the flow
meter.  You'd need empirical tests and expert testimony on that matter,
except it was operated outside of the accepted range which invalidates the
test.  It should have been empirically calibrated in situ and ran at proper
flow rates.  No further debate it needed there.

The flow meter is irrelevant to the extent that IH's experts even with AR's
help couldn't make the purported IP work.  Nobody else has credibly or
repeatedly done so despite trials probably numbering well over 200.
Massive fail and IH would be insane to pay for something they can't make
work.

"9. During the same time period, Counter-Plaintiffs continued their own
efforts to replicate Rossi’s purported results using the E-Cat IP that
Leonardo and Rossi had provided them when they received the $10 million
payment. Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and
Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy.
This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible
conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the
purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and
Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was
required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million
payment; or 3) both."

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:41 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> Just because you think he is an expert is not proof.  From his background
> he is an electronics engineer and you have not shown he knows anything
> about fluid flow and measurement, or stains.  He was the only one (that I
> have seen) who has pontificated on the flow rate and other measurement
> problems.  If there are others, why have they not also stated something
> specific?
>
> You keep repeating Penon is stupid but I have never seen a specific
> example - only your broad generalizations..
>
>
>
>
> On 8/7/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> In view of the above information on Mr. Murray, why do you think he is an
>> expert engineer . . .
>
>
> I know he is. But it does not take a rocket scientist super expert to
> compare the minimum flow rate shown on the face plate with the data in the
> log book. Even I had no trouble doing that.
>
> Also, it does not take an expert to see that the same flow rate was
> recorded every day, even on days when the log book showed the reactor was
> turned off and disassembled. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see
> that's mighty suspicious!
>
>
>
>> and Dr. Penon, who has rated nuclear power plants, is an idiot?
>>
>
> Based on his reports and data, I think he is one of the stupidest people I
> have ever encountered. I think if he does not cooperate with the
> authorities and admit the customer site was faked, and much of his data was
> faked, he may end up in jail. I think anyone who would record a flow rate
> of 36,000 kg and 1 MW of excess heat on days when the log book shows the
> reactor was turned off and disassembled -- and when witnesses saw it was
> turned off -- is extraordinarily stupid. I would say he is Rossi's lab dog.
> I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to jail,
> instead of going himself.
>
>  - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and running 
before the trial?



On 8/7/2016 12:38 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/07/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


 I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to 
jail, instead of going himself.


Not sure I can agree with that.

I've long since stopped believing people like Rossi (or Trump) have a 
coherent exit strategy -- their slogan seems to be "if you're 
challenged, double down; brazen it out.  Apologies are for wimps." Or, 
as Tom Petty put it, "I Won't Back Down!"





 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
Just because you think he is an expert is not proof.  From his 
background he is an electronics engineer and you have not shown he knows 
anything about fluid flow and measurement, or stains.  He was the only 
one (that I have seen) who has pontificated on the flow rate and other 
measurement problems.  If there are others, why have they not also 
stated something specific?


You keep repeating Penon is stupid but I have never seen a specific 
example - only your broad generalizations..




On 8/7/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

In view of the above information on Mr. Murray, why do you think
he is an expert engineer . . .


I know he is. But it does not take a rocket scientist super expert to 
compare the minimum flow rate shown on the face plate with the data in 
the log book. Even I had no trouble doing that.


Also, it does not take an expert to see that the same flow rate was 
recorded every day, even on days when the log book showed the reactor 
was turned off and disassembled. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes 
to see that's mighty suspicious!


and Dr. Penon, who has rated nuclear power plants, is an idiot?


Based on his reports and data, I think he is one of the stupidest 
people I have ever encountered. I think if he does not cooperate with 
the authorities and admit the customer site was faked, and much of his 
data was faked, he may end up in jail. I think anyone who would record 
a flow rate of 36,000 kg and 1 MW of excess heat on days when the log 
book shows the reactor was turned off and disassembled -- and when 
witnesses saw it was turned off -- is extraordinarily stupid. I would 
say he is Rossi's lab dog. I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame 
on Penon and send him to jail, instead of going himself.


 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-07 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 08/07/2016 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


 I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to 
jail, instead of going himself.


Not sure I can agree with that.

I've long since stopped believing people like Rossi (or Trump) have a 
coherent exit strategy -- their slogan seems to be "if you're 
challenged, double down; brazen it out.  Apologies are for wimps." Or, 
as Tom Petty put it, "I Won't Back Down!"





 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Your earlier defense was that Murray was an expert.  Also, that I wasn't 
there.  You weren't there either and are just relying on hear say.
What other "experts" were on the case?  Murray was the one who wrote Dr. 
Penon.


On 8/7/2016 11:56 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It appears Murray's expertise is in electronics, although Jed
claims he is an expert on stains...


Oh give me a break. I never said anything like that. Do you think 
Murray is the only person assigned to this? If you had a billion 
dollars, and someone was threatening you with a $267 million lawsuit, 
would you hire one and only one person to do every aspect of the 
technical analysis? Or would you go to and find people who are experts 
in stains and other aspects of the problem?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

> In view of the above information on Mr. Murray, why do you think he is an
> expert engineer . . .

I know he is. But it does not take a rocket scientist super expert to
compare the minimum flow rate shown on the face plate with the data in the
log book. Even I had no trouble doing that.

Also, it does not take an expert to see that the same flow rate was
recorded every day, even on days when the log book showed the reactor was
turned off and disassembled. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see
that's mighty suspicious!

> and Dr. Penon, who has rated nuclear power plants, is an idiot?
>

Based on his reports and data, I think he is one of the stupidest people I
have ever encountered. I think if he does not cooperate with the
authorities and admit the customer site was faked, and much of his data was
faked, he may end up in jail. I think anyone who would record a flow rate
of 36,000 kg and 1 MW of excess heat on days when the log book shows the
reactor was turned off and disassembled -- and when witnesses saw it was
turned off -- is extraordinarily stupid. I would say he is Rossi's lab dog.
I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin the blame on Penon and send him to jail,
instead of going himself.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
Don't you think it would be better to wait for proof?  How do you know 
the flow meter (and all Dr. Penon's the other instruments) were not send 
back for calibration?  In view of the stakes, it would seem to be a very 
prudent step to take.  Where does IH state that there were not returned?



On 8/7/2016 11:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Wasn't it claimed the meter was sent back to the manufacturer
after the test for a calibration check?


Rossi said that, but it is not true. However, I am sure the meter 
would test perfectly in a calibration check. There is nothing wrong 
with it. It gave the wrong answer because the flow rate was too low 
and the pipe was half full. In a proper installation I am sure it 
would give the right answer.


I doubt anyone specializes in reading stain marks.


Don't be ridiculous!

  Without knowing the history of water levels for the whole life
of the meter what do they mean?


Are you serious? Do you think they are incapable of testing to find 
this out?


. . . ie it could have just sat there for a time when the plant
was idle. It seems most unlikely that the water level in the pipe
would be constant when the pipe was not filled completely.


It seems unlikely base on WHAT?!? Were you there? Do you think for one 
second this is the only evidence I.H. has? With $267 million at stake?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

It appears Murray's expertise is in electronics, although Jed claims he is
> an expert on stains...
>

Oh give me a break. I never said anything like that. Do you think Murray is
the only person assigned to this? If you had a billion dollars, and someone
was threatening you with a $267 million lawsuit, would you hire one and
only one person to do every aspect of the technical analysis? Or would you
go to and find people who are experts in stains and other aspects of the
problem?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Wasn't it claimed the meter was sent back to the manufacturer after the
> test for a calibration check?
>

Rossi said that, but it is not true. However, I am sure the meter would
test perfectly in a calibration check. There is nothing wrong with it. It
gave the wrong answer because the flow rate was too low and the pipe was
half full. In a proper installation I am sure it would give the right
answer.

> I doubt anyone specializes in reading stain marks.
>

Don't be ridiculous!

>   Without knowing the history of water levels for the whole life of the
> meter what do they mean?
>

Are you serious? Do you think they are incapable of testing to find this
out?

> . . . ie it could have just sat there for a time when the plant was idle.
> It seems most unlikely that the water level in the pipe would be constant
> when the pipe was not filled completely.
>

It seems unlikely base on WHAT?!? Were you there? Do you think for one
second this is the only evidence I.H. has? With $267 million at stake?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
In view of the above information on Mr. Murray, why do you think he is 
an expert engineer and Dr. Penon, who has rated nuclear power plants, is 
an idiot?

Re: [Vo]:war news in full development

2016-08-07 Thread Peter Gluck

Just from curiosity, who has deleted Jed's messages here?
where actually? I never delete a message except my initial sending
peter


On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I might add: It is damned craven of you to erase my messages. Despite
>> your provocations and baseless accusations, I have remained civil with you,
>> and in this instance I have provided only facts. Facts grounded in
>> conventional engineering. By denying this, and by erasing messages, you
>> have disgraced yourself and shown that you are no scientist or engineer any
>> more. Perhaps you were once, and you may be again, but you are so obsessed
>> with Rossi, and so unwilling to face reality, you have abandoned all
>> objective standards.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>
>
> It is sad to see all the confusion, despair, conniving, backstabbing and
> contention caused essentially by the hubris and base egotism of the likes
> of LENR 'heroes' Andrea Rossi. Let's hope instead that the collaborative --
> and OPEN -- likes of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, however slow
> and plodding, show us the best way and foot forward for a TRUE science of
> Cold Fusion.
>
>
>
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

More on Mr. Murray who is still listed as Principal of Ultra Electronics 
– 3 Phoenix

Linked In shows him as Executive VP of Ultra Electronics Feb 2014 - Apr 2015
Independent Consultant June 2016 - present

Joseph Murray – Principal

Mr. Murray has over eighteen years of experience in system architecture 
development, digital signal and image processing, software development, 
systems engineering, acquisition planning and program management. He has 
extensive experience in real-time systems design, system architecture, 
statistical analysis of complex phenomena and physical simulation. Mr. 
Murray specializes in the effective use of COTS hardware and software in 
low power, highly reliable modular systems.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

It appears Murray's expertise is in electronics, although Jed claims he 
is an expert on stains...

This is what SIffercoll writes:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/is-joseph-murray-the-establishmentdodapco-operative-assigned-to-slow-lenr-down-and-trash-rossi/

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Engineer48 wrote this on Ecatworld.

"Rossi did say the ERV had all his instruments pre calibrated. Also said
the flow meter was calibrated at the expected flow rate and fluid
temperature.

Plus after the trial, the ERV had all the instruments re calibrated.

Very hard to see how the flow meter could report 50x more flow than
recorded."

On 8/6/2016 10:26 PM, a.ashfield wrote:

Jed,
It strikes me as highly unlikely that whoever chose the flow meter
(Penon?) would not talk to the manufacturer for advice on which model
to get.
I notice their catalog does not specify a minimum rate and with flow
meters they generally run slower than they should below the bottom of
the scale.
As for the stain marks, without actually seeing them, I doubt they
mean much.

On 8/6/2016 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Daniel Rocha >
wrote:

http://www.apator.com/en/offer/water-and-heat-metering/volume-parts-for-heat-meters/mwn130-nc-mp130-nc

There are 2 products on this page, with very similar
specifications, mp130-nc-80NC has nearly the same exact
specifications, save for the minimum volume. IH is probably
blowing some hot air to cause confusion in the case.

Daniel, get a grip! At long last, Get A Grip. The guy who wrote
Exhibit 5 is an expert engineer. He was _looking at the flow meter_.
He quoted the numbers on the faceplate! He wrote:

"The Apator PoWoGaz’s device label clearly states that the unit has a
minimum operational flow rate of 1.6 m3 /hour."

He did not write that to "cause confusion." Penon never answered him.
It is case closed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
You are assuming IH are the innocent party before the facts are all in.  
Either side is capable of cheating.
Remember IH claimed in their motion to dismiss that the second agreement 
was not valid because Ampernego had not signed it.



On 8/6/2016 10:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It strikes me as highly unlikely that whoever chose the flow meter
(Penon?) would not talk to the manufacturer for advice on which
model to get.


Oh, I expect they did consult. Then they deliberately selected an 
instrument that gave the wrong answer. They selected several other 
instruments that also gave the wrong answers. Several people told them 
that, but they refused to fix the problems.


I assume they did this to inflate the apparent excess heat. Defkalion 
did something similar when they deliberately induced backflow.


As I said here before, if you read the manual for a flow meter, or any 
instrument, you will find ways to get the wrong answer. Any fool can 
do that.


You need to think about this. This meter has the minimum flow rate 
written right there on the face plate. Anyone who looks at it, and 
then looks at the data, will see that it is wrong. It is blatantly, 
irrefutably, in-your-face OBVIOUS that this instrument will give the 
wrong answer. It took me about 10 seconds to figure this out, seeing 
only Rossi's data and bare-bones description. I told you here many 
times it was wrong. I saw that _the instant I read what kind of flow 
meter it was_, and how much it was supposedly measuring. It does not 
take a rocket scientist.


So what are you saying? That no one noticed? That Rossi did not read 
the face plate?!? How could that be? Of course he knew! Of course they 
told him! Why wouldn't they?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document