subject:"RE\: \[Vo\]\:Next Big Future \- goes out on a limb"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-04-14 Thread Jack Cole

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-04-14 Thread Jed Rothwell

Craig Haynie  wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

- Jed

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

2016-04-14 Thread Jed Rothwell

Craig Haynie  wrote:

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

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

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

- Jed

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

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

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

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

Craig

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

2016-04-14 Thread Eric Walker

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

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

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

Eric

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

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

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

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

But they didn't.

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

2016-04-14 Thread Stephen Cooke

Hi Jed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-04-13 Thread Dave

How do we know whether or not most of the heat is exhausted through some 
sort of chimney after performing its processing?  It is pure speculation 
to assume that everyone will be roasted without knowing the exact system 
being tested.


I detect far too much speculation and too little actual proof in this 
discussion.


Dave

On 04/13/2016 11:50 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Jed speculation of the heat loading in an office sounds like a lot of 
hot air.


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


The location of the factory where the 1MW plant ran is not public.
The identity of the customer is also not publicly known, nor what
they used the heat for. It is suggested that the customer
manufacters chemicals.
Jed must be speculating, or he is privy to inside information.
Regards.

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

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

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

> The location of the factory where the 1MW plant ran is not public.
> The identity of the customer is also not publicly known, nor what they
> used the heat for. It is suggested that the customer manufacters chemicals.
> Jed must be speculating, or he is privy to inside information.
> Regards.
>
>

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

What would stop Rossi from handing 10M over to the judge in the upcoming
law case? The ERV is acting as a judge in this test. If I.H. does not like
the judges verdict, do they just walk away without paying the judgment.
What happened to law and order and fair play in florida this days? ERV =
judge by mutual agreement..

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

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

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

2016-04-13 Thread Patrick Ellul

The location of the factory where the 1MW plant ran is not public.
The identity of the customer is also not publicly known, nor what they used
the heat for. It is suggested that the customer manufacters chemicals.
Jed must be speculating, or he is privy to inside information.
Regards.

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

The value and quality of the ERV report is subjective, But in any contest
> where the referee is agreed upon beforehand.
>

This is not a sporting event.

> If the referee makes a call that one side does not agree with, that
> aggrieved party cannot take their ball and go home no matter how
> incompetent the referee is. You take the loss with good sportsmanship and
> pay the 89M.
>

You have no idea how business is conducted, or how contracts are disputed.
If the "referee" in this case issues a judgement call which is physically
impossible and which any credentialed expert agrees is nonsense, NO ONE
WILL EVERY PAY $89 MILLION. Nothing like that ever happened in the history
of business, and never would happen. That would be lunacy. Suppose Penon
had claimed the thing produces 100 MW, or a gigawatt? Do you think they
should pay up in that case? Suppose he said it produces more power than the
sun? How impossible does the claim have to become before you concede that a
business should not have to pay on the basis of a wild, absurd, untenable
claim made by an idiot? What would stop Rossi from handing Penon $10
million in a bribe?

- Jed

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

Do you know the address of the customer's industrial pant or do you only
have the address of the business office of the customer in Florida?



On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Sean True  wrote:
>
>
>> In fact, it would fit in a modest living room. The dimensions are 6'
>> across, 6' high, and 7' long.
>> The interesting question is how would you use that much steam?
>>
>
> Using that much steam or heat in a small warehouse space would kill you,
> as I said. It would cook you.
>
> 1 MW is the equivalent of 24 commercial stoves with ovens, the kind used
> in restaurants:
>
>
> http://www.webstaurantstore.com/garland-m43ftr-master-series-3-burner-34-french-top-gas-range-with-3-even-heat-hot-tops-and-standard-oven-142-000-btu/372M43FTR.html
>
> 142,000 BTU = 42 kW
>
> Imagine running 24 of these with the stoves and ovens at full blast.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Sean True  wrote:


> In fact, it would fit in a modest living room. The dimensions are 6'
> across, 6' high, and 7' long.
> The interesting question is how would you use that much steam?
>

Using that much steam or heat in a small warehouse space would kill you, as
I said. It would cook you.

1 MW is the equivalent of 24 commercial stoves with ovens, the kind used in
restaurants:

http://www.webstaurantstore.com/garland-m43ftr-master-series-3-burner-34-french-top-gas-range-with-3-even-heat-hot-tops-and-standard-oven-142-000-btu/372M43FTR.html

142,000 BTU = 42 kW

Imagine running 24 of these with the stoves and ovens at full blast.

- Jed

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

The value and quality of the ERV report is subjective, But in any contest
where the referee is agreed upon beforehand. If the referee makes a call
that one side does not agree with, that aggrieved party cannot take their
ball and go home no matter how incompetent the referee is. You take the
loss with good sportsmanship and pay the 89M.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
>> I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>>
>> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
>> valueless
>
>
> I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's.
>
>
>
>>Now you say the report damns Rossi.
>>
>
> That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the
> report.
>
>
>
>> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
>>
>
> I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio
> Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly dug
> up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports were
> written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees with the
> Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in additional
> comments to me. I hope the details will all be published eventually, but I
> cannot say when that might happen.
>
>
>
>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
> mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
> topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in mystery.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-04-13 Thread Sean True

In fact, it would fit in a modest living room. The dimensions are 6'
across, 6' high, and 7' long.
The interesting question is how would you use that much steam?

-- Sean

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> A dry cleaner steam generator is ~10 kW. See:
>>
>> http://www.reimersinc.com/steam-boilers-garment
>>
>
> Here is a 750 kW boiler. I will grant, you could fit this boiler into the
> warehouse. You would then operate 75 steam presses from it, which is not
> possible:
>
> http://www.reimersinc.com/_assets/pdf/RHP600-750_Brochure_Rev2.pdf
>
> There are mills and factories with 75 steam presses. They are big
> buildings, well ventilated, with chimneys and blowers and large plumes of
> steam. You can see this building is not one of them.
>
> Also, what is a chemical distribution warehouse doing with enough steam to
> operate 80 to 100 dry cleaning stores?
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-04-13 Thread Blaze Spinnaker

Maybe the whole eCat is just one big lithium battery bank.

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> Yah, I think this is more likely - that they just can't duplicate what
> he's done.
>
> I think Jed is over reaching and making big assumptions on what he's been
> told by his 'insider' sources.  Lol.
>
> For example, Rossi might be refueling his eCats with something and Penon
> might just not be in on it.  Who knows.  Rossi does say he's around the
> things 24/7
>
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, a.ashfield  > wrote:
>
>> Jed,
>>
>> My reading of IH's statement is quite different.  I don't recall them
>> saying there was no heat.  They said THEY could not duplicate Rossi's
>> results.  That is not the same thing.
>>
>> There has been quite a lot of speculation that the dispute is really
>> about whether they have received sufficient know how from Rossi to make
>> E-Cats that run with a high COP for a long time.  Not that the 1 MW plant
>> does not work.  IH did not SAY that it didn't.  As far as we know the ERV
>> report said that it did work.
>>
>> Jed wrote.
>>
>>> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that
>>> the I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>>>
>>> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
>>> valueless
>>
>>
>> I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says
>> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
>> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
>> Penon's.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now you say the report damns Rossi.
>>>
>>
>> That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the
>> report.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
>>>
>>
>> I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio
>> Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly dug
>> up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports were
>> written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees with the
>> Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in additional
>> comments to me. I hope the details will all be published eventually, but I
>> cannot say when that might happen.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>>
>>
>> I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
>> mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
>> topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in mystery.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>

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

2016-04-13 Thread Blaze Spinnaker

Yah, I think this is more likely - that they just can't duplicate what he's
done.

I think Jed is over reaching and making big assumptions on what he's been
told by his 'insider' sources.  Lol.

For example, Rossi might be refueling his eCats with something and Penon
might just not be in on it.  Who knows.  Rossi does say he's around the
things 24/7

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
>
> My reading of IH's statement is quite different.  I don't recall them
> saying there was no heat.  They said THEY could not duplicate Rossi's
> results.  That is not the same thing.
>
> There has been quite a lot of speculation that the dispute is really about
> whether they have received sufficient know how from Rossi to make E-Cats
> that run with a high COP for a long time.  Not that the 1 MW plant does not
> work.  IH did not SAY that it didn't.  As far as we know the ERV report
> said that it did work.
>
> Jed wrote.
>
>> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
>> I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>>
>> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
>> valueless
>
>
> I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's.
>
>
>
>>Now you say the report damns Rossi.
>>
>
> That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the
> report.
>
>
>
>> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
>>
>
> I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio
> Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly dug
> up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports were
> written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees with the
> Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in additional
> comments to me. I hope the details will all be published eventually, but I
> cannot say when that might happen.
>
>
>
>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
> mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
> topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in mystery.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

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

The electrical input is defined by the cost of the power paid to the
electric utility.

The customer must have measured the amount of steam produced by the E-Cat
in order to pay IH for that steam.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> But unfortunately Axil, there is nothing to compare the bill to.  They set
> up the factory just for the test in contrast to many of Rossi's early
> statements on the matter (if I am recalling correctly).
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:00 PM Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> There is another measure of performance that could be used to replace the
>> ERV. The customer's electric meter shows how much electric power fed unto
>> the E-Cat and the customer paid for the steam that the E-Cat produced. If
>> the COP of the E-Cat is high enough, these gross input and output power
>> levels will show a COP over 6,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Jed.  "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with
 a COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."

 That is a gross over simplification.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is what I said. It is meant to be. This is an extreme example
>>> of a report that no judge would uphold. The point is, whatever the contract
>>> says, if it comes to trial, expert witnesses will have to render an opinion
>>> on the report and the equipment. The judge is not going to rule in favor of
>>> Rossi just because the contract says the Penon report will decide the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 The contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and
 that the outcome would indeed depend on his report.
>>>
>>>
>>> But not if the report is bad enough. If the report claims output is is
>>> 80 times input, and a series of expert witnesses say it was 1 times input,
>>> no judge or jury will rule in favor of Rossi, no matter what the contract
>>> says. Judges apply common sense to contract disputes. You do not get $89
>>> million when all the experts agree you made a drastic error in calorimetry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
   He had his own instruments and it should not be hard to measure the
 performance with reasonable accuracy.  I know I could have done so.

>>>
>>> He, who? Penon? You or I could have done it with reasonable accuracy but
>>> as you saw in 2012 he was even worse then Levi et al. The I.H. people did
>>> measure it with reasonable accuracy, they say. They they got a different
>>> answer. You will have to read the two reports (or at least the Penon
>>> report) before you can judge. Or, you can trust my judgement of the
>>> abilities of the two parties. That is not as good a metric as reading the
>>> reports, but it is better than nothing.
>>>
>>> They both claim they measured with reasonable accuracy. One of them has
>>> to be drastically wrong. Do you have any reason to assume I.H. is making
>>> the mistake, rather than Rossi? Why are you on Rossi's side?
>>>
>>> You can easily discover that Penon and Rossi have a history of making
>>> extraordinarily stupid mistakes in calorimetry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial
 to start (delaying it for almost a year?).

>>>
>>> I don't see what is fishy about that, and I do not recall it was delayed
>>> that long. That is discussed in the lawsuit documents.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well
 as has been reported

>>>
>>> Which is another reason to think it does not work. Because even if it
>>> produced only 30% excess instead of 80 times input, I expect I.H. would
>>> continue the research. They would not declare it did not work, and abandon
>>> it.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>

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

I wrote:

> A dry cleaner steam generator is ~10 kW. See:
>
> http://www.reimersinc.com/steam-boilers-garment
>

Here is a 750 kW boiler. I will grant, you could fit this boiler into the
warehouse. You would then operate 75 steam presses from it, which is not
possible:

http://www.reimersinc.com/_assets/pdf/RHP600-750_Brochure_Rev2.pdf

There are mills and factories with 75 steam presses. They are big
buildings, well ventilated, with chimneys and blowers and large plumes of
steam. You can see this building is not one of them.

Also, what is a chemical distribution warehouse doing with enough steam to
operate 80 to 100 dry cleaning stores?

- Jed

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

If the COP of the E-Cat is high enough, these gross input and output power
> levels will show a COP over 6,
>

If the COP 8000 as claimed (80 times input) everyone in the building would
be dead. That is easy to establish. Just look at the Google street view of
the building, and estimate how much heat they claim in the court documents
and press release. I think it comes to about 800 kW. Actually I think they
say it is 1 MW. Suppose the customer is running a dry cleaner. You know how
big dry cleaning equipment is, and how big a typical dry cleaning store is,
right? A dry cleaner steam generator is ~10 kW. See:

http://www.reimersinc.com/steam-boilers-garment

Do you think they can fit 80 dry cleaning machines in a space like that?
What do you think would happen to the operators?

Take any industrial use for 800 kW of process steam or process heat, and
you will see that it cannot fit into warehouse/office spaces of this size.

- Jed

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

2016-04-13 Thread Jack Cole

But unfortunately Axil, there is nothing to compare the bill to.  They set
up the factory just for the test in contrast to many of Rossi's early
statements on the matter (if I am recalling correctly).

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:00 PM Axil Axil  wrote:

> There is another measure of performance that could be used to replace the
> ERV. The customer's electric meter shows how much electric power fed unto
> the E-Cat and the customer paid for the steam that the E-Cat produced. If
> the COP of the E-Cat is high enough, these gross input and output power
> levels will show a COP over 6,
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jed.  "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a
>>> COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>>>
>>> That is a gross over simplification.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that is what I said. It is meant to be. This is an extreme example
>> of a report that no judge would uphold. The point is, whatever the contract
>> says, if it comes to trial, expert witnesses will have to render an opinion
>> on the report and the equipment. The judge is not going to rule in favor of
>> Rossi just because the contract says the Penon report will decide the issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and
>>> that the outcome would indeed depend on his report.
>>
>>
>> But not if the report is bad enough. If the report claims output is is 80
>> times input, and a series of expert witnesses say it was 1 times input, no
>> judge or jury will rule in favor of Rossi, no matter what the contract
>> says. Judges apply common sense to contract disputes. You do not get $89
>> million when all the experts agree you made a drastic error in calorimetry.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   He had his own instruments and it should not be hard to measure the
>>> performance with reasonable accuracy.  I know I could have done so.
>>>
>>
>> He, who? Penon? You or I could have done it with reasonable accuracy but
>> as you saw in 2012 he was even worse then Levi et al. The I.H. people did
>> measure it with reasonable accuracy, they say. They they got a different
>> answer. You will have to read the two reports (or at least the Penon
>> report) before you can judge. Or, you can trust my judgement of the
>> abilities of the two parties. That is not as good a metric as reading the
>> reports, but it is better than nothing.
>>
>> They both claim they measured with reasonable accuracy. One of them has
>> to be drastically wrong. Do you have any reason to assume I.H. is making
>> the mistake, rather than Rossi? Why are you on Rossi's side?
>>
>> You can easily discover that Penon and Rossi have a history of making
>> extraordinarily stupid mistakes in calorimetry.
>>
>>
>>
>>> What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial to
>>> start (delaying it for almost a year?).
>>>
>>
>> I don't see what is fishy about that, and I do not recall it was delayed
>> that long. That is discussed in the lawsuit documents.
>>
>>
>>
>>> As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well
>>> as has been reported
>>>
>>
>> Which is another reason to think it does not work. Because even if it
>> produced only 30% excess instead of 80 times input, I expect I.H. would
>> continue the research. They would not declare it did not work, and abandon
>> it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

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

There is another measure of performance that could be used to replace the
ERV. The customer's electric meter shows how much electric power fed unto
the E-Cat and the customer paid for the steam that the E-Cat produced. If
the COP of the E-Cat is high enough, these gross input and output power
levels will show a COP over 6,

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> Jed.  "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a
>> COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>>
>> That is a gross over simplification.
>
>
> Yes, that is what I said. It is meant to be. This is an extreme example of
> a report that no judge would uphold. The point is, whatever the contract
> says, if it comes to trial, expert witnesses will have to render an opinion
> on the report and the equipment. The judge is not going to rule in favor of
> Rossi just because the contract says the Penon report will decide the issue.
>
>
>
>> The contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and
>> that the outcome would indeed depend on his report.
>
>
> But not if the report is bad enough. If the report claims output is is 80
> times input, and a series of expert witnesses say it was 1 times input, no
> judge or jury will rule in favor of Rossi, no matter what the contract
> says. Judges apply common sense to contract disputes. You do not get $89
> million when all the experts agree you made a drastic error in calorimetry.
>
>
>
>>   He had his own instruments and it should not be hard to measure the
>> performance with reasonable accuracy.  I know I could have done so.
>>
>
> He, who? Penon? You or I could have done it with reasonable accuracy but
> as you saw in 2012 he was even worse then Levi et al. The I.H. people did
> measure it with reasonable accuracy, they say. They they got a different
> answer. You will have to read the two reports (or at least the Penon
> report) before you can judge. Or, you can trust my judgement of the
> abilities of the two parties. That is not as good a metric as reading the
> reports, but it is better than nothing.
>
> They both claim they measured with reasonable accuracy. One of them has to
> be drastically wrong. Do you have any reason to assume I.H. is making the
> mistake, rather than Rossi? Why are you on Rossi's side?
>
> You can easily discover that Penon and Rossi have a history of making
> extraordinarily stupid mistakes in calorimetry.
>
>
>
>> What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial to
>> start (delaying it for almost a year?).
>>
>
> I don't see what is fishy about that, and I do not recall it was delayed
> that long. That is discussed in the lawsuit documents.
>
>
>
>> As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well as
>> has been reported
>>
>
> Which is another reason to think it does not work. Because even if it
> produced only 30% excess instead of 80 times input, I expect I.H. would
> continue the research. They would not declare it did not work, and abandon
> it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed.  "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a
> COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."
>
> That is a gross over simplification.

Yes, that is what I said. It is meant to be. This is an extreme example of
a report that no judge would uphold. The point is, whatever the contract
says, if it comes to trial, expert witnesses will have to render an opinion
on the report and the equipment. The judge is not going to rule in favor of
Rossi just because the contract says the Penon report will decide the issue.

> The contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and
> that the outcome would indeed depend on his report.

But not if the report is bad enough. If the report claims output is is 80
times input, and a series of expert witnesses say it was 1 times input, no
judge or jury will rule in favor of Rossi, no matter what the contract
says. Judges apply common sense to contract disputes. You do not get $89
million when all the experts agree you made a drastic error in calorimetry.

>   He had his own instruments and it should not be hard to measure the
> performance with reasonable accuracy.  I know I could have done so.
>

He, who? Penon? You or I could have done it with reasonable accuracy but as
you saw in 2012 he was even worse then Levi et al. The I.H. people did
measure it with reasonable accuracy, they say. They they got a different
answer. You will have to read the two reports (or at least the Penon
report) before you can judge. Or, you can trust my judgement of the
abilities of the two parties. That is not as good a metric as reading the
reports, but it is better than nothing.

They both claim they measured with reasonable accuracy. One of them has to
be drastically wrong. Do you have any reason to assume I.H. is making the
mistake, rather than Rossi? Why are you on Rossi's side?

You can easily discover that Penon and Rossi have a history of making
extraordinarily stupid mistakes in calorimetry.

> What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial to
> start (delaying it for almost a year?).
>

I don't see what is fishy about that, and I do not recall it was delayed
that long. That is discussed in the lawsuit documents.

> As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well as
> has been reported
>

Which is another reason to think it does not work. Because even if it
produced only 30% excess instead of 80 times input, I expect I.H. would
continue the research. They would not declare it did not work, and abandon
it.

- Jed

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

Jed.  "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a 
COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."


That is a gross over simplification.  It was the third part of a three 
part process and IH  had representatives there for the whole year.   The 
contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and that 
the outcome would indeed depend on his report.  He had his own 
instruments and it should not be hard to measure the performance with 
reasonable accuracy.  I know I could have done so.


What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial to 
start (delaying it for almost a year?).
As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well 
as has been reported

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

Post revised and extended as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> One critical facet of LENR is the production of a special type of
> nanoparticle: a superconductive hydride. This particle is produced by the
> extremely high pressure exerted by the chemical bonds in the lattice of a
> transition metal substrate lattice. Lithium hydride is an example of such a
> nanoparticle.
>
> SPPs will populate the surface of this superconductive nanowire. The
> entire ensemble of SPPs readily form a Bose condensate which converts many
> individual SPPs into one super-SPP where the monopole magnetic beam that
> this BEC SPP projects is focused forward from the front of the hydride
> nanowire. This magnetic beam is very powerful as a result of
> super-radiance.
>
> Because of the BEC, the SPPs are concentrated, focused,  and amplified.
>
> This BEC on the nanowire becomes a quasiparticle acting as an analog
> monopole. As we all know, a monopole produces nucleon decay into mesons as
> seen by Holmlid.
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:19 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil wrote.  "Monopole magnetic flux tubes produced by Surface
>> Plasmon Polaritons embedded inside a superconductive environment produces
>> nucleon decay into mesons and subsequent nuclear reconfiguration. It's as
>> simple as that."
>>
>> That is not at all simple,  I know you have written about this many times
>> but it is not simple, at least for me.
>> A clear explanation of the process, like Chiefio's, of what you mean
>> would be most helpful.
>>
>
>

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

I wrote:


> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
> mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
> topic soon.
>

Okay, I now have permission to quote Mats Lewan on this issue. Let me start
a new thread here:

Title: Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report

- Jed

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

2016-04-13 Thread Alexander Hollins

Original Message From: Jed RothwellSent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:37 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comReply To: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limba.ashfield wrote:

My reading of IH's statement is quite different. I don't recall
them saying there was no heat. They said THEY could not duplicate
Rossi's results. That is not the same thing.They say the one-year test did not work. Believe me, that is what they say. As far as
we know the ERV report said that it did work.Yes, the ERV report said the gadget works. That is what the lawsuit papers say. I.H. disagrees with ERV report.Let me try to clear up a few points of confusion regarding this subject.I did not mean I know there is a second, formal report. I just meant that I.H. has sent experts, and they disagree with the Penon report. I know they have written a report. I don't know if it is another official ERV listed in the contract. That is not really relevant. Let me explain --Some people have said that Penon is the sole ERV author listed in the contract and therefore whatever he says must be accepted by both sides. Last year I.H. said they would abide by whatever he said, so now they must pay up. It does not work that way. If that were the case, Penon could submit a two-sentence report:"I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."No one would pay on that basis. No judge would enforce payment. It makes no difference what a contract says; common sense always applies. No one would insist I.H. must pay based on such a ludicrous 2-sentence document. The question is: How much does the Penon report resemble that imaginary 2-sentence document? Would experts say it is absurd and it presents no credible evidence? Or, at the other extreme, would most experts agree that it is correct, and I.H. should pay up?Unfortunately, the report will probably not be published, so you will never know what it says, or whether it is credible.- Jed

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

a.ashfield  wrote:

My reading of IH's statement is quite different.  I don't recall them
> saying there was no heat.  They said THEY could not duplicate Rossi's
> results.  That is not the same thing.
>

They say the one-year test did not work. Believe me, that is what they say.

> As far as we know the ERV report said that it did work.
>

Yes, the ERV report said the gadget works. That is what the lawsuit papers
say. I.H. disagrees with ERV report.

Let me try to clear up a few points of confusion regarding this subject.

I did not mean I know there is a second, formal report. I just meant that
I.H. has sent experts, and they disagree with the Penon report. I know they
have written a report. I don't know if it is another official ERV listed in
the contract. That is not really relevant. Let me explain --

Some people have said that Penon is the sole ERV author listed in the
contract and therefore whatever he says must be accepted by both sides.
Last year I.H. said they would abide by whatever he said, so now they must
pay up. It does not work that way. If that were the case, Penon could
submit a two-sentence report:

"I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a COP
exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million."

No one would pay on that basis. No judge would enforce payment. It makes no
difference what a contract says; common sense always applies. No one would
insist I.H. must pay based on such a ludicrous 2-sentence document. The
question is: How much does the Penon report resemble that imaginary
2-sentence document? Would experts say it is absurd and it presents no
credible evidence? Or, at the other extreme, would most experts agree that
it is correct, and I.H. should pay up?

Unfortunately, the report will probably not be published, so you will never
know what it says, or whether it is credible.

- Jed

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

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

SPPs will populate the surface of this superconductive nanowire. The entire
ensemble of SPPs readily form a Bose condensate which converts many
individual SPPs into one super-SPP where the monopole magnetic beam that
this BEC SPP projects is focused forward from the front of the hydride
nanowire. This magnetic beam is very powerful as a result of
super-radiance.

Because of the BEC, the SPPs are concentrated, focused,  and amplified.

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

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:19 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil Axil wrote.  "Monopole magnetic flux tubes produced by Surface
> Plasmon Polaritons embedded inside a superconductive environment produces
> nucleon decay into mesons and subsequent nuclear reconfiguration. It's as
> simple as that."
>
> That is not at all simple,  I know you have written about this many times
> but it is not simple, at least for me.
> A clear explanation of the process, like Chiefio's, of what you mean would
> be most helpful.
>

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

2016-04-13 Thread Jack Cole

Imagine how far a person can go with the support of crowd sourced enabling
and excuse making.  ;)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:29 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
>
> My reading of IH's statement is quite different.  I don't recall them
> saying there was no heat.  They said THEY could not duplicate Rossi's
> results.  That is not the same thing.
>
> There has been quite a lot of speculation that the dispute is really about
> whether they have received sufficient know how from Rossi to make E-Cats
> that run with a high COP for a long time.  Not that the 1 MW plant does not
> work.  IH did not SAY that it didn't.  As far as we know the ERV report
> said that it did work.
>
> Jed wrote.
>
> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
>> I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>>
>> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
>> valueless
>
>
> I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's.
>
>
>
>>Now you say the report damns Rossi.
>>
>
> That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the
> report.
>
>
>
>> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
>>
>
> I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio
> Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly dug
> up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports were
> written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees with the
> Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in additional
> comments to me. I hope the details will all be published eventually, but I
> cannot say when that might happen.
>
>
>
>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
> mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
> topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in mystery.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

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


This is a really funny exchange.  The Cat concerto is very clever.

Joseph Fine wrote.
I admit the following video inspired me to come up with the name “E-Cat 
Symphony”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeoT66v4EHg

Andrea Rossi
April 13, 2016 at 9:52 AM

Dr Joseph Fine:
You have made pre-disclosure of the last version of the Cat ! Now, you 
jeopardized the possibility to patent it. I am sure this is a 
“concertation” with IH against me !!!

Heartbroken Regards,
A.R.

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


Jed,

My reading of IH's statement is quite different.  I don't recall them 
saying there was no heat.  They said THEY could not duplicate Rossi's 
results.  That is not the same thing.


There has been quite a lot of speculation that the dispute is really 
about whether they have received sufficient know how from Rossi to make 
E-Cats that run with a high COP for a long time.  Not that the 1 MW 
plant does not work.  IH did not SAY that it didn't.  As far as we know 
the ERV report said that it did work.


Jed wrote.

   I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know
   that the I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good
   reasons."

   Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the
   report valueless


I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says 
they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the 
report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I 
trust Penon's.


 Now you say the report damns Rossi.


That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the 
report.


   Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.


I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio 
Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly 
dug up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports 
were written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees 
with the Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in 
additional comments to me. I hope the details will all be published 
eventually, but I cannot say when that might happen.



   Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
   attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?


I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be 
mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about 
that topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in 
mystery.


- Jed

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

Axil Axil wrote.  "Monopole magnetic flux tubes produced by Surface 
Plasmon Polaritons embedded inside a superconductive environment 
produces nucleon decay into mesons and subsequent nuclear 
reconfiguration. It's as simple as that."


That is not at all simple,  I know you have written about this many 
times but it is not simple, at least for me.
A clear explanation of the process, like Chiefio's, of what you mean 
would be most helpful.

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

dear Axil,

I included it in the blog today

peter

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I posted this on the cheifio blog twice as follows:
>
> This article hit all my hot buttons, but the assumed fundamental LENR
> cause: hot fusion is not valid. LENR is caused by nucleon decay into
> mesons. Muons will produce a fusion reaction in many cases but LENR
> fundamentally results from the disruption of the nucleus through the decay
> of protons and neutrons.
>
> These high pressure hydride formation processes must produce
> superconductivity which thermalizes gamma radiation. This process involves
> the compression of the hydrogen chemical bonds into a symmetric
> configuration through metallization of the hydride under high compression.
> Monopole magnetic flux tubes produced by Surface Plasmon Polaritons
> embedded inside a superconductive environment produces nucleon decay into
> mesons and subsequent nuclear reconfiguration. It's as simple as that.
>
> But it does not show up. Is it theory censorship?
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> EMS (Chiefio) has posted an interesting piece about how LENR works that
>> allows one to visualize it.
>> Read it and the comments that elaborate on the idea.
>> LENR Lithium Size Matters
>> https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/lenr-lithium-size-matters/
>>
>>
>


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

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

I posted this on the cheifio blog twice as follows:

This article hit all my hot buttons, but the assumed fundamental LENR
cause: hot fusion is not valid. LENR is caused by nucleon decay into
mesons. Muons will produce a fusion reaction in many cases but LENR
fundamentally results from the disruption of the nucleus through the decay
of protons and neutrons.

These high pressure hydride formation processes must produce
superconductivity which thermalizes gamma radiation. This process involves
the compression of the hydrogen chemical bonds into a symmetric
configuration through metallization of the hydride under high compression.
Monopole magnetic flux tubes produced by Surface Plasmon Polaritons
embedded inside a superconductive environment produces nucleon decay into
mesons and subsequent nuclear reconfiguration. It's as simple as that.

But it does not show up. Is it theory censorship?

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:57 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> EMS (Chiefio) has posted an interesting piece about how LENR works that
> allows one to visualize it.
> Read it and the comments that elaborate on the idea.
> LENR Lithium Size Matters
> https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/lenr-lithium-size-matters/
>
>

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

with www.rossilivecat.com/ it goes easier

peter

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
>> I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>>
>> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
>> valueless
>
>
> I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says
> they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
> report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
> Penon's.
>
>
>
>>Now you say the report damns Rossi.
>>
>
> That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the
> report.
>
>
>
>> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
>>
>
> I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio
> Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly dug
> up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports were
> written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees with the
> Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in additional
> comments to me. I hope the details will all be published eventually, but I
> cannot say when that might happen.
>
>
>
>> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
>> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>>
>
> I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
> mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
> topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in mystery.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

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

a.ashfield  wrote:

> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
> I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>
> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
> valueless

I think he is incompetent based on his 2012 report, as I said. I.H. says
they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the
report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust
Penon's.

>Now you say the report damns Rossi.
>

That's what I.H. says, not me. They say there is no heat. That damns the
report.

> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
>

I think there are three people involved, Penon, Barry West and Fulvio
Fabiani. That is my reading of the legal paper that Eric Walker kindly dug
up. I do not know who is responsible for what, or how many reports were
written, but in any case, I am sure that I.H. strongly disagrees with the
Penon report. They made that clear in the press release and in additional
comments to me. I hope the details will all be published eventually, but I
cannot say when that might happen.

> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>

I cannot discuss that now. I hope I can later today. Sorry to be
mysterious, but I really do hope I can say something definitive about that
topic soon. The rest, including the report, may remain shrouded in mystery.

- Jed

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

no problem:
 Eco la:

*Patrick EllulApril 13, 2016 at 7:13 AMDear Andrea,Jed Rothwell alleges
that there is a second ERV of the 1 year 1MW plat test and that his report
draws an opposite conclusion to the the one from the ERV that you
described.Does this second ERV exist?Best regards,PatrickAndrea RossiApril
13, 2016 at 7:52 AMPatrick Ellul:Jed Rothwell is an intelligent person and
has a remarkable sense of humour. Obviously he is joking.The only ERV has
been the one accepted by contract from both the counterparts with a signed
agreement.It is true that IH had their men constantly in the plant all the
352 days of the tests, and never said anything was wrong. It is true that
for one year of the test they were free to bring with them anybody they
wanted to control everything, but they never raised any doubt or critique.
As well as it is true that Tom Darden, JT Vaughn and their investors from
Woodford and from China have been in the plant many times, bringing with
them their consultants, have talked with the director of JM in his office
of the factory, have made their investors talk with the director of JM, who
said good things giving good references, based on which Woodford has given
to Tom Darden 50-60 millions of dollars and the Chinese started with him a
200 million concern in China.Tom Darden , IT Vaughn also in this case
danced like opera ballet etoiles around their investors, the director of
JM, myself chanting ” Stellar, stellar”. No remarks of any sort have been
communicated from IH, Cherokee Fund or Woodfors, let alone the Chinese,
about the plant, the ERV, the Customer. Until our bill loomed. Witnesses
available. In due time and place.Warm Regards,A.R.*

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> see please Rossi's answer on his Blog
>> peter
>>
>
> I have difficulty navigating his blog. Would you kindly copy the answer
> here?
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

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

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> see please Rossi's answer on his Blog
> peter
>

I have difficulty navigating his blog. Would you kindly copy the answer
here?

- Jed

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

see please Rossi's answer on his Blog
peter

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 5:54 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed wrote.."Ask him why he will not release the Penon report. He will give
> some sort of bullshit answer I expect. The real reason is because the
> report makes him look like a fool.
>
> I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
> I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."
>
> Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report
> valueless   Now you say the report damns Rossi.
> Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
> Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his
> attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?
>
>


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

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

EMS (Chiefio) has posted an interesting piece about how LENR works that 
allows one to visualize it.

Read it and the comments that elaborate on the idea.
LENR Lithium Size Matters
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/lenr-lithium-size-matters/

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

Jed wrote.."Ask him why he will not release the Penon report. He will 
give some sort of bullshit answer I expect. The real reason is because 
the report makes him look like a fool.


I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that 
the I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons."


Earlier I thought you wrote that Penon was incompetent and the report 
valueless   Now you say the report damns Rossi.

Earlier you wrote there were two ERV's.  Now it seems there is only one.
Rossi stated that he wanted to release the report but had not on his 
attorney;s advice.  How dO you know better?

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

Ask him why he will not release the Penon report. He will give some sort of
bullshit answer I expect. The real reason is because the report makes him
look like a fool.

I do not know if there is another complete report, but I do know that the
I.H. observer disagrees with the Penon report, for good reasons.

- Jed

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Patrick Ellul 
wrote:

> Patrick Ellul
>
> April 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM
>
> Dear Andrea,
>
> Jed Rothwell alleges that there is a second ERV of the 1 year 1MW plat
> test and that his report draws an opposite conclusion to the the one from
> the ERV that you described.
>
> Does this second ERV exist?
>
> Best regards,
> Patrick
>
> Andrea Rossi
>
> April 13, 2016 at 7:52 AM
>
> Patrick Ellul:
> Jed Rothwell is an intelligent person and has a remarkable sense of
> humour. Obviously he is joking.
> The only ERV has been the one accepted by contract from both the
> counterparts with a signed agreement.
> It is true that IH had their men constantly in the plant all the 352 days
> of the tests, and never said anything was wrong. As well as it is true that
> Tom Darden, JT Vaughn and their investors from Woodford and from China have
> been in the plant many times, have talked with the director of JM in his
> office of the factory, have made their investors talk with the director of
> JM, who said good things giving good references, based on which Woodford
> has given to Tom Darden 50-60 millions of dollars and the Chinese started
> with him a 200 million concern in China.
> Tom Darden , IT Vaughn also in this case danced like opera ballet etoiles
> around their investors, the director of JM, myself chanting ” Stellar,
> stellar”. No remarks of any sort have been communicated from IH, Cherokee
> Fund or Woodfors, let alone the Chinese, about the plant, the ERV, the
> Customer. Until our bill loomed. Witnesses available. In due time and place.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>

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

2016-04-13 Thread Patrick Ellul

Patrick Ellul

April 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM

Dear Andrea,

Jed Rothwell alleges that there is a second ERV of the 1 year 1MW plat test
and that his report draws an opposite conclusion to the the one from the
ERV that you described.

Does this second ERV exist?

Best regards,
Patrick

Andrea Rossi

April 13, 2016 at 7:52 AM

Patrick Ellul:
Jed Rothwell is an intelligent person and has a remarkable sense of humour.
Obviously he is joking.
The only ERV has been the one accepted by contract from both the
counterparts with a signed agreement.
It is true that IH had their men constantly in the plant all the 352 days
of the tests, and never said anything was wrong. As well as it is true that
Tom Darden, JT Vaughn and their investors from Woodford and from China have
been in the plant many times, have talked with the director of JM in his
office of the factory, have made their investors talk with the director of
JM, who said good things giving good references, based on which Woodford
has given to Tom Darden 50-60 millions of dollars and the Chinese started
with him a 200 million concern in China.
Tom Darden , IT Vaughn also in this case danced like opera ballet etoiles
around their investors, the director of JM, myself chanting ” Stellar,
stellar”. No remarks of any sort have been communicated from IH, Cherokee
Fund or Woodfors, let alone the Chinese, about the plant, the ERV, the
Customer. Until our bill loomed. Witnesses available. In due time and place.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

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

2016-04-12 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I recall another ERV is mentioned in the lawsuit papers. I don't recall
> where.
>

I did a little reading and found this:

   - In the complaint there was mention of the ERV (Penon) and two people
   to maintain, monitor and report on the operation of the 1MW plant (Barry
   West and Fulvio Fabiani).
   - In section 5 of the License Agreement (amended, but left unchanged in
   this regard), it says that "The ERV (or another party acceptable to the
   Company and Leonardo) will be engaged to confinn in writing the Guaranteed
   Performance."

I recall reading about a nuclear engineer and two lawyers somewhere but
didn't find that detail time around, so I might have missed something.  If
I did not miss anything, perhaps the second person you heard of is either
Barry West, or he or she is another party "acceptable to the Company and
Leonardo."  Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, in neither case would the
second person be an ERV, but the wording makes it sound like either could,
in the court's interpretation, potentially veto the guaranteed performance
test with a negative report.

Eric

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




On 04/12/2016 10:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

[...] and according to I.H. the 1-year test did not work.


How would they know? Did Rossi let them do another independent test 
after they signed the agreement? The 'independent ERV test' was the 
definitive test. IH released their pessimistic statement on March 10, 19 
days before Rossi received the results of the ERV test.


This is why I think that IH simply didn't raise enough money to justify 
the commitment. The money they have isn't theirs to  spend, if it's 
investor money from investors who weren't taking this risk.


Craig

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

Craig Haynie  wrote:

> Mats Lewan mentioned this in his latest blog, and I had thought I lost
> track of this test from 2011. After the test, the e-cat went into
> heat-after-death for almost four hours. I remember seeing someone touch it
> after six hours, and pull back his hand immediately.  To me, this was the
> 'smoking gun' for Rossi, and I find it hard to understand how this could
> have been faked.
>

Perhaps it was real. I was impressed by that as well. I was also impressed
by the first test by Levi et al. However, the 1 MW test performed later on
proved nothing, the Lugano test was botched, and according to I.H. the
1-year test did not work.

Maybe it worked for a while and then stopped working. That has often
happened in the history of cold fusion.

- Jed

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

There is one thing I want to  bring  up, and why I give Rossi any chance 
at having something interesting...


Mats Lewan mentioned this in his latest blog, and I had thought I lost 
track of this test from 2011. After the test, the e-cat went into 
heat-after-death for almost four hours. I remember seeing someone touch 
it after six hours, and pull back his hand immediately.  To me, this was 
the 'smoking gun' for Rossi, and I find it hard to understand how this 
could have been faked.


Mats wrote:

"The E-cat was then put in self sustained mode for almost four hours, 
showing no measurable signs of weakening. After three hours and a half, 
output temperature inside the E-cat was stable about 114 degrees 
centigrade, and water could be felt boiling putting a hand on top of it. 
The external temperature was between 60 and 85 degrees centigrade."


https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/test-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf

Craig

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

Eric Walker  wrote:

If there are two contradictory reports by two different ERVs, this story
> will have taken a turn from the colorful to the surreal.
>

I recall another ERV is mentioned in the lawsuit papers. I don't recall
where.

- Jed

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

2016-04-12 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

And half the other guy's salary too. One of them knows what he is doing and
> the other does not. If the reports are ever released you will see.
>

If there are two contradictory reports by two different ERVs, this story
will have taken a turn from the colorful to the surreal.

Eric

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

a.ashfield  wrote:

You also say you know from secret sources that the report is worthless and
> that you have been talking to Mats.  So presumably he knows the report is
> valueless too.
>

No, he does not know that. Perhaps he has not talked to my sources, or
perhaps he does not believe them, but as of yesterday he did not know the
report is valueless. He was still waiting to see it. You can ask him to
confirm that. There may be new developments, after all.

As I said, we have slipped past several previous deadlines he set.

It is possible I am being misled, but I doubt it. I do not think much of
Penon's 2012 work. I already gave my reasons.

- Jed

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




On 04/12/2016 07:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie > wrote:


The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the
agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document
that the device performed to certain specifications. IH does not
have an option to bail if they don't agree with the report.


Two things:

1. There is more than one ERV.



Who are the others? IH has the right, in the agreement, to have advisors 
who question and observe the ERV, but they don't sign the final document.


2. It would be insane to pay $89 million based on a report written by 
Penon. I would not pay 89 cents. It would be insane to agree he is an 
expert. I am sure I.H. did not do that.




Absolutely! Which is why the agreement is strange; or at the very least, 
wouldn't have been made unless Darden was confident in the device 
beforehand. As I read the agreement, IH doesn't have an opt-out clause, 
and this makes sense from Rossi's point of view. Rossi will do the 
one-year test if an outside ERV, whom both groups agree upon, make the 
final decision. I doubt he would have signed it if, at the end, IH could 
just opt-out.


Craig

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


Jed,
What you say does not add up.  You say you are a speaker at Mats Lewan's 
seminar, and whether that takes place depends on the ERV's report.   You 
also say you know from secret sources that the report is worthless and 
that you have been talking to Mats.  So presumably he knows the report 
is valueless too.

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

Sean True  wrote:


> It does appear that he is an expert in certifications, industrial
> processes, and possibly in power plants. Perhaps IH was originally more
> concerned about safety and deployment than whether LENR is practical.
>

He is a certified nitwit.

- Jed

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

Axil Axil  wrote:


> And yet, I.H. entered a legally binding agreement and paid half of Penon's
> salary.
>

And half the other guy's salary too. One of them knows what he is doing and
the other does not. If the reports are ever released you will see.

- Jed

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

2016-04-12 Thread Sean True

Jed --

I think we might agree that Ing. Fabio Penon is not an expert HVAC
engineer. That's different than saying that he is not an expert in
something relevant to the contract between IH and Rossi, and it seems silly
to assume that IH would be foolish enough to agree to a expert irrelevant
to the task at hand.

It does appear that he is an expert in certifications, industrial
processes, and possibly in power plants. Perhaps IH was originally more
concerned about safety and deployment than whether LENR is practical.

-- Sean

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the
>> agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document that the
>> device performed to certain specifications. IH does not have an option to
>> bail if they don't agree with the report.
>
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. There is more than one ERV.
>
> 2. It would be insane to pay $89 million based on a report written by
> Penon. I would not pay 89 cents. It would be insane to agree he is an
> expert. I am sure I.H. did not do that.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-04-12 Thread Axil Axil

And yet, I.H. entered a legally binding agreement and paid half of Penon's
salary.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>> The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the
>> agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document that the
>> device performed to certain specifications. IH does not have an option to
>> bail if they don't agree with the report.
>
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. There is more than one ERV.
>
> 2. It would be insane to pay $89 million based on a report written by
> Penon. I would not pay 89 cents. It would be insane to agree he is an
> expert. I am sure I.H. did not do that.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Craig Haynie  wrote:

> The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the
> agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document that the
> device performed to certain specifications. IH does not have an option to
> bail if they don't agree with the report.

Two things:

1. There is more than one ERV.

2. It would be insane to pay $89 million based on a report written by
Penon. I would not pay 89 cents. It would be insane to agree he is an
expert. I am sure I.H. did not do that.

- Jed

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

2016-04-12 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the agreement
> is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document that the device
> performed to certain specifications. IH does not have an option to bail if
> they don't agree with the report. (Which is strange on Darden's part, since
> he signed the agreement). There is no need to determine if the device
> actually works, for Rossi to win his lawsuit.

It will be for the court to determine which provisions of the contract IH
are permitted to escape if it finds that provisions separate from those
pertaining to the ERV's report have been breached by Leonardo.

Eric

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




On 04/12/2016 03:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
How dos a legal case handle an issue whereby everybody believes that 
LENR is impossible and a pseudoscience square with the main contention 
that Rossi has not revealed how LENR can be made to work? The 
predicate of such  a case seems crazy to me.




The legal case does not hinge on whether the device works. As the 
agreement is worded, IH pays IF and WHEN the ERV signs a document that 
the device performed to certain specifications. IH does not have an 
option to bail if they don't agree with the report. (Which is strange on 
Darden's part, since he signed the agreement). There is no need to 
determine if the device actually works, for Rossi to win his lawsuit.


Craig

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

How dos a legal case handle an issue whereby everybody believes that LENR
> is impossible and a pseudoscience . . .
>

It should be easy in this case. Just have a certified HVAC engineer review
Penon's report and operate the machine. You will have a clear answer in a
few hours. As I said here before.

Cold fusion may be controversial, but the methods of measuring heat from
systems like this are settled.

- Jed

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

YES - Jed

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Jed - My point was that you have talked to some people.
>> You do not know if they said things to make you 'just go away'.
>>
>
> I can usually tell when that is the message.
>
>
>
>> There was no reason to fill you in with more than what sat on their
>> tongue.
>>
>
> How do you know that?
>
>
>
>> You are drawing conclusions and make them sound like facts based on very
>> weak contacts.
>>
>
> How do you know that? You are the one who is drawing conclusions (about
> me) without any knowledge of who I spoke with or what I know.
>
>
>
>> In addition Mats might obtain the info in time for his decision to cancel
>> the meeting. (I do not know his deadline).
>>
>
> His deadline has passed several times. Because I am scheduled to speak
> there, I have been in close communication with him about this.
>
>
>
>> There are timing issues and sitting on the outside with sparse info is
>> not of any value as a factual argument.
>>
>
> I am on the inside of the symposium planning. I am a speaker. Look at the
> program.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-04-12 Thread Axil Axil

How dos a legal case handle an issue whereby everybody believes that LENR
is impossible and a pseudoscience square with the main contention that
Rossi has not revealed how LENR can be made to work? The predicate of such
 a case seems crazy to me.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Jed - My point was that you have talked to some people.
>> You do not know if they said things to make you 'just go away'.
>>
>
> I can usually tell when that is the message.
>
>
>
>> There was no reason to fill you in with more than what sat on their
>> tongue.
>>
>
> How do you know that?
>
>
>
>> You are drawing conclusions and make them sound like facts based on very
>> weak contacts.
>>
>
> How do you know that? You are the one who is drawing conclusions (about
> me) without any knowledge of who I spoke with or what I know.
>
>
>
>> In addition Mats might obtain the info in time for his decision to cancel
>> the meeting. (I do not know his deadline).
>>
>
> His deadline has passed several times. Because I am scheduled to speak
> there, I have been in close communication with him about this.
>
>
>
>> There are timing issues and sitting on the outside with sparse info is
>> not of any value as a factual argument.
>>
>
> I am on the inside of the symposium planning. I am a speaker. Look at the
> program.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed - My point was that you have talked to some people.
> You do not know if they said things to make you 'just go away'.
>

I can usually tell when that is the message.

> There was no reason to fill you in with more than what sat on their tongue.
>

How do you know that?

> You are drawing conclusions and make them sound like facts based on very
> weak contacts.
>

How do you know that? You are the one who is drawing conclusions (about me)
without any knowledge of who I spoke with or what I know.

> In addition Mats might obtain the info in time for his decision to cancel
> the meeting. (I do not know his deadline).
>

His deadline has passed several times. Because I am scheduled to speak
there, I have been in close communication with him about this.

> There are timing issues and sitting on the outside with sparse info is not
> of any value as a factual argument.
>

I am on the inside of the symposium planning. I am a speaker. Look at the
program.

- Jed

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

Jed - My point was that you have talked to some people.
You do not know if they said things to make you 'just go away'. There was
no reason to fill you in with more than what sat on their tongue.
You are drawing conclusions and make them sound like facts based on very
weak contacts.
In addition Mats might obtain the info in time for his decision to cancel
the meeting. (I do not know his deadline).
There are timing issues and sitting on the outside with sparse info is not
of any value as a factual argument.
You see how it is sometimes very hard to tell ALL the truth. You do not
want to say with whom you spoke. I am sure you have your reasons.
To talk about your inside info. Then not reveal reveal the contact makes
your argument weak at best.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Jed, (I should say nothing but) has AR's lawyer said it is advisable to do
>> so (publish the report)?
>>
>
> In January, February and March, Rossi announced his intention to publish
> the report. The lawsuit preparations were underway at that time. If his
> lawyer said "do not publish" it was recently.
>
> He also said he would attend Lewan's symposium, which -- he knew -- would
> not happen without the report. So he was either lying then, or he is lying
> now, or -- possibly -- his lawyer changed his mind at the last minute.
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> Say you talked to the parties is very unhelpful.  To whom did you talk
>> and what did they say?
>>
>
> Sorry, but I cannot say.
>
> I can say that mainly I have been talking to Mats Lewan, because I am
> scheduled to speak at his symposium. He was confident Rossi would give him
> the report and attend the symposium. Rossi said nothing about holding it
> back.
>
> Based on our recent conversations, I have a feeling Lewan may now doubt
> that the report is forthcoming, but I do not wish to put words in his mouth.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed, (I should say nothing but) has AR's lawyer said it is advisable to do
> so (publish the report)?
>

In January, February and March, Rossi announced his intention to publish
the report. The lawsuit preparations were underway at that time. If his
lawyer said "do not publish" it was recently.

He also said he would attend Lewan's symposium, which -- he knew -- would
not happen without the report. So he was either lying then, or he is lying
now, or -- possibly -- his lawyer changed his mind at the last minute.

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Say you talked to the parties is very unhelpful.  To whom did you talk and
> what did they say?
>

Sorry, but I cannot say.

I can say that mainly I have been talking to Mats Lewan, because I am
scheduled to speak at his symposium. He was confident Rossi would give him
the report and attend the symposium. Rossi said nothing about holding it
back.

Based on our recent conversations, I have a feeling Lewan may now doubt
that the report is forthcoming, but I do not wish to put words in his mouth.

- Jed

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


Jed,
What often happens is that the first report is more in the nature of a 
draft, so that the parties that paid for it can alter bits they don't 
like and correct errors.  The ERV will want to sign the final draft to 
ensure it says only what he agrees with.  So there are likely three parties.


Say you talked to the parties is very unhelpful.  To whom did you talk 
and what did they say?



   "AA. From long before the end of the 1 MW plant test Rossi said that
   public release of the ERV report required agreement of all three
   parties.


There are only two parties as far as I know: Rossi and I. H. Penon is 
so-called expert but I do not think he has a veto.


   What makes you think you know better?


I have discussed this with the parties.

  Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?


That's what they say.

- Jed"

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

Jed, (I should say nothing but) has AR's lawyer said it is advisable to do
so (publish the report)?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> AA. From long before the end of the 1 MW plant test Rossi said that public
>> release of the ERV report required agreement of all three parties.
>
>
> There are only two parties as far as I know: Rossi and I. H. Penon is
> so-called expert but I do not think he has a veto.
>
>
>
>> What makes you think you know better?
>
>
> I have discussed this with the parties.
>
>
>
>>   Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?
>>
>
> That's what they say.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

a.ashfield  wrote:

AA. From long before the end of the 1 MW plant test Rossi said that public
> release of the ERV report required agreement of all three parties.

There are only two parties as far as I know: Rossi and I. H. Penon is
so-called expert but I do not think he has a veto.

> What makes you think you know better?

I have discussed this with the parties.

>   Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?
>

That's what they say.

- Jed

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

Several commenters on Vortex have disparaged the ERV and the report.  
Jones Beene says he has secret negative information on the report that 
he declines to publish and that Penon will "flee the country.".
Therefore this repeat of the ERV's qualifications are worth a look. 
Rossi claims the ERV used his own instrumentation



Soky
April 11, 2016 at 10:30 PM

Dr Andrea Rossi
Can we have the following information about the ERV that made the report:
1- education
2- has he been chosen and agreed upon by both Industrial Heat and 
Leonardo Corporation ?
3- has IH been able to talk with him for any complint for all the 1 year 
long test ?

4- has the ERV experience in plants that produce steam ?
5- has the ERV experience of nuclear reactions ?
6- who paid the ERV ?
7- has he experience of validations ?
8- how old is he ?
9- whose were the instruments he used to make the measurements ?
10- who installed the measurement instruments ?
11- did IH participate to the choice where to install the instruments ?
12- did IH maintain his personnel in the plant during all the days of 
the test ?
13- did IH have the right and the possibility to contact the ERV for 
delucidations along all the test period ?
14- is it true that IH visited multiple times the plant in operation 
with their investors ?
15- is it true that they collected 50 million dollars from Woodford 
funds and initiated a 200 million business in China after theyr 
delegations visited the plant in operation ?
16- is it true that during the visit IH made also their investors talk 
with the director of the factory of the Customer during their visits, 
after which the investors gave them the money to be invested ?
Thank you very much if you can answer: your answer will clear a 
situation after Mr Darden has diffused information based on which IH was 
totally unaware of the fact that there was a test on course based on the 
agreement.

Regards,
Soky
Andrea Rossi
April 12, 2016 at 10:15 AM

Soky:
All your questions have been answered already, but “repetita juvant”:
1- doctorate in nuclear engineering, obtained with 110/110 csumma cum 
laude in the Alma Mater of Bologna (Italy). Note : the University of 
Bologna is one of the main Italian universities and in particular the 
Faculty of nuclear engineering is considered very selective

2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
5- yes
6- 50% IH, 50% Leonardo Corporation
7- yes
8- I think around 55
9- the ERV used only his instruments, and retrieved them at the end of 
the test to control their status

10- The ERV, helped by personnel of Industrial Heat
11- yes
12- always, every single day
13- yes
14- yes
15- yes
16- yes

Warm Regards,
A.R.

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

Jed.  "He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from 
publishing. He could publish it anytime he wants."


AA. From long before the end of the 1 MW plant test Rossi said that 
public release of the ERV report required agreement of all three parties.
What makes you think you know better?  Do you have any facts to back up 
your opinion?

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

Jed, it is not  worth to discuss.
If he has no legal paragraph that prevent him is of no significance.
He has legal concerns with respect to the lawsuit.
He needs his lawyer to advice him I guess.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>
>> I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have
>> already.
>>
>> He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared.
>>
>
> He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He
> could publish it anytime he wants.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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


Eric,
 
I agree that there are many unknowns with respect to these devices that need to 
be researched.   But I do think that there are thought experiments that can be 
conducted which reveal general tendencies that we should not be afraid to 
attempt.  Carefully applied logic is a powerful tool that must not be 
overlooked.

You would make a good defense lawyer, always seeking that special explanation 
as to why your client is innocent.  I tend to focus on the more likely scenario 
instead but sometimes miss the special cases that arise.

I developed my technique by solving difficult problems in real world electronic 
designs.  To save time I always began by eliminating the quick and easy to 
perform tests and then progressively worked towards the most difficult and time 
consuming concepts.  I suppose I am guilty of using that same principle in my 
LENR thermal modeling processes.

You can bet that if the added fuel concept does not result in an increase to 
the system output temperature and thus power that I will backtrack quickly 
toward other ideas.  My beginning assumption is that more fuel yields higher 
COP provided the geometry remains constant since that seems more likely.

Dave

 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb



Dave,


My point is not a strong one.  It is largely a comment to the effect that there 
are many unknowns, and the relationship between amount of fuel and the heat 
that is produced in a LENR system may not be straightforward.  To answer your 
questions, suppose that for a given current (100 mA, say) there is a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel to get excess heat, e.g., 1g active fuel.  Any amount 
of fuel above this threshold will not contribute further without a higher 
current, and any amount below this threshold will decrease the excess heat 
seen.  Within these parameters one can still postulate excess heat as a 
function of temperature, which provides a second variable.  If the temperature 
is high, because there is good insulation, or we're using resistance heaters, 
that will multiply the excess heat in our thought experiment.


My point is only to highlight an assumption that I thought worth exploring -- 
that there is a simple relationship between the amount of fuel in a LENR system 
and the amount of excess heat that is developed.  I am not aware of an 
experiment in which any relationship, consistent with your suggestion or 
otherwise, is clearly shown.


Eric







On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would one 
explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with these 
systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by adding more 
fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional heat will be 
developed within the newly added material when it is subjected to the fixed 
temperature and current that initially exists.
 
So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of 2 at 
that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the temperature 
remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when you take out all 
of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must define the behavior as 
the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary along with that function.
 
The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is that COP 
is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel loading as 
long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out the interaction 
of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the COP as fuel is added 
to an initially constant temperature chamber to simplify the example.
 
Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving 
factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high 
temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current 
itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that current 
flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be extremely 
confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would not vary as 
the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this effect AFAIK 
unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the assumption is a COP of 
1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.
 
Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are proposing?  
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


Now, if you

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

2016-04-11 Thread Eric Walker

Dave,

My point is not a strong one.  It is largely a comment to the effect that
there are many unknowns, and the relationship between amount of fuel and
the heat that is produced in a LENR system may not be straightforward.  To
answer your questions, suppose that for a given current (100 mA, say) there
is a minimally sufficient amount of fuel to get excess heat, e.g., 1g
active fuel.  Any amount of fuel above this threshold will not contribute
further without a higher current, and any amount below this threshold will
decrease the excess heat seen.  Within these parameters one can still
postulate excess heat as a function of temperature, which provides a second
variable.  If the temperature is high, because there is good insulation, or
we're using resistance heaters, that will multiply the excess heat in our
thought experiment.

My point is only to highlight an assumption that I thought worth exploring
-- that there is a simple relationship between the amount of fuel in a LENR
system and the amount of excess heat that is developed.  I am not aware of
an experiment in which any relationship, consistent with your suggestion or
otherwise, is clearly shown.

Eric



On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would
> one explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with
> these systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by
> adding more fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional
> heat will be developed within the newly added material when it is subjected
> to the fixed temperature and current that initially exists.
>
> So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of
> 2 at that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the
> temperature remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when
> you take out all of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must
> define the behavior as the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary
> along with that function.
>
> The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is
> that COP is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel
> loading as long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out
> the interaction of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the
> COP as fuel is added to an initially constant temperature chamber to
> simplify the example.
>
> Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving
> factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high
> temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current
> itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that
> current flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be
> extremely confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would
> not vary as the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this
> effect AFAIK unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the
> assumption is a COP of 1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.
>
> Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are
> proposing?
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can
>> be quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?
>
>
> Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the
> current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally
> sufficient amount of fuel.
>
> Eric
>
>

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


Jed, how would you know that he can publish the report without a release?  Have 
you seen any documentation to that effect?  I do not have a clue about any 
agreement that may be in force.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:

 

I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have already.



He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared. 



He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He could 
publish it anytime he wants.


- Jed

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


Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would one 
explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with these 
systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by adding more 
fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional heat will be 
developed within the newly added material when it is subjected to the fixed 
temperature and current that initially exists.
 
So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of 2 at 
that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the temperature 
remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when you take out all 
of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must define the behavior as 
the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary along with that function.

The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is that COP 
is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel loading as 
long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out the interaction 
of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the COP as fuel is added 
to an initially constant temperature chamber to simplify the example.

Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving 
factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high 
temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current 
itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that current 
flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be extremely 
confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would not vary as 
the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this effect AFAIK 
unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the assumption is a COP of 
1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.

Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are proposing?  

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:


Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can be 
quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?



Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the 
current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel.


Eric

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

2016-04-11 Thread Jed Rothwell

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have
> already.
>
> He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared.
>

He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He
could publish it anytime he wants.

- Jed

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

2016-04-11 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can
> be quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?


Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the
current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally
sufficient amount of fuel.

Eric

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

Jones,

I can not get into the mind of Rossi or Darden for that matter and understand 
exactly why we are seeing such an unpleasant circumstance.  We would all rather 
see the issue resolved and LENR advanced but this is what we have to deal with.

There have been many occasions when I would have liked to grab Rossi by the 
shoulders and insist that he give us direct answers to the many questions that 
arise, but this is not possible.  He has been difficult to read as everyone 
realizes.  That is part of the nature of creative individuals in many cases.

I have made many attempts to read between the lines in an effort to better 
understand the current situation and have come up empty.  I have a great deal 
of respect for Darden  and feel that he is sincere, but I realize that he is a 
venture capitalist and making money is one of his prime objectives.  Could he 
be using the tools at his disposal for this purpose?

So, it remains important for us to keep an open mind until the dust settles 
before any accurate conclusions can be drawn.  The ERV should help us to decide 
what is true and before that report is released I am going to stand by.  At 
this point all I can do is to understand the basic principles of operation for 
these types of devices and assume that Rossi is not totally faking his claims.

As I have pointed out, if we accept that a COP of 1.5 is real, then there 
should be virtually no limitation to the level that can be achieved with proper 
design.  This is not the same as stating that a practical level of output power 
at that high level of COP can be obtained.  The amount of fuel might become 
uneconomical at some point, or the size of the device could become excessive, 
etc.

I sincerely hope that Rossi is giving us the honest facts, but that is not 
adequately proven so far.  Until that time I remain hopefully optimistic.  You 
appear to be more skeptical than most guys on the vortex.  I hope that one day 
soon we will all reach a consensus.  The world needs LENR so badly.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 1:07 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb



Dave,
One other thing. I mention this because your opinion is important here, so 
please consider this: Tom Darden says that he has seen no thermal gain from 
Rossi. 

Tom Darden is an honest man and put $10 million of his money up front. Jed 
Rothwell has visited him and affirms that he is an honest man and wants to put 
more money into a valid device. His reputation is clean. Rossi’s reputation is 
not just soiled, it stinks.
But above the reputations there is the science, and as you suggest – if a COP 
of 1.5 could be staged by linking many levels -- so that COP of 6 was the 
result, then please tell me why Rossi never could do this and present it to Tom 
Darden? 
If Rossi had done this, we would not be witnessing this soap opera.

From: David Roberson

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 

Not true at all, Dave 
The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 
Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.

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

The self sustain mode can only be produced when the reactor is configured
for the Cat/Mouse setup. Also control (no meltdown) requires that the mouse
must be low powered (COP = 1,2)

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil Axil wrote. "Rossi uses the Mouse/Cat setup to amplify the COP by
> using multiple satellite unpowered reactors. Nobody has replicated this
> setup yet."
>
> Yes, I had the same thought and mentioned it to Mats.  I did not want to
> publish it in view of the pending court case...  I believe the 250kW units
> have this layout.  The one Rossi demonstrated earlier had three units and
> so the one in the middle could supply heat to those on either side.   I
> speculate this is one of the advantages of the E-Cat X where small units
> can be bundled and individually controlled by taking electric power out.
>
>

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

2016-04-11 Thread a.ashfield

Axil Axil wrote. "Rossi uses the Mouse/Cat setup to amplify the COP by 
using multiple satellite unpowered reactors. Nobody has replicated this 
setup yet."


Yes, I had the same thought and mentioned it to Mats.  I did not want to 
publish it in view of the pending court case...  I believe the 250kW 
units have this layout.  The one Rossi demonstrated earlier had three 
units and so the one in the middle could supply heat to those on either 
side.   I speculate this is one of the advantages of the E-Cat X where 
small units can be bundled and individually controlled by taking 
electric power out.

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

2016-04-11 Thread Jones Beene

Dave,

One other thing. I mention this because your opinion is important here, so 
please consider this: Tom Darden says that he has seen no thermal gain from 
Rossi. 

Tom Darden is an honest man and put $10 million of his money up front. Jed 
Rothwell has visited him and affirms that he is an honest man and wants to put 
more money into a valid device. His reputation is clean. Rossi’s reputation is 
not just soiled, it stinks.

But above the reputations there is the science, and as you suggest – if a COP 
of 1.5 could be staged by linking many levels -- so that COP of 6 was the 
result, then please tell me why Rossi never could do this and present it to Tom 
Darden? 

If Rossi had done this, we would not be witnessing this soap opera.

From: David Roberson 

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 

Not true at all, Dave 

The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 

Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.

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

Yes Jones, but I have always maintained the fact that COP can be raised 
whenever the beginning point is greater than 1.  I do not agree that it has a 
limitation as long as the geometry can be adjusted.

For example.  take a design that has a fixed surface area and volume with a 
measured amount of fuel contained within.  If you agree that this design can 
deliver a COP of 1.5 then you must agree that the outer surface temperature can 
be determined to be at some level, when a certain input power is applied.

Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can be 
quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?  The new 
quantity of fuel just added must put out additional heat once it is subjected 
to the original internal temperature.  Any new heat exiting the device adds to 
the original quantity that was used to calculate the original COP.

This is very simple to understand and I do not see any explanation that can be 
used to deny that the COP should nearly double in the new example.  The same 
general type of arguement can be applied by the addition of insulation.

In both cases above the input power can remain the same while the output power 
varies depending upon the amount of fuel that is inserted within the fixed 
volume.  In a like manner the COP can be reduced to 1 by removing all of the 
fuel.  It works both ways.

Can you point out why this would not work as I have described?  A simple 
example would suffice.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 12:24 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb



From: David Roberson 

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 
 
Not true at all, Dave 
 
The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 
 
Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.

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

>From Rossi’s blog.
Teemu:
I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were
enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they
were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in
Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM
Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and
appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney.
IH knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement
with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the
President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also
my Attorney. No problem has been raised by IH.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Cook
>
> The agreement between Rossi and IH specifies that acceptable results would
> be a COP of 4 to 6 (NOT 6) as I read the document…. Furthermore Rossi
> frequently indicated that the reactor at the customer was in a
> self-sustaining mode which may have meant that the COP was quite high--50
> as suggested.
>
> Firstly, there is/was no customer. The testing was done of the premises
> of the President of Leonardo.
>
> Secondly, ask yourself why Darden did not see any gain over the 3 years
> and $10 million up front. If you were involved, in Rossi’s shoes -
> wouldn’t you make absolutely sure he Darden had seen a little gain, even
> if was not high COP?
>
> As Jed who is in a much better position to comment than anyone else, who
> has posted on this subject agrees, having visited them -  IH is credible. That
> speaks volumes to me.
>
> Rossi has been convicted of doing similar scams. Rossi’s minions blindly think
> he is credible, despite his criminal record and the TEG scam, and despite
> the fact that now – we have been shown a clear way that high COP can be
> faked. Before Goat-guy we did not have that critical piece of the puzzle
> – how he and Penon pulled off faking the data.
>
> And guess what Bob, the initial pleadings of Rossi/Leonardo, which always
> put your best case scenario out for view - say nothing – absolutely
> nothing, about infinite COP.  That is important because infinite COP would
> not be possible with the cheat – however COP of 50 would be possible with
> the cheat.
>
>

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

Rossi uses the Mouse/Cat setup to amplify the COP by using multiple
satellite unpowered reactors. Nobody has replicated this setup yet.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Jack Cole
>
> Thanks Dave.  I would love to see a solid report.  I still have no
> alternative explanation for some of the early results I saw in my own
> experiments, but the lack of reproducibility makes me suspect that I missed
> some unknown error.
>
> I just have trouble believing that Rossi would send a lawsuit to IH rather
> than even one of his old supposedly working 10KW units if he had anything
> that worked reliably!  I think 100M dollars is worth a week in NC
> demonstrating to anyone at IH how to make it work.
>
> Jack,
>
> Good post and let me fill in a few of the gaps, since the devil is in the
> details and the scam becomes crystal clear when all the details are all
> presented together.
>
> First - There is no doubt in my mind that Rossi can show anomalous thermal 
> gain.
> It has been done with Ni-H for 25 years, starting with Piantelli and
> Thermacore.
>
> Second – This disagreement is not just about showing an energy anomaly –
> and making it run reliably. To get the 100 million, according to the
> contract, Rossi has to demonstrate an astounding COP of 6. That has never
> been done reliably and would be the breakthrough, if true.
>
> All of us who have been around this field are convinced, that with a properly
> done experiment COP of about 1.5 is doable – even old had. Thermacore,
> one the top companies in thermal engineering - ran multiple reactors for
> over a year at COP 1.5 average in the nineties - and their proof was
> overwhelming… but despite all efforts, they could not make the gain go
> higher than 1.5 and fossil fuel was cheap then.
>
> Rossi can do the normal Ni-H version, we must assume, and get COP 1.5. If
> he is good, he may have pushed the gain to COP ~2-3. That would be
> admittedly a valuable advance, but falls short of the big bucks in the
> contract. The reason that Rossi and his stooges are dishonest here, and have
> resorted to using the air-for-steam cheat which Goat-Guy discovered - is
> that AR has to make the gain seem much higher than it is to get the big
> bucks.
>
> He cannot do that without cheating – apparently, or otherwise there is no
> reason not to demonstrate this to real third party expert.
>
> When IH’s pleadings arrive, and it will probably take a few weeks perhaps
> – this is most likely what they will say. They may even ask that the
> court appoint an expert to do independent testing – and this should
> please everyone … except a cheater.
>
>

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

I.H employees where at the plant to monitor the performance of the ERV.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:04 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Craig,
> It is hard to tell who said what in this format.
> I was talking about Rossi's prior demos when I wrote that.  The 1MW plant
> is a different story.  The proof is supposed to come from an independent
> third party - the ERV.
>
>
> ">>>He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The
> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's
> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at
> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.
>
> Does the license agreement look like IH can interpret it? It reads as
> though the ERV certifies that the device complied with a set of
> specifications. If it did, then the ERV certifies it.
>
> Section 5. Guaranteed Performance.
>
> "The ERV (or another party acceptable to the Company and Leonardo) will be
> engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance."
>
> I don't see where IH has the authority under the agreement to make any
> kind of judgment on the report.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 04/10/2016 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield < a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You write.  "I know how the people at I.H. do it,"
>> How do you know that?
>
>
> As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them.
>
>
>
>> I doubt anyone who writes about this story knows the players better than
>> Mats Lewan.   I judge him technically competent.
>
>
> He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The
> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's
> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at
> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.
>
> I am not talking about personality, motivation, or anything else. I have
> narrowed this down to one question. Who is better at evaluating
> calorimetry? In my opinion, I.H. is, but I could be wrong.
>
> I take the two press releases at face value. I am assuming that Rossi
> means what he says, and I.H. means what they say. If I.H. actually thought
> the machine works, they would be crazy not to pay him the $89 million.
>
>
>
>> I get the feeling Rossi simply doesn't care about making a foolproof demo.
>
>
> He must do this if he wants the $89 million. That is what is stipulated in
> the contract.
>
> - Jed"
>
>

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

Patent law requires that Rossi be identified as inventor even if he did not
know that the patent was filed. I.H. has the right to file patents in
Rossi;s name and claim co assignment as inventor.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> Perhaps Rossi NEEDS to take it back in court so any patent applications
> made by IH that are based on Rossi materials and IP are stripped and
> assigned to Rossi. He certainly wants the money most but I think he is also
> very concerned about the new IH patents and how much IP that IH has shared
> with competitors. The liability could be enormous compared to the 89M.
>
> Fran
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 10, 2016 9:59 PM
> *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb
>
>
>
> Rossi would not has gone to court if the ERV was not supportive of his
> case.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Craig Haynie <cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Rossi also wants his intellectual property back. Last year, IH filed a
> patent on Rossi's technology.
>
>
>
> I.H. said his device does not work, therefore the intellectual property is
> worthless. Plus they have not paid him the $89 million. So I.H. no reason
> to keep it, and no standing to keep it (since they have not paid). Even if
> they said they want it, I expect any judge would rule they have to give it
> back.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>

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

2016-04-11 Thread Jones Beene

From: David Roberson 

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 

 

Not true at all, Dave 

 

The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 

 

Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.

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