Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[H LV]

Another error in an ongoing comedy. I had intended the link to be this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDAeJ7eLGGg

Harry

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Lennart Thornros  wrote:
> Jones, is it not true that none of ue here at Vortex has invested in Rossi?
> If that is true then we can hardly be even upset about what he says.
> In which way do we have the right to point finger at Rossi?
> Even if some of his doing and saying is incorrect and he has done that to
> protect his IP or incompetence or other reason, does that make him bad /
> fraudulent.
> Now if he submitted false claims to the USPTO; is it not true that it
> depends on if he knew it was faulty information or not if USPTO can have
> such claim?
> I think the claims filed in patents often are wrong and misleading. I
> actually have experience from that when I lost $50,000 (in lawyer's fee) to
> defend against a patent that has totally false claim. I would say the reason
> the claim even was admitted is poor judgement by USPTO. The patent is still
> valid as I did not paid even more money to have it removed.
>
> AS Harry shows, life is often confusing but in the end it will al be just
> fine. Shakespeare must have seen it a few hundred years ago.
>
> 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, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:07 PM, H LV  wrote:
>>
>> Monty Python - Tim the Enchanter
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDptmMgWQk
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones, is it not true that none of ue here at Vortex has invested in Rossi?
If that is true then we can hardly be even upset about what he says.
In which way do we have the right to point finger at Rossi?
Even if some of his doing and saying is incorrect and he has done that to
protect his IP or incompetence or other reason, does that make him bad /
fraudulent.
Now if he submitted false claims to the USPTO; is it not true that it
depends on if he knew it was faulty information or not if USPTO can have
such claim?
I think the claims filed in patents often are wrong and misleading. I
actually have experience from that when I lost $50,000 (in lawyer's fee) to
defend against a patent that has totally false claim. I would say the
reason the claim even was admitted is poor judgement by USPTO. The patent
is still valid as I did not paid even more money to have it removed.

AS Harry shows, life is often confusing but in the end it will al be just
fine. Shakespeare must have seen it a few hundred years ago.

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, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:07 PM, H LV  wrote:

> Monty Python - Tim the Enchanter
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaDptmMgWQk
>
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[H LV]

Monty Python - Tim the Enchanter


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


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Eric, you are trying to gloss over unscrupulous conduct. It stinks no
> matter what name you put on it.


I only wonder whether Rossi has committed fraud, illegal or otherwise.
I've given at least one reason I think he might not have (i.e., Rossi's
hypothetical belief that 62Ni would do something beneficial if added to the
fuel).  In this scenario, he's committed neither fraud nor misdirection.
Lateral thinking may produce other scenarios.  I do not find alternative
explanations involving misdirection more plausible, although you and others
might, given his history, and that's quite fine.

In all possible scenarios I offer no excuse for Rossi's behavior.  He is a
mystery of his own making.  Misdirection is unscrupulous, although it is
not unknown in business.  Steve Jobs engaged in misdirection of sorts when
he gave out inconsistent information about products that were to be
released to different employees he was talking to in order to find out who
was leaking details to the press.  That is not something I would do.

I will have to defer to your more comprehensive understanding of fraud,
illegal and otherwise.  I am working from the TV version.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

 

Ø  In other words, I don't think there is a need to presume that fraud involved.

 

Eric, you are trying to gloss over unscrupulous conduct. It stinks no matter 
what name you put on it.

 

If you admit that there was deceit of any kind, I have listed circumstance 
which would convert that deceit into serious fraud – possibly criminal fraud. 
However, “fraud” itself does not require that a crime has been committed and 
the fact is undeniable that thousands of dollars have been wasted by serious 
scientists trying to validate what turns out to be a dishonest report, one 
which was crafted to have the appearance of a scientific experiment. That is 
fraudulent in itself, but not criminal. 

 

Rossi’s conduct would amount to criminal fraud if

1)  A falsified report was submitted to USPTO as evidence of utility or as 
scientific validation – in order to get a patent

2)  The report was to serve as a milestone in a contract , such that money 
would be paid on successful completion

 

There are other circumstances, such as: If other licensees were enticed, or if 
investment shares were sold or renewed based on the report … or if the deceit 
was used in furtherance of any monetary transfer.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

Another difficulty I have is that there are other plausible explanations
> than misdirection for why there was such a big shift in the amounts of
> nickel isotopes, even assuming that Rossi intentionally made use of it.
>

The "it" above refers to 62Ni, which I accidentally left out.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Ø  EW: There is no need to presume that there was any fraud involved…
>
>
>
> Wrong. Given the circumstance, fraud is the most logical conclusion based
> on the facts. Your stance is similar to saying that OJ was innocent because
> the glove didn’t fit. In fact, the case for OJ being innocent is more
> defensible than for AR not being deceitful.
>

Misdirection and fraud are different things.  For there to be fraud, there
has to have been someone who's been defrauded.  I'm not a lawyer, but I
assume that only if someone put money on the table with the expectation
that the 62Ni amount meant anything has there been a basis for fraud.  In
addition, there would have to have been a claim by Rossi, directly to that
person, that the 62Ni amount was meaningful, made by Rossi contrary to his
own understanding of the situation, and upon which the exchange of money
was contingent.  Do you disagree?

Misdirection is a different thing from fraud.  It is frustrating to
contemplate the possibility in Rossi's case in connection with the Lugano
test, for we all are itching to know what's going on.  But I do not put
misdirection in the same category as fraud.  We have long suspected Rossi
of misdirection, and to learn later on that this has actually happened on
one or more occasions would surprise few observers.

I do not trust Parkhamov's reports at this point and would like to see his
results successfully replicated.  For me this makes his results only
suggestive and calls into question the significance of his isotopic
analysis.  I am also very curious as to why his starting amount of 64Ni was
so far above the natural abundance, as you and others have already
commented on.  I also do not put much faith in readjustments of the Lugano
COP.  For me, the Lugano heat balance was irreparably inconclusive, given
the lack of a proper calibration.  There are people apart from Bob Higgins
who have great confidence that there effectively was no excess heat; I
think they ignore the problem of a lack of calibration at the cost of
misplaced confidence in their understanding of the situation.

Another difficulty I have is that there are other plausible explanations
than misdirection for why there was such a big shift in the amounts of
nickel isotopes, even assuming that Rossi intentionally made use of it.
Bob Higgins has brought up one: Rossi's fuel might have consisted of a
heterogeneous mix of particles of normal nickel and ones of isotopically
enriched nickel. When the fuel was sampled, an enriched particle was
collected, and when the ash was sampled, a non-enriched particle was
collected. In other words, the fuel and ash samples were not
representative.  This might have been intended as misdirection, but another
possibility is that Rossi was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that
62Ni did something to help along the reaction.

In other words, I don't think there is a need to presume that fraud
involved.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Axil Axil]

Making sense out of the way nuclear reactions occur in LENR is a fruitless
endeavor. It might be that the Ni62 was produced by a single cluster fusion
event with Li7 in which a trillion atoms were involved. The nickel and
lithium might have been included in a Bose condensate where all the atoms
were in the same state. The nickel/lithium were combined into a single
super atom in which a fusion reaction affected all the atoms at the same
time.

How nuclear reactions occur in a Bose condensate is not yet understood.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> AP's 15-day run should have shown a much more significant shift if the
> Lugano results are true.  His COP is not mentioned, but noted 100W of
> excess for 15-days.  Isn't that probably in the range of Lugano's true
> excess output?
>
> Also, AP's best recent results were 100W excess over 15 days.  What does
> that say about his previously report KW level excess?
>
> Jack
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:40 AM Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>> Ø  The AP test did not run very long and may not have depleted the Ni to
>> the extent of the Lugano test.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the comparative data. The important comparison is on slide 14. As
>> a good scientist, you will change your view after studying this.
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view?pref=2=1
>>
>>
>>
>> The AP test ran for 4.5 days and produced more excess heat per day than
>> the revised Lugano numbers - with the net being 150 MJ (40 kWH).  Based on
>> the revised numbers from Bob Higgins for the Lugano run, transposed to AP
>> we should have seen about a quarter of Parkhomov’s totally nickel converted
>> to 62Ni, assuming Rossi was correct and did not cheat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet there was almost zero – almost NO CHANGE in Parkhomov’s 62Ni numbers,
>> so it is clear that Rossi cheated or else Parkhomov did. They both cannot
>> be true.
>>
>>
>>
>> To believe the Rossi analysis is real – almost 100% of the nickel in the
>> 30 day run had to be converted to the single isotope!  Explain that !
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Jack Cole]

AP's 15-day run should have shown a much more significant shift if the
Lugano results are true.  His COP is not mentioned, but noted 100W of
excess for 15-days.  Isn't that probably in the range of Lugano's true
excess output?

Also, AP's best recent results were 100W excess over 15 days.  What does
that say about his previously report KW level excess?

Jack

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:40 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Ø  The AP test did not run very long and may not have depleted the Ni to
> the extent of the Lugano test.
>
>
>
> Here is the comparative data. The important comparison is on slide 14. As
> a good scientist, you will change your view after studying this.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view?pref=2=1
>
>
>
> The AP test ran for 4.5 days and produced more excess heat per day than
> the revised Lugano numbers - with the net being 150 MJ (40 kWH).  Based on
> the revised numbers from Bob Higgins for the Lugano run, transposed to AP
> we should have seen about a quarter of Parkhomov’s totally nickel converted
> to 62Ni, assuming Rossi was correct and did not cheat.
>
>
>
> Yet there was almost zero – almost NO CHANGE in Parkhomov’s 62Ni numbers,
> so it is clear that Rossi cheated or else Parkhomov did. They both cannot
> be true.
>
>
>
> To believe the Rossi analysis is real – almost 100% of the nickel in the
> 30 day run had to be converted to the single isotope!  Explain that !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 

 

Ø  The AP test did not run very long and may not have depleted the Ni to the 
extent of the Lugano test.  

 

Here is the comparative data. The important comparison is on slide 14. As a 
good scientist, you will change your view after studying this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view?pref=2 

 =1

 

The AP test ran for 4.5 days and produced more excess heat per day than the 
revised Lugano numbers - with the net being 150 MJ (40 kWH).  Based on the 
revised numbers from Bob Higgins for the Lugano run, transposed to AP we should 
have seen about a quarter of Parkhomov’s totally nickel converted to 62Ni, 
assuming Rossi was correct and did not cheat. 

 

Yet there was almost zero – almost NO CHANGE in Parkhomov’s 62Ni numbers, so it 
is clear that Rossi cheated or else Parkhomov did. They both cannot be true.

 

To believe the Rossi analysis is real – almost 100% of the nickel in the 30 day 
run had to be converted to the single isotope!  Explain that !

 

 

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

Russ George wrote:

C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64[62]Ni is an impossible bit of data … 
that number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that 
piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good.

Ø  EW: There is no need to presume that there was any fraud involved…

 

Wrong. Given the circumstance, fraud is the most logical conclusion based on 
the facts. Your stance is similar to saying that OJ was innocent because the 
glove didn’t fit. In fact, the case for OJ being innocent is more defensible 
than for AR not being deceitful.

 

The issue boils down to whether a good lab make an incredibly egregious mistake 
that no grad student would make, or whether a convicted criminal with a long 
history of deceit, who admitted on his blog to having experimented with the 
exact same enriched isotope which turned up, added that enriched isotope to the 
Lugano reactor. 

 

The  purpose of the deceit is not clear, but either way – follow the buck. 
Either Rossi did it because only that isotope (62Ni) works, and he did not want 
it show up as the starting fuel - or most likely it was salted in order to 
present a false conclusion to potential competitors, so as to hide the true 
identity of what was working (64Ni). Notice that at the end – the 64Ni was 
completely deleted and Rossi says he had determined that there was only enough 
fuel for 30 days.

 

Furthermore, based on Parkhomov’s Sochi data, we can see that 62Ni does not 
work and only 64Ni works. Both of them (AP and AR) could not be correct on 
this, since the gain in Parkhomov’s experiment has no contribution from the 
starting 62Ni. Parkhomov, in his discussion, apparently does not realize this 
and believes that lithium is active, but the data is clear that Li is in the 
noise. Parkhomov’s data, once you strip away the stupid log bar chart, 
contradicts Rossi’s data to an overwhelming extent.

 

The most logical conclusion, if you follow the buck (or follow the data, either 
way) is that Rossi was being deceitful in his decision to salt the reactor - 
and he probably knew that the active isotope was 64Ni instead of 62Ni … but 
wanted to present another conclusion, so as to confuse potential competitors.

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Eric Walker]

> On Mar 21, 2016, at 23:14, "Russ George"  wrote:
> 
> The Lugano issue is the mono-isotopic signature in Ni… no pure isotope Ni is 
> available (99%-93% pure isotopes of Ni are available). The instrumentation is 
> capable of seeing into the second decimal place in % so where are the other 
> isotopes of Ni even as a small signature if the Lugano report which is either 
> a gross error or worse – incompetence, mis-direction

Misdirection or incompetence by two third-party labs who carried out the 
isotope assays? See Appendixes 3 and 4.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Russ George]

The Lugano issue is the mono-isotopic signature in Ni… no pure isotope Ni is 
available (99%-93% pure isotopes of Ni are available). The instrumentation is 
capable of seeing into the second decimal place in % so where are the other 
isotopes of Ni even as a small signature if the Lugano report which is either a 
gross error or worse – incompetence, mis-direction, ???  Parkhomov’s Ni isotope 
signatures by comparison look feasible, though anomalous.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:15 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

 

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com 
<mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there 
is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as 
to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus 
by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out the 
window into the garden where it might do some good.

 

The isotope in question was 62Ni.  It was reported by two third-party groups 
who did the assays.  It's obviously not bogus.  The question is how it got 
there.  There is no need to presume that there was any fraud involved, as Bob 
Higgins has cogently argued.  There are many complains to be made about the 
Lugano test.  But no credible charge has been made either that the assays were 
incorrect or that Rossi was fraudulent in including 62Ni in the fuel.

 

As you say, get over it.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Russ George  wrote:

C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data,
> there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be
> so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That
> number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece
> of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good.
>

The isotope in question was 62Ni.  It was reported by two third-party
groups who did the assays.  It's obviously not bogus.  The question is how
it got there.  There is no need to presume that there was any fraud
involved, as Bob Higgins has cogently argued.  There are many complains to
be made about the Lugano test.  But no credible charge has been made either
that the assays were incorrect or that Rossi was fraudulent in including
62Ni in the fuel.

As you say, get over it.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Russ George]

The most highly enriched 64Ni available is 99%, more commonly available 64Ni is 
93%, thus 1%-7% of said Ni would seem likely to be the other isotopes of Ni. 
Few would indulge an isotope analysis without having sufficient resolution and 
sensitivity to measure tenth’s of a percent of neighbor Ni isotopes, most 
isotope specific analytical tech is much more capable. Very high 
resolution/sensitivity isotope analysis is relatively low cost, in my 
experience with same surely less than $1000 would suffice to do a bang up job.

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 7:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

 

On the contrary ... 

 

The planted particle benefits from being larger than the typical nickel fuel 
particle as part of a plan which makes it likely to be tested. Having enriched 
isotope already inside the tube prior to the loading is not enough, and you 
want to make sure it gets noticed at the unloading. 

 

That is - in order to make certain that the salted particle gets analyzed, the 
obvious strategy is to make it conspicuous and easy to pick up with tweezers, 
which of course means it must be larger.

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

The Ni62 ash particle  is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge 
paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel load 
and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube.

 

*  C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 62Ni is an impossible bit of data, 
there is no way that only 62Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so 
pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number 
is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out 
the window into the garden where it might do some good. 

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Russ George]

An instrument capable of resolving the isotopes of Ni, including the Lugano 
64Ni, will have the sensitivity to see very small amounts of any and all Ni 
isotopes. No one is suggesting the provided 64Ni signature is due to ‘salted’ 
Ni, rather that such a pure signal in the absence of trace amounts of other Ni 
isotopes is highly improbable, nigh unto impossible. The data as presented 
simply does not conform to known analytical realities performed with ordinary 
care and presented consistent with such care. Isotope spectroscopy in practice 
is a reality that is not the same as some theoretical notion/exercise, as is 
isotope separation. Perhaps the Lugano 64Ni data if fully presented in raw form 
with the necessary calibration data might reveal more.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:38 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

 

The Ni62 ash particle  is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge 
paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel load 
and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube.

 

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

From: Russ George 

 

* 

*  C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, 
there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so 
pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number 
is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out 
the window into the garden where it might do some good. 

 

 

Good to see someone here with sanity… thought I had stumbled onto one of the 
shill forums.

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Jones Beene]

On the contrary ... 

 

The planted particle benefits from being larger than the typical nickel fuel 
particle as part of a plan which makes it likely to be tested. Having enriched 
isotope already inside the tube prior to the loading is not enough, and you 
want to make sure it gets noticed at the unloading. 

 

That is - in order to make certain that the salted particle gets analyzed, the 
obvious strategy is to make it conspicuous and easy to pick up with tweezers, 
which of course means it must be larger.

 

From: Axil Axil 

 

The Ni62 ash particle  is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge 
paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel load 
and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube.

 

Ø  C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 62Ni is an impossible bit of data, 
there is no way that only 62Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so 
pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number 
is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out 
the window into the garden where it might do some good. 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Axil Axil]

The Ni62 ash particle  is unlikely to be a plant because it is a huge
paticle(600 by 1000 microns) far larger than any fuel particle in the fuel
load and it was melted onto the surface of the center of alumina tube.

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Russ George
>
>
>
> Ø
>
> Ø  C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of
> data, there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely
> not be so pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes.
> That number is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that
> piece of BS out the window into the garden where it might do some good.
>
>
>
>
>
> Good to see someone here with sanity… thought I had stumbled onto one of
> the shill forums.
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Jones Beene]

From: Russ George 

 

Ø 

Ø  C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, 
there is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so 
pure as to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number 
is bogus by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out 
the window into the garden where it might do some good. 

 

 

Good to see someone here with sanity… thought I had stumbled onto one of the 
shill forums.

RE: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

[Russ George]

C’mon guys the Lugano report of that 64Ni is an impossible bit of data, there 
is no way that only 64Ni would be recorded as it would surely not be so pure as 
to not show minor tramp amounts of other nickel isotopes. That number is bogus 
by gross error or intent. Get over it, just toss that piece of BS out the 
window into the garden where it might do some good. 

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 1:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: E-Cat progress

 

Jones etal.--

 

I agree with Alain and Lennart for what its worth.

 

I doubt the potential salting of the Lugano reactor with Ni-64 had much to do 
with the excess heat that was apparently observed and believed to have been 
produced by the Swedes and Italians involved.

 

In addition I consider the PO would have taken the fact that Rossi supplied the 
reactor and fuel into account in any approval of an application.  The word of 
the researchers as to the production of excess heat would be what was a major 
considered.  I do not think Rossi had any claims about Ni-64 being important in 
the reactor.  And it may not be important, even thought the recent AP test 
report suggests otherwise.  

 

From:   Lennart Thornros 

Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:03 PM

To:   vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress

 

Jones, why is it so " beyond reasonable doubt" it can be many honest 
explanations as well..

I understand the reasons to debate the Lugano report from an academic / 
scientific point of view. 

I do not understand why it is important to find out if the insufficiency is 
caused on purposeful manipulation or even worse try to find the sinner.

Not that I can do any better than read what you well versed people (in this 
field) have found being less than good, but why do I need to find out who is 
the sinner,

Obviously the experiment had flaws.

The silence from the involved can be because of many reasons , NDA being a 
prime possibility. 

I am sure  the silence is there for a reason.

I am glad we can see that  in "a commercial venture with millions of dollars at 
stake" it is naive to think they risk there position to satisfy competition or 
any scientific need.

Unless the test is a base for investing in Leonardo for example it is not 
possible to have demands on the quality. 

If I read right Rossi refuses funding from private people. This is for VC's and 
other professional risk takers.

If my understanding of Rossi is correct in this regard I would say he is way 
above committing any fraud.

 

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, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene <  
jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

From:   alain.coetmeur@gmail

 

*  saying it is a fraud seems not fair for me. Lugano report is visibly 
insufficient, unlike anything manufactured to look good...

Alain - I should have been more specific. 

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Rossi “salted” the reactor with enriched 
isotope and did not tell anyone. At the same time, even with sloppy 
measurements, there was probably excess heat, but not as much as claimed. Bob 
Higgins says that salting the reactor is not necessarily “deception” because 
Rossi had no obligation to tell anyone, and he has the right to protect his 
trade secrets. After all, this is part of a commercial venture with millions of 
dollars at stake. I can see Bob’s point, to an extent.

This kind of cheating (don’t ask, don’t tell) makes the Lugano isotope salting 
look sleazy and unscientific, but possibly not fraudulent, in a criminal sense. 

However, if Rossi then used a dishonest report as a submission to USPTO in 
order to obtain a patent, or if he used the report as a milestone for continued 
funding from IH, or to obtain funding from any other licensee - then the 
dishonesty is elevated to fraud.