subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:E\-Cat \/ philosophical remarks"

Lack of a patent is one side of the vulnerability.
The other, even more important the stealability, guessability of his
solution (catalyst). Is it something so awfully difficult as that shown
in the nice old (1966( movie- How to steal a million with Audrey Hepburn
and poeter OToole or is it relatively easy, with a bit of
Sherlock Holmes style thinking and with some smart tests?

We have no many certainties in this problem but if Defkalion was able to do
it and if Chan'Formula works than Rossi' secret is weak.


On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 For example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding
 the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder, so this was
 Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had it in for him.


 Does anyone have a link for that?


 No, sorry, I do not. That is what I have heard in conversations with
 various people. It could be an exaggeration.

 - Jed





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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-25 Thread Mary Yugo

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 For example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding
 the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder, so this was
 Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had it in for him.


 Does anyone have a link for that?


 No, sorry, I do not. That is what I have heard in conversations with
 various people. It could be an exaggeration.


Indeed.  And I am sure you saw the large catalog of charges and convictions
Rossi has amassed -- I forget where the cite is for that at the moment but
it was quite impressive.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-25 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 25.11.2011 20:20, schrieb Peter Gluck:

Lack of a patent is one side of the vulnerability.
The other, even more important the stealability, guessability of his 
solution (catalyst).
I think they intentionally made their scientific publication and their 
patent in such a way that it will be rejected.
If he proves that the device or that the catalyst works, he can easily 
get a patent.

It could be it doesnt work at all.
Possibly it cannot been patented because it doesnt work or it is stolen.
Possibly he says he has a full house and has nothing.
He is not playing football with his own bones, he is playing poker.
Others make him all proposals and publish announcements and ideas and 
theories and research results and he gets them at no cost.

He gets a lot but does not give anything serious.
He accuses all others they want to steal his invention, now then why can 
he not been accused to play a irrational and crazy poker play?

Why doesnt he show evidence and patent it by fact, not by theory?

Whatever he does, this is a game and not a serious behaviour.
Its not Football, its Poker what he plays.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

The degree of correlation of Rossi's problems with the law and the
efficiency of the E-cats is an open question.
The definition from this writing can be applied here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-seed.html

However this idea of intelligence can be used but also abused.
I have a certainty- Piantelli's system works, therefore Rossi's CAN work
too. Rossi, despite what he says, has borrowed Piantelli's know what and
in part know how elements.Not know why and no know why not elements.
Has made many empirical tests with additives and, it is possible he has
found  some method of enhancement.
Believe an old engineer, it is not possible to do the show of Rossi
without a drop of real excess heat.

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 For example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding
 the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder, so this was
 Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had it in for him.


 Does anyone have a link for that?


 No, sorry, I do not. That is what I have heard in conversations with
 various people. It could be an exaggeration.


 Indeed.  And I am sure you saw the large catalog of charges and
 convictions Rossi has amassed -- I forget where the cite is for that at the
 moment but it was quite impressive.




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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-25 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 25.11.2011 21:01, schrieb Peter Gluck:

The degree of correlation of Rossi's problems with the law and the
efficiency of the E-cats is an open question.
The definition from this writing can be applied 
here:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-seed.html


However this idea of intelligence can be used but also abused.
I have a certainty- Piantelli's system works, therefore Rossi's CAN 
work too.

There are others that replicated the experiments and got no certainty.
Piantellis experiments, so far I know them, are so complicated, it is 
not possible to get certainty from simply looking at them. So, what is 
the reason for this certainty?

Even if he is your friend, this doesnt exclude, that he has made errors.
Rossi, despite what he says, has borrowed Piantelli's know what and 
in part know how elements.Not know why and no know why not 
elements. Has made many empirical tests with additives and, it is 
possible he has found  some method of enhancement.

Believe an old engineer, it is not possible to do the show of Rossi
without a drop of real excess heat.
Of course this can be done. I know how, but I have not enough shameles 
coolness to do it.
Remember Keely. He did it very very long time and when he died they 
found hidden pressured air pipes and vacuum pipes in his devices.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-25 Thread Terry Blanton

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:

 There are others that replicated the experiments and got no certainty.

Citations, please?

The cleansing of Ni of resident gases is arduous and necessary.  Do
these replications follow that protocol?

T

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-25 Thread Alan J Fletcher


At 11:38 AM 11/25/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
Indeed.  And I am sure you saw the large catalog of charges and 
convictions Rossi has amassed -- I forget where the cite is for that 
at the moment but it was quite impressive.


You can read Rossi's version on the Krivit site.  And you can read in 
http://corrieredibologna.corriere.it/bologna/notizie/cronaca/2011/23-novembre-2011/fusione-fredda-svolta-o-bluff-cat-sotto-esame-ateneo-1902274913518.shtml 
that the Bologna team do not care about such details.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

I have the certainty because I and some other friends have seen
the cells working and giving excess heat.
I have certainty because what Piantelli says and does has a logical
consistency and I have followed the development for long years
and it was development, was progress.
This does not mean that the system is simple, there are lots of
parameters that have to be fine-tuned. One example is the elimination of
the initial heat peaks (Rossi had one in the Feb experiment).
Re. replication I have seen here many examples of failed replication due to
a I know better syndrome The case of the Zichichi reproduction is
explained in New Energy Times No 29.
Now many people try to reproduce Piantellli's system, me too.

Piantelli is a great scientist (see my blog) but he is not inerrant.
It was only one Italian who never erred; I remember well
Mussolini ha sempre ragione and this habit did not lead to a happy end.

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:

Am 25.11.2011 21:01, schrieb Peter Gluck:

The degree of correlation of Rossi's problems with the law and the

efficiency of the E-cats is an open question.
The definition from this writing can be applied here:http://egooutpeters.
**blogspot.com/2011/01/first-**seed.htmlhttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/01/first-seed.html

However this idea of intelligence can be used but also abused.
I have a certainty- Piantelli's system works, therefore Rossi's CAN work
too.

There are others that replicated the experiments and got no certainty.
Piantellis experiments, so far I know them, are so complicated, it is not
possible to get certainty from simply looking at them. So, what is the
reason for this certainty?
Even if he is your friend, this doesnt exclude, that he has made errors.

Rossi, despite what he says, has borrowed Piantelli's know what and in
part know how elements.Not know why and no know why not elements. Has
made many empirical tests with additives and, it is possible he has found
some method of enhancement.
Believe an old engineer, it is not possible to do the show of Rossi
without a drop of real excess heat.

Of course this can be done. I know how, but I have not enough shameles
coolness to do it.
Remember Keely. He did it very very long time and when he died they found
hidden pressured air pipes and vacuum pipes in his devices.

Peter

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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-25 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 25.11.2011 21:37, schrieb Peter Gluck:

I have the certainty because I and some other friends have seen
the cells working and giving excess heat.
I have certainty because what Piantelli says and does has a logical
consistency and I have followed the development for long years
and it was development, was progress.
This does not mean that the system is simple, there are lots of
parameters that have to be fine-tuned. One example is the elimination 
of the initial heat peaks (Rossi had one in the Feb experiment).


Ok, I accept this as your personal experience.
But you must still see, Piantelli and you and your other friends are the 
only ones who think they have clearly seen it.
If it is not published and not documented in public, then I have no 
reason to share your experience.

You and Piantelli and your other friends might have seen a Fata Morgana.

The rest of the world has seen other experiences.
What I see, is the hydride research that is done worldwide and I wonder 
why do these devices work so reliably and there is not a single 
documented case of radiation or energy anomalies.
These devices even work in space and hydride storages are used for 
gaschromatography and other chemical analysis where high purity is needed.


But anyway, even if Piantellis devices work, this is no reason to assume 
that Rossis devices work.
Rossi is a poker player and he works together with Focardi and 
Stremmenos whose names both appear repeatedly in Piantellis publications.
If they contribute to Rossis pokerplay, they might for example have 
played Poker with Piantelli and gave him false analysis results. So far 
I have read the transmutation elements that where found where all 
analyzed by Focardi. Possibly Piantelli and you where fooled by them?


So, excuse me, without an evident and understandable proof I believe 
nothing.


best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

Have you read Piantelli's publications see my Taxonomy on the blog Ego Out
 and on lenr-canr, there are many.papers. What do you think about the
Pontignano Poster I have sent today?

If you read these you will not ask why the hydrides do not give
this effect. The poker play analogy has absolute no sense, Piantelli
has never collaborated with Rossi who is no scientist and (this is
my opinion not Piantelli's) is not somebody I will want as a friend
unreliable and unpredictable. Type of anti-Galahad or reverse
Lohengrin.
I prefer serious and honest science and engineering to shows.
On my blog I wrote exactly what I think.
Going tto sleep, schone Traume!
PeterG

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote:

 Am 25.11.2011 21:37, schrieb Peter Gluck:

  I have the certainty because I and some other friends have seen
 the cells working and giving excess heat.
 I have certainty because what Piantelli says and does has a logical
 consistency and I have followed the development for long years
 and it was development, was progress.
 This does not mean that the system is simple, there are lots of
 parameters that have to be fine-tuned. One example is the elimination of
 the initial heat peaks (Rossi had one in the Feb experiment).



 Ok, I accept this as your personal experience.
 But you must still see, Piantelli and you and your other friends are the
 only ones who think they have clearly seen it.
 If it is not published and not documented in public, then I have no reason
 to share your experience.
 You and Piantelli and your other friends might have seen a Fata Morgana.

 The rest of the world has seen other experiences.
 What I see, is the hydride research that is done worldwide and I wonder
 why do these devices work so reliably and there is not a single documented
 case of radiation or energy anomalies.
 These devices even work in space and hydride storages are used for
 gaschromatography and other chemical analysis where high purity is needed.

 But anyway, even if Piantellis devices work, this is no reason to assume
 that Rossis devices work.
 Rossi is a poker player and he works together with Focardi and Stremmenos
 whose names both appear repeatedly in Piantellis publications.
 If they contribute to Rossis pokerplay, they might for example have played
 Poker with Piantelli and gave him false analysis results. So far I have
 read the transmutation elements that where found where all analyzed by
 Focardi. Possibly Piantelli and you where fooled by them?

 So, excuse me, without an evident and understandable proof I believe
 nothing.

 best,

 Peter




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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-25 Thread Rich Murray

Predictions are very dicey, especially about the future -- evidence
very fallible, especially unsubmitted, especially nonexistent --
conclusions rather premature, especially imagined... while the
feverish delirium of racing on hobby horses suggests dreaming -- the
joint production evolving as a self-generating expanding random
fractal of weird situations -- reality shows now reality -- not just
Rossi or CF, but mainstream economics and politics and cosmology --
ie, FaceBook has gone from a college dorm room to 800 members
worldwide in some 8 years -- it's a 'social game' ! -- becoming the
largest social entity of all -- I find using dashes the best way to
sort my thoughts these wonder full strange days... not just a
pragmatic skeptic, but a bamboozled flummoxed amazed one... here I
stand, for I know not which way to turn... Rich ?

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
 Am 25.11.2011 22:28, schrieb Peter Gluck:

 Have you read Piantelli's publications see my Taxonomy on the blog Ego Out
  and on lenr-canr, there are many.papers.

 What do you think about the Pontignano Poster I have sent today?

 I have not seen it, sorry and dont know where to look.
 My doubt about Piantelli is this:
 I have read many times in the web, Piantelli got an OU factor of two or
 three reliably.
 Because this is not enough to make electricity he does not want to go public
 with this.
 This is what they write and I dont know, if it is true.

 Now, if he is a /real/ scientist, then he must know, how groundbreaking
 important such a result is for the whole science and for the whole world.

 So then he should do a blackbox demonstration and change the future of
 science and of the world by doing so.
 As a /real/ scientist he had the moral obligation to do so, if these reports
 are true.

 I cannot read all papers. Even if I understand them it is still unclear if I
 can trust them.
 I have seen scientists and engineers doing big nonsense in my life and
 sometimes I have also found myself doing big nonsense, but not
 intentionelly. But I have seen people that do this carelessly or
 intentionelly and have fun doing it.

 I want to see this same fundamental proof of efficiency from Defkalion and
 from Piantelli and from any other researcher that I want to see from Rossi.
 A convincing blackbox test Energy in   Energy out, documented without gaps
 and independently trutable witnessed.

 Anything inside the blackbox can stay secret and undocumented, if the test
 is run long enough to exclude hidden energy sources or hidden energy
 storage.

 Chan  Defkalion have nothing else delivered than verbal claims, I dont
 understand why you believe them.
 (Defkalion has made many definitely false announcements and claims in their
 forum and this is a strong reason for disbelieve.)

 Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-08 Thread Robert Lynn

The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods that
could have delivered the observed demo results.  Add to which Rossi has had
no end of opportunities to remove all doubt, at no extra cost in effort or
materials, and without danger of loss of IP, but has chosen not to for
reasons that I (and others) are unable to guess.  This leads to the two
hotly contested options:

1/ It's real, but Rossi is not able to see how bad the decisions he is
making are, and is incapable of taking sensible advice.
2/ It's a very elaborate scam.

I'm in camp 1, but would not be surprised if outputs are much less than
initially announced due to steam/water issues. But my belief is based
mostly on multiple reports of similar results (though smaller output) by
others.  If it were just Rossi I would still be in camp 2.

Rossi's failure in commercialisation of the biggest thing since the
transistor is not totally unprecedented - the Wright brothers were almost
as bad.  But the fact that he is selling his house to finance a white
elephant 1MW demo, when he would have had investors (with the expert help
he so obviously needs) beating a path to his door to make him a billionaire
if he simply did one good multi-day 10kW scale demo (with proper setup,
record keeping and inspection), just leaves me amazed.  It is so bad that
at this point I am actually starting to feel he doesn't deserve success, I
am glad that other groups seem to be closing in on similar results.



On 8 November 2011 13:30, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

 The important thing with the e-Cat is that there don't seem to be any good
 faith
 classical models left around to explain the effect.

 In other words, all the various demonstrations disprove the notion that
 this is
 just misunderstood classical physics.

 It is either an elaborate hoax, or this is the real stuff.

 Elaborating models with hot bricks in the reactor core etc. is mostly an
 intellectual distraction, because a hot brick model is obviously not a good
 faith model.

 People can simulate all the hot brick/cement/iron slug/wet vapor models
 they
 want, but unless someone discovers something that can be there only if this
 is a hoax, such models won't speak for the hoax hypothesis.
 --
 Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-08 Thread Berke Durak

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Robert Lynn
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:
 The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods
 that could have delivered the observed demo results.

This is true and that's one of the points.

 Add to which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all
 doubt, at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger
 of loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others)
 are unable to guess.

I disagree.

Designing and setting up an iron-clad demonstration for public
consumption is a major task, and is never good enough if there is
disinformation by the mainstream media.

Getting the product to the market is the best demonstration one can
do.

So we can assume that he just opted for the latter at the expense of the
former.

 1/ It's real, but Rossi is not able to see how bad the decisions he is
 making are, and is incapable of taking sensible advice.

Rossi is Rossi, not god.  If his decisions were that bad, we wouldn't
be having this discussion in the first place.

 2/ It's a very elaborate scam.

That option seems less and less likely.

 Rossi's failure in commercialisation of the biggest thing since the
 transistor is not totally unprecedented - the Wright brothers were almost as
 bad.

I have checked the media coverage of the Wright brothers flights the
other day.  The silence was astounding.

 But the fact that he is selling his house to finance a white elephant
 1MW demo, when he would have had investors (with the expert help he so
 obviously needs) beating a path to his door to make him a billionaire if he
 simply did one good multi-day 10kW scale demo (with proper setup, record
 keeping and inspection), just leaves me amazed.  It is so bad that at this
 point I am actually starting to feel he doesn't deserve success, I am glad
 that other groups seem to be closing in on similar results.

The problem is not with Rossi.  The problem is with the human race.
We are a bunch of fuck-ups too stupid to get rid of our own human
parasites and invest in useful technology and adopt them before we
poison what little drinkable water is left by fracking or nuclear
disasters.  Maybe we deserve to die.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-08 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

From Robert Lynn

 The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods
 that could have delivered the observed demo results.  Add to
 which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all doubt,
 at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger of
 loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others)
 are unable to guess.  This leads to the two hotly contested options:

That's not necessarily true at all. There may be a very practical
reason as to why Rossi has behaved in such an unscientifically
verifiable way that naturally leads many to seriously doubt his
results:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg54430.html

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-08 Thread Robert Lynn

Suggesting that it is due to his inability to get a patent points again to
why he should have done a proper black box demo in January - then he could
have quickly signed up a large expert technology development partner that
could have quickly resolved all of his IP ownership problems.  The system
is not lacking in patentablity, just knowledge of how to do it effectively,
resources to do it comprehensively, and money/political connections to make
it stick.

On 8 November 2011 14:45, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 From Robert Lynn

  The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods
  that could have delivered the observed demo results.  Add to
  which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all doubt,
  at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger of
  loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others)
  are unable to guess.  This leads to the two hotly contested options:

 That's not necessarily true at all. There may be a very practical
 reason as to why Rossi has behaved in such an unscientifically
 verifiable way that naturally leads many to seriously doubt his
 results:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg54430.html

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

Suggesting that it is due to his inability to get a patent points again to
 why he should have done a proper black box demo in January - then he could
 have quickly signed up a large expert technology development partner that
 could have quickly resolved all of his IP ownership problems.


That is what I told Rossi . . . about a hundred times. As the Japanese
would say, he heard that from me so many times, his ears are calloused
(mimi ni tako ga dekita).

That is why I say I disagree with his business strategy.

Believe me I'm sick of telling him that. It is like talking to a wall.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-08 Thread Robert Lynn

My sympathys.  Also thanks for your Miley report, heartening to see the
reverse engineering is progressing so fast.  I'm sure others won't be far
behind, and once Chinese govt et al awakens there'll be several hundred
thousand (ex-petroleum?) engineers and scientists working on understanding,
enhancing and perfecting the processes within 6 months.  Improvements will
be ridiculously fast and so at this point lacking a powerful partner Rossi
is almost inevitably going to be left behind.  Given how important it all
is the IP could well be specially legislated around by countries anxious to
use it.

Experimentally the first step should be to set up a pressurised heated test
chamber with a large array of different blends/compositions/procession
techniques and a thermal camera to look at them all to identify the most
promising candidates - could potentially screen 1000's of variants over
extended periods through a standard sequence of conditions quite quickly.
Similar techniques are used for other early stage materials development and
drug identification programs.


On 8 November 2011 15:14, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 Suggesting that it is due to his inability to get a patent points again to
 why he should have done a proper black box demo in January - then he could
 have quickly signed up a large expert technology development partner that
 could have quickly resolved all of his IP ownership problems.


 That is what I told Rossi . . . about a hundred times. As the Japanese
 would say, he heard that from me so many times, his ears are calloused
 (mimi ni tako ga dekita).

 That is why I say I disagree with his business strategy.

 Believe me I'm sick of telling him that. It is like talking to a wall.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

I wrote earlier that Rossi is in a bind because he has no viable patent.
Then just now I wrote that I have urged him to do a proper test, get
funding, and then hire experts, the way, Robert Lynn recommends.

The problem is, Rossi does not trust outsiders. He cannot even bring
himself to give a reactor to the University of Bologna where he has many
friends. This is a problem largely of his own making.

I understand why he does not trust people. He has had a painful life and he
has often been betrayed and unjustly persecuted. For example, one of the
charges they sent him to jail for was defrauding the stockholders. He
himself was the only stockholder, so this was Kafkaesque. Someone in the
Italian justice system had it in for him.

I do no see any way for him to escape this conundrum.

Rossi says that a public demonstration, controlled by independent
engineers, for the benefit of the international media can be beneficial for
the dissemination of E-Cat . . . would be completely useless. I expect
he sincerely believes this, but it is nonsense. Without question, such a
test with be beneficial for the dissemination of the E-cat. But it would
destroy his business strategy. He would not think of doing it. Plan B would
be to adopt a conventional business strategy like the Lynn and I advocate.
I am sure he has never seriously considered doing that. When I and others
have suggested this he has brushed us off. As things stand he will never
allow a proper test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

Designing and setting up an iron-clad demonstration for public consumption
 is a major task, and is never good enough if there is disinformation by the
 mainstream media.


Designing and setting up a demonstration would take a week or two. However,
Rossi himself would not have to do anything. He could not do anything. It
is essential that independent experts to all the work. They have to select
the instruments and place the thermocouples. It would not be appropriate
for Rossi to assist or kibbutz so he would have nothing to do. During the
week it takes to set up the test and calibrate he would have to keep busy
in another room.

Many qualified experts have offered to do all the work for him. He would
only have to operate the reactor for a few hours, and then leave the
laboratory for a day or two while the experts operate the experiment in his
absence.

This would not cost him any money.

There is not the slightest chance Rossi would allow this, or anything like
it. It is completely out of the question. His personality and his business
strategy preclude this. He will never allow others to select the
instruments, or place them, or even touch them. He will not lift a finger
to insert an SD card into the meter, because he thinks it is not necessary,
and he will not listen to any suggestion from anyone that he should do
that. He will never allow anyone to view the test in his absence. When
people view the test when he leaves the room, or touch it, he reportedly
reacts with hysteria and violence, and throws them out of the building.

If such a test could be done, I do not think that all of the mainstream
media would publish disinformation about this. I know a number of reporters
and powerful people in the media who would be happy to report this
accurately.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

I wrote:

It would not be appropriate for Rossi to assist or kibbutz


I meant kibitz. Voice input does not handle Yiddish well.

This means, To look on and offer unwanted, usually meddlesome advice to
others.

I expect that people in a Kibbutz often kibitz.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks



On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I wrote earlier that Rossi is in a bind because he has no viable  
patent. Then just now I wrote that I have urged him to do a proper  
test, get funding, and then hire experts, the way, Robert Lynn  
recommends.


The problem is, Rossi does not trust outsiders. He cannot even  
bring himself to give a reactor to the University of Bologna where  
he has many friends. This is a problem largely of his own making.


I understand why he does not trust people. He has had a painful  
life and he has often been betrayed and unjustly persecuted. For  
example, one of the charges they sent him to jail for was  
defrauding the stockholders. He himself was the only stockholder,  
so this was Kafkaesque. Someone in the Italian justice system had  
it in for him.


I do no see any way for him to escape this conundrum.

Rossi says that a public demonstration, controlled by independent  
engineers, for the benefit of the international media can be  
beneficial for the dissemination of E-Cat . . . would be  
completely useless. I expect he sincerely believes this, but it  
is nonsense. Without question, such a test with be beneficial for  
the dissemination of the E-cat. But it would destroy his business  
strategy. He would not think of doing it. Plan B would be to adopt  
a conventional business strategy like the Lynn and I advocate. I am  
sure he has never seriously considered doing that. When I and  
others have suggested this he has brushed us off. As things stand  
he will never allow a proper test.


- Jed


Rossi's behavior is absurd, unless he doesn't believe in the  
technology himself.   Then it makes complete sense.


If Rossi actually has something useful, and it is not patentable,  
then he could still make a fortune producing energy and selling it  
directly to a grid.  He could relocate to Mexico and sell power to  
the west coast of the USA through the existing grid.  He could make  
billions.


He could make a fortune with just steam heat by using it to extract  
oil from Canadian oil sands, though he might have even more trouble  
with nuclear authorities in Canada than even the USA.   In any case,  
bulk power production would be much easier to beat the red tape on  
than any kind of small commercial sales.  If he produced a just a MW  
of commercial grid electric power for a few months he would probably  
have investors flocking to him with money.


I would think if he could actually do this he would have done it.

If he actually heated a commercial building for more than a year with  
nickel and hydrogen I would think he would want to show that.


If he can produce a COP of 6 or even 3 then it should be easy to  
drive a sterling generator and turn that COP 6 into COP infinity.


I don't see anything happening that is fully consistent with a useful  
technology being present.  There is much happening that is consistent  
with no useful technology being present.  What sane person would  
invest in E-cats if things are in this status?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 Rossi's behavior is absurd, unless he doesn't believe in the technology
 himself.   Then it makes complete sense.


His behavior is irrational and absurd. However, such behavior is common
among inventors and discoverers, and it has been throughout history. There
are many famous examples such as John Harrison. There are many in the
present day and among cold fusion researchers, such as Patterson.

I do not think it makes complete sense that Rossi does not believe in the
technology himself. If he did not believe in it, he would gleefully promote
it and he would put on more impressive demonstrations. Fake but impressive.
He would gladly accept money from investors since the only point of doing
this would be to fleece people. That is not what he is doing. He is, in
fact, beating off investors with a stick. He is turning down money. I know
several people who offered him large sums. He refused them all. He did not
even answer some of them. This is not characteristic of a fraud who does
not believe in his own work. It is characteristic of a lone inventor who
does not want to give up control. Patterson was the same way. I know people
who offered him funding, which he turned down. As I said, he was determined
to have 100% market share.



 If Rossi actually has something useful, and it is not patentable, then he
 could still make a fortune producing energy and selling it directly to a
 grid.  He could relocate to Mexico and sell power to the west coast of the
 USA through the existing grid.  He could make billions.


I do not think the power companies would allow this. Also, by the time he
set up and was able to do this, the secret of this technology would be out
and he would be reverse engineered by every major industrial manufacturing
company on earth.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks



On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

Rossi's behavior is absurd, unless he doesn't believe in the  
technology himself.   Then it makes complete sense.


His behavior is irrational and absurd. However, such behavior is  
common among inventors and discoverers, and it has been throughout  
history. There are many famous examples such as John Harrison.  
There are many in the present day and among cold fusion  
researchers, such as Patterson.


I do not think it makes complete sense that Rossi does not  
believe in the technology himself.


This is a different statement from the one I made.  I implied Rossi's  
behavior makes complete sense if he does not believe in the  
technology himself.  I did not say it makes complete sense that Rossi  
does not believe in the technology.  There is a difference.  The  
question though should be which premise is more consistent with Ross  
not believing in the technology?




If he did not believe in it, he would gleefully promote it and he  
would put on more impressive demonstrations. Fake but impressive.  
He would gladly accept money from investors since the only point of  
doing this would be to fleece people. That is not what he is doing.  
He is, in fact, beating off investors with a stick. He is turning  
down money. I know several people who offered him large sums. He  
refused them all. He did not even answer some of them. This is not  
characteristic of a fraud who does not believe in his own work.


Well, that depends on what the terms of the offers was doesn't it?
Whether performance clauses were discussed, for example.  Also, from  
whom the offers were made.



It is characteristic of a lone inventor who does not want to give  
up control. Patterson was the same way. I know people who offered  
him funding, which he turned down. As I said, he was determined to  
have 100% market share.


And yet he is considering a stock offering?




If Rossi actually has something useful, and it is not patentable,  
then he could still make a fortune producing energy and selling it  
directly to a grid.  He could relocate to Mexico and sell power to  
the west coast of the USA through the existing grid.  He could make  
billions.


I do not think the power companies would allow this.


You think Mexico would not cooperate with this on a shared profit  
basis?  A chance to make billions?  I think someone at some level and  
above would support it.  Mexico is moving into the solar business now  
I believe.



Also, by the time he set up and was able to do this, the secret of  
this technology would be out and he would be reverse engineered by  
every major industrial manufacturing company on earth.


- Jed


How long could it take to have a bunch of E-cats, say 6 M-cats, made  
and shipped to Mexico?  After that it is just a matter of driving an  
appropriate generator.  The ones used for solar thermal should do  
nicely.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

I wrote: This is a different statement from the one I made.  I  
implied Rossi's behavior makes complete sense if he does not believe  
in the technology himself.  I did not say it makes complete sense  
that Rossi does not believe in the technology.  There is a  
difference.  The question though should be which premise is more  
consistent with Ross not believing in the technology?


I guess I need more sleep.

This should read: This is a different statement from the one I  
made.  I implied Rossi's behavior makes complete sense if he does not  
believe in the technology himself.  I did not say it makes complete  
sense that Rossi does not believe in the technology.  There is a  
difference.  The question though should be which premise is more  
consistent with Rossi's behavior,  he believes his own claims, or not?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 The question though should be which premise is more consistent with
 Rossi's behavior,  he believes his own claims, or not?


The premise that best fits his behavior is the same one that fits Harrison,
Patterson, William Shockley, and many other people with a personality
similar to Rossi's. They are intensely possessive. They want to micromanage
every aspect of the technology. They consider it their baby, and they
cannot bring themselves to allow others to develop it. they think they know
best and they refuse to listen to anyone else's ideas or advice.

This kind of behavior is widespread. You can find countless examples in
biographies or the history of technology, or science, or for that matter
commerce or war. This is how generals lose campaigns even when they have a
large advantage going in. I have seen many programmers like this as well.
Most of them work for corporations and they are not allowed to act on their
desires.

If Shockley had had his way, the transistor might never have emerged from
the laboratory. He failed at every subsequent venture because he thought he
knew best and he insisted on micromanaging. See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf

Rossi also wants to micromanage people, including me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks

2011-11-08 Thread David Roberson


It helps to put the discovery and development of new technologies into the 
proper perspective.  Thank you for posting the link below as I found it quite 
informative.  Complex systems always progress in starts and stops as the 
underlying problems are resolved with hard work and a great deal of luck.   It 
is amazing how closely related modern LENR research is to the early days of the 
transistor.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 2:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks



If Shockley had had his way, the transistor might never have emerged from the 
laboratory. He failed at every subsequent venture because he thought he knew 
best and he insisted on micromanaging. See:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtransistor.pdf



Rossi also wants to micromanage people, including me.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks



On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

The question though should be which premise is more consistent with  
Rossi's behavior,  he believes his own claims, or not?


The premise that best fits his behavior is the same one that fits  
Harrison, Patterson, William Shockley, and many other people with a  
personality similar to Rossi's. They are intensely possessive.



It is difficult to believe that Harrison, Patterson, or Shockley  
would put on about a dozen demonstrations of their technology,  
repeatedly botch the scientific aspects of the demonstrations, and  
refuse to acknowledge or fix the problems.  When Patterson could no  
longer reproduce his results he freely admitted it.   These were  
scientifically trustworthy people.   How about Rossi's self  
contradiction record with regard to the E-cat?  Does that put him in  
the same camp with Harrison, Patterson, and Shockley, or in a  
different class?


At what point does the balance of probability tip?  How many failed  
failed demonstrations and absurd refusals to correct does it take to  
seriously question whether there is anything at all to the  
technology.  So far Rossi has left a critical degree of freedom  
without observations in each experiment. His behavior is completely  
consistent in this regard.   Can this be considered random?  At what  
point does a Baysian model provide a sufficient confidence level the  
behavior is not random?


Which premise is most consistent with Rossi's actions?  He believes  
in the technology and has nothing to hide from a black box evaluation  
of  energy out?   He doesn't believe a rigorous test will confirm his  
claims?


The answer seems fairly obvious to me which premise is most  
consistent.  However, others can look at the same set of facts and  
draw opposite conclusions.  This makes for an interesting world I guess.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks