RE: [Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research

What happened to this? Four years later there could be results.I think classifying it as materials science instead of nuclear physics might be successful. Classifying it as nuclear science is very much more problematic.DavidOn Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

No Jed, My morals or ethics require more than rumor before I make such very serious acqusations. I do not know Rossi. Investors need to do their due diligence. I do not need to tell them that and I doubt your advice will weigh very heavy. Rossi's performance will. I agree with you we do not need

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

It is important, since one can select data to deceive you. There were times of malfunctioning that lasted a few days. Also, Allan Fletcher and I showed that the device can work in a small place. 2016-06-06 23:20 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > > Where I got it from is

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Daniel Rocha wrote: Dewey Weaver, from who Jed likely got his data, works for an IH investor. > Where I got it from is irrelevant. The data originated with Rossi, because it has the same numbers he quoted to Lewan.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Dewey Weaver, from who Jed likely got his data, works for an IH investor.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively > correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members and > general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is *very probably* correct > in his assertions about

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart Thornros wrote: > Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', > 'scammer', :'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to . . > . > So, by your "morals" we shouldn't calls idiots, scammers and criminals what they are. Why not?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, in my opinion, which I understand you already know more about than I do (quick to judgement and throwing stone sitting in glasshouse); Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', 'scammer', :'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to.--.In addition you

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 05:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: Jed, You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there are still many unknowns. For the last time: I am pretty sure I know the answers

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: Jed, > You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there > are still many unknowns. > For the last time: I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA. You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed, You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there are still many unknowns. I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and that is the only reason I have replied to you. On 6/6/2016 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it. > > Jed. What basis do you have for doubting that? > > AA. Because you say you have not seen the report. > I said I have seen sample data from it, and the configuration. A large enough sample that I am

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it. Jed. What basis do you have for doubting that? AA. Because you say you have not seen the report. On 6/6/2016 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: AA. You keep repeating this

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: AA. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back > it up. > > Jed. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't > he publish the ERV report? > > AA. He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong. He

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up. Jed. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't he publish the ERV report? AA. He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong. He is taking IH to court to prove he's right. AA.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: > > You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't he publish the ERV report? Why doesn't he at least tell you what instruments he used, and how they were

[Vo]:LENR- the war of words continues to my regret but my blog was offended

Our favorite authors in childhood,Fenimore Cooper and Karl May told us what means to dig the tomahawk of war and what is to lift it Peace is good but not at any price even on the Web-corner of LENR see please http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/jun-06-2016-lenr-advice-bury-hatchet.html

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed. The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked into the room and looked at the choice of instruments and configuration would see that in a few minutes. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up. Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

Oh F***. I don't give a Sh*T one way or the other. Harry On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Steve High wrote: > Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the party who has > committed economic crime? > > On Monday, June 6, 2016, H LV wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

If we consider the many autonomous robots that tweet, post, comment, and reply for you, it may be! On 6/6/16 8:44 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: I have heard that many of the anonymous (avatar) supporters of Rossi's case on LENR forum and other blogs are Rossi himself - posting under various

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

There is no reasoning with a digital meme. Elon Musk said it out loud - we may be living in a simulation, for AI is all around us. It just doesn't look like what we thought it would. All the records, pictures, data, comments, tweets, .pdfs, videos, etc of Rossi (-and everyone!) LIVES an

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

I have heard that many of the anonymous (avatar) supporters of Rossi's case on LENR forum and other blogs are Rossi himself - posting under various names. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Ruby wrote: > > There is no reasoning with a digital meme. Elon Musk said it out loud - > we

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1 If this is the same Cherokee Investment trying to do remediation in Pennsauken, NJ……

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Craig Haynie wrote: > Jed, I believe you have information that indicates this is true. However, > it just doesn't explain the unusual behavior from IH. What about all the > previous tests, going back to 2012? > In my opinion some of these tests may have shown excess

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat: IT DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did the device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or you could collect 6 months of data

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Chris Zell wrote: > Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee. > I am not aware of sketchy finances or politics by Cherokee. What do you refer to? Questionable conduct by Rossi. Too much ambiguity… > There is no ambiguity regarding the test results.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Craig Haynie wrote: > It doesn't take a 350 day test to prove that something works. That test > was to prove the reliability of the device. That's also the only reason > that Darden would have agreed to a test using an ERV of Rossi's choosing. > I do not know why

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Jack Cole wrote: Steve High wrote: "Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the > party who has committed economic crime?" > > Yes, that is a painfully presumptive article written as if the > presumptions are facts. It is by an

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

The Rossi Saga is looking more like the Rashomon effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee. Questionable conduct by Rossi. Too much ambiguity…

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield wrote: As for IH then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was > rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed) > The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked into the room and looked at the choice of

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On 06/06/2016 10:01 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of ready money. This makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's any way they would have continued a

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of ready money. Posted by ultrasure on https://www.lenr-forum.com 2 hours ago

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

Steve High wrote: "Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the party who has committed economic crime?" Yes, that is a painfully presumptive article written as if the presumptions are facts. It is by an anonymous blogger. It's not worth reading unless you enjoy reading propaganda. On

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and Leonardo Corp legal position improves

Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the party who has committed economic crime? On Monday, June 6, 2016, H LV wrote: > ​from > > > https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/ > ​ > > ​<<​ > The reassignment of the

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Harry, If true, it implies IH didn't want to pay $89 million. It is not just that that is a lot of money, but it would mean Rossi could then build his automated production line and IH would have lost control. On 6/6/2016 12:21 AM, H LV wrote: If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-06 2:25 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell : > Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you > whether the pipe has a flowmeter or a thermocouple? Just a naive question. Why didn't they simply install a (high temp) gas flow meter at the exit of the