Re: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

2017-09-09 Thread Adrian Ashfield 
"On the other hand, it never fails to amaze us how difficult it is to find 
funding for the development of disruptive technology"

But rather than credit Rossi with finding funding you blame him for others 
failing to do so.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Sep 9, 2017 10:22 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?



 
http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/
 
BTW – here is Etiam’s patent filing, present status unknown due to the 
company’s demise.
 
https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162104
 
It mentions both Rossi and Holmlid but is a different take. 
 
There could be value there.

[Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

2017-09-09 Thread JonesBeene 
http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

RE: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

2017-09-09 Thread JonesBeene 

http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/

BTW – here is Etiam’s patent filing, present status unknown due to the 
company’s demise.

https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162104

It mentions both Rossi and Holmlid but is a different take. 

There could be value there.

RE: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

2017-09-09 Thread JonesBeene 
It is not difficult to find funding if you have results. Vinod Khosla, a Forbes 
billionaire and successful venture capitalist, says that he actually looks for 
disruptive technology as his main parameter. Of course, it must work, as the 
primary ingredient.

Rossi is a scam artist who deserves no credit. In fact he is most fortunate not 
to have been prosecuted for false filings under oath - in US Federal Court - 
concerning the fraudulent JM shell company. According to IH, this and parts of 
his deposition constituted criminal perjury - and he is not in the clear on 
that yet, nor is his attorney. They may be thinking the bad-weather gods for 
Irma.

As for Etiam – they did raise R money in Finland and built a prototype, but 
apparently this device could not perform as hoped, and the funding was dropped. 
Same with CoolEssence. 

Had Rossi been able to prove in court that he had anything valuable at all in 
the way of positive results - then more than likely, Etiam and CoolEssence 
could have been in line for more R funding despite their failures … but 
essentially, what has happened to many researchers is that Rossi has 
essentially “poisoned the well.” 

Very little funding for LENR is out there now. That is why Mizuno is seen as 
somewhat of a savior for the field. Maybe Khosla will have a look – if and when 
Mizuno is replicated.




Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Adrian Ashfield

"On the other hand, it never fails to amaze us how difficult it is to find 
funding for the development of disruptive technology"

But rather than credit Rossi with finding funding you blame him for others 
failing to do so.



-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene  
http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/
 
BTW – here is Etiam’s patent filing, present status unknown due to the 
company’s demise.
 
https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162104
 
It mentions both Rossi and Holmlid but is a different take. 
 
There could be value there.
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

2017-09-09 Thread Alain Sepeda 
did anyone notice Anthropocene Institute no more talk of LENR
and that lenararies memo disappeared?

beside that there is earlier casualties of the Doral fiasco, some who could
but have not been funded waiting for the trial to end positively.

2017-09-09 21:38 GMT+02:00 JonesBeene :

> It is not difficult to find funding if you have results. Vinod Khosla, a
> Forbes billionaire and successful venture capitalist, says that he actually
> looks for disruptive technology as his main parameter. Of course, it must
> work, as the primary ingredient.
>
>
>
> Rossi is a scam artist who deserves no credit. In fact he is most
> fortunate not to have been prosecuted for false filings under oath - in US
> Federal Court - concerning the fraudulent JM shell company. According to
> IH, this and parts of his deposition constituted criminal perjury - and he
> is not in the clear on that yet, nor is his attorney. They may be thinking
> the bad-weather gods for Irma.
>
>
>
> As for Etiam – they did raise R money in Finland and built a prototype,
> but apparently this device could not perform as hoped, and the funding was
> dropped. Same with CoolEssence.
>
>
>
> Had Rossi been able to prove in court that he had anything valuable at all
> in the way of positive results - then more than likely, Etiam and
> CoolEssence could have been in line for more R funding despite their
> failures … but essentially, what has happened to many researchers is that
> Rossi has essentially “poisoned the well.”
>
>
>
> Very little funding for LENR is out there now. That is why Mizuno is seen
> as somewhat of a savior for the field. Maybe Khosla will have a look – if
> and when Mizuno is replicated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Adrian Ashfield 
>
>
>
> "On the other hand, it never fails to amaze us how difficult it is to find
> funding for the development of disruptive technology"
>
> But rather than credit Rossi with finding funding you blame him for others
> failing to do so.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: JonesBeene
>
> http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/
>
>
>
> BTW – here is Etiam’s patent filing, present status unknown due to the
> company’s demise.
>
>
>
> https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162104
>
>
>
> It mentions both Rossi and Holmlid but is a different take.
>
>
>
> There could be value there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?

2017-09-09 Thread Adrian Ashfield 
I ddon't think such blatant libel should be allowed on Vortex.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Sep 9, 2017 3:38 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another casualty of Rossigate?



It is not difficult to find funding if you have results. Vinod Khosla, a Forbes 
billionaire and successful venture capitalist, says that he actually looks for 
disruptive technology as his main parameter. Of course, it must work, as the 
primary ingredient.
 
Rossi is a scam artist who deserves no credit. In fact he is most fortunate not 
to have been prosecuted for false filings under oath - in US Federal Court - 
concerning the fraudulent JM shell company. According to IH, this and parts of 
his deposition constituted criminal perjury - and he is not in the clear on 
that yet, nor is his attorney. They may be thinking the bad-weather gods for 
Irma.
 
As for Etiam – they did raise R money in Finland and built a prototype, but 
apparently this device could not perform as hoped, and the funding was dropped. 
Same with CoolEssence. 
 
Had Rossi been able to prove in court that he had anything valuable at all in 
the way of positive results - then more than likely, Etiam and CoolEssence 
could have been in line for more R funding despite their failures … but 
essentially, what has happened to many researchers is that Rossi has 
essentially “poisoned the well.” 
 
Very little funding for LENR is out there now. That is why Mizuno is seen as 
somewhat of a savior for the field. Maybe Khosla will have a look – if and when 
Mizuno is replicated.
 
 
 
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 

From: Adrian Ashfield
 

"On the other hand, it never fails to amaze us how difficult it is to find 
funding for the development of disruptive technology"

But rather than credit Rossi with finding funding you blame him for others 
failing to do so.

 

 

 



-Original Message-
From: JonesBeene  

http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/09/08/fuf-rip/

 

BTW – here is Etiam’s patent filing, present status unknown due to the 
company’s demise.

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US20150162104

 

It mentions both Rossi and Holmlid but is a different take. 

 

There could be value there.

[Vo]:Talk on unified field theory

2017-09-09 Thread ROGER ANDERTON 
My talk at Physics Conference: where I point out the problem with modern 
physics as: "they" omit teaching unified field theory to physics students. 
Unified field theory presented in 18th century
Boscovich Unified field theory and Atomism Roger Anderton 28 aug 2017

  
|  
|   
|   
|   ||

   |

  |
|  
||  
Boscovich Unified field theory and Atomism Roger Anderton 28 aug 2017
 Modern Physics is based on the idea of point-particles. But other than brief 
mention of point-particles in physi...  |   |

  |

  |