Re: [Vo]:more patience. anticipating the ERvVReport results

[H LV]

Peter,

It is the opening scene from the 1974 film _Monty Python and The Holy
Grail_ by the British comedy team
Monty Python. Roger gave a good summary of the scene. You made an
analogy between ecats and birds and it reminded me of this scene. For
me the dialogue represents the silly side of science. If people forget
to laugh at themselves, they will lose their ability to make sound
judgments.

Harry

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:05 AM, ROGER ANDERTON
 wrote:
Can you explain please the connection of birds, coconuts, Camelot?
>
> Coconuts were used for sound effects on radio as sound for horses.
> The film was too cheap a production, couldn't afford horses so replaced them
> by coconuts.
> It was then pointed out that in the medieval times of Camelot in England
> they would not have coconuts.
> So they had to come up with a complicated explanation that migrating birds
> were bringing coconuts to medieval England.
> But then they wondered what migrating bird would be strong enough to carry
> them.
> And eventually they started experimenting to see what birds tied to coconuts
> would be able to carry them.
>
> Its an example of crazy chain of thinking and going off on a diversion.
>
> Eventually they get further diverted into working out how to test whether a
> person is a witch for witch burning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 31 March 2016, 8:11, Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
> dear Harry,
> I confess I am not familiar with this type of humor (I have limists0
> my favorite in modern  British is "Do you rang, mylord?"
> Can you explain please the connection of birds, coconuts, Camelot?
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:06 PM, H LV  wrote:
>
> from
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-30-2016-lenr-how-much-more-patience.html
>
>
> "Very important is the power densities range W/grams fuel here I think
> 1000 will be a typical or minimal value. Anyway this will learn us to
> define a genuine Rossi Effect Replication. It is not " You have a
> bird, I have a bird" issue. Size and weight of the birds matters.
> There is not OK if, in Europe, you have a bustard I have a robin, or
> in the US you have a fat turkey and I have a humming bird."
>
> This might be related to the unsettled question of whether coconuts
> can migrate. ;-)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jones Beene]

 

Good post, Eric. I agree with your conclusions. Krivit may be right but he has 
no inside info on IH and is, like you say, basing his opinion on prior personal 
animus. Ahern is an excellent scientist – but outspoken. He is far from senile 
except in his lack of proper editorial precision, or should I say … we should 
all be so senile.

 

From: Eric Walker 

Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Jones Beene wrote: 

 

However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of being abandoned by his 
backer, Industrial Heat – due to a dishonest report which they cannot get 
behind.

 

That I agree with. I think the March 10 statement by I.H. repudiated Rossi's 
report in advance. They did not imply dishonesty, but they did say they cannot 
get behind it. "Get behind it" is le mot juste.

 

I reread the statement, and I see that IH did not say that they cannot get 
behind one thing or another.  However they did say this:

 

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR technologies 
from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR thought leaders, and 
we have built a world-class engineering team. We are pleased with the 
technologies we have assembled and with the group of scientists and engineers 
working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat team is in the midst of 
assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our portfolio.

 

The two LENR investments by IH that I am aware of are Leonardo Corp. and 
Brillouin.  Perhaps they are speaking positively only of Brillouin here.  I 
suspect they're talking about both Brillouin and Leonardo Corp.

 

My reading of IH's statement as a whole is that they're affirming their 
commitment to rigorous testing and distancing themselves from premature 
announcements that go back to unrigorous testing, which is something common in 
the LENR field.  The IH statement could be read to be implying that one (or 
several, perhaps) of the companies that they're investing in is not following a 
good communications strategy while simultaneously expressing optimism in the 
engineering.

 

You did not mention Steven Krivit, but I think he's gotten far ahead of IH's 
statement, showing another indication of a personal animus.  I also think Brian 
Ahern has been premature in his conclusions.  This is not to say that either of 
them are necessarily wrong.

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of being abandoned
>> by his backer, Industrial Heat – due to a dishonest report which they
>> cannot get behind.
>>
> That I agree with. I think the March 10 statement by I.H. repudiated
> Rossi's report in advance. They did not imply dishonesty, but they did say
> they cannot get behind it. "Get behind it" is le mot juste.
>

I reread the statement, and I see that IH did not say that they cannot get
behind one thing or another.  However they did say this:

Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
> technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
> thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We are
> pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group of
> scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat
> team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our
> portfolio.


The two LENR investments by IH that I am aware of are Leonardo Corp. and
Brillouin.  Perhaps they are speaking positively only of Brillouin here.  I
suspect they're talking about both Brillouin and Leonardo Corp.

My reading of IH's statement as a whole is that they're affirming their
commitment to rigorous testing and distancing themselves from premature
announcements that go back to unrigorous testing, which is something common
in the LENR field.  The IH statement could be read to be implying that one
(or several, perhaps) of the companies that they're investing in is not
following a good communications strategy while simultaneously expressing
optimism in the engineering.

You did not mention Steven Krivit, but I think he's gotten far ahead of
IH's statement, showing another indication of a personal animus.  I also
think Brian Ahern has been premature in his conclusions.  This is not to
say that either of them are necessarily wrong.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Two typos in previous message
>
>
>
> It is Penon, not Pinon …
>

Fabio Penon. I assume this is the report Jones refers to:

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jones Beene]

Two typos in previous message

 

It is Penon, not Pinon … 

 

And the Lugano report was definitely not the last milestone but possibly the 
next to last further down.

 

 

From: Jones Beene 

 

Look at the big picture.

 

It should be noted that most technology transfer contracts like the one between 
AR and IH are definitely NOT based on a one-time cash transfers of millions of 
dollars up front – especially when there is no tangible product at hand and the 
IP portfolio is a joke. 

 

Most often, the contract is structured around what are known as “milestones,” 
perhaps a half dozen over 4-5 years, each with partial payments, and leading up 
to a final installment. The Lugano report was very likely the fulfillment of 
one of these milestones, perhaps the last one. The present controversy- the 
so-called “megawatt device” producing low grade heat for an unknown customer 
for a year would seem to be an ideal kind of milestone, if an unbiased and 
competent scientist was invovled. 

 

Obviously, a year at high COP would be the ideal final milestone, with plenty 
of PR value for IH - and would trigger the bulk of the contract obligation. 
Millions of dollars could be hinging on this report. And IH has its own 
investors to please so they have to be completely above-board and use extreme 
due diligence.

 

It is probable that following the Lugano fiasco, and the mountain of criticism 
for the sloppy and unscientific work done there by Levi and his unwitting 
stooges, that IH began to question Rossi’s integrity – particularly in 
fulfilling the last milestone criteria, which … of course… precedes the final 
big check.

 

This has now come to a head. IH does not trust Rossi, due to the Lugano fiasco, 
and will balk at payment of this milestone unless the proof is substantial. 
Rossi wants to present an air-tight case, but he may or may not be able to do 
so, based on an truly objective accounting. This accounting of power-in vs 
power-out over a full year - should be amazingly easy to provide, if Rossi had 
kept good records. Any high school kid could do it. 

 

However, all of Rossi’s associates say that he does not keep good records. I 
have recently re-read the Pinon report, which is an absolute mockery of the 
scientific system, and if Pinon turns out to be the ERV, then we are in the 
early stages of a gigantic lawsuit. 

 

Pinon is basically NOT competent as a scientist, in any relevant way. Rossi 
supporters should hope that Pinon is not the guy.

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Ian Walker  wrote:

 

I think it can be reasonable argued that the target was Krivit, as Krivit 
himself admits he sent one of his missives where he said he was going to write 
a report stating Rossi and IH had split so what was their comment.

 

I do not see how this statement fits Krivit. There is nothing about "embracing 
failure" with regard to him. Furthermore, I doubt that I.H. cares what he 
thinks. Yes, he sent an inquiry to them about Rossi, and they sent back that 
March 10 statement. But, they sent it far and wide, to many people, including 
me, via Infinite Energy, and they asked us all to upload it. I don't suppose 
they would distribute it to everyone just in response to an inquiry from Krivit.

Krivit and I discussed this. I said I agree with him there seems to be rift, 
but I think he is reading too much into the statement to conclude that: 
"Industrial Heat has apparently terminated its relationship with businessman 
Andrea Rossi."

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:

I just don't see how it's possible for Rossi to provide 'proof'. No one is
> going to believe this report.
>

That is not true. Lots of people will believe a good report. Heck, I am
scheduled to give a lecture in Stockholm if it is a good report. I am fully
prepared to believe it. The other speakers are a lot more impressive than
me, and Mats says the symposium is sold out, so apparently many people are
prepared to believe it.

I am not as prepared to believe it now as I was when Mats proposed the
symposium, because I.H. has apparently repudiated the report in advance.
That makes me very nervous! I will not go unless Rossi issues a good report
and I.H. goes along with it mostly. Not to say they have to agree 100%.

I hope I can evaluate the report myself. If it is mostly calorimetry, I
probably can. If it involves a lot of mass spectroscopy I shall have to
trust other people's judgement. The more I try to learn about mass spec
machines the less I seem to know.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Read Tom Clarke or Bob Higgin’s appraisal of Lugano. There was nothing
> there out of the noise, according to Clarke.
>
I agree Lugano was a bust, but as I said before, the first set of tests
were pretty good. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

I thought that was a good start. I was hoping they would do a better job at
Lugano and wrap it up, but alas the same group of people did a much worse
job.

I think it is unfair to say Rossi has provided no proof at all in view of
this report.

I agree that he is often unreasonable. And damned impolite, to me and to
many others! He is a sweet fellow at times, but at other times he is
infuriating. Case in point --

The other tests he performed were poorly done and badly reported. He told
me many times that he does not want to convince people and he will not do
any "tests" just "demonstrations." When I and others suggested ways to
improve the demonstrations, he paid no attention to us. He did not even
acknowledge us. He did not take the easiest & most obvious steps, such as
inserting a memory card into the hand-held thermocouple reader. I pretty
much stopped paying attention to him after he pulled that kind of nonsense
several times, especially with the 1-MW non-demonstration in Italy.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jones Beene]

Look at the big picture.

 

It should be noted that most technology transfer contracts like the one between 
AR and IH are definitely NOT based on a one-time cash transfers of millions of 
dollars up front – especially when there is no tangible product at hand and the 
IP portfolio is a joke. 

 

Most often, the contract is structured around what are known as “milestones,” 
perhaps a half dozen over 4-5 years, each with partial payments, and leading up 
to a final installment. The Lugano report was very likely the fulfillment of 
one of these milestones, perhaps the last one. The present controversy- the 
so-called “megawatt device” producing low grade heat for an unknown customer 
for a year would seem to be an ideal kind of milestone, if an unbiased and 
competent scientist was invovled. 

 

Obviously, a year at high COP would be the ideal final milestone, with plenty 
of PR value for IH - and would trigger the bulk of the contract obligation. 
Millions of dollars could be hinging on this report. And IH has its own 
investors to please so they have to be completely above-board and use extreme 
due diligence.

 

It is probable that following the Lugano fiasco, and the mountain of criticism 
for the sloppy and unscientific work done there by Levi and his unwitting 
stooges, that IH began to question Rossi’s integrity – particularly in 
fulfilling the last milestone criteria, which … of course… precedes the final 
big check.

 

This has now come to a head. IH does not trust Rossi, due to the Lugano fiasco, 
and will balk at payment of this milestone unless the proof is substantial. 
Rossi wants to present an air-tight case, but he may or may not be able to do 
so, based on an truly objective accounting. This accounting of power-in vs 
power-out over a full year - should be amazingly easy to provide, if Rossi had 
kept good records. Any high school kid could do it. 

 

However, all of Rossi’s associates say that he does not keep good records. I 
have recently re-read the Pinon report, which is an absolute mockery of the 
scientific system, and if Pinon turns out to be the ERV, then we are in the 
early stages of a gigantic lawsuit. 

 

Pinon is basically NOT competent as a scientist, in any relevant way. Rossi 
supporters should hope that Pinon is not the guy.

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Ian Walker  wrote:

 

I think it can be reasonable argued that the target was Krivit, as Krivit 
himself admits he sent one of his missives where he said he was going to write 
a report stating Rossi and IH had split so what was their comment.

 

I do not see how this statement fits Krivit. There is nothing about "embracing 
failure" with regard to him. Furthermore, I doubt that I.H. cares what he 
thinks. Yes, he sent an inquiry to them about Rossi, and they sent back that 
March 10 statement. But, they sent it far and wide, to many people, including 
me, via Infinite Energy, and they asked us all to upload it. I don't suppose 
they would distribute it to everyone just in response to an inquiry from Krivit.

Krivit and I discussed this. I said I agree with him there seems to be rift, 
but I think he is reading too much into the statement to conclude that: 
"Industrial Heat has apparently terminated its relationship with businessman 
Andrea Rossi."

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

I just don't see how it's possible for Rossi to provide 'proof'. No one 
is going to believe this report. They're not going to trust the 
examiner. They're not going to trust the process by which he was chosen. 
They'll question his conflict of interest. They're probably not going to 
know exactly what he did to come up with whatever he says; and if he 
provides a detailed explanation, there will always be questions over 
issues that were overlooked.


If Rossi or Mills has something real, then we'll either have to have 
numerous, high signal, replications, from different sources; or we'll 
have people who've purchased these machines, come out in unison that 
they're all amazed at how much money they're saving. Neither Rossi, nor 
Mills, seem to be interested in the former.


Craig

On 03/31/2016 07:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Craig Haynie > wrote:


To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide
any proof for anyone, other than his investors . . .


He said he would! Mats Lewan is counting on him to provide proof. 
Otherwise he will have to cancel his symposium.


Anyway, I sure won't go to the symposium without solid proof. Mats 
told me that's the deal: rock solid proof or we call it off. It is 
getting close to a deadline.


Granted, Rossi only said that. He is not contractually obligated. But 
since he himself is slated to attend the symposium, I suppose he means 
it. But, you never can tell with him. As Churchill said of the Soviet 
Union, he is "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."


I hope he does. But I think I.H. has more credibility. Since they have 
repudiated the report (I think!) and since they talk about "embracing 
failure" I have a feeling the report will be a bust. It makes me nervous.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Ian Walker  wrote:

I think it can be reasonable argued that the target was Krivit, as Krivit
> himself admits he sent one of his missives where he said he was going to
> write a report stating Rossi and IH had split so what was their comment.
>

I do not see how this statement fits Krivit. There is nothing about
"embracing failure" with regard to him. Furthermore, I doubt that I.H.
cares what he thinks. Yes, he sent an inquiry to them about Rossi, and they
sent back that March 10 statement. But, they sent it far and wide, to many
people, including me, via Infinite Energy, and they asked us all to upload
it. I don't suppose they would distribute it to everyone just in response
to an inquiry from Krivit.

Krivit and I discussed this. I said I agree with him there seems to be
rift, but I think he is reading too much into the statement to conclude
that: "Industrial Heat has apparently terminated its relationship with
businessman Andrea Rossi."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:

To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide any
> proof for anyone, other than his investors . . .


He said he would! Mats Lewan is counting on him to provide proof. Otherwise
he will have to cancel his symposium.

Anyway, I sure won't go to the symposium without solid proof. Mats told me
that's the deal: rock solid proof or we call it off. It is getting close to
a deadline.

Granted, Rossi only said that. He is not contractually obligated. But since
he himself is slated to attend the symposium, I suppose he means it. But,
you never can tell with him. As Churchill said of the Soviet Union, he is
"a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

I hope he does. But I think I.H. has more credibility. Since they have
repudiated the report (I think!) and since they talk about "embracing
failure" I have a feeling the report will be a bust. It makes me nervous.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

In reply to Jed Rothwell

On the matter of who was the target of the March 10 statement by I.H.

I think it can be reasonable argued that the target was Krivit, as Krivit
himself admits he sent one of his missives where he said he was going to
write a report stating Rossi and IH had split so what was their comment.

IMHO the March 10 statement by I.H. was their comment to Krivit and they
CCED it to every other site so Krivit could not claim his usual FUD
exclusive and to APCO Worldwide so that they could start dealing with
public relations.

Kind Regards walker



On 1 April 2016 at 00:17, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of being abandoned
>> by his backer, Industrial Heat – due to a dishonest report which they
>> cannot get behind.
>>
> That I agree with. I think the March 10 statement by I.H. repudiated
> Rossi's report in advance. They did not imply dishonesty, but they did say
> they cannot get behind it. "Get behind it" is le mot juste.
>
> Some people here think the March 10 statement does not mean that. I think
> that's a stretch. Granted, the statement is a little vague and it does not
> actually mention Rossi by name, but it seems clear to me that's who they
> mean. Who else is there?
>
> The statement is here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of being abandoned
> by his backer, Industrial Heat – due to a dishonest report which they
> cannot get behind.
>
That I agree with. I think the March 10 statement by I.H. repudiated
Rossi's report in advance. They did not imply dishonesty, but they did say
they cannot get behind it. "Get behind it" is le mot juste.

Some people here think the March 10 statement does not mean that. I think
that's a stretch. Granted, the statement is a little vague and it does not
actually mention Rossi by name, but it seems clear to me that's who they
mean. Who else is there?

The statement is here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

To be a little more clear, I don't think Rossi is going to provide any 
proof for anyone, other than his investors -- assuming he does indeed 
have something. This report is probably an engineering report. What he 
needs to know before selling these expensive machines, is the knowledge 
that they are going to perform as promised, and that they are not going 
to break down, or diminish in performance over the course of their 
operational lives; because even if they work as advertised, it would be 
devastating to a new company if they broke down after six months and had 
to have major repairs, or worse, a complete replacement of all of the 
operational modules. THIS is what he needs to avoid.


I don't think there's anything in this report that is going to prove 
anything to anyone, except Rossi; and what it will prove to Rossi, are 
the things he needs to produce a product with a two year warranty.


Craig

On 03/31/2016 06:53 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Craig,

Mills has been planning to "get to market sometime next year" for the last 20 
years. Yawn. I hope he does, but there is not proof that he can do it.

Sure, if Rossi gets to market first - fine ... no one can argue with that ... but as of 
now, there is nothing but hollow promises and the big "If". In the mean-time, 
Rossi has not proved even a watt of real gain, much less a useful product.

Don't forget that Rossi already promised a robotics plant, in the final stages 
of completion for the Solyndra disaster zone when he visited Boston three years 
ago, but he was lying of course. He continues the delusion of a robotic plant 
to make ecats, to this day. What a clown.

-Original Message-
From: Craig

Rossi has released a lot more than Mills, and they both seem to be on similar 
paths. Like Rossi, Mills is planning to start selling next year. If Rossi 
starts selling, that will be all the proof he needs.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[a.ashfield]

Skepticism is a good thing but Jones seems biased against Rossi. The 
proof that the E-Cat works is stronger than that it doesn't. Both 
Industrial Heat and Woodford Equity have done due diligence before 
investing money, something that legal consequences if its false.   In my 
opinion Jones continues to libel Rossi.  Rossi's statement about 
releasing information at the Conference in Sweden in June was about the 
E-Car QuarkX not the i MW plant.  Yet another piece of false information 
offered as proof.

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Ian Walker]

Hi all

If this letter is real then:

For any scientist to prejudge results as Ahern just apparently has,
inevitably means bias. Given the nature of this open letter one must of
course consider whether Ahern has had ulterior motives in approaching
experimentalists and replicaters to offer his services.

This is all a bit confusing as only a handful of days back Ahern sent
materials to SKINR / University of Missouri group for the replication
attempt on a Lugano type Rossi reactor.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/.../2865-SKINR-University-of.../

If the Nickel reactors that Rossi invented, eg he has the Patent for them,
do not work then what has Ahern be privately testing all this time? And why
is he sending material he knows it will not work?

I do hope that SKINR / University of Missouri group have sourced additional
materials from another source than Ahern as I suggested; though I gave the
reason at the time, of them not wanting to taint their experiment with some
one who sceptics might argue as a source of "seasoned" fuel.

Now I have to say I look at that offer by Ahern in a totally opposite
light. No experimentalist should use the material from a person with a
stated bias.

Rossi has been completely open about the testing procedure and about the
length of the test and when the results will be available, and kept to each
of those promises. He told us he had a customer to buy the original reactor
he had IH and Darden. Those who were sceptical were wrong. He told us there
would be scientific test. The sceptical disbelieved again. Once again they
were wrong and the Lugano report came out. Rossi said there would be a year
long test in a factory. The sceptical said there was no factory. The
sceptical were wrong the pictures showed it was a real industrial test. The
sceptics said the test would be pushed to its bitter end. The sceptics were
wrong; the test was completed just few days after its shortest possible
period. The sceptics said their would be no report yet Rossi gave
reasonable deadline for the publication of its abstract and a date for a
conference in June.

I think we all just need to patient and await the results like sensible
human beings.

Prejudging is not scientific.

We will wait.

Kind Regards walker

On 31 March 2016 at 19:39, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Dr. Brian Ahern is no skeptic of  LENR. In fact he has verified
> Arata/Zhang and reported anomalous thermal gain in several important
> experiments. However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of
> being abandoned by his backer, Industrial Heat – due to a dishonest report
> which they cannot get behind.
>
> Here is Ahern’s open letter:
>
> “Constantly performing a bad behavior and expecting a different outcome
> is the definition of insanity.
>
> The LENR community must recall that Andrea Rossi is a well-practiced
> convict plying his trade.  He has been claiming outputs one million-fold
> higher than all other LENR efforts. Yet, after six years of such claims
> there has never been an independent test. A big lie is easier to promote
> than a small one.
>
> The Lugano test in 2014 was perhaps the best magic show of the 21st
> century. Rossi convinced the Swedish scientists that thermocouples and
> water flow calorimetry were unnecessary to verify his claims. Those
> scientists are rightfully ashamed of themselves and have remained silent of
> the report. They  should confess to temporary insanity. Or as a minimum
> they should offer an explanation for why the wasted the funds provided by
> ELFORSK.
>
> I predicted that the ERV would be a problem. Rossi admitted paying for
> this INDEPENDENT TEST. Yet he will not divulge:
>
> A. the ERV person
>
> B. His location
>
> C. His report
>
> D. The customer
>
> E. The E-Cat location
>
> F. Operational data
>
> Hoping that he has not fooled us again is a pathetic emotional response to
> the great impresario. The hopeful LENR folks are enabling the bad
> behavior.
>
> His suggestion of delaying the release until Stockholm is just another
> delay tactic that he has employed artfully for the past six years.”
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jones Beene]

Craig,

Mills has been planning to "get to market sometime next year" for the last 20 
years. Yawn. I hope he does, but there is not proof that he can do it.

Sure, if Rossi gets to market first - fine ... no one can argue with that ... 
but as of now, there is nothing but hollow promises and the big "If". In the 
mean-time, Rossi has not proved even a watt of real gain, much less a useful 
product.

Don't forget that Rossi already promised a robotics plant, in the final stages 
of completion for the Solyndra disaster zone when he visited Boston three years 
ago, but he was lying of course. He continues the delusion of a robotic plant 
to make ecats, to this day. What a clown.

-Original Message-
From: Craig 

Rossi has released a lot more than Mills, and they both seem to be on similar 
paths. Like Rossi, Mills is planning to start selling next year. If Rossi 
starts selling, that will be all the proof he needs.

Craig

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jones Beene]

From: Russ George 

*   Clearly Rossi has released more than sufficient for those skilled in 
the art to reproduce his work(s) and the anomalous heat. 

LOL - Not on this planet. Except for Parkhomov/Sochi, there is nothing that 
approaches scientific replication of Rossi, and nothing from Rossi himself with 
real data unless as Rothwell implies, he has chosen to hide it. Read Tom Clarke 
or Bob Higgin’s appraisal of Lugano. There was nothing there out of the noise, 
according to Clarke.

*   You specify in your endorsement of Ahern that he has reproduced Rossi 
as well as others. So how is it you have seen ‘no proof’ from Rossi. 

Read much? As the post states - Brian reproduced Arata/Zhang and found excess 
heat in his EPRI report. He did put considerable effort into trying to 
replicate Rossi, as have dozens of others. However, he could not reproduce nor 
could Jack Cole, nor could Jeff Morriss, nor could Alan Goldwater, etc etc and 
half a dozen other null results and rather large expenditures of time and 
money. I can see you have not kept up with this field, so why am I wasting time 
arguing.

Your posts are proof positive that you are engaging in semantic 
trolling. Such childish and/or senile grumblings about Rossi’s ‘independent’ 
verifiers is pure nonsense for anyone with experience in developing 
technologies. 

Speaking of trolling and senility – are you looking in a mirror? Why not start 
by reading the posts that you chose to respond to - before a further 
embarrassment of yourself.

*   Rossi is following well established traditions in his work and indeed 
is far more revealing than virtually any pioneer technologist at this stage of 
the game. 

Complete nonsense. Sounds like it came from a shill. What are these vague and 
deceptive traditions you speak of? Certainly not the open and progressive 
traditions of Tom Passel or anyone at SRI.

From: Jones Beene 

Wait a minute. What is the need for a secret, when there is no scientific proof 
of an anomaly? I have seen no proof from Rossi, have you? 

Let Rossi prove through an independent third party that there is a valid 
thermal anomaly in the E-Cat, then Ahern can be criticized for complaining 
about not knowing the secret of the anomaly. 

From: Russ George 

It seems Brian is revealing his curmudgeon characteristics. He is clearly 
frustrated and petulant that Rossi won’t give him the secrets of his e-cat 
master chef recipes. There are very good medications for the treatment of 
senile agitation these days.  

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Russ George  wrote:

Clearly Rossi has released more than sufficient for those skilled in the
> art to reproduce his work(s) and the anomalous heat.
>

Who has replicated it? I do not know of any credible replications yet.
Zhang seems to be the best so far:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangHtestofabnoa.pdf

I am not sure. There are many aspects of his work I do not understand, such
as the loss of pressure at 1200 and 1600. I still do not understand where
the heater tube is in Fig. 2, or how it brings about the temperature
reversal of the two thermocouples. It is probably just me being confused .
. .

There are problems with all the other replications I have seen. Jiang seems
to have problems with hot hydrogen affecting his thermocouple. Parkhomov
admitted he stuffed fake data into one of his graphs, so he has zero
credibility with me.

Are there others that seem credible? Have I forgotten someone?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Craig Haynie]

Rossi has released a lot more than Mills, and they both seem to be on 
similar paths. Like Rossi, Mills is planning to start selling next year. 
If Rossi starts selling, that will be all the proof he needs.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Lennart Thornros]

​I read this Ahern complaint.
I decided that it did not even deserved a response. As it seems others are
thinking different I will say the following:
1. It is darn judgmental to make statements about ​Rossi being a convict.
First of all I think it is not true, more important it had nothing to do
with LENR. Secondly I think before making this kind of statements about
another person one ought to have more evidence and explanation of how that
impacts Rossi's LENR performance.
2. Rossi has no obligation to tell anyone anything. I think he wants a
little 'buzz' around the product (market preparation) and therefore he
gives away tidbits.
I can understand that everyone wants to have more information. You should
have called Rossi and asked him if you could finance the one year test - a
year ago.If you paid enough I am sure you would have the data by now. You
would of course have had to sign a NDA so you could not disclose anything
about the test.
The result that everybody in the LENR community could be irritated over you
not revealing the data. Then they could dig up something not to nice about
you and make a spin. Not so fun any more?:)

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 Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Wait a minute. What is the need for a secret, when there is no scientific
>> proof of an anomaly? I have seen no proof from Rossi, have you?
>>
>
> That seems illogical. Two problems:
>
> 1. There might be scientific proof of an anomaly, so in that case there is
> the need for a secret. Obviously you & I have not seen this proof, but that
> does not mean it does not exist.
>
> 2. I have seen no proof from Rossi either. Just because you & I have not
> seen proof, that does not mean there is no proof. It just means we haven't
> see it.
>
>
>
>> Let Rossi prove through an independent third party that there is a valid
>> thermal anomaly in the E-Cat, then Ahern can be criticized for complaining
>> about not knowing the secret of the anomaly.
>>
>
> Is he complaining about that?
>
> He complained that Rossi did not "divulge A. the ERV person, B. His
> location, C. His report . . ." Maybe he will, in the report.
>
> I hope he publishes this report. You never know with Rossi.
>
> By the way, Brian Ahern said a strange thing here: "Rossi admitted paying
> for this INDEPENDENT TEST." What's with "admitted"? He said it. Of course
> he paid for the test. Someone had to pay. Experts do not do such tests for
> free. It would be suspicious if he did *not* pay.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

Wait a minute. What is the need for a secret, when there is no scientific
> proof of an anomaly? I have seen no proof from Rossi, have you?
>

That seems illogical. Two problems:

1. There might be scientific proof of an anomaly, so in that case there is
the need for a secret. Obviously you & I have not seen this proof, but that
does not mean it does not exist.

2. I have seen no proof from Rossi either. Just because you & I have not
seen proof, that does not mean there is no proof. It just means we haven't
see it.



> Let Rossi prove through an independent third party that there is a valid
> thermal anomaly in the E-Cat, then Ahern can be criticized for complaining
> about not knowing the secret of the anomaly.
>

Is he complaining about that?

He complained that Rossi did not "divulge A. the ERV person, B. His
location, C. His report . . ." Maybe he will, in the report.

I hope he publishes this report. You never know with Rossi.

By the way, Brian Ahern said a strange thing here: "Rossi admitted paying
for this INDEPENDENT TEST." What's with "admitted"? He said it. Of course
he paid for the test. Someone had to pay. Experts do not do such tests for
free. It would be suspicious if he did *not* pay.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Russ George]

Clearly Rossi has released more than sufficient for those skilled in the art to 
reproduce his work(s) and the anomalous heat. You specify in your endorsement 
of Ahern that he has reproduced Rossi as well as others. So how is it you have 
seen ‘no proof’ from Rossi. Your posts are proof positive that you are engaging 
in semantic trolling. Such childish and/or senile grumblings about Rossi’s 
‘independent’ verifiers is pure nonsense for anyone with experience in 
developing technologies. Rossi is following well established traditions in his 
work and indeed is far more revealing than virtually any pioneer technologist 
at this stage of the game. 

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

 

Wait a minute. What is the need for a secret, when there is no scientific proof 
of an anomaly? I have seen no proof from Rossi, have you? 

 

Let Rossi prove through an independent third party that there is a valid 
thermal anomaly in the E-Cat, then Ahern can be criticized for complaining 
about not knowing the secret of the anomaly. 

 

From: Russ George 

 

It seems Brian is revealing his curmudgeon characteristics. He is clearly 
frustrated and petulant that Rossi won’t give him the secrets of his e-cat 
master chef recipes. There are very good medications for the treatment of 
senile agitation these days.  

 

 

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jones Beene]

Wait a minute. What is the need for a secret, when there is no scientific proof 
of an anomaly? I have seen no proof from Rossi, have you? 

 

Let Rossi prove through an independent third party that there is a valid 
thermal anomaly in the E-Cat, then Ahern can be criticized for complaining 
about not knowing the secret of the anomaly. 

 

From: Russ George 

 

It seems Brian is revealing his curmudgeon characteristics. He is clearly 
frustrated and petulant that Rossi won’t give him the secrets of his e-cat 
master chef recipes. There are very good medications for the treatment of 
senile agitation these days.  

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> 2. You said "his suggestion of delaying the release until Stockholm . . ."
> I guess you mean Rossi made this suggestion. Where did you hear that? Did
> Peter report that? That is distressing.
>

Mats Lewan said he has not heard anything like this from Rossi. I have not
heard back from Brian Ahern. I do not know where he heard this, but
evidently it is not true.

Lewan has repeatedly assured me the symposium in Stockholm will only be
held if Rossi and I.H. issue the report, and everyone agrees it is a good
report, with valid conclusions. (I mean everyone involved in the symposium
-- Mats and all the speakers.) We have to given time to study the report,
so it has to be published well before the symposium is scheduled.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Russ George]

It seems Brian is revealing his curmudgeon characteristics. He is clearly 
frustrated and petulant that Rossi won’t give him the secrets of his e-cat 
master chef recipes. There are very good medications for the treatment of 
senile agitation these days.  

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

 

Here is my response to the letter.

Brian,

Regarding the letter you asked Peter to circulate --

1. (I pointed out spelling errors, now fixed. Except this one: ". . . for why 
the wasted . . . SHOULD BE: for why they wasted.)

2. You said "his suggestion of delaying the release until Stockholm . . ." I 
guess you mean Rossi made this suggestion. Where did you hear that? Did Peter 
report that? That is distressing.

3. You wrote: "The Lugano test in 2014 was perhaps the best magic show of the 
21st century. Rossi convinced the Swedish scientists that thermocouples and 
water flow calorimetry were unnecessary to verify his claims."

I do not think Rossi convinced them of this, because in the previous tests 
conducted in his lab they did use a thermocouple. I have heard that Rossi had 
more influence over those tests. I thought overall those were pretty good 
tests. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

The Lugano tests that followed were a step backward. They were much worse. 
Rossi reportedly had no influence, so it seems they did a better job when he 
played a role.

I do not think water flow calorimetry would work very well with a device at 
this temperature. Mizuno has suggested that air flow calorimetry might be a 
good choice.

4. You wrote: "Yet he will not divulge: A. the ERV person, B. His location . . 
."

How do you know he will not divulge this? Have you seen the report? Maybe he 
does divulge all of this in the report. I have not seen it so I do not know.

Perhaps you mean he has not divulged it yet.

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is my response to the letter.

Brian,

Regarding the letter you asked Peter to circulate --

1. (I pointed out spelling errors, now fixed. Except this one: ". . . for
why the wasted . . . SHOULD BE: for why *they* wasted.)

2. You said "his suggestion of delaying the release until Stockholm . . ."
I guess you mean Rossi made this suggestion. Where did you hear that? Did
Peter report that? That is distressing.

3. You wrote: "The Lugano test in 2014 was perhaps the best magic show of
the 21st century. Rossi convinced the Swedish scientists that thermocouples
and water flow calorimetry were unnecessary to verify his claims."

I do not think Rossi convinced them of this, because in the previous tests
conducted in his lab they did use a thermocouple. I have heard that Rossi
had more influence over those tests. I thought overall those were pretty
good tests. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

The Lugano tests that followed were a step backward. They were much worse.
Rossi reportedly had no influence, so it seems they did a better job when
he played a role.

I do not think water flow calorimetry would work very well with a device at
this temperature. Mizuno has suggested that air flow calorimetry might be a
good choice.

4. You wrote: "Yet he will not divulge: A. the ERV person, B. His location
. . ."

How do you know he will not divulge this? Have you seen the report? Maybe
he does divulge all of this in the report. I have not seen it so I do not
know.

Perhaps you mean he has not divulged it yet.

- Jed

[Vo]:Open Letter from Brian Ahern

[Jones Beene]

Dr. Brian Ahern is no skeptic of  LENR. In fact he has verified Arata/Zhang
and reported anomalous thermal gain in several important experiments.
However, he sees Rossi as fraud, who is on the verge of being abandoned by
his backer, Industrial Heat - due to a dishonest report which they cannot
get behind. 
Here is Ahern's open letter:
"Constantly performing a bad behavior and expecting a different outcome is
the definition of insanity.
The LENR community must recall that Andrea Rossi is a well-practiced convict
plying his trade.  He has been claiming outputs one million-fold higher than
all other LENR efforts. Yet, after six years of such claims there has never
been an independent test. A big lie is easier to promote than a small one.
The Lugano test in 2014 was perhaps the best magic show of the 21st century.
Rossi convinced the Swedish scientists that thermocouples and water flow
calorimetry were unnecessary to verify his claims. Those scientists are
rightfully ashamed of themselves and have remained silent of the report.
They  should confess to temporary insanity. Or as a minimum they should
offer an explanation for why the wasted the funds provided by ELFORSK.
I predicted that the ERV would be a problem. Rossi admitted paying for this
INDEPENDENT TEST. Yet he will not divulge:
A. the ERV person
B. His location
C. His report
D. The customer
E. The E-Cat location
F. Operational data
Hoping that he has not fooled us again is a pathetic emotional response to
the great impresario. The hopeful LENR folks are enabling the bad behavior.
His suggestion of delaying the release until Stockholm is just another delay
tactic that he has employed artfully for the past six years."

[Vo]:Molecular Foundry

[Axil Axil]

It is becoming clear that the LENR reaction involves high pressure
chemistry to generate metalized compounds involved in the production of the
superconductivity and electromagnetic ordering required in exploiting
chemical based nuclear effects.

The question that now needs to be answered through research is how
self-assembly of chemical compounds operating at room temperature can
generate nanostructures that generate high pressure molecular
characteristics at room temperatures.

For example, carbon nanotubes must be ground on a particular substrate to
provide a structural template upon which their crystal structures can form.

>From the research of Holmlid, we know that chemical catalysts based on
potassium doped graphite are used to produce metalized hydrides that show
LENR activity through the generation of high pressure chemistry catalysis.
More explicitly, Rossi uses mica in his reactor and other LENR workers use
powdered quartz in their fuel mix. This speaks to the possibility that
hexagonal and trigonal chemical substrates are providing templates for the
fabrication of metalized hydrides.

In order to more fully study how this substrate based nanoparticle
generation process might work, the LENR researcher could use the Molecular
Foundry, a nanoscience User Facility located at the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. This research center is one of
five Nanoscale Science Research Centers sponsored by the United States
Department of Energy. The Molecular Foundry provides users from around the
world with access to cutting-edge nanoscience expertise and instrumentation
in a collaborative, multidisciplinary environment.

Users of the Molecular Foundry are provided with free access to
instruments, techniques and collaborators for nanoscience research that is
in the public domain and intended for open publication. Proposals for user
projects are solicited to promote interdisciplinary collaboration among
scientists studying nanoscale phenomena in materials science, physics,
electrical engineering, environmental engineering, biology and chemistry in
six interdependent facilities:

• 1 Imaging and Manipulation of Nanostructures
• 2 Nanofabrication
• 3 Theory of Nanostructured Materials
• 4 Inorganic Nanostructures
• 5 Biological Nanostructures
• 6 Organic and Macromolecular Synthesis

See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Foundry

The US government has funded this freely available research capability as a
way to support open source research capacity within the U.S. to advance the
competitiveness and leadership of the U.S. in nano materials expertise and
R

See

foundry.lbl.gov/
www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/…e/MSD-Foundry-rating.html




For the research center most convenient to you see
science.energy.gov/bes/suf/use…science-research-centers/


Be advised, if you decide to use this research resource, it would be
prudent to keep your application secret because the LENR naysayers will
attempt to kill your application. At the current juncture it is prudent to
avoid the use of the word or concept ‘LENR’ in your dealing with the US
government.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Kamacite and natural fractionation of heavy nickel

[Bob Cook]

Bob Higgins--


I agree with your conclusion regarding rhe absence of significant Zn in AP’S 
fuel.  The laser activation results indicate this clearly IMHO as previously 
noted.



Bob Cook












Sent from Windows Mail





From: Bob Higgins
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎March‎ ‎30‎, ‎2016 ‎10‎:‎59‎ ‎AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com






Jones, I agree that there are many tantalizing characteristics of Zn as a 
possible catalyst material.  

My point is only that based on other measurements of AP's fuel, it is not 
plausible that 64Zn can be responsible for for the high ICP-MS reading for 64Ni 
in his Sochi reported analyses.  

This also means that it is unlikely that there was any significant amount of Zn 
in AP's fuel - probably less than 0.01 atom%.  So, for Zn to be a catalyzing 
agent responsible for the LENR activity in the AP2 experiment, the Zn would 
have to be extremely active catalyst to have such utility at the reported 
analysis level of <0.01 atom%.  In a 1 gram fuel charge, the Zn contamination 
would amount to <0.1 mg.


If we go back... In the Swedish analysis of Rossi's eCat powder, no Zn was 
found.  In the Lugano SIMs fuel and ash analyses, there was no m=64 material 
reported.





On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:




Bob,

 

You seem to be hung up on the impossibility of 7% zinc contamination and OK - 
you are probably correct on that point, as far as it goes… BUT… consider this. 

 

Zinc has a surprisingly low boiling point of 907C and the typical glow-tube 
reactor does not produce excess heat unless it gets well above that 
temperature. This is probably not coincidental.

 

The key feature of this type of hot reactor is that it vaporizes a few selected 
metals which are catalysts for hydrogen densification – notably lithium, 
potassium and zinc. Of that list – only zinc has its Rydberg multiple for 
ionization potential at the lowest possible level – 27.2 eV.

 

Next, consider the implications of “single atom catalysis”. This is one of the 
hottest topics today in catalysis. See the Yang article:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar300361m

 

Single atom catalysis (SAC) is ultra-efficient: compared to nanopowder it is 
several million times more efficient, due to surface area per unit of mass. SAC 
does not require vapor-phase, but that is the easiest way to get the single 
atom – as an unsupported vapor. For zinc, just as for lithium or potassium, 
once it becomes a vapor, it becomes a SAC for hydrogen densification.

 

A few milligrams of lithium or a few milligrams of zinc is sufficient and the 
two together are synergetic since zinc operates in the lowest Rydberg regime 
whereas either lithium or potassium operate at the 3x multiple of 81.6 eV which 
is significantly more difficult to access, even at 1200 C.

 

In short, zinc boosts either lithium or potassium for hydrogen densification, 
but potassium and lithium do not help each other.

 

From: Bob Higgins 









 



First of all, it is reasonable to presume that any Zn contamination would have 
a natural isotopic ratio.  The natural abundance for 64Ni is 0.9%.  So, for the 
reported 4.4% of m=64 to be 64Zn + natural 64Ni, there would have to be a 64Zn 
contamination of about 3.5 atom%.  64Zn is about 50% natural isotopic ratio for 
Zn, so there would have to be about 7 atom% concentration of Zn in the Ni 
powder for this to be the answer for the measured concentration at m=64.  This 
would be a huge contamination.


 


Just to play devil's advocate, the contamination would not need to have been in 
the pure nickel powder.  It could have come from another source, and somehow 
gotten into the fuel mixture.  The 7 atom% concentration would thus be for the 
composite fuel mixture.  (I will have to trust your calculation! My number for 
both zinc isotopes together was ~ 3.5 atom%.)  The composite fuel mixture 
appears to have been what was measured in the laser-atomic emission 
spectrometry assay [1].



I believe laser atomic emission spectroscopy is also a bulk measurement like 
ICP-MS (-probably done as a flame measurement), so it would be a measure of the 
composite composition as you suggest. 






 




Also, Parkhomov's jar of Ni powder claimed it to be 99.9% Ni.  Even if all of 
the 0.1% were Zn, that would only mean 0.05atom% of 64Zn to contaminate the 
64Ni measurement.  That would be consistent with the non-measurement of Zn in 
the EDS and the low value for Zn atomic percent reported by laser atomic 
emission spectroscopy in the same Sochi presentation.


 


Perhaps you are referring to an EDS assay that was reported elsewhere and not 
in the slides.  The one in the slides (SEM-EDS) was of Rossi's reactor.


 


On page 11 of the Sochi report, there is an EDS of Parkhomov's AP2 fuel.  EDS 
would measure the particles on the surface and at the points selected.  There 
was analysis of the Ni powder particles and the LAH particles.  Of course, none 
showed any Zn. 

[Vo]:rebuilding harmony of opposites in LENR- in the Great field!

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-31-2016-lenr-rebuilding-harmony-of.html

A day of waiting; I hope more good news, events, info will come this
evening/night.

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

[Vo]:mostly OT :Nature-inspired nanotubes that assemble themselves

[Roarty, Francis X]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328191849.htm

Nature-inspired nanotubes that assemble themselves, with precision

Re: [Vo]:more patience. anticipating the ERvVReport results

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>>Can you explain please the connection of birds, coconuts, Camelot?
Coconuts were used for sound effects on radio as sound for horses.The film was 
too cheap a production, couldn't afford horses so replaced them by coconuts.It 
was then pointed out that in the medieval times of Camelot in England they 
would not have coconuts.So they had to come up with a complicated explanation 
that migrating birds were bringing coconuts to medieval England.But then they 
wondered what migrating bird would be strong enough to carry them.And 
eventually they started experimenting to see what birds tied to coconuts would 
be able to carry them.
Its an example of crazy chain of thinking and going off on a diversion.
Eventually they get further diverted into working out how to test whether a 
person is a witch for witch burning.




 

On Thursday, 31 March 2016, 8:11, Peter Gluck  wrote:
 

 dear Harry,I confess I am not familiar with this type of humor (I have 
limists0my favorite in modern  British is "Do you rang, mylord?"Can you explain 
please the connection of birds, coconuts, Camelot?
thanks,Peter

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:06 PM, H LV  wrote:

from
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-30-2016-lenr-how-much-more-patience.html


"Very important is the power densities range W/grams fuel here I think
1000 will be a typical or minimal value. Anyway this will learn us to
define a genuine Rossi Effect Replication. It is not " You have a
bird, I have a bird" issue. Size and weight of the birds matters.
There is not OK if, in Europe, you have a bustard I have a robin, or
in the US you have a fat turkey and I have a humming bird."

This might be related to the unsettled question of whether coconuts
can migrate. ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w

Harry





-- 
Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romaniahttp://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

  

Re: [Vo]:more patience. anticipating the ERvVReport results

[Peter Gluck]

dear Harry,
I confess I am not familiar with this type of humor (I have limists0
my favorite in modern  British is "Do you rang, mylord?"
Can you explain please the connection of birds, coconuts, Camelot?

thanks,
Peter


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:06 PM, H LV  wrote:

> from
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/03/mar-30-2016-lenr-how-much-more-patience.html
>
>
> "Very important is the power densities range W/grams fuel here I think
> 1000 will be a typical or minimal value. Anyway this will learn us to
> define a genuine Rossi Effect Replication. It is not " You have a
> bird, I have a bird" issue. Size and weight of the birds matters.
> There is not OK if, in Europe, you have a bustard I have a robin, or
> in the US you have a fat turkey and I have a humming bird."
>
> This might be related to the unsettled question of whether coconuts
> can migrate. ;-)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4_9kDO3q0w
>
> Harry
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV ReportAs Rossi has stated several times, no report willconvince the true ckeptics, only the sale of working E-Cats.

[Peter Gluck]

thanks, I have already written to this address a few days ago, he does not
answer. Tom Darden is the Boss, I could not go to ICFF-19 so I have not met
him.
It is disturbing to watch the "divide and conquer" tactics of New Energy
Times going without any answer and the overspeculations of the mass of
LENR-ists
Actually it is more about the technology than about companies Ih could
say something to make the situation more clear- and we to get the ERV
report's essential facts
The next stage of attacks will be against the ERV- real tsunamies of mud
to be euphemistic but this will be just trolling routine .

Peter

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Patrick Ellul 
wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> Their email address, as given by Rossi himself: jvau...@industrialheat.co
> Best regards
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>> dear Adrian,
>> 'has IH answered? Can you send me their e-mail address? I will also try.
>>
>> peter
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:02 PM, a.ashfield 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> M apologies for the mangled title.
>>> I started typing on the subject line in error & deleted it, but somehow
>>> it reappeared.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Patrick
>
> www.tRacePerfect.com
> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
> The quickest puzzle ever!
>



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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and IH have received the ERV ReportAs Rossi has stated several times, no report willconvince the true ckeptics, only the sale of working E-Cats.

[Patrick Ellul]

Hi Peter,
Their email address, as given by Rossi himself: jvau...@industrialheat.co
Best regards

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> dear Adrian,
> 'has IH answered? Can you send me their e-mail address? I will also try.
>
> peter
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:02 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> M apologies for the mangled title.
>> I started typing on the subject line in error & deleted it, but somehow
>> it reappeared.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>



-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!