Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

Getting pad for the EVR test was still possible at that juncture and Rossi
might not have wanted to say anything that would discourage that payment,

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> A few days seem like an eternity.  Anyone remember this statement from
> Rossi in early March?
>
> Velda Funderburke
> March 11, 2016 at 6:17 AM
>
> Dr Andrea Rossi:
> After the press release of Tom Darden the usual imbeciles are talking of
> divorce between IH and Leonardo Corporation: can you comment on this ?
> Velda
>
> Andrea Rossi
> March 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM
>
> Velda Funderburke:
> Thank you for spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce between
> Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included Industrial Heat.
> Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of Leonardo Corporation for its
> Territory and I never referred to any possible divorce.
> I invite anybody to disregard any innuendo, supposition, speculation
> related to the licenses of Leonardo Corporation unless they are
> communicated directly from Leonardo Corporation.
> There is some imbecile that tries to get audience inventing situations
> that do not exist.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> Ref. [1]
>
>
> Either Rossi was not yet preparing his lawsuit at the time (and amassing
> the 18 volumes of evidence [2]), or the reply above was a misleading one.
>
> Eric
>
> [1]
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=71#comment-1158228
> [2] 'We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the
> activity of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now.'
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=89#comment-1169740
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Eric Walker]

A few days seem like an eternity.  Anyone remember this statement from
Rossi in early March?

Velda Funderburke
March 11, 2016 at 6:17 AM

Dr Andrea Rossi:
After the press release of Tom Darden the usual imbeciles are talking of
divorce between IH and Leonardo Corporation: can you comment on this ?
Velda

Andrea Rossi
March 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM

Velda Funderburke:
Thank you for spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce between
Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included Industrial Heat.
Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of Leonardo Corporation for its
Territory and I never referred to any possible divorce.
I invite anybody to disregard any innuendo, supposition, speculation
related to the licenses of Leonardo Corporation unless they are
communicated directly from Leonardo Corporation.
There is some imbecile that tries to get audience inventing situations that
do not exist.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Ref. [1]


Either Rossi was not yet preparing his lawsuit at the time (and amassing
the 18 volumes of evidence [2]), or the reply above was a misleading one.

Eric

[1]
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=71#comment-1158228
[2] 'We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the
activity of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now.'
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=89#comment-1169740

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's response do IH

[Axil Axil]

The COP of Lugano is not commercializable but it is gainful.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Jack Cole  wrote:

> It seems quite possible that Rossi taught IH the Lugano (false) method of
> experimentation, which they continued to use and be impressed with the
> amazing COPs it produced.  This may have continued until they discovered it
> was invalid.  At that point, they may have tried further replications
> getting null results.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:02 PM Alberto De Souza <
> alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems that IH is responsible for a lot of what we have seen as Rossi's
>> doing.
>>
>> Dear Janne:
>> I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and not
>> a forensic act.
>> They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many
>> replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made multiple
>> patent applications ( without my authotization ) with their chief engineer
>> as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ) , with detailed description of
>> the replications , they made replications with the attendance of Woodford,
>> after which they got 50 or 60 millions of dollars from Woodfords’
>> investors, they made replications with the attendance of Chinese top level
>> officers, after which they started thanks to the E-Cat they made an R&D
>> activity in China in a 200 millions concern, they made replications with an
>> E-Cat completely made by them under my direction the very day in which the
>> 1 MW plant has been delivered in Raleigh, they made replications that we
>> have recorded. After the replication they made with the attendance of
>> Woodford in 2013 Mr Tom Darden said publicly: ” this replication has been
>> stellar” ( witnesses available). But this is not the place to discuss this.
>> We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the activity
>> of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now. Until they had to
>> collect money thanks to the E-Cat, they made replications and have been
>> happy with the E-Cat; when it turned to have to pay, they discovered that
>> they never made replications, that the ERV that they had chosen with us was
>> not good, that the test on the 1 MW plant, thanks to which they collected
>> enormous amounts of money from the investors and where I put at risk my
>> health working 16-18 hours per day was not a good test ( but for all the
>> year of the test they NEVER said a single word of complaint, even if they
>> had constantly their men in the plant, etc etc. But the worse has still to
>> come out. The worse is in the 18 volumes we will present in due time, in
>> due place. A blog is not the right place to discuss a litigation. This is
>> only a quick answer to the press release made by IH.
>> Ad majora.
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Frank Znidarsic]

Steven Kirvit reports.  Steven was in this early and went to see Rossi in 
Europe.




http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/04/08/industrial-heat-says-goodbye-to-rossi/#more-43319


Frank

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Daniel Rocha]

So, according to Rossi, IH has everything. All the know-how necessary to
build a reactor. I hope this is true and the Chinese use the invention in
the most pervasive  way!

2016-04-08 23:23 GMT-03:00 Axil Axil :

> Rossi is pissed because his IP was given to competitors.
>
> Andrea Rossi
> April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM
> 
>
> Hank Mills:
> They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING
> !!!.
> I just teached to them what to do.
> They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.
> Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has
> always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent
> applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find
> confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I
> have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote
> about 100 pages of notes about their patents ). And now the singular
> coincidence: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they
> made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is
> the Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has
> ever made before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> Nothing to disagree with there.  I think there is something fishy going
>> on, like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick
>> the best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance.  With
>> that kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable
>> batteries could show a COP > 6.  So, we need to see the real data and how
>> the average was calculated.
>>
>> To me it seems like deja-vu all over again.  Didn't Defkalion claim that
>> they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably?
>> I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract.
>> Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for
>> reactor reliability.)
>>
>> I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the
>> key to making the bread and butter eCat work.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a
>>> good paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>>>
>>> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
>>> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
>>> unknown."
>>>
>>> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
>>> experiment was not reported.
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t
>>> pretty:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
>>>
>>> As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is
>>> clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a
>>> jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about
>>> imaginary COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either –
>>> due to evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely
>>> unqualified.
>>>
>>> Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the
>>> “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the
>>> way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a
>>> Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They
>>> might have to fly McKubre in from NZ.  J
>>>
>>> In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his
>>> sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order
>>> to prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a
>>> no-win situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean
>>> All-American types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

Rossi is pissed because his IP was given to competitors.

Andrea Rossi
April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM


Hank Mills:
They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING
!!!.
I just teached to them what to do.
They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.
Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has
always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent
applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find
confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I
have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote
about 100 pages of notes about their patents ). And now the singular
coincidence: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they
made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is
the Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has
ever made before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Nothing to disagree with there.  I think there is something fishy going
> on, like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick
> the best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance.  With
> that kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable
> batteries could show a COP > 6.  So, we need to see the real data and how
> the average was calculated.
>
> To me it seems like deja-vu all over again.  Didn't Defkalion claim that
> they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably?
> I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract.
> Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for
> reactor reliability.)
>
> I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the
> key to making the bread and butter eCat work.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a
>> good paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>>
>> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
>> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
>> unknown."
>>
>> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
>> experiment was not reported.
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t
>> pretty:
>>
>>
>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
>>
>> As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is
>> clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a
>> jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about
>> imaginary COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either –
>> due to evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely
>> unqualified.
>>
>> Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the
>> “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the
>> way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a
>> Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They
>> might have to fly McKubre in from NZ.  J
>>
>> In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his
>> sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to
>> prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win
>> situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American
>> types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with 2012 Penon report

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:04:31 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
> wrote:
>
>Perhaps you just misinterpret what he said. It could also be taken to mean:-
>
>"the output varied between 2.5 and 3.7 kW" rather than that there was a
>> large
>> error in the measurement.
>
>
>I do not think so. Look at the first table on page 14. The column headings
>are "First hypothesis" (2.5 kW) and "Second hypothesis" (3.7 kW). The two
>hypotheses are listed on page 13:
>
>"* that the temperature of the inner cylinder is equal to that of the outer
>cylinder. This is the worst-case hypothesis;
>
>* that the power irradiated by the inner cylinder is equal to that
>irradiated by the outer cylinder."
>
>He should have sorted out which apotheosis is correct, by calibration.
>
>- Jed

After looking at the report, I come to the conclusion that both estimates are
wrong. They are both based on the assumption that the power radiated by the
inner cylinder and that radiated by the outer cylinder are additive. This is
obviously wrong, since the radiation of the inner cylinder is absorbed and
reradiated by the outer cylinder. Hence only the area of the outer cylinder is
of consequence (with a correction for the radiation from the end of the inner
cylinder, which would increase the power somewhat).

Using his formula and figures, this gives a power of 1.758 kW (Ignoring
radiation from the end of the inner cylinder), rather than either 
of 2.468 kW or 3.66 kW. Note that his method also makes use of an "estimated"
emissivity, which could also be off.

In general I don't think trying to determine power output by measuring thermal
radiation is a good approach. However in the year long test, that wasn't the
method employed, so I'm hopeful that the results of that test will be more
useful.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's response do IH

[Jack Cole]

It seems quite possible that Rossi taught IH the Lugano (false) method of
experimentation, which they continued to use and be impressed with the
amazing COPs it produced.  This may have continued until they discovered it
was invalid.  At that point, they may have tried further replications
getting null results.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:02 PM Alberto De Souza <
alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems that IH is responsible for a lot of what we have seen as Rossi's
> doing.
>
> Dear Janne:
> I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and not a
> forensic act.
> They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many
> replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made multiple
> patent applications ( without my authotization ) with their chief engineer
> as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ) , with detailed description of
> the replications , they made replications with the attendance of Woodford,
> after which they got 50 or 60 millions of dollars from Woodfords’
> investors, they made replications with the attendance of Chinese top level
> officers, after which they started thanks to the E-Cat they made an R&D
> activity in China in a 200 millions concern, they made replications with an
> E-Cat completely made by them under my direction the very day in which the
> 1 MW plant has been delivered in Raleigh, they made replications that we
> have recorded. After the replication they made with the attendance of
> Woodford in 2013 Mr Tom Darden said publicly: ” this replication has been
> stellar” ( witnesses available). But this is not the place to discuss this.
> We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the activity
> of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now. Until they had to
> collect money thanks to the E-Cat, they made replications and have been
> happy with the E-Cat; when it turned to have to pay, they discovered that
> they never made replications, that the ERV that they had chosen with us was
> not good, that the test on the 1 MW plant, thanks to which they collected
> enormous amounts of money from the investors and where I put at risk my
> health working 16-18 hours per day was not a good test ( but for all the
> year of the test they NEVER said a single word of complaint, even if they
> had constantly their men in the plant, etc etc. But the worse has still to
> come out. The worse is in the 18 volumes we will present in due time, in
> due place. A blog is not the right place to discuss a litigation. This is
> only a quick answer to the press release made by IH.
> Ad majora.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

The Lugano reactor was IH tech. This marginal system is what IH is
concerned about. They need Rossi's new systems.


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
>> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
>> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
>> outer envelope is a BIG error.
>>
>
> This is my impression, too.  It seems that Tom wants to turn an
> irremediably inconclusive test into one that shows conclusively a result
> convenient to his own biases.  In order to have that, you'd need a proper
> calibration, so that you could obtain an accurate temperature reading,
> among other things.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Bob Higgins]

Nothing to disagree with there.  I think there is something fishy going on,
like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick the
best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance.  With that
kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable
batteries could show a COP > 6.  So, we need to see the real data and how
the average was calculated.

To me it seems like deja-vu all over again.  Didn't Defkalion claim that
they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably?
I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract.
Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for
reactor reliability.)

I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the
key to making the bread and butter eCat work.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good
> paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>
> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
> unknown."
>
> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
> experiment was not reported.
>
> Bob,
>
> First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t pretty
> :
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
>
> As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is
> clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a
> jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about imaginary
> COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either – due to
> evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely unqualified.
>
> Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the
> “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the
> way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a
> Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They
> might have to fly McKubre in from NZ.  J
>
> In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his
> sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to
> prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win
> situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American
> types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it.
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi's response do IH

[Alberto De Souza]

It seems that IH is responsible for a lot of what we have seen as Rossi's
doing.

Dear Janne:
I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and not a
forensic act.
They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many
replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made multiple
patent applications ( without my authotization ) with their chief engineer
as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ) , with detailed description of
the replications , they made replications with the attendance of Woodford,
after which they got 50 or 60 millions of dollars from Woodfords’
investors, they made replications with the attendance of Chinese top level
officers, after which they started thanks to the E-Cat they made an R&D
activity in China in a 200 millions concern, they made replications with an
E-Cat completely made by them under my direction the very day in which the
1 MW plant has been delivered in Raleigh, they made replications that we
have recorded. After the replication they made with the attendance of
Woodford in 2013 Mr Tom Darden said publicly: ” this replication has been
stellar” ( witnesses available). But this is not the place to discuss this.
We have prepared 18 volumes to explain exactly and in detail the activity
of our “Licensee” and his acquaintances from 2013 to now. Until they had to
collect money thanks to the E-Cat, they made replications and have been
happy with the E-Cat; when it turned to have to pay, they discovered that
they never made replications, that the ERV that they had chosen with us was
not good, that the test on the 1 MW plant, thanks to which they collected
enormous amounts of money from the investors and where I put at risk my
health working 16-18 hours per day was not a good test ( but for all the
year of the test they NEVER said a single word of complaint, even if they
had constantly their men in the plant, etc etc. But the worse has still to
come out. The worse is in the 18 volumes we will present in due time, in
due place. A blog is not the right place to discuss a litigation. This is
only a quick answer to the press release made by IH.
Ad majora.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
> outer envelope is a BIG error.
>

This is my impression, too.  It seems that Tom wants to turn an
irremediably inconclusive test into one that shows conclusively a result
convenient to his own biases.  In order to have that, you'd need a proper
calibration, so that you could obtain an accurate temperature reading,
among other things.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

Jed,

You or all people understand the need to destroy people and put a company
out of business on account of a perceived slight. Defkalion cost you $1000
on a plane ticket and you did your best to kill that company.

Rossi's situation was far worse. He was forced to spend 1 year working 18
hours a day for one full year in a shipping container, risking his health
and near the end thinking he had developed cancer, Then when it came time
to pay up, IH reneges.

The basic principle of omertà is that  an individual who has been wronged
is obligated to look out for his own interests by avenging that wrong
himself, or finding a patron to do the job. Rossi will do a job on IH and
their officers. Money is not an issue; it's personal.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>>
>
> Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by
> the contract.
>
> If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
> He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Lennart Thornros]

Russ I agree - I rather tried to be humorous.
It baffles me that IH let it go to lawsuit without negotiations. It is of
course possible such negotiations has been ongoing for a long time, on the
other hand.


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 Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> Unlikely a PR stunt not unlikely a negotiation over the $89 million.
>
>
>
> *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 8, 2016 4:06 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> Lots of speculations.
>
> The good news is thanks to the lawsuit we will soon learn what an Ecat can
> do.
>
> To me it is amazing that no other indication, and a weak one - the press
> release mid March, signaled the rift between IH and AR. Maybe Alain is
> correct the whole lawsuit is a PR job:
>
> Wouldn't that be great humor - Harry?
>
>
> 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 Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Alain Sepeda 
> wrote:
>
> just a naive/stupid idea ?
>
> does IH just want Rossi to bring good and solid evidence to the court, so
> they have to pay, and then be rich with LENR industry, whoever's technology
> is used and paid ?
>
>
>
> after all, who cares if E-cat can be sold.
>
> if E-cat is proven to work, instantly thousands of startup will bring new
> technologies around LENR, some reactors, and some just applications.
>
> VC and crowdfunding will fuel research and developments...
>
>
>
> who will care of someone who sued his VC?
>
>
>
> 2016-04-08 23:48 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>
> No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>
>
>
> Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by
> the contract.
>
>
>
> If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
> He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good 
paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
"This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater wire 
emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are unknown."

I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the experiment was 
not reported.
Bob, 
First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t pretty:
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547
As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is 
clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a jury will 
never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about imaginary COP of 60 and 
not hear about the year-long testing either – due to evidentiary rules and the 
fact that Penon is completely unqualified.
Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the “known 
laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the way the legal 
system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a Court who will testify 
that it can work – much less that it did work. They might have to fly McKubre 
in from NZ.  :-) 
In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his sordid 
background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to prove a 
continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win situation for 
Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American types who clean up the 
environment, instead of pollute it.

RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Russ George]

Unlikely a PR stunt not unlikely a negotiation over the $89 million.

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 4:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

Lots of speculations.

The good news is thanks to the lawsuit we will soon learn what an Ecat can do.

To me it is amazing that no other indication, and a weak one - the press 
release mid March, signaled the rift between IH and AR. Maybe Alain is correct 
the whole lawsuit is a PR job:

Wouldn't that be great humor - Harry?




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 Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Alain Sepeda mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com> > wrote:

just a naive/stupid idea ?

does IH just want Rossi to bring good and solid evidence to the court, so they 
have to pay, and then be rich with LENR industry, whoever's technology is used 
and paid ?

 

after all, who cares if E-cat can be sold.

if E-cat is proven to work, instantly thousands of startup will bring new 
technologies around LENR, some reactors, and some just applications.

VC and crowdfunding will fuel research and developments...

 

who will care of someone who sued his VC?

 

2016-04-08 23:48 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> >:

Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't. 

 

Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by the 
contract.

 

If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money. He is 
not refusing it. He is suing to get it!

 

- Jed

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Lennart Thornros]

Lots of speculations.
The good news is thanks to the lawsuit we will soon learn what an Ecat can
do.
To me it is amazing that no other indication, and a weak one - the press
release mid March, signaled the rift between IH and AR. Maybe Alain is
correct the whole lawsuit is a PR job:
Wouldn't that be great humor - Harry?

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 Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> just a naive/stupid idea ?
> does IH just want Rossi to bring good and solid evidence to the court, so
> they have to pay, and then be rich with LENR industry, whoever's technology
> is used and paid ?
>
> after all, who cares if E-cat can be sold.
> if E-cat is proven to work, instantly thousands of startup will bring new
> technologies around LENR, some reactors, and some just applications.
> VC and crowdfunding will fuel research and developments...
>
> who will care of someone who sued his VC?
>
> 2016-04-08 23:48 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>> No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>>>
>>
>> Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by
>> the contract.
>>
>> If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
>> He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Lennart Thornros]

As there is no trade agreement between the US and China transfer of IP from
the US to China is really hard to understand that IH have transferred the
IP.

I agree with that this is the way we will get final clarity about how well
or at all the E-cat works. That might be good - I think so.

The other side of the story as I see it is that it shows how useless
patents are. Only lawyers gain from the existence of patent. I can remember
more License agreement that caused headache and controversy, than the ones
that created mutual benefit. Contrary to the critic, against Rossi for the
way he has accepted the agreement, I think it was smart to take money
upfront. Then we will see what is in the pudding.:)

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 Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

> Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production
> very rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race
> will ensue where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the
> Chinese. Making Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and
> world trade will demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting
> the tech slip away would be bad for them but possibly very good for the
> world.
>
> Fran
>
> *From:* Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP
> rather than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.
> IH has had advertised substantial involvement with various entities in
> China.
>
>
>
> The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade
> secrets of his fuel formula, secret?
>
>
>
> If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion
> by Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.
> Rossi raised this issue in his recent complaint.
>
>
>
> I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese
> Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in
> order to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was
> not a listed IP associated with the agreement.
>
>
>
> Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But
> as has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining
> reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants,
> and  consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific
> theories” or validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than
> elsewhere, IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>
> I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this
> situation, whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.
>
> If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a
> burden - and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself
> is an admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that
> IH is in fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well
> to a jury, and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is
> evidence of such a ploy.
>
> Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go
> direct to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of
> that? There is no doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else,
> and that an e-cat may never be viable in the USA. That could be the big
> picture dynamic.
>
> It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Alain Sepeda]

just a naive/stupid idea ?
does IH just want Rossi to bring good and solid evidence to the court, so
they have to pay, and then be rich with LENR industry, whoever's technology
is used and paid ?

after all, who cares if E-cat can be sold.
if E-cat is proven to work, instantly thousands of startup will bring new
technologies around LENR, some reactors, and some just applications.
VC and crowdfunding will fuel research and developments...

who will care of someone who sued his VC?

2016-04-08 23:48 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>>
>
> Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by
> the contract.
>
> If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
> He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Bob Cook]

It is my understanding that the test in Rossi's facility in Ferrara, Italy 
was the 24 hr test that IH first witnesses to form the basis for buying the 
1 Mw unit. Rossi subsequently shipped to NC.  It consisted of 100  10 kw 
reactors.  The successful 24 hr test earned Rossi $10 to add to the S1.5 M 
he received in sale of the unit to IH.


The Lugano test was a separate operation which was supported by both Rossi 
and IH early after the agreement signing.


The current $89M in question was to be paid to Rossi by IH at the end of the 
350 day operation of the unit purchased by IH.  However, somewhere along the 
line the purchased unit was replaced by a new 1 Mw plant design with 4, 250 
Mw reactors.  The original plant was held as a backup in the 350 day trial, 
but was not used.  It may have been shipped from NC to Miami to serve as a 
ready backup.  It seems reasonable that IH agreed to substitute the newer 
plant design.  It would seem that IH paid for the construction of the new 
plant, since they went along with the 350 test in the Miami location and 
paid half the cost of the third party observer.


As I have considered in an earlier comment, my guess is that IH had to show 
more ownership of knowhow and IP  to bring the Chinese entities on board.


That decision on IH's part may have been the beginning of the friction, if 
not their lack of action to identify a customer to accomplish the 350 test 
and allow payment of the $89M to Rossi upon its completion.Such action, 
if actually occurring would get my attention, if I were Rossi.


The $89M would have likely provided funding for Rossi's planned development 
of a large scale production facility in Sweden and further protection of his 
patents and IP, consistent with his long-stated strategy.   Flooding the 
market with low cost devices before competitors could get a foot hold or 
governments could act to stop the spread of the technology seems to be a 
reasonable strategy, given Rossi experience in Italy in the past and his 
awareness of hostile political powers that would go against such a change.


Bob Cook



-Original Message- 
From: Dave

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 2:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor 
Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.


I do not accept this analysis as definitive.  Please note the very rapid
change in measured temperature of the Lugano reactor that occurs with a
small change in input drive power.  How would you explain that as a
function of the material? Do you believe that the material changes
properties that significantly with such a small change in drive?

My thermal models show this effect quite clearly, especially when the
COP begins to become significant.  I believe that everyone needs to
rethink what they are accepting as facts.

Dave



On 04/08/2016 01:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid 
thermal

gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
=1

The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has 
a

non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant 
band

emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.

We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 
779C,
not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows 
a

COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by 
the

Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.


From: Robert Dorr


I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for

the Lugano test and that they even signed it.

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test 
of

a Rossi reactor.

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

IH is in a bad place, they can't produce the E-Cat and Rossi won't tell
them how. Rossi will do his best to destroy these people as payback for not
playing right by him.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>>
>
> Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by
> the contract.
>
> If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
> He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[H LV]

Any chance IH and Rossi have a sense of humor?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>

Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by the
contract.

If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't. Rossi
want to hurt IH, its the Italian way. Rossi will try to give IH nothing,
give their territory to someone else or just keep it for himself and still
get the 90M. After all, that is decent money even if you stand to make
billions, After All, every million counts especially if it is tax free.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Rossi does not need IH anymore and he was looking for a way out from under
>> the IH contract without giving IH that 50 COP package.
>>
>
> If that were the case, Rossi would simply walk away. Let me remind you he
> is suing I.H. for $89 million. He wants payment because he says the
> verification test worked. If all he wanted to do was to get out from under
> the contract he would say: "You say it does not work? Fine. Good. Sayonara."
>
> I.H. has opened the door and offered him a way out. They want him out.
> They do not want to pay the money, so that would end the contract.
>
> What you say makes no sense. I.H. wants out from under the contract; Rossi
> wants them to abide by it.
>
> The only issue is whether the test proves there was heat or not.
> Everything hinges on that. If the test showed no heat, that means there is
> no intellectual property at stake, and nothing for I.H. to steal or sell to
> the Chinese.
>
> If the test is ambiguous the dispute will continue indefinitely. Otherwise
> it must come to an abrupt end one way or the other. All discussion of
> motives and plots and plans is irrelevant. Calorimetry is the only salient
> issue in this lawsuit.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Roarty, Francis X]

Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production very 
rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race will ensue 
where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the Chinese. Making 
Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and world trade will 
demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting the tech slip away 
would be bad for them but possibly very good for the world.
Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP rather 
than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.  IH has had 
advertised substantial involvement with various entities in China.

The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade secrets of 
his fuel formula, secret?

If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion by 
Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.  Rossi 
raised this issue in his recent complaint.

I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese 
Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in order 
to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was not a 
listed IP associated with the agreement.

Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But as 
has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining 
reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants, and  
consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific theories” or 
validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than elsewhere, IMHO.

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi


From: Robert Lynn

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face.

I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.

If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a burden 
- and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself is an 
admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that IH is in 
fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well to a jury, 
and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is evidence of such 
a ploy.

Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go direct 
to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that? There is no 
doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and that an e-cat may 
never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture dynamic.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser….

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Dave]

I do not accept this analysis as definitive.  Please note the very rapid 
change in measured temperature of the Lugano reactor that occurs with a 
small change in input drive power.  How would you explain that as a 
function of the material? Do you believe that the material changes 
properties that significantly with such a small change in drive?


My thermal models show this effect quite clearly, especially when the 
COP begins to become significant.  I believe that everyone needs to 
rethink what they are accepting as facts.


Dave



On 04/08/2016 01:58 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid thermal
gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
=1

The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant band
emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.

We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 779C,
not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows a
COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.


From: Robert Dorr


I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for

the Lugano test and that they even signed it.

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

Rossi does not need IH anymore and he was looking for a way out from under
> the IH contract without giving IH that 50 COP package.
>

If that were the case, Rossi would simply walk away. Let me remind you he
is suing I.H. for $89 million. He wants payment because he says the
verification test worked. If all he wanted to do was to get out from under
the contract he would say: "You say it does not work? Fine. Good. Sayonara."

I.H. has opened the door and offered him a way out. They want him out. They
do not want to pay the money, so that would end the contract.

What you say makes no sense. I.H. wants out from under the contract; Rossi
wants them to abide by it.

The only issue is whether the test proves there was heat or not. Everything
hinges on that. If the test showed no heat, that means there is no
intellectual property at stake, and nothing for I.H. to steal or sell to
the Chinese.

If the test is ambiguous the dispute will continue indefinitely. Otherwise
it must come to an abrupt end one way or the other. All discussion of
motives and plots and plans is irrelevant. Calorimetry is the only salient
issue in this lawsuit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

The Lugano test used Rossi's fuel and it did not produce commercial levels
of excess heat. There is more to Rossi's reactor than just the fuel mix.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP
> rather than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.
> IH has had advertised substantial involvement with various entities in
> China.
>
> The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade
> secrets of his fuel formula, secret?
>
> If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion
> by Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.
> Rossi raised this issue in his recent complaint.
>
> I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese
> Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in
> order to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was
> not a listed IP associated with the agreement.
>
> Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But
> as has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining
> reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants,
> and  consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific
> theories” or validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than
> elsewhere, IMHO.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>
> I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation,
> whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.
>
> If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a
> burden - and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself
> is an admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is
> that IH is in fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not
> present well to a jury, and has little chance of succeeding in a trial
> unless there is evidence of such a ploy.
>
> Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go
> direct to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that?
> There is no doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and
> that an e-cat may never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture
> dynamic.
>
> It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to RossiI do not consider it would be 
good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP rather than licensee to use it to 
provide products in the license domain.  IH has had advertised substantial 
involvement with various entities in China. 

The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade secrets of 
his fuel formula, secret?   

If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion by 
Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.  Rossi 
raised this issue in his recent complaint.

I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese 
Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in order 
to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was not a 
listed IP associated with the agreement.  

Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But as 
has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining 
reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants, and  
consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific theories” or 
validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than elsewhere, IMHO.  

Bob Cook 



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

From: Robert Lynn 


Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face. 


I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual. 

If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a burden 
- and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself is an 
admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that IH is in 
fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well to a jury, 
and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is evidence of such 
a ploy.


Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go direct 
to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that? There is no 
doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and that an e-cat may 
never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture dynamic.


It just gets curiouser and curiouser….

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

Rossi does not need IH anymore and he was looking for a way out from under
the IH contract without giving IH that 50 COP package. IH has the COP 6
package but they wanted that real good stuff that Rossi was helding back
from IH,

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> He seems to be over aggressive to the point of "almost" lying. I don't
> know legalese. You see, it's either that or IH is full of shit with their 3
> year claim of nothing proved. His sudden attack on IH, only a few days
> after the report was released, with full disclosure of a conflict, since
> years of good relations, sounds complete nutty to me! So, why not more
> nutty things?!? Specially on the divergence I mentioned!
>
> 2016-04-08 15:50 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
>> [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
>> for Automatic Cleanup! (jedrothw...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
>> 
>> | More info
>> 
>>
>> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>
>> I still do not believe that Rossi got the 10 million from the escrow.
>>> That's his version. This is not compatible with IH claiming they were not
>>> to get anything proven in 3 years . . .
>>>
>>
>> Why on earth do you think that Rossi would claim he got the $10 million
>> if he did not get it??? That makes no sense. Also, he made that claim in a
>> lawsuit filing. If that is not true, the judge will throw out the lawsuit.
>> You cannot make false claims in a lawsuit. Especially gigantic, important
>> claims central to the lawsuit such as: "this company paid me $10 million."
>> That is a lot of money!
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Daniel Rocha]

He seems to be over aggressive to the point of "almost" lying. I don't know
legalese. You see, it's either that or IH is full of shit with their 3 year
claim of nothing proved. His sudden attack on IH, only a few days after the
report was released, with full disclosure of a conflict, since years of
good relations, sounds complete nutty to me! So, why not more nutty
things?!? Specially on the divergence I mentioned!

2016-04-08 15:50 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> [image: Boxbe]  This message is eligible
> for Automatic Cleanup! (jedrothw...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
> 
> | More info
> 
>
> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> I still do not believe that Rossi got the 10 million from the escrow.
>> That's his version. This is not compatible with IH claiming they were not
>> to get anything proven in 3 years . . .
>>
>
> Why on earth do you think that Rossi would claim he got the $10 million if
> he did not get it??? That makes no sense. Also, he made that claim in a
> lawsuit filing. If that is not true, the judge will throw out the lawsuit.
> You cannot make false claims in a lawsuit. Especially gigantic, important
> claims central to the lawsuit such as: "this company paid me $10 million."
> That is a lot of money!
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[a.ashfield]

Jed wrote: "Anyone who uses a patented technology must pay royalties. It 
makes no
difference whether you previously had an agreement with the inventor or 
not."


It is only too easy to fight an "improved" patent.   The patent fight 
destroyed the Wright Bros.


"The Wrights' preoccupation with the legal issue hindered their 
development of new aircraft designs, and by 1910 Wright aircraft were 
inferior to those made by other firms in Europe.[11] Indeed, aviation 
development in the U.S. was suppressed to such an extent that when the 
country entered World War I no acceptable American-designed aircraft 
were available, and U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines.


In January 1914, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in 
favor of the Wrights against the Curtiss company, which continued to 
avoid penalties through legal tactics."

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

What kind of LENR tech did IH buy from Rossi? If the deal was done three
years ago, then the COP that should be expected is under 6. Yes, Rossi will
produce the new COP 50 systems, and IH will sell them. But Rossi will
design that factory for IH and that tech will not be transferred to China..

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> Jed wrote: "Surely they would have to pay royalties in that case."
>>
>> Not necessarily.  They could claim the agreement was null and void as the
>> bench mark failed.
>>
>
> Anyone who uses a patented technology must pay royalties. It makes no
> difference whether you previously had an agreement with the inventor or not.
>
> If Rossi gets a patent, every company on earth which uses his technology
> will have to pay him a royalty. It is well known that in China and in some
> other places companies get away without doing this, but legally they are
> obligated.
>
>
>
>> Then develop there own device that was different because it had a higher
>> COP.
>
>
> If the patent judge rules it is an infringement they will have to pay
> royalties. If the judge rules their own device is unique and is not based
> on Rossi's then they will not have to pay royalties. In that case they will
> not have benefited from their knowledge of his device. (Assuming the ruling
> is fair.)
>
>
> Look at the Wright Bros & Curtis or Bell & Meucci
>>
>
> The Wright brothers won the suit against Curtis. They got their royalties.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

The Lugano test was a demonstration of IH technology that was in place as
of a few months ago. Rossi supported the test but had nothing to do with it
or had any stake in that test succeeding. The state of IH LENR tech as show
by Lugano was poor even if Rossi told IH how to produce the fuel.  The
Lugano test was used for IH;s patent application.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good
> paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:
>
> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater
> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are
> unknown."
>
> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the
> experiment was not reported.   BUT, I will say that the unknown transmitted
> radiant heat will be an unknown positive value - above what is accounted
> for via emissivity.  At the higher temperatures, particularly at the core
> and the heater, the blackbody radiation peaks at a much shorter wavelength,
> delivering much radiation in the transmission band of alumina - and - the
> radiated power rises rapidly at the higher temperature of the coil and the
> core.  All of the transmitted heat is unaccounted, and it all contributes
> to the COP being greater than 1.0.
>
> The argument based on high differential COP being used by the Lugano
> researchers to argue gain probably does not hold much water, as Clarke
> says.  However, this also does not disprove COP>1.0.  The fact that you add
> additional heat and don't get a greater COP is not at all indicative that
> the COP is only 1.  There is no reason to believe that the COP was
> improving as the temperature went up.  Those two data points simply provide
> no information that the COP was only 1.0.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> Your point about the transmitted radiation is answered by Clarke’s final
>> quoted observation, which I included. Since transmitted radiation would be
>> greater with greater input power -- if it were to be relevant -- we can
>> judge its relevance by looking at differential COP. Since the differential
>> COP does not change with added power, transmitted radiation cannot be
>> relevant. Quote:
>>
>>
>>
>> “Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
>> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
>> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by
>> the
>> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
>> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
>> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
>> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
>> outer envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported
>> that would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is
>> the biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an
>> independent output that is only weakly related to the characterized
>> envelope temperature (as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will
>> probably never know what the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger
>> than 1.0 and probably around 1.6-2.0.
>>
>> We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's
>> work.  However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a
>> COP>2.  Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
>> thermal
>> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
>> Thomas Clarke.
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
>> =1
>>
>> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
>> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
>> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has
>> a
>> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
>> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
>> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
>> band
>> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>>
>> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
>> 779C,
>> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system
>> shows a
>> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
>> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
>> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
>> alumina emissivity. Thus the argumen

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Jed wrote: "Surely they would have to pay royalties in that case."
>
> Not necessarily.  They could claim the agreement was null and void as the
> bench mark failed.
>

Anyone who uses a patented technology must pay royalties. It makes no
difference whether you previously had an agreement with the inventor or not.

If Rossi gets a patent, every company on earth which uses his technology
will have to pay him a royalty. It is well known that in China and in some
other places companies get away without doing this, but legally they are
obligated.



> Then develop there own device that was different because it had a higher
> COP.


If the patent judge rules it is an infringement they will have to pay
royalties. If the judge rules their own device is unique and is not based
on Rossi's then they will not have to pay royalties. In that case they will
not have benefited from their knowledge of his device. (Assuming the ruling
is fair.)


Look at the Wright Bros & Curtis or Bell & Meucci
>

The Wright brothers won the suit against Curtis. They got their royalties.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Bob Higgins]

Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a good
paper.  In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states:

"This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater wire
emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are unknown."

I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the experiment
was not reported.   BUT, I will say that the unknown transmitted radiant
heat will be an unknown positive value - above what is accounted for via
emissivity.  At the higher temperatures, particularly at the core and the
heater, the blackbody radiation peaks at a much shorter wavelength,
delivering much radiation in the transmission band of alumina - and - the
radiated power rises rapidly at the higher temperature of the coil and the
core.  All of the transmitted heat is unaccounted, and it all contributes
to the COP being greater than 1.0.

The argument based on high differential COP being used by the Lugano
researchers to argue gain probably does not hold much water, as Clarke
says.  However, this also does not disprove COP>1.0.  The fact that you add
additional heat and don't get a greater COP is not at all indicative that
the COP is only 1.  There is no reason to believe that the COP was
improving as the temperature went up.  Those two data points simply provide
no information that the COP was only 1.0.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> Your point about the transmitted radiation is answered by Clarke’s final
> quoted observation, which I included. Since transmitted radiation would be
> greater with greater input power -- if it were to be relevant -- we can
> judge its relevance by looking at differential COP. Since the differential
> COP does not change with added power, transmitted radiation cannot be
> relevant. Quote:
>
>
>
> “Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
> COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
> Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
> outer envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported
> that would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is
> the biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an
> independent output that is only weakly related to the characterized
> envelope temperature (as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will
> probably never know what the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger
> than 1.0 and probably around 1.6-2.0.
>
> We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's
> work.  However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a
> COP>2.  Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
> =1
>
> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
> band
> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>
> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
> 779C,
> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows
> a
> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
> From: Robert Dorr
>
> > I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
> the Lugano test and that they even signed it.
>
> But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
> measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
> stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[a.ashfield]

Jed wrote: "Surely they would have to pay royalties in that case."

Not necessarily.  They could claim the agreement was null and void as 
the bench mark failed.
Then develop there own device that was different because it had a higher 
COP.  Look at the Wright Bros & Curtis or Bell & Meucci


Why are IH building a lab?

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

Andrea Rossi
April 6, 2016 at 4:07 PM


Domenico Canino:
This time the story goes that “Meucci” has the patent, the industry, the
product and whomever will try to compete against us will discover what is
there under the tip of the iceberg.
Warm Regards
A.R.


Rossi has discovered many things in his years of constant trial and error.
He might have only given IH a bare minimum to get that 11.5 million. He
might have held back the Cat/Mouse COP amplifier method. IH might just have
been able to produce a COP that a mouse can generate(< 2).



When IH saw a COP of 50, IH knew Rossi was not giving IH all his way and
means. Brilliouin is not a system that can use Mouse/Cat amplification. So
the Rossi IP transfer to Brilliouin had a problem. These two systems
were incompatible. The stealing of Rossi IP was plane for Rossi to see but
the hold back of that IP by Rossi was not apparent till after
the Third party test.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed wrote: Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if
>> the demo worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be
>> on track to make vast amounts of money . . .
>
>
> That wasn't me, but I agree.
>
>
>
>> Suppose IH thought the E-Cat would not meet the test criteria of COP 6
>> (IH were having trouble doing it)? Remember Rossi was using s different
>> version, the 250kW modules.  If the test failed, having the IP they could
>> then go on developing it themselves.  They are building a new lab.
>>
>
> Surely they would have to pay royalties in that case. I expect they would
> end up paying a lot more than $89 million if the technology succeeds in the
> marketplace.
>
> $89 million is a very reasonable sum if the technology works, even if it
> needs more development. Actually, that is dirt cheap. It is only too much
> to pay if, as I.H. claims, they have not been able to "substantiate" it.
>
> ("Substantiate" could mean a lot of things, I suppose.)
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[a.ashfield]

Beene wrote:

"If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid thermal
gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke."

I agree the Lugano report failed in calibration. I don't take Clarke's analysis 
as gospel.  He makes a number of assumptions too.  I think the actual result 
was still well above a COP 1
He also is an avid supporter of AGW and the IPCC too.  That should tell you 
something.

[Vo]:Rossi story missing from media outside blogosphere ?

[Russ George]

Here’s a chance for a bit of Vortean Crowd work, where has any report of the 
Rossi story made it into ‘mainstream’ media, mainstream meaning outside of 
blogs and social media. Contributions of links here will be a good collective 
exercise.

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

Your point about the transmitted radiation is answered by Clarke’s final quoted 
observation, which I included. Since transmitted radiation would be greater 
with greater input power -- if it were to be relevant -- we can judge its 
relevance by looking at differential COP. Since the differential COP does not 
change with added power, transmitted radiation cannot be relevant. Quote:

 

“Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of COP 
analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.  Failure 
to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the outer 
envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported that 
would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is the 
biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an independent 
output that is only weakly related to the characterized envelope temperature 
(as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will probably never know what 
the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger than 1.0 and probably around 
1.6-2.0.

We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's work.  
However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a COP>2.  
Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.

 

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid thermal
gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2 

 &pli
=1

The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant band
emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.

We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 779C,
not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows a
COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.


From: Robert Dorr

> I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
the Lugano test and that they even signed it.

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.





 

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed wrote: Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if
> the demo worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be
> on track to make vast amounts of money . . .


That wasn't me, but I agree.



> Suppose IH thought the E-Cat would not meet the test criteria of COP 6 (IH
> were having trouble doing it)? Remember Rossi was using s different
> version, the 250kW modules.  If the test failed, having the IP they could
> then go on developing it themselves.  They are building a new lab.
>

Surely they would have to pay royalties in that case. I expect they would
end up paying a lot more than $89 million if the technology succeeds in the
marketplace.

$89 million is a very reasonable sum if the technology works, even if it
needs more development. Actually, that is dirt cheap. It is only too much
to pay if, as I.H. claims, they have not been able to "substantiate" it.

("Substantiate" could mean a lot of things, I suppose.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Axil Axil]

A large blob of melted nickel that was pealed out of the Lugano reactor
speaks louder than any thermocouple. The core of the Lugano reactor got
beyond 1455C no matter what the external temperature reading showed or how
those measurements were made.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
> =1
>
> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
> band
> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>
> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
> 779C,
> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows
> a
> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
> From: Robert Dorr
>
> > I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
> the Lugano test and that they even signed it.
>
> But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
> measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
> stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test
> of
> a Rossi reactor.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

Rossi was ready to pounce with his lawsuit the moment the 5 days had passed
> after the ERV report and he didn't get paid.
>

It does seem like a lot of work went into the filing. I suppose I.H. was
prepared too. Their March 10 statement said, in effect, "we think Rossi
made a mistake."

"Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from
both. . . .

We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims
made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if
affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have
verified our results in repeated experiments."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[a.ashfield]

Jed wrote: Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - 
if the demo worked they would be the happiest people in the world and 
would be on track to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand 
over 90million they would be doing so with a big smile on their face."


I think speculation before seeing the ERV's report is pointless, but to 
answer your point.  Suppose IH thought the E-Cat would not meet the test 
criteria of COP 6 (IH were having trouble doing it)? Remember Rossi was 
using s different version, the 250kW modules.  If the test failed, 
having the IP they could then go on developing it themselves.  They are 
building a new lab.

The point is, no one know right now until the ERV's report is released.

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

I still do not believe that Rossi got the 10 million from the escrow.
> That's his version. This is not compatible with IH claiming they were not
> to get anything proven in 3 years . . .
>

Why on earth do you think that Rossi would claim he got the $10 million if
he did not get it??? That makes no sense. Also, he made that claim in a
lawsuit filing. If that is not true, the judge will throw out the lawsuit.
You cannot make false claims in a lawsuit. Especially gigantic, important
claims central to the lawsuit such as: "this company paid me $10 million."
That is a lot of money!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

Rossi was ready to pounce with his lawsuit the moment the 5 days had passed
after the ERV report and he didn't get paid. He had his "plan B" in place
as soon as IH showed their true nature. It had to take some time  to
prepare the case filing; in other words: how far in advance did Rossi see
this coming? Rossi had a fair idea of the type of people he
was dealing with. His statement that "We have prepared 18 volumes to
explain exactly and in detail the activity of our “Licensee” and his
acquaintances from 2013 to now." Shows that he saw this coming a LONG way
off and has been working with his attorneys for many months to prepare this
lawsuit just in case. I guess he knew something was fishy once he saw the
patent applications that IH filed and also the Brillouin demo in DC. Now he
just needs to clam up so he his extra-judicial pronouncements don't
interfere with or prejudice the upcoming legal proceedings, but we all know
that clamming up is not in Rossi's nature.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> Who could expect justice and morality from a money manager faced with the
>> prospects of a thousand trillion dollars of revenue at his fingertips.
>>
>
> I would expect justice and morality from such people, in that situation. I
> have dealt with such people. Most of them are as ethical as any normal
> person.
>
> There is no reason why a venture capitalist will cheat just because the
> sums of money are particularly large. If they will pay you 10% of a million
> as agreed, they are as likely to pay 10% of a billion or a trillion. They
> do not make money or maintain their reputation by cheating, or by
> alienating inventors.
>
> The assertion that they will be unethical because the sums of money happen
> to be large makes no sense. That is like saying a car dealer will follow
> the rules when he sells you a $20,000 Toyota, but if you go in to buy a
> Lamborghini he is sure to cheat.
>
> If I.H. agreed to pay some dollar amount to Rossi, or some fraction of
> total revenue, it is because they *want* to pay that amount. It is in
> their interest to pay. The fact that they already paid him $11 million
> tells you they are serious. The only plausible reason they would not pay
> the remaining $89 million is the reason they gave in their press release:
> they have not been able to substantiate the claims. If they were sure the
> effect is real it would be insane not to conclude the transaction and move
> ahead.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Daniel Rocha]

It also could be that IH is lying. The Chinese are bidding to high and want
little to do with someone with bad temper, mouthful, that can explode at
anytime. And to add to the injury, it also goes against the Confucian
culture,

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Daniel Rocha]

I still do not believe that Rossi got the 10 million from the escrow.
That's his version. This is not compatible with IH claiming they were not
to get anything proven in 3 years, which would include any test. I think
aiming for the 89 million implies that Rossi would also automatically
would  substantiate the previous test to get the 10 million. So, I think he
is aiming higher to get it all.

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

As I have previously pointed out, Clarke's analysis is flawed in terms of
COP analysis - perhaps as badly as the analysis by the Lugano researchers.
Failure to recognize and account for the transmitted radiation through the
outer envelope is a BIG error.  Insufficient data was taken and/or reported
that would allow the full radiation to be back calculated, and radiation is
the biggest part of the output.  This transmitted radiation is an
independent output that is only weakly related to the characterized
envelope temperature (as in the incandescent light bulb model).  We will
probably never know what the Lugano COP was, but I believe it to be bigger
than 1.0 and probably around 1.6-2.0.

We know that this type of reactor can be gainful based on Parkhomov's
work.  However, we have no credible evidence for a hotCat operating with a
COP>2.  Clarke's work probably only sets a lower limit on the COP.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
> =1
>
> The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
> the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
> is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
> non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
> Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
> infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant
> band
> emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
>
> We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is
> 779C,
> not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows
> a
> COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
> Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
> and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
> alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
> Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
> are as expected for a system with no excess heat.
>
>
> From: Robert Dorr
>
> > I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
> the Lugano test and that they even signed it.
>
> But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
> measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
> stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test
> of
> a Rossi reactor.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> Who could expect justice and morality from a money manager faced with the
> prospects of a thousand trillion dollars of revenue at his fingertips.
>

I would expect justice and morality from such people, in that situation. I
have dealt with such people. Most of them are as ethical as any normal
person.

There is no reason why a venture capitalist will cheat just because the
sums of money are particularly large. If they will pay you 10% of a million
as agreed, they are as likely to pay 10% of a billion or a trillion. They
do not make money or maintain their reputation by cheating, or by
alienating inventors.

The assertion that they will be unethical because the sums of money happen
to be large makes no sense. That is like saying a car dealer will follow
the rules when he sells you a $20,000 Toyota, but if you go in to buy a
Lamborghini he is sure to cheat.

If I.H. agreed to pay some dollar amount to Rossi, or some fraction of
total revenue, it is because they *want* to pay that amount. It is in their
interest to pay. The fact that they already paid him $11 million tells you
they are serious. The only plausible reason they would not pay the
remaining $89 million is the reason they gave in their press release: they
have not been able to substantiate the claims. If they were sure the effect
is real it would be insane not to conclude the transaction and move ahead.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

   1. Mariana
   October 20th, 2015 at 12:23 AM
   

   Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
   Why did you write that it is heavy to answer the question about when
   will it possible to invest in Leonardo Corporation?
   2. Andrea Rossi
   October 20th, 2015 at 9:34 AM
   

   Mariana:
   Because I want first to complete the tests on course. There is a big
   difference between professional investors, expert of finance, and persons
   like a Reader of this blog: I want not to play foot-ball with the bones of
   the others.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


Andrea Rossi
January 17th, 2016 at 8:41 AM


Chris Beall:
Your question is not easy to be answered. I would say this: we must wait
the completion of the tests on course; we are very close to an industrial
product and we have an enormous potential, put in evidence by a portfolio
in the order of billions, but we still must put a disclaimer: the final
results could be positive or negative.
Our ship is still a warship, not a cruise ship and who enters our ship must
be fully aware that he is going to fight, not to make a cruise, and that
the result of a fight could also end up with casualties. All the guys
presently in our ship are perfectly aware of this. This having been said, I
can slightly modify my motto this way:
” I want not to play foot ball with the bones of persons that are not
professional American foot ball players”. By the way: Go Panthers!
Warm Regards,
A.R.

For many years now, Rossi has be playing a devious game with the money
managers, capitalists, and bean counters, to get the resources that he has
desperately needed to advance his product development but at the same time
to keep control of his IP. Rossi has had to walk on a knifes edge for these
three years in his dealings with IH.

Rossi knows how professional money managers and venture capitalists think
from his years of experience dealing with the mafia.  He has extracted as
much resources as he could from IH before IH could become his competitor
using his own IP. Sure he kept critical IP information back as a
prophylactic against treachery that he knew would most likely come from IH.
>
>
Who could expect justice and morality from a money manager faced with the
prospects of a thousand trillion dollars of revenue at his fingertips. Fair
play only goes so far and their comes a point where it grows too expensive
to indulge in.

Rossi was playing a dirty game with his sponsors, but he knew that they
would betray him somewhere along the way at the money making potential of
his invention became clear. In this game of "it't just business" who can
make a moral judgement about what is right and what is wrong.

Like Pi, has Rossi gotten far enough down the R&D road to protest himself
from the tigers that have shared and will share his boat going forward?

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid
> thermal
> gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
> Thomas Clarke.
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
> =1
>
>
A copy is here:

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

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

If anyone is still operating under the illusion that there was valid thermal
gain at Lugano, please re-educate yourself via the authoritative work of
Thomas Clarke.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1c8DgA3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view?pref=2&pli
=1

The conclusion: The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in
the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina
is a gray body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a
non-gray-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with
Plank's Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The
infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant band
emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.

We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 779C,
not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system shows a
COP of 1.07 and matches power in to within possible experimental error.
Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP,
and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as
alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the
Report as additional evidence falls and both the COP and differential COP
are as expected for a system with no excess heat.


From: Robert Dorr 

> I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for
the Lugano test and that they even signed it.

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.




<>

[Vo]:To escape blame, be a victim, not a hero, new study finds

[Jack Cole]

Seems pertinent - perhaps to either side you find yourself on at present.



Great works and praiseworthy behavior may bring respect and admiration, but
these won't help us to escape blame when we do something wrong, says a new
study by researchers at the University of Maryland and Harvard University.
To do that, the researchers say, one needs to be a victim not a hero!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132042.htm

RE: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Robert Dorr 


I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for the
Lugano test and that they even signed it.

 

But the Lugano reactor did not produce significant excess heat, after the
measurement errors were accounted for, so the Lugano fiasco reaffirms the
stance of IH - that they have never witnessed excess heat in a valid test of
a Rossi reactor.

 






 

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor SuesIndustrial Heat, LLC.

[Robert Dorr]

I stand corrected. Rossi said, just today, that I.H built the E-Cat for 
the Lugano test and that they even signed it.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


On 4/7/2016 7:11 PM, Robert Dorr wrote:



You will notice it says that Rossi and I.H. provided an E-Cat for "a" 
test measurement (I read as a singular measurment) not necessarily for 
the Lugano Test. Possibly to verify any ionizing radiation. So many 
possible ways to read all of this rapidly developing information.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 06:56 PM 4/7/2016, you wrote:

Robert Dorr mailto:rod...@comcast.net>> wrote:
Â

I keep seeing that supposedly  I.H. was the one that built the
e-cat used in the Lugano test. As far as I can see that is
completely untrue.


I.H. is mentioned in the Lugano paper three times:


In the course of the year following the previous tests, the 
E-CatâEUR^(TM)s technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, 
United States, where it was replicated and improved. . . .


The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat 
LLC for providing us with the E-cat reactor to perform an independent 
test measurement. . . .


Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing 
financial support for the measurements performed for radiation 
protection purposes.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/11988 - Release Date: 04/08/16

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer

[Alan Fletcher]

* 
Teemu 
April 8, 2016 at 6:20 AM 


Dear Andrea Rossi, 

In this document it says that Henry W. Johnson, aka the President of Leonard 
Corp., is also the President of JMC. Did I understand correctly? 
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf
 

Thanks, 

~Teemu 



* 
Andrea Rossi 
April 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM 


Teemu: I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They 
were enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because 
they were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in 
Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM 
Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and appointed 
President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney. IH knew all 
this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement with JM Products 
to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the President of JM in 
Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also my Attorney. No problem 
has been raised by IH. Warm Regards, A.R. 




From: "Patrick Ellul"  
To: "vortex-l"  
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 8:08:15 PM 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer 

Henry W. Johnson is a lawyer just hiding the actual customer by being nominated 
president of the shell company that is owned by a British Company. 
Not unlike the Panama Papers business. 

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Eric Walker < eric.wal...@gmail.com > wrote: 



I see now that Free Energy Scams has connected Henry W. Johnson to Leonardo 
Corp [1]: 


BQ_BEGIN

Leonardo 03-03-2014 — ANNUAL REPORT 
There were two major changes in this filing: 
• Andrea Rossi became CEO. 
• Henry W. Johnson became President. 




I do not know how to substantiate this detail. 

Eric 


[1] 
http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-ecat-industrial-heat-llc-conclusions-drawn-from-the-n-c-radiation-protection-report/
 

BQ_END




-- 
Patrick 

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

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Ruby,

please take a look to my EGO OUT editorial of today.

Peter

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Ruby  wrote:

>
> Why would the E-Cat unit sit for a year (back in 2012) with no where to go
> for testing when IH brought it for testing in the first place?  (Remember
> everyone bashing Rossi for the delay after photos surfaced of the shipment?)
>
> Why would IH agree to such an "incompetent" tester?  (Confidentiality
> agreements would have nothing to do with that.)
>
> Why would IH keep quiet about concerns for a full-year of testing - while
> applying for their own patent?
>
> Why would IH solicit  and receive funds based on their "acquiring E-Cat
> IP"?
>
> After all of that, why does IH say now, the three years was "without
> results" - now that it is time to pay $89,000,000?
>
> To seriously claim "it is ridiculous to assert that IH have not acted in
> good faith" will require answers to these questions first.
>
> Ruby
>
>
>
>
> On 4/7/16 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn wrote:
>
> *De-lurks*
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.  The very simple truth is
> that Rossi has made big claims and has (as usual) failed to deliver.
> Almost certainly IH will have their hands tied due to confidentiality
> agreements, so will be prevented from revealing in detail just how
> bad/unconvincing things are and how ridiculous Rossi's usual dissembling
> shenanigans have been.
>
>   I could be convinced that he does, and is fooling himself, but think it
> most likely he does not given how long his circus has been going on.
>
> On 8 April 2016 at 12:10, Frank Znidarsic  wrote:
>
>> It is Rossi that says that the test was OK. According to IH, it was not OK,
>> > because IH says three years without success, not merely 1 year. So, the
>> > money is still in the escrow.
>>
>>
>> Maybe we should ask Steven Krivit.  He seems to have the heads up on a
>> lot of this stuff.
>>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> Eureka, CA USA
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> www.coldfusionnow.org
> lenrexplained.com
>
>


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

RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jones Beene]

From: Jack Cole 

Yes, and now he's trying to drag Brillouin down with himself and IH.  He is 
claiming that the idea for Brillouin's HHT came from IH.  Silliness, since BEC 
has been working on that idea for years.  The difference may be that 
Brillouin's technology seems more likely to actually work and they are willing 
to be scientific in their approach.  What could have been disclosed beyond what 
is already in the patent anyway?  

You are exactly right, Jack … 
Rossi is clearly wrong about the timing. What a pathological liar the guy is ! 

He may be able to study patents but can he not read press-releases? SRI was 
actually testing both Brillouin devices back in 2013 which is a year or two 
before IH even entered the picture. This is a matter of public record. There is 
an interview with McKubre somewhere online where he talks about the Brillouin 
hot version being tested by Tanzella. In contrast there is no valid positive 
test of any Rossi device after all these years. Of course Rossi is green with 
jealousy of Brillouin, since they could deliver an independent result at SRI - 
and he cannot deliver even with his friend Levi as the tester.


Andrea Rossi: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they 
made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is the 
Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has ever made 
before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!
Warm Regards

From: Robert Lynn 
Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face. 
I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual. 
If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a burden 
- and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself is an 
admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that IH is in 
fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well to a jury, 
and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is evidence of such 
a ploy.
Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go direct 
to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that? There is no 
doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and that an e-cat may 
never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture dynamic.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
 

[Vo]:if IH will tell the truth re LENR and Rossi. IF!

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-8-2016-lenr-what-would-ih-say-when.html

Do you are aware that now it is the time when anti-LENR conspirationists
try to kill it?They try to covert the moment of triumph in a disaster. I
have many times criticized Andrea Rossi but now we must show him our
solidarity and support.
Without the E-Cats we have to wait other 27 years for somebody re-inventing
LENR+
I take responsibility for this message and I have no mental problems.

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

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn  wrote:

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>

I agree. This is a setback for them.



> The very simple truth is that Rossi has made big claims and has (as usual)
> failed to deliver.
>

Probably.


Looking back through all his demos he has never done one that has
> unequivocally proven that it works - always potential errors greater than
> claimed outputs.
>

I agree there have been no definitive demonstrations. I do not know of any.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Russ George]

Ruby, clearly the history of the E-Cat is quite relevant and supports Rossi’s 
case that IH strongly believed in the tech.  That IH has had the hardware in 
hand and has claimed to add inventions to the patent portfolio is evidence that 
they knew it works. The real reason behind the snarky negative and illogical 
comments about Rossi here and elsewhere quite simply speaks to the character of 
those making those comments. There are more than a few shills as well in the 
cold fusion world as well established over the decades. Groups like Vortex are 
a mystery as they often have some great ideas exchanged but in a heart-beat the 
snarling mud slingers go after anyone more successful than they are, and they 
set a very low bar to be measured against.  

 

From: Ruby [mailto:r...@hush.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 9:27 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 


Why would the E-Cat unit sit for a year (back in 2012) with no where to go for 
testing when IH brought it for testing in the first place?  (Remember everyone 
bashing Rossi for the delay after photos surfaced of the shipment?)

Why would IH agree to such an "incompetent" tester?  (Confidentiality 
agreements would have nothing to do with that.)

Why would IH keep quiet about concerns for a full-year of testing - while 
applying for their own patent?

Why would IH solicit  and receive funds based on their "acquiring E-Cat IP"?

After all of that, why does IH say now, the three years was "without results" - 
now that it is time to pay $89,000,000?

To seriously claim "it is ridiculous to assert that IH have not acted in good 
faith" will require answers to these questions first.  

Ruby




On 4/7/16 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn wrote:

*De-lurks* 

 

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face.  The very simple truth is that Rossi 
has made big claims and has (as usual) failed to deliver.  Almost certainly IH 
will have their hands tied due to confidentiality agreements, so will be 
prevented from revealing in detail just how bad/unconvincing things are and how 
ridiculous Rossi's usual dissembling shenanigans have been.

 

  I could be convinced that he does, and is fooling himself, but think it most 
likely he does not given how long his circus has been going on.

 

On 8 April 2016 at 12:10, Frank Znidarsic mailto:fznidar...@aol.com> > wrote:

It is Rossi that says that the test was OK. According to IH, it was not OK,
> because IH says three years without success, not merely 1 year. So, the
> money is still in the escrow.

 

Maybe we should ask Steven Krivit.  He seems to have the heads up on a lot of 
this stuff.

-- 
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
r...@coldfusionnow.org  
www.coldfusionnow.org  
lenrexplained.com

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Ruby]

Why would the E-Cat unit sit for a year (back in 2012) with no where to 
go for testing when IH brought it for testing in the first place?  
(Remember everyone bashing Rossi for the delay after photos surfaced of 
the shipment?)


Why would IH agree to such an "incompetent" tester? (Confidentiality 
agreements would have nothing to do with that.)


Why would IH keep quiet about concerns for a full-year of testing - 
while applying for their own patent?


Why would IH solicit  and receive funds based on their "acquiring E-Cat IP"?

After all of that, why does IH say now, the three years was "without 
results" - now that it is time to pay $89,000,000?


To seriously claim "it is ridiculous to assert that IH have not acted in 
good faith" will require answers to these questions first.


Ruby




On 4/7/16 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn wrote:

*De-lurks*

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the 
demo worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would 
be on track to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand 
over 90million they would be doing so with a big smile on their face.  
The very simple truth is that Rossi has made big claims and has (as 
usual) failed to deliver.  Almost certainly IH will have their hands 
tied due to confidentiality agreements, so will be prevented from 
revealing in detail just how bad/unconvincing things are and how 
ridiculous Rossi's usual dissembling shenanigans have been.


  I could be convinced that he does, and is fooling himself, but think 
it most likely he does not given how long his circus has been going on.


On 8 April 2016 at 12:10, Frank Znidarsic > wrote:


It is Rossi that says that the test was OK. According to IH, it was not OK,
> because IH says three years without success, not merely 1 year. So, the
> money is still in the escrow.


Maybe we should ask Steven Krivit.  He seems to have the heads up
on a lot of this stuff.


--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
r...@coldfusionnow.org
www.coldfusionnow.org
lenrexplained.com

RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Russ George]

It will be a simple matter now for Rossi to win in the courts of public opinion 
and law. He merely has to do what he has always said he was working tirelessly 
to do – that is to build and deliver working E-Cats. As just one of those 
E-Cats is seen to be delivered and functioning his legal case will be proven in 
his favour. If that happens then IH will be revealed for what Rossi says it is 
and they will want to settle with Rossi out of court and in secret. In such a 
case it is likely the sum will be far in excess of the $89 million! As for the 
persistent ‘haters gonna hate’ crowd on the net here and elsewhere I think 
there is a remarkable business opportunity for someone to publish a great 
recipe book for 1001 Ways To Cook Crow. 

 

From: Jack Cole [mailto:jcol...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 8:50 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

Yes, and now he's trying to drag Brillouin down with himself and IH.  He is 
claiming that the idea for Brillouin's HHT came from IH.  Silliness, since BEC 
has been working on that idea for years.  The difference may be that 
Brillouin's technology seems more likely to actually work and they are willing 
to be scientific in their approach.  What could have been disclosed beyond what 
is already in the patent anyway?  

 

Andrea Rossi
April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM
Hank Mills:
They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING !!!.
I just teached to them what to do.
They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.
Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has always 
made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent applications 
made before their agreement with IH, and you will find confirmation of what I 
am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I have studied them and 
probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote about 100 pages of notes 
about their patents ). And now the singular coincidence: they make the 
agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they made a public demo in Capitol 
Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is the Copy-Cat of something I am 
familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has ever made before the agreement with 
IH. What a coincidence !!!
Warm Regards,
A.R.

 

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:25 AM Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

From: Robert Lynn 

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face. 

I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual. 

If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a burden 
- and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself is an 
admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that IH is in 
fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well to a jury, 
and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is evidence of such 
a ploy.

Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go direct 
to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that? There is no 
doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and that an e-cat may 
never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture dynamic.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser….

 

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jack Cole]

Yes, and now he's trying to drag Brillouin down with himself and IH.  He is
claiming that the idea for Brillouin's HHT came from IH.  Silliness, since
BEC has been working on that idea for years.  The difference may be that
Brillouin's technology seems more likely to actually work and they are
willing to be scientific in their approach.  What could have been disclosed
beyond what is already in the patent anyway?

*Andrea Rossi*







*April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PMHank Mills:They prepared everything, the charges,
the body of the reactor EVERYTHING !!!.I just teached to them what to
do.They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp.Now, let me talk
to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has always made only
electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent applications made
before their agreement with IH, and you will find confirmation of what I am
saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I have studied them and
probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote about 100 pages of
notes about their patents ). And now the singular coincidence: they make
the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they made a public demo in
Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is the Copy-Cat of
something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has ever made before
the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!!Warm Regards,A.R.*

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:25 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Robert Lynn
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>
> I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation,
> whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.
>
> If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a
> burden - and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself
> is an admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is
> that IH is in fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not
> present well to a jury, and has little chance of succeeding in a trial
> unless there is evidence of such a ploy.
>
> Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go
> direct to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that?
> There is no doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and
> that an e-cat may never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture
> dynamic.
>
> It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Jones Beene]

From: Robert Lynn 

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face. 


I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual. 

If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a burden 
- and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself is an 
admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that IH is in 
fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well to a jury, 
and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is evidence of such 
a ploy.

Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go direct 
to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that? There is no 
doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and that an e-cat may 
never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture dynamic.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser….


 

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Blaze Spinnaker]

It's possible that IH simply doesn't have the money to pay and they flaked.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Robert Lynn 
wrote:

> *De-lurks*
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.  The very simple truth is
> that Rossi has made big claims and has (as usual) failed to deliver.
> Almost certainly IH will have their hands tied due to confidentiality
> agreements, so will be prevented from revealing in detail just how
> bad/unconvincing things are and how ridiculous Rossi's usual dissembling
> shenanigans have been.
>
> Looking back through all his demos he has never done one that has
> unequivocally proven that it works - always potential errors greater than
> claimed outputs.  I note also that attempted replications by those using
> high standards of practice like MFMP have not managed to get LENR
> unequivocally working - accepting that reality and yet believing that Rossi
> has through incredible luck and bad experimental practices succeeded with
> different configurations, different temperature regimes and different
> ignition methods and approaches with massive power outputs and high COPs
> where all others have failed is several bridges too far in the level of
> credulity required.  I am no longer willing to give Rossi the benefit of
> the doubt - he is transparently just playing for time and more money, and
> with his track record you would need to be a mug or the king of wishful
> thinking to keep believing in him.
>
> The only vague question left in my mind is whether he truly believes he
> has cracked the LENR nut.  I could be convinced that he does, and is
> fooling himself, but think it most likely he does not given how long his
> circus has been going on.
>
> On 8 April 2016 at 12:10, Frank Znidarsic  wrote:
>
>> It is Rossi that says that the test was OK. According to IH, it was not OK,
>> > because IH says three years without success, not merely 1 year. So, the
>> > money is still in the escrow.
>>
>>
>> Maybe we should ask Steven Krivit.  He seems to have the heads up on a
>> lot of this stuff.
>>
>
>