Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

I am just bring into focus what the theory of Rossi's case is...the
avoidance of the $Billion payment in licence fees. It has nothing to with
Rossi's tech not working. If IH claims that Rossi's IP does not work, they
will lose their case since their duly authorized agent who designed and
conducted the test certified that it does work and proved to his own
satisfaction that it does work.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
>> they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
>> OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.
>>
>
> This theory is bonkers. The machine DOES NOT WORK. It does not produce any
> excess heat. Therefore, there is no IP, and there will be no products.
>
>
>
>> This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
>> performed because they never intended for that test to produce any
>> contractual results.
>>
>
> The test produced clear-cut results. It showed that the machine does not
> work. Those are contractual results. They give I.H. the right to terminate
> the contract.
>
> Whether it produces heat or not cannot be decided by nutty legal theories,
> or based on the notion that I.H. wanted to throw away $11 million for no
> reason, or by some similar lunatic notion. This question can only be
> settled with reference to data and calorimetry. I am confident that any
> person who understands these subjects if given the opportunity to analyze
> the data will agree there is no excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
> they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
> OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.
>

This theory is bonkers. The machine DOES NOT WORK. It does not produce any
excess heat. Therefore, there is no IP, and there will be no products.



> This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
> performed because they never intended for that test to produce any
> contractual results.
>

The test produced clear-cut results. It showed that the machine does not
work. Those are contractual results. They give I.H. the right to terminate
the contract.

Whether it produces heat or not cannot be decided by nutty legal theories,
or based on the notion that I.H. wanted to throw away $11 million for no
reason, or by some similar lunatic notion. This question can only be
settled with reference to data and calorimetry. I am confident that any
person who understands these subjects if given the opportunity to analyze
the data will agree there is no excess heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I can believe solar panels show a return for the owner - with sufficient
> public subsidies.
>

Yes. Fortunately, the public subsidies for solar panels are far smaller
than they are for coal or nuclear power. Imagine if we had to kill 20,000
people a year to make solar panels work! The public would be up in arms.
Nuclear power too costs far more than solar when you include the cost of
the Fukushima disaster.

The thing about the public subsidies for coal is that only poor people
living downwind of the coal fired plants pay them. Middle class and wealthy
people do not. If we could pipe the smoke into Atlanta, New York or L.A.
the coal industry would be permanently shut down in a few months.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.

This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
performed because they never intended for that test to produce any
contractual results.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I am developing my opinion of what Rossi's opinion of the case is.
>
> “A theory of a case is a cogent statement of an advocate’s position that
> justifies the verdict he or she is seeking. A theory of the case is not
> necessarily cast in the words that will be sued with the jury, but words
> that are heard in the lawyer’s mind as the case is prepared. The goal of
> the trial plan is to create factual support for the advocate’s theory of
> the case….
>
> ”If the advocate has no theory of the case, she would have no unifying
> focal point to the various portions of the case….
> "Only by adopting a theory of the case can a lawyer prepare for trial."
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> If IH can somehow use the IP of Rossi but get out of the licence
>> agreement with Rossi, they will save one $billion. This may explain the
>> motivation in the actions of IH. This is just a theory of the case.
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results
>>> of the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they
>>> had Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and
>>> that of their other EOMs.
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

 What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented
 the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's
 IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
 figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
 disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
 IH.

 The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed
 with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
 evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
 evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?

 It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers
 should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden,
 unless I was certain of the outcome.

 Craig


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

I am developing my opinion of what Rossi's opinion of the case is.

“A theory of a case is a cogent statement of an advocate’s position that
justifies the verdict he or she is seeking. A theory of the case is not
necessarily cast in the words that will be sued with the jury, but words
that are heard in the lawyer’s mind as the case is prepared. The goal of
the trial plan is to create factual support for the advocate’s theory of
the case….

”If the advocate has no theory of the case, she would have no unifying
focal point to the various portions of the case….
"Only by adopting a theory of the case can a lawyer prepare for trial."



On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If IH can somehow use the IP of Rossi but get out of the licence agreement
> with Rossi, they will save one $billion. This may explain the motivation in
> the actions of IH. This is just a theory of the case.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results
>> of the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they
>> had Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and
>> that of their other EOMs.
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
>>> Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
>>> worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
>>> figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
>>> disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
>>> IH.
>>>
>>> The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed
>>> with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
>>> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
>>> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>>>
>>> It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers
>>> should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden,
>>> unless I was certain of the outcome.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

If IH can somehow use the IP of Rossi but get out of the licence agreement
with Rossi, they will save one $billion. This may explain the motivation in
the actions of IH. This is just a theory of the case.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results of
> the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they had
> Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and that
> of their other EOMs.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
>> Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
>> worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
>> figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
>> disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
>> IH.
>>
>> The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed
>> with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
>> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
>> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>>
>> It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers should
>> have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden, unless
>> I was certain of the outcome.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results of
the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they had
Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and that
of their other EOMs.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

>
>
> On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
> Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
> worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
> figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
> disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
> IH.
>
> The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed with
> Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>
> It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers should
> have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden, unless
> I was certain of the outcome.
>
> Craig
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Alain Sepeda]

to be clear it is long ago proven that hormesis is real, thet there is
structural threshold in genotoxic effects, ...

As much as LENR is long time measured, ormesis and threshold are measured.
much meter tha Rossi's calorimetry.

every 6 month someone say that we have at last found that, and nobody
cares...
we are unders propaganda war , and this is hopeless.


there is no epidemiology, nor biological tknowledge on cancerogenesis and
genotoxicity that makes that result surpsing.


latest I caught is
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316085015.htm
but there are papers since decades on that.

LLNT is a joke, but news and politics are full of joke.

2016-05-13 15:37 GMT+02:00 Chris Zell :

> I agree.  There is too much assumption that harm created by pollution or
> radiation is perfectly linear, down to tiny amounts.  There doesn't seem to
> be any allowance for hormesis.   And, yes, I own solar panels.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:58 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)
>
> Jed,
>
> I think the numbers killed by power plants, at least in the US,are very
> flakey.
> Likewise the number skilled by particulates from indoor cooking relies on
> models that are probably as bad as IPCC's models of global warming.
> I'm not interested enough to spend the time it would take to prove it.
>
> I'll believe photo voltaic power is cheaper when I actually see it. For
> lighting with a cheap system remember the sun goes away when it gets dark.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:

The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed with
> Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>

I have no idea. Let me speculate that they now regret to agreeing on Penon.

Anyway, this has no connection to calorimetry. You cannot go from this
strange decision by I.H. to conclude that maybe the test worked after all.
You can only judge the test by evaluating the data. Since you do not have
the data, you cannot judge it.

You might take my word for it, but I advise you to follow the motto of the
Royal Society, "nullius in verba" -- take nobody's word for it. Don't
believe Rossi, or I.H. or me, or anyone until you see the data.

What I strongly advise you not to do is speculate and speculate and build
castles in the air the way Axil does. You cannot judge calorimetry by
pointing to rumors about what people did, or what they may have thought, or
by imagining that I.H. would automatically do exactly what *you* would have
done in "the first few days" of a test that was going badly. You sure as
hell cannot judge calorimetry by reading the stream-of-consciousness
fantasy blather that Rossi puts out in his blog! I stopped reading that
years ago. I can confirm that back then when he was claiming production
lines were being set up, I fact checked some of his claims with people who
were working with him, and I determined that there was not one molecule of
truth to most of what he said. He makes stuff up!!



> It doesn't make sense to me.
>

It does not make sense to me, either. Maybe it was a dumb mistake?



> It's not something that their lawyers should have allowed . . .
>

Lawyers make mistakes too.



> . . .  nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden, unless I was
> certain of the outcome.
>

You can never be certain of the outcome, but I agree Darden should have
been more careful. I feel sorry for him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF
> Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of
> its start. . . .
>

Stop right there. Even in these first sentences you have already made
unwarranted assumptions about events you know nothing about.

I know very little about these events, but as I said several times, I.H.
and Rossi disagreed. That I am sure of. I was hoping they would reconcile
their disagreements, and I gather I.H. also hoped so. They thought it was
wrong, but evidently they wanted to give Rossi every opportunity to make it
right and prove his point. That seems sensible to me. You say "IH would
have terminated the test within days of its start" as if that were a fact.
As if you were in charge! I wouldn't have terminated the test. I.H. did not
terminate it. So they disagree with you.

You should not speculate about things you know nothing about. You are
building castles in the air.



> IH recognized Rossi's IP worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.
>

I doubt you know anything about this, or that you have any proof of that.
You should not make such strong assertions about other people's business
that you know nothing about.

Stop confusing your own speculation with facts.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Craig Haynie]

On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented 
the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that 
Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent 
application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It could b that 
their was a management disconnect where the "plan" was not understood 
by all of the employees of IH.


The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed 
with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to 
independently evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or 
reject, the evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, 
Penon. Why?


It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers 
should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was 
Darden, unless I was certain of the outcome.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
IH.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows.
> IF Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days
> of its start. If IH believed that Rossi;s IP worked, they would have
> started setting up a production plant early on to get a jump on E-Cat
> production before the test was completed. IH did nothing. IH recognized
> Rossi's IP worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.
>
> IH must realize that Rossi's IP worked in some degree to place it in
> Brillouin's product. IH never intended to pay Rossi for his IP, but instead
> use it in other products where the cost of licence is far less. IH never
> intended to manufacture the E-Cat, they never intended to pay Rossi the 89
> million, they intended to be a competitor of Rossi's world wide by
> disguising Rossi's IP in other products that they intended to sell without
> licencing the E-Cat.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>>>
>>
>> IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have
>> any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as
>> it stands now, and as it will always stand.
>>
>>
>> If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
>>> pay Rossi the 89 million?
>>>
>>
>>> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
>>> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
>>>
>>
>> As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
>> cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well
>> be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.
>>
>> It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
>> reactor does not work.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Adrian--

$17,600 plus about $5,000 for roof replacement (it was 28 years old with 
three layers of shingles).  The design work was about 2000 and the panels 
and installation about 15,000.  It will take about 5 years to get my 
investment in the solar panels back.  The panels are warranted for 25 and 
the WA state payment is good at a decreasing rate after 2020 until 2032 I 
believe.  Each panel produces 275 watts at full sun.  On May 10 at about 12 
noon they were producing 4300 watts.   This seems like it was above the 
rated output which surprised me.  The cost included a internet bases 
monitoring system at $600.   After it is paid off, it should add value to 
the worth of the house depending upon the going cost of electricity from a 
grid.  LENR I hope will make it become nearly worthless, but in the mean 
time..


Each micro inverter is connected via a modem in my basement to a company and 
a computer that keeps track of the integrated production of each panel.  The 
monitoring serves as a continuous gauge of the health of each panel and the 
micro inverters.  One inverter serves two adjacent panels and produces a 240 
AC current synchronized with the grid.


There are two meters for the power generation that the Utility Co. installed 
for no added cost.  One monitors the total power production of the panels 
and the other monitors the net out put to the Grid and hence what I use in 
the house using some arithmetic .  At the current time I am producing about 
twice as much energy as I use in the house per day.  The house meter runs 
backward most of the time during the day and when I take power from the grid 
at night it moves forward.  The link to the grid is via the breaker box in 
my basement.


If the system works as reliably as my on-grid system in Alaska--now 16 years 
old with no apparent degradation--I will be delighted.


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: a.ashfield

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 10:19 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

Bob,

How much did the 16 panel installation cost?

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF
Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of
its start. If IH believed that Rossi;s IP worked, they would have started
setting up a production plant early on to get a jump on E-Cat production
before the test was completed. IH did nothing. IH recognized Rossi's IP
worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.

IH must realize that Rossi's IP worked in some degree to place it in
Brillouin's product. IH never intended to pay Rossi for his IP, but instead
use it in other products where the cost of licence is far less. IH never
intended to manufacture the E-Cat, they never intended to pay Rossi the 89
million, they intended to be a competitor of Rossi's world wide by
disguising Rossi's IP in other products that they intended to sell without
licencing the E-Cat.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>>
>
> IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have
> any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as
> it stands now, and as it will always stand.
>
>
> If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
>> pay Rossi the 89 million?
>>
>
>> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
>> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
>>
>
> As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
> cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well
> be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.
>
> It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
> reactor does not work.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>

IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have any
IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as it
stands now, and as it will always stand.


If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
> pay Rossi the 89 million?
>

> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
>

As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well
be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.

It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
reactor does not work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Axil Axil]

IF and when IH pays Rossi the 89 million, what does IH get? IH gets the
right to use Rossi's IP to produce and sell E Cat product in their
territory granted by the Licence.

IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.

Can IH sell product that contains Rossi's IP that has been incorporated
into the product line of other vendors such as Brillouin?

How can Rossi identify his IP in the products of others that IH offers for
sale?

Can Rossi make an IP claim without that IP protected by a patent?

Can IH claim that Rossi's IP does not work and yet use it in products
produced by others connected to IH?

If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
pay Rossi the 89 million?

Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> "However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being
>> pushed somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible
>> position so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not
>> know much about IH's real position , arguments and justifications. Do you
>> agree, Jed?"
>
>
> No, this is completely wrong in every respect, as I have pointed out many
> times previously:
>
> No one is pushing me.
>
> There is nothing unnatural, implausible or unbelievable about I.H.'s
> claim. Any person who understands calorimetry and examines the data will
> agree with their analysis. If Rossi and Penon seriously believe there is 50
> times output they are both certified idiots (not just Penon).
>
> As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the
> calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong.
> I have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside
> of I.H., so I am sure it is real.
>
> I know enough about I.H.'s "real position" regarding calorimetry to judge
> this matter, although I look forward to learning more. I know nothing about
> business arrangements or contracts.
>
> I have enough information to judge these things with confidence. You, on
> the other hand, know nothing about them. All you have to go on are Rossi's
> assertions from his blog. These range from nonsense to impossible. The
> information he already released in the lawsuit rules out his claims. If the
> reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the
> building would be cooked. They would be dead. In fact, it is not producing
> any excess heat. If and when I.H. becomes free to publish the technical
> data, everyone will see this, and you will see that Rossi has been playing
> you for a fool.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Jed Rothwell]

In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote:

"However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being
> pushed somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible
> position so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not
> know much about IH's real position , arguments and justifications. Do you
> agree, Jed?"


No, this is completely wrong in every respect, as I have pointed out many
times previously:

No one is pushing me.

There is nothing unnatural, implausible or unbelievable about I.H.'s claim.
Any person who understands calorimetry and examines the data will agree
with their analysis. If Rossi and Penon seriously believe there is 50 times
output they are both certified idiots (not just Penon).

As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the
calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong.
I have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside
of I.H., so I am sure it is real.

I know enough about I.H.'s "real position" regarding calorimetry to judge
this matter, although I look forward to learning more. I know nothing about
business arrangements or contracts.

I have enough information to judge these things with confidence. You, on
the other hand, know nothing about them. All you have to go on are Rossi's
assertions from his blog. These range from nonsense to impossible. The
information he already released in the lawsuit rules out his claims. If the
reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the
building would be cooked. They would be dead. In fact, it is not producing
any excess heat. If and when I.H. becomes free to publish the technical
data, everyone will see this, and you will see that Rossi has been playing
you for a fool.

- Jed

[Vo]:European Physical Society Meeting LENR section needs you to sign up now!

[Jed Rothwell]

The European Physical Society will hold a cold fusion session if 40 people
sign up for it. So sign up if you are interested. The meeting will be on
July 9 in Leuven, Belgium. See:

https://kuleuvencongres.be/eps2016/scientific-program/satellite_meeting


*Proposed Satellite Meeting to the  43rd EPSMeeting on Plasma Physics
on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions ...*

After the media attention of the Pons and Fleishmann “Cold
Fusion” announcement in *1989,*  the activity in this field of research,
presently called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction or LENR, appeared to have
withered over the following years at least from the point of view of the
“main stream scientists”. . . .


The meeting aims to inform scientists outside the LENR field
about the history and ongoing  activity in the field. The meeting will
focus on the science of LENR while attempting to avoid gratuitous
extrapolations to commercial future applications.

*Venue and Registration*
The meeting will take place Saturday July 9th in Leuven subject
to having 40 or more registrations by May 31st, 2016. In case the meeting
is cancelled the registration fee of 100€ will be reimbursed fully. . . .

[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[a.ashfield]

Bob,

How much did the 16 panel installation cost?

[Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-13-2016-lenr-about-feline-nature-of.html

still discussions but slowly cooling down, some info and  news

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

[Vo]:Re: Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Bob Cook]

Adrian-

I also own 16 solar panels.  Since they were installed on May 4, 2016 I have 
earned about $100 for the energy I have produced.  The current power being 
generated is at  3 kw at 9:30 in the morning.  I should do about 25 kwh 
today at about $0.63 / kwh.  :)   With a $5500 tax credit or more, I do not 
expect to pay any Federal income tax for 2016.


Washington is a progressive state in spite of the local Congressional 
Repetitive of our Eastern Washington District.


Bob Cook


-Original Message- 
From: a.ashfield

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

Chris Zell,
"And, yes, I own solar panels."

I can believe solar panels show a return for the owner - with sufficient
public subsidies.

RE: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[a.ashfield]

Chris Zell,
"And, yes, I own solar panels."

I can believe solar panels show a return for the owner - with sufficient 
public subsidies.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Jed Rothwell]

Patrick Ellul  wrote:

Jed,
>
> If it is a matter of calorimetry as you insist, why would they ever settle
> out of court?
>

I only say that because people often settle out of court. Their lawyers may
advise them to do that to save money.


Rossi will never accept that it did not work at all.
>

Well, he might accept it in return for a large sum of money. If they do not
settle I gather the case might drag on for years, which would end up
costing him a lot. The details of the settlement would probably be kept
secret so he would never have to publicly admit that it does not work.

I have no reason to think they will settle. I have not heard that they
might. I am just saying settlements are common.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

[Chris Zell]

I agree.  There is too much assumption that harm created by pollution or 
radiation is perfectly linear, down to tiny amounts.  There doesn't seem to be 
any allowance for hormesis.   And, yes, I own solar panels.

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

Jed,

I think the numbers killed by power plants, at least in the US,are very flakey.
Likewise the number skilled by particulates from indoor cooking relies on 
models that are probably as bad as IPCC's models of global warming.  
I'm not interested enough to spend the time it would take to prove it.

I'll believe photo voltaic power is cheaper when I actually see it. For 
lighting with a cheap system remember the sun goes away when it gets dark.