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

[Bob Cook]

What happened to this? Four years later there could be results.I think 
classifying it as materials science instead of nuclear physics might be 
successful. Classifying it as nuclear science is very much more 
problematic.DavidOn Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Moab Moab 
moab2...@googlemail.com wrote:The European Commission - Directorate-General for 
Research and
Innovation has published a report in which they recommend funding
research in LENR.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf

Does this mean that the topic will finally get mainstream recognition ?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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

I agree with you we do not need to discuss the issue. We just need to have
different opinions. I have no kill file. I do not need one.
On Jun 6, 2016 19:21, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Daniel Rocha]

It is important, since one can select data to deceive you. There were times
of malfunctioning that lasted a few days. Also, Allan Fletcher and I showed
that the device can work in a small place.

2016-06-06 23:20 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
>
> Where I got it from is irrelevant. The data originated with Rossi, because
> it has the same numbers he quoted to Lewan.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

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

Where I got it from is irrelevant. The data originated with Rossi, because
it has the same numbers he quoted to Lewan.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Daniel Rocha]

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively
> correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members and
> general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is *very probably* correct
> in his assertions about Rossi, and Rossi's devices *very probably* do not
> work.  (And a high probability of truth is the best we can hope for in any
> case.)
>

Thanks.

That is a bayesian analysis. That method can work well. It is recommended
by Nate Silver in his book, "The Signal and the Noise." Silver has a good
explanation for the layman about how to use this method. You should also
weigh I.H.'s credibility versus Rossi's in your analysis.

Here is a bayesian analysis of cold fusion evidence in general:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JohnsonRweightofev.pdf



> I said "do not work" rather than "failed in this instance" because to
> assume they failed in this instance . . .
>

That is the correct form of the assertion. There is evidence that previous
reactors might have worked. I can't tell.

In their motion to dismiss, I.H. mentioned multiple "reactors" that
apparently all failed. I did not know there were multiple reactors. I know
nothing about the others, but if you take their word for it, there were
multiple failures, and no recent success.

I do take their word for these other claims. I don't have to take their
word for my analysis of the 1-year test. I need only assume that Rossi's
numbers and description are reasonably accurate. Of course, my analysis
might be wrong.

I do not know how far back the I.H. assessment reaches, or whether it
includes the first Levi tests or Lugano, or that strange 1 MW test in
Italy. To be brief, I don't know a darn thing except about the calorimetry
in this one test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot',
> 'scammer', :'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to . .
> .
>

So, by your "morals" we shouldn't calls idiots, scammers and criminals what
they are. Why not? Because it will hurt their feelings? In Rossi's case,
not calling him out has facilitated his latest move to Europe, where he is
busy defrauding a new group of "investors" fore millions more. He won't be
stopped until some government throws him back into prison. By your fine set
of "morals" we should kiss his ass, stand by, and do nothing while he
steals more money and destroys whatever is left of the reputation of cold
fusion.

That's a great set of morals! I hope for your sake that that Rossi paying
you a commission. You and the other Rossi supporters deserve 2% of what he
steals.



> On the other hand, you are mindlessly defending this person, and that is
> somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks. You should be ashamed of yourself.
> Your behavior is poor judgment and unproven assumptions at best.
>

How the hell do you know this? Where did you get your information about
what Rossi has done? Who are you to tell me that Rossi is innocent -- or
guilty, for that matter.

You know NOTHING and yet you have effrontery to lecture *me* about jumping
to conclusions.

To hell with you. I will add you to my kill file list, and not bothered by
your blather again.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, in my opinion, which I understand you already know more about than I
do (quick to judgement and throwing stone sitting in glasshouse);
Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', 'scammer',
:'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to.--.In addition
you claim others should listen to you because you know and all others do
not.  It is ignorant and shows an incredible poor understanding of people
with different thinking than Jed.
You said
There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Your behavior is poor judgment and unproven assumptions at best. There is
no need to defend AR or the ERV as far as we know there are allegations
from you and that is hardly good enough. Far from mindless and fully
ethical until anything else is proven. Some people do not think they stink
so they accuse others - truth is we all stink more or less. Ashamed, did
not know you had that word might come in handy.

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 Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed,
>> You are certain you know the answers.  I don't claim I do and think there
>> are still many unknowns.
>>
>
> For the last time:
>
> I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.
>
> You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU HAVE
> NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge how much is
> unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.
>
> You and I are not on equal ground. I am informed and you are ignorant.
>
>
>
>> I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and that
>> is the only reason I have replied to you.
>>
>
> I have attacked both the claims and Rossi, separately, so it is not ad
> hominem. That is defined as follows:
>
> "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
> position they are maintaining."
>
> I am not directing the arguments against the person *rather than* the
> position. I am directing separate arguments *against both*.
>
> I attacked the person because he refused access to the company, and
> because the company is a dummy corporation with no income, no business, no
> employees, and no inspections, so obviously it does not have equipment
> using 1 MW of process heat.  It is hard to imagine better proof of a
> fraud, or a better reason to attack someone!
>
> There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
> committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
> defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
> You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/06/2016 05:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed,
You are certain you know the answers.  I don't claim I do and
think there are still many unknowns.


For the last time:

I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.

You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU 
HAVE NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge 
how much is unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.


Actually it isn't correct that we in the peanut gallery have no way to 
judge anything.  Based solely on what we in this group know of you, Jed, 
and your reputation, and Rossi, and his reputation, and the milieu in 
which this all took place, it's not hard to compare the /assumptions/ 
which need to be made in order to conclude either that you are telling 
the truth and you are correct that Rossi's invention is a dead issue, or 
that Rossi is correct and you are mistaken and/or lying.


There would seem to be far fewer unlikely assumptions required in order 
to conclude that you're right and Rossi is wrong.


Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively 
correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members 
and general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is /very probably/ 
correct in his assertions about Rossi, and Rossi's devices /very 
probably/ do not work.  (And a high probability of truth is the best we 
can hope for in any case.)


I said "do not work" rather than "failed in this instance" because to 
assume they failed in this instance BUT actually work in general 
requires another bunch of rather unlikely looking assumptions to explain 
the unexpected failure, versus the single, rather simpler assumption 
that Rossi cheats, and so all of his successful test results to date 
have been bogus.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed,
> You are certain you know the answers.  I don't claim I do and think there
> are still many unknowns.
>

For the last time:

I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.

You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU HAVE NO
DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge how much is
unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.

You and I are not on equal ground. I am informed and you are ignorant.



> I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and that
> is the only reason I have replied to you.
>

I have attacked both the claims and Rossi, separately, so it is not ad
hominem. That is defined as follows:

"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
position they are maintaining."

I am not directing the arguments against the person *rather than* the
position. I am directing separate arguments *against both*.

I attacked the person because he refused access to the company, and because
the company is a dummy corporation with no income, no business, no
employees, and no inspections, so obviously it does not have equipment
using 1 MW of process heat.  It is hard to imagine better proof of a fraud,
or a better reason to attack someone!

There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You are certain you know the answers.  I don't claim I do and think 
there are still many unknowns.
I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and 
that is the only reason I have replied to you.




On 6/6/2016 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.

Jed.  What basis do you have for doubting that?

AA.  Because you say you have not seen the report.


I said I have seen sample data from it, and the configuration. A large 
enough sample that I am confident I understand the performance.


Look here. You do not have to believe me. Go right ahead say you think 
I am a liar. But please, for all of our sakes, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN 
MY MOUTH. Stop insisting that I said X when everyone can see I said Y.


(You might want to consider the possibility that I am telling the 
truth, and Rossi is lying. Just a suggestion.)


I said I have seen data. Enough that I am sure I know the content of 
the ERV. Because this is one system, and one sample is enough to 
describe it. You don't need a year of data to do calorimetry. A few 
days will suffice.


I am sure you know damn well what I meant. You are being petulant and 
argumentative for no reason.


Stop saying ridiculous things such as "we can't judge because we have 
not seen the data." /I/ have seen the data so _I can judge_. Why is 
that so hard for you to remember? How many times do I have to repeat 
that? _You_ have not seen the data so _you cannot judge_. You are not 
me. Our names and e-mail address are different, so we are not the same 
person.


You are free to disbelieve me but please stop making idiotic 
assertions that there is something immoral, unseemly or unusual about 
reporting on information that must be kept confidential for the time 
being. It is up to Rossi or I.H. to reveal the details. Not me.


I will not respond to you again if this is what you insist on acting 
like a cranky 6-year-old. I am willing to discuss this, but I will not 
keep going over and over the same points, only to have you claim that 
I did not say what I just said, or I must have meant something other 
than what I clearly meant.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.
>
> Jed.  What basis do you have for doubting that?
>
> AA.  Because you say you have not seen the report.
>

I said I have seen sample data from it, and the configuration. A large
enough sample that I am confident I understand the performance.

Look here. You do not have to believe me. Go right ahead say you think I am
a liar. But please, for all of our sakes, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Stop insisting that I said X when everyone can see I said Y.

(You might want to consider the possibility that I am telling the truth,
and Rossi is lying. Just a suggestion.)

I said I have seen data. Enough that I am sure I know the content of the
ERV. Because this is one system, and one sample is enough to describe it.
You don't need a year of data to do calorimetry. A few days will suffice.

I am sure you know damn well what I meant. You are being petulant and
argumentative for no reason.

Stop saying ridiculous things such as "we can't judge because we have not
seen the data." *I* have seen the data so *I can judge*. Why is that so
hard for you to remember? How many times do I have to repeat that? *You*
have not seen the data so *you cannot judge*. You are not me. Our names and
e-mail address are different, so we are not the same person.

You are free to disbelieve me but please stop making idiotic assertions
that there is something immoral, unseemly or unusual about reporting on
information that must be kept confidential for the time being. It is up to
Rossi or I.H. to reveal the details. Not me.

I will not respond to you again if this is what you insist on acting like a
cranky 6-year-old. I am willing to discuss this, but I will not keep going
over and over the same points, only to have you claim that I did not say
what I just said, or I must have meant something other than what I clearly
meant.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.

Jed.  What basis do you have for doubting that?

AA.  Because you say you have not seen the report.



On 6/6/2016 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

AA.  You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof
to back it up.

Jed.  And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why
doesn't he publish the ERV report?

AA.  He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong. He is
taking IH to court to prove he's right.


Then he should prove it. Give the court the ERV. Give it to the 
public. I have already seen the gist of the ERV, so I know why he will 
not do that. It proves the gadget does not work. It proves that he & 
Penon are world-class idiots or frauds.


AA.   Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5
million and cancel their license?

Jed.  Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.

AA.  You were there?  How do you know?


I have my sources. How do you know I am wrong? Why would you believe 
Rossi about this -- or about anything -- after all the lies he has 
told you. If he tells you it is raining you better look outside before 
you believe it.



Jed.  Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1
MW plant.

AA.  Rossi stated that recently.  Does IH claim otherwise?


I have heard that Rossi made it.

Jed.  I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for
_me_ to say it is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a
careful analysis. It is grossly unfair for _you_ to take sides in
this, or for _you_ to declare that I am wrong. Because you have no
information.

AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.


What basis do you have for doubting that? Who told you I have not seen 
it? I have been saying for weeks that I have seen data. I have said 
that here, and in other forums. You know that Dewey Weaver and others 
from I.H. read some of these forums, as does Rossi. If I were lying 
about this, someone from I.H. would have said something by now. Have 
some common sense, at long last.


Have some common sense! Be sane! Stop and THINK about what you are 
saying! You keep yelling about how there is no need to go into the 
pretend company. Do you seriously believe that I.H., or any sentiment 
person, would pay $89 million knowing that this company has no 
employees, no sales, pays no taxes, and has no equipment? Are you 
actually, seriously telling us that us you would pay under those 
circumstances? Without investigating what is on the other side of the 
wall. On the Internet anyone can confirm this is a pretend shell 
company with nothing happening in the building.


Rossi is playing you for a fool when you buy that kind of nonsense.

Anyway I'm not saying you are wrong or that the ERV is right.  I'm
saying that you can't possibly KNOW without seeing it.


Since I have seen the data from it, I do know.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

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

Then he should prove it. Give the court the ERV. Give it to the public. I
have already seen the gist of the ERV, so I know why he will not do that.
It proves the gadget does not work. It proves that he & Penon are
world-class idiots or frauds.



> AA.   Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5 million
> and cancel their license?
>
> Jed.  Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.
>
> AA.  You were there?  How do you know?
>

I have my sources. How do you know I am wrong? Why would you believe Rossi
about this -- or about anything -- after all the lies he has told you. If
he tells you it is raining you better look outside before you believe it.



> Jed.  Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1 MW
> plant.
>
> AA.  Rossi stated that recently.  Does IH claim otherwise?
>

I have heard that Rossi made it.



> Jed.  I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for *me* to
> say it is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a careful
> analysis. It is grossly unfair for *you* to take sides in this, or for
> *you* to declare that I am wrong. Because you have no information.
>
> AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.
>

What basis do you have for doubting that? Who told you I have not seen it?
I have been saying for weeks that I have seen data. I have said that here,
and in other forums. You know that Dewey Weaver and others from I.H. read
some of these forums, as does Rossi. If I were lying about this, someone
from I.H. would have said something by now. Have some common sense, at long
last.

Have some common sense! Be sane! Stop and THINK about what you are saying!
You keep yelling about how there is no need to go into the pretend company.
Do you seriously believe that I.H., or any sentiment person, would pay $89
million knowing that this company has no employees, no sales, pays no
taxes, and has no equipment? Are you actually, seriously telling us that us
you would pay under those circumstances? Without investigating what is on
the other side of the wall. On the Internet anyone can confirm this is a
pretend shell company with nothing happening in the building.

Rossi is playing you for a fool when you buy that kind of nonsense.



> Anyway I'm not saying you are wrong or that the ERV is right.  I'm saying
> that you can't possibly KNOW without seeing it.
>

Since I have seen the data from it, I do know.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

AA.  You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to 
back it up.


Jed.  And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why 
doesn't he publish the ERV report?


AA.  He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong.  He is taking IH 
to court to prove he's right.


AA.   Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5 million 
and cancel their license?


Jed.  Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.

AA.  You were there?  How do you know?

AA.  IH not only built the Lugano reactors they built the 1 MW plant 
too, including the fuel.


Jed.  Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1 MW plant.

AA.  Rossi stated that recently.  Does IH claim otherwise?

AA.Until it (ERV report) is released it is grossly unfair to say it is 
rubbish.


Jed.  I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for _me_ to 
say it is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a careful 
analysis. It is grossly unfair for _you_ to take sides in this, or for 
_you_ to declare that I am wrong. Because you have no information.


AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.  Anyway I'm not saying you are 
wrong or that the ERV is right.  I'm saying that you can't possibly KNOW 
without seeing it.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

>
> You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up.


And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't he
publish the ERV report? Why doesn't he at least tell you what instruments
he used, and how they were arranged?

You have NOTHING from him, yet you believe his story. Why do you consider
him a more reliable source than I.H. or me?


  Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5 million and
> cancel their license?


Because he never made that offer. That was a lie.



>   I suppose you will say that is rubbish too, but we'll have to wait for
> more hard facts to prove it one way or the other.
>

You need to wait. I already have the facts. You can believe me, or you can
believe Rossi. Ask yourself who has more credibility.


IH not only built the Lugano reactors they built the 1 MW plant too,
> including the fuel.


Where did you hear that? As far as I know, Rossi built the 1 MW plant.



>   Rossi is on record saying he never provided any part of it.


I should have known it was Rossi! He is on record saying he is on the verge
of mass production, and that he sold units, and that in January and
February he would release the ERV, and that the pretend customer was paying
thousands of dollars for the process heat. The customer who does no
business, pays no taxes, and has no employees. He is on record lying
through his teeth on countless occasions. Why do you believe anything he
says? How gullible are you?


  So it is difficult for IH to claim Rossi never gave then the technology.
>

There is no technology. The gadget does not work.



> What IH seem unable to do do is operate an E-Cat with anything like as
> high a COP as Rossi can.


Rossi's COP is ~0.8.



>   They seem to have been careful not to go on record saying that the 1 MW
> plant has a COP~1 . . .


They have said quite clearly that the "reactors" do not work. Plus, I told
you that, based on the same data they are using.

If you do not believe me, fine, but do not claim that no one has told you
what I have told you time after time after time.


If the ERV's report is so damning why haven't IH released it?


If it is so good why has not Rossi released it? He is the one who filed the
lawsuit. He is the one who needs to show evidence if he wants the $89
million. Why didn't he file it with court papers?

(I don't know why I.H. has not, but let me speculate. Perhaps it is part of
their legal strategy.)



> Until it is released it is grossly unfair to say it is rubbish.


I have seen the data in it so it is not grossly unfair for *me* to say it
is rubbish. It is my considered judgment based on a careful analysis. It is
grossly unfair for *you* to take sides in this, or for *you* to declare
that I am wrong. Because you have no information.



> From what you say you haven't seen it.
>

I have seen data from the test, and the configuration. It is the data Rossi
quoted to Lewan. I am sure it is the same data shown in the report, and the
same configuration. It was a mess early on, and it was still a mess when
the test ended.

- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

 Our favorite authors in childhood,Fenimore Cooper and Karl May
told us what means to dig the tomahawk of war
and what is to lift it
Peace is good but not at any price even on the Web-corner of LENR

see please
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/jun-06-2016-lenr-advice-bury-hatchet.html

peter


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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Jed.  The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked 
into the room and looked at the choice of instruments and configuration 
would see that in a few minutes.


You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it 
up.  Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer to return the $11.5 million 
and cancel their license?  I suppose you will say that is rubbish too, 
but we'll have to wait for more hard facts to prove it one way or the other.


IH not only built the Lugano reactors they built the 1 MW plant too, 
including the fuel.  Rossi is on record saying he never provided any 
part of it.  So it is difficult for IH to claim Rossi never gave then 
the technology.
What IH seem unable to do do is operate an E-Cat with anything like as 
high a COP as Rossi can.  They seem to have been careful not to go on 
record saying that the 1 MW plant has a COP~1 but use vague phrases to 
suggest they are not able to duplicate its operation themselves.


If the ERV's report is so damning why haven't IH released it? Until it 
is released it is grossly unfair to say it is rubbish. From what you say 
you haven't seen it.

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

[H LV]

Oh F***. I don't give a Sh*T one way or the other.

Harry



On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Steve High  wrote:

> Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the party who has
> committed economic crime?
>
> On Monday, June 6, 2016, H LV  wrote:
>
>> ​from
>>
>>
>> https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/
>> ​
>>
>> ​<<​
>> The reassignment of the lawsuit to the District Court Judge Cecilia
>> Altonaga and the consulting of the economic crime specialist Magistrate
>> John O’Sullivan, indicates that the court already has an initial suspicion
>> towards economic crime and therefore the lawsuit will not be rejected on
>> the basis of technicalities.
>> ​>>​
>>
>> ​Harry​
>>
>>

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

[Ruby]

If we consider the many autonomous robots that tweet, post, comment, and 
reply for you, it may be!



On 6/6/16 8:44 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I have heard that many of the anonymous (avatar) supporters of Rossi's 
case on LENR forum and other blogs are Rossi himself - posting under 
various names.


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Ruby  wrote:


There is no reasoning with a digital meme.  Elon Musk said it out
loud - we may be living in a simulation, for AI is all around us.

Reason does not exist there.

A true advocate of new energy will always list the many players in
this field making a new energy future happen.
Here is what I wrote after the Oct 2011 test.  I wish more
bloggers would do the same.
http://coldfusionnow.org/steam-punk/

Ruby

On 6/6/16 7:25 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Jack Cole wrote:

I think the article is representative of the mindset of a lot of
people who have been drawn in as LENR observers, however, and in
that regard it has interest. People who have certain
preconceptions, and then make inferences far beyond the evidence
to fit with those preconceptions, oblivious,
Eric


-- 
Ruby Carat

Eureka, CA USA

r...@coldfusionnow.org
www.coldfusionnow.org
lenrexplained.com





--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA
1-707-616-4894
r...@coldfusionnow.org 
www.coldfusionnow.org 
lenrexplained.com 

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

[Ruby]

There is no reasoning with a digital meme.  Elon Musk said it out loud - 
we may be living in a simulation, for AI is all around us.


It just doesn't look like what we thought it would.

All the records, pictures, data, comments, tweets, .pdfs, videos, etc of 
Rossi (-and everyone!) LIVES an autonomous digital life - 24-7 alive - 
with no physical body at all.


Reason is from another realm, the physical realm, where you say 
something, I listen, and then respond to your points, and we exchange 
little by little, point-by-point in a linear fashion that our chain of 
logic can handle.


What we have now is all-at-once viral impressions, perceptions seemingly 
amplified by the speed-of-light networks to be everywhere at all times.


Reason does not exist there.

I used to blog on these issues, too.  A true advocate of new energy will 
always list the many players in this field making a new energy future 
happen.  Rossi is but one of the players.  Let's place all the 
researchers in the spotlight, and generate awareness of a very real 
(physical) newly-forming service environment (the ground) from which 
will emerge a usable technology (the figure).


Here is what I wrote after the Oct 2011 test.  I wish more bloggers 
would do the same.

http://coldfusionnow.org/steam-punk/

Now, this legal saga will waste more mental space than my noggin will 
fit.  I'll wait for the "ending"!

Dammit, I hope it's good.
Ruby

On 6/6/16 7:25 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Jack Cole > wrote:


I think the article is representative of the mindset of a lot of 
people who have been drawn in as LENR observers, however, and in that 
regard it has interest. People who have certain preconceptions, and 
then make inferences far beyond the evidence to fit with those 
preconceptions, oblivious,

Eric


--
Ruby Carat
Eureka, CA USA

r...@coldfusionnow.org
www.coldfusionnow.org
lenrexplained.com

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

[Bob Higgins]

I have heard that many of the anonymous (avatar) supporters of Rossi's case
on LENR forum and other blogs are Rossi himself - posting under various
names.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Ruby  wrote:

>
> There is no reasoning with a digital meme.  Elon Musk said it out loud -
> we may be living in a simulation, for AI is all around us.
>
> It just doesn't look like what we thought it would.
>
> All the records, pictures, data, comments, tweets, .pdfs, videos, etc of
> Rossi (-and everyone!) LIVES an autonomous digital life - 24-7 alive - with
> no physical body at all.
>
> Reason is from another realm, the physical realm, where you say something,
> I listen, and then respond to your points, and we exchange little by
> little, point-by-point in a linear fashion that our chain of logic can
> handle.
>
> What we have now is all-at-once viral impressions, perceptions seemingly
> amplified by the speed-of-light networks to be everywhere at all times.
>
> Reason does not exist there.
>
> I used to blog on these issues, too.  A true advocate of new energy will
> always list the many players in this field making a new energy future
> happen.  Rossi is but one of the players.  Let's place all the researchers
> in the spotlight, and generate awareness of a very real (physical)
> newly-forming service environment (the ground) from which will emerge a
> usable technology (the figure).
>
> Here is what I wrote after the Oct 2011 test.  I wish more bloggers would
> do the same.
> http://coldfusionnow.org/steam-punk/
>
> Now, this legal saga will waste more mental space than my noggin will
> fit.  I'll wait for the "ending"!
> Dammit, I hope it's good.
> Ruby
>
> On 6/6/16 7:25 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:
>
> I think the article is representative of the mindset of a lot of people
> who have been drawn in as LENR observers, however, and in that regard it
> has interest.  People who have certain preconceptions, and then make
> inferences far beyond the evidence to fit with those preconceptions,
> oblivious,
> Eric
>
>
> --
> Ruby Carat
> Eureka, CA USA
>
> r...@coldfusionnow.org
> www.coldfusionnow.org
> lenrexplained.com
>
>

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Chris Zell]

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

If this is the same Cherokee Investment trying to do remediation in Pennsauken, 
NJ……

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> Jed, I believe you have information that indicates this is true. However,
> it just doesn't explain the unusual behavior from IH. What about all the
> previous tests, going back to 2012?
>

In my opinion some of these tests may have shown excess heat. It is
difficult to judge. In this discussion I am only talking about the 1 MW
reactor, and the only data I have is from Rossi, not I.H. I believe I.H.
may have additional data, but I know nothing about it. In the motion to
dismiss they refer to "reactors" (plural). I have no knowledge of other
reactors.

So my comments are limited to this one reactor and this year-long test.



> Why raise money at all, if they weren't certain?
>

To find out, I suppose. You have to do tests to become certain. You don't
get certain first. If you did, there would be no point to doing tests.

You have to take chances and risk money in business. Perhaps, in
retrospect, this was too risky and they did not do enough due diligence. I
know nothing about what transpired between Rossi and I.H. before this test,
and nothing about their business arrangements other than what was revealed
in the lawsuit, so I cannot judge.



> Isn't that a type of fraud?
>

On Rossi side, yes. I do not see how anyone can accuse I.H. of fraud for
making an $11 million mistake. Who are they defrauding? Themselves?



> Why sign the patent applications?
>

I know nothing about patent applications. But I have heard that people
sometimes submit patents for inventions that turn out to be mistakes. They
later let the patent applications lapse. Why do you think that would be
fraudulent? I suppose it would be expensive.



> Why sign the agreement with Rossi which gives Rossi's guy complete control
> over the final test?
>

It seems like a stupid agreement in retrospect. Again, this is a mistake,
not fraud.



> Why hire Rossi's other guy to observe this test? What was their role in
> the Lugano test?
>

No idea. I have not discussed this with anyone.



> Didn't they build the reactor for that?
>

I think the Lugano report says they did build the reactor.



> For a solution to be correct, all the pieces have to fit into place, and
> if money wasn't a factor in this, then things just don't all fit together
> for me.
>

I do not see how you can expect pieces to fit into place unless you are
given access to the contracts, email, notes from meetings and so on. You
have no knowledge of what went on between I.H. and Rossi. I have no
knowledge either, so I do not have a clue about any of this.

The only thing I know about is the calorimetry in the 1 MW year-long test.
I know about this because I have some sample data and information on the
configuration. People who do not have this information cannot judge the
test.

Regarding the test, yhe only thing you have to go on are a few details
provided by Rossi in his interview with Lewan. Remarkably round numbers.
One of these details should set off alarm bells is that he did not allow
the I.H. expert into the customer site, even though the expert insisted on
that. You can do a little more Google homework and you will soon discover
that the customer is a fiction. He has done no business, paid no taxes, and
has no equipment (nothing that has been inspected). So the whole thing is a
scam, and there could not be 1 MW of process heat. I do not see how anyone
can reach a different conclusion.



> I know we'll have more information as time goes on. I'm happy waiting for
> it.
>

I hope more information will be released, but if the case is settled out of
court it may never be released.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Craig Haynie]

On 06/06/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat: 
IT DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did 
the device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or 
you could collect 6 months of data and you would reach the same 
conclusion. _It was not working_.


Jed, I believe you have information that indicates this is true. 
However, it just doesn't explain the unusual behavior from IH. What 
about all the previous tests, going back to 2012? Why raise money at 
all, if they weren't certain? Isn't that a type of fraud? Why sign the 
patent applications? Why sign the agreement with Rossi which gives 
Rossi's guy complete control over the final test? Why hire Rossi's other 
guy to observe this test? What was their role in the Lugano test? Didn't 
they build the reactor for that?


For a solution to be correct, all the pieces have to fit into place, and 
if money wasn't a factor in this, then things just don't all fit 
together for me. I know we'll have more information as time goes on. I'm 
happy waiting for it.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee.
>

I am not aware of sketchy finances or politics by Cherokee. What do you
refer to?


Questionable conduct by Rossi.  Too much ambiguity…
>

There is no ambiguity regarding the test results. Anyone with knowledge of
calorimetry can judge them in 5 minutes. If the data is ever published you
will see that it shows no heat, and that Rossi and Penon's methods and
conclusions are absurd.

I suppose that is why Rossi did not publish the ERV report, but I wouldn't
know. Maybe he thinks he can fool people with this kind of rubbish. He has
fooled many people for many years. His methods are crude, not
sleight-of-hand, the way Abd predicted.



(Here is nit-picking pedantic footnote about Japanese literature:

The movie is titled "Rashomon" (Gate of Hell) but that is the title of
another, unrelated short story by the same author. This short story was
called "In a thicket" (Yabu no naka) which is how Japanese people describe
this kind of situation. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Grove)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie  wrote:


> It doesn't take a 350 day test to prove that something works. That test
> was to prove the reliability of the device. That's also the only reason
> that Darden would have agreed to a test using an ERV of Rossi's choosing.
>

I do not know why Darden agreed to Penon, but that has no bearing on
calorimetry. In retrospect, Penon was a poor choice.

The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat: IT
DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did the
device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or you could
collect 6 months of data and you would reach the same conclusion. *It was
not working*.

I.H. knew that. I knew that. If the ERV sincerely did not know that, he is
a world-class idiot. The ERV's analysis as described by Rossi and
summarized in the data given to me is absurd.

It is possible the reactor was producing a little excess heat at times, but
the instruments were so bad you cannot be sure.

Fortunately, I have heard that I.H. experts were able to do a better
analysis. I have no information on how they did that, so don't even bother
asking me. I am taking their word for it. I am merely speculating here, but
I suppose they used proper instruments. Anyone could fix the problems and
do proper calorimetry. They urged Rossi to do that, but he refused.

- Jed

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

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

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

I think the article is representative of the mindset of a lot of people who
have been drawn in as LENR observers, however, and in that regard it has
interest.  People who have certain preconceptions, and then make inferences
far beyond the evidence to fit with those preconceptions, oblivious, as
this author was, to the possibility that (1) there may be no connection
between the motion to dismiss and the reassignment (and there probably
isn't, due to the slow pace at which lawsuits proceed); and (2) the
reassignment may have more to do with Rossi than IH.

It is difficult to reason with people in this kind of mindset, but there
are many of them, especially on LENR Forum.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Chris Zell]

The Rossi Saga is looking more like the Rashomon effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect

Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee.  Questionable conduct 
by Rossi.  Too much ambiguity…

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

As for IH  then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was
> rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed)
>

The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked into the
room and looked at the choice of instruments and configuration would see
that in a few minutes.

I knew that many months ago. I would hoping the problems would be fixed,
but they were not.

The Penon report cannot describe anything other than those instruments,
that configuration, and the absurd numbers they produced. There was never
any doubt what it would say, because it was written by Penon and he
designed this farcical test. (Or maybe Rossi and Penon designed it -- I
wouldn't know.)

The results & data were never secret, and never in doubt. You can read them
right off the instruments, as you can with any calorimetry with a stable
reactor. Rossi's claim that he couldn't tell if it would "pass" after
months or that it takes millions of numbers to do calorimetry are
pluperfect idiotic nonsense. Anyone can read the energy balance in a half
hour with a handful of temperature and flow readings, if the instruments
are working right. These instruments could not possibly work right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Craig Haynie]

On 06/06/2016 10:01 AM, a.ashfield wrote:


Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the 
failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of 
ready money.





This makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's any way they 
would have continued a relationship with Rossi for the past 3 years, 
unless they were certain of the technology. It doesn't take a 350 day 
test to prove that something works. That test was to prove the 
reliability of the device. That's also the only reason that Darden would 
have agreed to a test using an ERV of Rossi's choosing.


The most logical explanation for the way that IH acted, is that they 
simply didn't raise as much money as they had expected to raise in the 
past year; and if Rossi is correct, they only raised around $60 million. 
They probably just didn't raise the money they were expecting.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the 
failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of 
ready money.


Posted by ultrasure on https://www.lenr-forum.com

2 hours ago 
 



"better understand the culture of Tom Darden and Mr Weaver, read 
carefully the following links:


The Pennsauken project
nytimes.com/2005/10/30/nyregio…eal-new-jersey-style.html 

nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/…bpoenas_are_issued_f.html 



The two bankruptcies in Feb 2016
postandcourier.com/article/20160208/PC05/160209426 



EnCap (Owned by Cherokee Investment Partners) bankruptcy in 2008
nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/…kruptcy_filing_risks.html 



the readers will understand."

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

[Jack Cole]

Steve High wrote: "Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the
party who has committed economic crime?"

Yes, that is a painfully presumptive article written as if the presumptions
are facts.  It is by an anonymous blogger.  It's not worth reading unless
you enjoy reading propaganda.



On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:43 AM Steve High  wrote:

> Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the party who has
> committed economic crime?
>
> On Monday, June 6, 2016, H LV  wrote:
>
>> ​from
>>
>>
>> https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/
>> ​
>>
>> ​<<​
>> The reassignment of the lawsuit to the District Court Judge Cecilia
>> Altonaga and the consulting of the economic crime specialist Magistrate
>> John O’Sullivan, indicates that the court already has an initial suspicion
>> towards economic crime and therefore the lawsuit will not be rejected on
>> the basis of technicalities.
>> ​>>​
>>
>> ​Harry​
>>
>>

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

[Steve High]

Why presume that the Court suspects IH as being the party who has committed
economic crime?

On Monday, June 6, 2016, H LV  wrote:

> ​from
>
>
> https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/
> ​
>
> ​<<​
> The reassignment of the lawsuit to the District Court Judge Cecilia
> Altonaga and the consulting of the economic crime specialist Magistrate
> John O’Sullivan, indicates that the court already has an initial suspicion
> towards economic crime and therefore the lawsuit will not be rejected on
> the basis of technicalities.
> ​>>​
>
> ​Harry​
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Harry,
If true, it implies IH didn't want to pay $89 million.  It is not just 
that that is a lot of money, but it would mean Rossi could then build 
his automated production line and IH would have lost control.



On 6/6/2016 12:21 AM, H LV wrote:
If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum of money to the 
cancel the test then that implies IH considered Rossi's IP to be 
valuable at that time.


Harry

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Eric & Jed,

Consider the time line

Summer 2015  Rossi was offered a sum to cancel the test
Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11.5 million paid and
cancel IH's license.
Feb 18 test of a one megawatt heat plant completed
Apr 05 Rossi sues.  Rossi et al v. Darden et al
May 15 date Penon report given to Rossi and D/IH  (hard to pin
down exact date)
June 2 Leonardo Corp terminated license with IH

So Rossi sued Darden before either party had received the Penon's
report.
Rossi would not sue IH without getting a strong indication that IH
were not going to pay him

As for IH  then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's
report was rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (&
possibly Jed)

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Alain Sepeda]

2016-06-06 2:25 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you
> whether the pipe has a flowmeter or a thermocouple?


Just a naive question.
Why didn't they simply install a (high temp) gas flow meter at the exit of
the reactor.
If the meter only measure volume (not mass?) and assuming steam is dry,
measurement is precise.

if steam is wet, the measurement is not far from real since volume and heat
of water is small.

this would be simple and clear for steam calorimetry?

Is my reasoning too naive?