RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

David:

 

I typically enjoy your posts but I find the “Global Warming Hoax” material 
utterly ridiculous.  It is being driven by strong nonscientific motives.  
Please examine your motives for embracing it.  

 

Then answer this question,  “If there is even a minimal chance that WE 
(humanity) are contributing to a warming of the planet, what is the HARM of 
minimizing that effect” (and supporting steps to so minimize)?  Your answer 
will tell you everything you need to understand about your motives and bias.  
PS, the HARM (instituting carbon emission standards etc) you imagine is just 
that (imagined) and it has to do with economics not science.

 

Ransom  

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

Jed, I can not force you to look into the data yourself.  That is your decision.

You sound much like the established Physics community in assuming that LENR is 
not real because most physicists believe that.   Have you actually taken the 
time to look at how that 97% figure was determined?  If you did, you would have 
seen that it was proven false and that the university for which the scientist 
worked could not be forced to release the procedure used to reach that figure.  
A hacker finally obtained the data!

It is amazing that you attack what I am merely reporting without doing any 
research on your own.   Google the phrase "Global Warming Hoax" and read plenty 
of articles by reputable scientists from NASA, etc.  It shouldn't take too long 
for you to realize that the science is quite flawed.   Of course, if you 
believe that the science is settled, then you do not need to research further.

Can I assume that you are really going to review a few of those articles?  If 
not, then please refrain from calling that 97% figure accurate until you prove 
it is.

Also, no one is suggesting that the earth is not warming up.  It is mainly a 
natural cycle with the contribution of man hidden within the noise.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

David Roberson  wrote:

 

The reference that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for 90% of 
the problem has been proven wildly wrong (<1% actually agree) but keeps being 
stated over and over.

 

That's nonsense. You sound like the editors at Scientific American who keep 
assuring me that no paper on cold fusion has ever been published.

 

Most climatologists are sure that CO2 from burning fuel is causing global 
warming. Maybe they are right, and maybe they are wrong, but there is no doubt 
that is what the majority of them think. Not <1%; most of them. This is a 
matter of fact. Not an opinion, and not a scientific dispute. This is what 
climatologists say in opinion polls and in their own journals and web sites.

 

You can dispute scientific findings all you like, but you cannot dispute what 
climatologists tell poll takers, or what they say publicly. They DO NOT say 
what you claim they say. Along the same lines, the people at Scientific 
American may claim that no good papers have been published. They may claim that 
no papers have been published in Nature, or in Science. But when they say that 
no papers have been published they are denying a matter of fact that anyone can 
verify. That's stupid.

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

David:

 

Countries like the US are already throttling their economies even as the cost 
of energy has been cut in half.Energy will not be a limiter under the 
system currently in place regardless of carbon limits.  

 

Hence, you are imaging a PERIL that doesn’t exist because you don’t understand 
current economics.   You really don’t need to get all worked up even if the 
Global Warming Scientists turn out to wrong or only minimally right.  Your 
conclusions regarding PERIL are wrong.  However, if Global Warming Scientists 
are right or even partially right, we may be in real PERIL and that is worth 
the current international efforts.  Which is why you should be supporting the 
efforts for carbon emission reductions (it can’t hurt and may help).  The 
reason you are taking the position you do has little to do with the science of 
climate and everything to do with your misunderstanding of economics.

 

Ransom

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 3:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

The peril is that countries such as the USA will throttle their economies by 
making energy too expensive.  The end result is that millions will find their 
standard of living much reduced for a cause that is beyond mankind's control.   
The wealthy people of the world will not suffer too severely, but the poor are 
going to take a beating as is generally the case.  

Also, it will be a bad day if and when the world's energy supplies become 
regulated by one central authority.  The opportunity for abuse is astounding!

If LENR ever proves itself to be the new energy source we are hoping for, then 
the problem will be solved without any corrupt intervention.   I have great 
hopes for Rossi, but until we have proof I remain a bit skeptical.  My thermal 
models suggest that what he says is true provided his fuel actually delivers 
the required watts per kilogram for an extended time period. 


Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ransom Wuller < <mailto:rwul...@freeark.com> rwul...@freeark.com>
To: vortex-l < <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 4:11 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

David:

 

You said: “No one should assume that the guys making the global climate 
computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's 
peril.”

 

What PERIL?  

 

Ransom

 

From: David Roberson [ <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com?> mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:58 PM
To:  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

The YouTube reference is dead on!

Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed.  
No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models 
are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.   If you 
take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all 
missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified 
every couple of years.   Why do you suppose this is true?

A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much 
like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time 
to question them.   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be 
hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time 
elapses.  Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps 
them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future.  
Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by 
this technique.  It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in 
anything but guessing the future climate!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell < <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l < <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

Lennart Thornros < <mailto:lenn...@thornros.com> lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:

 

Let us leave the dispute about organizations.

I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:

The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the 
answer.

 

You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. 
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma 
fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.

 

You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a complex 
subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts are right 
or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to ju

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

David:

 

You said: “No one should assume that the guys making the global climate 
computer models are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's 
peril.”

 

What PERIL?  

 

Ransom

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

The YouTube reference is dead on!

Jed, you can research the global warming discussion and become more informed.  
No one should assume that the guys making the global climate computer models 
are great experts, which is what is happening at the world's peril.   If you 
take the time to look into the subject, you will see that those models have all 
missed the real world tests by a rather large margin and need to be modified 
every couple of years.   Why do you suppose this is true?

A person can argue that only the high priests of climate have the answers, much 
like you are saying, but when they fail to make correct predictions it is time 
to question them.   Every one of their models predicts that the earth should be 
hotter than it actually is measured to be after a modest period of time 
elapses.  Of course, a new correction factor is then established which keeps 
them functioning a bit longer, but only for a short time into the future.  
Anyone familiar with curve fitting can readily see what they are achieving by 
this technique.  It is tragic that anyone accepts that they are experts in 
anything but guessing the future climate!

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

 

Let us leave the dispute about organizations.

I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:

The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the 
answer.

 

You do not know the answer, but experts in climatology say they do know it. 
They are probably right. Non-experts from outside a field -- such as the plasma 
fusion scientists who attacked cold fusion -- are usually wrong.

 

You probably know next to nothing about climatology, because it is a complex 
subject. Therefore you have no basis to judge whether these experts are right 
or wrong. I know nothing about climatology so I have no basis to judge either. 
But as I said, as a general rule mainstream experts in hard science who have 
devoted years to research are usually right, so I defer to them.

 

I am sure that the comments by anti-global warming journalists are 
preposterous. I know enough about the subject to judge that. For example, they 
often say that we cannot even predict the weather 5 days ahead so how could 
anyone predict climate change decades from now. This is like saying that we 
cannot predict whether you will be alive tomorrow so how can anyone draw up 
actuarial tables for groups of people?

 

It is presumptuous for anyone to assume they understand climatology better than 
climatologists, or cold fusion better than Fleischmann, Bockris or McKubre. 
Even in 1989 I found it infuriating when people such as George Chapline 
(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and Morrison claimed that Fleischmann 
did not realize that highly loaded palladium hydrides release hydrogen when 
recombines at the surface, making the metal hot. It was used as a cigarette 
lighter in the 19th century.

By the way, what I am saying NOT -- repeat not -- a Fallacious Appeal to 
Authority. That would only be the case if Fleischmann was not a leading expert 
on electrochemistry and calorimetry, and he unquestionably was. See:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Most people attacking cold fusion and climatology suffer from the 
Dunning-Kruger effect. Especially the idiots at Scientific American and 
Wikipedia. Here is an amusing short description of the Dunning-Kruger effect by 
John Cleese. (Cleese teaches at Cornell University which is how knows Prof. 
Dunning.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWX8pl9B1Hk

 

- Jed

 

RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Ransom Wuller]

 in a battle against the world itself?  What if we were to 
succeed and start the world plunging into another ice age due to our 
intervention?  Can we be sure this will not occur?

It is unfortunate that we are not able to find common ground on this subject, 
but I feel that I have taken the time to become better informed than many.   
Perhaps you believe that I have become mislead by the global warming deniers 
but I instead suggest that you may be under the influence of those that would 
take away your civil rights using scare tactics.  Please take the time to study 
the issue before you pass judgement on my beliefs.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ransom Wuller < <mailto:rwul...@freeark.com> rwul...@freeark.com>
To: vortex-l < <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:41 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

David:

 

I typically enjoy your posts but I find the “Global Warming Hoax” material 
utterly ridiculous.  It is being driven by strong nonscientific motives.  
Please examine your motives for embracing it.  

 

Then answer this question,  “If there is even a minimal chance that WE 
(humanity) are contributing to a warming of the planet, what is the HARM of 
minimizing that effect” (and supporting steps to so minimize)?  Your answer 
will tell you everything you need to understand about your motives and bias.  
PS, the HARM (instituting carbon emission standards etc) you imagine is just 
that (imagined) and it has to do with economics not science.

 

Ransom  

 

From: David Roberson [ <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com?> mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:09 PM
To:  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

 

Jed, I can not force you to look into the data yourself.  That is your decision.

You sound much like the established Physics community in assuming that LENR is 
not real because most physicists believe that.   Have you actually taken the 
time to look at how that 97% figure was determined?  If you did, you would have 
seen that it was proven false and that the university for which the scientist 
worked could not be forced to release the procedure used to reach that figure.  
A hacker finally obtained the data!

It is amazing that you attack what I am merely reporting without doing any 
research on your own.   Google the phrase "Global Warming Hoax" and read plenty 
of articles by reputable scientists from NASA, etc.  It shouldn't take too long 
for you to realize that the science is quite flawed.   Of course, if you 
believe that the science is settled, then you do not need to research further.

Can I assume that you are really going to review a few of those articles?  If 
not, then please refrain from calling that 97% figure accurate until you prove 
it is.

Also, no one is suggesting that the earth is not warming up.  It is mainly a 
natural cycle with the contribution of man hidden within the noise.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell < <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l < <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

David Roberson < <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

 

The reference that 97% of scientists believe that man is responsible for 90% of 
the problem has been proven wildly wrong (<1% actually agree) but keeps being 
stated over and over.

 

That's nonsense. You sound like the editors at Scientific American who keep 
assuring me that no paper on cold fusion has ever been published.

 

Most climatologists are sure that CO2 from burning fuel is causing global 
warming. Maybe they are right, and maybe they are wrong, but there is no doubt 
that is what the majority of them think. Not <1%; most of them. This is a 
matter of fact. Not an opinion, and not a scientific dispute. This is what 
climatologists say in opinion polls and in their own journals and web sites.

 

You can dispute scientific findings all you like, but you cannot dispute what 
climatologists tell poll takers, or what they say publicly. They DO NOT say 
what you claim they say. Along the same lines, the people at Scientific 
American may claim that no good papers have been published. They may claim that 
no papers have been published in Nature, or in Science. But when they say that 
no papers have been published they are denying a matter of fact that anyone can 
verify. That's stupid.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Russian scientist reports replicating hot-cat excess heat

[Ransom Wuller]

Serious, explosive document?  Too who? Too the few souls in the world who
follow this?

Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are
considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive
replication is in essence positive.

Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those added
to the negative publicity and consensus attitude.

So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is
nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also
meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, regardless
of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed
replication be?  As to the significance of the replication, it really
depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the
tester.  I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the
results.

Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post on
E-Cat News.

Ransom

 I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as
 this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this
 without massive caveats.   If the caveats are in the paper, than I
 apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation as
 of yet that I could find.

 The lack of a control run is frightening in itself.



 On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
 blazespinna...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications

 On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
 blazespinna...@gmail.com
  wrote:

 Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without providing
 context.

 There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on peer
 reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other peer
 reviewed scientists and someone who has not.

 Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the
 latter
 category.

 I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi
 editted
 his comment from I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot
 comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect” to I
 do
 not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is possible
 that
 the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published
 in the
 Report of Lugano. was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to
 be
 credible.

 Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find
 this
 guy credible at all.



 On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 See:


 http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/

RE: [Vo]:ecat license buyback

[Ransom Wuller]

Blaze:

 

That’s a good question.  The license was only good for three years (based on a 
leaked example) and it relied on products being available for sale, otherwise 
it had no value.  If IH had no plans for production during the remaining window 
(1 year or so), the license would have been worthless save for the right of the 
licensee to sue Rossi.  Just speculating but the choice may have been to accept 
no sales through the term (with some hope to extend in the future), sue or a 
buyout.  Just speculation on my part.

 

Ransom

 

From: Blaze Spinnaker [mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ecat license buyback

 

Yeah I was going to post that as well.  Very peculiar.  Why would anyone sell 
back the license as things are heating up?

 

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

Andrea Rossi
November 19th, 2014 at 7:43 AM

Daniele Passerini (blogger of “22 Passi”)
You asked me few days ago about why some of our commercial Licensees have 
cancelled their websites. The reason is that we decided to offer to all our 
commercial Licensees to buy back their licence at a price, obviously, superior 
to the price they paid for it. Some of our Licensees have accepted our proposal 
and sold us back their license.
The details of the agreements are covered by NDA ( Non Disclosure Agreement).
We maintained with our former Licensees a friendly and collaborative 
relationship, open to the possibility of future collaboration upon specific 
issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

- - - -

For the ecat bets that probably reduces the probability that Rossi's running 
a scam. Of course, the statement could be positive or negative, truth-wise.

 

RE: [Vo]:ecat license buyback

[Ransom Wuller]

Precisely, so if there are no products to sell, the sales quota is not met and 
the license expires. The licensee is left with nothing.   So either sue for 
misrepresentation on the basis that the agreement assumed a product would be 
available for sale, try to negotiate an extension (assuming that option was on 
the table from IH), or accept a buy out of the license for original price plus.

 

That is what I assumed since it was reported some of the licensees had received 
a buyout.

 

Ransom

 

From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:24 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:ecat license buyback

 

A kind reader sent me the link. Thank you.

 

http://shutdownrossi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Leonardo-Corporation-Exclusive-India-E-Cat-License-S.pdf

 

This particular one was for Roger Greene/Indian Sub-continent (unsigned) ... 
with the year 2012 printed on the form.

It was for three years, and would only be renewed automatically if sales 
exceeded 10M.  

So it would expire next year if there were no sales. 

 

RE: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

[Ransom Wuller]

Jed:

 

The problem is the issue is NOT scientific.  The issue is actually rather 
simple at this point.  Is a very juvenile fraud being perpetrated or not.  The 
latest test leaves little to talk about scientifically (notwithstanding the 
issue associated with the alumina) making the issue of fraud the only 
legitimate reason to discard the results. And skeptics are essentially doing 
just that for that very reason.

 

IH and Darden, after owning the process for 18 months or so, could hardly be 
expected to be ignorant of a juvenile fraud.  They are either complicit at this 
point or their isn’t fraud.  If there isn’t fraud there is no legitimate basis 
for ignoring or questioning the results.  There probably isn’t anyway.  
However, Darden’s interview is significant because he validates his view that 
the Ecat is real in the face of fraud allegations.  I think what Blaze is 
saying and I agree is that Darden’s statements diminish the likelihood of fraud 
and would allow us to refocus on the science which seems strongly supportive of 
a cold fusion reaction.

 

As to the issue of fraud, Darden is much more important than results which 
possibly could have been manipulated by Rossi.  

 

Ransom

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 9:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Boom - Tom Darden speaks.

 

Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:

 

I read somewhere that 70% of all papers are not able to be replicated.  Or 
something crazy like that.

 

Where did you read that, and what sort of papers did it refer to? I believe I 
have read that studies in sociology have poor replication rates. That is not 
true of cold fusion. Many experiments have not been replicated, but that is 
because no one has tried to replicate them.

 

 

Tom Darden's reptuation is far more valuable than Levi's.

 

This makes no sense. The issue is scientific. A scientist is a better judge of 
that than a businessman. Furthermore, hundreds of distinguished scientists have 
published compelling proof that cold fusion is real. You are moving your 
estimate by several percentage points in response to the opinions of one 
businessman. Surely, with regard to a scientific subject, the relative weight 
of peer-reviewed scientific papers by experts should be a hundred times -- or a 
thousand times -- that of a businessman's opinion! Those papers should be 99.9% 
of your evaluation, and Darden's opinion would be 0.1%.

 

If you wanted an evaluation of the flight performance of the Boeing Dreamliner 
airplane, who would you ask? A businessman who invests in aviation? Or a group 
of 200 experienced professional pilots who have hundreds of hours experience 
flying the Dreamliner, and thousands of hours flying other aircraft?

 

 

Also, Tom Darden knows what's inside the ecat.   He has complete, unfettered 
access.   The same can not be said for Levi.

 

First, Levi knows what is in the cell. Second, this can be considered a black 
box test. It makes no difference what is in the cell. The calorimetry proves 
that whatever it is, it produces orders of magnitude more energy than any 
chemical fuel, and it works at a high temperature, and high power. So, if the 
effect can be controlled, it will not only be a practical source of energy, it 
will be far better than any other sources. That is what matters.

 

- Jed

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8365 - Release Date: 10/11/14

Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

[Ransom Wuller]

Wait a minute, is everyone suggesting that all the ash was NI62.  Where is
that coming from?

Only 10% of the ash was even sent as a sample for testing and then I think
only certain particles of the ash were tested for isotopic composition.

Other than to say that some of the nickel was in a different isotopic
concentration from the fuel (and natural isotopic concentration) I don't
think the report is suggesting anything else.



 P29:

 By the researchers calculations there are 3MWh released from transmutation
 of Li7, and Ni isotopes, and supposedly all of the other initial chemicals
 transmuted into Ni too as not present in Ash (which would release huge,
 though unquantified amounts of binding energy), yet only 1.5MWh output
 recorded, and calorimetry which is supposed to be accurate to ~10%.

 more magic involved? fusion + fission transmutations that release copious
 neutrinos with no gammas, betas, neutrons or alphas?

 It's starting to smell.

 On 9 October 2014 11:52, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 I may have missed the paragraph that stated the amount of material that
 was taken from within the reactor as ash.  Did they recover
 approximately
 the same amount as was put in?

 Also, I do not recall how much of the ash by weight was nickel and
 lithium.  Perhaps I need to read the report again to look for these
 details.  Does anyone know whether or not the isotropic shifted
 metals actually added up to the total amount of nickel, etc. at the
 beginning?  I would not be surprised to find that some of the metals
 from
 the fuel found their way to being attached to the body of the reactor
 due
 to the extreme temperatures.

 Dave


 -Original Message-
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 10:51 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pomp weighs in

   Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:


 I can't imagine how, but perhaps what was left behind inside the
 reactor
 when added to the ash would show that no isotopic shifts took place.


  Sorry, but that makes no sense. The material that came out proves there
 are isotopic shifts. What stayed behind cannot unprove that. What did
 you
 have in mind? That the other isotopes all got left behind? That would be
 an
 isotope separation technology of a totally unexpected and inexplicable
 new
 type. It would be as miraculous as transmutation.

  Also, if you cannot imagine how then your assertion has no place in a
 serious scientific discussion. You have to imagine how, and other people
 have to agree that what you imagine is plausible. This is not a fantasy
 role playing game, where you can invoke dragons or miracles.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Gasp- Rossi changes Story on Indipendent Report

[Ransom Wuller]

I suppose it doesn't really matter, but he was talking about the 1Mw plant
supposedly in operation at a customer of Industrial Heat, not the 3rd
Party Report.


 Gasp..He is loosing me!

 Courtesy Alain Coetmeur:
 http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/rossi-changes-story-on-third-party-report-interest-in-alternative-energy-grows

 Ad Astra,
 Ron Kita, Chiralex

[Vo]:New Paper on Santilli's process

[Ransom Wuller]

What does anyone make of this Paper?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topcj/articles/V005/17TOPCJ.pdf

Maybe it was already discussed.

Re: [Vo]:Perfect response to Gugliemi

[Ransom Wuller]

Cude:

Why do you bother to respond when you post replies like that.

The result of the paper is different than the paper?  Come now, the result
of the paper is a component of the paper, as a component, if it advances
knowledge, then the whole advances knowledge.  Didn't you take logic in
your training? Whether the viewer deems it credible enough is for the
viewer.  You wouldn't deem a paper on this topic credible enough under any
circumstances, so your opinion is hardly instructive or representative.
And citing a view vocal outliers (Guglielmi) is hardly a census of the
reaction.

As far as benefiting mankind, waiting for Rossi to achieve a working
product might (even if the report is accurate) be a long wait (in fact
there is no assurances he will even succeed), but you don't need to
understand the mechanism to determine if a new form of energy has been
achieved.  So the scientific community need not wait on the inventor.

And of course for the scientific community to wait for an inventor to
school them is a sad commentary on the discipline.

If this report is insufficient to confirm a new source of energy the
testers should be encouraged to do the tests again with modified
methodology. It is certainly sufficient to raise the possibility of a new
source of energy (the need to interpose a theory of fraud proves it's
sufficiency)

Ransom

 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote:

 Jed:

 His two questions can easily be answered.

 1) Since the science community currently believes a positive result to
 be
 impossible (cold fusion is pseudoscience), such a result would change a
 potential misperception by the scientific community. Which in point of
 fact
 is a much more significant advance of knowledge than any detailed
 advance
 may produce.


 He didn't ask how the result would advance knowledge, but how the paper
 would. Since the claim is not testable, the paper does *not* serve to
 change the misperception, as should be obvious by now. What he's saying is
 that for this exercise to advance knowledge, it is necessary for others to
 be able to test the claims, and that's not possible.


 2) Mankind.


 Mankind will not benefit from this paper. If the claim is real, mankind
 would benefit from the technology. He admits that. But this paper will not
 promote that. Something else is needed. Something testable. As it stands,
 it benefits Rossi's ability to attract investment, and he's got several
 academic stooges to help him do it.

 If Rossi has what he claims, then he has to show the world in a way that
 they will believer

Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis

[Ransom Wuller]

I loved Carl Sagan but the biggest mistake he made in his lifetime was
making that phrase popular.  A claim requires evidence, it doesn't matter
what kind of claim.

If what you are saying is science can't consider the possibility of
something extraordinary unless they are clobbered over the head into
submission, science is tantamount to religion and not science.  Obviously,
for science to conclude anything the proof needs to be conclusive, but
that is true of any claim.

I would never urge a lack of prudence. But your discussion (what you are
calling it) can't be advanced to certainty and that seems to be what you
are after.  I have seen and read enough to conclude that some deception
can be imagined.  There is likely no proof of deception and probably won't
be any.  If some is shown it sould be considered, but lacking any what
more can be said.  Everyone is likely to have a different opinion as to
how likely such a crime is.

The question is, given the above what do you do as a scientist regarding
the recently disclosed report?  I was simply pointing out that ignoring it
or concluding without proof of fraud that it isn't some evidence is at
least imprudent.

Ransom

 If it's silly to urge prudence, then go ahead and be as wise as you
 like.  Your handwaving generalities and misrepresentations of my position
 don't progress the discussion any further, unfortunately.

 I will say two things: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
 evidence, and, if this were Fleischmann, I would not be nearly as
 concerned.

 Andrew
   - Original Message -
   From: Randy Wuller
   To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
   Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 4:54 AM
   Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis


   Andrew:


   Your point is not well taken.  Proof is a continuum.  In this case you
 must posit fraud to counter proof.  Fraud may or may not be actually
 possible in this case but it can always be imagined.


   The real question is whether the scientific community is required to
 ignore these results because they can imagine fraud.  Such a position is
 beyond lunacy to me.  Of course not.  What they should do is consider
 them in light of the range of proof from zero to conclusive and if they
 feel conclusive proof is absent, insist that the next investigation
 remedy the issue.


   They certainly should not take the position that since we can imagine a
 possibility where the proof is not conclusive that we can then, 1)
 ignore the results, or 2) without proof of the imagined exception
 conclude NO proof exists.


   You seem to be insisting on black or white even to embrace the possible.
  This the kind of silly position taken by Cude.


   Ransom

   Sent from my iPhone

   On May 26, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:


 The bottom line is that currently there is no way to deny the thesis
 that all the output power derives from the input power. The due
 diligence exercised by all these august testers was quite frankly of a
 disappointingly low standard, because they failed to obtain a
 resolution to this question. What is worse, they appear not to have
 been aware of it, since it finds no mention in the report. Elephant in
 the room syndrome, quite likely.

 Andrew
   - Original Message -
   From: Rich Murray
   To: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Rich Murray ; Joshua Cude
   Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:54 PM
   Subject: Re: [Vo]:The inanity of the hidden input power hypothesis


   Thanks, Duncan --


   I'd certainly be excited, as would be Joshua Cude, if irrefutable
 evidence, no faith in anyone needed, arises to launch a scientific
 explosion of work on cold fusion.


   My part-time contribution since December 1996 has been to give
 un-expert detailed critiques of simple facets of cold fusion claims.
  I am totally willing to be convinced.  I'm playing the critical
 role, because then the enthusiasts have to succeed at the public
 evidence game, which is much of what drives overall scientific
 progress.


   So, the apparent excess heat in this E-Cat HT is several times the
 apparent electrical input, at up to 960 deg C in a device the size
 of a bowling pin.


   So, one of the first candidates for a fake would be at least one
 well hidden wire, which, if it uses ten time higher voltage, can
 have a very small diameter conducting gold core -- or it could even
 be a tube of elastic conducting plastic of much larger size, hidden
 within a larger plastic water tube -- somewhere in the world by now,
 this stuff may exist -- or, high voltage conducing wires that are
 hidden within the insulation of what appears to be conventional
 power wires -- Jed, is this inane? -- no way to dodge this ball...


   [PDF]
   Conducting Polymers and the Evolving Electronics ... - NEPP - NASA
   nepp.nasa.gov/docuploads/4D1C9F67-F567-4E16.../SyedRevision2.pdf
   The simplest of these polymers is polyacetelene. The mechanical
 

Re: [Vo]:Another Solar Firm Shuts Down

[Ransom Wuller]

How do you know I'm not one of those rich guys.  Sorry, stupidity isn't
confined to class groups.  When the pie shrinks we all lose, when the pie
increases we all gain.  The silly policies that have taken over
conservative thinking are not designed to promote prosperity and that's
all I care about.  I'd personally like to see this era of pessimism and
depression economics end.  The sooner the better for me, I'll get richer. 
If you think austerity and laissez faire economics is the answer, then I
hope you don't represent a majority of thinking in this country or the
that day I'm hoping for is likely to be farther away.

Ransom

 In this case the Pioneer will be the US taxpayer.  Jed's liberal sheep
 just
 lept from his wolfs clothing.  I figured you were a tax the rich guy.

 On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jed Rothwell
 jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
 wrote:

 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'alain.sep...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 yes, we have to prepare for that in LENR.


 I hope so!



 and often the pioneer get toasted by the second wave... business is not
 fair, but it works.


 Exactly right.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Critique of Space Shuttle written in 1980

[Ransom Wuller]

Jed:

The leap too far point is incorrect.  That had little to do with the
shuttle's issues.

The main problem was that it was designed to be everything.  A truck, a
car, a lab all rolled into one.  You wouldn't design a passenger carrier
and add a large truck carrier to it.  It makes both complicated.

The energetics to take humans to orbit is significantly less then taking
40,000 lb payloads.

The whole thing was incompetently designed to do all things for all
people, because there was no will at the time for multiple projects.  That
was it's big problem.  Now maybe that added complexity which you point out
but it was a process problem not a technology problem.

Ransom

 This was featured in Slate magazine. I read it years ago. It is a damning
 critique of the Space Shuttle written before the first Shuttle flew:

 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html

 Many people consider the Shuttle a technical triumph. I always had my
 doubts, and after the first accident I thought they should scrap it. This
 article shows that may people were aware of the shortcomings. The problem
 with the Shuttle was that it was a leap too far. They tried to accomplish
 too much in one generation of improvements. There have been many similar
 failures in the history of technology, such as the IBM Stretch Computer.
 The Stretch caused no harm. It lost a lot of money, but within a decade
 IBM
 recouped the loss by using most of the technology developed for it in
 other
 machines.

 Rossi has tried to make far too big a leap. His megawatt reactor reminds
 me
 of the flying boats with multiple engines of the 1930s such as the Dornier
 Do X:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_X

 And the Caproni Ca. 60, probably the most ambitious and worst airplane
 ever
 built:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60

 Come to think of it, the Shuttle also had multiple engines of different
 types. That is a hallmark of bad technology.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:NI and Rossi not related anymore

[Ransom Wuller]

I am just suggesting that commercialization of the ecat will require more
then Leonardo Corp or Rossi.  If Rossi is really developing a commercial
product he will need Partners and the structure of that relationship would
have been the first order of business after October.  So it would not
surprise me at all that the entity developing the Ecat would be other then
Rossi or Leonardo corp.  I am not saying that is happening, for all I know
Rossi is just all smoke and mirrors.  All I am saying is Krivit should
have asked that question and from his report I don't know if he did and/or
if he would report it if he did.

Ransom

 Hm if NI was working under an NDA they would use another choice of words
 to deny a relationship with Rossi, I think, wouldn't they? Betts words
 are pretty clear (if it is correct what Krivit states on NET) and do not
 seem to leave much room for interpretation... Further as they explicitly
 mention Leonardo Corporation in their 14th November press release, why
 would they by now be working with a partner company of Leonardo Corp.?
 Of course this might be possible but by now it seems as if you really
 have to digg deep to find something that supports Rossi. Some weeks ago
 this was the other way round...

 For me personally, the NI statement was one of the main reasons to give
 Rossi some credibility, but as this argument is gone now, I wonder whats
 still there that speaks for Rossi?

 Let's hope Defkalion's tests (starting next Friday) have more substance
 and can really provide irrefutable evidence of LENR...

 Wolf


 Did Krivit ask if NI was working with any partner/customer/joint
 venturer of Rossi/Leonardo Corp.

 At this point if Rossi is legit he has to Partner with an entity with
 resources.

 Frankly, it would be just like Krivit not ask that question or tell if
 he did.

 Also, NI could be working under an NDA.

 Ransom

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 18, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
 mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/18/national-instruments-denies-relationship-with-rossi/

 Confirmed by! NI.

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

Re: [Vo]:Dick Says Yes To $1M Counter Offer By Defkalion

[Ransom Wuller]

Jed:

LENR does not require neutrons and he claims they will not be able to
demonstrate LENR not Cold Fusion.  He must be talking to Krivit.

Ransom


 I predict that Dick Smith will find an expert who will say: there are
 no
 neutrons, so there is no fusion. That will be the last we hear from him.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Concerning Rossi's attempts to achieve adequate Patent Protection

[Ransom Wuller]

I think the assumption must be that Rossi has a device which will work,
otherwise there is not much point in this speculation.

If Rossi's device works, I think he will get his patent if the application
is properly written and complies with the application requirements.

However, that doesn't mean litigation wouldn't follow, but it would likely
be Rossi instituting the action to protect his intellectual property.

In other words, IF this happens it will likely follow this sequence:

1) Rossi will start selling a product based on Cold Fusion/LENR based on
a patent application.

2) His device works and everyone and their uncle researches it/ reverse
engineers it or developments a revised slightly different alternative.

3) Rossi brings suit against the competition to enforce his patent, and
the lawyers have some fun.

I think this all happens without a grant of patent from the patent office,
but even with one the same thing happens.

Ransom

 This has not been adequately explained. The USPTO position is based
 on an assumption that cold fusion is considered impossible. So a
 patent that claims cold fusion is rejected in the same way that
 patents for perpetual motion machines are impossible.

 However, a working model could overturn this. The problem with many
 failed cold fusion patents was that working models weren't available.

 My opinion is that a properly written patent on a device that appears
 to be using LENR could be approved, even without a working model, but
 if there is a working model, it gets easier. LENR or cold fusion
 should not be claimed, the theoretical mechanism actually is not
 important, if the device clearly has the major claimed use.

 It's certainly possible that the USPTO would claim it's still
 impossible, but the conditions would have been set up for a legal
 challenge to the USPTO position, in the courts. Patents have been
 granted for electrodes used in cold fusion experiments, in fact,
 where the primary claim did not mention excess energy. But subsidiary
 claims did.

 It's complicated and I'd defer to expert opinion. INAL means I'm not
 a lawyer. But I do have some idea of the legal issues.

 The real issue is whether or not a patent is defensible in court. The
 USPTO decision merely establishes some kind of presumption or
 protection. If the USPTO denies a patent, and someone imitates the
 technology, the inventor may still be able to claim the protection of
 patent law, in court.

 But no patent, no protection. Rossi has been depending on secrecy,
 which is very, very risky. I'm sure he's heard this advice many
 times. Maybe he thinks he's able to pull it off, maybe he's a fraud,
 maybe, maybe.

 I've read a lot about this, and I don't know. Some people may well
 know things I don't know. Lots of writers, though, have opinions
 based on less knowledge

Re: [Vo]:Ian Bryce and Rossi

[Ransom Wuller]

Well, maybe the scam doesn't work anything like your speculation.

Listen, that interview was a huge waste of my time.  This Bryce guy knows
far less about any of this then anyone following this on the Vortex. 
Maryyugo could have done a much better job then Bryce discussing why not
to invest or MORE importantly why to insist on INDEPENDANT TESTING if you
plan to invest.

But what was most distressing about this guys interview was the lack of
any information on the connection of this group with Rossi, the investment
plan, the people organizing the meeting and their connection with Rossi
all of which would have been of some interest.  Please stop wasting my
time, I spend enough of my day on this topic as it is.


Ransom

 Maybe it works like this

  Potential licensee to LENR device provider

 We are interested but don't have the X million for the license.



  LENR device provider to potential licensee

 No problems. Do a dozen green investor meeting. Not with big fish, just
 a lot of smaller green fish. Easier to fry. I'll do a video Skype call
 to each meeting and convince the fish our LENR device will save the
 planet from Global Warming (that is what they want to hear) and then to
 sign the cheques to do their small part to save the planet. We might
 need to sweeten the pot by promising each of them to install a 10 kW
 LENR device in their home for nothing. Maybe you put a few friends, who
 go first, with dud cheques in the audience to break the ice.



  Potential licensee to LENR device provider

 Brilliant. We will be very rich. When do we get to see and test a
 working LENR device?



  LENR device provider to potential licensee

 Why do you need to do that? We have plenty of scientists who have tested
 our LENR device and say it works fine.



  Potential licensee to LENR device provider

 Ok fair enough. When can we expect our first delivery and what are the
 payment terms?



  LENR device provider to potential licensee

 12 to 18 months. Payment is cash with order. You pay for shipping from
 our high tech robotized factory, which by the way is heated with our
 LENR devices. In fact we have been heating our factories and research
 labs with our LENR devices since 2006 or maybe 2007 or maybe 2008. I
 forget which.



  Potential licensee to LENR device provider

 Ok fair enough. We understand you have sold a big plant. Can we come to
 see it working and talk to the customer?



  LENR device provider to potential licensee

 That is not possible. It is installed at a very secret location where
 we, the customer's engineers and our control system supplier are working
 day and night to make it work better and better. We are making amazing
 progress every day. Really amazing progress.



  Potential licensee to LENR device provider

 Fantastic. We are very impressed. We will get lots of green investor
 meeting arranged and with your help we will get all the funding we need
 to pay you for our licensee, to start the process to save our planet and
 generate lots of sales. We will all be famous and go down in the history
 books. We are so lucky to be able to work with such a great man as
 yourself.



  LENR device provider to potential licensee

 We are at your service. Just don't invite Ian Bryce or Dick Smith from
 the Australian Skeptics to any of your meetings or tell the newspapers
 what you are doing. They will try to stop you. They are not believers.

 Shaun

Re: [Vo]:Ian Bryce and Rossi

[Ransom Wuller]

Exactly, you have no proof.  What you have is the same thing Rossi has,
Rossi says, Smith says, Shaun says

I didn't hear half of the nonsense you are posting in that interview with
Bryce, who by the way seems as clueless to me as a lot of the Rossi
followers just on the other side of the nut house.

Frankly, I am really tired of all the speculation, when you have something
beside he said, she said, come back.  The same goes for all those
supporting Rossi.

I used the Vortex for real information before Maryyugo popped in and the
rest of the nuts on either side of this drama.  I wish it would go back to
a more fact based site for information flow.  I'm receiving e-mails out
the yin-yang now and it is getting ridiculous.

Ransom

 While I have no proof, I would expect a few of those going to the
 meeting would have emailed Rossi to check on the validity of Millin's
 claim to be the Australian licensee. No one would invest money with
 Millin without that being made very clear and at least sighting the
 necessary executed documents to back up Millin's claim.

 Shaun

Re: [Vo]:Ian Bryce and Rossi

[Ransom Wuller]

I wouldn't characterize MY as troll either, but annoyingly repetative and
of no value whatsoever to this site, absolutely.  I don't care that you
think Rossi is a fake, I would prefer this site be restricted to technical
discussions of the science and even technical discussions of the evidence
regarding Rossi and LENR, not all the speculation based on nothing that is
now occuring.

Ransom



 On 12-01-21 02:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 You, Mary Yugo and the other trolls...

 I disagree with the characterization of MY as a troll.

 Trolling generally refers to making outrageous, offensive, or clearly
 bogus statements to get a reaction from people.

 Attacking Rossi, and asserting that those who believe in him do so with
 too little evidence, is hardly what I would call trolling.

Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011

[Ransom Wuller]

 So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't
 violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to
 travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless
 nuclear reactions producing heat.

Joshua:

Considering this mist after traveling meters in a hose had to then travel
through water allowed to stand at room temperature before being exposed to
air, I suggest impossible would be a good word for it.

Ransom

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi\'s setups and see howtheyworkwithout LENR?

[Ransom Wuller]

 That calculation also requires an assumption that the steam that escapes
 at
 the end of the hose is dry. That is highly unlikely. If in fact, a fine
 mist or fog was entrained in that steam, to explain the disappearance of
 water, very little gain is established.

Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to
then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature.  The
calculation ignores any steam condensed in the process and would be very
conservative.

 The best test is the EK demo, because in that case, if the numbers are
 accepted, then  it required an energy gain of at least 2, because the
 input
 energy was only enough to bring the water to about 60C. But as in the
 Lewan
 test, the input power was not monitored, and moreover, the total energy
 needed to explain wet steam is rather modest, and certainly does not rule
 out chemical heat.


I disagree, the output was not measured in the E  K demo, it was in
Lewan's 2nd test and O/I is clearly greater then 2/1 in Lewan's test.


 While manipulation of input energy, a hidden energy source or chemical
 energy were not excluded by Lewan's 2nd test, it did confirm significant
 measured output over input.


 If the input energy was manipulated, then no, it doesn't, even if you
 accept that half the water was vaporized.


I'd say more then half the water was vaporized.  The output also included
1/2 a liter of water while the Ecat was heating up which also went into
the bucket.  Lewan may have also let the pump trial water go into the
bucket another 3/4 liter but you'd have to ask him. If he did that 3/4 of
a liter of 20C water may have been in the bucket before the steam began.
But ignoring that at least (11.7 - 5.4) is 6.2 of the water disappeared.
You say it is virtually all mist taking into account no condensation and
ignoring the cooling taking place over 3 hours.  Just what level of
entrapped steam do you believe can account for this physical evidence? 
Sorry, mankind has understood steam a lot longer then nuclear physics and
without most of the lost water being steam, I'd say that physical evidence
is impossible. Radiation less nuclear reactions which have been suggested
and ignored for 20 years because we theorize they are impossible is lot
more likely.