Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Lennart Thornros wrote: 1. I think the judgment is based on one issue and that person has many > sides that could be better. > I think you are wrong. > 2. No you do not have to judge. > But I can if I want to. 3. Nobody said that your judgment has any quality. > If

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Ian Walker wrote: "... as I said. I.H. says > they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the > report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust > Penon's." > > 1) Who at I.H. said this? > > The press release! That's what I

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

1. I think the judgment is based on one issue and that person has many sides that could be better. 2. No you do not have to judge. 3. Nobody said that your judgment has any quality. 4. Very few people are idiots - I do not believe one of those few got that kind of job. Good we agree as far as we

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Lennart Thornros wrote: > regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone > an idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012. > What other basis is there to call someone an idiot, other than his work? How else can you judge? > It is not

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Jed, regardless of what you think and believe, it is not fair to call someone an idiot because he made a poor job at one time in 2012. It is not fair to call someone a fraud because he made jail time and is Italian or because you find it hard to negotiate with him. No, repeating myself, there are

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Hi all Should have included this in the above text. https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg109304.html Source for what "Jed Said" My apologies. This head cold is slowing me down :) Kind Regards walker On 14 April 2016 at 17:42, Ian Walker wrote: > Hi all

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Hi all Should have included this in the above text. Source for what "Jed Said" My apologies. Kind Regards walker On 14 April 2016 at 17:40, Ian Walker wrote: > Hi all > > In reply to Jed > > "... as I said. I.H. says > > they disagree with the report. They say there is

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Hi all In reply to Jed "... as I said. I.H. says they disagree with the report. They say there is no heat. That makes the report valueless. I trust I.H.'s expertise in calorimetry more than I trust Penon's." 1) Who at I.H. said this? 2) Who is the expert at IH on Calorimetry that you trust so

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Dear Jed, I'm sorry if I missed this in an earlier exchange, but I'm very curious to hear your stance on this especially in light of the events of the last month. With all the information that you have been privy to especially over the last few weeks, what is your stance on the "Rossi

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Ian Walker wrote: > On another point; and by way of admonishment. If you are going to report > something in the future state the source and quote what they say, otherwise > you will find yourself entrapped again and once again having to back-pedal > the fantasy. > EVERY

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Ian Walker wrote: > As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the > first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit > about it. > I am not back pedaling about anything! This is nonsense. I never meant to say there is an

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Hi all As to the supposed ERV 2 we have seen no proof it exists. In fact the first we hear of it is from Jed, who then starts to back-pedal quite a bit about it. I personally think Jed has misunderstood what IH has said perhaps under the instruction of APCO Worldwide as a spun story to trap the

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Jed, > > Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now. > His explanation is nonsense, as I explained in the message titled: "Rossi states his reason for not publishing Penon report." - Jed

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Dear Jed, Rossi explains why he does not publish ERV-1 now. But IH? If ERV-2 makes Rossi checkmate, why they do not publish it now - as a fatal blow, great ace in the dispute? It will be interesting to see how it demonstrates lak of excess heat for a complete year. Messy affair Peter On Wed,

Re: [Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Ian Walker wrote: 1) First of all according to what Jed Rothwell reports it was commissioned > solely and apparently secretly by IH with obvious risks of bias. > I did not say anything remotely like that! I just said IH sent experts, they wrote a report, and their report

[Vo]:2nd "ERV" as well as being incomplete has obvious risks of being fraudulent.

Hi all Jed Rothwell is posting various comments about a supposed 2nd ERV. As described by Jed Rothwell this report has several problems. 1) First of all according to what Jed Rothwell reports it was commissioned solely and apparently secretly by IH with obvious risks of bias. 2) It breaks the