RE: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-20 Thread bobcook39923
: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test  Jed Rothwell wrote: If he had shown them how to produce any measurable COP, even 1.1, they would have paid him $89 million. That is an absurd statement which has zero credibility. You are falling into the same trap as Rossi's true believers, which

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-20 Thread Jones Beene
Jed Rothwell wrote: If he had shown them how to produce any measurable COP, even 1.1, they would have paid him $89 million. That is an absurd statement which has zero credibility. You are falling into the same trap as Rossi's true believers, which is to make a dubious point at any cost.

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-20 Thread Jed Rothwell
wrote: > I do not consider that the contractual sale of IP by Rossi included > training IH in his POHOSITA to obtain long term performance of the E-Cat > above a COP of 4. > I do not recall the details of the contract, but it covered all IP, at any COP. It covered

RE: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-19 Thread bobcook39923
in this day and age. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test Jed,   You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest comments.  I don't believe that you or anyone

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-19 Thread a.ashfield
Jed, It looks to me that Bob was repeating my comment. It is impossible to be sure, one way or the other. that the E-Cat works, without having all the data. You said I was calling you a liar because of this and stopped replying to me. If the instrumentation was so obviously useless on the

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Jed Rothwell
Bob Higgins wrote: Jed, You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest > comments. > Saying that an experiment failed is not extremist. Most experiments fail. > I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to *prove* that > there

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Jones Beene
Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil wrote: Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work. It is described in the patent. They cannot get the machines in the patent to work, therefore the patent is invalid and the IP has no value. If someone else can make the patent

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Bob Higgins
Jed, You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest comments. I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to *prove* that there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a contrived "GPT". XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi claims, but

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work. > It is described in the patent. They cannot get the machines in the patent to work, therefore the patent is invalid and the IP has no value. If someone else can make the patent work,

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread a.ashfield
Axil, Have you not seen Rossi's patent? It doesn't even mention LENR and protects very little. AA On 2/18/2017 6:08 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with experts. They determined that the patent is not valid. IH should make everything that supports this statement public so that it can be verified by others in a public venue. IH has nothing to lose by supporting their claims by

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. > A patent that does not work and cannot be replicated is not valid. It is worthless. He is not protected against anything. In the highly unlikely scenario that he actually has a positive result, he will

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
No one has been able to replicate Rossi or his patents. Then IH has nothing to lose by revealing what they cannot get to work. If someone can get it to work, then IH will benefit from that effort. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread a.ashfield
Jed, "none of these replicators has succeeded. Not one." Russian Group Claims Rossi/Parkhomov Replication Success http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/10/05/russian-group-claims-rossiparkhomov-replication-success/ AA On 2/18/2017 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Axil, > Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds me > of MIT and Pons &

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: Ahern's current effort is a red herring in regard to Rossi's IP. > I repeat, his effort has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI, or Rossi's IP! It predates Rossi by many years. What the hell are you talking about here? It is not a red herring, or blue or green

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
IH should want to prove that Rossi's IP is a fraud and that they want to recover that $11 million in a case that features as evidence and expert testimony many hundreds of failed replications as they have themselves failed. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
Ahern's current effort is a red herring in regard to Rossi's IP. Jed, your position is helping both IH and Rossi hide from fact finding. Why is your aim to hide the facts. You must believe that Rossi's IP is valid and want to protect IH from revealing it as open source. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread a.ashfield
Axil, Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds me of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann. What happens if the experiment did work? Then IH would have given away Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little protection he does have. AA On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM,

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a > statement of verified fact. > Perhaps he would, but his experiment has NOTHING TO DO WITH ROSSI. You wrote that he is replicating. That is false. If anything, it is the other way around.

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth that IP is nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and advance their case against Rossi. On

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Jed Rothwell
Axil Axil wrote: There are dozens of well motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech > working now including brian Ahern . . . > Ahern is trying to replicate an experiment that was done many years before Rossi began work. It has nothing to do with Rossi, except for

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread a.ashfield
Axil, I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with Rossi's IP. If that were the case why would they have agreed to give Rossi $89 million? Surely his technology, if it works, is worth more than $11 million. I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
There are dozens of well motivated open source replicators of Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern and an additional hundreds that will enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is made available. I am disgusted with all the innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread a.ashfield
Axil, Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't help to have this run by avowed enemies. Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the replication of Pons & Fleischmann? AA On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote: IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Axil Axil
IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO involving the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian Ahern as its most prominent member to allow that community to run tests to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in their claims

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread a.ashfield
Leonart, I agree with you. It serves no useful purpose to repetitively run down Rossi like Jed and Brian do. I do think Rossi has discovered something for the reasons Frank Acland wrote here: (saves me writing it myself.) http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/ AA On 2/18/2017

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread a.ashfield
I note your pseudo skeptical certainty, but the truth will not be known until all the data comes out in the trial. Now set for June. AA On 2/18/2017 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern wrote: I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Lennart Thornros
Brian it is not a question of being a believer. Rossi has propelled LENR forward. If he has what says _ then great. If he does not have it we will soon learn. Than he still has contributed. I then have a hard time understanding why he still works on the project Why not save the good earnings. Well

[Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

2017-02-18 Thread Brian Ahern
I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following. "Feed a cold and starve a fever; argue with no true believer." It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon their hero. He is too