RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

With all due respect to Higgins, I concluded at the time he was grasping at 
straws.
This was based on the detail in The following links:

lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/

Bob Cook








From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 8:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Another possibility brought up by Bob Higgins in 2015 was that the two analyses 
that were carried out in connection with the Lugano test were thought by the 
authors to be of the ash but ended up being of the fuel instead, due to how the 
samples were obtained:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg104910.html

This is of course consistent with the understanding that Rossi may have 
purchased some 62Ni at some point.

Eric



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com<mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental
divide/watershed issues.   Either he swapped the samples or there was
evidence of transmutation.   There is no middle ground.

Error might be another possibility. I do not know about this instance, but I 
know that mass spectroscopy is difficult and prone to error. Irregular samples 
produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same sample sometimes come up 
with different results. These samples would have to be tested in 2 or 3 labs 
before I would have confidence in the results.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Irregular samples produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same
> sample sometimes come up with different results.
>

I mean samples with irregular shapes, or with powder. With some mass spec
techniques you need good conductivity. That is what I have heard. I do not
know the details.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Che]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders.
> If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the
> theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the
> methods, like in Lugano.
>
> Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the test was
> conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
> him of his intellectuel property.
> As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it
> would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
> it is even more disgusting.
>
> I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned
> by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to
> verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!
>
> only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
> reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.
>
> LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
> Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
> Parks.
>
> It have to stop.
>
> as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
> modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
> This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020
>
> I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I
> even hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys,
> but first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
> temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
> they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.
>

Let me re-phrase what you wrote, so others are clear on what you are
actually saying here (please do correct me if I'm off the mark):
(However, don't object to my re-phrasing you below, if it's simply the case
that you did not understand the implications of your own statements...)

* Proprietary, secretive Science is not really proper science, per se --
because it is not open and reproducible.
  (At best, opening up your results YEARS later ONLY after having attempted
commercializing them, can be seen as being pretty cruddy, third-rate
'Science' praxis.)

* ALL *real* Science is OPEN and PUBLIC -- and therefore open to
_immediate_ attempts at reproducibility.
   Because that's what REAL Science -- and the Scientific Method -- *is*.









>
>
> 2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :
>
>>
>>
>> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

Another possibility brought up by Bob Higgins in 2015 was that the two
analyses that were carried out in connection with the Lugano test were
thought by the authors to be of the ash but ended up being of the fuel
instead, due to how the samples were obtained:

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg104910.html

This is of course consistent with the understanding that Rossi may have
purchased some 62Ni at some point.

Eric



On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental
>> divide/watershed issues.   Either he swapped the samples or there was
>> evidence of transmutation.   There is no middle ground.
>>
>
> Error might be another possibility. I do not know about this instance, but
> I know that mass spectroscopy is difficult and prone to error. Irregular
> samples produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same sample
> sometimes come up with different results. These samples would have to be
> tested in 2 or 3 labs before I would have confidence in the results.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental
> divide/watershed issues.   Either he swapped the samples or there was
> evidence of transmutation.   There is no middle ground.
>

Error might be another possibility. I do not know about this instance, but
I know that mass spectroscopy is difficult and prone to error. Irregular
samples produce bogus results. Two labs looking at the same sample
sometimes come up with different results. These samples would have to be
tested in 2 or 3 labs before I would have confidence in the results.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Kevin O'Malley]

The ash-swapping accusation is one of those continental
divide/watershed issues.   Either he swapped the samples or there was
evidence of transmutation.   There is no middle ground.

These kinds of no-middle-ground issues are good for determining the
truth of the scenario, because it is easily testable the next time
around.   Just inspect the box before the test and don't let Rossi
anywhere near the black box during testing, ever.   Camera on it the
whole time.  If Rossi can swap samples under those conditions then he
truly deserves the title of Greatest Conman/Magician EVER.

On 7/28/17, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no need to swap powder, just need to put some other before the test, that
> will be mixed.
> anyway the behavior of Rossi during the test, shows either incompetent
> fraud, or incredible manipulation to look as a fraudster, and deter the
> investor.
>
> The important point about Lugano is not the evident mistake on emissivity
> (band vs full), but that it was not seriously answered, by credible
> explanation, by other tests... against either it is just a fraud, or a
> manipulation to look like a fraud.
>
> In both case I'm sad.
>
> 2017-07-28 21:25 GMT+02:00 bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> Alain--
>>
>>
>>
>> You suggest that the poor Swedish and Italian professors doing the Lugano
>> test  ash evaluation were fooled by a mysterious swap of “ash” by Rossin
>> or
>> an accomplice at the end of the test.
>>
>>
>>
>> With all due respect I do not agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> To prepare a fake ash sample would be very difficult with known
>> technology
>> IMHO.  This conclusion  reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni
>> reported by the professors..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM
>> *To: *Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders.
>>
>> If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the
>> theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the
>> methods, like in Lugano.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the test was
>> conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
>> him of his intellectuel property.
>>
>> As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team,
>> it
>> would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
>> it is even more disgusting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were
>> warned
>> by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was
>> to
>> verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!
>>
>>
>>
>> only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
>> reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people,
>> among.
>>
>>
>>
>> LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
>>
>> Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
>> Parks.
>>
>>
>>
>> It have to stop.
>>
>>
>>
>> as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
>> modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
>>
>> This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020
>>
>>
>>
>> I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I
>> even hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys,
>> but first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
>> temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
>> they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Alain Sepeda]

no need to swap powder, just need to put some other before the test, that
will be mixed.
anyway the behavior of Rossi during the test, shows either incompetent
fraud, or incredible manipulation to look as a fraudster, and deter the
investor.

The important point about Lugano is not the evident mistake on emissivity
(band vs full), but that it was not seriously answered, by credible
explanation, by other tests... against either it is just a fraud, or a
manipulation to look like a fraud.

In both case I'm sad.

2017-07-28 21:25 GMT+02:00 bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com>:

> Alain--
>
>
>
> You suggest that the poor Swedish and Italian professors doing the Lugano
> test  ash evaluation were fooled by a mysterious swap of “ash” by Rossin or
> an accomplice at the end of the test.
>
>
>
> With all due respect I do not agree.
>
>
>
> To prepare a fake ash sample would be very difficult with known technology
> IMHO.  This conclusion  reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni
> reported by the professors..
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM
> *To: *Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>
>
>
> This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders.
>
> If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the
> theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the
> methods, like in Lugano.
>
>
>
> Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the test was
> conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
> him of his intellectuel property.
>
> As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it
> would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
> it is even more disgusting.
>
>
>
> I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned
> by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to
> verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!
>
>
>
> only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
> reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.
>
>
>
> LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
>
> Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
> Parks.
>
>
>
> It have to stop.
>
>
>
> as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
> modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
>
> This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020
>
>
>
> I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I
> even hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys,
> but first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
> temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
> they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Alain--

You suggest that the poor Swedish and Italian professors doing the Lugano test  
ash evaluation were fooled by a mysterious swap of “ash” by Rossin or an 
accomplice at the end of the test.

With all due respect I do not agree.

To prepare a fake ash sample would be very difficult with known technology 
IMHO.  This conclusion  reflects the highly skewed isotopic ratios of Ni 
reported by the professors..

Bob Cook


From: Alain Sepeda<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:40 PM
To: Vortex List<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders.
If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the theories 
that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the methods, like 
in Lugano.

Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the test was conducted 
would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud him of his 
intellectuel property.
As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it 
would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true, it is 
even more disgusting.

I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned by 
past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to verify, 
but we have the verification, BASTA!

only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face 
reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.

LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or Parks.

It have to stop.

as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with 
modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020

I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I even 
hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys, but first 
need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to temporarily throw 
out theorists and physicists, until there is much data they can work on. 
Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.


2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker 
<eric.wal...@gmail.com<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>>:


There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Alain Sepeda]

This is a key point to rule out the theories of Rossi's defenders.
If IH was sincere, and enthusiastic as it is clear, this remove the
theories that they tried to fake a negative result. What was fake was the
methods, like in Lugano.

Even if you swallow the theories that it works, the way the test was
conducted would have been manipulated to deter the investor, and defraud
him of his intellectuel property.
As Rossi said about the way he pretend to have deterred a Swedish team, it
would be a "magnificence". I don't swallow that theory, but even if true,
it is even more disgusting.

I have been fooled, and the skeptic can play it easy to say we were warned
by past results and never coming serious test. I don't regret as it was to
verify, but we have the verification, BASTA!

only thing more painful than to be fooled is to be attacked when you face
reality, by more fooled than me, and by friends and respected people, among.

LENR is a fractal tragedy. a fractal fiasco.
Some LENR supporters are not more scientific and realist than Huizenga or
Parks.

It have to stop.

as you can read elsewhere I see the only exit in making PdD research with
modern instrumentation as used in accumulator technology research.
This is my model for what woudl be a good LENR research:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14020

I have few doubt we can move to NiH for industrial applications, and I even
hope we can move to biological LENR, graphene, or many metal alloys, but
first need to to have a theory, and my sad opinion is we need to
temporarily throw out theorists and physicists, until there is much data
they can work on. Urgency is for chemists and nanoscience experts.


2017-07-28 1:09 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker :

>
>
> There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Che]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> I agree with Bob.
> It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year.
> Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets.
> I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a true
> entrepreneur. He believes in his ideas. One overwhelming proof is that he
> settled for just freedom from poor bed fellows to persuade the ideas. He
> could have retired before filing and had enough for the rest of his life.
> Che could learn about benefits in free society isn't always driven by
> Money.
>

The United States is a corporatist police-state Empire. Not a democracy.
Elections are orchestrated. A mere simulacrum.
But we will find this all out in all certainty, soon enuff, as things
continue to fall apart at an accelerating rate.

There is not even a basic agreement on political-economic Reality here on
vortex-L -- let alone the reality of what 'Cold Fusion' is.
However, the corporations AND State DO have a VERY direct effect on cold
fusion research -- as we all should admit, if we haven't already done so.
And so bringing up the political aspects of all this is NOT gratuitous in
the least. To deny it is to demonstrate one's own (reactionary) agenda of
denial.

The ECCO should go on the likes of 'Patreon', AFAIC.
Couldn't hurt (other than the usual unavoidable slander campaigns). Could
do a lot of good, actually.








> Jed could learn that things get done without government is involved and
> that unortodox methods  can be used.
> I hope his invention has a great value.
> Lennart
>
> On Jul 26, 2017 21:22, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud
> etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their
> anti-Rossi claque.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Che 
> *Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>
>
>
>
>
> This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now
> (again), if it hasn't.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply
> could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at
> least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the
> case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would
> have been liable for.
>
>
>
> Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he
> valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to
> 'fold' and walk away.
>
>
>
>
>
> Is that it, or close enuff..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

My understanding of the details around that email about the positive test
is vague.  In your quote from Mats Lewans, he is is quoting Rossi, whose
testimony I do not at all take at face value or assume to be accurate.
What I do know is that at one point early on IH thought they had replicated
Rossi's technology. That early positive replication was later called into
question by at least two events later in the timeline:

   - IH claim to have gotten a significant COP using Rossi's methods but
   without any fuel in the reactor.
   - IH claim that as they tightened up their testing after that initial
   period, they no longer saw evidence of excess heat.

There is further corroborating evidence to suggest that IH were sincere,
including the fact that they began to diversify their portfolio,
essentially demonstrating in monetary terms that they didn't want to put
all of their bets on Rossi.  (That was Woodford's money, by the way, not
IH's, and they were and are responsible to Woodford for how they spend it,
at the risk of incurring a lawsuit to have it clawed back if they
improperly enrich themselves.)

Now, what do we learn about Rossi from the court docket?  Too many things
to be worth mentioning at this point, at the risk of forever plowing over
old ground. Enough, though, for anyone who has followed the details, even
those who are strong supporters of Rossi, to no longer take at face value
what he says.

Eric


On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:44 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would agree that the court documents were significant.  I particularly
> thought that Darden’s email to Rossi regarding the successful production of
> fuel  and reactor performance using the super confidential fuel mixture ,
> known by only 4 individuals, was deterministic.
>
>
>
> From Mats’ recent interview with Rossi it was noted:
>
>
>
> “During the discovery phase, emails from Darden were provided and made
> public, where Darden himself confirmed to have replicated our process
> successfully. We also have testimonials from persons who have assisted at
> such replications. Woodford [Investment Management] assisted at one of
> those replications, after which it invested USD 50M in Industrial Heat,
> even before the [one-year 1MW] test started in Doral [Miami], at a time
> when IH obviously had nothing but our IP in its portfolio.”
>
>
>
> I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From: *Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
>
>
> I'll propose another reason for the recent silence:  disappointment at an
> extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile
> excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of
> Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the
> contents of the lawsuit docket.  No need to postulate the eating of crow,
> except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome
> of the lawsuit.  Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any
> particular outcome.
>
>
>
> So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more
> divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in
> their impressions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
> bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud
> etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their
> anti-Rossi claque.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>
>
>
>
>
> This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now
> (again), if it hasn't.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority
> <https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/>
>
>
>
>
>
> The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply
> could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at
> least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the
> case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would
> have been liable for.
>
>
>
> Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he
> valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to
> 'fold' and walk away.
>
>
>
>
>
> Is that it, or close enuff..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I would agree that the court documents were significant.  I particularly 
thought that Darden’s email to Rossi regarding the successful production of 
fuel  and reactor performance using the super confidential fuel mixture , known 
by only 4 individuals, was deterministic.

>From Mats’ recent interview with Rossi it was noted:

“During the discovery phase, emails from Darden were provided and made public, 
where Darden himself confirmed to have replicated our process successfully. We 
also have testimonials from persons who have assisted at such replications. 
Woodford [Investment Management] assisted at one of those replications, after 
which it invested USD 50M in Industrial Heat, even before the [one-year 1MW] 
test started in Doral [Miami], at a time when IH obviously had nothing but our 
IP in its portfolio.”

I guess Eric Walker does not know about this are thinks it is not true.

Bob Cook
From: Eric Walker<mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:22 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Hi Bob,

I'll propose another reason for the recent silence:  disappointment at an 
extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile excercise to 
continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of Rossi's followers who 
haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the contents of the lawsuit 
docket.  No need to postulate the eating of crow, except in those instances 
where someone made a prediction about the outcome of the lawsuit.  Few people 
that I recall expressed much confidence in any particular outcome.

So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more 
divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in their 
impressions.

Regards,
Eric


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc 
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi 
claque.

Bob Cook



From: Che<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'


This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now 
(again), if it hasn't.


Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top 
Priority<https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/>


The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply could 
not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at least the way 
IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the case if it had gone 
to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would have been liable for.

Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he valued 
the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to 'fold' and 
walk away.


Is that it, or close enuff..?

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Randy Wuller]

The firm Rossi selected typically does work on a contingent basis.  So they 
don’t collect fees unless they win.  Typically the contract calls for the 
payment of expenses.

 

That wouldn’t prevent them from seeking fees from the other side but if there 
was no recovery, Rossi may not have paid any fees just costs.

 

Just an FYI.

 

Ransom

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 4:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

 

Jones, yes lawyers are big winners as in all lawsuits. 

Agree that Rossi got what he wanted and paid for it. If it is junk it remins to 
be seen. IMHO he could retire on 4 mil also.

Dumb Swedes, maybe future will tell. How you KNOW is mindboggling to me. He is 
an entrpreneur, a risktaker and he does search for an answer. not manyof us can 
live up  to that or you show me your contribution in those regards.

i admire your theoretical knowledge *cannot judge the quality. That is good for 
the discussion. your simple negative opinion about the person  is misplaced, to 
not use stronger djective.

Lennart

 

On Jul 27, 2017 15:18, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:

Living in fantasy land is like living in the desert with head in the sand 
IMHO---not unlike the land where religious dogma is prevails. 

 

My wondering did not take long to be resolved.

 

Bob Cook

 

 

From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:38 AM


To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

 

Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land.



The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides.

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each, 
hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This 
similarity of bills looks like collusion on their part - but there is no 
reason to believe that they were paid substantially less by their clients.

That means most of the initial $11 million which Rossi got from IH was 
lost to him in the filing of the lawsuit. But he is not home-free. Rossi 
gets to keep his junk IP and apparently the Swedes love him, so he may 
resurface over there if he can stand the winters.

Rossi was not charged with perjury for his deposition - at least not 
yet. IH believes he should have been charged - and that could still 
happen. No agreement with IH will protect him from perjury.

As for the legal fees of IH plus the other money they paid to Rossi up 
front - that is probably over $20 million, BUT they offloaded all of 
that expense and more to a British Investment firm - which has actually 
gone up in value since they made the $50 million investment in IH/Cherokee.

If you are "following the buck" in all of this, here is how it stands:

1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)
2) Darden has a net of about $30 million ($50 million from Woodford 
minus $20 million)
3) The attorneys have a net of about $15 million
4) Woodford Patient Capital Trust is up about 14% from when they 
invested in IH

In a way, it looks like Darden is in fact the biggest winner here ... 
but in one of the never-ending mysteries of capitalism - the big loser 
is not apparent... other than the vorticians who wasted hundreds of 
hours posting and reading a "show about nothing"

... with apologies to Jerry, his nothing was at least funny...

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Kevin O'Malley]

Eric:
Thank you for sending that PM to Kirk.

Like I said over there, maybe I'm wrong about you after all.

Try to "suffer" through that compliment, ok?

On 7/27/17, Eric Walker  wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
> You engage in mind reading, you assign a
>> motive that I make it personal when anyone can review the comments on
>> that thread and see that it is not personal.
>>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=67028#post67028
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

You engage in mind reading, you assign a
> motive that I make it personal when anyone can review the comments on
> that thread and see that it is not personal.
>

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=67028#post67028

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Kevin O'Malley]

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each
***I find that surprising, Jones.   I expected IH's legal bills to be
at least double that of Rossi's.   I wonder how they got their top
notch firm so cheap?   What does this mean:  This similarity of bills
looks like collusion on their part...

On 7/27/17, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land.
>
> The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides.
>
> Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each,
> hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This
> similarity of bills looks like collusion on their part - but there is no
> reason to believe that they were paid substantially less by their clients.
>
> That means most of the initial $11 million which Rossi got from IH was
> lost to him in the filing of the lawsuit. But he is not home-free. Rossi
> gets to keep his junk IP and apparently the Swedes love him, so he may
> resurface over there if he can stand the winters.
>
> Rossi was not charged with perjury for his deposition - at least not
> yet. IH believes he should have been charged - and that could still
> happen. No agreement with IH will protect him from perjury.
>
> As for the legal fees of IH plus the other money they paid to Rossi up
> front - that is probably over $20 million, BUT they offloaded all of
> that expense and more to a British Investment firm - which has actually
> gone up in value since they made the $50 million investment in IH/Cherokee.
>
> If you are "following the buck" in all of this, here is how it stands:
>
> 1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)
> 2) Darden has a net of about $30 million ($50 million from Woodford
> minus $20 million)
> 3) The attorneys have a net of about $15 million
> 4) Woodford Patient Capital Trust is up about 14% from when they
> invested in IH
>
> In a way, it looks like Darden is in fact the biggest winner here ...
> but in one of the never-ending mysteries of capitalism - the big loser
> is not apparent... other than the vorticians who wasted hundreds of
> hours posting and reading a "show about nothing"
>
> ... with apologies to Jerry, his nothing was at least funny...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Kevin O'Malley]

You're one to talk, Eric.   You are among the most unreasonable
moderators over at LENR-Forum with your acknowledged "Yes some farm
animals are more equal than others" and other bullshit you throw on
top of Pro-LENR enthusiasts and all the outright insults you allow by
the skeptopath crowd.

You should just post that your forum is so heavily biased and one-sided.

Right now I'm in trouble with you over there because you're allowing
the skeptopath Shanahan to derail the basic Peer Reviewed Replications
thread that I posted.   You engage in mind reading, you assign a
motive that I make it personal when anyone can review the comments on
that thread and see that it is not personal.



On 7/27/17, Eric Walker  wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> I'll propose another reason for the recent silence:  disappointment at an
> extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile
> excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of
> Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the
> contents of the lawsuit docket.  No need to postulate the eating of crow,
> except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome
> of the lawsuit.  Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any
> particular outcome.
>
> So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more
> divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in
> their impressions.
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Daniel Rocha]

You mean 7 million of attorney's fees or 4+11-attorney's fees?

2017-07-27 10:37 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene :

> 1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones, yes lawyers are big winners as in all lawsuits.
Agree that Rossi got what he wanted and paid for it. If it is junk it
remins to be seen. IMHO he could retire on 4 mil also.
Dumb Swedes, maybe future will tell. How you KNOW is mindboggling to me. He
is an entrpreneur, a risktaker and he does search for an answer. not manyof
us can live up  to that or you show me your contribution in those regards.
i admire your theoretical knowledge *cannot judge the quality. That is good
for the discussion. your simple negative opinion about the person  is
misplaced, to not use stronger djective.
Lennart

On Jul 27, 2017 15:18, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Living in fantasy land is like living in the desert with head in the sand
IMHO---not unlike the land where religious dogma is prevails.



My wondering did not take long to be resolved.



Bob Cook





F*rom: *Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
*Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:38 AM

*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'



Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land.


The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides.

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each,
hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This
similarity of bills looks like collusion on their part - but there is no
reason to believe that they were paid substantially less by their clients.

That means most of the initial $11 million which Rossi got from IH was
lost to him in the filing of the lawsuit. But he is not home-free. Rossi
gets to keep his junk IP and apparently the Swedes love him, so he may
resurface over there if he can stand the winters.

Rossi was not charged with perjury for his deposition - at least not
yet. IH believes he should have been charged - and that could still
happen. No agreement with IH will protect him from perjury.

As for the legal fees of IH plus the other money they paid to Rossi up
front - that is probably over $20 million, BUT they offloaded all of
that expense and more to a British Investment firm - which has actually
gone up in value since they made the $50 million investment in IH/Cherokee.

If you are "following the buck" in all of this, here is how it stands:

1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)
2) Darden has a net of about $30 million ($50 million from Woodford
minus $20 million)
3) The attorneys have a net of about $15 million
4) Woodford Patient Capital Trust is up about 14% from when they
invested in IH

In a way, it looks like Darden is in fact the biggest winner here ...
but in one of the never-ending mysteries of capitalism - the big loser
is not apparent... other than the vorticians who wasted hundreds of
hours posting and reading a "show about nothing"

... with apologies to Jerry, his nothing was at least funny...

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Living in fantasy land is like living in the desert with head in the sand 
IMHO---not unlike the land where religious dogma is prevails.

My wondering did not take long to be resolved.

Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land.

The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides.

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each,
hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This
similarity of bills looks like collusion on their part - but there is no
reason to believe that they were paid substantially less by their clients.

That means most of the initial $11 million which Rossi got from IH was
lost to him in the filing of the lawsuit. But he is not home-free. Rossi
gets to keep his junk IP and apparently the Swedes love him, so he may
resurface over there if he can stand the winters.

Rossi was not charged with perjury for his deposition - at least not
yet. IH believes he should have been charged - and that could still
happen. No agreement with IH will protect him from perjury.

As for the legal fees of IH plus the other money they paid to Rossi up
front - that is probably over $20 million, BUT they offloaded all of
that expense and more to a British Investment firm - which has actually
gone up in value since they made the $50 million investment in IH/Cherokee.

If you are "following the buck" in all of this, here is how it stands:

1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)
2) Darden has a net of about $30 million ($50 million from Woodford
minus $20 million)
3) The attorneys have a net of about $15 million
4) Woodford Patient Capital Trust is up about 14% from when they
invested in IH

In a way, it looks like Darden is in fact the biggest winner here ...
but in one of the never-ending mysteries of capitalism - the big loser
is not apparent... other than the vorticians who wasted hundreds of
hours posting and reading a "show about nothing"

... with apologies to Jerry, his nothing was at least funny...

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Adrian and Lennart—

I wonder who after Che will be the first to defend their former  anti-Rossi 
“claque”?

Bob Cook

From: Adrian Ashfield<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:28 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

I  agree Lennart.
Vortex is not the worst offender.  lenrforum.com is worse.  People there write 
hundreds of pages of insulting, unproven waffle/speculation.  Apart from Jed 
most are anonymous armchair critics who do nothing themselves but apparently 
can't stand the thought of someone actually doing what they can only dream 
about. Many are so arrogant they are certain they have all he answers when they 
don't.



-Original Message-
From: Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 7:22 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
I agree with Bob.
It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year.   
Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets.
I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a true 
entrepreneur. He believes in his ideas. One overwhelming proof is that he 
settled for just freedom from poor bed fellows to persuade the ideas. He could 
have retired before filing and had enough for the rest of his life.
Che could learn about benefits in free society isn't always driven by Money.
Jed could learn that things get done without government is involved and that 
unortodox methods  can be used.
I hope his invention has a great value.
Lennart

On Jul 26, 2017 21:22, 
"bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>" 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc 
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi 
claque.

Bob Cook



From: Che<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'


This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now 
(again), if it hasn't.


Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top 
Priority<https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/>


The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply could 
not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at least the way 
IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the case if it had gone 
to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would have been liable for.

Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he valued 
the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to 'fold' and 
walk away.


Is that it, or close enuff..?

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Jones Beene]

Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land.

The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides.

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each, 
hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This 
similarity of bills looks like collusion on their part - but there is no 
reason to believe that they were paid substantially less by their clients.


That means most of the initial $11 million which Rossi got from IH was 
lost to him in the filing of the lawsuit. But he is not home-free. Rossi 
gets to keep his junk IP and apparently the Swedes love him, so he may 
resurface over there if he can stand the winters.


Rossi was not charged with perjury for his deposition - at least not 
yet. IH believes he should have been charged - and that could still 
happen. No agreement with IH will protect him from perjury.


As for the legal fees of IH plus the other money they paid to Rossi up 
front - that is probably over $20 million, BUT they offloaded all of 
that expense and more to a British Investment firm - which has actually 
gone up in value since they made the $50 million investment in IH/Cherokee.


If you are "following the buck" in all of this, here is how it stands:

1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)
2) Darden has a net of about $30 million ($50 million from Woodford 
minus $20 million)

3) The attorneys have a net of about $15 million
4) Woodford Patient Capital Trust is up about 14% from when they 
invested in IH


In a way, it looks like Darden is in fact the biggest winner here ... 
but in one of the never-ending mysteries of capitalism - the big loser 
is not apparent... other than the vorticians who wasted hundreds of 
hours posting and reading a "show about nothing"


... with apologies to Jerry, his nothing was at least funny...

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Adrian Ashfield]

I  agree Lennart.
Vortex is not the worst offender.  lenrforum.com is worse.  People there write 
hundreds of pages of insulting, unproven waffle/speculation.  Apart from Jed 
most are anonymous armchair critics who do nothing themselves but apparently 
can't stand the thought of someone actually doing what they can only dream 
about. Many are so arrogant they are certain they have all he answers when they 
don't.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 7:22 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'



I agree with Bob.
It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year.   
Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets.
I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a true 
entrepreneur. He believes in his ideas. One overwhelming proof is that he 
settled for just freedom from poor bed fellows to persuade the ideas. He could 
have retired before filing and had enough for the rest of his life.
Che could learn about benefits in free society isn't always driven by Money.
Jed could learn that things get done without government is involved and that 
unortodox methods  can be used.
I hope his invention has a great value.
Lennart



On Jul 26, 2017 21:22, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" <bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
wrote:


The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc 
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi 
claque.
 
Bob Cook
 
 
 

From: Che
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

 
 

This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now 
(again), if it hasn't.

 

 

Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority

 

 

The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply could 
not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at least the way 
IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the case if it had gone 
to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would have been liable for.

 

Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he valued 
the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to 'fold' and 
walk away.

 

 

Is that it, or close enuff..?

 

 

 
 

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

I'll propose another reason for the recent silence:  disappointment at an
extractive settlement and a realization that it is a mostly futile
excercise to continue to debate with what remain of the hard core of
Rossi's followers who haven't yet decamped after becoming familiar with the
contents of the lawsuit docket.  No need to postulate the eating of crow,
except in those instances where someone made a prediction about the outcome
of the lawsuit.  Few people that I recall expressed much confidence in any
particular outcome.

So we are left with two groups of people following developments, even more
divided than before the lawsuit, with each somehow further confirmed in
their impressions.

Regards,
Eric


On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud
> etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their
> anti-Rossi claque.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Che 
> *Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>
>
>
>
>
> This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now
> (again), if it hasn't.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply
> could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at
> least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the
> case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would
> have been liable for.
>
>
>
> Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he
> valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to
> 'fold' and walk away.
>
>
>
>
>
> Is that it, or close enuff..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with Bob.
It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year.
Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets.
I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a true
entrepreneur. He believes in his ideas. One overwhelming proof is that he
settled for just freedom from poor bed fellows to persuade the ideas. He
could have retired before filing and had enough for the rest of his life.
Che could learn about benefits in free society isn't always driven by Money.
Jed could learn that things get done without government is involved and
that unortodox methods  can be used.
I hope his invention has a great value.
Lennart

On Jul 26, 2017 21:22, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:

The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their
anti-Rossi claque.



Bob Cook







*From: *Che 
*Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'





This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now
(again), if it hasn't.





Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority






The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply
could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at
least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the
case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would
have been liable for.



Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he
valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to
'fold' and walk away.





Is that it, or close enuff..?

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Che]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rossi is not as sure footed as he lets on. His small low temperature
> reactor cluster did not work at the start of the 1 year test. Rossi had to
> substitute the quad 250,000 watts tiger reactor cluster. To this day, Rossi
> still doesn't understand why those small low temperature reactors failed to
> function.
>
> Without understanding the underlying theory that underpins his technology,
> Rossi must use trial and error. Like a mouse in a maze each day can bring a
> wrong turn that can result in failure.  Yet Rossi projects a facade of
> confidence and defiance. This state of ever present insecurity must be
>  hard to conceal from his competitors, his supporters and especially his
> detractors.
>


Rossi's primary motive seems to literally be to get rich as quick as
possible. As you say above -- his modus operandi leaves much to be desired.
I only took an interest in this money-grubber when he was promising steam
gushing out of a container for pennies. It was the container and its
contents I hoped about -- not Rossi's Wall Street cred.

Frankly, I wish this little weasel would just disappear with the few
millions he did get his hands on -- and leave Science alone. If he DOES
finally 'make a better mousetrap' -- well, then so be it. But no thanks to
his secretive, proprietary anti-REAL-Science bullshit.

Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Axil Axil]

Rossi is not as sure footed as he lets on. His small low temperature
reactor cluster did not work at the start of the 1 year test. Rossi had to
substitute the quad 250,000 watts tiger reactor cluster. To this day, Rossi
still doesn't understand why those small low temperature reactors failed to
function.

Without understanding the underlying theory that underpins his technology,
Rossi must use trial and error. Like a mouse in a maze each day can bring a
wrong turn that can result in failure.  Yet Rossi projects a facade of
confidence and defiance. This state of ever present insecurity must be
 hard to conceal from his competitors, his supporters and especially his
detractors.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:22 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud
> etc must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their
> anti-Rossi claque.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Che 
> *Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'
>
>
>
>
>
> This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now
> (again), if it hasn't.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply
> could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at
> least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the
> case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would
> have been liable for.
>
>
>
> Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he
> valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to
> 'fold' and walk away.
>
>
>
>
>
> Is that it, or close enuff..?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc 
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their anti-Rossi 
claque.

Bob Cook



From: Che
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'


This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now 
(again), if it hasn't.


Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top 
Priority


The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply could 
not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at least the way 
IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the case if it had gone 
to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would have been liable for.

Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he valued 
the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to 'fold' and 
walk away.


Is that it, or close enuff..?