Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Vortex-L is an educational organization. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. True, but that's not the point The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Good grief. There is no argument here. Gibbs is right. Remedial action he demands should be taken. Moreover, it is pretty clear that if O'Malley keeps up his argumentation he should be banned. I'm not saying ban anyone who does something dodgy with copyright but clearly when an author demands remedial action be taken regarding a clear violation of of his work, the time for action is here and no further discussion is necessary, desirable nor even tolerable. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. True, but that's not the point The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Hi, I think we should take Mark's request seriously and avoid posting copyrighted material to this list. It is not difficult to post links to articles of interest. By using links instead of the full text, the authors get credit for page hits from their sponsors and Vortex-L stays out of trouble. Eric On May 22, 2013, at 10:33, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I agree with Mark, I think he is listening to the minds on Vortex and
interacting and does not deserve to have his work just copied and pasted on
the Internet. In addition to the legal aspects , he certainly is backed by
a media organization which can help further the cause of LENR over time.
At a minimum Kevin should apologize.
My two cents,
Stewart
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013, Eric Walker wrote:
Hi,
I think we should take Mark's request seriously and avoid posting
copyrighted material to this list. It is not difficult to post links to
articles of interest. By using links instead of the full text, the authors
get credit for page hits from their sponsors and Vortex-L stays out of
trouble.
Eric
On May 22, 2013, at 10:33, Kevin O'Malley
kevmol...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'kevmol...@gmail.com');
wrote:
Vortex-L is an educational organization. It does not compete with Forbes
for advertising dollars. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.comso
they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the
pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
My responses are designated by 3 asterisks***. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. ***Harvard and thousands of educational institutions do this all the time. Even in the copyright code it talks about multiple copies, because that's what's going on. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. True, but that's not the point ***Eventually that really is the point. You subtly acknowledge this when you said you'd be less irritated if it happened a few days later. If your real issue were over real copyright, such an irritation would not diminish. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. ***As the copyright fair use code tells me I have the right to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. ***In the code it explicitly says copying the full text is allowed for educational purposes. Come on, look at that first sentence. Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. ***My familiarity with the copyright code tells me it is allowed nonprofit educational purposes Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. ***There you have it, then. No harm, no foul. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. ***On the contrary, I increased the number of hits to you and Forbes. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. ***If a copyright violation occurs, the passage of time does not make it moot. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. ***No, you are wrong, and you risk 'loosing' your own reputation as a journalist. I don't have time to educate you, but read your own article to find the humor reference.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Remedial action he demands should be taken. ***I have not commented on the remedial action requested by Gibbs. I have no problem with the text copy of the article being removed if that's what Bill decides to do. It's no big deal. The reason for posting it was for educational purposes and not for any profit motive, so it passes the fair use test. Simple as that. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Good grief. There is no argument here. Gibbs is right. Remedial action he demands should be taken. Moreover, it is pretty clear that if O'Malley keeps up his argumentation he should be banned. I'm not saying ban anyone who does something dodgy with copyright but clearly when an author demands remedial action be taken regarding a clear violation of of his work, the time for action is here and no further discussion is necessary, desirable nor even tolerable. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. True, but that's not the point The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Like I said: dodgy -- indeed at best. This sort of debate doesn't belong here. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Remedial action he demands should be taken. ***I have not commented on the remedial action requested by Gibbs. I have no problem with the text copy of the article being removed if that's what Bill decides to do. It's no big deal. The reason for posting it was for educational purposes and not for any profit motive, so it passes the fair use test. Simple as that. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Good grief. There is no argument here. Gibbs is right. Remedial action he demands should be taken. Moreover, it is pretty clear that if O'Malley keeps up his argumentation he should be banned. I'm not saying ban anyone who does something dodgy with copyright but clearly when an author demands remedial action be taken regarding a clear violation of of his work, the time for action is here and no further discussion is necessary, desirable nor even tolerable. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Vortex-L is an educational organization. Not relevant. If Harvard wouldn't do what you did because they'd be opening themselves up to a copyright infringement lawsuit. It does not compete with Forbes for advertising dollars. True, but that's not the point The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures. Doesn't matter ... you published the full text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Copyright Act of 1976http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976, 17 U.S.C.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code § 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Sure, but your interpretation is wrong because republishing the complete text of a work is not fair use. Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] ***My work has been 'misappropriated', many times. How do you think I came to be familiar with this section of the copyright code? Your familiarity with the copyright code should have therefore told you that you were violating copyright. Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. ***That's hogwash. Your real objection is because people will read it here or elsewhere rather than at Forbes, where the advertising dollars settle. If it was about wasted bits, you wouldn't even bother to bring it to anyone's attention. I was making a joke ... and of course I want the hits. I don't write for my own pleasure. And you have violated my and Forbes' copyright and stolen our hits. I didn't raise this with my editor at Forbes because I didn't want the list and William Beatty to have to deal with the fallout. I also thought you might have been sensible and handled it but evidently you aren't willing to and I've heard nothing from William. Now it's all a moot point because enough time has passed that it's not going to have much impact on the posting's hits. Even so, no matter what BS arguments and self-justifications you make, you violated copyright. And as an FYI, I did you a favor. You need to understand how modern advertising links work on today's internet. 95% of the traffic goes through Google, and 90% of users will only go to the first 5 or 6 hits from Google. Google is Forbes's direct competitor for advertising dollars, so they include Forbes hits down below their own clients. By pushing your article on nonprofit educational sites, the search terms that lead to your article are now much higher on the hit list. Wrong. I don't have time to educate you but you are simply wrong. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: ** I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - *From:* Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Then why do you engage in the debate?As I've stated, this is an educational organization, so at the very least we are all getting educated on Fair Use Copyright law. We're also getting exposure to Fair Use Policies as enforced by some corporations, which are not really in line with the Fair Use Copyright law itself but they can get away with such intimidation. In the end, these things tend to just blow away in the wind -- Bill can remove the copied article and be done with it. But the exposure to what the law means can be a valuable learning lesson. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Like I said: dodgy -- indeed at best. This sort of debate doesn't belong here.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Mark: I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. For posting the pictures, I apologize. Hopefully, Bill removes the article and this incident just goes off into the sunset. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. Only the text is also a violation. You should apologize. It will go off into the sunset faster if you would apologize. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
It is not a violation of the fair use law. If it were, basically every professor I had in college would be liable for copyright violation. Think of the money that these companies could get by just intimidating the entire educational establishment. And why don't these companies do it, when there is such money on the table? Because the law does not support their case. Companies can go after all kinds of organizations or people that frighten off at the sound of the word lawsuit, but they stop at the fence when there's a legal department in that organization. Because they know, the law does not support their position. They are simply using intimidation for their own purposes. That's the difference between Law and Corporate practices in the field. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. Only the text is also a violation. You should apologize. It will go off into the sunset faster if you would apologize. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: It is not a violation of the fair use law. If it were, basically every professor I had in college would be liable for copyright violation. . . . Yo, Kevin: First rule of holes. When you in one, stop digging. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin/ALL: Regardless of strict legal definitions, please, EVERYONE, refrain from posting entire articles; a LINK and an excerpt is best to avoid any problems. Bill Beatty does NOT have the time to monitor/moderate; this forum is to a large degree, self-moderated. It does not have the financial resources to hire attorneys to respond to an infringement complaint, which means if some entity wanted, it could probably shut it down quite easily. Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box Saloon. and you don't want to do that! ;-) -Mark Iverson From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Mark: I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. For posting the pictures, I apologize. Hopefully, Bill removes the article and this incident just goes off into the sunset. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin/ALL: ** ** Regardless of strict legal definitions, please, EVERYONE, refrain from posting entire articles; a LINK and an excerpt is best to avoid any problems. ***Okay, if that's the policy here then I will refrain as requested. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin/ALL: ** ** Regardless of strict legal definitions, please, EVERYONE, refrain from posting entire articles; a LINK and an excerpt is best to avoid any problems. Bill Beatty does NOT have the time to monitor/moderate; this forum is to a large degree, self-moderated. It does not have the financial resources to hire attorneys to respond to an infringement complaint, which means if some entity wanted, it could probably shut it down quite easily… ** ** Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box Saloon… and you don’t want to do that! ;-) ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:36 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: ** ** Mark: I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. For posting the pictures, I apologize. Hopefully, Bill removes the article and this incident just goes off into the sunset. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
In principle I side with Kevin, but in practice I agree with Mark. Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Kevin/ALL: ** ** Regardless of strict legal definitions, please, EVERYONE, refrain from posting entire articles; a LINK and an excerpt is best to avoid any problems. Bill Beatty does NOT have the time to monitor/moderate; this forum is to a large degree, self-moderated. It does not have the financial resources to hire attorneys to respond to an infringement complaint, which means if some entity wanted, it could probably shut it down quite easily… ** ** Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box Saloon… and you don’t want to do that! ;-) ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:36 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: ** ** Mark: I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. For posting the pictures, I apologize. Hopefully, Bill removes the article and this incident just goes off into the sunset. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Mark, Bill does not monitor this list regularly and the email address you used might not get his attention. I have posted to him via a different address. Please standby until he has a chance to respond. This list has benefited you in the past. I suspect your gain exceeds your loss. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Terry, Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother. [mg] On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Mark, Bill does not monitor this list regularly and the email address you used might not get his attention. I have posted to him via a different address. Please standby until he has a chance to respond. This list has benefited you in the past. I suspect your gain exceeds your loss. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Terry, Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother. I really don't care what you do to the offender; but, injuring this list is not in your best interest. After all, didn't you get the original story here?
RE: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Thanks Harry for supporting the behavior needed to keep the bar open! ;-) Cheers! -M From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: In principle I side with Kevin, but in practice I agree with Mark. Harry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Kevin/ALL: Regardless of strict legal definitions, please, EVERYONE, refrain from posting entire articles; a LINK and an excerpt is best to avoid any problems. Bill Beatty does NOT have the time to monitor/moderate; this forum is to a large degree, self-moderated. It does not have the financial resources to hire attorneys to respond to an infringement complaint, which means if some entity wanted, it could probably shut it down quite easily. Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box Saloon. and you don't want to do that! ;-) -Mark Iverson From: Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Mark: I just checked the article I reposted here on Vortex and I was wrong, it did include pictures. That was not my intent -- only the text. For posting the pictures, I apologize. Hopefully, Bill removes the article and this incident just goes off into the sunset. The attribution and link goes back to Forbes.com so they can make their money. Only the text was reposted, not the pictures.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Shutting down this forum would be like closing the bar in the Dime Box Saloon… and you don’t want to do that! An oil company could shut us down quite quickly with a series of cease and desist letters and threats of lawsuit. We should speak about whatever secrets we find in code so as not to draw attention to ourselves. We should maintain an image of being tinkerers. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I said it was a moot point [1] ... and I have no interest in injuring the list. And, nope, I didn't get the news of the report here. All the same, I value this list and wouldn't want to see it interfered with which is why I asked Kevin and Bill to handle it without me getting Forbes' involved. [m] [1] From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point *moot http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot pointhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/point * (*plural* *moot points http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_points#English s* 1. ... 2. An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Terry, Thanks. The issue has become a moot point and Bill needn't bother. I really don't care what you do to the offender; but, injuring this list is not in your best interest. After all, didn't you get the original story here?
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I said it was a moot point [1] Thanks for the clarification. Your comment struck me as ominous, hence my response. Personally, I prefer http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ Warm regards, Terry
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Here you've used average emissivity. I think a rock-bottom lower bound (or something along those lines) would use ε=1. I do not readily see a way to extract such a calculation for the March 2013 run from the data presented in the paper. I guess you can look it up. However, they measured the temperature on the surface with thermocouples and found they agreed with the IR camera to within 3°C. The difference can be explained by the tape used to hold the thermocouple to the surface acting as insulation. So obviously the IR camera settings are correct. Understood. Sometimes its helpful to get a lower bound that is beyond conservative . . . If you go too far you begin to make absurd assumptions, such as maybe the room temperature is actually close to 60°C, or maybe their ammeter is way off, or Rossi secretly changed the ammeter when no one was looking. You could go on all day spinning maybe, what if, suppose. Another thing I forgot to mention is that they ignore heat from the ends of the cylinder and from the large flange. I'll bet those two would add ~100 W. They also left out the effect of the cylinder walls being at an angle, as they did in the first test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I wrote: Another thing I forgot to mention is that they ignore heat from the ends of the cylinder and from the large flange. I'll bet those two would add ~100 W. Okay, unaccounted for losses during the calibration at 810 W were 58 W. Not ~100 W. The calibration was stepped up through various power levels, including 810 W. (Maybe they went higher, but this was the closest step to the output during the test with powder.) The output during the run with powder was estimated at 816 W, conservatively, which is close to 810 W. They comment that the surface temperatures and temperature distribution were remarkably close to what was seen during the calibration. So that means losses unaccounted for were ~58 W. Actual output was more like ~868 W. A realistic COP would be 868 / 322 = 2.7. The same as Eq. 36. In any real-world scenario, if there was no excess heat, the COP would have been less than 1. You can never recover all the heat. Using conservative estimates as they did, you never get close. As I said, the COP would be about 0.93 based on the calibration. There is no way these measurements could be off by a factor of 3. That is, 290% too high. I would be surprised if they were too high by more than 10%. Too low by 10% would not surprise me at all. This method is somewhat crude but it is based on first principles and it is reliable. People have been using emissivity and IR cameras to estimate heat output for a long time. It is well established engineering physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All 31 comments, 0 called-out http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/#comments_header Comment Nowhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/#comment_reply Follow CommentsFollowing CommentsUnfollow Comments javascript://follow Comment Nowhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/#comment_reply Follow CommentsFollowing CommentsUnfollow Comments javascript://follow [image: Italiano: Schema della cella di Piantelli-Foca...]http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piantelli_Focardi_schema_reattore_01_it.jpg Back in October 2011 I first wrotehttp://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/101411-backspin-251983.htmlabout Italian engineer, Andrea Rossi, and his E-Cat project, a device that produces heat through a process called a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR). Very briefly, LENR, otherwise called cold fusion, is a technique that generates energy through low temperature (far lower than hot fusion temperatures which are in the range of tens off thousands of degrees) reactions that are not chemical. Most importantly, LENR is, theoretically, much safer, much simpler, and many orders of magnitude cheaper than hot fusion. Rather than explaining LENR in detail here please see my original postinghttp://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2011/101411-backspin-251983.htmlfor a more complete explanation. My next posthttp://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/on this topic was here on Forbes a few days later and, as the labyrinthine and occasionally ridiculous saga developed, I tried to sort fact from fiction in a series of posts (see the list at the end of this posting) which covered everything from unconvincing demos, through an Australian businessman offering Rossi $1 million to show independently tested proof, to other players in the LENR market showing interesting results. I haven’t posted about Rossi and his E-Cat since last August simply because there wasn’t much to report other than more of Rossi’s unsupported and infuriating claims that included building large-scale automated factories to churn out millions of E-Cats (the factories still have no sign of actually existing) through to unsubstantiated performance claims that sounded far too good to be true. What everyone wanted was something that Rossi has been promising was about to happen for months: An independent test by third parties who were credible. This report was delayed several times to the point where many were wondering whether it was all nothing more than what we have come to see as Rossi’s usual “jam tomorrow” promises. But much to my, and I suspect many other people’s surprise, a report by credible, independent third parties is exactly what we got. Published on May 16, the paper titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913” would appear to deliver what we wanted. The paper was authored by Giuseppe Levihttp://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabRicercaUPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.itof Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Evelyn Foschi http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645, Bologna, Italy; Torbjörn Hartmanhttp://katalog.uu.se/simpleinfo/?languageId=1id=N96-5170, Bo Höistad http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1id=XX1060, Roland Pettersson http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?id=XX1360 and Lars Tegnér http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1id=N9-1431of Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; and Hanno Essénhttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanno_Essen/, of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. While some of these people have previously been public in their support of Rossi and the E-Cat they are all serious academics with reputations to loose and the paper is detailed and thorough. The actual test reactor, called the E-Cat HT, was described by the testers as: … a high temperature development of the original apparatus which has also undergone many construction changes in the last two years – is the latest product manufactured by Leonardo Corporation: it is a device allegedly capable of producing heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown. They described the E-Cat HT as: … a cylinder having a silicon nitride ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell, and housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils. Resistors were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
OK Peter, let's explore the dynamic creation process you suggest. First, a condition must be present that allows the NAE to form by release of Gibbs energy. If this condition exists, than it will not decompose under the same condition. The condition must change before the NAE can decompose. This requirement is basic to a chemical process. Consequently, the two different conditions must be created in the material by some process that fluctuates between these conditions for your proposal to function.In addition, the formation and destruction process must remain in balance because otherwise the process will stop once all the NAE are destroyed. Second a limited amount of the material would be susceptible to this change. This means sooner or later the material will stop making NAE. This means the heat production process has a lifetime that would be determined by how fast the NAE is destroyed and remade, and the amount of material present. Presumably the NAE is not made in exactly the same place in the same material where it previously had been destroyed. If what you say is true, the CF process will not be useful because it will not last very long. On the other hand, my theory predicts that stress is created by various processes applied initially to the material and it is relieved by formation of a fixed number of active sites. These sites are very stable once they fill with hydrons. The stability is created by the structure that forms in the gap, which I call the Hydroton because this is very chemically stable. It converts to a nuclear product which diffuses out while other Hydrotons form. As a result, the gap is always filled and maintained. Some Hydrotons are in the fusion process while others are forming. Hydrogen diffuses in while the nuclear reaction products diffuse out. This is a continuous process once it starts. A continuous long lasting process can only result if the nuclear product can leave the NAE. That is why transmutation can not be the source of energy. The transmutation products are fixed and can not leave,. As a result, eventually the Ni in the NAE will become fully converted to Cu, which apparently shows no indication of forming the next product as result of p addition. As a result, only a very limited amount of the Ni in the sample is available to make the proposed product. This means such a process would have a very limited lifetime. The duration of the Rossi e-Cat at high temperature can only be explained by a continuous and stable process. The NAE he creates must be formed at a temperature at which Gibbs energy can be released and remain stable thereafter regardless of a change in conditions. A continuous destruction and reformation process does not occur in a chemical system unless it is exactly at equilibrium, which the Rossi system clearly is not. Peter, I assume all the laws of chemical behavior apply to the formation of the NAE. You and other people assume the NAE can behave in conflict with these laws. That is the basic difference between my approach and everyone else. I do not know if this conflict results because people do not understand the laws of chemical behavior or because they simply assume they do not apply. Nevertheless, this is one reason for the conflict. Ed Storms On May 20, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, You got the idea, NAE/active sites are NOT stable, they come, work or not and go, and come again incessantly. A dynamic vision, not a static one is necessary. Peter On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim may be real. They simply reject all claims that CF is real. The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues? Maybe the NAE is not cracks. Nevertheless, something must be produced in the material that is not in normal material. Creating this condition must follow the laws of chemistry and be stable at high temperatures. You claim that Yiannis has told me what condition is required to form the NAE. He claims the surface structure of the Ni is the required condition. This does not make any sense because that structure in not
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
PopSci isn't impressed : http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says .. The paper, which is not peer-reviewed, leaves out crucial details, for example referring to unknown additives instead of specifying what chemicals actually go into the reaction. ... Maybe because it's a black-box/ red-hot-box test ? ... Even among those who work on cold fusion—often tinkerers not associated with major research institutions—Rossi doesn't necessarily inspire confidence. ... Uh-oh they're onto us!
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
I am with Mark. Kevin needs to grow some ethics. Andrew - Original Message - From: Mark Gibbs To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Kevin, Glad you think it's funny. I hope you find it just as amusing should your work ever be misappropriated without the thief even asking. [mg] On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Mark: Welcome to da internets. I hope you don't 'loose' your reputation. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Kevin, Publishing a summary or abstract of my piece would have been fine (under the concept of Fair Use) but posting my article in full to a list (and a public list at that) is a breach of both my copyright and Forbes'. I'd be less annoyed if you'd waited a week or two but for heaven's sake, this is the Internet ... you can cite a link as Alan Fletcher did so people can get directly to the original article (which, BTW, has been updated). Copying the entire piece to hundreds of people just wastes bits. William, please delete Kevin's post from the archive. Yours, Mark Gibbs. On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: posting it here on Vortex for purposes of using it elsewhere... On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Dear Ed, Your arguments here have great success, our dear Mary Yugo is using them in her comments for annihilating this report. I think you as NAE expert are focusing on the second idea. 1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very improbable they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this. I have tried long ago to convince you that at high temperatures the mortlity of the NAE is high but their natality is also high. LENR+ works this way at high NAE density in direct opposition with LENR with preformed NAE many of them inactivated. I had a moment of truth when I have seen that DGT's active core worked well over 650 C- this is a different process! Yiannis has tried to tell you where are the NAE located and what's their nature, they are not cracks. And this is fine because cracking is essentialy unmanageable This Report is far from perfect but its conclusions are certain: lots of excess heat. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Begin forwarded message: *From: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Date: *May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT *To: *c...@googlegroups.com *Cc: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Subject: **Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:* Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be accepted. 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures? This time will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is limited. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
You have to admire the bravery of the scientists that ran these tests and put out this paper. The enemies of the ideas that they purport to verify will try to destroy them. How much faith that one puts in a test is usually determined by the faith that one has in the people who ran the test. If a vested interest can destroy that credibility of the testers, then they can destroy the value of the test that they have conducted. I predict that this test will not advance LENR against the vested interests afraid against it because the vested interests are very strong compared to the maximum credibility that a single test can generate. More LENR tests are required to increase the forces of credibility. For those who can, who have the ability and know how, now that you know what can be done, your systems are still of great value in the replication effort. The fight has just begun. Looking past this time of euphoria, like any initial systems design, the Rossi system is still a poor system if viewed in absolute terms, so other more innovative LENR solutions have an increased value in the upcoming LENR fray. But what is most important is the absolute validation that something is happening beyond the current consensus of scientific thought. The first transistor looked very bad and did not perform well at all. But that flawed device inspired a vision of what could be done, and that there is great value in doing it. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Begin forwarded message: *From: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Date: *May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT *To: *c...@googlegroups.com *Cc: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Subject: **Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:* Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be accepted. 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures? This time will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is limited. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim may be real. They simply reject all claims that CF is real. The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues? Maybe the NAE is not cracks. Nevertheless, something must be produced in the material that is not in normal material. Creating this condition must follow the laws of chemistry and be stable at high temperatures. You claim that Yiannis has told me what condition is required to form the NAE. He claims the surface structure of the Ni is the required condition. This does not make any sense because that structure in not stable and it has not been shown how it can host a nuclear reaction, yet you accept this claim without question. Why? You reject cracks without knowing anything about their stability or how they can be managed. How do you know that cracks might not be present in the surface structure proposed by Yiannis. In short, deciding who has identified the NAE is premature. I suggest you keep an open mind. Ed Storms On May 20, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, Your arguments here have great success, our dear Mary Yugo is using them in her comments for annihilating this report. I think you as NAE expert are focusing on the second idea. 1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very improbable they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this. I have tried long ago to convince you that at high temperatures the mortlity of the NAE is high but their natality is also high. LENR+ works this way at high NAE density in direct opposition with LENR with preformed NAE many of them inactivated. I had a moment of truth when I have seen that DGT's active core worked well over 650 C- this is a different process! Yiannis has tried to tell you where are the NAE located and what's their nature, they are not cracks. And this is fine because cracking is essentialy unmanageable This Report is far from perfect but its conclusions are certain: lots of excess heat. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT To: c...@googlegroups.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released: Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be accepted. 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures? This time will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is limited. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. They did that. See p. 18, QUOTE: Various dots were applied to the dummy as well. A K-type thermocouple heat probe was placed under one of the dots, to monitor temperature trends in a fixed point. The same probe had also been used with the E-Cat HT2 to double check the IR camera readings during the cooling phase. The values measured by the heat probe were always higher than those indicated by the IR camera: this difference, minimal in the case of the E-Cat HT2, was more noticeable in the dummy, where temperature readings proved to be always higher by about 2 °C. The most likely reason for the difference is to be sought in the fact that the probe, when covered with the dot securing it the surface, could not dissipate any heat by convection, unlike the areas adjacent to it. The word dot is defined earlier in the paper: Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2’s coat of paint. For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras (Optris part: ACLSED). I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. As I mentioned before, I think the device might melt again if they did that. I would fear that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: 1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very improbable they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this. Emissivity was overestimated (ε=1) for the December 2012 run, where the COP was estimated at ~6. So that does not seem like something to worry about, at least for that run. In the March 2013 run they used special thermal dots that were applied to the exterior of the E-Cat to calibrate and recalibrate the emissivity as time progressed. I wonder what the second set of calculations would look like with an assumption of ε=1 -- since the COP was only ~2, perhaps it would get uncomfortably close to 1 with full emissivity? One thing I didn't feel too sure about was the contribution from convection. It looked like a fairly complex calculation that depended upon a number of factors, that needed to be looked up in a table in some textbook and that would be easy to get wrong. When I re-did some of the calculations for the December 2012 run without the contribution from convection, the numbers were still impressive (I think the COP was ~4). It might be interesting to obtain lower bound calculations for both December 2012 and March 2013 with ε=1 and ignoring all convection. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder what the second set of calculations would look like with an assumption of ε=1 -- since the COP was only ~2, perhaps it would get uncomfortably close to 1 with full emissivity? First of all, the COP wasn't ~2 it was ~2.6 +/- 0.5, with the assumption that the power supply consumed no power. As explained on p. 24, Eq. 37 is more reasonable: 816 W/283 W = COP Of 2.9 +/- 0.3. So that's ~3 not ~2. They measured the power consumed by the power supply during the null run calibration, so that is not a guess. As described on p. 25, the difference in COP is because the temperature was lower in the second test. In test 1, look at the difference in temperature with actual emissivity (around .95) versus emissivity set to 1. It is 512 deg C versus 497 deg C. Not a big difference. One thing I didn't feel too sure about was the contribution from convection. It looked like a fairly complex calculation that depended upon a number of factors, that needed to be looked up in a table in some textbook and that would be easy to get wrong. Why would it be easy to get that wrong? I have no trouble looking things up in tables. Way easier than doing arithmetic. When I re-did some of the calculations for the December 2012 run without the contribution from convection, the numbers were still impressive (I think the COP was ~4). It might be interesting to obtain lower bound calculations for both December 2012 and March 2013 with ε=1 and ignoring all convection. You can do that from the numbers in Table 8. With average emissivity, radiation is 460 W and convection is 282. Throw out convection completely (ignore it; pretend it did not happen) and you get: 460 W / 283 W = COP of 1.6 Saying there was no heat lost to convection goes beyond conservative. Every estimate in this paper is conservative. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Dear Ed, You got the idea, NAE/active sites are NOT stable, they come, work or not and go, and come again incessantly. A dynamic vision, not a static one is necessary. Peter On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim may be real. They simply reject all claims that CF is real. The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues? Maybe the NAE is not cracks. Nevertheless, something must be produced in the material that is not in normal material. Creating this condition must follow the laws of chemistry and be stable at high temperatures. You claim that Yiannis has told me what condition is required to form the NAE. He claims the surface structure of the Ni is the required condition. This does not make any sense because that structure in not stable and it has not been shown how it can host a nuclear reaction, yet you accept this claim without question. Why? You reject cracks without knowing anything about their stability or how they can be managed. How do you know that cracks might not be present in the surface structure proposed by Yiannis. In short, deciding who has identified the NAE is premature. I suggest you keep an open mind. Ed Storms On May 20, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Ed, Your arguments here have great success, our dear Mary Yugo is using them in her comments for annihilating this report. I think you as NAE expert are focusing on the second idea. 1- is true indeed. The total emissivity changes as evrything changes but how great must be these changes in order to invalidate completely the results, so we can say NO excess heat, the authors are in total error? Very improbable they are so unskilled that they hve not realized this. I have tried long ago to convince you that at high temperatures the mortlity of the NAE is high but their natality is also high. LENR+ works this way at high NAE density in direct opposition with LENR with preformed NAE many of them inactivated. I had a moment of truth when I have seen that DGT's active core worked well over 650 C- this is a different process! Yiannis has tried to tell you where are the NAE located and what's their nature, they are not cracks. And this is fine because cracking is essentialy unmanageable This Report is far from perfect but its conclusions are certain: lots of excess heat. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Begin forwarded message: *From: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Date: *May 20, 2013 9:11:57 AM MDT *To: *c...@googlegroups.com *Cc: *Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com *Subject: **Re: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:* Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered. 1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function of temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details about how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to be provided. A detailed description of the test is required before these claims can be accepted. 2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures? This time will determine whether the device is a practical source of energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is limited. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CMNS group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cmns+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to c...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: You can do that from the numbers in Table 8. With average emissivity, radiation is 460 W and convection is 282. Throw out convection completely (ignore it; pretend it did not happen) and you get: 460 W / 283 W = COP of 1.6 Here you've used average emissivity. I think a rock-bottom lower bound (or something along those lines) would use ε=1. I do not readily see a way to extract such a calculation for the March 2013 run from the data presented in the paper. Saying there was no heat lost to convection goes beyond conservative. Every estimate in this paper is conservative. Understood. Sometimes its helpful to get a lower bound that is beyond conservative, unless there is universal consensus that an estimate is truly conservative. If there is such consensus, then it will do fine. If reasonable people could cavil, then a lower bound that goes beyond conservative is also useful to have. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: CMNS: Rossi's 3rd party test released:
Mark Gibbs has an article up : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (Shout-out and plot to ... guess who? )
