Axil Axil wrote:
It seems to me that calorimetry is a weak subject to base a defence on.
> Nether the judge or any of the jury will have even heard the word let alone
> understand why the ERV messed it up. The layers for the defence will need a
> expert witness to educate the court on what is goo
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell
wrote:
>
>
> Rossi claims?!? Rossi has claimed he had a production line set up when
> there was no such thing. He claims he spent hours inside a 1 MW reactor in
> a shipping container, when that would kill him in 10 minutes. He has
> claimed countles
It seems to me that calorimetry is a weak subject to base a defence on.
Nether the judge or any of the jury will have even heard the word let alone
understand why the ERV messed it up. The layers for the defence will need a
expert witness to educate the court on what is good and what is ill in LENR
Axil Axil wrote:
Why did IH allow Penon to remain the ERV if he was incompetent or
> dishonest? Why did IH allow the test to continue with a flawed calorimetry
> plan? Why wasn't the calorimetry design changed to the satisfaction of IH
> early on in the test?
>
I do not know, but these issues h
Why did IH allow Penon to remain the ERV if he was incompetent or
dishonest? Why did IH allow the test to continue with a flawed calorimetry
plan? Why wasn't the calorimetry design changed to the satisfaction of IH
early on in the test? Did you ash your contacts at IH these questions? What
did the
Axil Axil wrote:
Jed States:
>
> "If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack
> his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the
> stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud."
>
> This judgement seems to be very harsh, cruel, damaging
Jed States:
"If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack
his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the
stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud."
This judgement seems to be very harsh, cruel, damaging, and severe.
This statement
Axil Axil wrote:
The ERV made two rulings first to award 1.5 million to Rossi and then
> another $10,000,000 based on his judgement that the Rossi reactor worked.
> This sets a precedent that IH accepted . . .
>
Again let me point out you are not a lawyer, you know nothing about this
case, and p
The ERV made two rulings first to award 1.5 million to Rossi and then
another $10,000,000 based on his judgement that the Rossi reactor worked.
This sets a precedent that IH accepted the judgment of the ERV as
competent, impartial, valid and binding.
But now when it comes down the billion dollar j
Axil Axil wrote:
The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the
> agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement
> were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms
> of the Licence agreement were met. . . .
>
Are yo
The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the
agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement
were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms
of the Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert
judg
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Stephen Cooke
wrote:
I guess/hope we don't need to wait too long now before things are resolved
> and hopefully become clearer.
>
If the past few years are anything to go by, I think the opposite
assumption is a safer one.
Eric
No Jed, I make no false statements. I make no statements at all, except
thar you judge people based on poor basis and that you want to be believed
based on confidential information.
That you then attack others, for not swallow your conclusions without
wondering about its credibility, is not above t
Thanks Jed,
You are modest, but I know your understanding of Calorimetry far exceeds mine,
and much of this is over my head so thanks for your patience.
I suppose if the heater was immersed and surrounded by water the heat would
either transfer through the water by conduction, convection or ra
Stephen Cooke wrote:
Regarding the waste heat, you mentioned that all the waste heat can't be
> transferred to the water? But surely if the heat source is inside the water
> tank it can only be transferred to the water. Isn't this how we do
> calorimetry?
>
Look at photos of the shipping contain
Hi Jed
Regarding the waste heat, you mentioned that all the waste heat can't be
transferred to the water? But surely if the heat source is inside the water
tank it can only be transferred to the water. Isn't this how we do calorimetry?
As long as the water tank was insulated for 120 deg C and
Hi Jed,
The kilns I have been near are smaller ones for ceramic crafts and artwork, but
I wonder if something like this can be applicable.
https://www.vpbay.com/product/pellet-burner-kiln/
I'm far from knowledgable about industrial applications but I guess it's not so
simple to match a boiler
Jed Said:
"No, as I told you several times, I pointed to the paper Penon published on
the internet. In my opinion, it shows he is an idiot. You can read it
yourself. Perhaps you will disagree."
My issue is the evaluation of what was done before the contract was signed
and what was done after it w
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell
wrote:
Finally, here is a reality check. Rossi's customer is a listed as a
> chemical distribution warehouse. Do you think a chemical distributor can
> use enough process heat for a good-sized factory? I doubt it! This is
> implausible, to say the le
lenr-forum.com sheds some more light. Apparently Darden visited the
Lugano team to explain that they got erroneous results and no heat was
generated.. (Confirmed by Mats Lewan ) It seems they had thermocouples
that they used intermittently and found the readings disagreed with the
IR camera.
Hi Jed,
thanks for your extended reply, I'm also far from being able todo the HVAC
calculations so respect you have an experts input and are better informed than
me about what is possible.
Thanks also for the link rsbiomass.
To be fair the pictures of the Bosch plant I think we're for 38 MW o
Lennart Thornros wrote:
> Your statements,including label people as idiots, based on information you
> say is confidential . . .
>
No, as I told you several times, I pointed to the paper Penon published on
the internet. In my opinion, it shows he is an idiot. You can read it
yourself. Perhaps you
Jed,
You say that Gluck arguments are childish.
You need a mirrot.
Your statements,including label people as idiots, based on information you
say is confidential, is of th
e same level i heard in the sandbox many years ago.
It is not a question of taking sides. IH have provided very little
informa
Stephen Cooke wrote:
Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant
> would cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I
> have recently checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other
> heat sources it seems that steam boilers of MW size
Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant would
cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I have recently
checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other heat sources it
seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for in
a.ashfield wrote:
I doubt anyone outside IH and Rossi's camps knows what happened.
>
Actually, several people know, including me. At least, we know what both
sides claim. I.H. says there is no heat, and Rossi claims the heat is 50
times input. That is not to say I.H. is necessarily right.
> I
I doubt anyone outside IH and Rossi's camps knows what happened.
IH did not specify the 1 MW plant didn't work in their statement,
although Jed has said he was told it didn't. What they said was they
could not reproduce the results. This could mean the IP they received
from Rossi was not suff
I am just bring into focus what the theory of Rossi's case is...the
avoidance of the $Billion payment in licence fees. It has nothing to with
Rossi's tech not working. If IH claims that Rossi's IP does not work, they
will lose their case since their duly authorized agent who designed and
conducted
Axil Axil wrote:
The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
> they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
> OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.
>
This theory is bonkers. The machine DOES NOT WORK. It does not prod
The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.
This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
performed because they ne
I am developing my opinion of what Rossi's opinion of the case is.
“A theory of a case is a cogent statement of an advocate’s position that
justifies the verdict he or she is seeking. A theory of the case is not
necessarily cast in the words that will be sued with the jury, but words
that are hear
If IH can somehow use the IP of Rossi but get out of the licence agreement
with Rossi, they will save one $billion. This may explain the motivation in
the actions of IH. This is just a theory of the case.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> Their motivation makes sense if they ne
Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results of
the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they had
Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and that
of their other EOMs.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie
wrote:
Craig Haynie wrote:
The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed with
> Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Pe
Axil Axil wrote:
The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF
> Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of
> its start. . . .
>
Stop right there. Even in these first sentences you have already made
unwarranted assumptions about events
On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
What confuses the analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented
the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that
Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent
application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It
What confuses the analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
disconnect
The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF
Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of
its start. If IH believed that Rossi;s IP worked, they would have started
setting up a production plant early on to get a jump on E-Cat production
be
Axil Axil wrote:
> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>
IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have any
IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as it
stands now, and as it will always stand.
If Rossi's IP is used i
IF and when IH pays Rossi the 89 million, what does IH get? IH gets the
right to use Rossi's IP to produce and sell E Cat product in their
territory granted by the Licence.
IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
Can IH sell product that contains Rossi's IP that has been incorpor
In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote:
"However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being
> pushed somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible
> position so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not
> know much about IH's
41 matches
Mail list logo