Here is a link to Rossi's lawyers reply to IH's motion to dismiss.
It seems to be well written, covering exactly the points raised and
putting Vaughn and Darden in a poor position regarding fraud/theft of
Rossi's IP.
David Roberson wrote:
> I followed the link and was not able to locate any significant test data
> to conclude anything of importance. Most of the information appeared to be
> associated with the old test of October 6, 2011 which may or may not be
> relevant.
>
You are
I think even a COP which is insignificant would be useful. If the radiation
emission from the nuclei is between 10
remain out of reach.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Could you d
Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Jed,
>
> nothing about the details- it is an essential question:
> Is the excess heat different from zero Yes or No?
>
Based on Rossi's instruments and data it is impossible to say for sure.
They were intended to produce a meaningless answer. But
David Roberson wrote:
Could you direct me to a site that contains the test data that you are
> referring to?
No, sorry. It is all a big secret. I have some limited data from before the
brouhaha under an NDA.
Rossi gave some information during his interview with Lewan. I
Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 7, 2016 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1
Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jed,
Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are
simple something or no
Dear Jed,
nothing about the details- it is an essential question:
Is the excess heat different from zero Yes or No?
Forget instruments, good or bad Forget the suicidal setup.
peter
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peter Gluck
Apparently the seven day test of the three QuarkX reactors for an
unnamed potential partner/customer has been extended for another week.
I take this as a good sign that the customer is still interested.
Rossi also commented that the p/c was "optimistic" and the results
during the test were
Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Jed,
>
> Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are
> simple something or nothing, excess heat or NOT excess heat- zero, nada,
> niente nihil etc.
> In the moment you accept that it was a small excess heat you are accepting
>
Dear Jed,
Excuse me for joining the discussion, however the choices are
simple something or nothing, excess heat or NOT excess heat- zero, nada,
niente nihil etc.
In the moment you accept that it was a small excess heat you are accepting
implicitly that by adequate means it can be increased.. no
How do you know the same numbers were shown to Lewan?
2016-06-07 10:57 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
> This data was selected by Rossi. These are same numbers and conclusions he
> quoted to Lewan.
>
Daniel Rocha wrote:
It is important, since one can select data to deceive you. There were times
> of malfunctioning that lasted a few days.
>
This data was selected by Rossi. These are same numbers and conclusions he
quoted to Lewan. This dataset does not show what he
On 06/06/2016 09:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
In their motion to dismiss, I.H. mentioned multiple "reactors" that
apparently all failed. I did not know there were multiple reactors. I
know nothing about the others, but if you take their word for it,
there were multiple failures, and no
No Jed, My morals or ethics require more than rumor before I make such very
serious acqusations.
I do not know Rossi.
Investors need to do their due diligence. I do not need to tell them that
and I doubt your advice will weigh very heavy. Rossi's performance will.
I agree with you we do not need
It is important, since one can select data to deceive you. There were times
of malfunctioning that lasted a few days. Also, Allan Fletcher and I showed
that the device can work in a small place.
2016-06-06 23:20 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
>
> Where I got it from is
Daniel Rocha wrote:
Dewey Weaver, from who Jed likely got his data, works for an IH investor.
>
Where I got it from is irrelevant. The data originated with Rossi, because
it has the same numbers he quoted to Lewan.
Dewey Weaver, from who Jed likely got his data, works for an IH investor.
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively
> correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members and
> general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is *very probably* correct
> in his assertions about
Lennart Thornros wrote:
> Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot',
> 'scammer', :'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to . .
> .
>
So, by your "morals" we shouldn't calls idiots, scammers and criminals what
they are. Why not?
Jed, in my opinion, which I understand you already know more about than I
do (quick to judgement and throwing stone sitting in glasshouse);
Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', 'scammer',
:'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to.--.In addition
you
On 06/06/2016 05:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
Jed,
You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and
think there are still many unknowns.
For the last time:
I am pretty sure I know the answers
a.ashfield wrote:
Jed,
> You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think there
> are still many unknowns.
>
For the last time:
I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.
You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW
Jed,
You are certain you know the answers. I don't claim I do and think
there are still many unknowns.
I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and
that is the only reason I have replied to you.
On 6/6/2016 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield
a.ashfield wrote:
> AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.
>
> Jed. What basis do you have for doubting that?
>
> AA. Because you say you have not seen the report.
>
I said I have seen sample data from it, and the configuration. A large
enough sample that I am
AA. I doubt you have seen the data in it.
Jed. What basis do you have for doubting that?
AA. Because you say you have not seen the report.
On 6/6/2016 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
AA. You keep repeating this
a.ashfield wrote:
AA. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back
> it up.
>
> Jed. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't
> he publish the ERV report?
>
> AA. He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong. He
AA. You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to
back it up.
Jed. And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why
doesn't he publish the ERV report?
AA. He's not the one claiming it is rubbish and wrong. He is taking IH
to court to prove he's right.
AA.
a.ashfield wrote:
>
> You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it up.
And Rossi has never provided any proof of what he says. Why doesn't he
publish the ERV report? Why doesn't he at least tell you what instruments
he used, and how they were
Jed. The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked
into the room and looked at the choice of instruments and configuration
would see that in a few minutes.
You keep repeating this Jed, but you never provide any proof to back it
up. Why didn't Cherokee take Rossi's offer
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1
If this is the same Cherokee Investment trying to do remediation in Pennsauken,
NJ……
Craig Haynie wrote:
> Jed, I believe you have information that indicates this is true. However,
> it just doesn't explain the unusual behavior from IH. What about all the
> previous tests, going back to 2012?
>
In my opinion some of these tests may have shown excess
On 06/06/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The test proved beyond doubt that the device does not work. I repeat:
IT DOES NOT WORK. There is no excess heat. At no time in this test did
the device show excess heat. You could watch it for a half hour, or
you could collect 6 months of data
Chris Zell wrote:
> Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee.
>
I am not aware of sketchy finances or politics by Cherokee. What do you
refer to?
Questionable conduct by Rossi. Too much ambiguity…
>
There is no ambiguity regarding the test results.
Craig Haynie wrote:
> It doesn't take a 350 day test to prove that something works. That test
> was to prove the reliability of the device. That's also the only reason
> that Darden would have agreed to a test using an ERV of Rossi's choosing.
>
I do not know why
The Rossi Saga is looking more like the Rashomon effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect
Sketchy finances, back door deals, politics by Cherokee. Questionable conduct
by Rossi. Too much ambiguity…
a.ashfield wrote:
As for IH then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was
> rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed)
>
The test was rubbish. I.H. knew that all along. Anyone who walked into the
room and looked at the choice of
On 06/06/2016 10:01 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the
failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of
ready money.
This makes the most sense to me. I don't believe there's any way they
would have continued a
Seeing that Cherokee have been having some problems, I wonder if the
failure to pay Rossi $89 million is partly because they are short of
ready money.
Posted by ultrasure on https://www.lenr-forum.com
2 hours ago
Harry,
If true, it implies IH didn't want to pay $89 million. It is not just
that that is a lot of money, but it would mean Rossi could then build
his automated production line and IH would have lost control.
On 6/6/2016 12:21 AM, H LV wrote:
If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum
2016-06-06 2:25 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :
> Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you
> whether the pipe has a flowmeter or a thermocouple?
Just a naive question.
Why didn't they simply install a (high temp) gas flow meter at the exit of
the
Lennart,
If you were making a tacit distinction between entrepeneurs and investors
then I agree.
Harry
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:41 PM, H LV wrote:
> Those qualities aren't unique to entrepreneurs. They can be found in other
> creative people. What makes an entrepreneur
If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum of money to the cancel the
test then that implies IH considered Rossi's IP to be valuable at that
time.
Harry
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
> Eric & Jed,
>
> Consider the time line
>
> Summer 2015
Eric & Jed,
Consider the time line
Summer 2015 Rossi was offered a sum to cancel the test
Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11.5 million paid and cancel
IH's license.
Feb 18 test of a one megawatt heat plant completed
Apr 05 Rossi sues. Rossi et al v. Darden et al
May 15 date Penon
On 06/05/2016 08:43 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:
If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up
a lawyer and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan.
Come on down!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyV_dBZHU0
Harry
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> The 200th post is mine!
>
> 2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
The 200th post is mine!
>
My apologies -- not being sarcastic, I've been a bit of a burden on the
list today and yesterday. I will now bow out of this thread. Ultimately
this kind of debate, where people do little more
The 200th post is mine!
2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence
> wrote:
>
>
>>
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a lawyer
> and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan. Time can be of the
> essence when claims and counterclaims start flying. From the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:00 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
What has become clear though is that the story about the ERV's report not
> holding up to scrutiny being the reason for not paying is pure nonsense.
> IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known
On 06/05/2016 07:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:
I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not
going to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV
a.ashfield wrote:
> Jed,
> That is ridiculous. You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or
> thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the
> measurements were flawed"! ?
>
Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you
whether
Jed,
That is ridiculous. You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or
thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the
measurements were flawed"! ? It is starting to look like you don't have
a clue what was there but are just parroting what some anonymous person
told you.
a.ashfield wrote:
> IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known
> what was in it, before dismissing it out of hand.
>
Who told you that? That's not true as far as I know. Where do you get this
weird stuff? Rossi's blog, I suppose. As I said,
Eric,
I have no knowledge of the date. What has become clear though is that
the story about the ERV's report not holding up to scrutiny being the
reason for not paying is pure nonsense. IH hadn't seen even seen the
report and so couldn't possibly have known what was in it, before
a.ashfield wrote:
Jed,
> Lets make this easy.
>
> 1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW
> plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? . . .
I cannot discuss any details that have not yet been released by I.H. or
Rossi. I will
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to
> pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them his
> report. This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on not
>
Eric,
I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going
to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them
his report. This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on
not paying all along.
On 6/5/2016 6:48 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end of
> the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay up. When
> did the EVR finish his report?
>
According to the complaint, the
Eric,
25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end
of the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay
up. When did the EVR finish his report?
Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks. He would keep these
as a record anyway. Nothing
Jed,
Lets make this easy.
1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW
plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? Was the fluid
water? There must have been a drain tap somewhere where a sample could
be taken for analysis.
2. Did the steam output from
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:38 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days. He surely
> would not say that now.
>
Yes, and Rossi said the following on March 11, only 25 days before he
initiated a lawsuit against IH:
Thank you for
Eric,
Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days. He
surely would not say that now.
If the output temperature was 116C and the steam superheated, really all
you would need to calculate the thermal output would be a flow meter for
the water going in, a pressure gauge and a
Jed. As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked into the
room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few minutes
would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a farce.
AA. So as you claim to know what the instrumentation was, please
describe it.
What was the
Adrian,
It is entirely possible that IH hired the expert after the test started.
Or maybe they hired him before the test started. Perhaps all seemed well
to us between IH and Rossi. Some who have access to additional information
were aware of difficulties early on. It is hard to say from the
Eric,
I don't think IH hired the expert until after the test started. All
seemed well between IH and Rossi when the test started.
On 6/5/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:
My new
a.ashfield wrote:
> As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around for some
> way to do that.
That's hilarious! As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked
into the room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few
minutes
a.ashfield wrote:
What you say does not add up. You say the information is not from IH.
>
I said it was not I.H.'s data. I didn't say where it came from. I will
leave that little detail to your vivid and ever-active imagination.
> As for the numbers Rossi gave Lewan
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little
> expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's
> Law. As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around
>
My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little
expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's
Law. As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around
for some way to do that. Hence his insistence on visiting the
customer's
What I now think happened was that IH suddenly became interested in
disputing the ERV's findings/report, rather than the other way around
that they were looking for evidence to boost its believabllity. as Jed
suggested.
Just why is not clear, but we know of 89 million reasons.
As stated at the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Jack Cole wrote:
>
> Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because
> they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world.
> What a dream that would
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
Eric.
>
> You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not
> being able to see the customer's plant." We don't really know this. What
> we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking
From: Eric Walker
Jack Cole wrote:
Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because they
understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world. What a
dream that would be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity, and do not
forget,
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:27 PM, a.ashfield wrote:
Eric's Law. Everything Rossi says is wrong. We all know more about LENR
> than he does.
Interesting characterization of my position!
Eric
Eric's Law. Everything Rossi says is wrong. We all know more about
LENR than he does.
On 6/5/2016 1:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield wrote:
Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that
Thomas Barker
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield wrote:
>
> Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that
> Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent. If
> so, please share.
>
> AA. 1. Rossi says so and he is the
Jed. I do not think it was 116 deg C.
AA. What proof do you have that it is wrong?
On 6/5/2016 12:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an
interview where
Agreed. Except Jed now says the secret information is not from IH.
On 6/5/2016 12:07 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of
anything.
I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is
not shown very well.
One side
Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty
that Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the
patent. If so, please share.
AA. 1. Rossi says so and he is the expert.
2. There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan. It
is just
Eric.
You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about
not being able to see the customer's plant." We don't really know
this. What we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking
the expert from seeing the facility. It is likely that what you say,
that the
Lennart Thornros wrote:
Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of
> anything.
>
It is an indicator that I.H. thinks there were "flawed measurements" using
"unsuitable measuring devices." I have seen the data, and I agree with I.H.
> I have
Jed,
What you say does not add up. You say the information is not from IH.
You say the information is from Rossi. Forgive me for doubting that he
would send you confidential information that can't be published. Do you
mean information from someone on Rossi's team? If so, why say it was
Eric Walker wrote:
> AA. You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it.
>>
>
> Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas
> Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent.
>
If he did add
a.ashfield wrote:
It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an interview
> where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head.
>
Nope. Not off the top of his head. Those are the same numbers he put in
his calorimetry, supposedly from
Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of
anything.
I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is not
shown very well.
One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind of
NDA. The arguments are switching between that those
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your comments.
> Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents, as explained,
> that was the only way to get a patent in this circumstance. Mentioning
It was Eric not me that claimed that IH hadn't said it didn't work. I
thought they had.
On 6/5/2016 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > wrote:
AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?
You might
Jed,
It is not clear to me what you are complaining about. This is an
interview where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head. If
the output temperature was 116C this is a good indication that the
steam was superheated and not wet.
On 6/5/2016 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield wrote:
> ed. Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.
>
> That is all I have read about.
>
Where did you read that? Rossi's blog?
Rossi is not a reliable source of information.
- Jed
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:04 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
> AA. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later
> - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. Nothing about
> the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it.
>
>
a.ashfield wrote:
Well I apologize for my assumption. If the only information you have is
> from Rossi please give his actual quote(s)
>
I already told you: I cannot. Why do you keep asking for things that you
know I cannot give? What is the point?
As I said, the
AA. The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit
the customer's plant.
ed. Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.
That is all I have read about. If you have proof of other things,
please show it. In fact I also read in a comment that it was not Rossi
but
Well I apologize for my assumption. If the only information you have is
from Rossi please give his actual quote(s) I have not seen anything
from him to indicate that the plant did not operate well. If you have
other numbers, what were their source?
On 6/5/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield wrote:
AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work? You might
> let Jed know that.
>
I.H. said it does not work in their motion to dismiss. They said the
"reactors" are "inoperable." (I did not know there is more than one
reactor.)
- Jed
Jack Cole wrote:
> Of course there is evidence of laziness or an utterly poor understanding
> of measurement instruments with the presentation of the apparently fake
> measurements (3 or 4 trailing zeros according to Jed).
>
That's not according to me. That was Rossi
Eric,
It is not worth my time to rehash it all. It is all covered in this
thread that you can read again if you want to.
When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your
comments. Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents,
as explained, that was the only way
a.ashfield wrote:
The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the
> customer's plant.
>
Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.
Stopping the visit would be bad enough, in any case.
> Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was
a.ashfield wrote:
> You on the other hand are certain you know all the answers based on
> information from IH. not from the independent ERV.
>
No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it came from
Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as
AA. IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people -
later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant.
Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it.
Eric. No. It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from
seeing the
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo