I read this Ahern complaint. I decided that it did not even deserved a response. As it seems others are thinking different I will say the following: 1. It is darn judgmental to make statements about Rossi being a convict. First of all I think it is not true, more important it had nothing to do with LENR. Secondly I think before making this kind of statements about another person one ought to have more evidence and explanation of how that impacts Rossi's LENR performance. 2. Rossi has no obligation to tell anyone anything. I think he wants a little 'buzz' around the product (market preparation) and therefore he gives away tidbits. I can understand that everyone wants to have more information. You should have called Rossi and asked him if you could finance the one year test - a year ago.If you paid enough I am sure you would have the data by now. You would of course have had to sign a NDA so you could not disclose anything about the test. The result that everybody in the LENR community could be irritated over you not revealing the data. Then they could dig up something not to nice about you and make a spin. Not so fun any more?:)
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Wait a minute. What is the need for a secret, when there is no scientific >> proof of an anomaly? I have seen no proof from Rossi, have you? >> > > That seems illogical. Two problems: > > 1. There might be scientific proof of an anomaly, so in that case there is > the need for a secret. Obviously you & I have not seen this proof, but that > does not mean it does not exist. > > 2. I have seen no proof from Rossi either. Just because you & I have not > seen proof, that does not mean there is no proof. It just means we haven't > see it. > > > >> Let Rossi prove through an independent third party that there is a valid >> thermal anomaly in the E-Cat, then Ahern can be criticized for complaining >> about not knowing the secret of the anomaly. >> > > Is he complaining about that? > > He complained that Rossi did not "divulge A. the ERV person, B. His > location, C. His report . . ." Maybe he will, in the report. > > I hope he publishes this report. You never know with Rossi. > > By the way, Brian Ahern said a strange thing here: "Rossi admitted paying > for this INDEPENDENT TEST." What's with "admitted"? He said it. Of course > he paid for the test. Someone had to pay. Experts do not do such tests for > free. It would be suspicious if he did *not* pay. > > - Jed > >
