tak peter On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes of course. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > > [email protected] > +1 916 436 1899 > > Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and > enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> dear Lennart >> >> your POV too (as Jack's) deserves to be known by The Readers. May I offer >> it in Ego Out now? >> peter >> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He >>> is not a fraud if he does not show that it works but still claims it does. >>> I assume that a positive outcome will be used by Rossi & IH to finance >>> the market roll out. Therefore I think we will receive some information >>> from the 'plant'. >>> >>> Rossi &IH do not need any particular tests to be performed. Not in there >>> interest. >>> >>> No, it is not science. Not even close. It is business. >>> >>> Be patient as there is only days until we will receive some information. >>> I do not think that information will contain scientific evidence and third >>> party testimony. >>> The real thing to look for is if IH will reveal a plan to do further >>> investments in Ecat and other felines of this type. Maybe announce a >>> factory, maybe another investment in Xcat. I would say that is going to >>> tell more than the data coming out. >>> >>> The ongoing evaluation of Rossi is not required. >>> I read that he does not have enough scientific knowledge to handle the >>> development. >>> I hear he has made mistakes - live long enough and you too will. Admit >>> them ? That is another story. >>> I hear he has been overly optimistic. Yes, otherwise he would have given >>> up longtime ago - like many others did. >>> I think he is an entrepreneur with a vision and a passion to solve this >>> LENR puzzle. >>> Maybe he has and then I am happy for him. >>> Maybe he is not there yet. I will applaud if he goes further and can >>> make someone to invest so he can. If he decide it is over I know (without >>> ever talked to him) that he will be disappointed and that would hurt more >>> than others name calling. >>> >>> I do believe that the Stockholm meeting will be a good indicator of if >>> LENR is for real. I am not saying anything about science. I am purely >>> looking for if LENR can be commercialized within a decade or not. >>> >>> I do understand that several of the other players Mills for example are >>> more qualified scientists. However, the science side is certainly >>> interesting but not critical in the way the business side is. >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> >>> [email protected] >>> +1 916 436 1899 >>> >>> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and >>> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: a.ashfield >>>> >>>> > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will >>>> find some reason why it might be wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such >>>> tripe. The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate >>>> the report, Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is >>>> proof-positive of his inflated claims. >>>> >>>> Forget those extremes. Both are tripe. >>>> >>>> Let's assume that we are all intelligent people who cherish the >>>> scientific method and who can discern the truth when it is openly >>>> presented. >>>> >>>> All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will >>>> convince many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day >>>> hour-by-hour with thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to >>>> test any summaries which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that? >>>> >>>> The "customer" assuming that there was a bona fide customer, since even >>>> that point is in doubt - supposedly received hot water as their heat >>>> source, and there should be data of that usage hourly - over the ~8000 >>>> hours of operation (if it was 24/7) or at least over 2000 hours. If there >>>> is less than 2000 hours of raw data, then it will probably mean that some >>>> data has been purged to make the results look better. >>>> >>>> This would be flow-rate of water and temperature. If they are an >>>> independent customer - then of course they kept records of thermal usage. >>>> How else would they know if they could afford to buy the thing without it? >>>> >>>> Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the >>>> corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have >>>> had his own power meter installed. That is step one. Step two is to verify >>>> the official data has not been altered. The power bill is based on kW-hrs >>>> of usage and the customer knows how much hot water they used, anything less >>>> is suspicious. >>>> >>>> If Rossi claims not to have had a power meter from Florida Power >>>> installed then YES the stink is starting to rise. Of course, having real >>>> raw data to share is painfully obvious, and if Rossi should have some >>>> flimsy excuse why this cannot be done - to justify why there is no real raw >>>> data, then Yes - that is where the problem will center. This is what IH >>>> already knows and it would explain why they are distancing themselves from >>>> Rossi (if they are). >>>> >>>> If the expert - and it does not matter who paid him - cannot provide >>>> testable data for heat delivered, to compare against a bona-fide power bill >>>> form the power company, knowing that that obvious and simple step presents >>>> the prima facie case, then yes all the skeptics and even some of the flock >>>> that drank the Kool-Aid, will be put on alert that the con game is afoot. >>>> >>>> Bottom line, if there is good raw data to compare, then the truth will >>>> out. IH already knows this - so we will look to them for guidance. But >>>> let's be clear from the start - this is science - not politics. If >>>> believable real raw data is not available initially - then certainly >>>> everyone including IH will know that the report is a sham. No one gives >>>> away a trade secret by sharing that kind of raw data. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
