Thanks Dave. I would love to see a solid report. I still have no alternative explanation for some of the early results I saw in my own experiments, but the lack of reproducibility makes me suspect that I missed some unknown error.
I just have trouble believing that Rossi would send a lawsuit to IH rather than even one of his old supposedly working 10KW units if he had anything that worked reliably! I think 100M dollars is worth a week in NC demonstrating to anyone at IH how to make it work. Jack On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:14 PM Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > It is unfair to characterize Jack in this way. He devoted a great deal of > effort attempting to prove LENR was viable and it appeared to me that he > was seeing some interesting results in early experiments. Perhaps he has > changed his beliefs as of this time due to taking a second look at his > procedures. > > I can understand how demoralized he must feel after all of that effort but > I feel confident that his opinions will change to a more positive stance if > the ERV report has substance. Give him some slack. > > My work regarding positive thermal feedback modeling tends to support many > of the statements originating from Rossi. Until I see evidence that energy > is not generated by subjecting the magic formula fuel to high temperatures > I will hold my positive views. The earlier experiments that has suggested > that LENR was present also fit into my model parameters. > > So lets all hold off on the personal attacks since they are not > productive. Besides, it is against the rules of vortex to engage in such > behavior! > > > Dave > > > On 04/10/2016 06:25 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > > Jack, > Thank you for proving my point (Skeptics will not believe any test) > You have no idea what tests were run on the 1 MW plant by the EVR but you > have already dismissed it sight unseen. > > "Brad, > > I concur. Nobody talking here is a pseudo-skeptic. Every one of us who > is skeptical here has devoted a large amount of time (and money for some of > us) to reading, analyzing, thinking, and even directly conducting many > experiments. I have wanted the E-cat to work as much as anyone, and > understand how it is hard to give up that hope when you have invested so > much in seeing it through to a positive outcome. But we can't let that > cognitive dissonance cause us to continue down a path of waste when there > may be other more fruitful avenues. Eventually, a person must say, "enough > is enough" and realize a dream is just a dream and open our eyes to look > around for something real and worth investing effort in. It is painful to > do, but better than continuing down that path. > > Jack > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM Brad Lowe < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > Wait for another inconclusive report written by a dunce or a paid > stooge? Rossi has wasted many man-years of our collective time. I am > done waiting. > > And don't call me a pseudo-skeptic. We all would have been happy with > any report where a gas generator ran the E-cat which heated a body of > water. With a 1MW output, he could run that in a day to prove his > claim and win back his millions. Rossi doesn't have anything of > commercial value. Time to admit Rossi's grandfatherly demeanor and > confident lies fooled me and many others. > > - Brad > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:05 PM, a.ashfield < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > Brad Lowe wrote. "Goat-guy made a great comment on next big future > where he > > makes a very good guess as to how Rossi is faking the results of the > tests." > > > > Wait and see what the ERV report shows. > > > > I doesn't mater what the test it will not be enough to persuade pseudo > > skeptics. As Rossi said long ago, the only proof will be sales of > working > > reactors." > >. > > >
