Axil,
Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds
me of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann.
What happens if the experiment did work? Then IH would have given away
Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little protection he
does have.
AA
On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their
assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth that
IP is nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and
advance their case against Rossi.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with
Rossi's IP. If that were the case why would they have agreed to
give Rossi $89 million? Surely his technology, if it works, is
worth more than $11 million.
I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that Rossi
never had anything and was just a fraud. Correct me if I'm
wrong. If so, why would Brian want to work on it?
As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all
known and we should wait for full information. It does not seem
to be a popular view.
AA
On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There are dozens of well motivated open source replicators of
Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern and an additional
hundreds that will enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is
made available. I am disgusted with all the innuendo that is
involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be refreshing to deal
with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by research. IH paid
for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see fit. The
licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it
doesn't help to have this run by avowed enemies. Remember
how MIT and CalTec bodged the replication of Pons & Fleischmann?
AA
On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided
INFO involving the Rossi reaction to the open source
community and Brian Ahern as its most prominent member**to
allow that community to run tests to see if Rossi's
technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in
their claims about Rossi.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern
<ahern_br...@msn.com <mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:
I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he
had a loyal following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal
following.
"Feed a cold and starve a fever;
argue with no true believer."
It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet
Rossi to abandon their hero. He is too charismatic and
has hypnotized a group by appealing to their hopes and
dreams of clean energy.
It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able
to de-program the earnest followers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by
wrongly positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the
questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data." It seems very unlikely
that IH has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
AA
On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:
I have every reason to doubt it. Saying that you
have the piping drawing but refuse to publish it
doesn't hold water.
Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will
block any further messages from you.
Done and done.
- Jed
