Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Che]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> How does "and pay Rossi what is agreed upon." mean  "this troll here
> defending a vulture capitalist outfit ". Something is wrong with my writing
> or your reading.
>

No, something is wrong with _your_ reading. My use of the word 'blazes'
should have clued you in as to the context of who I was referring-to.

Don't be so defensive.





On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Che  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Darden shall not avoid the requirements of the Licence Agreement
>>> and pay Rossi what is agreed upon. The positive ERV is the ONLY requirement
>>> for payment defined in the LA. Even the Pope must follow the law. Being
>>> a sainted person does not give that person the right to ignore
>>> a legally binding agreement.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why the blazes is this troll here defending a vulture capitalist outfit
>> which is welching on a contract which has quite apparently NOT been voided
>> on the Rossi side..? I read the entire legal complaint. This *all* hinges
>> on the outcome of the long-term validation process. My understanding is
>> that this *was* a success.
>>
>> Who's lying here... and why?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Axil Axil]

How does "and pay Rossi what is agreed upon." mean  "this troll here
defending a vulture capitalist outfit ". Something is wrong with my writing
or your reading.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Thomas Darden shall not avoid the requirements of the Licence Agreement
>> and pay Rossi what is agreed upon. The positive ERV is the ONLY requirement
>> for payment defined in the LA. Even the Pope must follow the law. Being
>> a sainted person does not give that person the right to ignore
>> a legally binding agreement.
>>
>
>
> Why the blazes is this troll here defending a vulture capitalist outfit
> which is welching on a contract which has quite apparently NOT been voided
> on the Rossi side..? I read the entire legal complaint. This *all* hinges
> on the outcome of the long-term validation process. My understanding is
> that this *was* a success.
>
> Who's lying here... and why?
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

My experience is that the devil is in the details and the demise of the devil 
is the job of the instruments and they are not cheap.

I think the MFMP understands that and my hope is that they guess the ones that 
will get the devil out. 

That being said I hope that they have two or three coincident gamma counters 
lined up to detect back to back gammas from possible positron-electron 
reactions, with a Na-22 source to calibrate the signal they may see. 

A coil to create a varying ambient magnetic field around the reactor would also 
be nice to evaluate if there any changes  in a reaction associated with the 
magnetic field.  Maybe that is another test.

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:


  We are all hoping for a repeat performance of the "signal", the gamma burst 
output.  In GS5.3, the team is much better prepared to monitor the radiations.  
Time bases for all of the data acquistions have been carefully synchronized.  
Amptek has generously loaned MFMP an X-123 CdTe x-ray spectrometer capable of 
about 6keV to 80keV measurement.  Mark Jurich has borrowed an x-ray 
scintillator system from SLAC to monitor.  The GM detector has been upgraded to 
a sensitive 2" pancake detector.

I'm looking forward to the conclusions.  I'm sure MFMP have done a range of 
calibrations; possibly something like these?
  a.. Calibrated the x-ray spectrometer and scintillator against known 
standards. 
  b.. Verified that the x-ray spectrometer, the x-ray scintillator and GM 
detector work in coincidence (when there's a signal in one there's a signal in 
the others). 
  c.. Taken background readings over a period of weeks n order to characterize 
occasional background events and avoid confusing them for a possible signal.
Eric

[Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

Why do people run marathons and win sometimes at great physical expense?

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:34 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

I will be disappointed if the ERV report is not released in less than a month.  
Rossi will likely benefit by that release since he remained confined to that 
hell-hole for most of last year in order to coax it along.  Why would he be so 
inclined to personal torture unless he was convinced that this effort would 
ultimately end in him receiving the final $89 million?

I also find it difficult to believe that IH would not insist that their agents 
have access to the testing as well.  All the parties would benefit if the test 
were successful provided they did not have alternate agendas.  Something does 
not quite calculate properly in this situation.

It is best that we all hold our breaths and allow time for the story to further 
develop.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 10:10 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb


Jed--

What I remember Rossi said was that he would release the report when his legal 
advisors said it was ok.  His legal advisors may have other issues associated 
with the release than mere legalities.  And there may be some legalities as 
well as contractual issues to consider over an above legalities, that have to 
do with the apparent contractual mutual control of the report from the 
oversight group.

For example, as the suit progresses Rossi may want to introduce the report as 
evidence with the blessing of the court, without objection from IH.  It may be 
that if IH would not agree with the introduction of the report during the court 
proceedings that would look bad to the Jury hearing the case and be a plus for 
Rossi.  If as he has suggested the report is favorable, and it its introduced 
to the court, it is also a plus for  Rossi in the Jury’s eyes.  

Lawyers worry about these type of things for good reason. 

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

  I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have already.


  He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared. 

He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He could 
publish it anytime he wants.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Eric--

Per my recent comment, (I had not read yours) I agree with your comment about 
many unknowns and lack of straightforward relationships.  Anharmicity is not a 
straightforward happening.  

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Dave, 

My point is not a strong one.  It is largely a comment to the effect that there 
are many unknowns, and the relationship between amount of fuel and the heat 
that is produced in a LENR system may not be straightforward.  To answer your 
questions, suppose that for a given current (100 mA, say) there is a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel to get excess heat, e.g., 1g active fuel.  Any amount 
of fuel above this threshold will not contribute further without a higher 
current, and any amount below this threshold will decrease the excess heat 
seen.  Within these parameters one can still postulate excess heat as a 
function of temperature, which provides a second variable.  If the temperature 
is high, because there is good insulation, or we're using resistance heaters, 
that will multiply the excess heat in our thought experiment.

My point is only to highlight an assumption that I thought worth exploring -- 
that there is a simple relationship between the amount of fuel in a LENR system 
and the amount of excess heat that is developed.  I am not aware of an 
experiment in which any relationship, consistent with your suggestion or 
otherwise, is clearly shown.

Eric



On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

  Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would one 
explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with these 
systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by adding more 
fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional heat will be 
developed within the newly added material when it is subjected to the fixed 
temperature and current that initially exists.

  So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of 2 
at that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the 
temperature remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when you 
take out all of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must define 
the behavior as the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary along with 
that function.

  The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is that 
COP is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel loading 
as long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out the 
interaction of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the COP as 
fuel is added to an initially constant temperature chamber to simplify the 
example.

  Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving 
factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high 
temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current 
itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that current 
flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be extremely 
confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would not vary as 
the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this effect AFAIK 
unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the assumption is a COP of 
1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.

  Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are proposing? 
 

  Dave


  -Original Message-
  From: Eric Walker 
  To: vortex-l 

  Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb


  On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can 
be quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?

  Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the 
current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel.

  Eric

[Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Eric and Dave--

I have thought that there may be other controlling parameters, such as pressure 
affecting volatility of Li and potentially other fuel constituents, or magnetic 
field which enhances with INCREASING  temperature by the resultant 
establishment of SSP’s.  I think there are many parameters that may effect the 
rate of the LENR, not only temperature.  Resonant conditions may also play a 
role with with the speed of sound in the internals being an important 
parameter.  

Since we do not understand the mechanism occurring, its hard to guess the 
runaway mechanism.  In a nuclear fission reactor runaway is not temperature 
dependent.  It is a very fast reaction caused by an over abundance of fast 
neutrons that increase their population exponentially with time.  Of course in 
thermo-nuclear reactions temperature is the culprit.

It does seem that the LENR runaways happen pretty fast.  I do  not believe I 
have ever seen a time constant reported however.  Such a time constant may shed 
light on the LENR mechanism however.  

Finally, anharmonic mechanisms will make understanding even harder, but they 
may be a cause as well.  

Bob Cook

From: David Roberson Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would one 
explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with these 
systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by adding more 
fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional heat will be 
developed within the newly added material when it is subjected to the fixed 
temperature and current that initially exists.

So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of 2 at 
that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the temperature 
remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when you take out all 
of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must define the behavior as 
the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary along with that function.

The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is that COP 
is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel loading as 
long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out the interaction 
of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the COP as fuel is added 
to an initially constant temperature chamber to simplify the example.

Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving 
factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high 
temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current 
itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that current 
flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be extremely 
confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would not vary as 
the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this effect AFAIK 
unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the assumption is a COP of 
1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.

Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are proposing?  

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


  Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can be 
quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?

Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the 
current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Che]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Thomas Darden shall not avoid the requirements of the Licence Agreement
> and pay Rossi what is agreed upon. The positive ERV is the ONLY requirement
> for payment defined in the LA. Even the Pope must follow the law. Being
> a sainted person does not give that person the right to ignore
> a legally binding agreement.
>


Why the blazes is this troll here defending a vulture capitalist outfit
which is welching on a contract which has quite apparently NOT been voided
on the Rossi side..? I read the entire legal complaint. This *all* hinges
on the outcome of the long-term validation process. My understanding is
that this *was* a success.

Who's lying here... and why?

Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

[David Roberson]

Guys, lets hope that the radiation does not escape the system if we ever want 
to see any of these units become adopted in large numbers.  Be careful what you 
hope for!  I would be far more satisfied to find that the original measurement 
was not accurate.

If this radiation signal is for real, can the energy be confined to within a 
well shielded device?  I have not followed the testing too closely, but I tend 
to recoil at the mention of gamma radiation.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Apr 12, 2016 12:12 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication




On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:



We are all hoping for a repeat performance of the "signal", the gamma burst 
output.  In GS5.3, the team is much better prepared to monitor the radiations.  
Time bases for all of the data acquistions have been carefully synchronized.  
Amptek has generously loaned MFMP an X-123 CdTe x-ray spectrometer capable of 
about 6keV to 80keV measurement.  Mark Jurich has borrowed an x-ray 
scintillator system from SLAC to monitor.  The GM detector has been upgraded to 
a sensitive 2" pancake detector.




I'm looking forward to the conclusions.  I'm sure MFMP have done a range of 
calibrations; possibly something like these?

Calibrated the x-ray spectrometer and scintillator against known standards.
Verified that the x-ray spectrometer, the x-ray scintillator and GM detector 
work in coincidence (when there's a signal in one there's a signal in the 
others).
Taken background readings over a period of weeks n order to characterize 
occasional background events and avoid confusing them for a possible signal.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[David Roberson]

Eric,
 
I agree that there are many unknowns with respect to these devices that need to 
be researched.   But I do think that there are thought experiments that can be 
conducted which reveal general tendencies that we should not be afraid to 
attempt.  Carefully applied logic is a powerful tool that must not be 
overlooked.

You would make a good defense lawyer, always seeking that special explanation 
as to why your client is innocent.  I tend to focus on the more likely scenario 
instead but sometimes miss the special cases that arise.

I developed my technique by solving difficult problems in real world electronic 
designs.  To save time I always began by eliminating the quick and easy to 
perform tests and then progressively worked towards the most difficult and time 
consuming concepts.  I suppose I am guilty of using that same principle in my 
LENR thermal modeling processes.

You can bet that if the added fuel concept does not result in an increase to 
the system output temperature and thus power that I will backtrack quickly 
toward other ideas.  My beginning assumption is that more fuel yields higher 
COP provided the geometry remains constant since that seems more likely.

Dave

 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 11:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb



Dave,


My point is not a strong one.  It is largely a comment to the effect that there 
are many unknowns, and the relationship between amount of fuel and the heat 
that is produced in a LENR system may not be straightforward.  To answer your 
questions, suppose that for a given current (100 mA, say) there is a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel to get excess heat, e.g., 1g active fuel.  Any amount 
of fuel above this threshold will not contribute further without a higher 
current, and any amount below this threshold will decrease the excess heat 
seen.  Within these parameters one can still postulate excess heat as a 
function of temperature, which provides a second variable.  If the temperature 
is high, because there is good insulation, or we're using resistance heaters, 
that will multiply the excess heat in our thought experiment.


My point is only to highlight an assumption that I thought worth exploring -- 
that there is a simple relationship between the amount of fuel in a LENR system 
and the amount of excess heat that is developed.  I am not aware of an 
experiment in which any relationship, consistent with your suggestion or 
otherwise, is clearly shown.


Eric







On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would one 
explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with these 
systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by adding more 
fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional heat will be 
developed within the newly added material when it is subjected to the fixed 
temperature and current that initially exists.
 
So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of 2 at 
that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the temperature 
remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when you take out all 
of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must define the behavior as 
the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary along with that function.
 
The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is that COP 
is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel loading as 
long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out the interaction 
of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the COP as fuel is added 
to an initially constant temperature chamber to simplify the example.
 
Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving 
factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high 
temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current 
itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that current 
flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be extremely 
confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would not vary as 
the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this effect AFAIK 
unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the assumption is a COP of 
1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.
 
Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are proposing?  
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 

Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can be 
quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?



Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR

Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

We are all hoping for a repeat performance of the "signal", the gamma burst
> output.  In GS5.3, the team is much better prepared to monitor the
> radiations.  Time bases for all of the data acquistions have been carefully
> synchronized.  Amptek has generously loaned MFMP an X-123 CdTe x-ray
> spectrometer capable of about 6keV to 80keV measurement.  Mark Jurich has
> borrowed an x-ray scintillator system from SLAC to monitor.  The GM
> detector has been upgraded to a sensitive 2" pancake detector.
>

I'm looking forward to the conclusions.  I'm sure MFMP have done a range of
calibrations; possibly something like these?

   - Calibrated the x-ray spectrometer and scintillator against known
   standards.
   - Verified that the x-ray spectrometer, the x-ray scintillator and GM
   detector work in coincidence (when there's a signal in one there's a signal
   in the others).
   - Taken background readings over a period of weeks n order to
   characterize occasional background events and avoid confusing them for a
   possible signal.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[David Roberson]

I will be disappointed if the ERV report is not released in less than a month.  
Rossi will likely benefit by that release since he remained confined to that 
hell-hole for most of last year in order to coax it along.  Why would he be so 
inclined to personal torture unless he was convinced that this effort would 
ultimately end in him receiving the final $89 million?
 
I also find it difficult to believe that IH would not insist that their agents 
have access to the testing as well.  All the parties would benefit if the test 
were successful provided they did not have alternate agendas.  Something does 
not quite calculate properly in this situation.

It is best that we all hold our breaths and allow time for the story to further 
develop.

Dave


 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 10:10 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




Jed--
 
What I remember Rossi said was that he would release the report when his legal 
advisors said it was ok.  His legal advisors may have other issues associated 
with the release than mere legalities.  And there may be some legalities as 
well as contractual issues to consider over an above legalities, that have to 
do with the apparent contractual mutual control of the report from the 
oversight group.
 
For example, as the suit progresses Rossi may want to introduce the report as 
evidence with the blessing of the court, without objection from IH.  It may be 
that if IH would not agree with the introduction of the report during the court 
proceedings that would look bad to the Jury hearing the case and be a plus for 
Rossi.  If as he has suggested the report is favorable, and it its introduced 
to the court, it is also a plus for  Rossi in the Jury’s eyes.  
 
Lawyers worry about these type of things for good reason. 
 
Bob Cook

 

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

 

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

 
  
  
I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would   have already.

  
 
  
He has stated he will publish as soon as the   legalities are cleared. 

 
He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He could 
publish it anytime he wants.
 
- Jed
 

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Eric Walker]

Dave,

My point is not a strong one.  It is largely a comment to the effect that
there are many unknowns, and the relationship between amount of fuel and
the heat that is produced in a LENR system may not be straightforward.  To
answer your questions, suppose that for a given current (100 mA, say) there
is a minimally sufficient amount of fuel to get excess heat, e.g., 1g
active fuel.  Any amount of fuel above this threshold will not contribute
further without a higher current, and any amount below this threshold will
decrease the excess heat seen.  Within these parameters one can still
postulate excess heat as a function of temperature, which provides a second
variable.  If the temperature is high, because there is good insulation, or
we're using resistance heaters, that will multiply the excess heat in our
thought experiment.

My point is only to highlight an assumption that I thought worth exploring
-- that there is a simple relationship between the amount of fuel in a LENR
system and the amount of excess heat that is developed.  I am not aware of
an experiment in which any relationship, consistent with your suggestion or
otherwise, is clearly shown.

Eric



On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would
> one explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with
> these systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by
> adding more fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional
> heat will be developed within the newly added material when it is subjected
> to the fixed temperature and current that initially exists.
>
> So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of
> 2 at that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the
> temperature remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when
> you take out all of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must
> define the behavior as the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary
> along with that function.
>
> The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is
> that COP is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel
> loading as long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out
> the interaction of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the
> COP as fuel is added to an initially constant temperature chamber to
> simplify the example.
>
> Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving
> factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high
> temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current
> itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that
> current flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be
> extremely confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would
> not vary as the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this
> effect AFAIK unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the
> assumption is a COP of 1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.
>
> Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are
> proposing?
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can
>> be quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?
>
>
> Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the
> current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally
> sufficient amount of fuel.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[David Roberson]

Jed, how would you know that he can publish the report without a release?  Have 
you seen any documentation to that effect?  I do not have a clue about any 
agreement that may be in force.
 
Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




Lennart Thornros  wrote:

 

I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have already.



He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared. 



He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He could 
publish it anytime he wants.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[David Roberson]

Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature.  How else would one 
explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with these 
systems forever?  If the outside temperature does not increase by adding more 
fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional heat will be 
developed within the newly added material when it is subjected to the fixed 
temperature and current that initially exists.
 
So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of 2 at 
that initial temperature?  Apparently you are speculating that the temperature 
remains the same.  And in the extreme case, what happens when you take out all 
of the fuel?  The bottom line is that some function must define the behavior as 
the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary along with that function.

The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is that COP 
is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel loading as 
long as the system geometry remains the same.  I am leaving out the interaction 
of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the COP as fuel is added 
to an initially constant temperature chamber to simplify the example.

Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving 
factor instead of temperature.  Why would the device require such high 
temperatures in order to generate energy?  It is not clear that the current 
itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that current 
flowing through the resistive windings.  In any case I would be extremely 
confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would not vary as 
the amount of fuel is changed.  No one has ever suggested this effect AFAIK 
unless of course that there is no LENR present.  But the assumption is a COP of 
1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase.

Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are proposing?  

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can be 
quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?



Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the 
current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel.


Eric

[Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Jed--

What I remember Rossi said was that he would release the report when his legal 
advisors said it was ok.  His legal advisors may have other issues associated 
with the release than mere legalities.  And there may be some legalities as 
well as contractual issues to consider over an above legalities, that have to 
do with the apparent contractual mutual control of the report from the 
oversight group.

For example, as the suit progresses Rossi may want to introduce the report as 
evidence with the blessing of the court, without objection from IH.  It may be 
that if IH would not agree with the introduction of the report during the court 
proceedings that would look bad to the Jury hearing the case and be a plus for 
Rossi.  If as he has suggested the report is favorable, and it its introduced 
to the court, it is also a plus for  Rossi in the Jury’s eyes.  

Lawyers worry about these type of things for good reason. 

Bob Cook

From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

  I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have already.


  He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared. 

He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He could 
publish it anytime he wants.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have
> already.
>
> He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared.
>

He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He
could publish it anytime he wants.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can
> be quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?


Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the
current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally
sufficient amount of fuel.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Axil Axil]

Thomas Darden shall not avoid the requirements of the Licence Agreement and
pay Rossi what is agreed upon. The positive ERV is the ONLY requirement for
payment defined in the LA. Even the Pope must follow the law. Being
a sainted person does not give that person the right to ignore
a legally binding agreement.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> What really upsets  me is that folks are defending Rossi here versus
> Thomas Darden, a successful leader who has worked hard to invest and
> advance environmental technology.   Also someone who cut cheques of 11M
> plus to Andrea Rossi, by all public reports, a convicted fraudster who
> spent time in Jail.
>
> That's right, Darden gave real investor money to an ex-con.
>
> And yet people are defending Rossi, here?   Come on!!
>
> I really hope Rossi has something, but I think everyone would be better
> served if his Fans would grasp reality and speak to Rossi with a unified
> voice that it is now time for him to either go-away, shut down his blog,
> and STFU until he has something Real that he can share publically.
>
> On Monday, April 11, 2016, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> The study of LENR now requires a study of the law. Reading how the 89M is
>> paid has nothing to do with IP. Final payment is strictly based on a
>> positive ERV report. IMHO, I.H. cannot holdback payment because they are
>> not satisfied with the distribution of IP.
>>
>> Any IP issues are red herrings with regards to the final payment based on
>> the letter of the licence agreement.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, Thomas Darden is a committed environmentalist who's been working on
>>> these things for his whole life.  His whole network of friends are
>>> supportive of environmental causes.   This sort of thinking is what makes
>>> vortex a bit scary at times.
>>>
>>> The reality is that patents / etc are all meaningless.   Rossi just has
>>> to publish schematics for his device.   He's old and as far as I know
>>> doesn't have children.   Nothing in the world could stop him if he had
>>> anything real.
>>>
>>> It's pretty simple though.  The guy has a lose relationship with the
>>> truth and a history of causing clusters, and this is yet another.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2016, Che  wrote:
>>>

 This thought must have occurred to others -- even when things were
 going swimmingly... but I don't see mention of it bobbing to the surface
 here.

 Q: Could this entire undertaking with these present U.S. venture
 capitalists have been a set-up job all along -- *intended* to embroil and
 sink Rossi from the start: with the ultimate goal of sinking the entire
 LENR field if possible; but specifically aimed at doing its desired damage
 through (at the very least) tying the E-Cat up in the U.S. courts for
 years... and thus sidelining and ruining the legitimately-aggrieved parties
 (Rossi & Co.)..?

 Who would have an interest in doing just that..?





>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Blaze Spinnaker]

What really upsets  me is that folks are defending Rossi here versus Thomas
Darden, a successful leader who has worked hard to invest and advance
environmental technology.   Also someone who cut cheques of 11M plus to
Andrea Rossi, by all public reports, a convicted fraudster who spent time
in Jail.

That's right, Darden gave real investor money to an ex-con.

And yet people are defending Rossi, here?   Come on!!

I really hope Rossi has something, but I think everyone would be better
served if his Fans would grasp reality and speak to Rossi with a unified
voice that it is now time for him to either go-away, shut down his blog,
and STFU until he has something Real that he can share publically.

On Monday, April 11, 2016, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The study of LENR now requires a study of the law. Reading how the 89M is
> paid has nothing to do with IP. Final payment is strictly based on a
> positive ERV report. IMHO, I.H. cannot holdback payment because they are
> not satisfied with the distribution of IP.
>
> Any IP issues are red herrings with regards to the final payment based on
> the letter of the licence agreement.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
>> No, Thomas Darden is a committed environmentalist who's been working on
>> these things for his whole life.  His whole network of friends are
>> supportive of environmental causes.   This sort of thinking is what makes
>> vortex a bit scary at times.
>>
>> The reality is that patents / etc are all meaningless.   Rossi just has
>> to publish schematics for his device.   He's old and as far as I know
>> doesn't have children.   Nothing in the world could stop him if he had
>> anything real.
>>
>> It's pretty simple though.  The guy has a lose relationship with the
>> truth and a history of causing clusters, and this is yet another.
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 11, 2016, Che > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This thought must have occurred to others -- even when things were going
>>> swimmingly... but I don't see mention of it bobbing to the surface here.
>>>
>>> Q: Could this entire undertaking with these present U.S. venture
>>> capitalists have been a set-up job all along -- *intended* to embroil and
>>> sink Rossi from the start: with the ultimate goal of sinking the entire
>>> LENR field if possible; but specifically aimed at doing its desired damage
>>> through (at the very least) tying the E-Cat up in the U.S. courts for
>>> years... and thus sidelining and ruining the legitimately-aggrieved parties
>>> (Rossi & Co.)..?
>>>
>>> Who would have an interest in doing just that..?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Axil Axil]

The study of LENR now requires a study of the law. Reading how the 89M is
paid has nothing to do with IP. Final payment is strictly based on a
positive ERV report. IMHO, I.H. cannot holdback payment because they are
not satisfied with the distribution of IP.

Any IP issues are red herrings with regards to the final payment based on
the letter of the licence agreement.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> No, Thomas Darden is a committed environmentalist who's been working on
> these things for his whole life.  His whole network of friends are
> supportive of environmental causes.   This sort of thinking is what makes
> vortex a bit scary at times.
>
> The reality is that patents / etc are all meaningless.   Rossi just has to
> publish schematics for his device.   He's old and as far as I know doesn't
> have children.   Nothing in the world could stop him if he had anything
> real.
>
> It's pretty simple though.  The guy has a lose relationship with the truth
> and a history of causing clusters, and this is yet another.
>
>
> On Monday, April 11, 2016, Che  wrote:
>
>>
>> This thought must have occurred to others -- even when things were going
>> swimmingly... but I don't see mention of it bobbing to the surface here.
>>
>> Q: Could this entire undertaking with these present U.S. venture
>> capitalists have been a set-up job all along -- *intended* to embroil and
>> sink Rossi from the start: with the ultimate goal of sinking the entire
>> LENR field if possible; but specifically aimed at doing its desired damage
>> through (at the very least) tying the E-Cat up in the U.S. courts for
>> years... and thus sidelining and ruining the legitimately-aggrieved parties
>> (Rossi & Co.)..?
>>
>> Who would have an interest in doing just that..?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Blaze Spinnaker]

No, Thomas Darden is a committed environmentalist who's been working on
these things for his whole life.  His whole network of friends are
supportive of environmental causes.   This sort of thinking is what makes
vortex a bit scary at times.

The reality is that patents / etc are all meaningless.   Rossi just has to
publish schematics for his device.   He's old and as far as I know doesn't
have children.   Nothing in the world could stop him if he had anything
real.

It's pretty simple though.  The guy has a lose relationship with the truth
and a history of causing clusters, and this is yet another.

On Monday, April 11, 2016, Che  wrote:

>
> This thought must have occurred to others -- even when things were going
> swimmingly... but I don't see mention of it bobbing to the surface here.
>
> Q: Could this entire undertaking with these present U.S. venture
> capitalists have been a set-up job all along -- *intended* to embroil and
> sink Rossi from the start: with the ultimate goal of sinking the entire
> LENR field if possible; but specifically aimed at doing its desired damage
> through (at the very least) tying the E-Cat up in the U.S. courts for
> years... and thus sidelining and ruining the legitimately-aggrieved parties
> (Rossi & Co.)..?
>
> Who would have an interest in doing just that..?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[Blaze Spinnaker]

tax fraud is tax fraud.   Even if he was cleared in court of other things,
a pattern exists.

Anyways, the real point here is it's time for  his fan base to tell him to
put up or shut up.

On Monday, April 11, 2016, Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> It is wrong to say Rossi have a pattern of fraud. He is cleared of that in
> court, and the pattern of the affair in italy looks more like bad
> industrialization facing mafia of wastes.
>
> he have however a pattern of :
> - industrialization problems(Petroldragon, BiTe TEG, E-cat)
> - loose evidences (TEG, E-cat demo 1/2, Ferrara, lugano)
> - secrecy and lack of trust
> - inflated expectations (Petroldragon, TEG, E-cat)
>
> about IH , I see no other partner who moan on them.
>
> Don't put on malice what you can put on lack of rigor and distrust on
> humanity.
>
>
> 2016-04-11 14:59 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker  >:
>
>> Look, I am hopeful he actually has 50x COP... But seriously folks.
>> Thomas Darden had an impeccable reputation.  He also went out on a limb and
>> gave Rossi 11m plus USD.
>>
>> Rossi, on the hand, has absolutely nothing but a pattern of fraud and
>> deceit.
>>
>> 50x COP is an absolute crazy number when he could barely show anything
>> realiably in any previous test.
>>
>> Let's hope it proves true, but at this point even the most ardent
>> believer should be exceedingly skeptical until Rossi ponies up something
>> real or we get some very very solid replications.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

[Axil Axil]

 Ólafsson has gotten the reaction (LENR?) to work without LASER
activation...just by using heat. I remember somebody tell us about this a
few days ago.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> Jones, can you elaborate on Holmlid's call for replication?
>
>
>
> He (Ólafsson) did not suggest anything specific, but it will be helpful
> when/if someone starts a dedicated site (or subsite addition) for
> experimenters to use specifically for the Holmlid effect, since there are a
> number of approaches to either Holmlid or desktop ICF which can be included
> under the same umbrella – which is a far cry cost-wise from what is
> practiced for ICF by the big labs. Jack Cole or Alain could be interested
> in branching out this way - or MFMP. It is a bit surprising that
> replication attempts have not been forthcoming.
>
>
>
> The difficult part is verifying muons – but that can come later if any
> evidence of excess heat turns up. Hopefully MFMP will consider radiation
> testing for devices of others - using the same sophisticated equipment
> which Alan Goldwater is using … at least for any experiment in Silicon
> Valley which can be moved to another location.
>
>
>
> There are a number of ways to proceed with a hybrid of the Holmlid laser
> technique combined with something else, such as the obvious addition of low
> powered laser irradiation to the glow-tube (as in Letts-Cravens) or as a
> complete substitute heat source - so that resistance wire can be ditched.
> The Letts-Cravens effect combines electrolysis with low powered lasers and
> magnets. AFAIK this is the only experiment which EarthTech in Austin has
> said was found to be gainful by them, including lots of failed Pd-D failed
> trials over the years, which did not employ a laser. The big benefit is
> moderate overall temperature.
>
>
>
> My recent approach to a hybrid setup is to use semi-coherent
> (monochromatic) photons as the light source – with which to irradiate a
> translucent cell. This could work with a glow tube if it was translucent. A
> laser is more efficient for incandescent photons from Kanthal wire but both
> a 20 times less efficient than sodium vapor. This should work at low
> temperature, assuming SPP can be produced by the photons. This approach is
> low budget and is almost ready for testing.
>
>
>
> In terms of economics, a low pressure sodium vapor light source,
> ultra-efficient at 15 watts - costing about 1,000 times less than a laser
> for equal number of photons – has the obvious drawback of lack of full
> coherency. It could be that the Holmlid effect demands full coherency but
> SPP do not demand it. That is the goal and advancement which could come out
> of a simple test - to see if focused monochromatic light (same wavelength
> at the YAG, in the yellow-green) will make SPPs as well as laser light.
>
>
>
> Note – Holmlid was not aware of an SPP modality, when asked about this
> last year, but one thing he does better than any other scientist I know of
> - is to evolve based on collaboration. Not many top scientists have
> controlled their ego so as to have so many talented collaborators as LH ---
> and now it looks like Ólafsson is the heir apparent, so I hope he continues
> the tradition.
>

RE: [Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Jones, can you elaborate on Holmlid's call for replication?

 

He (Ólafsson) did not suggest anything specific, but it will be helpful when/if 
someone starts a dedicated site (or subsite addition) for experimenters to use 
specifically for the Holmlid effect, since there are a number of approaches to 
either Holmlid or desktop ICF which can be included under the same umbrella – 
which is a far cry cost-wise from what is practiced for ICF by the big labs. 
Jack Cole or Alain could be interested in branching out this way - or MFMP. It 
is a bit surprising that replication attempts have not been forthcoming. 

 

The difficult part is verifying muons – but that can come later if any evidence 
of excess heat turns up. Hopefully MFMP will consider radiation testing for 
devices of others - using the same sophisticated equipment which Alan Goldwater 
is using … at least for any experiment in Silicon Valley which can be moved to 
another location.

 

There are a number of ways to proceed with a hybrid of the Holmlid laser 
technique combined with something else, such as the obvious addition of low 
powered laser irradiation to the glow-tube (as in Letts-Cravens) or as a 
complete substitute heat source - so that resistance wire can be ditched. The 
Letts-Cravens effect combines electrolysis with low powered lasers and magnets. 
AFAIK this is the only experiment which EarthTech in Austin has said was found 
to be gainful by them, including lots of failed Pd-D failed trials over the 
years, which did not employ a laser. The big benefit is moderate overall 
temperature.

 

My recent approach to a hybrid setup is to use semi-coherent (monochromatic) 
photons as the light source – with which to irradiate a translucent cell. This 
could work with a glow tube if it was translucent. A laser is more efficient 
for incandescent photons from Kanthal wire but both a 20 times less efficient 
than sodium vapor. This should work at low temperature, assuming SPP can be 
produced by the photons. This approach is low budget and is almost ready for 
testing.

 

In terms of economics, a low pressure sodium vapor light source, 
ultra-efficient at 15 watts - costing about 1,000 times less than a laser for 
equal number of photons – has the obvious drawback of lack of full coherency. 
It could be that the Holmlid effect demands full coherency but SPP do not 
demand it. That is the goal and advancement which could come out of a simple 
test - to see if focused monochromatic light (same wavelength at the YAG, in 
the yellow-green) will make SPPs as well as laser light. 

 

Note – Holmlid was not aware of an SPP modality, when asked about this last 
year, but one thing he does better than any other scientist I know of - is to 
evolve based on collaboration. Not many top scientists have controlled their 
ego so as to have so many talented collaborators as LH --- and now it looks 
like Ólafsson is the heir apparent, so I hope he continues the tradition.

Re: [Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[Alain Sepeda]

the claim is an article in Il coriere dela serra where the unbiased
journalist was really upset that he was only condemned for environmental
infrigment and tax fraud..

I gathered many article in that thread
http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/t-2384.html

.

2016-04-11 18:36 GMT+02:00 Jones Beene :

> *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com
>
> It is wrong to say Rossi have a pattern of fraud. He is cleared of that in
> court…
>
> Alain – Not so fast.
>
> Answer me this, even Rossi has NEVER said he was cleared of all of the
> many felonies he served time for in Italy – only the one from
> Petroldragon. Most were for Tax evasion, but is that OK?
>
> And at best - your argument is with Gary Wright and other skeptics in
> Italy who claim to have checked with Italian authorities on Rossi’s claim
> that he had the prior convictions overturned. Have you actually seen the
> paper work from Italy to verify your claim that he was cleared? They say
> he was not cleared.
>
> That could be yet another of Rossi’s lies. Of course, you can say that
> Wright or the other skeptics are also lying - but their claims are now
> looking more realistic, now that Industrial Heat says Rossi is lying -
> and that IH witnessed no overunity. As you know IH is credible, even if
> Rossi and his critics are not.
>
> Aren’t you overlooking that the other felonies, at the very least?
>
>

[Vo]: MFMP GS5.3 - a replication

[Bob Higgins]

Alan Goldwater, Bob Greenyer, Skip Reynolds, and Mark Jurich (hope I didn't
miss anyone there) have begun a replication of the GS5.2 experiment, deftly
named GS5.3.  The experiment is in the early phases of heat treatment of
the Ni powder I believe.  The live video feed links can be found at:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/11/mfmp-team-starts-new-live-glowstick-experiment/

Admittedly, at this stage it it as exciting as watching paint dry.  We are
all hoping for a repeat performance of the "signal", the gamma burst
output.  In GS5.3, the team is much better prepared to monitor the
radiations.  Time bases for all of the data acquistions have been carefully
synchronized.  Amptek has generously loaned MFMP an X-123 CdTe x-ray
spectrometer capable of about 6keV to 80keV measurement.  Mark Jurich has
borrowed an x-ray scintillator system from SLAC to monitor.  The GM
detector has been upgraded to a sensitive 2" pancake detector.  I believe
they also have the Optris camera running.  If the signal pixie makes an
appearance, it will definitely be in the limelight.

The experiment will be running continuously for several days to come.  It
takes a team to monitor such an experiment over so long a period.

Jones, can you elaborate on Holmlid's call for replication?


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Since the Rossi/IH announcements, Vortex-L has been deluged with useless
> and boring posturing and insulting angry remarks.  In a month we will all
> wonder why we wasted so much of our collective time - like waving fans in
> the vacuum of space to improve the convective cooling.
>
> Bob - I agree with you – and especially now that Alan has a new
> experiment underway. Have you any new info on that?
>
> Everyone seems to have made their positions clear. There will be another
> predictable round of posturing when IH files their answer, but let’s move
> on to science.
>
> Ólafsson is calling for replications of the Holmlid effect. That is
> another great place to start.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Axil Axil]

It is true, a patent troll with distribution rights could be well positions
to stop the  sale of the LENR product.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Che  wrote:

>
> This thought must have occurred to others -- even when things were going
> swimmingly... but I don't see mention of it bobbing to the surface here.
>
> Q: Could this entire undertaking with these present U.S. venture
> capitalists have been a set-up job all along -- *intended* to embroil and
> sink Rossi from the start: with the ultimate goal of sinking the entire
> LENR field if possible; but specifically aimed at doing its desired damage
> through (at the very least) tying the E-Cat up in the U.S. courts for
> years... and thus sidelining and ruining the legitimately-aggrieved parties
> (Rossi & Co.)..?
>
> Who would have an interest in doing just that..?
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi/E-Cat lawsuit: A long-in-the-making set-up job..?

[Che]

This thought must have occurred to others -- even when things were going
swimmingly... but I don't see mention of it bobbing to the surface here.

Q: Could this entire undertaking with these present U.S. venture
capitalists have been a set-up job all along -- *intended* to embroil and
sink Rossi from the start: with the ultimate goal of sinking the entire
LENR field if possible; but specifically aimed at doing its desired damage
through (at the very least) tying the E-Cat up in the U.S. courts for
years... and thus sidelining and ruining the legitimately-aggrieved parties
(Rossi & Co.)..?

Who would have an interest in doing just that..?

RE: [Vo]: A plea for patience

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins

Since the Rossi/IH announcements, Vortex-L has been deluged with useless and 
boring posturing and insulting angry remarks.  In a month we will all wonder 
why we wasted so much of our collective time - like waving fans in the vacuum 
of space to improve the convective cooling.  
Bob - I agree with you – and especially now that Alan has a new experiment 
underway. Have you any new info on that?
Everyone seems to have made their positions clear. There will be another 
predictable round of posturing when IH files their answer, but let’s move on to 
science. 
Ólafsson is calling for replications of the Holmlid effect. That is another 
great place to start.

[Vo]: A plea for patience

[Bob Higgins]

Since the Rossi/IH announcements, Vortex-L has been deluged with useless
and boring posturing and insulting angry remarks.  In a month we will all
wonder why we wasted so much of our collective time - like waving fans in
the vacuum of space to improve the convective cooling.  Soon data will
emerge and we will understand a situation which we cannot understand with
the data available to us today.

I have reached the point that I am deleting all of the lines of the
argumentative traffic without even reading anymore.

I would certainly like to see more interesting posts.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Adrian--
>
> I believe you!
>
> Bob Cook
>
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > From: a.ashfi...@verizon.net
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: More from Goat-guyRe:
> > Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:38:43 -0400
> >
> > Bob,
> > "I do not think what you have said fits this definition very well. I bet
> > your pay is 0 lbs sterling, maybe a shilling. :0)"
> >
> > Keep in mind I used that analogy because I was replying to Jones who was
> > getting hot and bothered about foreign engineers and licenses. But there
> > do seem to be some parallels between Rossi and the Wright Bros.
> >
> > I have lived in the US for nearly 40 years now so I don't see many
> > pounds and shillings.
> >
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: More from Goat-guyRe:

[Bob Cook]

Adrian--

I believe you!

Bob Cook

> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> From: a.ashfi...@verizon.net
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: More from Goat-guyRe:
> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:38:43 -0400
> 
> Bob,
> "I do not think what you have said fits this definition very well. I bet 
> your pay is 0 lbs sterling, maybe a shilling. :0)"
> 
> Keep in mind I used that analogy because I was replying to Jones who was 
> getting hot and bothered about foreign engineers and licenses. But there 
> do seem to be some parallels between Rossi and the Wright Bros.
> 
> I have lived in the US for nearly 40 years now so I don't see many 
> pounds and shillings.
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[David Roberson]

Jones,

I can not get into the mind of Rossi or Darden for that matter and understand 
exactly why we are seeing such an unpleasant circumstance.  We would all rather 
see the issue resolved and LENR advanced but this is what we have to deal with.

There have been many occasions when I would have liked to grab Rossi by the 
shoulders and insist that he give us direct answers to the many questions that 
arise, but this is not possible.  He has been difficult to read as everyone 
realizes.  That is part of the nature of creative individuals in many cases.

I have made many attempts to read between the lines in an effort to better 
understand the current situation and have come up empty.  I have a great deal 
of respect for Darden  and feel that he is sincere, but I realize that he is a 
venture capitalist and making money is one of his prime objectives.  Could he 
be using the tools at his disposal for this purpose?

So, it remains important for us to keep an open mind until the dust settles 
before any accurate conclusions can be drawn.  The ERV should help us to decide 
what is true and before that report is released I am going to stand by.  At 
this point all I can do is to understand the basic principles of operation for 
these types of devices and assume that Rossi is not totally faking his claims.

As I have pointed out, if we accept that a COP of 1.5 is real, then there 
should be virtually no limitation to the level that can be achieved with proper 
design.  This is not the same as stating that a practical level of output power 
at that high level of COP can be obtained.  The amount of fuel might become 
uneconomical at some point, or the size of the device could become excessive, 
etc.

I sincerely hope that Rossi is giving us the honest facts, but that is not 
adequately proven so far.  Until that time I remain hopefully optimistic.  You 
appear to be more skeptical than most guys on the vortex.  I hope that one day 
soon we will all reach a consensus.  The world needs LENR so badly.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 1:07 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb



Dave,
One other thing. I mention this because your opinion is important here, so 
please consider this: Tom Darden says that he has seen no thermal gain from 
Rossi. 

Tom Darden is an honest man and put $10 million of his money up front. Jed 
Rothwell has visited him and affirms that he is an honest man and wants to put 
more money into a valid device. His reputation is clean. Rossi’s reputation is 
not just soiled, it stinks.
But above the reputations there is the science, and as you suggest – if a COP 
of 1.5 could be staged by linking many levels -- so that COP of 6 was the 
result, then please tell me why Rossi never could do this and present it to Tom 
Darden? 
If Rossi had done this, we would not be witnessing this soap opera.

From: David Roberson

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 

Not true at all, Dave 
The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 
Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.

Re: [Vo]:Re: More from Goat-guyRe:

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
"I do not think what you have said fits this definition very well. I bet 
your pay is 0 lbs sterling, maybe a shilling. :0)"


Keep in mind I used that analogy because I was replying to Jones who was 
getting hot and bothered about foreign engineers and licenses. But there 
do seem to be some parallels between Rossi and the Wright Bros.


I have lived in the US for nearly 40 years now so I don't see many 
pounds and shillings.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Axil Axil]

The self sustain mode can only be produced when the reactor is configured
for the Cat/Mouse setup. Also control (no meltdown) requires that the mouse
must be low powered (COP = 1,2)

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil Axil wrote. "Rossi uses the Mouse/Cat setup to amplify the COP by
> using multiple satellite unpowered reactors. Nobody has replicated this
> setup yet."
>
> Yes, I had the same thought and mentioned it to Mats.  I did not want to
> publish it in view of the pending court case...  I believe the 250kW units
> have this layout.  The one Rossi demonstrated earlier had three units and
> so the one in the middle could supply heat to those on either side.   I
> speculate this is one of the advantages of the E-Cat X where small units
> can be bundled and individually controlled by taking electric power out.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: More from Goat-guy

[Axil Axil]

Because the situation is so complex, any violation of common sense is
unhelpful to understand what has and is happening. To understand the
situation, making political points using spin and an appeal to emotion
 must be identified and called out.

A law suite is a complex situation where untruths are the norm and finding
out who is on the side of justice is mind boggling.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Axil--
>
> Are you saying this: “Who ever came up with this criticism of the ERV is
> full of hate and has lost any credibility IMHO,”?
>
> If so, I agree with you on this issue, but I am surprised at these words
> coming from you.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 11, 2016 9:15 AM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More from Goat-guy
>
> Rossi has said that there was both security and employees of the customer
> at the plant when he was there. How could one man run a plant 24/7/465? It
> takes a large crew to cover the operation of an industrial plant full time
> without interruption. This is usually done in three shifts: day, swing and
> mid.
>
> Who ever came up with this criticism of the ERV is full of hate and has
> lost any credibility IMHO,
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Robert Dorr  wrote:
>
>>
>> Does taking measurements constitute "running" a boiler? As far as I know
>> no one has ever said that they ran the boiler. (Penon, etc)
>>
>> Robert Dorr
>> WA7ZQR
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/2016 8:14 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>>
>> In answer to those who claim that Rossi’s friends and countrymen - Penon
>> and Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though neither has
>> professional certification in this country and both were admittedly illegally
>> operating a boiler within the City of Miami in violation of municipal
>> codes, there is the following… from the goatster.
>>
>> BTW… the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove both
>> of these fine “engineers” are subject to immediate deportation for
>> committing numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws while
>> on a work visa …
>>
>> Goat-guy has this to say:
>>
>> “There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working
>> at the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There were
>> hundreds of completely competent engineers, physicists and designers
>> overseeing the construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear power plants.
>> Fukushima demonstrated that they hadn't considered the consequence of a
>> natural disaster. Engineers, for all their earnestness aren't
>> particularly good at being either curious enough  -- or more-delicately, are
>> not inclined to say anything bad about their employer's machinery” END
>> of quote.
>>
>> If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test,
>> which allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal 
>> consequences.
>> If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him much more than
>> Rossi has paid him.
>>
>> Deportation would be a blessing.
>>
>> Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them
>> ASAP so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However,
>> Rossi is probably smart enough to have sent them packing already.
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12011 - Release Date: 04/11/16
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[a.ashfield]

Axil Axil wrote. "Rossi uses the Mouse/Cat setup to amplify the COP by 
using multiple satellite unpowered reactors. Nobody has replicated this 
setup yet."


Yes, I had the same thought and mentioned it to Mats.  I did not want to 
publish it in view of the pending court case...  I believe the 250kW 
units have this layout.  The one Rossi demonstrated earlier had three 
units and so the one in the middle could supply heat to those on either 
side.   I speculate this is one of the advantages of the E-Cat X where 
small units can be bundled and individually controlled by taking 
electric power out.

[Vo]:Re: More from Goat-guyRe:

[Bob Cook]

"Shill can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either 
all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as 
an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, such a critic would be an 
indirect shill for the industry at large, because said critic's income is 
tied to the prosperity of the industry."-- Wikipedia


Adrian--

I do not think what you have said fits this definition very well.  I bet 
your pay is 0 lbs sterling, maybe a shilling. :0)


Bob Cook

-Original Message- 
From: a.ashfield

Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:More from Goat-guyRe:

AA. "Another ad hominem rant from the specialist.
I suppose you think the Wright Bros should have been put in jail for
designing, building add flying a machine without an AMERICAN degree or
any of the proper licenses. "

Jones.  "Ashfield,
Once again, you  expose yourself as an unthinking shill.
Are you being paid to post this nonsense?
Get lost."

AA. Actually the Wright Bros is a good analogy.  They worked long hours
with great determination.  Their early flights were disbelieved by
academia and the know-it-alls.  Later analysis has shown they probably
did exaggerate their achievements and the first flyer could not have
flown level.  But what they did was remarkable and greatly contributed
to aviation.

Jones, you have avoided answering the question several times.  What
experience do you have?

[Vo]:we are advised why and how to stop the VUCA orgy- mad battles

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/04/apr-11-2016-how-to-finish-vuca-orgy-now.html

I am angry- too few LENR stuff today? Perhaps later...?

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jones Beene]

Dave,

One other thing. I mention this because your opinion is important here, so 
please consider this: Tom Darden says that he has seen no thermal gain from 
Rossi. 

Tom Darden is an honest man and put $10 million of his money up front. Jed 
Rothwell has visited him and affirms that he is an honest man and wants to put 
more money into a valid device. His reputation is clean. Rossi’s reputation is 
not just soiled, it stinks.

But above the reputations there is the science, and as you suggest – if a COP 
of 1.5 could be staged by linking many levels -- so that COP of 6 was the 
result, then please tell me why Rossi never could do this and present it to Tom 
Darden? 

If Rossi had done this, we would not be witnessing this soap opera.

From: David Roberson 

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 

Not true at all, Dave 

The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 

Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[David Roberson]

Yes Jones, but I have always maintained the fact that COP can be raised 
whenever the beginning point is greater than 1.  I do not agree that it has a 
limitation as long as the geometry can be adjusted.

For example.  take a design that has a fixed surface area and volume with a 
measured amount of fuel contained within.  If you agree that this design can 
deliver a COP of 1.5 then you must agree that the outer surface temperature can 
be determined to be at some level, when a certain input power is applied.

Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can be 
quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct?  The new 
quantity of fuel just added must put out additional heat once it is subjected 
to the original internal temperature.  Any new heat exiting the device adds to 
the original quantity that was used to calculate the original COP.

This is very simple to understand and I do not see any explanation that can be 
used to deny that the COP should nearly double in the new example.  The same 
general type of arguement can be applied by the addition of insulation.

In both cases above the input power can remain the same while the output power 
varies depending upon the amount of fuel that is inserted within the fixed 
volume.  In a like manner the COP can be reduced to 1 by removing all of the 
fuel.  It works both ways.

Can you point out why this would not work as I have described?  A simple 
example would suffice.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 12:24 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb



From: David Roberson 

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 
 
Not true at all, Dave 
 
The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 
 
Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.


 

RE: [Vo]:More from Goat-guyRe:

[a.ashfield]

AA. "Another ad hominem rant from the specialist.
I suppose you think the Wright Bros should have been put in jail for 
designing, building add flying a machine without an AMERICAN degree or 
any of the proper licenses. "


Jones.  "Ashfield,
Once again, you  expose yourself as an unthinking shill.
Are you being paid to post this nonsense?
Get lost."

AA. Actually the Wright Bros is a good analogy.  They worked long hours 
with great determination.  Their early flights were disbelieved by 
academia and the know-it-alls.  Later analysis has shown they probably 
did exaggerate their achievements and the first flyer could not have 
flown level.  But what they did was remarkable and greatly contributed 
to aviation.


Jones, you have avoided answering the question several times.  What 
experience do you have?

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Axil Axil]

>From Rossi’s blog.
Teemu:
I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were
enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they
were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in
Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM
Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and
appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney.
IH knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement
with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the
President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also
my Attorney. No problem has been raised by IH.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Cook
>
> The agreement between Rossi and IH specifies that acceptable results would
> be a COP of 4 to 6 (NOT 6) as I read the document…. Furthermore Rossi
> frequently indicated that the reactor at the customer was in a
> self-sustaining mode which may have meant that the COP was quite high--50
> as suggested.
>
> Firstly, there is/was no customer. The testing was done of the premises
> of the President of Leonardo.
>
> Secondly, ask yourself why Darden did not see any gain over the 3 years
> and $10 million up front. If you were involved, in Rossi’s shoes -
> wouldn’t you make absolutely sure he Darden had seen a little gain, even
> if was not high COP?
>
> As Jed who is in a much better position to comment than anyone else, who
> has posted on this subject agrees, having visited them -  IH is credible. That
> speaks volumes to me.
>
> Rossi has been convicted of doing similar scams. Rossi’s minions blindly think
> he is credible, despite his criminal record and the TEG scam, and despite
> the fact that now – we have been shown a clear way that high COP can be
> faked. Before Goat-guy we did not have that critical piece of the puzzle
> – how he and Penon pulled off faking the data.
>
> And guess what Bob, the initial pleadings of Rossi/Leonardo, which always
> put your best case scenario out for view - say nothing – absolutely
> nothing, about infinite COP.  That is important because infinite COP would
> not be possible with the cheat – however COP of 50 would be possible with
> the cheat.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Axil Axil]

Rossi uses the Mouse/Cat setup to amplify the COP by using multiple
satellite unpowered reactors. Nobody has replicated this setup yet.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Jack Cole
>
> 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,
>
> Good post and let me fill in a few of the gaps, since the devil is in the
> details and the scam becomes crystal clear when all the details are all
> presented together.
>
> First - There is no doubt in my mind that Rossi can show anomalous thermal 
> gain.
> It has been done with Ni-H for 25 years, starting with Piantelli and
> Thermacore.
>
> Second – This disagreement is not just about showing an energy anomaly –
> and making it run reliably. To get the 100 million, according to the
> contract, Rossi has to demonstrate an astounding COP of 6. That has never
> been done reliably and would be the breakthrough, if true.
>
> All of us who have been around this field are convinced, that with a properly
> done experiment COP of about 1.5 is doable – even old had. Thermacore,
> one the top companies in thermal engineering - ran multiple reactors for
> over a year at COP 1.5 average in the nineties - and their proof was
> overwhelming… but despite all efforts, they could not make the gain go
> higher than 1.5 and fossil fuel was cheap then.
>
> Rossi can do the normal Ni-H version, we must assume, and get COP 1.5. If
> he is good, he may have pushed the gain to COP ~2-3. That would be
> admittedly a valuable advance, but falls short of the big bucks in the
> contract. The reason that Rossi and his stooges are dishonest here, and have
> resorted to using the air-for-steam cheat which Goat-Guy discovered - is
> that AR has to make the gain seem much higher than it is to get the big
> bucks.
>
> He cannot do that without cheating – apparently, or otherwise there is no
> reason not to demonstrate this to real third party expert.
>
> When IH’s pleadings arrive, and it will probably take a few weeks perhaps
> – this is most likely what they will say. They may even ask that the
> court appoint an expert to do independent testing – and this should
> please everyone … except a cheater.
>
>

[Vo]:Re: More from Goat-guy

[Bob Cook]

Axil--

Are you saying this: “Who ever came up with this criticism of the ERV is full 
of hate and has lost any credibility IMHO,”?

If so, I agree with you on this issue, but I am surprised at these words coming 
from you.

Bob Cook


From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:15 AM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More from Goat-guy

Rossi has said that there was both security and employees of the customer at 
the plant when he was there. How could one man run a plant 24/7/465? It takes a 
large crew to cover the operation of an industrial plant full time without 
interruption. This is usually done in three shifts: day, swing and mid. 

Who ever came up with this criticism of the ERV is full of hate and has lost 
any credibility IMHO,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Robert Dorr  wrote:


  Does taking measurements constitute "running" a boiler? As far as I know no 
one has ever said that they ran the boiler. (Penon, etc)

  Robert Dorr
  WA7ZQR 



  On 4/11/2016 8:14 AM, Jones Beene wrote: 
In answer to those who claim that Rossi’s friends and countrymen - Penon 
and Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though neither has professional 
certification in this country and both were admittedly illegally operating a 
boiler within the City of Miami in violation of municipal codes, there is the 
following… from the goatster. 

BTW… the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove both of 
these fine “engineers” are subject to immediate deportation for committing 
numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws while on a work visa … 

Goat-guy has this to say:


“There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working at 
the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There were hundreds 
of completely competent engineers, physicists and designers overseeing the 
construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear power plants. Fukushima 
demonstrated that they hadn't considered the consequence of a natural disaster. 
Engineers, for all their earnestness aren't particularly good at being either 
curious enough  -- or more-delicately, are not inclined to say anything bad 
about their employer's machinery” END of quote.

If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test, which 
allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal consequences. 
If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him much more than Rossi has 
paid him. 

Deportation would be a blessing. 

Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them ASAP 
so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However, Rossi is 
probably smart enough to have sent them packing already.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12011 - Release Date: 04/11/16

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Axil Axil]

I.H employees where at the plant to monitor the performance of the ERV.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:04 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Craig,
> It is hard to tell who said what in this format.
> I was talking about Rossi's prior demos when I wrote that.  The 1MW plant
> is a different story.  The proof is supposed to come from an independent
> third party - the ERV.
>
>
> ">>>He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The
> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's
> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at
> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.
>
> Does the license agreement look like IH can interpret it? It reads as
> though the ERV certifies that the device complied with a set of
> specifications. If it did, then the ERV certifies it.
>
> Section 5. Guaranteed Performance.
>
> "The ERV (or another party acceptable to the Company and Leonardo) will be
> engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance."
>
> I don't see where IH has the authority under the agreement to make any
> kind of judgment on the report.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 04/10/2016 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield < a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You write.  "I know how the people at I.H. do it,"
>> How do you know that?
>
>
> As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them.
>
>
>
>> I doubt anyone who writes about this story knows the players better than
>> Mats Lewan.   I judge him technically competent.
>
>
> He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The
> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's
> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at
> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.
>
> I am not talking about personality, motivation, or anything else. I have
> narrowed this down to one question. Who is better at evaluating
> calorimetry? In my opinion, I.H. is, but I could be wrong.
>
> I take the two press releases at face value. I am assuming that Rossi
> means what he says, and I.H. means what they say. If I.H. actually thought
> the machine works, they would be crazy not to pay him the $89 million.
>
>
>
>> I get the feeling Rossi simply doesn't care about making a foolproof demo.
>
>
> He must do this if he wants the $89 million. That is what is stipulated in
> the contract.
>
> - Jed"
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[Jones Beene]

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com 

It is wrong to say Rossi have a pattern of fraud. He is cleared of that in 
court…

Alain – Not so fast. 
Answer me this, even Rossi has NEVER said he was cleared of all of the many 
felonies he served time for in Italy – only the one from Petroldragon. Most 
were for Tax evasion, but is that OK?

And at best - your argument is with Gary Wright and other skeptics in Italy who 
claim to have checked with Italian authorities on Rossi’s claim that he had the 
prior convictions overturned. Have you actually seen the paper work from Italy 
to verify your claim that he was cleared? They say he was not cleared.

That could be yet another of Rossi’s lies. Of course, you can say that Wright 
or the other skeptics are also lying - but their claims are now looking more 
realistic, now that Industrial Heat says Rossi is lying - and that IH witnessed 
no overunity. As you know IH is credible, even if Rossi and his critics are not.

Aren’t you overlooking that the other felonies, at the very least?

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Axil Axil]

Patent law requires that Rossi be identified as inventor even if he did not
know that the patent was filed. I.H. has the right to file patents in
Rossi;s name and claim co assignment as inventor.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> Perhaps Rossi NEEDS to take it back in court so any patent applications
> made by IH that are based on Rossi materials and IP are stripped and
> assigned to Rossi. He certainly wants the money most but I think he is also
> very concerned about the new IH patents and how much IP that IH has shared
> with competitors. The liability could be enormous compared to the 89M.
>
> Fran
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 10, 2016 9:59 PM
> *To:* vortex-l 
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb
>
>
>
> Rossi would not has gone to court if the ERV was not supportive of his
> case.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
> Craig Haynie  wrote:
>
>
>
> Rossi also wants his intellectual property back. Last year, IH filed a
> patent on Rossi's technology.
>
>
>
> I.H. said his device does not work, therefore the intellectual property is
> worthless. Plus they have not paid him the $89 million. So I.H. no reason
> to keep it, and no standing to keep it (since they have not paid). Even if
> they said they want it, I expect any judge would rule they have to give it
> back.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jones Beene]

From: David Roberson 

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level. 

 

Not true at all, Dave 

 

The COP of 1.5 requires good insulation to begin with. We have been thought 
this before, if you will remember. 

 

Achieving net gain requires a trigger, but every experimenter in the field has 
noted that a thermal trigger is no sufficient. Look at the old posts. An 
electrical trigger of some kind is also necessary, otherwise – the units could 
be linked in stages. There are dozens of posts in the archive on this – some 
from you, IIRC.

 

[Vo]:Re: Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Dave--

I would agree with that assessment. 

All Rossi had to do in the contract was to produce 100 C steam or hotter.  Some 
insulation and a slight pressure above atmospheric would achieve that.  
Assuming the control system did not take to much power and the system was self 
sustaining with no extra input energy other than that needed for control, the 
COP could go up significantly.  The controlling parameter may be the pressure 
inside the reactor as has been suggested in several Ni-H reactors that produced 
excess power as being important, since it effects the volatility of fuel.  Such 
a control scheme would take little power.   

Bob Cook



From: David Roberson 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 9:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Jones,

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level.  
This is a basic effect that should be obvious to anyone that realizes that the 
more heat energy that you trap within the system, the hotter it must become.

What am I missing that limits the COP to a low level?  Could you please shed 
light upon this issue?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:25 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb


From: Jack Cole 
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,
Good post and let me fill in a few of the gaps, since the devil is in the 
details and the scam becomes crystal clear when all the details are all 
presented together. 
First - There is no doubt in my mind that Rossi can show anomalous thermal 
gain. It has been done with Ni-H for 25 years, starting with Piantelli and 
Thermacore.
Second – This disagreement is not just about showing an energy anomaly – and 
making it run reliably. To get the 100 million, according to the contract, 
Rossi has to demonstrate an astounding COP of 6. That has never been done 
reliably and would be the breakthrough, if true.
All of us who have been around this field are convinced, that with a properly 
done experiment COP of about 1.5 is doable – even old had. Thermacore, one the 
top companies in thermal engineering - ran multiple reactors for over a year at 
COP 1.5 average in the nineties - and their proof was overwhelming… but despite 
all efforts, they could not make the gain go higher than 1.5 and fossil fuel 
was cheap then.
Rossi can do the normal Ni-H version, we must assume, and get COP 1.5. If he is 
good, he may have pushed the gain to COP ~2-3. That would be admittedly a 
valuable advance, but falls short of the big bucks in the contract. The reason 
that Rossi and his stooges are dishonest here, and have resorted to using the 
air-for-steam cheat which Goat-Guy discovered - is that AR has to make the gain 
seem much higher than it is to get the big bucks. 
He cannot do that without cheating – apparently, or otherwise there is no 
reason not to demonstrate this to real third party expert. 
When IH’s pleadings arrive, and it will probably take a few weeks perhaps – 
this is most likely what they will say. They may even ask that the court 
appoint an expert to do independent testing – and this should please everyone … 
except a cheater.

Re: [Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[Alain Sepeda]

It is wrong to say Rossi have a pattern of fraud. He is cleared of that in
court, and the pattern of the affair in italy looks more like bad
industrialization facing mafia of wastes.

he have however a pattern of :
- industrialization problems(Petroldragon, BiTe TEG, E-cat)
- loose evidences (TEG, E-cat demo 1/2, Ferrara, lugano)
- secrecy and lack of trust
- inflated expectations (Petroldragon, TEG, E-cat)

about IH , I see no other partner who moan on them.

Don't put on malice what you can put on lack of rigor and distrust on
humanity.


2016-04-11 14:59 GMT+02:00 Blaze Spinnaker :

> Look, I am hopeful he actually has 50x COP... But seriously folks.
> Thomas Darden had an impeccable reputation.  He also went out on a limb and
> gave Rossi 11m plus USD.
>
> Rossi, on the hand, has absolutely nothing but a pattern of fraud and
> deceit.
>
> 50x COP is an absolute crazy number when he could barely show anything
> realiably in any previous test.
>
> Let's hope it proves true, but at this point even the most ardent believer
> should be exceedingly skeptical until Rossi ponies up something real or we
> get some very very solid replications.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:More from Goat-guy

[Jones Beene]

Operation of boilers is inherently dangerous. Hundreds of lives have been
lost in boiler accidents. 

 

If these two are the unlicensed "engineers" responsible for operating a
boiler without a proper license, then yes - that is a violation of municipal
code. Fines can be large.

 

Does someone have to "say it" when the facts are admitted in the plaintiff's
complaint? . or are you simply desperate for any way to make Rossi look
better?

 

From: Robert Dorr 


Does taking measurements constitute "running" a boiler? As far as I know no
one has ever said that they ran the boiler. (Penon, etc)




 

Re: [Vo]:More from Goat-guy

[Axil Axil]

Rossi has said that there was both security and employees of the customer
at the plant when he was there. How could one man run a plant 24/7/465? It
takes a large crew to cover the operation of an industrial plant full time
without interruption. This is usually done in three shifts: day, swing and
mid.

Who ever came up with this criticism of the ERV is full of hate and has
lost any credibility IMHO,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Robert Dorr  wrote:

>
> Does taking measurements constitute "running" a boiler? As far as I know
> no one has ever said that they ran the boiler. (Penon, etc)
>
> Robert Dorr
> WA7ZQR
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2016 8:14 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
> In answer to those who claim that Rossi’s friends and countrymen - Penon
> and Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though neither has professional
> certification in this country and both were admittedly illegally
> operating a boiler within the City of Miami in violation of municipal
> codes, there is the following… from the goatster.
>
> BTW… the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove both of
> these fine “engineers” are subject to immediate deportation for committing
> numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws while on a work visa
> …
>
> Goat-guy has this to say:
>
> “There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working at
> the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There were
> hundreds of completely competent engineers, physicists and designers
> overseeing the construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear power plants.
> Fukushima demonstrated that they hadn't considered the consequence of a
> natural disaster. Engineers, for all their earnestness aren't
> particularly good at being either curious enough  -- or more-delicately, are
> not inclined to say anything bad about their employer's machinery” END of
> quote.
>
> If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test, which
> allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal consequences.
> If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him much more than Rossi
> has paid him.
>
> Deportation would be a blessing.
>
> Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them ASAP
> so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However, Rossi is
> probably smart enough to have sent them packing already.
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12011 - Release Date: 04/11/16
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:More from Goat-guyRe:

[Jones Beene]

Ashfield, 

Once again, you  expose yourself as an unthinking shill.

Are you being paid to post this nonsense? 

Get lost.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[David Roberson]

Jones,

If you accept that Rossi can achieve a COP of 1.5 then you must realize that 
adding insulation can be used to increase that number to any desired level.  
This is a basic effect that should be obvious to anyone that realizes that the 
more heat energy that you trap within the system, the hotter it must become.

What am I missing that limits the COP to a low level?  Could you please shed 
light upon this issue?

Dave


 

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:25 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb



From: Jack Cole 

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,

Good post and let me fill in a few of the gaps, since the devil is in the 
details and the scam becomes crystal clear when all the details are all 
presented together. 
First - There is no doubt in my mind that Rossi can show anomalous thermal 
gain. It has been done with Ni-H for 25 years, starting with Piantelli and 
Thermacore.
Second – This disagreement is not just about showing an energy anomaly – and 
making it run reliably. To get the 100 million, according to the contract, 
Rossi has to demonstrate an astounding COP of 6. That has never been done 
reliably and would be the breakthrough, if true.
All of us who have been around this field are convinced, that with a properly 
done experiment COP of about 1.5 is doable – even old had. Thermacore, one the 
top companies in thermal engineering - ran multiple reactors for over a year at 
COP 1.5 average in the nineties - and their proof was overwhelming… but despite 
all efforts, they could not make the gain go higher than 1.5 and fossil fuel 
was cheap then.
Rossi can do the normal Ni-H version, we must assume, and get COP 1.5. If he is 
good, he may have pushed the gain to COP ~2-3. That would be admittedly a 
valuable advance, but falls short of the big bucks in the contract. The reason 
that Rossi and his stooges are dishonest here, and have resorted to using the 
air-for-steam cheat which Goat-Guy discovered - is that AR has to make the gain 
seem much higher than it is to get the big bucks. 
He cannot do that without cheating – apparently, or otherwise there is no 
reason not to demonstrate this to real third party expert. 
When IH’s pleadings arrive, and it will probably take a few weeks perhaps – 
this is most likely what they will say. They may even ask that the court 
appoint an expert to do independent testing – and this should please everyone … 
except a cheater.

Re: [Vo]:More from Goat-guy

[Robert Dorr]

Does taking measurements constitute "running" a boiler? As far as I know 
no one has ever said that they ran the boiler. (Penon, etc)


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


On 4/11/2016 8:14 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


In answer to those who claim that Rossi's friends and countrymen - 
Penon and Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though neither has 
professional certification in this country and both were admittedly 
illegally operating a boiler within the City of Miami in violation of 
municipal codes, there is the following... from the goatster.


BTW... the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove 
both of these fine "engineers" are subject to immediate deportation 
for committing numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws 
while on a work visa ...


Goat-guy has this to say:

"There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working 
at the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There 
were hundreds of completely competent engineers, physicists and 
designers overseeing the construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear 
power plants. Fukushima demonstrated that they hadn't considered the 
consequence of a natural disaster. Engineers, for all their 
earnestness aren't particularly good at being either curious enough -- 
or more-delicately, are not inclined to say anything bad about their 
employer's machinery" END of quote.


If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test, 
which allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal 
consequences. If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him 
much more than Rossi has paid him.


Deportation would be a blessing.

Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them 
ASAP so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However, 
Rossi is probably smart enough to have sent them packing already.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12011 - Release Date: 04/11/16

Re: [Vo]:More from Goat-guy

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones, I think the Goat-guy is correct - I just read other things into his
statement.
Fukushima and Chernobyl both had licensed, well educated experts designing
and running the plants - it still went 'BOOM'. The conclusion I draw is not
that they are so free from moral that they do not hesitate to lie if it
seems to be an advantage for their employer. I think it happened because
they did not have enough imagination to see the outcome and consequences of
unforeseen complications. That is part of being human. Yes, there is a
possibility that both those tragic accidents happened because of evil
planning. I doubt it and I would never state that being the fact without
having very good indicators (evidence) to back up such a statement.

Your conclusion that those guys have violated some US law is not
substantiated. They might have had a permit would that make any difference?
They might operate on the customer's permit.
Then you say they should be deported and fined. How does that make anything
good fro anybody. Why is that helping LENR.?
Then you say that Rossi (the bad guy in your thinking) has sent them to
Tuscany. How do you know? Does it matter where those guys are?

Let me understand; 'Deportation would be a blessing.'  for whom? and
why?

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 Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> In answer to those who claim that Rossi’s friends and countrymen - Penon
> and Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though neither has professional
> certification in this country and both were admittedly illegally
> operating a boiler within the City of Miami in violation of municipal
> codes, there is the following… from the goatster.
>
> BTW… the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove both of
> these fine “engineers” are subject to immediate deportation for committing
> numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws while on a work visa
> …
>
> Goat-guy has this to say:
>
> “There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working at
> the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There were
> hundreds of completely competent engineers, physicists and designers
> overseeing the construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear power plants.
> Fukushima demonstrated that they hadn't considered the consequence of a
> natural disaster. Engineers, for all their earnestness aren't
> particularly good at being either curious enough  -- or more-delicately, are
> not inclined to say anything bad about their employer's machinery” END of
> quote.
>
> If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test, which
> allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal consequences.
> If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him much more than Rossi
> has paid him.
>
> Deportation would be a blessing.
>
> Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them ASAP
> so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However, Rossi is
> probably smart enough to have sent them packing already.
>

Re: [Vo]:More from Goat-guyRe:

[a.ashfield]

Another ad hominem rant from the specialist.
I suppose you think the Wright Bros should have been put in jail for 
designing, building add flying a  machine without an AMERICAN degree or 
any of the proper licenses.



Jomes wrote:  "In answer to those who claim that Rossi’s friends and 
countrymen - Penon and Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though 
neither has professional certification in this country and both were 
admittedly illegally operating a boiler within the City of Miami in 
violation of municipal codes, there is the following… from the goatster.


BTW… the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove both 
of these fine “engineers” are subject to immediate deportation for 
committing numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws while 
on a work visa …


Goat-guy has this to say:

“There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working 
at the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There were 
hundreds of completely competent engineers, physicists and designers 
overseeing the construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear power 
plants. Fukushima demonstrated that they hadn't considered the 
consequence of a natural disaster. Engineers, for all their earnestness 
aren't particularly good at being either curious enough  -- or 
more-delicately, are not inclined to say anything bad about their 
employer's machinery” END of quote.


If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test, 
which allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal 
consequences. If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him much 
more than Rossi has paid him.


Deportation would be a blessing.

Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them 
ASAP so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However, 
Rossi is probably smart enough to have sent them packing already."

Re: [Vo]:Copy of Rossi's civil complaint

[Che]

No wonder people despair -- when they don't just smirk, knowingly -- at the
world of Over-Unity research.

I have also long-time despaired at the general political naivete exhibited
in fora like vortex-L. Engineering and physics knowledge is not nearly
enough to see these sorts of efforts through to success, in such a world as
ours...



On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> That is a very straight legal case Rossi reveals that points to the
> failure of IH to honor its contract. Rossi is clearly going to win this
> unless IH pays up the $89 million. Rossi is in the catbird seat as he is
> being seen to enforce his IP and license agreements which is a vital task
> under IP law. The courts usually take a very simple view of such matters if
> the payments are not made and infringements are shown then Rossi gets ALL
> his IP back and IH loses any licenses.
>
>
>
> Since Rossi has now proven his tech works and IH has proven that big money
> will invest, aka Woodward funds, Rossi will find it simple to raise similar
> sums. Good for him he has played very cool and straight with IH and it
> seems clear IH has not done the same. We shall have to see what the courts
> say but in the meantime Rossi owns it all and can move ahead. Worst case
> scenario for Rossi is IH pays up to retain the license.
>
>
>
> Given the obvious leaks that have been out prior to this document saying
> Rossi and IH were having difficulties someone on the inside has been
> playing a dark game against Rossi by feeding the trolls.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 6, 2016 5:11 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Copy of Rossi's civil complaint
>
>
>
> See:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf
>

[Vo]:More from Goat-guy

[Jones Beene]

In answer to those who claim that Rossi's friends and countrymen - Penon and
Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though neither has professional
certification in this country and both were admittedly illegally operating a
boiler within the City of Miami in violation of municipal codes, there is
the following. from the goatster. 

BTW. the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove both of
these fine "engineers" are subject to immediate deportation for committing
numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws while on a work visa .


Goat-guy has this to say:

"There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working at
the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There were
hundreds of completely competent engineers, physicists and designers
overseeing the construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear power plants.
Fukushima demonstrated that they hadn't considered the consequence of a
natural disaster. Engineers, for all their earnestness aren't particularly
good at being either curious enough  -- or more-delicately, are not inclined
to say anything bad about their employer's machinery" END of quote.

If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test, which
allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal
consequences. If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him much more
than Rossi has paid him. 

Deportation would be a blessing. 

Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them ASAP
so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However, Rossi is
probably smart enough to have sent them packing already.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
In court they do not admit hearsay. You have heard from others that Rossi
is hard to negotiate with. You say that you have negotiated with him and it
was hard. Well, that kind of increases Rossi's credibility. I doubt he saw
that you had anything to offer that he wanted. All negotiations comes to
the point when there are mutual benefits to be exchanged or there is not.
Your analogy with Trump only says that you speak Japanese as determined by
you, Jed.

If the reality is that you are qualified to judge others skill after you
met a few representatives than you should offer those skills as they would
out- compete any other organization or person. I doubt that is far from
reality. People from IH are managed by people with no skills in the regards
we talk about here. That means their results are managed by people with
other motivations. How you know Rossi's capacity is another mystical issue.
Give me one reason he could hired someone as good as yourself when it comes
to caliometry. How do you know he has not. I just try to say; you sound
like you have all the pertinent information although I suspect you have
fraternised with the people you claim to be able to judge for hours at
best, while as I said previous it takes months to be able to begin to
really evaluate others.

Then you hide behind the word 'doubt' while you actually said


I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have already
.

He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared.

We agree upon that if he does not provide any progress (production or
reports) he will lose credibility.

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 Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> You write.  "I know how the people at I.H. do it,"
>> How do you know that?
>
>
> As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them.
>
>
>
>> I doubt anyone who writes about this story knows the players better than
>> Mats Lewan.   I judge him technically competent.
>
>
> He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The
> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's
> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at
> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.
>
> I am not talking about personality, motivation, or anything else. I have
> narrowed this down to one question. Who is better at evaluating
> calorimetry? In my opinion, I.H. is, but I could be wrong.
>
> I take the two press releases at face value. I am assuming that Rossi
> means what he says, and I.H. means what they say. If I.H. actually thought
> the machine works, they would be crazy not to pay him the $89 million.
>
>
>
>> I get the feeling Rossi simply doesn't care about making a foolproof demo.
>
>
> He must do this if he wants the $89 million. That is what is stipulated in
> the contract.
>
> - Jed
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Cook 

The agreement between Rossi and IH specifies that acceptable results would
be a COP of 4 to 6 (NOT 6) as I read the document.. Furthermore Rossi
frequently indicated that the reactor at the customer was in a
self-sustaining mode which may have meant that the COP was quite high--50 as
suggested.  

Firstly, there is/was no customer. The testing was done of the premises of
the President of Leonardo. 

Secondly, ask yourself why Darden did not see any gain over the 3 years and
$10 million up front. If you were involved, in Rossi's shoes - wouldn't you
make absolutely sure he Darden had seen a little gain, even if was not high
COP?

As Jed who is in a much better position to comment than anyone else, who has
posted on this subject agrees, having visited them -  IH is credible. That
speaks volumes to me.

Rossi has been convicted of doing similar scams. Rossi's minions blindly
think he is credible, despite his criminal record and the TEG scam, and
despite the fact that now - we have been shown a clear way that high COP can
be faked. Before Goat-guy we did not have that critical piece of the puzzle
- how he and Penon pulled off faking the data.

And guess what Bob, the initial pleadings of Rossi/Leonardo, which always
put your best case scenario out for view - say nothing - absolutely nothing,
about infinite COP.  That is important because infinite COP would not be
possible with the cheat - however COP of 50 would be possible with the
cheat.

Re: Re : [Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[Lennart Thornros]

Adrian, I like the new statement you provided.
No, it is no proof of Rossi's claim in any regards.
However, that leaves a very clear and final message about what is and what
is not.
To keep any credibility he needs to produce (and sell( Ecats. He cannot do
so if he does not show performance.
It is not an answer this week but within six months.
Until then we can expect the report from the 12 months test and the
response fro IH in the lawsuit.
I see no reason to condemn Rossi with the information we have today.I think
he has been the only source of positive LENR news for years. If he has had
nothing he must be the master of all magicians and I think he is an
entrepreneur and as such he he takes some wide turns now and then - typical
for entrepreneurs.

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 Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:29 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> You could just as well argue that attacking Rossi without evidence is
> naive.
>
> Andrea Rossi April 11
> "I have enough money to spend to start the mass production, the rest must
> arrive from the products sale. I want not to sell paper, I want to sell
> products. I am an industrialist, not a yuppy or an opera ballet etoile.
> Alessandro Toninelli"
>
> April 11, 2016 at 4:21 AM
>
> Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
> since we have to expect discredit on the ecat ( that has already started)
> and the ‘powers that be’ will try to delay the mass production, I ask:
>
> – When will Leonardo corp. be ready to receive orders ( i mean for the
> already tested 1MW power plant) and deliver in a few weeks?
>
> – Is Leonardo corp already organized in this sense and ready or when it
> will be?
>
> I think it is of great importance since from then all the discredits wil
> be of no importance.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
>
> Alessandro – Ecatnews.it
> Andrea Rossi
> April 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM
>
> Alessandro Toninelli:
> 1- now
> 2- yes
> 3- you are totally right
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> In passing...
> The Securities and Exchange Commission Issued Administrative Ruling
> Against Cherokee Investment Partners
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=127890
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

The agreement between Rossi and IH specifies that acceptable results would be a 
COP of 4 to 6 (NOT 6) as I read the document.

Further more Rossi frequently indicated that the reactor at the customer was in 
a self-sustaining mode which may have meant that the COP was quite high--50 as 
suggested.  The power output would still only have been at the Megawatt the 
plant could properly handle, with the cooling system--pumps etc--still 
requiring a small amount of electrical input.   Rossi has always suggested that 
there was some  control, not necessarily the thermal heating of the fuel 
initially, that  allowed shutting off the reactor or reducing its output.  

I worked with the design of fission nuclear plants thermal hydraulic systems 
for many years, and many of those reactor power plants  had a COP of infinity.  
They took no input power to operate.

What Rossi claims makes a lot of sense to me.  And fooling the oversight folks, 
there were three, in the initial test of the 10kW module plant in Rossi's plant 
in Italy would be hard to do IMHO.  I do not think I could have been fooled, 
and I have never had a professional license, nor a PHd behind my name.  

Bob Cook

From: jone...@pacbell.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:25:30 -0700






RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb




From: Jack Cole 



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,



Good post and let me fill in a few of the gaps, since the devil is in the 
details and the scam becomes crystal clear when all the details are all 
presented together. 

First - There is no doubt in my mind that Rossi can show anomalous thermal 
gain. It has been done with Ni-H for 25 years, starting with Piantelli and 
Thermacore.

Second – This disagreement is not just about showing an energy anomaly – and 
making it run reliably. To get the 100 million, according to the contract, 
Rossi has to demonstrate an astounding COP of 6. That has never been done 
reliably and would be the breakthrough, if true.

All of us who have been around this field are convinced, that with a properly 
done experiment COP of about 1.5 is doable – even old had. Thermacore, one the 
top companies in thermal engineering - ran multiple reactors for over a year at 
COP 1.5 average in the nineties - and their proof was overwhelming… but despite 
all efforts, they could not make the gain go higher than 1.5 and fossil fuel 
was cheap then.

Rossi can do the normal Ni-H version, we must assume, and get COP 1.5. If he is 
good, he may have pushed the gain to COP ~2-3. That would be admittedly a 
valuable advance, but falls short of the big bucks in the contract. The reason 
that Rossi and his stooges are dishonest here, and have resorted to using the 
air-for-steam cheat which Goat-Guy discovered - is that AR has to make the gain 
seem much higher than it is to get the big bucks. 

He cannot do that without cheating – apparently, or otherwise there is no 
reason not to demonstrate this to real third party expert. 

When IH’s pleadings arrive, and it will probably take a few weeks perhaps – 
this is most likely what they will say. They may even ask that the court 
appoint an expert to do independent testing – and this should please everyone … 
except a cheater.



  

Re : [Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[a.ashfield]

You could just as well argue that attacking Rossi without evidence is naive.

Andrea Rossi April 11
"I have enough money to spend to start the mass production, the rest 
must arrive from the products sale. I want not to sell paper, I want to 
sell products. I am an industrialist, not a yuppy or an opera ballet etoile.

Alessandro Toninelli"

April 11, 2016 at 4:21 AM

Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
since we have to expect discredit on the ecat ( that has already 
started) and the ‘powers that be’ will try to delay the mass production, 
I ask:


– When will Leonardo corp. be ready to receive orders ( i mean for the 
already tested 1MW power plant) and deliver in a few weeks?


– Is Leonardo corp already organized in this sense and ready or when it 
will be?


I think it is of great importance since from then all the discredits wil 
be of no importance.


Thank you and best regards,

Alessandro – Ecatnews.it
Andrea Rossi
April 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM

Alessandro Toninelli:
1- now
2- yes
3- you are totally right
Warm Regards,
A.R.

In passing...
The Securities and Exchange Commission Issued Administrative Ruling 
Against Cherokee Investment Partners

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=127890

RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jones Beene]

From: Jack Cole 

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,

Good post and let me fill in a few of the gaps, since the devil is in the 
details and the scam becomes crystal clear when all the details are all 
presented together. 

First - There is no doubt in my mind that Rossi can show anomalous thermal 
gain. It has been done with Ni-H for 25 years, starting with Piantelli and 
Thermacore.

Second – This disagreement is not just about showing an energy anomaly – and 
making it run reliably. To get the 100 million, according to the contract, 
Rossi has to demonstrate an astounding COP of 6. That has never been done 
reliably and would be the breakthrough, if true.

All of us who have been around this field are convinced, that with a properly 
done experiment COP of about 1.5 is doable – even old had. Thermacore, one the 
top companies in thermal engineering - ran multiple reactors for over a year at 
COP 1.5 average in the nineties - and their proof was overwhelming… but despite 
all efforts, they could not make the gain go higher than 1.5 and fossil fuel 
was cheap then.

Rossi can do the normal Ni-H version, we must assume, and get COP 1.5. If he is 
good, he may have pushed the gain to COP ~2-3. That would be admittedly a 
valuable advance, but falls short of the big bucks in the contract. The reason 
that Rossi and his stooges are dishonest here, and have resorted to using the 
air-for-steam cheat which Goat-Guy discovered - is that AR has to make the gain 
seem much higher than it is to get the big bucks. 

He cannot do that without cheating – apparently, or otherwise there is no 
reason not to demonstrate this to real third party expert. 

When IH’s pleadings arrive, and it will probably take a few weeks perhaps – 
this is most likely what they will say. They may even ask that the court 
appoint an expert to do independent testing – and this should please everyone … 
except a cheater.

[Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Look, I am hopeful he actually has 50x COP... But seriously folks.   Thomas
Darden had an impeccable reputation.  He also went out on a limb and gave
Rossi 11m plus USD.

Rossi, on the hand, has absolutely nothing but a pattern of fraud and
deceit.

50x COP is an absolute crazy number when he could barely show anything
realiably in any previous test.

Let's hope it proves true, but at this point even the most ardent believer
should be exceedingly skeptical until Rossi ponies up something real or we
get some very very solid replications.

Re; [Vo]:GoatGuy's 1MW Explanation

[a.ashfield]

Jack,
"Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big 
Future.  I have had a chance to examine and think through the 
arguments.  I'm not an engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better 
analysis.  It seems like this explanation would work only if the 
plumbing connected to the water tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets 
connecting to the central reservoir near the top).  If they connected on 
the bottom of the tanks, there would be mixing and prevention of air 
pockets."


There are several simply ways of proving the E-Cat works.  Of course you 
can cheat with any of them if you set your mind to it.  If you can't 
believe the experimenter you have to have a competent observer to check 
for cheating.  That is the problem here with those that don't trust 
Rossi.  That is why an independent tester like an ERV is valuable.

I don't think GoatGuy brought anything new to the party.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[a.ashfield]

Craig,
It is hard to tell who said what in this format.
I was talking about Rossi's prior demos when I wrote that.  The 1MW 
plant is a different story.  The proof is supposed to come from an 
independent third party - the ERV.



">>>He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. 
The people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare 
Rossi's evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better 
at calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.


Does the license agreement look like IH can interpret it? It reads as 
though the ERV certifies that the device complied with a set of 
specifications. If it did, then the ERV certifies it.


Section 5. Guaranteed Performance.

"The ERV (or another party acceptable to the Company and Leonardo) will 
be engaged to confirm in writing the Guaranteed Performance."


I don't see where IH has the authority under the agreement to make any 
kind of judgment on the report.


Craig


On 04/10/2016 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield  wrote:

You write.  "I know how the people at I.H. do it,"
How do you know that?


As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them.

I doubt anyone who writes about this story knows the players
better than Mats Lewan.   I judge him technically competent.


He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The 
people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare 
Rossi's evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are 
better at calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.


I am not talking about personality, motivation, or anything else. I 
have narrowed this down to one question. Who is better at evaluating 
calorimetry? In my opinion, I.H. is, but I could be wrong.


I take the two press releases at face value. I am assuming that Rossi 
means what he says, and I.H. means what they say. If I.H. actually 
thought the machine works, they would be crazy not to pay him the $89 
million.


I get the feeling Rossi simply doesn't care about making a
foolproof demo.


He must do this if he wants the $89 million. That is what is 
stipulated in the contract.


- Jed"

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

Jed.   "I know how the people at I.H. do it,"
AA.  How do you know that?

Jed.  As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them.
AA.   Tell us more.  If you heard Rossi discuss it you might believe him 
too.  What is actually done is another matter.

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Roarty, Francis X]

Perhaps Rossi NEEDS to take it back in court so any patent applications made by 
IH that are based on Rossi materials and IP are stripped and assigned to Rossi. 
He certainly wants the money most but I think he is also very concerned about 
the new IH patents and how much IP that IH has shared with competitors. The 
liability could be enormous compared to the 89M.
Fran

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 9:59 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Rossi would not has gone to court if the ERV was not supportive of his case.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Jed Rothwell 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Craig Haynie mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Rossi also wants his intellectual property back. Last year, IH filed a patent 
on Rossi's technology.

I.H. said his device does not work, therefore the intellectual property is 
worthless. Plus they have not paid him the $89 million. So I.H. no reason to 
keep it, and no standing to keep it (since they have not paid). Even if they 
said they want it, I expect any judge would rule they have to give it back.

- Jed

[Vo]:GoatGuy's 1MW Explanation

[Jack Cole]

Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future.  I
have had a chance to examine and think through the arguments.  I'm not an
engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better analysis.  It seems like
this explanation would work only if the plumbing connected to the water
tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir
near the top).  If they connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would
be mixing and prevention of air pockets.

Jack

   -
  -
 - F
 - T
 - V
 - s
  -
   [image: Avatar]
   *‒*
   GoatGuy2Newcomer
   13 hours ago
   

   Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being
   performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the
   'contract approved' one.)

   Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result.
   FIRST, you need to open the (
   http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf )
   pdf file.

   Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box
   labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets.

   Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line
   Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers
   Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1
   Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2

   All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a
   BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system.
   Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50
   steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat
   emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there
   are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank
   water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the
   bottom half.

   In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if
   needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the
   "condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which
   thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done.
   It all seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from
   the patent diagram.

   The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated
   water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No
   attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's
   worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs
   (which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the
   misdirected one.

   It is ingenious.
   And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing.
   Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big
   air blower.

   To heat the small swimming pool.
   Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast.
   To at least 2 sig-figs.
   More than enough to expose the rat.
   Or to confirm the golden goose.

   Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing.
   Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry.
   Which of course he's never done.
   Nor will he.

   Because it exposes rats.
   GoatGuy

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Jack Cole]

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  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 < 
> ecatbuil...@gmail.com> 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 < 
> a.ashfi...@verizon.net> 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."
> >.
>
>
>