Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:50 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion.
>

I got that impression from observing Rossi's poor behavior over many years,
and from observing what seems like forbearance on the part of IH,
especially as seen from hindsight, as more information trickles in. I do
not require that you arrive at the same conclusion.  You clearly have a
different take on things, one that seems naive to me.

Another story is that IH never tried to find a customer and then blamed
> Rossi for starting late.  Or maybe didn't get all the partners to sign the
> agreement with the modified test procedures so they could claim it was
> invalid?  Of accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and
> then at the end complained about it?
>

If IH have rebutted in a reply to a US federal court to a lawsuit raised
against it that Rossi was at fault for starting the test late when it was
in fact their own failure to obtain a customer, Rossi will have an
opportunity in Leonardo's reply to clear up this error, making IH look very
bad indeed.  If IH maliciously took note a lack of a signature on the
second amendment so that they could use it to attack the validity of the
second amendment to the license agreement later on, while playing along as
though nothing were amiss, this would definitely have been playing hardball
on the part of a party negotiating "at arm's length" with Leonardo.  Again,
Rossi will have an opportunity to clarify the situation, making IH look
bad.  If IH accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and
then at the end complained about it, this will no doubt come up in
Leonardo's reply.

The test is what a reasonable man would do.
>

It is hard to by any stretch of imagination to describe Rossi's behavior as
that of a reasonable person. Rossi has been his own worst enemy, as even
his admirers will attest. He succeeded in obtaining millions of dollars in
funding, with the possibility of many more, in a field that has been
starved of funding for many years, and yet he managed to alienate the
people trying to help them and then used the money he obtained to sue
them.  He has filed many patent applications with gross deficiencies and
even obtained a few patents, but none are enabling.  He has carried out
test after test that experts that have debated them for years agree are
lacking.  He has claimed that he was shipping this many units to this
customer or about to build a factory full of robots, while nothing of the
sort was happening.  He claimed that everything was good between him and IH
only a few weeks before launching a lawsuit that he must have known was in
the works for weeks or months. I hope these are not actions that reasonable
people take.

In the circumstances described by Jed (that it was impossible to know the
> results) a reasonable man would have fired the ERV and shut it down after
> say a week, not waited a year.
>

Not being privy to the details of the situation, it is difficult to say
what IH have attempted to do and what they've done, apart from what we've
read in their statement and their reply.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Of accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and then at
> the end complained about it?
>

They complained about it all along, as I said. But you don't speak
language, so you don't get that.



> In the circumstances described by Jed (that it was impossible to know the
> results) . . .
>

It was impossible to be *certain* of the results. Rossi set it up to
prevent that. Anyone can make a reasonable estimate, based on Rossi's own
data. All indications point to no excess heat. Or *possibly* a little
excess.



> a reasonable man would have fired the ERV and shut it down after say a
> week, not waited a year.
>

They couldn't even get access to the pretend customer site. Rossi told you
that he was in charge, and he dictated ito them what they would and would
not be allowed to do. What makes you think they could "fire" the "ERV"?

Fortunately, I gather they were able to make a better analysis later on. I
have no information on that, but that's what they said.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed, it doesn't matter how many times you make the same charges.  IH says
> one thing and Rossi another.  Until there are actual facts to look at. like
> the instrumentation used and the results, it is not possible to know the
> truth.
>

I have looked at the results reported by Rossi himself. Not I.H.'s version.
I have seen the actual facts. So I can know the truth.

You have not seen the facts, so it is not possible for you to know the
truth. You have a *hell of lot of gall* lecturing me about what is true and
what isn't! Who do you think you are, anyway? God omniscient?

It would be one thing if you expressed doubts or asked questions, or if you
said "well, I guess I should wait." But for you to dictate to me that "it
is not possible to know the truth" is outrageous arrogance. You are saying
I am incapable of any analysis. Also you are saying that about the I.H.
experts. You don't know anything, yet you make these grand pronouncements
and you dismiss our work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Not clear how you arrived at that conclusion.  Another story is that IH 
never tried to find a customer and then blamed Rossi for starting late.  
Or maybe didn't get all the partners to sign the agreement with the 
modified test procedures so they could claim it was invalid?  Of 
accepted instrumentation that they knew was unsatisfactory and then at 
the end complained about it?   The test is what a reasonable man would 
do.  In the circumstances described by Jed (that it was impossible to 
know the results) a reasonable man would have fired the ERV and shut it 
down after say a week, not waited a year.



On 6/4/2016 11:20 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


I have the impression I.H. was bending over backwards, trying to
make him see the light and act reasonably. I think they gave him
one opportunity after another. That is only an impression ...


Yes, this is the impression.  One wonders whether their flexibility 
and leniency were interpreted as weakness and a lack of resolve.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Sorry Jed.  No one would accept the situation you describe.  If the
> situation was unacceptable they should have hired another ERV.
>

They DID hire another expert, for crying out loud! Rossi told you they did.
You don't even believe him? They sent in several experts. Rossi refused to
let them test the machine properly.

I did not describe this situation. Rossi did! He told you plain as day that
he dictated to the I.H. expert what was allowed and what wasn't.

It is crazy that you don't even believe Rossi.



> They should have put it i writing, at the start, that it was not
> acceptable.
>

Of course they did!



> The fact that IH have not claimed this means it is unlikely they took that
> action.
>

The did claim that!!! It is right there in the motion to dismiss. Are you
blind?



> Lets see what instrumentation was used and what the ERV had to say about
> it before making wild accusations.
>

I know what instrumentation was used. I know what Rossi and Penon said
about it. I am not making wild accusations. Neither was I.H. when they said
there were "flawed measurements" and "unsuitable measuring devices." They
have been saying that for months. Those are not wild accusations, they are
factual statements.



> What I said about Rossi being a red herring is because the referee was the
> ERV.  What he did and said are key.
>

The ERV (Penon) is a nitwit and Rossi's puppet.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Jed, it doesn't matter how many times you make the same charges.  IH 
says one thing and Rossi another.  Until there are actual facts to look 
at. like the instrumentation used and the results, it is not possible to 
know the truth.


You talk about "the expert" but I believe you are talking about an 
anonymous IH employee not "the" expert, the ERV.



On 6/4/2016 11:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Eric Walker > wrote:

We don't have more than a vague clue what was said and by whom,
sitting in the peanut gallery.


I.H. has not said much, but their statements have been clear.

For example, IH might have told the ERV that his proposal for
instrumentation wasn't satisfactory before the test started, and
that IH didn't accept the test.


They explained what happened. Rossi departed "from the purported test 
plan."


Rossi also made it clear what happened in his interview with Lewan. He 
blocked them from the customer site, and he & Penan refused to allow 
the I.H. expert to do what the expert "insisted" on. You have Rossi's 
own word for the fact that he was in charge, he set the rules, and he 
refused to do things that I.H. demanded of him.


I do not know how he ended up with so much power, in control of the 
situation, but that is what happened. That is what he said, and what 
I.H. said.


I have the impression I.H. was bending over backwards, trying to make 
him see the light and act reasonably. I think they gave him one 
opportunity after another. That is only an impression, but based on 
it, I thought he might fix the problems. I was hoping he would. I was 
disappointed to learn on March 10 that the two sides still disagreed.


Close to the end, I still hoped things would turn out okay. That is 
why I signed up for Lewan's symposium.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Because it would have been crazy to run a test where the outcome was not
> known.
>

If the outcome is known, it isn't a test.



> Half the ERV's salary was paid by IH.  If they found him incompetent they
> should have hired someone else.
>

They did hire someone else! Rossi told you that. The I.H. expert came in,
insisted on seeing the customer site, and Rossi and Penon said no, that
will not be allowed.

Somehow or other Rossi was in charge and was able to prevent I.H. from
doing a proper evaluation. Rossi himself told you that, so you have no
reason to doubt it.

I.H. told you several times that they did not agree with the conclusions,
starting in their March 10 press release and later in their motion to
dismiss. I do not understand why you doubt they were dissatisfied.
Obviously they concluded the ERV is incompetent.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Sorry Jed.  No one would accept the situation you describe.  If the 
situation was unacceptable they should have hired another ERV.  They 
should have put it i writing, at the start, that it was not acceptable.  
The fact that IH have not claimed this means it is unlikely they took 
that action.


Whatever the lawyers write about their opinions are not scientific 
facts.  Lets see what instrumentation was used and what the ERV had to 
say about it before making wild accusations.


What I said about Rossi being a red herring is because the referee was 
the ERV.  What he did and said are key.




On 6/4/2016 10:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

No. that is not what I said or meant.  To repeat it, why wouldn't
IH have told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation
wouldn't be satisfactory before the test started?


They did.

   IF they accepted it, it's no good complaining later.


They didn't accept it. No one would.

Further, we only have Jed's secondhand word for it that is was
improper.


Incorrect. You have their motion to dismiss. That's what it says:

". . .  departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable 
reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable 
measuring devices."


   I need to see what was actually used before jumping to conclusions.


I have already seen what was actually used, so I am not jumping to 
conclusions. I suggest you wait and see before taking sides. I think 
you have jumped to conclusions.


  To keep on stating that Rossi stopped them is a red herring.


He said he did! You don't even believe him???

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Because it would have been crazy to run a test where the outcome was not 
known.  Half the ERV's salary was paid by IH.  If they found him 
incompetent they should have hired someone else.



On 6/4/2016 10:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

H LV > wrote:

I am sure they did tell him that!

​​

​You know they did, or you presume they did?​


They told me they did. Why wouldn't they?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

I have the impression I.H. was bending over backwards, trying to make him
> see the light and act reasonably. I think they gave him one opportunity
> after another. That is only an impression ...
>

Yes, this is the impression.  One wonders whether their flexibility and
leniency were interpreted as weakness and a lack of resolve.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:

We don't have more than a vague clue what was said and by whom, sitting in
> the peanut gallery.
>

I.H. has not said much, but their statements have been clear.



> For example, IH might have told the ERV that his proposal for
> instrumentation wasn't satisfactory before the test started, and that IH
> didn't accept the test.
>

They explained what happened. Rossi departed "from the purported test plan."

Rossi also made it clear what happened in his interview with Lewan. He
blocked them from the customer site, and he & Penan refused to allow the
I.H. expert to do what the expert "insisted" on. You have Rossi's own word
for the fact that he was in charge, he set the rules, and he refused to do
things that I.H. demanded of him.

I do not know how he ended up with so much power, in control of the
situation, but that is what happened. That is what he said, and what I.H.
said.

I have the impression I.H. was bending over backwards, trying to make him
see the light and act reasonably. I think they gave him one opportunity
after another. That is only an impression, but based on it, I thought he
might fix the problems. I was hoping he would. I was disappointed to learn
on March 10 that the two sides still disagreed.

Close to the end, I still hoped things would turn out okay. That is why I
signed up for Lewan's symposium.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

No. that is not what I said or meant.  To repeat it, why wouldn't IH have
> told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wouldn't be satisfactory
> before the test started?
>

They did.



>IF they accepted it, it's no good complaining later.
>

They didn't accept it. No one would.



> Further, we only have Jed's secondhand word for it that is was improper.
>

Incorrect. You have their motion to dismiss. That's what it says:

". . .  departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable
reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring
devices."


>
>I need to see what was actually used before jumping to conclusions.
>

I have already seen what was actually used, so I am not jumping to
conclusions. I suggest you wait and see before taking sides. I think you
have jumped to conclusions.



>   To keep on stating that Rossi stopped them is a red herring.
>

He said he did! You don't even believe him???

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[H LV]

I was just looking for some clarification.

Harry

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> I am sure they did tell him that!
>>>
>> ​​
>>
>> ​You know they did, or you presume they did?​
>>
>
> They told me they did. Why wouldn't they?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:


> I am sure they did tell him that!
>>
> ​​
>
> ​You know they did, or you presume they did?​
>

They told me they did. Why wouldn't they?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:31 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

No. that is not what I said or meant.  To repeat it, why wouldn't IH have
> told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wouldn't be satisfactory
> before the test started?   IF they accepted it, it's no good complaining
> later.
>

We don't have more than a vague clue what was said and by whom, sitting in
the peanut gallery.  Little can be gleaned about what IH said beyond the
press release they provided, their reply yesterday.  For example, IH might
have told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wasn't satisfactory
before the test started, and that IH didn't accept the test.

If one has a taste for adventure, one entertain statements made by some
people who are one step removed from IH.  They have essentially said things
to this effect.  But they're not spokespersons for IH.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Ah.  You're sure of it so that's case settled.  Can I borrow your 
crystal ball sometime?



On 6/4/2016 10:30 PM, H LV wrote:



On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


H LV > wrote:

​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not
have allowed the year long test to go forward . . .


Apparently they could not stop it. I do not know why. I know
nothing at all about the contract or agreements or why Rossi ended
up in charge.

. . .  or at least they should have formally told Rossi that
they would not respect the results of the test even if Rossi
insisted on performing the test.


I am sure they did tell him that!


​​

​You know they did, or you presume they did?​

​Harry​

They also told to the general public on March 10, before the
lawsuit was filed, in this statement:


​

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

No one in his right mind would respect the results of this test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

No. that is not what I said or meant.  To repeat it, why wouldn't IH 
have told the ERV that his proposal for instrumentation wouldn't be 
satisfactory before the test started?   IF they accepted it, it's no 
good complaining later.
Further, we only have Jed's secondhand word for it that is was 
improper.   I need to see what was actually used before jumping to 
conclusions.  To keep on stating that Rossi stopped them is a red herring.



On 6/4/2016 9:51 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


I don't understand the first paragraph.  What you wrote was:
"As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is ultimately a
legal question rather than a technical question, given what we
know of the absurd circumstances of the test.  And my bets are on
Jones Day with regard to any legal questions."

No one that I know of is saying  "tough luck" about a bad ERV
technology.


Anyone who argues that IH agreed to the ERV, and that now that the ERV 
says something they don't like they're jumping ship, but too bad for 
them because they signed the license agreement, is making a "tough 
luck" argument. This argument has been made several times here and ad 
nauseum on LENR Forum.


  My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow improper
instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin with. It doesn't
make sense.


Jed has said that IH objected to the test from the beginning.  Jed is 
privy to information I am not.  People are free to go along with what 
he says or to question it.  But the suggestion is that IH didn't want 
improper instrumentation, and that Rossi was headstrong and bulldozed 
ahead anyway.  Is this a plausible scenario?  To me it seems not only 
plausible but likely.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[H LV]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> ​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have allowed
>> the year long test to go forward . . .
>>
>
> Apparently they could not stop it. I do not know why. I know nothing at
> all about the contract or agreements or why Rossi ended up in charge.
>
>
>
>> . . .  or at least they should have formally told Rossi that they would
>> not respect the results of the test even if Rossi insisted on performing
>> the test.
>>
>
> I am sure they did tell him that!
>

​​

​You know they did, or you presume they did?​

​Harry​



> They also told to the general public on March 10, before the lawsuit was
> filed, in this statement:
>
>
​

> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741
>
> No one in his right mind would respect the results of this test.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Yes, it seems ridiculous on the surface.  Keep in mind the ERV was the 
referee too.  Seems inconceivable to me he would not listen to valid 
objections from IH, so it is not a question of Rossi refusing - he would 
have to refuse.  The guy was well enough qualified to understand the 
situation.


On 6/4/2016 8:32 PM, H LV wrote:
​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have 
allowed the year long test to go forward, or at least they should have 
formally told Rossi that they would not respect the results of the 
test even if Rossi insisted on performing the test.


harry

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


a.ashfield > wrote:

My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow
improper instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin
with.  It doesn't make sense.


They did not want to allow this. It was a bone of contention.
Rossi wanted one set of instruments and procedures, and I.H.
wanted another. They were arguing about it for a long time. (I do
not know how long, and I do not know whether the instruments were
changed out at some point, but anyway, the dispute began early.)

It "doesn't make sense" because what you are describing did not
happen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

I don't understand the first paragraph.  What you wrote was:
> "As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is ultimately a legal
> question rather than a technical question, given what we know of the absurd
> circumstances of the test.  And my bets are on Jones Day with regard to any
> legal questions."
>
> No one that I know of is saying  "tough luck" about a bad ERV technology.
>

Anyone who argues that IH agreed to the ERV, and that now that the ERV says
something they don't like they're jumping ship, but too bad for them
because they signed the license agreement, is making a "tough luck"
argument. This argument has been made several times here and ad nauseum on
LENR Forum.

  My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow improper
> instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin with.  It doesn't make
> sense.
>

Jed has said that IH objected to the test from the beginning.  Jed is privy
to information I am not.  People are free to go along with what he says or
to question it.  But the suggestion is that IH didn't want improper
instrumentation, and that Rossi was headstrong and bulldozed ahead anyway.
Is this a plausible scenario?  To me it seems not only plausible but likely.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have allowed
> the year long test to go forward . . .
>

Apparently they could not stop it. I do not know why. I know nothing at all
about the contract or agreements or why Rossi ended up in charge.



> . . .  or at least they should have formally told Rossi that they would
> not respect the results of the test even if Rossi insisted on performing
> the test.
>

I am sure they did tell him that! They also told to the general public on
March 10, before the lawsuit was filed, in this statement:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1741

No one in his right mind would respect the results of this test.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[David Roberson]

This is a civil case.  No one is guilty on either side.  Criminal law does not 
apply so let's forget about the issue of innocent until proven guilty.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sat, Jun 4, 2016 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the
trial.  The question is, do you?


On 6/4/2016 4:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote:


  

  
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM,a.ashfield   
  wrote:
  


  
Like Jed, youconclude he is guilty until proven innocent.

  
  


Rossi is suing IH, which are the ones  to be assumed innocent until 
proven guilty under US law.  By  contrast, we have five years of 
Rossi's comments and behavior  upon which to draw conclusions.  This is 
hardly a snap  judgment I've come to.




Eric



  


  

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[H LV]

​If the instrumentation was so contentious then IH should not have allowed
the year long test to go forward, or at least they should have formally
told Rossi that they would not respect the results of the test even if
Rossi insisted on performing the test.

harry

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow improper
>> instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin with.  It doesn't make
>> sense.
>>
>
> They did not want to allow this. It was a bone of contention. Rossi wanted
> one set of instruments and procedures, and I.H. wanted another. They were
> arguing about it for a long time. (I do not know how long, and I do not
> know whether the instruments were changed out at some point, but anyway,
> the dispute began early.)
>
> It "doesn't make sense" because what you are describing did not happen.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow improper
> instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin with.  It doesn't make
> sense.
>

They did not want to allow this. It was a bone of contention. Rossi wanted
one set of instruments and procedures, and I.H. wanted another. They were
arguing about it for a long time. (I do not know how long, and I do not
know whether the instruments were changed out at some point, but anyway,
the dispute began early.)

It "doesn't make sense" because what you are describing did not happen.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

No.  I meant that if the ERV's instrumentation showed no heat, if the
> instrumentation was proper and in good working order, there would be no
> need to look further
>

The expert wanted to give Rossi every possible opportunity to prove his
point, so even though the instrumentation showed no heat, the expert wanted
to see the customer site.

In point of fact, as I.H. stated in their motion to dismiss, the
instrumentation was not proper and not in good working order. Quote:
". . . inoperable
reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring
devices."

In other words, using Rossi's instruments alone you cannot reach a firm
conclusion, but the most plausible conclusion is that there is no heat.
Rossi's conclusion seems untenable to me, and evidently the I.H. expert
thought so too.



> I note you now claim to have seen several million bits of data and Rossi's
> analysis.  Care to share that?
>

I have been claiming that for some time. But not several million bits. I
have seen what I deem a reasonably representative sample suitably
summarized in data tables and graphs, as it is in most technical reports.

Rossi already shared part of it in the recent Lewan interview. I have the
same numbers he gave, plus some additional details and information on the
configuration. As I mentioned, the numbers seem suspiciously round to me.
Judge for yourself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

No.  I meant that if the ERV's instrumentation showed no heat, if the 
instrumentation was proper and in good working order, there would be no 
need to look further


I note you now claim to have seen several million bits of data and 
Rossi's analysis.  Care to share that?



On 6/4/2016 7:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed.   Since all other methods showed no excess heat, it was
necessary to measure the dissipation.

AA.  That would be all that's need if it were true.


I think you mean if the other methods show no excess heat, it would be 
needed. Yes. If you will look at it from the expert's point of view, 
since he saw no evidence of excess heat, surely you understand that he 
needed to access the customer site. It was the last chance to confirm 
Rossi's claim.


Also, you should appreciate that before people pay $89 million, they 
will take every reasonable step to confirm the heat is real.



You have no proof of that, that you are willing to share, and the
report of the independent ERV disagrees with that.


Yes, of course it disagrees with it. Clearly, Rossi and Penon say 
there is heat, and I.H. says there isn't. I have seen Rossi's data and 
his analysis, which must be the same as the ERV reports. It is 
cockamamie nonsense.



  That is why the court case is necessary.


I doubt there will be a court case. If there is, any expert witness 
HVAC engineer who testifies in favor of Rossi will be committing 
perjury, and will deserve to lose his license.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Jed.   Since all other methods showed no excess heat, it was necessary to
> measure the dissipation.
>
> AA.  That would be all that's need if it were true.
>

I think you mean if the other methods show no excess heat, it would be
needed. Yes. If you will look at it from the expert's point of view, since
he saw no evidence of excess heat, surely you understand that he needed to
access the customer site. It was the last chance to confirm Rossi's claim.

Also, you should appreciate that before people pay $89 million, they will
take every reasonable step to confirm the heat is real.


You have no proof of that, that you are willing to share, and the report of
> the independent ERV disagrees with that.
>

Yes, of course it disagrees with it. Clearly, Rossi and Penon say there is
heat, and I.H. says there isn't. I have seen Rossi's data and his analysis,
which must be the same as the ERV reports. It is cockamamie nonsense.


  That is why the court case is necessary.
>

I doubt there will be a court case. If there is, any expert witness HVAC
engineer who testifies in favor of Rossi will be committing perjury, and
will deserve to lose his license.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

I don't understand the first paragraph.  What you wrote was:
"As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is ultimately a legal 
question rather than a technical question, given what we know of the 
absurd circumstances of the test.  And my bets are on Jones Day with 
regard to any legal questions."


No one that I know of is saying  "tough luck" about a bad ERV 
technology.  My point to Jed earlier was why "expert" IH would allow 
improper instrumentation (if that were the case) to begin with.  It 
doesn't make sense.



On 6/4/2016 6:44 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Eric Walker > wrote:


[Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What
"absurd" circumstances for the test?  You know what the ERV did?


I misquoted myself, above.  That was Adrian, not me.  The ERV report 
is presumably technical.  I look forward to seeing it if it ever 
surfaces.  I suppose it could provide a sufficient basis to conclude 
that the testing of the 1MW plant was rigorous after all.  I am 
speaking hypothetically here, because what indications are available 
are to the contrary.


What makes the question of the ERV's report a legal one has to do with 
the argument that many have been making, that despite any reservations 
or objections IH had to the ERV's methods, actions or conclusions, IH 
signed off on a license agreement that said that the ERV was the one 
to determine the matter.  This argument seems to be that, even if the 
testing was not rigorous and IH had specific reasons to doubt the 
ERV's conclusions, tough luck.  I find it fascinating that people who 
support LENR would argue this position.  But I do not dispute that IH 
signed the license agreement, and that the agreement gave a lot of 
power to decide to the ERV. This is ultimately a legal question, 
though, for IH will no doubt raise a legal challenge if it becomes 
necessary, bringing up all the relevant legal minutiae, at which point 
this argument about the ERV will hinge on what the court finally decides.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

[Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What "absurd"
>> circumstances for the test?  You know what the ERV did?
>>
>
I misquoted myself, above.  That was Adrian, not me.  The ERV report is
presumably technical.  I look forward to seeing it if it ever surfaces.  I
suppose it could provide a sufficient basis to conclude that the testing of
the 1MW plant was rigorous after all.  I am speaking hypothetically here,
because what indications are available are to the contrary.

What makes the question of the ERV's report a legal one has to do with the
argument that many have been making, that despite any reservations or
objections IH had to the ERV's methods, actions or conclusions, IH signed
off on a license agreement that said that the ERV was the one to determine
the matter.  This argument seems to be that, even if the testing was not
rigorous and IH had specific reasons to doubt the ERV's conclusions, tough
luck.  I find it fascinating that people who support LENR would argue this
position.  But I do not dispute that IH signed the license agreement, and
that the agreement gave a lot of power to decide to the ERV. This is
ultimately a legal question, though, for IH will no doubt raise a legal
challenge if it becomes necessary, bringing up all the relevant legal
minutiae, at which point this argument about the ERV will hinge on what the
court finally decides.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:32 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

What "atrocious behavior"?
>

I do not wish to go into ad hominem with regard to Rossi more than I
already have.  But anyone who has followed this list for more than a year
will either know what I'm talking about or will be quite naive.


> Or are you looking for an excuse to bring up ad hominems about his ancient
> legal troubles in Italy?
>

Perhaps you're alluding to the position of someone else.  I have not
discussed Rossi's troubles in Italy and keep an open mind about them.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Axil Axil]

Rossi regretted the IH hookup very early on in the deal and that got
Rossi's defence mechanisms fired up way before the 1 year test was
designed. We might think of that test as the first stage of a court battle
to come from the first days that the test was conducted. All the interfaces
and documentation in the test can be seen as setting up of the legal
battlefield to come.

Like in any divorce, each party was gathering evidence to show the judge in
the future case even through the parties were still nominally married.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 5:32 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> What "atrocious behavior"?  Or are you looking for an excuse to bring up
> ad hominems about his ancient legal troubles in Italy?
>
> On 6/4/2016 5:13 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the trial.
>> The question is, do you?
>>
>
> There are the legal questions, and there are the questions of behavior.
> Rossi may be found innocent by a court of law, should things come to that
> point.  That will be hard to say until such a time as there are
> counterclaims that are raised.  What he is surely guilty of, outside of a
> legal context, is atrocious behavior.  There is no need for a trial to
> adjudicate that question.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:56 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Which bit of "DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR." do you not
> understand?
>

Please state why that has any relevance to the purchasing of fish, or the
construction of furniture, or Rossi's obtaining funding to take a product
to market?


> I have been through Jed's arguments and found they didn't stand scrutiny.
> I have no desire to repeat them all once again.  If you have a specific
> problem show it and I will answer.
>

I will be happy not to go over those arguments with you.  Jed's specific
rebuttals were sufficiently convincing the first time the arguments were
aired.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Which bit of "DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR." do you not 
understand?


I have been through Jed's arguments and found they didn't stand 
scrutiny.  I have no desire to repeat them all once again.  If you have 
a specific problem show it and I will answer.



On 6/4/2016 5:50 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


The fact is academia examined Fleischmann and Pon's results and
declared it pseudo science.  DOE and the Patent Office still
reject LENR.  What more proof do you need?


You seem to have mistaken another position for my own and are arguing 
against it rather than mine. At no point have I suggested that Pons 
and Fleischmann did not run into difficulties.  But ultimately there 
were some capable and fair-minded scientists that came on board and 
started looking into cold fusion/LENR.  Rossi can only expect similar 
difficulties and a similar result by submitting to rigorous testing 
before similarly open-minded scientists.


Which of Jed's comments was "cogent"?


Jed's argument is cogent in at least the following ways:

  * There is not the faintest reason to have denied access to IH's
expert to view the customer facility. The claim that the customer
had trade secrets to protect does not pass the sniff test.
  * Once IH's expert saw the test setup, it is quite possible that the
only way he could have verified 1MW of output would be to visit
the customer's facility, which he was not allowed to do.
  * Absent IH's expert's sign-off on the testing, IH would have been
negligent to move forward.

[Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What
"absurd" circumstances for the test?  You know what the ERV did?

  * We know from Mats Lewan's recent interview that phase change
calorimetry was used for the testing, where you have water that
undergoes a phase change from liquid to steam, at 100 C.  Unless
there are careful measurements of additional details like pressure
and steam quality, phase change calorimetry is easy to mess up.  A
straightforward way to tighten things up would be to use a heat
exchanger and to measure delta T of the fluid in the secondary
circuit.  Rossi would have known about all of this, because a heat
exchanger was used in the October 6, 2011, test, no doubt for this
reason.  I am told that anyone who studies calorimetry at the
college level will be aware of this kind of difficulty with phase
change calorimetry.  If Penon was unaware, that would be quite
damning of his qualifications.  Fascinatingly, Rossi claims there
was indeed a heat exchanger that was used to deliver heat to the
customer. We can surmise from Mats Lewan's interview that the
secondary circuit of this heat exchanger was not what was used for
the ERV's calculations.
  * As Jed has persistently mentioned above your objections, Penon
told IH's expert that it would not be necessary to see the
customer installation.  If the putative arrangement to protect the
customer's trade secrets were between IH and Leonardo, it would
have been Rossi and not Penon who would have prevented IH's expert
from viewing the facility, and Penon would have had no business
getting involved.
  * Penon had a long history of collaborating with Rossi.  A few
months ago, when I heard Jones Beene speculate that he was the
ERV, I realized that Jones was might be right and rolled my eyes
in irritation.
  * Penon was not the first person one would think to call upon to
assess the performance of what was essentially a large boiler.
  * A test of a 1MW boiler is harder to characterize than a 1 kW unit
or a 100 W unit, and this can be done over a much shorter period
of time.

In a word: absurd.  There are other hints that have been dropped here 
and there that, if substantiated, would be even more damning.  But we 
don't need to know whether or not such hints are fact in order to 
decide that this particular test is other than rigorous.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:29 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

The fact is academia examined Fleischmann and Pon's results and declared it
> pseudo science.  DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR.  What more
> proof do you need?
>

You seem to have mistaken another position for my own and are arguing
against it rather than mine. At no point have I suggested that Pons and
Fleischmann did not run into difficulties.  But ultimately there were some
capable and fair-minded scientists that came on board and started looking
into cold fusion/LENR.  Rossi can only expect similar difficulties and a
similar result by submitting to rigorous testing before similarly
open-minded scientists.


> Which of Jed's comments was "cogent"?
>

Jed's argument is cogent in at least the following ways:

   - There is not the faintest reason to have denied access to IH's expert
   to view the customer facility.  The claim that the customer had trade
   secrets to protect does not pass the sniff test.
   - Once IH's expert saw the test setup, it is quite possible that the
   only way he could have verified 1MW of output would be to visit the
   customer's facility, which he was not allowed to do.
   - Absent IH's expert's sign-off on the testing, IH would have been
   negligent to move forward.

[Eric:] The ERV's report is technical not legal. [AA:] What "absurd"
> circumstances for the test?  You know what the ERV did?
>

   - We know from Mats Lewan's recent interview that phase change
   calorimetry was used for the testing, where you have water that undergoes a
   phase change from liquid to steam, at 100 C.  Unless there are careful
   measurements of additional details like pressure and steam quality, phase
   change calorimetry is easy to mess up.  A straightforward way to tighten
   things up would be to use a heat exchanger and to measure delta T of the
   fluid in the secondary circuit.  Rossi would have known about all of this,
   because a heat exchanger was used in the October 6, 2011, test, no doubt
   for this reason.  I am told that anyone who studies calorimetry at the
   college level will be aware of this kind of difficulty with phase change
   calorimetry.  If Penon was unaware, that would be quite damning of his
   qualifications.  Fascinatingly, Rossi claims there was indeed a heat
   exchanger that was used to deliver heat to the customer. We can surmise
   from Mats Lewan's interview that the secondary circuit of this heat
   exchanger was not what was used for the ERV's calculations.
   - As Jed has persistently mentioned above your objections, Penon told
   IH's expert that it would not be necessary to see the customer
   installation.  If the putative arrangement to protect the customer's trade
   secrets were between IH and Leonardo, it would have been Rossi and not
   Penon who would have prevented IH's expert from viewing the facility, and
   Penon would have had no business getting involved.
   - Penon had a long history of collaborating with Rossi.  A few months
   ago, when I heard Jones Beene speculate that he was the ERV, I realized
   that Jones was might be right and rolled my eyes in irritation.
   - Penon was not the first person one would think to call upon to assess
   the performance of what was essentially a large boiler.
   - A test of a 1MW boiler is harder to characterize than a 1 kW unit or a
   100 W unit, and this can be done over a much shorter period of time.

In a word: absurd.  There are other hints that have been dropped here and
there that, if substantiated, would be even more damning.  But we don't
need to know whether or not such hints are fact in order to decide that
this particular test is other than rigorous.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Credibility?

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4258.pdf
http://www.willkie.com/~/media/Files/Publications/2015/11/SEC_Brings_Additional_Enforcement_Actions_Related_to_Private_Equity.pdf
http://www.proskauer.com/files/News/3c30287c-cdaf-4f10-a784-b3ecd90f74c6/Presentation/NewsAttachment/65eabae6-64a6-4d4f-b8d6-b5748e75f7c6/VCExperts-SEC%20Action%20Against%20Private%20Fund%20Adviser%20Highlights%20Importance%20of%20Proper%20Expense%20Apport.pdf
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1bb458ca-d6ad-44be-b9db-cd1eda4c0040


On 6/4/2016 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If IH says something that may not be true either.


True, but they have more credibility than Rossi. More important, the 
most damaging information against Rossi comes from statements that 
Rossi himself made. His blocking the door and his magical round 
numbers tell you he is lying.


Also, I trust you now know that his claims of mass production starting 
Real Soon Now were false, along with much else he has said.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

So you don't have an answer to my question about why expert IH did not 
insist on proper instrumentation at the start.


No.  Complaining about it a year later, no matter how formally, does not 
hack it.


On 6/4/2016 5:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I don't recall that.  Care to give an actual quote they felt that
way at the BEGINNING?


The did not reveal that fact until the March 10 press release. 
However, I and some other people were aware they were not happy with 
the tests. As I said here several times, I was hoping Rossi would fix 
the problems. Then on March 10 I learned there were still problems.


I do not know about the beginning. I heard several months into the 
test. Assuming the configuration was the same at the beginning as it 
was in Rossi's data, anyone would have found fault with it. I don't 
know about this.


Press statements a year later don't hack it.


How about a motion to dismiss a lawsuit? That seems authoritative.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Jed.  But the real reason was because others replicated them

AA.  The real problem was because early flubbed attempts to replicate 
them failed.  Plus it was not understood how it could be possible.


Jed.   Since all other methods showed no excess heat, it was necessary 
to measure the dissipation.


AA.  That would be all that's need if it were true.  You have no proof 
of that, that you are willing to share, and the report of the 
independent ERV disagrees with that.  That is why the court case is 
necessary.



On 6/4/2016 5:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

AA.  Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is
not acknowledged to this very day.


They persuaded hundreds of scientists within a year. Granted they had 
credibility. But the real reason was because others replicated them. 
No one has replicated Rossi as far as I know. Some may have. Or maybe 
they replicated Mills.


AA.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  It should NOT be
necessary to see where the generated heat is dissipated in order
to measure the output of the 1 MW plant.


Since all other methods showed no excess heat, it was necessary to 
measure the dissipation.


Plus, as I said, no one would write a check for $89 million without 
checking this.


Would you hand over $89 million if your measurements showed no excess 
heat and Rossi would not let you into the customer site? Would you 
REALLY, REALLY do that, based on a contract written a year before?



  The ERV was the independent judge and you ignore him.


If the data I have seen comes from the ERV, then I have not ignored 
him. The ERV is Rossi's puppet, and he is very, very stupid.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

What "atrocious behavior"?  Or are you looking for an excuse to bring up 
ad hominems about his ancient legal troubles in Italy?


On 6/4/2016 5:13 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the
trial. The question is, do you?


There are the legal questions, and there are the questions of 
behavior.  Rossi may be found innocent by a court of law, should 
things come to that point. That will be hard to say until such a time 
as there are counterclaims that are raised.  What he is surely guilty 
of, outside of a legal context, is atrocious behavior.  There is no 
need for a trial to adjudicate that question.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

The fact is academia examined Fleischmann and Pon's results and declared 
it pseudo science.  DOE and the Patent Office still reject LENR.  What 
more proof do you need?


Which of Jed's comments was "cogent"?
The ERV's report is technical not legal.  What "absurd" circumstances 
for the test?  You know what the ERV did?


On 6/4/2016 5:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Eric.  There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one
tenth of what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke
and any scientist with any integrity through a series of rigorous
tests.

AA.  Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is
not acknowledged to this very day.


Fleischmann and Pons were talking about small COPs. Rossi has claims 
of a COP of anywhere between 2.6 and 50. There's a world of difference 
there.  Pons and Fleischmann, even with their more modest claims, were 
able to persuade the likes of Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson to 
take a look.  I am less pessimistic than you are about Rossi's 
prospects before a jury of fair-minded scientists, if he has anything 
near what he claims.


Eric,  we have hints that there is a case that he sought to
defraud IH.  His not allowing IH's expert to see the customer area
will not look good to the court.  If anyone is able to
substantiate his claim that IH signed away the right to see that
area, that would add substance to this particular question.

AA.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  It should NOT be
necessary to see where the generated heat is dissipated in order
to measure the output of the 1 MW plant.  The ERV was the
independent judge and you ignore him.  Remember it was Rossi that
took IH to court not the other way around.


You are free to repeat anything as many times as you like.  It doesn't 
make it any more reasonable. Jed's point is manifestly cogent.  You 
ignore it to your own discredit.  As to the matter of the ERV and his 
report, this is ultimately a legal question rather than a technical 
question, given what we know of the absurd circumstances of the test.  
And my bets are on Jones Day with regard to any legal questions.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

If IH says something that may not be true either.
>

True, but they have more credibility than Rossi. More important, the most
damaging information against Rossi comes from statements that Rossi himself
made. His blocking the door and his magical round numbers tell you he is
lying.

Also, I trust you now know that his claims of mass production starting Real
Soon Now were false, along with much else he has said.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I don't recall that.  Care to give an actual quote they felt that way at
> the BEGINNING?
>

The did not reveal that fact until the March 10 press release. However, I
and some other people were aware they were not happy with the tests. As I
said here several times, I was hoping Rossi would fix the problems. Then on
March 10 I learned there were still problems.

I do not know about the beginning. I heard several months into the test.
Assuming the configuration was the same at the beginning as it was in
Rossi's data, anyone would have found fault with it. I don't know about
this.



> Press statements a year later don't hack it.
>

How about a motion to dismiss a lawsuit? That seems authoritative.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

If IH says something that may not be true either.

On 6/4/2016 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil > wrote:

He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for
them right now as we speak.


Where did you get this information? If you heard this from Rossi, and 
there is no independent confirmation, I advise you to be careful. It 
may not be true.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Good point!  But it is a 7 day demo

On 6/4/2016 4:57 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for them 
right now as we speak.


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Axil,
It looks like Rossi is now planning to go ahead b himself, using
ABB robotics.  With the new QuarkX being so small it is possible
for him to do so.
I would have thought that he would need a rich partner as starting
production will probably cost more than he estimates.  Perhaps one
is waiting in the wings.


On 6/4/2016 4:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi has alway wanted to run his own manufacturing operation.
Inventing a LENR reactor is just a step to that goal. It is
inevitable that Rossi and IH would come to loggerheads over LENR
reactor production. Rossi wants to call the shots. It was
inevitable that Rossi and IH would part ways. Rossi has enough
street cred now to find a subservient manufacturing
partner/investor who Rossi can dominate.

Rossi sees IH as a deadly competitor and will do his best to
destroy them.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

For those that think I am blindly supporting Rossi, my
position is as follows.
I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything.  No one outside his
team does.  I think it likely that he does because of what he
has demonstrated and that others have reproduced to some
extent.   Also his E-Cats can get a COP in the range 2 - 6. 
No one will know until more information is available.


I think it is wrong to attack Rossi with the oft repeated ad
hominem attacks.  I give him the benefit of the doubt about
what he says unless facts prove otherwise.   I find him to be
a remarkable, tenacious man and wish him well.  There are
very few that have pursued a vision with his tenacity. 
Sadly, even if he is proven to be right, I doubt he will get

recognition in his lifetime, like a Nobel Prize, as he is
ignoring the stuffy rules of academia.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> AA.  Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is not
> acknowledged to this very day.
>

They persuaded hundreds of scientists within a year. Granted they had
credibility. But the real reason was because others replicated them. No one
has replicated Rossi as far as I know. Some may have. Or maybe they
replicated Mills.



> AA.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  It should NOT be necessary to
> see where the generated heat is dissipated in order to measure the output
> of the 1 MW plant.
>

Since all other methods showed no excess heat, it was necessary to measure
the dissipation.

Plus, as I said, no one would write a check for $89 million without
checking this.

Would you hand over $89 million if your measurements showed no excess heat
and Rossi would not let you into the customer site? Would you REALLY,
REALLY do that, based on a contract written a year before?




>   The ERV was the independent judge and you ignore him.
>

If the data I have seen comes from the ERV, then I have not ignored him.
The ERV is Rossi's puppet, and he is very, very stupid.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

I don't recall that.  Care to give an actual quote they felt that way at 
the BEGINNING?

Press statements a year later don't hack it.

On 6/4/2016 4:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

You keep on about IH's expertise: why did they agree to what was done?


They emphatically did not agree! That is what they said their press 
releases and motion to dismiss.


What he owed to IH was what an ERV provided.


Not according to the press releases or motion to dismiss.

  It is too late after the show to start complaining.


They were complaining all along. Anyone would. The test was a farce.

Meanwhile I go with the independent ERV's report until proven
otherwise.


Since you have no idea what the ERV's report says, how can you "go 
along" with it?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the trial.
> The question is, do you?
>

There are the legal questions, and there are the questions of behavior.
Rossi may be found innocent by a court of law, should things come to that
point.  That will be hard to say until such a time as there are
counterclaims that are raised.  What he is surely guilty of, outside of a
legal context, is atrocious behavior.  There is no need for a trial to
adjudicate that question.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Looks like Jed sort of maybe believes in Clarke's Law.

On 6/4/2016 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil > wrote:

A number of Russians, a number of Chinese, and Me356.


I have been in close contact with the Russians and two of the Chinese. 
I do not believe their results. I have no knowledge of Me356. (Nor 
would I deal with him or her or it. I never deal with people who do 
not give me their full name.)


Some of the Chinese results are suggestive but far from definitive. In 
any case, many others have claimed heat from Ni systems, so you might 
as well claim these people are replicating Mills or Piantelli, rather 
than Rossi. I do not see that their experiments resemble Rossi much. 
He has not revealed many details in any case, and his patents seem vague.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:06 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Eric.  There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of
> what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any scientist
> with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests.
>
> AA.  Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is not
> acknowledged to this very day.
>

Fleischmann and Pons were talking about small COPs.  Rossi has claims of a
COP of anywhere between 2.6 and 50.  There's a world of difference there.
Pons and Fleischmann, even with their more modest claims, were able to
persuade the likes of Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson to take a look.
I am less pessimistic than you are about Rossi's prospects before a jury of
fair-minded scientists, if he has anything near what he claims.


> Eric,  we have hints that there is a case that he sought to defraud IH.
> His not allowing IH's expert to see the customer area will not look good to
> the court.  If anyone is able to substantiate his claim that IH signed away
> the right to see that area, that would add substance to this particular
> question.
>
> AA.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  It should NOT be necessary to
> see where the generated heat is dissipated in order to measure the output
> of the 1 MW plant.  The ERV was the independent judge and you ignore him.
> Remember it was Rossi that took IH to court not the other way around.
>

You are free to repeat anything as many times as you like.  It doesn't make
it any more reasonable.  Jed's point is manifestly cogent.  You ignore it
to your own discredit.  As to the matter of the ERV and his report, this is
ultimately a legal question rather than a technical question, given what we
know of the absurd circumstances of the test.  And my bets are on Jones Day
with regard to any legal questions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

I KNOW the charged one should not be called guilty until after the 
trial.  The question is, do you?


On 6/4/2016 4:49 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Like Jed, you conclude he is guilty until proven innocent.


Rossi is suing IH, which are the ones to be assumed innocent until 
proven guilty under US law.  By contrast, we have five years of 
Rossi's comments and behavior upon which to draw conclusions.  This is 
hardly a snap judgment I've come to.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Eric.  There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of 
what he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any 
scientist with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests.


AA.  Oh yes? Fleischmann and Pons produced excess heat and that is not 
acknowledged to this very day.


Eric,  we have hints that there is a case that he sought to defraud IH.  
His not allowing IH's expert to see the customer area will not look good 
to the court.  If anyone is able to substantiate his claim that IH 
signed away the right to see that area, that would add substance to this 
particular question.


AA.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  It should NOT be necessary 
to see where the generated heat is dissipated in order to measure the 
output of the 1 MW plant.  The ERV was the independent judge and you 
ignore him.  Remember it was Rossi that took IH to court not the other 
way around.


On 6/4/2016 4:46 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Eric.  If he has something, let him show that he does through
rigorous testing.

AA.  Why the hell should he?  He doesn't owe you anything and it
is not in his interest to do prove it to academia.  I rather doubt
that would be possible anyway, as they think LENR is impossible. 
  Think Clarke's Law.  Any evidence of anomalous heat is

measurement error.


There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of what 
he claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any scientist 
with any integrity through a series of rigorous tests.  He doesn't 
have the obligation to do this, and he doesn't owe me anything.  But 
neither do I owe him anything. And I will happily apply the standard 
of science to his claims, which are readily found wanting by any 
reasonable standard.


Eric  he seems to think that he is entitled to millions of dollars
of other people's money without doing the footwork necessary to
merit that kind of investment.

AA.  He has to do enough to persuade his backers and he has
clearly done that.  He has avoided the fraudsters route of taking
money from a gullible public although he obviously had the ability
to that if he had wanted to.


There is prima facie evidence to the contrary; we have hints that 
there is a case that he sought to defraud IH.  His not allowing IH's 
expert to see the customer area will not look good to the court.  If 
anyone is able to substantiate his claim that IH signed away the right 
to see that area, that would add substance to this particular question.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for them right
> now as we speak.
>

Where did you get this information? If you heard this from Rossi, and there
is no independent confirmation, I advise you to be careful. It may not be
true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Axil Axil]

He has a investor on line, since he is running a 10 day demo for them right
now as we speak.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:54 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Axil,
> It looks like Rossi is now planning to go ahead b himself, using ABB
> robotics.  With the new QuarkX being so small it is possible for him to do
> so.
> I would have thought that he would need a rich partner as starting
> production will probably cost more than he estimates.  Perhaps one is
> waiting in the wings.
>
>
> On 6/4/2016 4:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> Rossi has alway wanted to run his own manufacturing operation. Inventing a
> LENR reactor is just a step to that goal. It is inevitable that Rossi and
> IH would come to loggerheads over LENR reactor production. Rossi wants to
> call the shots. It was inevitable that Rossi and IH would part ways. Rossi
> has enough street cred now to find a subservient manufacturing
> partner/investor who Rossi can dominate.
>
> Rossi sees IH as a deadly competitor and will do his best to destroy them.
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> For those that think I am blindly supporting Rossi, my position is as
>> follows.
>> I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything.  No one outside his team does.  I
>> think it likely that he does because of what he has demonstrated and that
>> others have reproduced to some extent.   Also his E-Cats can get a COP in
>> the range 2 - 6.  No one will know until more information is available.
>>
>> I think it is wrong to attack Rossi with the oft repeated ad hominem
>> attacks.  I give him the benefit of the doubt about what he says unless
>> facts prove otherwise.   I find him to be a remarkable, tenacious man and
>> wish him well.  There are very few that have pursued a vision with his
>> tenacity.  Sadly, even if he is proven to be right, I doubt he will get
>> recognition in his lifetime, like a Nobel Prize, as he is ignoring the
>> stuffy rules of academia.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> You keep on about IH's expertise: why did they agree to what was done?
>

They emphatically did not agree! That is what they said their press
releases and motion to dismiss.



> What he owed to IH was what an ERV provided.
>

Not according to the press releases or motion to dismiss.



>   It is too late after the show to start complaining.
>

They were complaining all along. Anyone would. The test was a farce.



> Meanwhile I go with the independent ERV's report until proven otherwise.
>

Since you have no idea what the ERV's report says, how can you "go along"
with it?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Axil,
It looks like Rossi is now planning to go ahead b himself, using ABB 
robotics.  With the new QuarkX being so small it is possible for him to 
do so.
I would have thought that he would need a rich partner as starting 
production will probably cost more than he estimates.  Perhaps one is 
waiting in the wings.


On 6/4/2016 4:38 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi has alway wanted to run his own manufacturing operation. 
Inventing a LENR reactor is just a step to that goal. It is inevitable 
that Rossi and IH would come to loggerheads over LENR reactor 
production. Rossi wants to call the shots. It was inevitable that 
Rossi and IH would part ways. Rossi has enough street cred now to find 
a subservient manufacturing partner/investor who Rossi can dominate.


Rossi sees IH as a deadly competitor and will do his best to destroy 
them.


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


For those that think I am blindly supporting Rossi, my position is
as follows.
I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything.  No one outside his team
does.  I think it likely that he does because of what he has
demonstrated and that others have reproduced to some extent. 
 Also his E-Cats can get a COP in the range 2 - 6. No one will

know until more information is available.

I think it is wrong to attack Rossi with the oft repeated ad
hominem attacks.  I give him the benefit of the doubt about what
he says unless facts prove otherwise.   I find him to be a
remarkable, tenacious man and wish him well.  There are very few
that have pursued a vision with his tenacity. Sadly, even if he is
proven to be right, I doubt he will get recognition in his
lifetime, like a Nobel Prize, as he is ignoring the stuffy rules
of academia.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Axil Axil]

The best witness to Rossi overunity is IH who awarded him 11.5 million for
a test of the reactor that meet or exceeded a COP of 6.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> A number of Russians, a number of Chinese, and Me356.
>>
>
> I have been in close contact with the Russians and two of the Chinese. I
> do not believe their results. I have no knowledge of Me356. (Nor would I
> deal with him or her or it. I never deal with people who do not give me
> their full name.)
>
> Some of the Chinese results are suggestive but far from definitive. In any
> case, many others have claimed heat from Ni systems, so you might as well
> claim these people are replicating Mills or Piantelli, rather than Rossi. I
> do not see that their experiments resemble Rossi much. He has not revealed
> many details in any case, and his patents seem vague.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

A number of Russians, a number of Chinese, and Me356.
>

I have been in close contact with the Russians and two of the Chinese. I do
not believe their results. I have no knowledge of Me356. (Nor would I deal
with him or her or it. I never deal with people who do not give me their
full name.)

Some of the Chinese results are suggestive but far from definitive. In any
case, many others have claimed heat from Ni systems, so you might as well
claim these people are replicating Mills or Piantelli, rather than Rossi. I
do not see that their experiments resemble Rossi much. He has not revealed
many details in any case, and his patents seem vague.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Like Jed, you conclude he is guilty until proven innocent.
>

Rossi is suing IH, which are the ones to be assumed innocent until proven
guilty under US law.  By contrast, we have five years of Rossi's comments
and behavior upon which to draw conclusions.  This is hardly a snap
judgment I've come to.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Eric.  If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous
> testing.
>
> AA.  Why the hell should he?  He doesn't owe you anything and it is not in
> his interest to do prove it to academia.  I rather doubt that would be
> possible anyway, as they think LENR is impossible.Think Clarke's Law.
> Any evidence of anomalous heat is measurement error.
>

There is not the faintest question that if Rossi had one tenth of what he
claims, he could eventually persuade Tom Clarke and any scientist with any
integrity through a series of rigorous tests.  He doesn't have the
obligation to do this, and he doesn't owe me anything.  But neither do I
owe him anything. And I will happily apply the standard of science to his
claims, which are readily found wanting by any reasonable standard.

Eric  he seems to think that he is entitled to millions of dollars of other
> people's money without doing the footwork necessary to merit that kind of
> investment.
>
> AA.  He has to do enough to persuade his backers and he has clearly done
> that.  He has avoided the fraudsters route of taking money from a gullible
> public although he obviously had the ability to that if he had wanted to.
>

There is prima facie evidence to the contrary; we have hints that there is
a case that he sought to defraud IH.  His not allowing IH's expert to see
the customer area will not look good to the court.  If anyone is able to
substantiate his claim that IH signed away the right to see that area, that
would add substance to this particular question.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything.  No one outside his team does.


I am outside of his team, and I know he has nothing. Anyone who read his
statement to Lewan about blocking the door can see he has nothing. That
plus his magically round numbers show he has nothing. Plus I have seen
additional evidence.



>   I think it likely that he does because of what he has demonstrated and
> that others have reproduced to some extent.


Absolutely true!!! Anyone can reproduce it with an electric heater. There
is no excess heat.


   Also his E-Cats can get a COP in the range 2 - 6.


No, they do not. The COP is around 0.6 to 0.8, ignoring heat losses from
the reactor.



>   No one will know until more information is available.
>

Information was made available to I.H. long ago. They saw no excess heat.
Read their press released and motion to dismiss. Why do you believe Rossi
more than you believe I.H.? What possible basis do you have to think he is
telling the truth, when you know he has lied about mass production and much
else over the years?



> I think it is wrong to attack Rossi with the oft repeated ad hominem
> attacks.


Rossi has attacked himself more effectively than anyone else could. Nothing
I can say about him is one-tenth as damaging as his own admission that he
did not allow access to the customer site.



> I give him the benefit of the doubt about what he says unless facts prove
> otherwise.


Benefit of what doubt? His own magically round numbers and facts disprove
him.


   I find him to be a remarkable, tenacious man and wish him well.


I hope he gets another jail term. I wish he was not already stealing money
from new victims in Europe, but alas he seems to be doing that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You are ignoring what I said.
I wasn't talking about Rossi stopping IH from visiting the customer's 
premises, but whether he could stop IH from insisting on proper 
instrumentation through the ERV before the test even started. You keep 
on about IH's expertise: why did they agree to what was done?


What he owed to IH was what an ERV provided.  It is too late after the 
show to start complaining.  If in doubt why not restart the plant for a 
few days with better instrumentation?  Meanwhile I go with the 
independent ERV's report until proven otherwise.


On 6/4/2016 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


Eric.  If he has something, let him show that he does through
rigorous testing.

AA.  Why the hell should he?  He doesn't owe you anything and it
is not in his interest to do prove it to academia.


He owed it to I.H. It was his contract obligation. He failed to do 
rigorous testing.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Axil Axil]

A number of Russians, a number of Chinese, and Me356.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Clearly, Rossi's reaction is LENR active. It has been replicated by many
>> people.
>>
>
> Not as far as I know. Who has replicated it?
>
> Other people have observed heat from nickel, but they did that before
> Rossi.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Axil Axil]

Rossi has alway wanted to run his own manufacturing operation. Inventing a
LENR reactor is just a step to that goal. It is inevitable that Rossi and
IH would come to loggerheads over LENR reactor production. Rossi wants to
call the shots. It was inevitable that Rossi and IH would part ways. Rossi
has enough street cred now to find a subservient manufacturing
partner/investor who Rossi can dominate.

Rossi sees IH as a deadly competitor and will do his best to destroy them.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> For those that think I am blindly supporting Rossi, my position is as
> follows.
> I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything.  No one outside his team does.  I
> think it likely that he does because of what he has demonstrated and that
> others have reproduced to some extent.   Also his E-Cats can get a COP in
> the range 2 - 6.  No one will know until more information is available.
>
> I think it is wrong to attack Rossi with the oft repeated ad hominem
> attacks.  I give him the benefit of the doubt about what he says unless
> facts prove otherwise.   I find him to be a remarkable, tenacious man and
> wish him well.  There are very few that have pursued a vision with his
> tenacity.  Sadly, even if he is proven to be right, I doubt he will get
> recognition in his lifetime, like a Nobel Prize, as he is ignoring the
> stuffy rules of academia.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

Clearly, Rossi's reaction is LENR active. It has been replicated by many
> people.
>

Not as far as I know. Who has replicated it?

Other people have observed heat from nickel, but they did that before Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

For those that think I am blindly supporting Rossi, my position is as 
follows.
I don't KNOW that Rossi has anything.  No one outside his team does.  I 
think it likely that he does because of what he has demonstrated and 
that others have reproduced to some extent.   Also his E-Cats can get a 
COP in the range 2 - 6.  No one will know until more information is 
available.


I think it is wrong to attack Rossi with the oft repeated ad hominem 
attacks.  I give him the benefit of the doubt about what he says unless 
facts prove otherwise.   I find him to be a remarkable, tenacious man 
and wish him well.  There are very few that have pursued a vision with 
his tenacity.  Sadly, even if he is proven to be right, I doubt he will 
get recognition in his lifetime, like a Nobel Prize, as he is ignoring 
the stuffy rules of academia.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Axil Axil]

Clearly, Rossi's reaction is LENR active. It has been replicated by many
people.

This concern is...is the Rossi tech at a sufficiently advanced stage where
it able to be commercialized?

IH for whatever reason does not want to commercialise Rossi's tech. This
does not mean that Rossi's reactor can't make money in the marketplace.

The motive of IH is opaque. For some reason, they do not want to build a
LENR production plant, either from uncomplicate of as an absurd business
strategy. They do not want to abandon Rossi's IP.

It could be that IH and Rossi are just incompatible in terms of management
style. Rossi is a hard man to get along with.

I think what IH has feed to Jed is a political SPIN stance to support their
lawsuit defence. Being inherently a good and trusing person, trustful and
loyal to his friends, JED  will support them in their political moves.

But Rossi's reactor will produce excess heat. It will hold steam. The
question is...how efficient and reliable is the Rossi reactor at converting
and controlling the excess heat into commercial levels of stream?

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Eric.  If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous
> testing.
>
> AA.  Why the hell should he?  He doesn't owe you anything and it is not in
> his interest to do prove it to academia.  I rather doubt that would be
> possible anyway, as they think LENR is impossible.Think Clarke's Law.
> Any evidence of anomalous heat is measurement error.
>
> Eric  he seems to think that he is entitled to millions of dollars of
> other people's money without doing the footwork necessary to merit that
> kind of investment.
>
> AA.  He has to do enough to persuade his backers and he has clearly done
> that.  He has avoided the fraudsters route of taking money from a gullible
> public although he obviously had the ability to that if he had wanted to.
>
> Like Jed, you conclude he is guilty until proven innocent.
>
>
> On 6/4/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> My conclusion is that Rossi's behavior has been abominable, and that he
> shouldn't be given a free pass.  If he has something, let him show that he
> does through rigorous testing.  He seems to want to take shortcuts and to
> undermine any tests that are carried out, in private or in public.  And he
> seems to think that he is entitled to millions of dollars of other people's
> money without doing the footwork necessary to merit that kind of
> investment.  On this latter question the courts will decide, thankfully.
>
> Rossi has no obligation to substantiate his public claims to us in the
> audience.  But neither do we have an obligation to apply anything other
> than a scientific standard to what he has claimed.  And in that court he
> has repeatedly fallen short.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> We will see soon enough.  I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will give
>> positive results.  If that happens it will alter the game.  I gather that
>> you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work.  I don't consider that
>> proven.
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Eric.  If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous
> testing.
>
> AA.  Why the hell should he?  He doesn't owe you anything and it is not in
> his interest to do prove it to academia.
>

He owed it to I.H. It was his contract obligation. He failed to do rigorous
testing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I said that IH had signed an agreement not to enter the customer's
> premises for IP reasons.
>

I doubt they signed any such contract, but signing one "for IP reasons"
makes no sense whatever. If the customer had any IP it could easily be
hidden from the I.H. expert.

In fact, the "customer" had no employees, made no sound, and conducted no
business, so I.H. and anyone else with half a brain could see the customer
was fake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

No. What you said, many times, categorically, was that it was impossible to
> measure the output without knowing where the generated heat went.
>

I said it is impossible with this configuration. Obviously, HVAC engineers
measure the heat without observing the use of it with conventional boilers
in factories.

What kind of an idiot do you think I am??? Anyone knows it can be done that
way. I said you can't do it with Rossi's setup, which is why the I.H.
expert insisted on getting access. What kind of idiot do you think that
expert was?

In point of fact, when $89 million is at stake, any HVAC engineer would
insist on examining every aspect of the system, including the use of the
process heat and the ventilation equipment. This is not a run-of-the-mill
safety check. It calls for as much proof as the experts can muster.

Also, as a practical matter, if you measured only a 20 kW approximately,
and you knew there was no one going in or out of the facility, and company
was conducting no business, wouldn't you want to know where the 1 MW of
heat was going to? Wouldn't you insist?



>If as you now agree it was possible, why didn't IH insist on doing it?
>

They did insist. Rossi told you they did.



> I don't buy that ii was Rossi's refusal.
>

Rossi told you it was his refusal! His own words. He said the I.H. expert
insisted, but he and his puppet Penon did not allow it.

If you won't take Rossi's word for this, who will you believe?



>   The ERV could have been persuaded with sensible arguments. and had free
> choice how to do it.  IH was paying half his salary.
>

No, Rossi told you the ERV could not be persuaded.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Jed,  It is quite another for you to repeatedly assert that Rossi must 
have a legitimate reason to block the door


AA.  We have been though this at least three times.  Why?
I said that IH had signed an agreement not to enter the customer's 
premises for IP reasons.  Also that it was not necessary to see how the 
heat was dissipated in order to measure the plant output.  How many 
times does this have to be repeated?



On 6/4/2016 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

We will see soon enough.  I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will
give positive results.  If that happens it will alter the game.


I kind of doubt these tests are underway, or that the QuarkX exists. 
But I wouldn't know.



I gather that you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work. 
I don't consider that proven.



Not proven. Okay. Do you have any reason to doubt it?

Would you care to explain why Rossi did not allow anyone into the 
pretend company, which has conducted no business in the state of 
Florida, and has no employees?


It is one thing for you to express doubts, or to reserve judgement. It 
is quite another for you to repeatedly assert that Rossi must have a 
legitimate reason to block the door, or that he must be right and I.H. 
is wrong. Since you have no dog in this fight I suggest you stop 
taking sides.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Eric.  If he has something, let him show that he does through rigorous 
testing.


AA.  Why the hell should he?  He doesn't owe you anything and it is not 
in his interest to do prove it to academia.  I rather doubt that would 
be possible anyway, as they think LENR is impossible.Think Clarke's 
Law.  Any evidence of anomalous heat is measurement error.


Eric  he seems to think that he is entitled to millions of dollars of 
other people's money without doing the footwork necessary to merit that 
kind of investment.


AA.  He has to do enough to persuade his backers and he has clearly done 
that.  He has avoided the fraudsters route of taking money from a 
gullible public although he obviously had the ability to that if he had 
wanted to.


Like Jed, you conclude he is guilty until proven innocent.

On 6/4/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
My conclusion is that Rossi's behavior has been abominable, and that 
he shouldn't be given a free pass.  If he has something, let him show 
that he does through rigorous testing.  He seems to want to take 
shortcuts and to undermine any tests that are carried out, in private 
or in public.  And he seems to think that he is entitled to millions 
of dollars of other people's money without doing the footwork 
necessary to merit that kind of investment.  On this latter question 
the courts will decide, thankfully.


Rossi has no obligation to substantiate his public claims to us in the 
audience.  But neither do we have an obligation to apply anything 
other than a scientific standard to what he has claimed.  And in that 
court he has repeatedly fallen short.


Eric


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


We will see soon enough.  I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will
give positive results.  If that happens it will alter the game.  I
gather that you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work.  I
don't consider that proven.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> We will see soon enough.  I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will give
> positive results.  If that happens it will alter the game.
>

I kind of doubt these tests are underway, or that the QuarkX exists. But I
wouldn't know.




> I gather that you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work.  I don't
> consider that proven.
>

Not proven. Okay. Do you have any reason to doubt it?

Would you care to explain why Rossi did not allow anyone into the pretend
company, which has conducted no business in the state of Florida, and has
no employees?

It is one thing for you to express doubts, or to reserve judgement. It is
quite another for you to repeatedly assert that Rossi must have a
legitimate reason to block the door, or that he must be right and I.H. is
wrong. Since you have no dog in this fight I suggest you stop taking sides.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

My conclusion is that Rossi's behavior has been abominable, and that he
shouldn't be given a free pass.  If he has something, let him show that he
does through rigorous testing.  He seems to want to take shortcuts and to
undermine any tests that are carried out, in private or in public.  And he
seems to think that he is entitled to millions of dollars of other people's
money without doing the footwork necessary to merit that kind of
investment.  On this latter question the courts will decide, thankfully.

Rossi has no obligation to substantiate his public claims to us in the
audience.  But neither do we have an obligation to apply anything other
than a scientific standard to what he has claimed.  And in that court he
has repeatedly fallen short.

Eric


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

We will see soon enough.  I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will give
> positive results.  If that happens it will alter the game.  I gather that
> you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work.  I don't consider that
> proven.
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

No. What you said, many times, categorically, was that it was impossible 
to measure the output without knowing where the generated heat went.   
If as you now agree it was possible, why didn't IH insist on doing it?  
I don't buy that ii was Rossi's refusal.  The ERV could have been 
persuaded with sensible arguments. and had free choice how to do it.  IH 
was paying half his salary.


On 6/4/2016 2:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

AA. Don't be silly.  I was saying that technically I could
instrument a black box to measure the steam/water output.


Well of course you could! So could I; so could anyone. But Rossi did 
not do this, and he refused to let anyone else do this.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

We will see soon enough.  I'm hoping that the QuarkX test will give 
positive results.  If that happens it will alter the game.  I gather 
that you are on Jed's side that the E-Cat doesn't work.  I don't 
consider that proven.


On 6/4/2016 2:12 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:58 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


As I said, this is lawyer fodder.  The Chief Justice once said
"The law is an ass" so anything might happen.


Perhaps. But the larger point is that Rossi is not acting upon a 
realistic assessment of what lies within the realm of possibility.  
Perhaps he sees himself as David to IH's Goliath.  At least David was 
a capable fighter. Rossi has chosen an inexperienced lawyer to do his 
fighting. IH have sensibly hired a decent law firm.  I have few doubts 
as to which team will come out on top.  The questions that will be 
considered will be mind-numbingly banal ones, but ones that have legal 
significance.  Rossi deliberately chose this battle.


Rossi is obstinately proceeding forward within his own reality 
distortion field, either oblivious to the difficulties he has brought 
upon himself and that he is about to bring upon himself, or out of 
some kind of self-destructive impulse.  One might wonder, despite 
hints from people with access to additional information that there is 
evidence of deliberate fraud, whether beneath all of this distraction 
Rossi actually has a working technology.  If he has approached 
technical questions with the same lack of attention to detail that he 
has legal questions, the outlook is not promising.  I do not see how 
people can attach themselves with such vigor to the notion that Rossi 
is in the right here and IH are in the wrong.  People are not being 
objective.


Eric

[Vo]:Saga of the Rossi Cheer Leading squad

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Once again I have temporarily rejoined Vortex while I wait for my primary PC
to be fixed at the repair shop. 

 

Something Jed recently stated, I think, bears repeating:

 

> It is possible Rossi is a genius, an inventor, a fraud and a con man 

> -- all at the same time. That is how I would describe Thomas Edison

> and Steve Jobs. In Rossi's case, I cannot tell whether he has

> actually invented anything real.

 

It would seem much of the current Vortex Rossi cheer leading squad is all up
in arms, and as such, tend to ignore the ramifications of the above
commentary from Jed. It would seem many Rossi supporters have concluded that
Jed believes Rossi is nothing but a fraud. Well... yes, Jed has clearly an
repeatedly opined that Rossi has done fraudulent things. But if Rossi
supporters would try to read a little more closely some of Jed's commentary,
some might eventually come away with the realization that Jed has been
attempting to reveal a much more complicated picture of Rossi's behavior
rather than the black & white scenario Rossi supporters are attempting to
attack Jed with.

 

If I were to opine a comment of my on this on-going Saga: Based on all the
behaviors documented about Rossi's activities, clearly Andrea is not someone
who has earned my trust. But a lack of trust does not automatically imply
that Rossi hasn't managed to uncover something unusual, and possibly even
extraordinary. While I don't trust Rossi, I have no interest in repeatedly
damning the man, as Mr. Krivit tends to do in any reporting he does on the
subject.

 

I often wish that certain Vortex Rossi supporters would spend less time
cherry picking the content of Jed's statements and spend more time asking
themselves a more basic question: Would I trust my 401-K plan under the
mercurial management style of Andrea Rossi?

 

"Do I feel lucky?"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xjr2hnOHiM

 

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

orionworks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> AA. Don't be silly.  I was saying that technically I could instrument a
> black box to measure the steam/water output.
>

Well of course you could! So could I; so could anyone. But Rossi did not do
this, and he refused to let anyone else do this.



> Not that I had any ability to do so at Rossi's site.
>

No one had that ability. Rossi did not allow it. His instruments were
"flawed" and "unsuitable" as I.H. put it. I assume he deliberately set
things up to make it impossible to measure the heat because he is a
nefarious fraud, but it is possible he did that because he is a world-class
idiot. He does not seem stupid to me.



>   If you want to continue this pointless argument I will provide detailed
> quotes and instrument specifications of how to do it, if you doubt me and
> will pay for my wasted time.
>

You have missed the point entirely. Anyone with knowledge of calorimetry
could have done this easily. We all know that. Rossi went out of his way to
do it in ways that made it difficult or impossible to measure anything. The
only way you could measure the heat with confidence would be to go into the
imaginary customer site and measure it at whatever was in that room that
lowered the fluid temperature from 100.1 deg C to 60 deg C. Or from the
ventilation equipment in that room.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:58 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

As I said, this is lawyer fodder.  The Chief Justice once said "The law is
> an ass" so anything might happen.
>

Perhaps. But the larger point is that Rossi is not acting upon a realistic
assessment of what lies within the realm of possibility.  Perhaps he sees
himself as David to IH's Goliath.  At least David was a capable fighter.
Rossi has chosen an inexperienced lawyer to do his fighting.  IH have
sensibly hired a decent law firm.  I have few doubts as to which team will
come out on top.  The questions that will be considered will be
mind-numbingly banal ones, but ones that have legal significance.  Rossi
deliberately chose this battle.

Rossi is obstinately proceeding forward within his own reality distortion
field, either oblivious to the difficulties he has brought upon himself and
that he is about to bring upon himself, or out of some kind of
self-destructive impulse.  One might wonder, despite hints from people with
access to additional information that there is evidence of deliberate
fraud, whether beneath all of this distraction Rossi actually has a working
technology.  If he has approached technical questions with the same lack of
attention to detail that he has legal questions, the outlook is not
promising.  I do not see how people can attach themselves with such vigor
to the notion that Rossi is in the right here and IH are in the wrong.
People are not being objective.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

As I said, this is lawyer fodder.  The Chief Justice once said "The law 
is an ass" so anything might happen.


On 6/4/2016 1:34 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


It is not that clear.  Rossi maintains IH have not fulfilled the
terms of the agreement and his lawyer has issued a public
statement saying that IH's license has been withdrawn for said
reason.  So who owns what will be income for lawyers for a long
time I imagine. There maybe IP in the new 250KW E-Cat's for
example. Weren't IH complaining that he didn't use the original
E-Cats that were on standby?


It is a stretch to argue that ownership of the physical 1MW plant, 
obtained with the first 1.5 million dollars, is mixed up with the 
licensing of the E-Cat IP, obtained with the subsequent 10 million 
dollars. Whatever IP or trade secrets went into the 1MW plant, 
presumably their physical embodiments are now the property of IH, 
prior to any licensing question. Perhaps Rossi has a case that IH have 
not satisfied their side of the licensing agreement with regard to the 
IP, in which case they just have a 1MW plant.  I do not see how Rossi 
could argue that they have not paid up for the 1MW plant.  Perhaps 
these two things are tied up together. That is something a lawyer will 
know more about.  But pending such a clarification, one is strongly 
tempted to conclude that IH have more than adequately satisfied the 
terms of the actual /acquisition/ of the plant.


They /may/ have a basis for claiming damages from Rossi for switching 
out the original modules that were purchased with the plant and 
replacing them with others later on during the test which IH had not 
purchased and did not approve of. I suppose that would depend upon the 
details, e.g., whether the original modules are still around, and how 
irritated IH get with Rossi's ongoing miscalculations.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

It is not that clear.  Rossi maintains IH have not fulfilled the terms of
> the agreement and his lawyer has issued a public statement saying that IH's
> license has been withdrawn for said reason.  So who owns what will be
> income for lawyers for a long time I imagine. There maybe IP in the new
> 250KW E-Cat's for example. Weren't IH complaining that he didn't use the
> original E-Cats that were on standby?


It is a stretch to argue that ownership of the physical 1MW plant, obtained
with the first 1.5 million dollars, is mixed up with the licensing of the
E-Cat IP, obtained with the subsequent 10 million dollars. Whatever IP or
trade secrets went into the 1MW plant, presumably their physical
embodiments are now the property of IH, prior to any licensing question.
Perhaps Rossi has a case that IH have not satisfied their side of the
licensing agreement with regard to the IP, in which case they just have a
1MW plant.  I do not see how Rossi could argue that they have not paid up
for the 1MW plant.  Perhaps these two things are tied up together.  That is
something a lawyer will know more about.  But pending such a clarification,
one is strongly tempted to conclude that IH have more than adequately
satisfied the terms of the actual *acquisition* of the plant.

They *may* have a basis for claiming damages from Rossi for switching out
the original modules that were purchased with the plant and replacing them
with others later on during the test which IH had not purchased and did not
approve of. I suppose that would depend upon the details, e.g., whether the
original modules are still around, and how irritated IH get with Rossi's
ongoing miscalculations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

It is not that clear.  Rossi maintains IH have not fulfilled the terms 
of the agreement and his lawyer has issued a public statement saying 
that IH's license has been withdrawn for said reason.  So who owns what 
will be income for lawyers for a long time I imagine. There maybe IP in 
the new 250KW E-Cat's for example. Weren't IH complaining that he didn't 
use the original E-Cats that were on standby?


On 6/4/2016 12:58 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

My point is a narrow one. Presumably with ownership of the plant, it is/was 
within rights of IH to park it in a field in Nebraska, or to make a sculpture 
out of the scrap metal, or to drop it off of a bridge in connection with a 
television show. In this context, one wonders on what basis Rossi would have 
thought that it made sense to place a lock on the door. IH have been very 
patient with him.

Eric


On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:39, a.ashfield  wrote:

AA  .What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and 
that was why Rossi locked his part of the building.

Eric. IH became the owner of the 1MW plant with the first payment of 1.5 
million dollars.

AA.  There is the small matter of whether Rossi gets paid $89 million depending 
on the plant's performance.  It maybe necessary to run it again to prove the 
point with better instrumentation.

[Vo]:LENR and the limits of analytical science

[Peter Gluck]

Andrea Rossi answers to the Dismiss accusations re the Test

I get my portion of accusations too and I answer my way

Life is still interesting

Evviva LENR!

peter

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-04-2016-lenr-and-limits-of.html
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

   Jed. It is the only possible way to estimate the heat production.

   AA.  Really?  I could do it but your "experts" from IH couldn't?


Jed.  No, you could not, except perhaps by ESP. Or -- what the heck -- 
you could just come up with some round numbers with 3 or 4 zeros, the 
way Rossi did. Rossi made sure no one could measure anything. As noted 
in I.H. motion to dismiss, the reactor was inoperable, the instruments 
flawed, and the measuring devices unsuitable. (Unsuitable is putting it 
mildly.) Since you know nothing about the particulars, you have no 
reason to claim that you could magically see through walls and measure 
the unmeasurable.


Why do you think the I.H. expert "insisted" (Rossi's words) he must see 
the customer site? Do you think that was a whim? There was no reason? 
What grounds do you have to contradict this expert's judgement?


You need to stop making stuff up. Pay attention to what Rossi actually 
said, and you will see that I right.


AA. Don't be silly.  I was saying that technically I could instrument a 
black box to measure the steam/water output.  Not that I had any ability 
to do so at Rossi's site.  If you want to continue this pointless 
argument I will provide detailed quotes and instrument specifications of 
how to do it, if you doubt me and will pay for my wasted time.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

My point is a narrow one. Presumably with ownership of the plant, it is/was 
within rights of IH to park it in a field in Nebraska, or to make a sculpture 
out of the scrap metal, or to drop it off of a bridge in connection with a 
television show. In this context, one wonders on what basis Rossi would have 
thought that it made sense to place a lock on the door. IH have been very 
patient with him.

Eric

> On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:39, a.ashfield  wrote:
> 
> AA  .What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and 
> that was why Rossi locked his part of the building.
> 
> Eric. IH became the owner of the 1MW plant with the first payment of 1.5 
> million dollars.
> 
> AA.  There is the small matter of whether Rossi gets paid $89 million 
> depending on the plant's performance.  It maybe necessary to run it again to 
> prove the point with better instrumentation.
> 

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[H LV]

Those qualities aren't unique to entrepreneurs. They can be found in other
creative people. What makes an entrepreneur special is their need to
succeed in the marketplace.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Harry,
> You are right.
> However, that label does not say anything about the persons character or
> mental capacity.
> Entrepreneurship does not come down to good or bad.
> I base it on :
> Determination.
> Optimism.
> Stubborn.
> Unpredictable.
> Result oriented before money oriented.
> and a few other things I think we mostly agree on and have seen over the
> years.
>
> 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 Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Lennart Thornros 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +Jed, I have not seen much entrepreneurial spirit in your comments here.
>>> I did not know you were an entrepreneur - you hide that well. You are a
>>> believer in the governments ability to innovate and run business. Sorry,
>>> but it sounds to me as the opposite.
>>> However, I might be wrong about your entrepreneurial skills. I am sure
>>> that you are dead wrong when it comes to Rossi's entrepreneurial spirits. I
>>> might not know much about caliometry but I know an entrepreneur when I see
>>> one in action. Suddenly I thought maybe you are as poor judging the other
>>> information you have? Well, that is speculation as you keep your info
>>> secret.
>>> If that info is as bad as your constant repeating that Rossi padlocked
>>> the door. Then you have nada. IH was not allowed to customer's site already
>>> in agreement.
>>> Take a look at Rossi - a real entrepreneur and as such pron to be
>>> overoptimistic and even overstate his accomplishment. No, it is not as
>>> prudent as required by academic standard. However, that is why
>>> entrepreneurs rather than professors take as a giant step here and there.
>>> Judgement of Rossi is certainly still too early. I hope he has much more
>>> than you give him credit for. I am not going to be disappointed if he did
>>> not achieve the numbers he has claimed.I admit there are several not so
>>> clear messages from Rossi but that is to be expected. It is too little info
>>> to make judgement.
>>> Wait and see. The reality is what it is and the value in labeling people
>>> is close to zero.
>>>
>>>
>> ​
>>
>> ​ "real entrepreneur" is also a label​.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

AA  .What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant 
and that was why Rossi locked his part of the building.


Eric. IH became the owner of the 1MW plant with the first payment of 1.5 
million dollars.


AA.  There is the small matter of whether Rossi gets paid $89 million 
depending on the plant's performance.  It maybe necessary to run it 
again to prove the point with better instrumentation.

Re: [Vo]:COP < 1 should not be negative evidence for cold fusion (thinking in general, not about Rossi)

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

So, if the heat is very small, smaller than the precision, this radiation
> could be a way to measure that.
>

I do not think this would work with electrolysis. The background heat from
electrolysis is so large, a tiny amount of excess heat measured in photo
emission would be lost in the noise.

This might work with gas loading.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Jed.  It is the only possible way to estimate the heat production.
>
> AA.  Really?  I could do it but your "experts" from IH couldn't?
>

No, you could not, except perhaps by ESP. Or -- what the heck -- you could
just come up with some round numbers with 3 or 4 zeros, the way Rossi did.
Rossi made sure no one could measure anything. As noted in I.H. motion to
dismiss, the reactor was inoperable, the instruments flawed, and the
measuring devices unsuitable. (Unsuitable is putting it mildly.) Since you
know nothing about the particulars, you have no reason to claim that you
could magically see through walls and measure the unmeasurable.

Why do you think the I.H. expert "insisted" (Rossi's words) he must see the
customer site? Do you think that was a whim? There was no reason? What
grounds do you have to contradict this expert's judgement?

You need to stop making stuff up. Pay attention to what Rossi actually
said, and you will see that I right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

Harry,
You are right.
However, that label does not say anything about the persons character or
mental capacity.
Entrepreneurship does not come down to good or bad.
I base it on :
Determination.
Optimism.
Stubborn.
Unpredictable.
Result oriented before money oriented.
and a few other things I think we mostly agree on and have seen over the
years.

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 Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> +Jed, I have not seen much entrepreneurial spirit in your comments here.
>> I did not know you were an entrepreneur - you hide that well. You are a
>> believer in the governments ability to innovate and run business. Sorry,
>> but it sounds to me as the opposite.
>> However, I might be wrong about your entrepreneurial skills. I am sure
>> that you are dead wrong when it comes to Rossi's entrepreneurial spirits. I
>> might not know much about caliometry but I know an entrepreneur when I see
>> one in action. Suddenly I thought maybe you are as poor judging the other
>> information you have? Well, that is speculation as you keep your info
>> secret.
>> If that info is as bad as your constant repeating that Rossi padlocked
>> the door. Then you have nada. IH was not allowed to customer's site already
>> in agreement.
>> Take a look at Rossi - a real entrepreneur and as such pron to be
>> overoptimistic and even overstate his accomplishment. No, it is not as
>> prudent as required by academic standard. However, that is why
>> entrepreneurs rather than professors take as a giant step here and there.
>> Judgement of Rossi is certainly still too early. I hope he has much more
>> than you give him credit for. I am not going to be disappointed if he did
>> not achieve the numbers he has claimed.I admit there are several not so
>> clear messages from Rossi but that is to be expected. It is too little info
>> to make judgement.
>> Wait and see. The reality is what it is and the value in labeling people
>> is close to zero.
>>
>>
> ​
>
> ​ "real entrepreneur" is also a label​.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:52 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and
> that was why Rossi locked his part of the building.


IH became the owner of the 1MW plant with the first payment of 1.5 million
dollars.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

AA.Your comment “I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for 
the money” is an ad hominem that serves no useful purpose.


Jed.That is my informed opinion.

AA. I know it is your opinion.What useful purpose does it serve?

Jed.Furthermore, if you say that, I say your ad hominem attacks against 
I.H. serve no useful purpose. At least I have evidence for my claims. 
You have nothing.


AA. Please quote an ad hominem attack I have made against IH.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[H LV]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> +Jed, I have not seen much entrepreneurial spirit in your comments here. I
> did not know you were an entrepreneur - you hide that well. You are a
> believer in the governments ability to innovate and run business. Sorry,
> but it sounds to me as the opposite.
> However, I might be wrong about your entrepreneurial skills. I am sure
> that you are dead wrong when it comes to Rossi's entrepreneurial spirits. I
> might not know much about caliometry but I know an entrepreneur when I see
> one in action. Suddenly I thought maybe you are as poor judging the other
> information you have? Well, that is speculation as you keep your info
> secret.
> If that info is as bad as your constant repeating that Rossi padlocked the
> door. Then you have nada. IH was not allowed to customer's site already in
> agreement.
> Take a look at Rossi - a real entrepreneur and as such pron to be
> overoptimistic and even overstate his accomplishment. No, it is not as
> prudent as required by academic standard. However, that is why
> entrepreneurs rather than professors take as a giant step here and there.
> Judgement of Rossi is certainly still too early. I hope he has much more
> than you give him credit for. I am not going to be disappointed if he did
> not achieve the numbers he has claimed.I admit there are several not so
> clear messages from Rossi but that is to be expected. It is too little info
> to make judgement.
> Wait and see. The reality is what it is and the value in labeling people
> is close to zero.
>
>
​

​ "real entrepreneur" is also a label​.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

+Jed, I have not seen much entrepreneurial spirit in your comments here. I
did not know you were an entrepreneur - you hide that well. You are a
believer in the governments ability to innovate and run business. Sorry,
but it sounds to me as the opposite.
However, I might be wrong about your entrepreneurial skills. I am sure that
you are dead wrong when it comes to Rossi's entrepreneurial spirits. I
might not know much about caliometry but I know an entrepreneur when I see
one in action. Suddenly I thought maybe you are as poor judging the other
information you have? Well, that is speculation as you keep your info
secret.
If that info is as bad as your constant repeating that Rossi padlocked the
door. Then you have nada. IH was not allowed to customer's site already in
agreement.
Take a look at Rossi - a real entrepreneur and as such pron to be
overoptimistic and even overstate his accomplishment. No, it is not as
prudent as required by academic standard. However, that is why
entrepreneurs rather than professors take as a giant step here and there.
Judgement of Rossi is certainly still too early. I hope he has much more
than you give him credit for. I am not going to be disappointed if he did
not achieve the numbers he has claimed.I admit there are several not so
clear messages from Rossi but that is to be expected. It is too little info
to make judgement.
Wait and see. The reality is what it is and the value in labeling people is
close to zero.


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 Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 7:52 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
>
> Your comment “I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for the
> money” is an ad hominem that serves no useful purpose.  If Rossi were in
> it for the money he could have retired long ago.  He is now 66.  He
> started by putting close to $1 million of his own money in the project from
> the sale of his engine business.
>
>
>
> You go on again about Rossi not allowing IH into the customer’s building
> and even pad locking it.  IH agreed not to enter that building in writing
> and that the customer had a proprietary process is at least as plausible as
> that it was fraud.
>
> What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and
> that was why Rossi locked his part of the building.  Not that he locked
> the customer’s side.  IH had no right to enter that without the
> customer’s permission.
>
>
>
> We have visited measuring the  performance of a black box several times
> already.  Your statement about having to know how the generated heat is
> dissipated is not true.  Not being able to see that is no PROOF of fraud.
>
>
>
> You imply that there is nothing wrong with you having secret information
> but it is wrong when Rossi does.
>
>
>
> I see you later repeated your claim.  “Rossi is a fraud. He has nothing.
> His machine does not work”   The problem is you have NOT presented proof
> for this.
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

AA.  Your statement about having to know how the generated heat is dissipated 
is not true.

Jed.  It is the only possible way to estimate the heat production.

AA.  Really?  I could do it but your "experts" from IH couldn't?

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Your comment “I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for the
> money” is an ad hominem that serves no useful purpose.
>
That is my informed opinion. Furthermore, if you say that, I say your ad
hominem attacks against I.H. serve no useful purpose. At least I have
evidence for my claims. You have nothing.

  If Rossi were in it for the money he could have retired long ago.  He is
> now 66.
>
Once a thief, always a thief.


> You go on again about Rossi not allowing IH into the customer’s building
> and even pad locking it.  IH agreed not to enter that building in writing
> . . . .
>
I doubt they did, but if they did, they changed their minds. For good
reason. The I.H. expert insisted he must see the facility. Any sane person
evaluating this system would demand that, because it was impossible to
measure the heat with the instruments in Rossi's facility.

and that the customer had a proprietary process is at least as plausible as
> that it was fraud.
>
That is an example of delusional thinking brought about by Rossi's reality
distortion field. Please stop for a moment and THINK about what you just
said. Think! I.H. experts could examine the exhaust system without looking
closely at the customer's equipment.

In fact, the customer does not exist. It is a sham corporation formed by
Rossi's lawyer which has reported no business and no income. There is no
equipment in the building. There is no noise, and no one has been seen
going in or out. You cannot run industrial equipment that consumes 1 MW of
process heat without people to operate it, or noise, and without reporting
some sort of business activity to the state of Florida, not to mention
state industrial safety inspectors.

What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and
> that was why Rossi locked his part of the building.
>
It was locked the whole year.


> IH had no right to enter that without the customer’s permission.
>
The "customer" is owned by Rossi. It is a sham.

We have visited measuring the  performance of a black box several times
> already.
>
You cannot do that with the instruments in Rossi's portion of the building.
As noted by I.H. they are "unsuitable measuring devices." Any knowledgeable
person will see that a glance. As I said, anyone looking at the
configuration would say, "is this supposed to be a joke?" It is as bad as
the worst of Rossi's previous demonstrations.

Your statement about having to know how the generated heat is dissipated is
> not true.
>
It is the only possible way to estimate the heat production.


> You imply that there is nothing wrong with you having secret information
> but it is wrong when Rossi does.
>
It is wrong when Rossi withholds vital information from I.H. experts in
violation of his agreements. It is okay to withhold it from the general
public.

I see you later repeated your claim.  “Rossi is a fraud. He has nothing.
> His machine does not work”   The problem is you have NOT presented proof
> for this.
>
I cannot present it now, but Rossi's locking the door is all the proof you
need. As I said, there is no plausible reason for doing that other than
fraud. There is other, more direct evidence of fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[a.ashfield]

Jed,

Your comment “I do not think Rossi is mad. I think he is in it for the 
money” is an ad hominem that serves no useful purpose.If Rossi were in 
it for the money he could have retired long ago.He is now 66.He started 
by putting close to $1 million of his own money in the project from the 
sale of his engine business.


You go on again about Rossi not allowing IH into the customer’s building 
and even pad locking it.IH agreed not to enter that building in writing 
and that the customer had a proprietary process is at least as plausible 
as that it was fraud.


What I have read was that IH were about to remove Rossi’s 1MW plant and 
that was why Rossi locked his part of the building.Not that he locked 
the customer’s side.IH had no right to enter that without the customer’s 
permission.


We have visited measuring theperformance of a black box several times 
already.Your statement about having to know how the generated heat is 
dissipated is not true.Not being able to see that is no PROOF of fraud.


You imply that there is nothing wrong with you having secret information 
but it is wrong when Rossi does.


I see you later repeated your claim.“Rossi is a fraud. He has nothing. 
His machine does not work”The problem is you have NOT presented proof 
for this.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 06/03/2016 11:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
... his instruments produce magically round numbers. *His machine 
produces exactly 1 MW!*


Oh wow.  I missed that.  That's hilarious -- totally lightened up an 
otherwise dreary morning!

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Frank Grimer]

"Jones Beene must be a lawyer..." He was - and possibly still is. ;-)

On 4 June 2016 at 05:06, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Jones Beene: "Their opinions are* de minimis..." *
>
> Jones Beene must be a lawyer of at least work with them alot.
>
> My lawyer oftentimes describes aspects of my case as *de minimis*
>
>
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
> *
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Peter Gluck
>>
>> Do you think you are convincing many people here?
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Duh! Your question about JR convincing the important technologists in
>> the field is almost silly, IMO. Because of his extended reputation in
>> LERN over many years, his International connections, his dedication to
>> the field and to maintaining an incredible library - and high skill level
>> in many fields -- Jed has steered many, if not the great majority of
>> scientists to his perspective. There is no other as well-respected in
>> the entire field, including Storms and McKubre.
>>
>> He’s had less success with Rossi’s hard-core minions, but many now
>> suspect that the emperor has no cloths … yet are too idealistic to give
>> up easily. Their opinions are* de minimis* at best in terms of the
>> technology itself. Sure, if Jed is wrong, his reputation will suffer
>> badly but the same holds true for you (or any of us).
>>
>> There is a third possibility - that Jed will be mostly right, but not
>> totally. It is pretty clear from everything which has transpired in the
>> last month, that AR cannot live up to the specifics of the contract. However,
>> it is difficult to believe that he has nothing to show for many years of
>> effort and millions spent, in a field where there has been prior success
>> by others. That would mean that Rossi is totally incompetent and probably
>> mentally ill… and at best, a Svengali of sorts. He seems to totally
>> captivate the Swedish mind-set, for whatever reason.
>>
>> Certainly Rossi can still manage to salvage his sinking ship if he honestly
>> and openly demonstrates a substantial thermal anomaly with his latest
>> effort, if only for a few days duration, and low COP. He would lose the
>> battle with IH, but could win the war, many years down the road when
>> things are better understood … unless he is mad.
>>
>> What he cannot do is facilitate another sham like Lugano and expect to
>> maintain his loyal following, with instant creds or future investment. This
>> looks like a last chance opportunity. Can he pull it off?
>>
>> Rossi is surely deluded in this recurrent vision of upcoming mass
>> production, or even having a real customer. As to the point (as several
>> have noted) – that he did manage to arouse new interest in the field and
>> deserves recognition for that….well… DGT also raised interest in LENR,
>> and in fact, cross-validated Rossi for a while. Several here thought DGT
>> was real and had leap-frogged Rossi. Without the both of them in 2003,
>> neither would have looked good.
>>
>> But the DGT legacy is negative. If Rossi joins them in ignominy, LENR
>> will survive, but it would greatly shorten the timetable if he has
>> something left in his magic box.
>>
>>
>