date:20160605

from

https://thenewfire.wordpress.com/good-prospects-for-rossi-and-leonardo-corp-lawsuit/


<<
The reassignment of the lawsuit to the District Court Judge Cecilia
Altonaga and the consulting of the economic crime specialist Magistrate
John O’Sullivan, indicates that the court already has an initial suspicion
towards economic crime and therefore the lawsuit will not be rejected on
the basis of technicalities.
>>

Harry

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart,
If you were making a tacit distinction between entrepeneurs and investors
then I agree.

Harry

On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:41 PM, H LV  wrote:

> 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

If it is true that IH offered to pay Rossi a sum of money to the cancel the
test then that implies IH considered Rossi's IP to be valuable at that
time.

Harry

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Eric & Jed,
>
> Consider the time line
>
> Summer 2015  Rossi was offered a sum to cancel the test
> Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11.5 million paid and cancel IH's
> license.
> Feb 18 test of a one megawatt heat plant completed
> Apr 05 Rossi sues.  Rossi et al v. Darden et al
> May 15 date Penon report given to Rossi and D/IH  (hard to pin down exact
> date)
> June 2 Leonardo Corp terminated license with IH
>
> So Rossi sued Darden before either party had received the Penon's report.
> Rossi would not sue IH without getting a strong indication that IH were
> not going to pay him
>
> As for IH  then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was
> rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric & Jed,

Consider the time line

Summer 2015  Rossi was offered a sum to cancel the test
Rossi's counter offer was to return the $11.5 million paid and cancel 
IH's license.

Feb 18 test of a one megawatt heat plant completed
Apr 05 Rossi sues.  Rossi et al v. Darden et al
May 15 date Penon report given to Rossi and D/IH  (hard to pin down 
exact date)

June 2 Leonardo Corp terminated license with IH

So Rossi sued Darden before either party had received the Penon's report.
Rossi would not sue IH without getting a strong indication that IH were 
not going to pay him


As for IH  then feeding critics propaganda about how Penon's report was 
rubbish see Sifferkoll for names like Dewey Weaver (& possibly Jed)

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 06/05/2016 08:43 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:


If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up
a lawyer and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan. 
Time can be of the essence when claims and counterclaims start

flying.  From the description of the situation, it seems like a
lawsuit was a very likely outcome, and assuming Rossi is rational
he might very well have expected it.


I agree that it's likely that Rossi had started preparing for a 
lawsuit well before March 11.  I would be surprised if it turned out 
to be otherwise.  One suspects Rossi had a lawsuit in the back of his 
mind from the start of the test.


"No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a
lawyer".  Not in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual
default.


If you read the quote from Rossi, it's natural interpretation would be 
that IH and Rossi are on good terms.  Do you disagree?


Nah, I haven't read the quote, I've only seen it paraphrased, so I can't 
reasonably disagree.  I was mouthing off; didn't mean I knew anything.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Come on down!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyV_dBZHU0

Harry

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> The 200th post is mine!
>
> 2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

The 200th post is mine!
>

My apologies -- not being sarcastic, I've been a bit of a burden on the
list today and yesterday.  I will now bow out of this thread.  Ultimately
this kind of debate, where people do little more than assert their opinions
over and over and over, is pretty sterile.  I do commend Jed for sticking
it out through this kind of nonsense.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Daniel Rocha

The 200th post is mine!

2016-06-05 21:43 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :

> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
> wrote:
>
>
>>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a lawyer
> and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan.  Time can be of the
> essence when claims and counterclaims start flying.  From the description
> of the situation, it seems like a lawsuit was a very likely outcome, and
> assuming Rossi is rational he might very well have expected it.
>

I agree that it's likely that Rossi had started preparing for a lawsuit
well before March 11.  I would be surprised if it turned out to be
otherwise.  One suspects Rossi had a lawsuit in the back of his mind from
the start of the test.

> "No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a lawyer".  Not
> in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual default.
>

If you read the quote from Rossi, it's natural interpretation would be that
IH and Rossi are on good terms.  Do you disagree?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:00 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

What has become clear though is that the story about the ERV's report not
> holding up to scrutiny being the reason for not paying is pure nonsense.
> IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known
> what was in it,  before dismissing it out of hand.
>

What about IH's not paying as a result of its not trusting the setup of the
test, the qualifications of the ERV, and the content of the ERV's report is
pure nonsense?  Please explain.

When did IH dismiss the ERV's report out of hand?  What details are you
aware of about the conversations that took place between IH and Leonardo?
Would IH have had much confidence in the report if there was no genuine
collaboration on the setup of the test?

> Then comes the propaganda to try and justify their action, feeding stuff
> to critics about how bad the report was.
>

What propaganda are you referring to?

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 06/05/2016 07:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not
going to pay up.   Someone must have told him that before the ERV
gave them his report.  This strikes me as very strange unless IH
had planned on not paying all along.


Do you think Rossi found out IH weren't going to pay up before or 
after March 11, the date of his JONP comment?  If he found out after, 
he would have needed to prepare for the lawsuit, which was filed on 
April 5, within 25 days or less.  If he found out before, he would 
have been in the process of working with the lawyer to prepare the 
lawsuit for filing even as he said to a JONP reader that there was no 
"divorce" between him and IH, a comment whose reasonable 
interpretation was that everything was ok between them.


If I had been in Rossi's position I would certainly have lined up a 
lawyer and done some groundwork before everything hit the fan.  Time can 
be of the essence when claims and counterclaims start flying. From the 
description of the situation, it seems like a lawsuit was a very likely 
outcome, and assuming Rossi is rational he might very well have expected it.


"No divorce yet" doesn't in any way imply "I haven't hired a lawyer".  
Not in a marriage, and not in a situation of contractual default.


 -- SAL

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Jed,
> That is ridiculous.  You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or
> thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the
> measurements were flawed"! ?
>

Has Rossi told you anything about the configuration? Has he told you
whether the pipe has a flowmeter or a thermocouple?

You believe Rossi even though he has told you practically nothing. You do
not believe me because I have told you nothing more than what Rossi said.
You have a double standard!

If you are not going to believe people who do not reveal all that they
know, you should believe Rossi either.

>   It is starting to look like you don't have a clue what was there but are
> just parroting what some anonymous person told you.
>

No, it isn't looking like that. Only in your imagination, perhaps. It looks
like I have agreed not to discuss anything that Rossi and I.H. have not
already revealed.

> It smells when you ask me who told me that when you won't reveal your
> source.
>

I told you my source: Rossi's data.

Why does it not smell to you when Rossi reveals nothing? Why doesn't he
give you the ERV report?

>   You say we should take your word for it but you can't take mine.
>

You have no information! You know nothing about this. No one should take
your word for anything because you are merely speculating and guessing --
and guessing wrong in most cases.

If you will not take my word for anything, then you should not take Rossi's
either. He has not told you anything more than I have.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Jed,
That is ridiculous.  You can't say if a pipe has a flow meter or 
thermocouple on it but you expect others to believe you that "the 
measurements were flawed"! ?  It is starting to look like you don't have 
a clue what was there but are just parroting what some anonymous person 
told you.


Re duplication of instruments, I think I remember Rossi make a comment 
about how his measurements agreed with those of the ERV.  I took that to 
mean they both had instruments.  There must have been some duplication 
as I doubt the ERV's instrument output was used for control purposes.


It smells when you ask me who told me that when you won't reveal your 
source.  You say we should take your word for it but you can't take mine.



On 6/5/2016 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Jed,
Lets make this easy.

1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to
the 1 MW plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? . . .


I cannot discuss any details that have not yet been released by I.H. 
or Rossi. I will say only that I agree with I.H. that the measurements 
were flawed and the measuring devices unsuitable. As I said, the test 
was a farce.



It is ambiguous but I think the instrumentation was duplicated in
some cases.  ie Rossi and the ERV both had their own.


Who told you that? I have not heard anything like that. (I have not 
heard it is true, or that it isn't.)


I think you should not speculate about things you know nothing about.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

> IH hadn't seen even seen the report and so couldn't possibly have known
> what was in it,  before dismissing it out of hand.
>

Who told you that? That's not true as far as I know. Where do you get this
weird stuff? Rossi's blog, I suppose. As I said, that is not a reliable
source of information.

Even if they had not seen it, they knew what was in it. They had been
discussing the calorimetry for a year with Rossi and Penon.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric,
I have no knowledge of the date.   What has become clear though is that 
the story about the ERV's report not holding up to scrutiny being the 
reason for not paying is pure nonsense.  IH hadn't seen even seen the 
report and so couldn't possibly have known what was in it,  before 
dismissing it out of hand.  Then comes the propaganda to try and justify 
their action, feeding stuff to critics about how bad the report was.



On 6/5/2016 7:19 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not
going to pay up.   Someone must have told him that before the ERV
gave them his report.  This strikes me as very strange unless IH
had planned on not paying all along.


Do you think Rossi found out IH weren't going to pay up before or 
after March 11, the date of his JONP comment?  If he found out after, 
he would have needed to prepare for the lawsuit, which was filed on 
April 5, within 25 days or less.  If he found out before, he would 
have been in the process of working with the lawyer to prepare the 
lawsuit for filing even as he said to a JONP reader that there was no 
"divorce" between him and IH, a comment whose reasonable 
interpretation was that everything was ok between them.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed,
> Lets make this easy.
>
> 1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW
> plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it? . . .

I cannot discuss any details that have not yet been released by I.H. or
Rossi. I will say only that I agree with I.H. that the measurements were
flawed and the measuring devices unsuitable. As I said, the test was a
farce.

> It is ambiguous but I think the instrumentation was duplicated in some
> cases.  ie Rossi and the ERV both had their own.
>

Who told you that? I have not heard anything like that. (I have not heard
it is true, or that it isn't.)

I think you should not speculate about things you know nothing about.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 6:12 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going to
> pay up.   Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them his
> report.  This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on not
> paying all along.
>

Do you think Rossi found out IH weren't going to pay up before or after
March 11, the date of his JONP comment?  If he found out after, he would
have needed to prepare for the lawsuit, which was filed on April 5, within
25 days or less.  If he found out before, he would have been in the process
of working with the lawyer to prepare the lawsuit for filing even as he
said to a JONP reader that there was no "divorce" between him and IH, a
comment whose reasonable interpretation was that everything was ok between
them.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric,
I assume Rossi started his lawsuit as soon as he knew IH were not going
to pay up. Someone must have told him that before the ERV gave them
his report. This strikes me as very strange unless IH had planned on
not paying all along.

On 6/5/2016 6:48 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:

25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from
the end of the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not
going to pay up. When did the EVR finish his report?

According to the complaint, the Guaranteed Performance Test ended on
February 15, and the ERV published his final report on March 29.
Presumably IH's expert would have visited the plant during the
testing, so on or before February 15. If this is true, the comment
was made on JONP at least 25 days after the IH expert visited,
insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and
was told by the ERV that this detail had no importance. If we are to
believe Rossi's comment on March 11, he must not have seen that there
were problems at this point.

How long does it take to prepare a lawsuit? I suppose this could be
done in 25 days, from March 11 to April 5, in a pinch. Is your
suggestion that the lawsuit was commenced after March 11?

Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks. He would keep
these as a record anyway. Nothing strange about that.

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of the 18 volumes.

You keep on about the anonymous IH "expert" not being allowed
access to the customer. We have been through this countless
times. It is not necessary to know how the heat was used when
measuring the output of a black box. Jed even admits that.
Sounds like you are applying your first law again.

Ok, your view is that it doesn't matter whether the IH expert had
access to the customer area. Your opinion is noted. Everyone is
entitled to his opinion.

Eric

[1]
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.0.pdf

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:34 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end of
> the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay up.   When
> did the EVR finish his report?
>

According to the complaint, the Guaranteed Performance Test ended on
February 15, and the ERV published his final report on March 29.
Presumably IH's expert would have visited the plant during the testing, so
on or before February 15.  If this is true, the comment was made on JONP at
least 25 days after the IH expert visited, insisted that it was important
to know where the water came from and was told by the ERV that this detail
had no importance.  If we are to believe Rossi's comment on March 11, he
must not have seen that there were problems at this point.

How long does it take to prepare a lawsuit?  I suppose this could be done
in 25 days, from March 11 to April 5, in a pinch.  Is your suggestion that
the lawsuit was commenced after March 11?

Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks.  He would keep these as a
> record anyway.  Nothing strange about that.
>

Yes, this is a reasonable interpretation of the 18 volumes.

> You keep on about the anonymous IH "expert" not being allowed access to
> the customer.  We have been through this countless times.  It is not
> necessary to know how the heat was used when measuring the output of a
> black box.  Jed even admits that.   Sounds like you are applying your first
> law again.
>

Ok, your view is that it doesn't matter whether the IH expert had access to
the customer area.  Your opinion is noted.  Everyone is entitled to his
opinion.

Eric

[1]
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.0.pdf

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric,
25 days before the lawsuit and only about a couple of weeks from the end 
of the test, presumably Rossi did not know IH were not going to pay 
up.   When did the EVR finish his report?


Rossi's 18 volumes of evidence are his notebooks.  He would keep these 
as a record anyway.  Nothing strange about that.


You keep on about the anonymous IH "expert" not being allowed access to 
the customer.  We have been through this countless times.  It is not 
necessary to know how the heat was used when measuring the output of a 
black box.  Jed even admits that.   Sounds like you are applying your 
first law again.



On 6/5/2016 5:54 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:38 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days.  He
surely would not say that now.


Yes, and Rossi said the following on March 11, only 25 days before he 
initiated a lawsuit against IH:


Thank you for spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce
between Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included
Industrial Heat. Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of
Leonardo Corporation for its Territory and I never referred to any
possible divorce. I invite anybody to disregard any innuendo,
supposition, speculation related to the licenses of Leonardo
Corporation unless they are communicated directly from Leonardo
Corporation. There is some imbecile that tries to get audience
inventing situations that do not exist. [1]


On April 7, two days after the suit was filed, Rossi claimed to have 
18 volumes of evidence in support of the case [2].  Did everything go 
terribly wrong between March 11 and April 5, and did Rossi amass those 
18 volumes during the intervening time?  You will need to decide 
whether these and other statements are true and benign, or misleading, 
or false.  Rossi says many things.


If the output temperature was 116C and the steam superheated,
really all you would need to calculate the thermal output would be
a flow meter for the water going in, a pressure gauge and a
thermocouple to measure the steam temperature. Very basic, easy to
do things.  That is neglecting the heat required to heat the water
to boiling, as was agreed as a conservative measure.   Jed says he
knows what the instrumentation was.  Perhaps he will describe it.
This is not like Rossi's earlier demos where the output was barely
above 100C.


One awaits reliable data upon which to do calculations, which, when 
obtained, will be interesting to see.  But since IH's expert was not 
allowed access to the customer area, there is no assurance, given what 
we know, that there was even a closed circuit.


Eric


[1] 
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=71#comment-1158228
[2] 
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=89#comment-1169740

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Jed,
Lets make this easy.

1. Did the return pipe from the customer, that was the input to the 1 MW 
plant, have a flow meter and a thermocouple on it?  Was the fluid 
water?  There must have been a drain tap somewhere where a sample could 
be taken for analysis.


2.  Did the steam output from the 1 MW plant going to the customer have 
a thermocouple and a pressure gauge on it?


3.  How was the electrical power input to the plant measured?

It is ambiguous but I think the instrumentation was duplicated in some 
cases.  ie Rossi and the ERV both had their own.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:38 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days.  He surely
> would not say that now.
>

Yes, and Rossi said the following on March 11, only 25 days before he
initiated a lawsuit against IH:

Thank you for spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce between
Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included Industrial Heat.
Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of Leonardo Corporation for its
Territory and I never referred to any possible divorce. I invite anybody to
disregard any innuendo, supposition, speculation related to the licenses of
Leonardo Corporation unless they are communicated directly from Leonardo
Corporation. There is some imbecile that tries to get audience inventing
situations that do not exist. [1]

On April 7, two days after the suit was filed, Rossi claimed to have 18
volumes of evidence in support of the case [2].  Did everything go terribly
wrong between March 11 and April 5, and did Rossi amass those 18 volumes
during the intervening time?  You will need to decide whether these and
other statements are true and benign, or misleading, or false.  Rossi says
many things.

If the output temperature was 116C and the steam superheated, really all
> you would need to calculate the thermal output would be a flow meter for
> the water going in, a pressure gauge and a thermocouple to measure the
> steam temperature.  Very basic, easy to do things.  That is neglecting the
> heat required to heat the water to boiling, as was agreed as a conservative
> measure.   Jed says he knows what the instrumentation was.  Perhaps he will
> describe it.
> This is not like Rossi's earlier demos where the output was barely above
> 100C.
>

One awaits reliable data upon which to do calculations, which, when
obtained, will be interesting to see.  But since IH's expert was not
allowed access to the customer area, there is no assurance, given what we
know, that there was even a closed circuit.

Eric

[1]
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=71#comment-1158228
[2]
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=89#comment-1169740

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric,
Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days.  He 
surely would not say that now.


If the output temperature was 116C and the steam superheated, really all 
you would need to calculate the thermal output would be a flow meter for 
the water going in, a pressure gauge and a thermocouple to measure the 
steam temperature.  Very basic, easy to do things.  That is neglecting 
the heat required to heat the water to boiling, as was agreed as a 
conservative measure.   Jed says he knows what the instrumentation was.  
Perhaps he will describe it.
This is not like Rossi's earlier demos where the output was barely above 
100C.


On 6/5/2016 5:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

Adrian,

It is entirely possible that IH hired the expert after the test 
started.  Or maybe they hired him before the test started.  Perhaps 
all seemed well to us between IH and Rossi.  Some who have access to 
additional information were aware of difficulties early on.  It is 
hard to say from the cheap seats what Leonardo and IH were saying to 
one another, and what they were saying among themselves.


Eric


On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:01 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Eric,
I don't think IH hired the expert until after the test started. 
All seemed well between IH and Rossi when the test started.


On 6/5/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield
> wrote:

My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in
(having little expertise themselves) was from academia and
was a believer in Clarke's Law.   As he couldn't disprove the
ERV he was desperately looking around for some way to do
that. Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's facility.


The problem precedes this suggestion.  The expert would have been
incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jed.  As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked into the 
room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few minutes 
would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a farce.


AA.  So as you claim to know what the instrumentation was, please 
describe it.


What was the consultant's name and when was he hired by IH?


On 6/5/2016 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around
for some way to do that.


That's hilarious! As I said before, any knowledgeable person who 
walked into the room and looked at the instruments and configuration 
for a few minutes would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a 
farce. It was as bad as the worst of Rossi's previous tests.


  Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's facility.


A person would be insane not to insist on that. Especially after 
measuring no excess heat in Rossi's room, and knowing that "customer" 
had conducted no business, paid no taxes, had no employees, and had no 
equipment inspections. This being the 21st century anyone can confirm 
that. Would _you_ write a check for $89 million knowing all that? 
Doesn't that make you a little suspicious that the "customer" may not 
actually be using 1 MW of process heat?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Adrian,

It is entirely possible that IH hired the expert after the test started.
Or maybe they hired him before the test started.  Perhaps all seemed well
to us between IH and Rossi.  Some who have access to additional information
were aware of difficulties early on.  It is hard to say from the cheap
seats what Leonardo and IH were saying to one another, and what they were
saying among themselves.

Eric

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:01 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Eric,
> I don't think IH hired the expert until after the test started.  All
> seemed well between IH and Rossi when the test started.
>
> On 6/5/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little
>> expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's
>> Law.   As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around
>> for some way to do that.  Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's
>> facility.
>>
>
> The problem precedes this suggestion.  The expert would have been
> incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric,
I don't think IH hired the expert until after the test started.  All 
seemed well between IH and Rossi when the test started.


On 6/5/2016 3:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having
little expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer
in Clarke's Law.   As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was
desperately looking around for some way to do that.  Hence his
insistence on visiting the customer's facility.


The problem precedes this suggestion. The expert would have been 
incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

> As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around for some
> way to do that.

That's hilarious! As I said before, any knowledgeable person who walked
into the room and looked at the instruments and configuration for a few
minutes would see 5 or 6 ways to disprove the ERV. It was a farce. It was
as bad as the worst of Rossi's previous tests.

>   Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's facility.
>

A person would be insane not to insist on that. Especially after measuring
no excess heat in Rossi's room, and knowing that "customer" had conducted
no business, paid no taxes, had no employees, and had no equipment
inspections. This being the 21st century anyone can confirm that. Would
*you* write a check for $89 million knowing all that? Doesn't that make you
a little suspicious that the "customer" may not actually be using 1 MW of
process heat?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

What you say does not add up.  You say the information is not from IH.
>

I said it was not I.H.'s data. I didn't say where it came from. I will
leave that little detail to your vivid and ever-active imagination.

> As for the numbers Rossi gave Lewan I am much encouraged to see 116C as
> the output temperature.
>

That would be encouraging, if it were true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:16 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little
> expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's
> Law.   As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around
> for some way to do that.  Hence his insistence on visiting the customer's
> facility.
>

The problem precedes this suggestion.  The expert would have been
incompetent not to insist on seeing the customer's area.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

My new hypothesis is that the expert that IH brought in (having little 
expertise themselves) was from academia and was a believer in Clarke's 
Law.   As he couldn't disprove the ERV he was desperately looking around 
for some way to do that.  Hence his insistence on visiting the 
customer's facility.


This would explain what has happened.  It would be interesting to know 
who he is and when he was hired.  Presumably he also soured others at 
Cherokee like Vaughn who never seemed keen on the project to start 
with.  Recall what he said to the inspectors looking for radiation about 
Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

What I now think happened was that IH suddenly became interested in 
disputing the ERV's findings/report, rather than the other way around 
that they were looking for evidence to boost its believabllity. as Jed 
suggested.

Just why is not clear, but we know of 89 million reasons.
As stated at the beginning we will have to wait for more facts.
I remain optimistic that Rossi's current 7 day test of the QuarkX will 
open things up without a long delay.



On 6/5/2016 2:03 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Eric.

You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain
about not being able to see the customer's plant."  We don't
really know this.  What we know is what Rossi himself said, about
Penon blocking the expert from seeing the facility.  It is likely
that what you say, that the IH's expert later complained, but
that's a matter of speculation.


What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no
necessity for IH to visit the customer's plant.  Hardly the same
thing as the ERV "blocking" the visit.


Yes -- thank you for the clarification.  From Mats Lewan's article: 
 "IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, 
an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where 
the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this 
had no importance."


Perhaps the expert was not blocked by anyone; certainly we don't know 
that he was blocked by the ERV.  Note however that we are to 
understand from Lewan's report of Rossi's description that the ERV 
thought that access to the customer's area had no importance.  We are 
each left to our own conclusions about the objectivity, independence 
and qualifications of the ERV, given what we know from Rossi and Lewans.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Jack Cole wrote:
>
> Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because
> they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world.
> What a dream that would be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity,
> and do not forget, propellant-less thrust.
>
>
>
> I think this strong desire to help the world in some way is at the heart
> of what is defeating people's critical faculties.  It is a noble impulse,
> but one should try to step back from it and gain perspective.
>
> These are the most relevant two postings in this entire tiresome thread.
> Nothing of substance will change until the court rules which will be
> months away. Why continue to flog a dead horse? My trash bin overfloweth.
>
Yes, indeed.  I can't help but think the arguments have been aired
sufficiently now, and that those pursuing them can retire in comfort,
knowing that everyone has had a chance to consider their merits over the
last few weeks.  We're really at a loss to say much about what has
transpired until more information becomes publicly available.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:27 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Eric.
>
> You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not
> being able to see the customer's plant."  We don't really know this.  What
> we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking the expert from
> seeing the facility.  It is likely that what you say, that the IH's expert
> later complained, but that's a matter of speculation.
>
>
> What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no necessity
> for IH to visit the customer's plant.  Hardly the same thing as the ERV
> "blocking" the visit.
>

Yes -- thank you for the clarification.  From Mats Lewan's article:  "IH
never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert
hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came
from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance."

Perhaps the expert was not blocked by anyone; certainly we don't know that
he was blocked by the ERV.  Note however that we are to understand from
Lewan's report of Rossi's description that the ERV thought that access to
the customer's area had no importance.  We are each left to our own
conclusions about the objectivity, independence and qualifications of the
ERV, given what we know from Rossi and Lewans.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Jones Beene

From: Eric Walker 

Jack Cole wrote:

Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because they 
understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world.  What a 
dream that would be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity, and do not 
forget, propellant-less thrust. 
 
I think this strong desire to help the world in some way is at the heart of 
what is defeating people's critical faculties.  It is a noble impulse, but one 
should try to step back from it and gain perspective.


These are the most relevant two postings in this entire tiresome thread. 
Nothing of substance will change until the court rules which will be months 
away. Why continue to flog a dead horse? My trash bin overfloweth. 

For those vorticians who are way more interested in an important technology 
than indulging in a soap opera of personality disorders, it would be great to 
move on to anything which promotes a better understanding of LENR.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:27 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Eric's Law.  Everything Rossi says is wrong.   We all know more about LENR
> than he does.


Interesting characterization of my position!

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric's Law.  Everything Rossi says is wrong.   We all know more about 
LENR than he does.



On 6/5/2016 1:10 PM, Eric Walker wrote:

On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield  wrote:

Eric.  Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that 
Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent.  If 
so, please share.

AA.  1.  Rossi says so and he is the expert.

Are we to understand that you would have us rely on Rossi's assertion in this 
instance, without querying it?


  2.  There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan.  It is just 
for other countries.

I will be very interested in seeing the painstaking analysis that you will have 
done to compare the claims in this patent application to earlier ones.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

> On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:38, a.ashfield  wrote:
> 
> Eric.  Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that 
> Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent.  If 
> so, please share.
> 
> AA.  1.  Rossi says so and he is the expert.

Are we to understand that you would have us rely on Rossi's assertion in this 
instance, without querying it?

>  2.  There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan.  It is 
> just for other countries.

I will be very interested in seeing the painstaking analysis that you will have 
done to compare the claims in this patent application to earlier ones.

Eric

[Vo]:LENR heroism, LERNA Lake vs. LENRA Lake

2016-06-05 Thread Peter Gluck

 more peaceful Sunday edition; please help me to define LENR heroism,
two lakes compared

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/06/june-05-2016-lenr-heroism-lerna-lake-vs.html

Fine weekend end to you all!
peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Jed.   I do not think it was 116 deg C.

AA.  What proof do you have that it is wrong?


On 6/5/2016 12:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It is not clear to me what you are complaining about.  This is an
interview where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head.


Nope.  Not off the top of his head. Those are the same numbers he put 
in his calorimetry, supposedly from instrument readings. His 
instruments produce remarkably round numbers.


If the output temperature was 116C  this is a good indication that
the steam was superheated and not wet.


I do not think it was 116 deg C.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Agreed.  Except Jed now says the secret information is not from IH.

On 6/5/2016 12:07 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of 
anything.
I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is 
not shown very well.
One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind 
of NDA. The arguments are switching between that those secret facts 
are the base to that Rossi's own statements makes him a scam artist.

Most of all I dislike the name calling of Rossi and the ERV.
Secondly I think the whole discussion is useless if the secret 
information is not shared.
Thirdly Rossi has kept the whole LENR community in suspense for at 
least four years, I think he has the right to explain / prove himself 
before we forget about his contribution.
Forth is the fact that IH has not handle the situation very well. In 
many juncture a firm stand would have prevented Rossi from filing a 
lawsuit. Yes, it is possible they decided to take the risk with full 
understanding of that they probably were taken for a ride. Thrm I 
suggest they are as guilty and will pay for that.
Fifth is the fact that Rossi is spending his money persuading the LENR 
solution he has. It does not make sense if his goal was to get some 
funds for a happy retirement. It just does not make any sense. If I am 
wrong here it will show very soon as Rossi needs to show his cards, 
perhaps not to us but to a new partner, who is well warned about that 
it is hard to manage Rossi and perhaps an investment is risky and 
without upside. I am sure there will be serious due diligence before 
any money change hands.

Wait and see. Speculations will not bring clarity.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)



On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:31 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Well I apologize for my assumption.  If the only information you
have is from Rossi please give his actual quote(s)  I have not
seen anything from him to indicate that the plant did not operate
well.  If you have other numbers, what were their source?



On 6/5/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

You on the other hand are certain you know all the answers
based on information from IH. not from the independent ERV.


No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it
came from Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as the
ones he quoted to Lewan in the recent interview.

I have no information from I.H.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric. Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty
that Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the
patent. If so, please share.

AA. 1. Rossi says so and he is the expert.
2. There is nothing new in the patent from a quick scan. It
is just for other countries.

On 6/5/2016 12:05 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:

When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your
comments. Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded
patents, as explained, that was the only way to get a patent in
this circumstance. Mentioning cold fusion would ensure it was
rejected.

Your reply above does not bear on the point that was being made about
the patents, which I raised earlier in connection with the reasonable
behavior of Rossi. I was trying to show that Rossi's behavior has not
been that of a reasonable person, as seen in part through the patent
applications that have been filed. It was a weak point, with many
counterarguments that can be made, and so the point is not one that
needs to be pursued in detail. But it is worth considering.

AA. You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't
invent it.

Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that
Thomas Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the
patent. If so, please share.

Eric. We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't
work; perhaps they are, in which case perhaps that will come to
light later in a court document of some kind. What we know for
sure of their position is that they haven't been able to
substantiate his claims. In hindsight, knowing Rossi, this is not
a surprise.

AA. Really? We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?
You might let Jed know that.

What we know from several sources is that IH do not believe that
Rossi's results have been substantiated. A press release dated April 7
says that "Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to
substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat
technology – all without success." [1]. That means that from what
they've seen Rossi's stuff doesn't work, or it doesn't work to the
extent that Rossi claims. Can we conclude that IH believe that /none/
of Rossi's technology is real and has ever worked, apart from what
they themselves have taken a look at? That's a question for IH to
clarify.

Eric

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-statement-on-meritless-litigation-from-leonardo-corporation-and-andrea-rossi-300248066.html

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric.
You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about 
not being able to see the customer's plant."  We don't really know 
this.  What we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking 
the expert from seeing the facility.  It is likely that what you say, 
that the IH's expert later complained, but that's a matter of speculation.


What Rossi said was that the ERV agreed with him there was no necessity 
for IH to visit the customer's plant.  Hardly the same thing as the ERV 
"blocking" the visit.

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of
> anything.
>

It is an indicator that I.H. thinks there were "flawed measurements" using
"unsuitable measuring devices." I have seen the data, and I agree with I.H.

> I have read all the arguments from both sides.
>

No, you have not. You have seen only a little data from Rossi. Until you
see his data and configuration, you have no basis to judge this situation.
You have no idea why I.H. thinks the measurements are flawed and the
instruments unsuitable.

The only think you know is that Rossi blocked the door to the pretend
customer site, and Rossi's instruments produce magically round numbers.

> I think the reality is not shown very well.
>

You know nothing.

One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind of
> NDA. The arguments are switching between that those secret facts are the
> base to that Rossi's own statements makes him a scam artist.
>

No, Rossi's own statement about how he blocked the door show that he is a
scam artist.

> Most of all I dislike the name calling of Rossi and the ERV.
>

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether you dislike it or not. I dislike the
arrogant, ignorant, unfounded garbage you post here about me. So we are
even.

You have hardly heard the names Rossi will be called if the ERV report is
ever published.

> Secondly I think the whole discussion is useless if the secret information
> is not shared.
>

Rossi shared the information already. He told you he is a scam artist who
blocks the entrance to a pretend customer. You can find out for yourself
this customer has no employees, conducts no business, pays no taxes, and
has never had his phantom 1-MW industrial equipment inspected. The customer
is dummy corporation set up by Rossi's lawyer. With any luck, that lawyer
will be joining Rossi and Penon in prison for fraud.

> Thirdly Rossi has kept the whole LENR community in suspense for at least
> four years, I think he has the right to explain / prove himself before we
> forget about his contribution.
>

I am glad you think so! Ask him for a copy of ERV report. I have heard it
is a laff-riot.

> Forth is the fact that IH has not handle the situation very well. In many
> juncture a firm stand would have prevented Rossi from filing a lawsuit.
>

That would be like keeping a scorpion from stinging. Rossi files lawsuits
and he makes trouble. That's what he does.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Jed,
What you say does not add up.  You say the information is not from IH.  
You say the information is from Rossi.  Forgive me for doubting that he 
would send you confidential information that can't be published.  Do you 
mean information from someone on Rossi's team? If so, why say it was 
from Rossi?


As for the numbers Rossi gave Lewan I am much encouraged to see 116C as 
the output temperature.  My concern was that it would be lower 
indicating the possibility of very wet steam/liquid water.


If the steam were superheated the measurement of the heat output is very 
simple.  Hard to imagine an expert would choose instruments that 
couldn't do that well.



On 6/5/2016 11:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Well I apologize for my assumption.  If the only information you
have is from Rossi please give his actual quote(s)


I already told you: I cannot. Why do you keep asking for things that 
you know I cannot give? What is the point?


As I said, the actual numbers are the same ones he gave Lewan. 
However, in my opinion they are bogus. I agree with I.H. that these 
were "flawed measurements" using "unsuitable measuring devices," so 
those numbers cannot be right.


  I have not seen anything from him to indicate that the plant did
not operate well.


Of course you don't! He says it operates well.

  If you have other numbers, what were their source?


I just told you!!! Rossi was the source. I have no other numbers. How 
many times do I have to repeat myself?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Eric Walker  wrote:

> AA.  You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it.
>>
>
> Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas
> Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent.
>

If he did add anything, his name *must* be included in the patent. That is
a Patent Office rule. I once had to sign a patent application because I
contributed a trivial effort to the discovery. It would be declared invalid
if they had not included me. (Nothing came of the application.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

It is not clear to me what you are complaining about.  This is an interview
> where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head.
>

Nope.  Not off the top of his head. Those are the same numbers he put in
his calorimetry, supposedly from instrument readings. His instruments
produce remarkably round numbers.

> If the output temperature was 116C  this is a good indication that the
> steam was superheated and not wet.
>

I do not think it was 116 deg C.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

2016-06-05 Thread Lennart Thornros

Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of
anything.
I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is not
shown very well.
One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind of
NDA. The arguments are switching between that those secret facts are the
base to that Rossi's own statements makes him a scam artist.
Most of all I dislike the name calling of Rossi and the ERV.
Secondly I think the whole discussion is useless if the secret information
is not shared.
Thirdly Rossi has kept the whole LENR community in suspense for at least
four years, I think he has the right to explain / prove himself before we
forget about his contribution.
Forth is the fact that IH has not handle the situation very well. In many
juncture a firm stand would have prevented Rossi from filing a lawsuit.
Yes, it is possible they decided to take the risk with full understanding
of that they probably were taken for a ride. Thrm I suggest they are as
guilty and will pay for that.
Fifth is the fact that Rossi is spending his money persuading the LENR
solution he has. It does not make sense if his goal was to get some funds
for a happy retirement. It just does not make any sense. If I am wrong here
it will show very soon as Rossi needs to show his cards, perhaps not to us
but to a new partner, who is well warned about that it is hard to manage
Rossi and perhaps an investment is risky and without upside. I am sure
there will be serious due diligence before any money change hands.
Wait and see. Speculations will not bring clarity.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:31 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Well I apologize for my assumption.  If the only information you have is
> from Rossi please give his actual quote(s)  I have not seen anything from
> him to indicate that the plant did not operate well.  If you have other
> numbers, what were their source?
>
>
>
> On 6/5/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield < a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You  on the other hand are certain you know all the answers based on
>> information from IH. not from the independent ERV.
>>
>
> No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it came from
> Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as the ones he quoted to
> Lewan in the recent interview.
>
> I have no information from I.H.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:22 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your comments.
> Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents, as explained,
> that was the only way to get a patent in this circumstance.  Mentioning
> cold fusion would ensure it was rejected.
>

Your reply above does not bear on the point that was being made about the
patents, which I raised earlier in connection with the reasonable behavior
of Rossi.  I was trying to show that Rossi's behavior has not been that of
a reasonable person, as seen in part through the patent applications that
have been filed.  It was a weak point, with many counterarguments that can
be made, and so the point is not one that needs to be pursued in detail.
But it is worth considering.

AA.  You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it.
>

Perhaps you have information that lets you know with certainty that Thomas
Barker Dameron did not add anything to what was put in the patent.  If so,
please share.

Eric.  We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; perhaps
> they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in a court
> document of some kind.  What we know for sure of their position is that
> they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In hindsight, knowing
> Rossi, this is not a surprise.
>
> AA.  Really?  We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?  You
> might let Jed know that.
>

What we know from several sources is that IH do not believe that Rossi's
results have been substantiated. A press release dated April 7 says that
"Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the
results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without
success." [1].  That means that from what they've seen Rossi's stuff
doesn't work, or it doesn't work to the extent that Rossi claims.  Can we
conclude that IH believe that *none* of Rossi's technology is real and has
ever worked, apart from what they themselves have taken a look at?  That's
a question for IH to clarify.

Eric

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-statement-on-meritless-litigation-from-leonardo-corporation-and-andrea-rossi-300248066.html

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

It was Eric not me that claimed that IH  hadn't said it didn't work.  I 
thought they had.



On 6/5/2016 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

AA.  Really?  We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work? 
You might let Jed know that.



I.H. said it does not work in their motion to dismiss. They said the 
"reactors" are "inoperable." (I did not know there is more than one 
reactor.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Jed,
It is not clear to me what you are complaining about.  This is an 
interview where Rossi gives rounded numbers off the top of his head.  If 
the output temperature was 116C  this is a good indication that the 
steam was superheated and not wet.



On 6/5/2016 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jack Cole > wrote:

Of course there is evidence of laziness or an utterly poor
understanding of measurement instruments with the presentation of
the apparently fake measurements (3 or 4 trailing zeros according
to Jed).


That's not according to me. That was Rossi himself, in the Lewan 
interview:


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

Quotes:

"The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.

A total of about 31 MJ of electric energy was input. At 0,9 g/s, a 
total of about 26 kg of water was input during the test from 11 am 
until 7 pm. Heating this water from 25 to 116 degrees centigrade 
requires about 10 MJ. During the last 5 hours, 16 kg of this water was 
also evaporated, which required about 36 MJ."


See also:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg109919.html

Those numbers plus some other surprisingly round numbers were in the 
data I saw.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:


> ed.  Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.
>
> That is all I have read about.
>

Where did you read that? Rossi's blog?

Rossi is not a reliable source of information.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:04 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> AA.   IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later
> - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant.  Nothing about
> the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it.
>
> Eric.  No.  It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from
> seeing the customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan.
>
> AA.  What do you mean "no"?  What you state was not in my sentence.
>

You said "IH .. had one of their own people - later - complain about not
being able to see the customer's plant."  We don't really know this.  What
we know is what Rossi himself said, about Penon blocking the expert from
seeing the facility.  It is likely that what you say, that the IH's expert
later complained, but that's a matter of speculation.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

Well I apologize for my assumption.  If the only information you have is
> from Rossi please give his actual quote(s)
>

I already told you: I cannot. Why do you keep asking for things that you
know I cannot give? What is the point?

As I said, the actual numbers are the same ones he gave Lewan. However, in
my opinion they are bogus. I agree with I.H. that these were "flawed
measurements" using "unsuitable measuring devices," so those numbers cannot
be right.

>   I have not seen anything from him to indicate that the plant did not
> operate well.
>

Of course you don't! He says it operates well.

>   If you have other numbers, what were their source?
>

I just told you!!! Rossi was the source. I have no other numbers. How many
times do I have to repeat myself?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA.   The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit 
the customer's plant.


ed.  Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.

That is all I have read about.  If you have proof of other things, 
please show it.  In fact I also read in a comment that it was not Rossi 
but the ERV who stopped the IH person.  I have seen no proof of this 
either, only what you have reported from your IH source. Not so very 
long ago IH/Cherokee put out a statement that nothing should be believed 
unless it was in an official IH statement.



On 6/5/2016 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit
the customer's plant.


Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.

Stopping the visit would be bad enough, in any case.


Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was unacceptable AT
THE BEGINNING.


I have no idea what happened at THE BEGINNING. They said it was 
unacceptable several months later. Why does it matter? Is there a 
statute of limitations? Do you have have to find problems at THE 
BEGINNING or never? That makes no sense.


You may know what the instrumentation was but you have not shared
that info and I don't know what it was.


So you will have to wait. So stop jumping to conclusions. Stop taking 
sides. Stop making up stuff, such as: "The only thing Rossi stopped 
the IH employee from doing was visit the customer's plant."



If you know it, why not list it?


Obviously because I agreed not to. Duh.

If you want information, you should ask Rossi for the ERV report.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Well I apologize for my assumption.  If the only information you have is 
from Rossi please give his actual quote(s)  I have not seen anything 
from him to indicate that the plant did not operate well. If you have 
other numbers, what were their source?



On 6/5/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

You  on the other hand are certain you know all the answers based
on information from IH. not from the independent ERV.


No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it came 
from Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as the ones he 
quoted to Lewan in the recent interview.


I have no information from I.H.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

AA.  Really?  We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?  You might
> let Jed know that.
>

I.H. said it does not work in their motion to dismiss. They said the
"reactors" are "inoperable." (I did not know there is more than one
reactor.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

Jack Cole  wrote:

> Of course there is evidence of laziness or an utterly poor understanding
> of measurement instruments with the presentation of the apparently fake
> measurements (3 or 4 trailing zeros according to Jed).
>

That's not according to me. That was Rossi himself, in the Lewan interview:

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

Quotes:

"The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.

A total of about 31 MJ of electric energy was input. At 0,9 g/s, a total of
about 26 kg of water was input during the test from 11 am until 7 pm.
Heating this water from 25 to 116 degrees centigrade requires about 10 MJ.
During the last 5 hours, 16 kg of this water was also evaporated, which
required about 36 MJ."

See also:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg109919.html

Those numbers plus some other surprisingly round numbers were in the data I
saw.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric,
It is not worth my time to rehash it all.  It is all covered in this 
thread that you can read again if you want to.


When I said patents had not come up before, I meant with your 
comments.   Contrary to your claim about "generically" worded patents, 
as explained, that was the only way to get a patent in this 
circumstance.  Mentioning cold fusion would ensure it was rejected.


AA.  I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's 
technology adding the name of one of their employees as inventor.


Eric.  Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent 
law, as a presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this.


AA.  You are not allowed to add a name as inventor if he didn't invent it.

AA.  So the situation is murky to say the least.  It seems strange to me 
for IH to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet apply 
for patents saying that it does.


Eric.  We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; 
perhaps they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in 
a court document of some kind.  What we know for sure of their position 
is that they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In hindsight, 
knowing Rossi, this is not a surprise.


AA.  Really?  We don't know that IH are claiming it didn't work?  You 
might let Jed know that.



On 6/5/2016 10:52 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a
matter of opinion.


I'm starting to get some energy back.  Please enumerate what you've 
already gone over that I've overlooked, and what I've said that is 
simply a matter of opinion, so that together we can correct the record.


Patents have not come up before.  I presume you know the Patent
Office has a special procedure to stop or delay patents on cold
fusion as they have taken DOE's word for it that it is like
perpetual motion and impossible.  The one patent Rossi has
obtained in the US carefully avoids mentioning LENR/cold fusion in
order to get passed.  Hence some details about the LENR side of it
are missing.


Patents have come up many, many times, before, in connection with 
Rossi.  I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  I do not claim that 
there are difficulties at the US patent office getting LENR patents. 
But this has no bearing on whether a generically worded patent is 
enabling. If the patent is enabling, a person having ordinary skill in 
the art (the art, here, is presumably engineering and materials 
science stuff relating to the building of nickel hydride reactors) 
will be able to reproduce what is described in the patent.  I know of 
not a single replication of one of the embodiments in one of Rossi's 
patents.  I know of several attempted Lugano replications, which in 
hindsight are of questionable quality. But they were working from the 
Lugano test and not a patent of Rossi's. To compound matters, Rossi 
has done things like referring to a "catalyst" in a claim of a patent 
and then omitted to describe the catalyst.  In drawing up these patent 
applications, has either been (1) acting on bad legal advice, (2) 
ignoring good legal advice, or (3) writing a patent application for 
something that doesn't exist.  This is not the kind of reasonable 
behavior that I would expect, e.g., from a reasonable engineer working 
at Intel who came up with a new process and wants to benefit from this 
invention. It's some other kind of behavior, systematically carried 
out over years.


I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's
technology adding the name of one of their employees as inventor.


Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent law, 
as a presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this.


Also have taken out patents in countries where they are not
licensed to operate.


IH address this point in their reply to the complaint.

So the situation is murky to say the least.  It seems strange to
me for IH to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet
apply for patents saying that it does.


We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; perhaps 
they are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in a 
court document of some kind.  What we know for sure of their position 
is that they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In 
hindsight, knowing Rossi, this is not a surprise.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the
> customer's plant.
>

Who told you that? That is not what I have heard.

Stopping the visit would be bad enough, in any case.

> Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was unacceptable AT THE
> BEGINNING.
>

I have no idea what happened at THE BEGINNING. They said it was
unacceptable several months later. Why does it matter? Is there a statute
of limitations? Do you have have to find problems at THE BEGINNING or
never? That makes no sense.

> You may know what the instrumentation was but you have not shared that
> info and I don't know what it was.
>

So you will have to wait. So stop jumping to conclusions. Stop taking
sides. Stop making up stuff, such as: "The only thing Rossi stopped the IH
employee from doing was visit the customer's plant."

If you know it, why not list it?
>

Obviously because I agreed not to. Duh.

If you want information, you should ask Rossi for the ERV report.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

a.ashfield  wrote:

> You  on the other hand are certain you know all the answers based on
> information from IH. not from the independent ERV.
>

No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it came from
Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as the ones he quoted to
Lewan in the recent interview.

I have no information from I.H.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

AA.   IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - 
later - complain about not being able to see the customer's plant. 
Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it.


Eric.  No.  It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from 
seeing the customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan.


AA.  What do you mean "no"?  What you state was not in my sentence.


On 6/5/2016 10:41 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:16 AM, a.ashfield > wrote:


IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people -
later - complain about not being able to see the customer's
plant.  Nothing about the instrumentation or details about what
was wrong with it.


No.  It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from 
seeing the customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan.  We 
haven't heard that specific complaint from IH or IH's expert, except 
from parties that are one step removed.  It is reasonable to infer, 
however, that IH and their expert would have complained.  No one has 
suggested in the last few weeks that IH replaced the ERV.  Perhaps 
that is a reference to a misunderstanding in earlier discussions. They 
simply brought in someone in whose qualifications they had some 
confidence, presumably in contrast to their assessment of the ERV's 
qualifications.


The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit
the customer's plant.


How do we know that the only thing that Rossi stopped the IH employee 
from doing was visiting the customer plant?  We don't have access to 
the details.


As has already been covered IH agreed in writing not to.


And hopefully Jones Day will be able to make expert use of what was in 
writing to bring the matter to justice.


As has already been covered, it should not be necessary to see how
the heat was used in order to measure the output of the plant.


And as has been effectively rebutted many times, this is incorrect.  
IH's expert will have wanted to know how the heat was being made use 
of in order to verify that 1MW was being produced.  It's a theoretical 
argument to speculate that once presented with all of the data all 
that one needs to do is run the numbers.  No expert would be satisfied 
at leaving it at that.


Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was unacceptable AT
THE BEGINNING.


Show us that IH did not say that the test was unacceptable at the 
beginning.  Show us that IH will have needed to object to the test at 
the beginning for their objections to be valid.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:56 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a matter
> of opinion.
>

I'm starting to get some energy back.  Please enumerate what you've already
gone over that I've overlooked, and what I've said that is simply a matter
of opinion, so that together we can correct the record.

Patents have not come up before.  I presume you know the Patent Office has
> a special procedure to stop or delay patents on cold fusion as they have
> taken DOE's word for it that it is like perpetual motion and impossible.
> The one patent Rossi has obtained in the US carefully avoids mentioning
> LENR/cold fusion in order to get passed.  Hence some details about the LENR
> side of it are missing.
>

Patents have come up many, many times, before, in connection with Rossi.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  I do not claim that there are
difficulties at the US patent office getting LENR patents. But this has no
bearing on whether a generically worded patent is enabling. If the patent
is enabling, a person having ordinary skill in the art (the art, here, is
presumably engineering and materials science stuff relating to the building
of nickel hydride reactors) will be able to reproduce what is described in
the patent.  I know of not a single replication of one of the embodiments
in one of Rossi's patents.  I know of several attempted Lugano
replications, which in hindsight are of questionable quality. But they were
working from the Lugano test and not a patent of Rossi's. To compound
matters, Rossi has done things like referring to a "catalyst" in a claim of
a patent and then omitted to describe the catalyst.  In drawing up these
patent applications, has either been (1) acting on bad legal advice, (2)
ignoring good legal advice, or (3) writing a patent application for
something that doesn't exist.  This is not the kind of reasonable behavior
that I would expect, e.g., from a reasonable engineer working at Intel who
came up with a new process and wants to benefit from this invention. It's
some other kind of behavior, systematically carried out over years.

I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's technology
> adding the name of one of their employees as inventor.
>

Others have noted that it was within IH's rights under US patent law, as a
presumptive licensee of Rossi's technology, to do this.

Also have taken out patents in countries where they are not licensed to
> operate.
>

IH address this point in their reply to the complaint.

> So the situation is murky to say the least.  It seems strange to me for IH
> to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet apply for patents
> saying that it does.
>

We don't know that they're maintaining that it doesn't work; perhaps they
are, in which case perhaps that will come to light later in a court
document of some kind.  What we know for sure of their position is that
they haven't been able to substantiate his claims. In hindsight, knowing
Rossi, this is not a surprise.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:16 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

IH did not replace the ERV, they had one of their own people - later -
> complain about not being able to see the customer's plant.  Nothing about
> the instrumentation or details about what was wrong with it.
>

No.  It was Rossi who said that Penon prevented IH's expert from seeing the
customer's facility, in the interview with Mats Lewan.  We haven't heard
that specific complaint from IH or IH's expert, except from parties that
are one step removed.  It is reasonable to infer, however, that IH and
their expert would have complained.  No one has suggested in the last few
weeks that IH replaced the ERV.  Perhaps that is a reference to a
misunderstanding in earlier discussions. They simply brought in someone in
whose qualifications they had some confidence, presumably in contrast to
their assessment of the ERV's qualifications.

> The only thing Rossi stopped the IH employee from doing was visit the
> customer's plant.
>

How do we know that the only thing that Rossi stopped the IH employee from
doing was visiting the customer plant?  We don't have access to the
details.

> As has already been covered IH agreed in writing not to.
>

And hopefully Jones Day will be able to make expert use of what was in
writing to bring the matter to justice.

> As has already been covered, it should not be necessary to see how the
> heat was used in order to measure the output of the plant.
>

And as has been effectively rebutted many times, this is incorrect.  IH's
expert will have wanted to know how the heat was being made use of in order
to verify that 1MW was being produced.  It's a theoretical argument to
speculate that once presented with all of the data all that one needs to do
is run the numbers.  No expert would be satisfied at leaving it at that.

> Show me the actual quotation where IH said it was unacceptable AT THE
> BEGINNING.
>

Show us that IH did not say that the test was unacceptable at the
beginning.  Show us that IH will have needed to object to the test at the
beginning for their objections to be valid.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Jack Cole  wrote:

Rossi can do almost anything, and people will make excuses for him because
> they understandably want the E-Cat to work so we can have a better world.
> What a dream that would be, a device that makes heat, light, electricity,
> and do not forget, propellant-less thrust.
>

I think this strong desire to help the world in some way is at the heart of
what is defeating people's critical faculties.  It is a noble impulse, but
one should try to step back from it and gain perspective.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1


Eric,
Most of this stuff has been covered already and as you say it is a 
matter of opinion.


Patents have not come up before.  I presume you know the Patent Office 
has a special procedure to stop or delay patents on cold fusion as they 
have taken DOE's word for it that it is like perpetual motion and 
impossible.  The one patent Rossi has obtained in the US carefully 
avoids mentioning LENR/cold fusion in order to get passed.  Hence some 
details about the LENR side of it are missing.
I also note that IH have applied for patents about Rossi's technology 
adding the name of one of their employees as inventor. Also have taken 
out patents in countries where they are not licensed to operate.   So 
the situation is murky to say the least.  It seems strange to me for IH 
to maintain that Rossi's technology doesn't work and yet apply for 
patents saying that it does.



On 6/5/2016 12:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
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

I have followed this fairly closely and I haven't seen anything posted 
by Rossi that would suggest the results were flawed.  He did say the 
temperature of 100.1C doesn't appear anywhere in the ERV's report.  Show 
me the actual quotes from Rossi that you think are damning.


As for who is playing God, one of my very first comments was we should 
wait for more data because there is not enough in the public domain to 
draw conclusions yet.  You  on the other hand are certain you know all 
the answers based on information from IH. not from the independent ERV.



On 6/4/2016 11:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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