[Vo]:Article: Startups with novel chemistries tend to falter before they reach full production.

[Che]

Why We Still Don’t Have Better Batteries
Startups with novel chemistries tend to falter before they reach full
production.

by Richard Martin
August 29, 2016

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602245/why-we-still-dont-have-better-batteries/

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Until I see a patent with a claim talking about heat from a nuclear
> reaction at low temperatures I assume the block is still in place for
> America patents.
>

You do not understand patents. Talking about a nuclear reaction would be a
terrible idea because no one knows what nuclear reaction occurs in cold
fusion. So whatever you say about it might turn out to be wrong, and that
would put the whole patent in jeopardy.

David French says it is best to say nothing about theory when you have no
firm theory. I am sure Rossi has no theory.

- Jed

[Vo]:Thermoelectric Materials, Devices and Systems: Technology Assessment

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/02/f19/QTR%20Ch8%20-%20Thermoelectic%20Materials%20TA%20Feb-13-2015.pdf

DRAFT – PRE-DECISIONAL –DRAFT – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – DRAFT

It is surprising what you can find on the Internet.

I was looking around to find out whether thermoelectric devices are likely
to become cheaper in the future. Many of them incorporate tellurium or
selenium which are both expensive. Here is interesting paragraph:

The most common thermoelectric conductors materials today are alloys of
chalcogenides (materials 50 with a chalcogen or IUPAC group 16 anion).
Specifically these materials are either based on bismuth 51 telluride
(Bi2Te3) or lead telluride (PbTe). Bi2Te3 can be alloyed with Bi2Se3 to
form n-type Bi2Te3-xSex and with Sb2Te3 to form p-type Bi 52 xSb2-xTe3.
PbTe can be alloyed with PbSe to form p-type PbTe1-xSex and with SnTe to
form n-type Pb1-xSnxTe. PbTe has been used successfully by NASA as
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) but it has not been rejected
by all current power generation projects because of the weak mechanical
properties during thermal cycling from variable temperature gradient. New
material classes could allow for waste heat recovery with better efficiency
or use with higher temperature heat sources. These classes include
skutterudites, clathrates, Half-Heuslers, and oxides such as cobaltites and
perovskites (Tian, Lee, & Chen, 2013). Other material classes such as
silicides (LeBlanc, Yee, Scullin, 59 Dames, & Goodson, 2014), and
tetrahedrites (Lu & Morelli, 2013) are primarily considered for their
relatively low cost. These new classes have been the subject of a great
deal of research but have had limited commercial use due to cost,
reliability, efficiency, and processing issues that prevent them being
selected over traditional materials.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

This is Rossi's latest thought on the E-Cat schedule.

1.
   Andrea Rossi
   August 30, 2016 at 8:44 AM
   


   Eugenio Mieli:
   1- continue the manufacturing of the industrial plants: NOW
   2- complete the R of the QuarkX to sell the first unit: within 2016
   3- presentation of the QuarkX prototype: within 2016
   4- start massive production of the E-Cats in the USA and in Sweden:
   2017- 2018
   Thank you for your attention,
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Until I see a patent with a claim talking about heat from a nuclear 
reaction at low temperatures I assume the block is still in place for 
America patents.
I like the thought of Rossi taking a working QuarkX into the patent 
office and placing it on the examiner's desk...


AA


On 8/30/2016 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

What I meant by secret stuff were things I didn't know.  Of course
they would have to be identified in the patent.


Okay.

I think Rossi's patent attorney did well to get as much as he did
past the "no cold fusion" road block.


He could have gotten anything past them. The examiner was reportedly 
enthusiastic and willing to grant more. Apparently, the no cold fusion 
roadblock has been unblocked. Although it would be prudent not to 
mention cold fusion in an application. There is no need to mention it.


  IN my opinion it would take a major company like Lockheed with
political pull, plus a working model, plus good lawyers,  to get
the patent office to change its ways.


Apparently not. Rossi and I.H. have pulled it off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> What I meant by secret stuff were things I didn't know.  Of course they
> would have to be identified in the patent.
>

Okay.



> I think Rossi's patent attorney did well to get as much as he did past the
> "no cold fusion" road block.
>

He could have gotten anything past them. The examiner was reportedly
enthusiastic and willing to grant more. Apparently, the no cold fusion
roadblock has been unblocked. Although it would be prudent not to mention
cold fusion in an application. There is no need to mention it.



>   IN my opinion it would take a major company like Lockheed with political
> pull, plus a working model, plus good lawyers,  to get the patent office to
> change its ways.
>

Apparently not. Rossi and I.H. have pulled it off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
What I meant by secret stuff were things I didn't know.  Of course they 
would have to be identified in the patent.


I think Rossi's patent attorney did well to get as much as he did past 
the "no cold fusion" road block.  IN my opinion it would take a major 
company like Lockheed with political pull, plus a working model, plus 
good lawyers,  to get the patent office to change its ways.  Rossi has 
little or no hope of doing that.  Even then, a patent has no values 
until after it's been challenged in court.


AA


On 8/30/2016 5:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The patent really only covers one design of reactor, that is
already probably dated.


If the patent is inadequate, and it does not protect all of his 
intellectual property, Rossi should have filed a better patent, or 
several more. It is up to the inventor to seek adequate intellectual 
property protection. Since Rossi was granted a patent, it stands to 
reason that he could have gotten additional ones.


If someone could actually patent something that claimed Ni/LAH/Li
(plus secret stuff) . . .


You cannot claim secret stuff in a patent. You cannot withhold any 
information. You have to reveal every detail such that a PHOSITA can 
replicate. If you do not do this, the patent is invalid.


. . . produced large excess nuclear heat when heated to X C it
would blow Rossi's patent out of the water.


That would be Rossi's fault.

  As you know the patent office would reject that because they
have someone like you working there who believes cold fusion is
impossible.


They did not reject this patent, so you are wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

[David L. Babcock]

I am struck by a curious parallel between many investigational endeavors 
in science, the 'soft sciences', near science, and maybe-science (cold 
fusion may or may not be in this last category). All are troubled by a 
sequence comprising initial success, followed by a long irregular slope 
down into no-results-above-noise.


The soft sciences are abuzz right now with a huge failure-to-replicate 
of all kinds of findings that were thought to be rock solid. Sort of as 
though the more you look, the less you see. Wish I could give a link. 
Google on failure to replicate.


In parapsychology, there is the researcher who after years of at first 
very good results, then worse results with the same tests, until at last 
results so bad she decided it was all mistaken.


In comes the coyote, the Trickster.  In "/The Trickster and the 
Paranormal", (George Hansen) /-which I did not read, but read about-a 
good argument is made that err, "something", is at work screwing up the 
works, by either giving good results where none is warranted, or 
subverting good results over time to discredit/stymie/trick the 
researcher.  I take the liberty, at lest for this exposition, of taking 
this out of the paranormal "box" and jamming it helter skelter into 
particle physics. Or whatever physics covers LENR.


For a brain transition enhancer, think poltergeist.  (If you check into 
the 'Glitch in the matrix' Reddit, there is a lot there to suggest 
trickery in the numerous reports of moving or hiding small objects.)


Enter Rossi. A prime target. The master of trickery, of (a least!) the 
trickery of moving small objects, gives Rossi a tantalizing glimpse of 
fame and fortune by shuffling atomic particles around. And keeps it up 
until Rossi is backed into a serious corner, totally tricked. Totally 
conned, he is a prime target because he is himself a showman, a conman.  
Other researchers suffer only frustration and, some, heartbreak. Less 
hubris?


This does not tell us whether cold fusion is real or not, but it may be 
implying strongly that successfully deploying it may involve a major 
paradigm shift, perhaps of the nature of a core of true believers at 
each power site, in constant prayer (or chanting, candle lighting, 
pigeon slaying).



On 8/30/2016 8:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

[snip]

If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi
retrograded performance with time?


Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot 
how to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older 
reactors to make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record 
of what he had done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.


It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have 
enough information to judge.


- Jed





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

The patent really only covers one design of reactor, that is already
> probably dated.
>

If the patent is inadequate, and it does not protect all of his
intellectual property, Rossi should have filed a better patent, or several
more. It is up to the inventor to seek adequate intellectual property
protection. Since Rossi was granted a patent, it stands to reason that he
could have gotten additional ones.



> If someone could actually patent something that claimed Ni/LAH/Li (plus
> secret stuff) . . .
>

You cannot claim secret stuff in a patent. You cannot withhold any
information. You have to reveal every detail such that a PHOSITA can
replicate. If you do not do this, the patent is invalid.



> . . . produced large excess nuclear heat when heated to X C it would blow
> Rossi's patent out of the water.
>

That would be Rossi's fault.



>   As you know the patent office would reject that because they have
> someone like you working there who believes cold fusion is impossible.
>

They did not reject this patent, so you are wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

I take it back.  You are naive.
The patent really only covers one design of reactor, that is already 
probably dated.
If someone could actually patent something that claimed Ni/LAH/Li (plus 
secret stuff) produced large excess nuclear heat when heated to X C it 
would blow Rossi's patent out of the water.  As you know the patent 
office would reject that because they have someone like you working 
there who believes cold fusion is impossible.


AA

On 8/30/2016 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I doubt you are that naive.  The patent doesn't even mention cold
fusion or LENR because if it had the patent would have been
stalled indefinitely..


It makes no difference whether the patent mentions these things are 
not. As long as it works (meaning it produces cold fusion), it covers 
the invention and protects IP. There would be no point to filing it 
otherwise.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed: "Rossi did not reply to Exhibit 5. If he had given valid, 
reasonable, believable responses, they would have paid him $85 million. 
So I do not think he had any valid responses."


For crying out loud, he HASN'T filed a response yet.

AA
'
On 8/30/2016 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Court filings are NOT proof.


Okay, but they sure as hell are not "third party hearsay" either. And 
if these documents are fake it will be catastrophic for I.H., as I said.



Lawyers will try anything with a hope of working.


There is no hope that fake documents would work. If these are fake, 
Rossi can easily prove that.


Do you seriously believe that one of the best law firms in the US 
would file fake documents?


 You have not even seen Rossi's reply to that yet, but it will
take a trial to determine the truth.


Rossi did not reply to Exhibit 5. If he had given valid, reasonable, 
believable responses, they would have paid him $85 million. So I do 
not think he had any valid responses.


I doubt there will be a trial.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I doubt you are that naive.  The patent doesn't even mention cold fusion
> or LENR because if it had the patent would have been stalled indefinitely..
>

It makes no difference whether the patent mentions these things are not. As
long as it works (meaning it produces cold fusion), it covers the invention
and protects IP. There would be no point to filing it otherwise.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Court filings are NOT proof.
>

Okay, but they sure as hell are not "third party hearsay" either. And if
these documents are fake it will be catastrophic for I.H., as I said.



> Lawyers will try anything with a hope of working.
>

There is no hope that fake documents would work. If these are fake, Rossi
can easily prove that.

Do you seriously believe that one of the best law firms in the US would
file fake documents?



>  You have not even seen Rossi's reply to that yet, but it will take a
> trial to determine the truth.
>

Rossi did not reply to Exhibit 5. If he had given valid, reasonable,
believable responses, they would have paid him $85 million. So I do not
think he had any valid responses.

I doubt there will be a trial.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed,.
I doubt you are that naive.  The patent doesn't even mention cold fusion 
or LENR because if it had the patent would have been stalled 
indefinitely..   The use of nickel and H2 will undoubtedly be challenged 
as he wasn't the first to use them.  Just what do you think the patent 
protects?
Rossi says he is working on a large number of other patents but they 
have yet to surface.  Until proven otherwise I think he has probably 
invented something new with the QuarkX  too.

AA

On 8/30/2016 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The bottom line is that Rossi has no real protection from
competition except to sell the reactors are a very competitive
cost. So he cant give details, nor is it to his advantage to prove
it works scientifically.


That is incorrect. He has a patent. If it is valid patent, that is the 
best protection IP there can be. If it is not a valid patent, that is 
his fault.


- Jed

[Vo]:U.S. Energy Information Administration, Frequently Asked Questions

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/

This is a handy source of information about energy, with questions such as:


How much of the oil produced in the United States is consumed in the United
States?
How much oil consumed by the United States comes from foreign countries?
How much oil is consumed in the United States?
How much oil is used to make plastic?
. . .

How is electricity used in U.S. homes?
How many nuclear power plants are in the United States, and where are they
located?
How many power plants are there in the United States?
How many smart meters are installed in the United States, and who has them?
How much coal, natural gas, or petroleum is used to generate a kilowatthour
of electricity?
How much does it cost to build different types of power plants in the
United States?

etc.

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Court filings are NOT proof.  Lawyers will try anything with a hope of 
working.  You have not even seen Rpssi's reply to that yet, but it will 
take a trial to determine the truth.

AA


On 8/30/2016 3:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Third party hearsay is not going to convince someone like me who
is waiting for provable facts.


Documents filed by I.H. in a court case are not "third party hearsay." 
Again, you redefine words to mean something they do not mean at all.


These are original source documents. If they are fake, I.H. will 
probably lose the lawsuit and be forced to pay $267 million. It is 
extremely unlikely that a company represented by one of the best law 
firms in the US would file fake documents and fake photos. That would 
be a catastrophically stupid thing to do.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

The bottom line is that Rossi has no real protection from competition
> except to sell the reactors are a very competitive cost. So he cant give
> details, nor is it to his advantage to prove it works scientifically.
>

That is incorrect. He has a patent. If it is valid patent, that is the best
protection IP there can be. If it is not a valid patent, that is his fault.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Third party hearsay is not going to convince someone like me who is
> waiting for provable facts.
>

Documents filed by I.H. in a court case are not "third party hearsay."
Again, you redefine words to mean something they do not mean at all.

These are original source documents. If they are fake, I.H. will probably
lose the lawsuit and be forced to pay $267 million. It is extremely
unlikely that a company represented by one of the best law firms in the US
would file fake documents and fake photos. That would be a catastrophically
stupid thing to do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I wouldn't waste my time following this if I didn't think there was a 
reasonable chance of it working.

You are certain it doesn't, so why waste your time on it?
Third party hearsay is not going to convince someone like me who is 
waiting for provable facts.

AA


On 8/30/2016 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It is indeed possible but you don't have definitive evidence to
judge the performance of the 1 MW plant either.


Yes, I do. Assuming the claims in Exhibit 5 are correct and the photos 
in Exhibit 18 are the photos in Exhibit 26 are real, they are 
irrefutable proof that the test was fake.


If Exhibits 18 and 26 are themselves fake, then it is possible there 
was excess heat, but I am sure it was not 1 MW.


The fact remains the accumulating evidence points to LENR in
general, and the E-Cat in particular, working.


No, the evidence against the 1 MW test is overwhelming. If I.H. is 
telling the truth, there is not the slightest chance it worked. I am 
sure they are telling the truth. You, apparently, think that Rossi is 
telling the truth.


- Jed

[Vo]:the exceptionality and uniqueness of LENR- first part

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-30-2016-lenrs-strange.html


I still have no idea about who will take the responsibility and represent
LENR in the discussions with DoD next month.

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

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Assuming the claims in Exhibit 5 are correct and the photos in Exhibit 18
> are the photos in Exhibit 26 are real, they are irrefutable proof that the
> test was fake.
>

I meant Exhibits 5 and 26. Not 18.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> It is indeed possible but you don't have definitive evidence to judge the
> performance of the 1 MW plant either.
>

Yes, I do. Assuming the claims in Exhibit 5 are correct and the photos in
Exhibit 18 are the photos in Exhibit 26 are real, they are irrefutable
proof that the test was fake.

If Exhibits 18 and 26 are themselves fake, then it is possible there was
excess heat, but I am sure it was not 1 MW.



> The fact remains the accumulating evidence points to LENR in general, and
> the E-Cat in particular, working.
>

No, the evidence against the 1 MW test is overwhelming. If I.H. is telling
the truth, there is not the slightest chance it worked. I am sure they are
telling the truth. You, apparently, think that Rossi is telling the truth.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed: "It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not 
have enough information to judge."


It is indeed possible but you don't have definitive evidence to judge 
the performance of the 1 MW plant either.
The fact remains the accumulating evidence points to LENR in general, 
and the E-Cat in particular, working.  Just how well remains to be 
proven.  I don't think there is much doubt a COP~6 is possible.

AA

On 8/30/2016 9:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?


You have not paid attention to what I have said. I think that the 1 MW 
test was a failure and a fraud, but I have said many times some of the 
earlier tests might have worked. We cannot rule that out. The first 
Levi test seems positive:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi
retrograded performance with time?


Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot 
how to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older 
reactors to make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record 
of what he had done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.


It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have 
enough information to judge.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Alain,
Your point is obscure.  The bottom line is that Rossi has no real 
protection from competition except to sell the reactors are a very 
competitive cost. So he cant give details, nor is it to his advantage to 
prove it works scientifically.
It has not been a long time to reach market when you consider the 
novelty, instability of the process and the lack of understanding how it 
works.  If Rossi manages to get a commercial reactor to market in under 
six months, as he says he hopes to do, no one will complain.

AA


On 8/30/2016 2:33 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

One improbable hypothesis is that the strange behavior,
like reported by IH about the way the Swedish licensee was deterred, 
is that once again Rossi succeeded in convincing his partner to flee, 
so he can marry with a new bride...


I don't believe it, but we cannot be sure.

moreover consider that some strange tests show behaviors that are 
difficult to interpret as total failures.


one characteristic of Rossi, we tolerated and justified too long, is 
to maintain permanent uncertainty.




2016-08-30 0:00 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield >:


But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?
If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi
retrograded performance with time?
AA



On 8/29/2016 5:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It seems the American Physical Society is going to publish
replication results of Rossi's Ni/H2/L reactor
How are you going to explain that Jed?


Any member can publish anything at an APS conference. (They set
that rule many years ago, after a rather gruesome incident.)

This result, if true, might indicate Ni-H cold fusion works, but
that has no bearing on the fact that Rossi's 1 year test could
not possibly have produced 1 MW.

Rossi's earlier results might be real. I cannot rule that out, as
I have said before. However, there is not the slightest chance
this result is real because as I said the heat would kill
everyone in the room. Also, the flow meter and pressure readings
appear to be fake. The flow meter numbers are too regular to be
true, and the pressure is impossible.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Article: Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic field

[Jones Beene]

From: Chris Zell 

>> Massless electrons ? Actually we should call them Weyl Fermions (WF) since 
>> by definition, the electron has mass and we do not want to ruffle too many 
>> feathers. And a quick googling indicates high probability that WF have been 
>> verified by several groups.

*   Are your massless electrons related to this?

http://rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm


Dunno. This is all new to me. Looks like Wm. Barbat is jumping on board with 
the idea, and why not? Maybe there is something big brewing up there in Oregon. 
OTOH, they did recently legalize recreational ganga… :-)

An interesting detail is the implication that CuO could be a Weyl semimetal. As 
we know, CuO is the backbone of high temperature superconductors, but it 
probably requires more to become a robust WF, such as we see in BISCO.

It would be most intriguing if HTSC can be linked to the new fermion. For a 
long time there has been strong hints of a connection between LENR and HTSC.

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
> Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?
>

You have not paid attention to what I have said. I think that the 1 MW test
was a failure and a fraud, but I have said many times some of the earlier
tests might have worked. We cannot rule that out. The first Levi test seems
positive:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf



> If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded
> performance with time?
>

Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot how
to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older reactors to
make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record of what he had
done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.

It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have
enough information to judge.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Article: Electrons with no mass acquire a mass in the presence of a high magnetic field

[Chris Zell]

Massless electrons ? Actually we should call them Weyl Fermions (WF) since by 
definition, the electron has mass and we do not want to ruffle too many 
feathers. And a quick googling indicates high probability that WF have been 
verified by several groups.

Are your massless electrons related to this?

http://rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Alain Sepeda]

One improbable hypothesis is that the strange behavior,
like reported by IH about the way the Swedish licensee was deterred, is
that once again Rossi succeeded in convincing his partner to flee, so he
can marry with a new bride...

I don't believe it, but we cannot be sure.

moreover consider that some strange tests show behaviors that are difficult
to interpret as total failures.

one characteristic of Rossi, we tolerated and justified too long, is to
maintain permanent uncertainty.



2016-08-30 0:00 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield :

> But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
> Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?
> If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded
> performance with time?
> AA
>
>
>
> On 8/29/2016 5:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> It seems the American Physical Society is going to publish replication
>> results of Rossi's Ni/H2/L reactor
>> How are you going to explain that Jed?
>>
>
> Any member can publish anything at an APS conference. (They set that rule
> many years ago, after a rather gruesome incident.)
>
> This result, if true, might indicate Ni-H cold fusion works, but that has
> no bearing on the fact that Rossi's 1 year test could not possibly have
> produced 1 MW.
>
> Rossi's earlier results might be real. I cannot rule that out, as I have
> said before. However, there is not the slightest chance this result is real
> because as I said the heat would kill everyone in the room. Also, the flow
> meter and pressure readings appear to be fake. The flow meter numbers are
> too regular to be true, and the pressure is impossible.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>