Re: [Vo]:OT: Energy and taxation

[Lennart Thornros]

Well, taxation everywhere. We know that in best can we get 50 cent of value
for every tax dollar.
We need a simple tax code not a myriad of them to make us all confused. VAT
nothing else is one way. Probably are many other ways.

On Sun, Jan 9, 2022, 15:28 Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
>
>> Also buying miles would be a local transaction which would ensure the
>> funds go to the state in which the vehicle is mostly driven.
>>
>
> Rather similar to buying gasoline in Georgia or South Carolina as you
> drive north.
>
> A cell phone knows what State you are in. It adjusts the local time. It
> could pay whatever State you happen to be in when you "recharge" the
> mileage.
>
> The only problem with these schemes is they would require new hardware in
> automobiles. My first suggestion, reading the odometer once a year, could
> be done with existing cars. For that reason, perhaps both schemes could be
> implemented at first, with the annual odometer method phased out when the
> entire fleet of cars is replaced. In Georgia, they used to have annual
> emissions tests that required dynamometers. Around 1990 they began
> connecting to the automobile computer instead, and no longer needed
> dynamometers. By 2015 or so, there were only a few dynamometers left in
> Atlanta. My car needed one, so I had to drive to a seedy neighborhood
> downtown once a year. They phased out the requirement for cars over 25
> years old, then that car abruptly died. I miss it . . .
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[OT]Omicron

[Lennart Thornros]

Nobody died from the Vax?
Good economic decision to close businesses, Close schools etc.?
Must have been Sleep for a couple of years.

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021, 22:49 Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
>> The fact that it is more infectious may turn out to be a boon rather than
>>> a problem, as it would
>>> outpace all other strains, and "immunize" those who are unwilling to get
>>> the jab.
>>> It may also save governments around the world from having to spend
>>> billions on vaccines.
>>>
>>
> That would not save any money. On the contrary, it would cost hundreds of
> times more than vaccinations. A vaccinated person seldom gets sick. An
> unvaccinated person who suffers from a mild case of COVID or influenza will
> have to spend a week or two recuperating. That means missing days of work,
> and taking over the counter medication. The cost of the missed work and
> medication far exceeds the cost of two or three vaccines. Also, some number
> of people will die from Omicron no matter how mild it is. Even if it is as
> mild as influenza, it will kill hundreds of thousands, and many others will
> suffer long term damage, whereas not a single person has died or been
> seriously hurt by the mRNA vaccines, even after 6 billion doses. So, the
> vaccine is far safer.
>
> Influenza is less deadly than Omicron, yet influenza vaccines are far
> cheaper and safer than getting influenza. That is why governments
> everywhere subsidize them and give them out for free.
>
> A vaccine is always cheaper and safer than the disease it prevents. That
> is why children are given vaccines for chickenpox and mumps, which are
> seldom deadly diseases. (Children in the US have to get these vaccines to
> attend school.)
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Freire et al., Preliminary survey on cold fusion

[Lennart Thornros]

Hi guys long time,
Your discussion of gravity is way over my paygrade. However, if gravity is
such a power , how can the two bodies of the esrth on one side and the O2
molecule keep together. In other words why do the gases in the atmosphere
stay there. I was told in school that nature hates emptiness. Why don't our
atmosphere go away to the vast emptyness?
It doesn't.  So my thinking is we have an electric field keeping the gases
in plsce. Well, that might be wrong. Hannes Alfven had a theory I  can see
being plausible. Just let me know the answer.
Lennart

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021, 18:16 Robin  wrote:

> In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 7 Dec 2021
> 20:33:39 +:
> Hi Bob,
> >Robin-
> >
> >You make a significant statement:
> >
> >” The strong force myth has been fully debunked by B.Schaeffer”
>
> Actually I didn't make that statement, I simply pointed to a website that
> I believe belongs to the author of the paper.
> The original statement was made by Jürg.
> Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that he is at least close to correct.
>
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Lennart Thornros]

Just så the Said in germany in the 1930is. Government can do as they want.
The government wants our best.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 13:09 Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>
>> >>No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice
>>
>
> Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere with
> my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's freedom of
> speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the Constitution. The
> electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on LENR-CANR.org, or what
> Facebook posts on their website. The difference between us is only a matter
> of scale. The fact that they are large does not mean they have fewer rights
> than I do.
>
> It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the
> press and free speech.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Good news about the pandemic at last

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes Jed I understand your philosophy.
The government does things and they do right.
Inventions, medicine or . . . Doesn't matter you just have that mindset
nothing much to do about.
IMHO there is room for other sometimes opposite opinions.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 11:17 Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Michael Foster  wrote:
>
> Yes, you are correct about the 6% figure. They merely stated that 6% of
>> cases that listed covid19 as the sole cause of death failed to list the
>> co-morbidities.
>>
>
> Correct. COVID-19 itself does not kill patients directly as often as it
> leaves them open to secondary infections and things like that.
>
>
> But you have fallen into the trap of the CDC's tricky manipulation of
>> data. There have been up to 80,000 deaths per year supposedly caused by
>> influenza (which strains?). The CDC then gives the mortality rate based
>> upon an *estimated* number of infections. In other words, any number they
>> want to make up.
>>
>
> No, they do not make up these numbers. The numbers are based on clinical
> data from doctors and hospitals, and field studies. They are estimated
> because ordinary influenza is not on the list of diseases that doctors must
> report. Some forms of influenza have to be reported but not others. See:
>
> https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001929.htm
>
>
> They then state the mortality rate among *known* covid infections.
>>
>
> That is the only thing they can do. There are no other reliable numbers at
> present. There will be more data after widespread antibody tests can be
> performed. In any case, we know that COVID-19 kills at least 10 times more
> people than influenza in a typical year. Influenza typically kills around
> 30,000, although some years a dangerous strain will kill many more. We know
> that COVID-19 has only infected a small fraction of the population, because
> people have taken precautions such as wearing masks, whereas influenza
> infects a much larger fraction. If COVID-19 were to spread as widely as
> influenza usually does, it would kill ~40 times more people than influenza.
> It would also disable many people for life with permanent lung damage,
> strokes, heart problems, amputations and so on. Influenza seldom does that.
> So it is far more lethal and serious.
>
>
>
>> These people at the CDC, the NIH and the FDA are corrupt to the nines.
>>
>
> Not the ones I know. They are hardworking scientists. I think you should
> not generalize about people you know nothing about.
>
>
> In the FDA, and I know this is hard to believe, many of the employees'
>> salaries are actually paid by pharmaceutical companies.
>>
>
> That would be against Federal law. I know several people who work or
> worked for Uncle Sam, such as my late mother. They cannot accept so much as
> a ham sandwich from anyone. Where did you read that? Be careful what you
> believe.
>
>

Re: [Vo]: CoV-19 news

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes but what about H2O2.
Well-known killer of viruses.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, 17:08 Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> On  LENR forum we run a thread about all possible news about SARS-CoV-9
> CoV-19..
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6222-covid-19-wuflu-news/?action=lastPost
>
> Ivermectin seems to be the cure of choice!
>
>
> https://www.trialsitenews.com/president-of-dominican-republics-largest-private-health-group-discusses-the-success-of-ivermectin-as-a-treatment-for-early-stage-covid-19/
>
> Or  a common cold protects you of CoV-19
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8475639
>
>
> Why HCQ works:
>
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.26.20056507v1.full.pdf
>
>
> https://healthwise.punchng.com/nigerian-researchers-find-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-effective-for-covid-19-prevention/
>
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.24.20139386v1
>
>
> This is more critical -from an anti vaxer site:
>
> Lessons from the Lockdown—Why Are So Many Fewer Children Dying?
>
> https://childrenshealthdefense…any-fewer-children-dying/
> 
>
>
> Finally big pharma mafia in target:
>
>
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gilead-prices-covid-19-drug-111703247.html
>
>
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hhs-50-courses-of-gilead-sciences-remdesivir-to-be-available-for-sale-2020-06-29?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
>
> J.W.
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A contrarian thought experiment

[Lennart Thornros]

I like it.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 19:40 Jones Beene  wrote:

> Robin,
>
> Yes. However if an AI which is accurately modeling outcomes behind the
> scenes was developed, programmed and funded by a secretive group to which
> we can attach that name, then it makes little difference what label gets
> the blame ... why not "satan"?
>
> One could also label an expected massive kill-off (with an imagined
> purpose) as "the apocalypse" or even as "god's will", no?
>
> IOW the complexity of the dynamics at play seem to make human capabilities
> (to understand sufficiently or predict outcomes accurately) impossible.
> Thus our rationality wants us to find a "real" causative sources,
> especially elsewhere than our beloved "nature"..
>
> We hate to confront the fact that evil, randomness and ignorance are
> synonymous...  even natural.
>
>
> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
> > I like it.
> >Now imagine all that future you envision having been precision
> orchestrated in the year 2020 by an AI which few humans knew about...
>
>
> I don't think it was an AI. More like the Illuminati. ;)
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:China will emerge from the coronavirus crisis stronger than the U.S.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jürg you are in the powerhouse of Europe. You are correct to some degree
but even Germany will need to change the mojo.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 17:18 Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The first question I usually ask in a construction material store. It this
> made in China? The same for sanitary products or household machines that
> contain parts made in China.
>
> I want to avoid to buy rubbish!
>
> But in UK where the local industry is on the same level as China and you
> can only choose between UK-rubbish or China rubbish. Most things we need
> can be fabricated with robots today. The initial investment might be a bit
> larger than going to China but worst: All the net profit is under control
> again. Currently the China business is attractive because nobody can
> control any fake invoices inside China and fake export prices they charge
> the local distributor in our country. Net margins - in relation to
> customers price - usually are between 500 and 2000%.
>
> This has nothing to do with economic power its simply broad range fraud.
>
> 1987 Switzerland started the first fully automated assembly of the famous
> swatch. All parts are smaller than the I-phone parts and total cost when
> leaving the factory were 5.- Swiss francs/watch.
>
> Why is Apple going to China for theh I-phone assembly?? Albeit we can do
> everything they need since more than 30 years
>
> Answer is simple: They parked about 50'000'000'000$ undeclared (not taxed)
> net income, offshore. The whole China story is about cheating western
> democracies and paying hidden bonus to the top management and more tax-free
> benefits to investors. How top management fraud works can be learned from
> Gohsn that headed Nissan/Renault and at least has stolen 100'000'000$.
>
> J.W.
>
>
>
>
> Am 25.03.20 um 21:52 schrieb Lennart Thornros:
>
> Michael I think your analysis is correct. However that does not mean Jones
> is wrong rather support his position.
> I have advocated your position for a long time. However over the last 20
> years I have concluded ; the West cannot compete with countries that ha
> substantially lower production costs. That means we will have to
> acknowledge that the rest of the world has the right to build there
> standard to the same level as the West.
> We did have, but it slowly becomes less valuable, an infrastructure and
> organization capacity well above the rest of the world. Long time
> experience. My thinking has been to sell that capacity and have knowledge ,
> more worth than lime even, and contribute that knowledge. However we seems
> to not understand that 100 companies with 3 employees provide more job than
> a company with 100 employees. I think highly specialized small business can
> beat any competition. Instead we have supported big business and government
> organizations and built them as big and inefficient and ineffective as
> possible.
> Yes I understand that there are exceptions but they are few and far
> between. Look on the 2 trillion stimulus package we are spending most of it
> goes to big business because when they fail society don't want/ cannot take
> their fall.
> If we don't act our knowledge will not be competitive and I guess we will
> be behind.
> Lennart
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 16:02 Michael Foster  wrote:
>
>> I hate to be the one to tell you this, Jones, but China has been stronger
>> than the U.S. for some time. The massive manufacturing infrastructure
>> created in China is far greater than the U.S. has ever achieved. Factors
>> such as average income, GDP, etc. are just financial indicators.
>> Publications like MarketWatch, Bloomberg , etc. simply measure monetary
>> transactions. We have now a financialized economy, practically no economy.
>> We sell each other financial products, insurance stocks, consulting, etc.
>> and think we are doing something.
>>
>> I like to measure an economy in terms of lime production.  If you think
>> about it, lime is the basis of civilization.  The ancient Romans denuded
>> the forests of Europe and Britain in order to produce lime from limestone
>> and oyster shells, used to make mortar, glass, concrete, and iron.  The
>> ancient Egyptians had covered those massive pyramids with lime based stucco
>> so they were blinding white. You get the idea.
>>
>> I have no figures on lime production in China, but they produced more
>> concrete (you need lime for that) in the last three years than the U.S. did
>> in the entire 20th century. Their electrical generation surpassed the U.S.
>> years ago. Ditto steel production. They build entire cities for a million
>> people in three years flat, including high speed rail con

Re: [Vo]:China will emerge from the coronavirus crisis stronger than the U.S.

[Lennart Thornros]

Michael I think your analysis is correct. However that does not mean Jones
is wrong rather support his position.
I have advocated your position for a long time. However over the last 20
years I have concluded ; the West cannot compete with countries that ha
substantially lower production costs. That means we will have to
acknowledge that the rest of the world has the right to build there
standard to the same level as the West.
We did have, but it slowly becomes less valuable, an infrastructure and
organization capacity well above the rest of the world. Long time
experience. My thinking has been to sell that capacity and have knowledge ,
more worth than lime even, and contribute that knowledge. However we seems
to not understand that 100 companies with 3 employees provide more job than
a company with 100 employees. I think highly specialized small business can
beat any competition. Instead we have supported big business and government
organizations and built them as big and inefficient and ineffective as
possible.
Yes I understand that there are exceptions but they are few and far
between. Look on the 2 trillion stimulus package we are spending most of it
goes to big business because when they fail society don't want/ cannot take
their fall.
If we don't act our knowledge will not be competitive and I guess we will
be behind.
Lennart

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 16:02 Michael Foster  wrote:

> I hate to be the one to tell you this, Jones, but China has been stronger
> than the U.S. for some time. The massive manufacturing infrastructure
> created in China is far greater than the U.S. has ever achieved. Factors
> such as average income, GDP, etc. are just financial indicators.
> Publications like MarketWatch, Bloomberg , etc. simply measure monetary
> transactions. We have now a financialized economy, practically no economy.
> We sell each other financial products, insurance stocks, consulting, etc.
> and think we are doing something.
>
> I like to measure an economy in terms of lime production.  If you think
> about it, lime is the basis of civilization.  The ancient Romans denuded
> the forests of Europe and Britain in order to produce lime from limestone
> and oyster shells, used to make mortar, glass, concrete, and iron.  The
> ancient Egyptians had covered those massive pyramids with lime based stucco
> so they were blinding white. You get the idea.
>
> I have no figures on lime production in China, but they produced more
> concrete (you need lime for that) in the last three years than the U.S. did
> in the entire 20th century. Their electrical generation surpassed the U.S.
> years ago. Ditto steel production. They build entire cities for a million
> people in three years flat, including high speed rail connecting to them.
> Many of them are still unoccupied, referred to as ghost cities. No doubt
> they will eventually be occupied.
>
> Meanwhile, in California, we try to build a single high speed rail line
> connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco and it becomes bogged down in
> bureaucracy, minority set-asides, corruption, over-regulation and political
> correctness with the result that billions are wasted and nothing will be
> built. If the U.S. doesn't regain its position as a manufacturing
> powerhouse and the parliament of whores we call our government doesn't stop
> selling us out to China we are finished.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Wednesday, March 25, 2020, 06:03:44 PM UTC, Jones Beene <
> jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>  China will emerge from the coronavirus crisis stronger than the U.S.,
> experts warn...This is the headline from the MarketWatch newsletter... They
> make a good case for the shocking prediction, whether you like it or not.
>
> China is going back to work now - as of TODAY even Hunan is off of the
> "stay at home" rule. They will be back to work so as to have more than a
> three month headstart on the USA (most likely). This can make a huge
> difference.
>
> Hmm... was such a scenario as this is turning out to be -- predictable?
> Perhaps predictable by an AI?
>
> If so - let's say that a country which wished to overtake the US as the
> leader of the World economy - had developed an AI which foretold this
> scenario and how to pull it off. Lets say the simulation was rock-solid and
> always came back with the same result. This creates an opportunity.
>
> With a population of 1.5 billion, would it not make good economic sense,
> never mind the humanity, to engineer a virus and start it at home... but it
> is engineered to have the traits which would favor a desired end-game ?
>
> The sacrifice to do this was less than 5000 souls, which is almost
> insignificant in the Big Picture. we have been killing off that many every
> month for some time with opiods. Thank you very much Big Pharma.
>
> Even if this economic good fortune was not planned out and did not happen,
> and there is zero proof that it did happen, the lesson here to remember is
> that it could happen. And not just in Sc

Re: [Vo]:Israel

[Lennart Thornros]

Sounds like the bureaucrats taken full control in Israel.
Mandatory phone and all personal data about sicknesses, finances, friends,
associations etc. We are way further than "1984".. We need a new book
"2084".
Lennart

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 10:05 Chris Zell  wrote:

> Maybe they could wear a yellow star instead.
>
> Look, as some one in my '60's, I'm starting to get angry at calls for
> arbitrary isolation.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: H LV 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 10:25 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Israel
>
> This is a politically scary development.
>
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com%2F2020%2F03%2F18%2Fisrael-passes-emergency-law-to-use-mobile-data-for-covid-19-contact-tracing%2F&data=02%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C918f0b48bb2d4808123408d7cbacb233%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637201814897924370&sdata=jKj940CMdlVKaSSuUEfWtAfriJsYk7N%2BuKZg43N6%2Bs8%3D&reserved=0
>
> In response many people will stop carrying or turn off their cell phone.
> Then the government might force people to carry a cell phone that is always
> on.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization.
> Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender.
>

Re: [Vo]:A loss for the coal fields

[Lennart Thornros]

Sorry Jurg. From Geany it might like a good idea to have a fat train in
California. The interest from tjat investment would pay for free airfares
on that route.
However I agree with:
US is ruled by a plutocratic mafia that lost any understanding for
sustainable business & infra structure.
Unfortunately LENR. is not a solution. No advantages for the US and the
petrodollar will fall. Then the Roman history will repeat.


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 15:25 Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> US is ruled by a plutocratic mafia that lost any understanding for
> sustainable business & infra structure.
>
> Even in California the mafia successfully prevented the construction of
> sustainable environmental friendly infra structure - the fast train between
> LA and San Francisco.
>
> I recommend to read about the decline of Rome as a center of power.
>
> If LENR fails to deliver cheap energy the US will decompose within 20
> years.
>
> J.W.
>
>
> Am 15.11.19 um 21:15 schrieb Frank Znidarsic:
>
> The United Mine Workers has declaired bankrupsy.  This will result in a
> lose of pensions and hospitlization for many reitred workers in PA and
> WVa.  I am beginning to feel the scope of this event in Western PA.  It's
> another blow after the collapse of our steel and other manufacturing
> industries.
>
> I have read about the decline of the West and the rise of China.  I am not
> sure if the West is declining or if only the East is rising.  Western
> govennments were amazed that inovation could take place so swiftly within a
> communist system; but it clearly is. With the present political termoil
> within the US political system, and the fast rise of China, perhaps western
> systems are not as good as they are preported to be.  I see decline here in
> Western Pa.  China seems to have taken the lead on climate change and
> energy innovation.
>
> I am not sure how all of this will turn out.
>
> Frank Z
>
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion

[Lennart Thornros]

After reading the recipe for how to make money, I better understand how
difficult it is.
Business is not predictable this way. There are many more ingredients
before this money dish is consumable.
Lennart

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, 21:29 Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The world energy market is roughly $6 trillion per year:
>
>
> https://www.enerdata.net/publications/executive-briefing/world-energy-expenditures.html
>
> $1.8 trillion per year is invested in energy, in things like digging
> wells, R&D, erecting wind towers and so on.
>
> That is the pot of money you can tap into with cold fusion. $1.8 trillion
> is the amount people will be willing to invest in cold fusion R&D per year,
> once it becomes clear that cold fusion will become a practical source of
> energy. $6 trillion per year is how much money you can divert from the oil,
> gas and coal companies earnings into your own pocket if you succeed in
> commercializing it. Not overnight, but in a remarkably short time. Roughly
> the time it took automobiles to replace most horses, which was from 1908
> when the Model T was introduced, to 1928.
>
> So, how do you make this money? Not by trying to sell energy! That is a
> highly regulated industry. It is a difficult and complex business. The way
> to make money is to sell equipment. You gradually divert the earnings of
> energy industry into earnings by you. Many companies are already doing
> this, by selling machines with improved efficiency. Suppose you make an
> efficient water heater.  You can sell it at a premium, and make more
> profit. The customer is willing to pay more because it reduces the natural
> gas bill and saves money overall.
>
> The average water heater costs $55 a month in gas. Suppose the customer
> ends up paying you $10 month more for your heater, but he saves $20 a month
> in gas. In effect, you are reducing the gas company's earnings by $20, and
> splitting the money between you and your customer.
>
> The potential is greater with cold fusion, because you eliminate the
> entire cost of fuel. You and the customer spit the $55; the gas company
> loses the whole amount.
>
> It is even more attractive for big ticket equipment. If an apartment
> complex pays $1000 a month for the gas space heating, you sell them a
> heater that costs about $500 a month more than a gas heater. The natural
> gas company loses $1000, you and the customer each make $500. After 20
> years the equipment wears out and you sell a replacement. It is a steady
> stream of income. It is siphoned off from a $6 trillion pot of money, so
> there is plenty more money to grab. There is no way the energy companies
> can compete or under-price you.
>
> This is not a one-time profit. It is a steady stream of income, because
> the equipment wears out and must be replaced.
>
> In real life you have competition, and as you gradually wear away at gas,
> oil and coal company earnings, they lower their costs, and the amount left
> on the table decreases. But in principle, that is how it works.
>
> This only works out well if the cold fusion apartment complex space heater
> costs roughly as much to manufacture as a gas-fired heater. I think it
> will, because it is not particularly complicated and the materials are not
> rare. For the most part, it consists of pumps, thermostats and whatnot that
> are the same as the ones in a gas-fired or electric heater. Once the
> technology matures, there is no reason to think it will cost more. But you
> can *sell it* for much more, with much larger profits. The customer will
> be happy to pay more, because it eliminates the cost of fuel. Over the life
> of the machine, the fuel costs more than the equipment. So you have a
> tremendous potential profit margin. If the customer cannot afford the
> up-front cost, you can arrange for leasing. As long as it ends up costing
> substantially less per month, the customer will be happy. As old gas-fired
> equipment wears out, your equipment gradually replaces gas fired heaters.
> Then as your equipment wears out, you keep selling cold fusion heaters.
>
> To reiterate, the money goes from the natural gas company into your
> pocket, and into the customer's pocket, even though you are not selling
> energy *per se*. The amount of money waiting for you to tap into and
> transfer is $6 trillion per year. That is the most lucrative business
> opportunity in history. Every industrial company will understand that the
> first day it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real. They will
> soon be spending billions of dollars per year to develop it, just as they
> are now spending billions to develop self-driving cars.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Congress up in arms over UFOs

[Lennart Thornros]

I 100% agree

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 14:58 Terry Blanton  wrote:

> It is as I read somewhere, as long as there are several trillion dollars
> of oil untapped, cold fusion will remain "fringe science".  When we need
> it, it will suddenly become accepted.  Same with AG.
>

Re: [Vo]:Congress up in arms over UFOs

[Lennart Thornros]

I knew my questions are naive. Robin I  think your analysis are correct.
I think this secrecy is evolving from large organizations and governments.
Thus we don't work together any longer. Instead we are isolating our self.
The discussions here in Vortex show that this isolation is prevalent in the
academical society as well.
I can see no benefit from keeping this information secret. With very few
exclusions is it justified for government to keep information away from the
people. It actually will ruin the respect between the government an the
people. If you want examples of an area already plagued by a rapidly
diminished respect look at the FDA CDC MONSANTO BIG PHARMA complex.
Lennart
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 16:33  wrote:

> In reply to  Lennart Thornros's message of Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:02:52 -0400:
> Hi,
> >If there is such a nonaggression pact. Shouldn't we the people 've
> >informed? Why is that secret.? W go benefits from the secrecy?
> >Lennart Thornros
> [snip]
> 1) Yes, we should be informed.
> 2) It's secret because those in power assume massive panic if the word got
> out.
> They are wrong BTW, if *all* the facts are presented, rather than a
> selection,
> then for almost everyone, life would just go on as normal, because if
> would be
> obvious that the situation has been going on for a long time, and
> essentially
> nothing has changed.
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Congress up in arms over UFOs

[Lennart Thornros]

If there is such a nonaggression pact. Shouldn't we the people 've
informed? Why is that secret.? W go benefits from the secrecy?
Lennart Thornros

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019, 23:44  wrote:

> In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Thu, 20 Jun 2019 22:55:29 -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> 1) The President doesn't believe they are extra-terrestrial, and also isn't
> worried.
> 2) If they were "home grown" no senate briefing would have been needed.
>
>
> Not worried implies they are already known not to be a threat.
>
> Conclusion: The source is a terrestrial entity that is not a threat.
>
> The capabilities are clearly beyond anything we have. Since we don't
> already
> have the technology, the owners are not going to share their technology,
> but
> have promised not to harm us unless attacked.
>
> Conclusion:- The government already knows that there is an existing
> extra-terrestrial presence here on Earth, and they have a signed a
> "non-aggression" pact with them.
> Regards,
>
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> local asymmetry = temporary success
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Article about Russ George

[Lennart Thornros]

After reading the article about how Russ George dumped iron in the ocean, I
felt I got support for what I have said at several Occasions.
We live in the world where big organizations or making rules way over the
head of any individual.
The bureaucrats had a heyday there were more things to regulate. No true
bureaucrat who would leave that opportunity.
As I read the comments I can find very little substance on the matter
dumping iron in the ocean. instead the continents worried regulators
talking about the problem with personal initiative. They seem to think that
big conferences where people discuss how to formulate a law to avoid
problems they don't know anything about. Nobody worries about how to do
progress in the field. there are plenty of large problems in our immediate
neighborhood, which should be easy to solve with joint effort,  if we
allowed initiative by individuals. instead we make rules making sure that's
all enthusiasm is consumed by a myriad of laws and forms to fill in.
 Let me take an example. Haïti just a few hundred miles from the United
States has no system for garbage collection. The Coastal Community has sold
the problem in the perfect way for them self. they take all the garbage to
the storm ditches,  then the rain will take the garbage out to sea. Problem
solved. Big organizations provide food and other survival things for Haiti.
Big government organizations make laws about what can be dumped and what
cannot be dumped in the ocean.  Each organization does what they are set
out to do. Nobody cares about the big picture. People in the community do
not have any interest in the future of the ocean. The charity organizations
don't care about what happens to the garbage they give away, the packaging
of their food.  I am sure there are hordes of bureaucrats conferencing on
discussing which new law to design to solve this problem. IMHO it cannot be
solved from above. It is a must to get engagement from the people involved.
All the bureaucratic regulations  is a fight with wind Mills.
I admire people like Russ George. They'd rather do something then talk
about it. The same thing goes for many of the entrepreneurs,  witch are
trying different ideas for cold fusion. Solutions require inovativ people
perhaps a little crazy. How else could they think outside the box?



On Fri, May 31, 2019, 15:05 Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> A citation:
>
> When Russ George dumped iron filings in the ocean, the world was outraged,
> critics issued condemnations, and experts talked soberly about the
> potential for disaster. But we failed — as we have on climate change in
> general — to build any kind of international consensus about a solution.
>
> There very same as Russ did, has been done legally by a volcano 2 years
> ago at the same place, what was the true cause for the record salmon.
>
> What man do illegally is:
> -Dumping Millions of tons of crude oil into the ocean when cleaning the
> tanks.
> -Dumping Millions of tons of plastic into all oceans that directly kills
> fish& birds.
> -Burning the dirtiest fuel in ocean ship engines causing nitro
> "fertilization" (acid!) of the ocean.
> -Destroying ocean ground by deep see fishing
> -Extinction of species like blue tuna because fo greed.
>
> Irion is the most natural dust. e.g. Hawaii lava contains up to 8% of iron
> and due to erosion it is feeding the see around the islands - one of the
> finest paradise for riff fish.
>
> The proof has been given, thanks to the volcano, that the ocean can be
> restored for *a short period of time*! But I agree that all the above
> mentioned  really illegal actions should be stopped first, but that was not
> the intention when the free mason undermined Greenpeace. The target is to
> make people claim something useful happens and take the "opposition money"
> away of action.
>
> The real danger is the 100+billion$ climate certificate trade money that
> is feeding the most ugly people of the planet. If you restore the ocean no
> more certificates will be needed...
>
> Thus I can only ask to stop feeding the real big pigs.
>
>
>
> Am 31.05.19 um 17:41 schrieb Jed Rothwell:
>
> See:
>
>
> https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/24/18273198/climate-change-russ-george-unilateral-geoengineering
>
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr.22
> 8910 Affoltern a.A.
> 044 760 14 18
> 079 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Toyota puts 24,000 hybrid car patents into the public domain

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed
If I remember right you think that all inventions or because of support by
the government. Now you are entering into the judgement of a major
corporation and it's decision making. Amazing.
Lennart

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, 17:19 Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Toyota has 24,000 patents for hybrid automobile technology. Yesterday,
> they announced that they will no longer charge royalties for any of this.
> They are putting all their hybrid car IP into the public domain.
>
> This was featured on the 7 o'clock national news. I thought: "those people
> must be crazy! Why are they doing that? I can see lowering the cost of
> royalties, but why make it free??" On the news a Toyota spokesman said they
> are doing it for the benefit of mankind, to reduce pollution and help avert
> global warming. I did not believe that for a second.
>
> Today I read a news account of this which makes more sense:
>
> https://www.autoblog.com/2019/04/03/toyota-to-share-hybrid-patents/
>
> They want to sell the hybrid machinery itself to other carmakers. The
> motors, control units and so on. Not just the IP; the machinery. They are
> making the patents free to encourage the use of this technology. They must
> think they are so far ahead, they can make money selling the actual
> machines. Other companies will find that cheaper than developing their own
> versions. This also makes sense because Toyota thinks hybrid technology may
> not last much longer. They have to sell it now, and cash on it now, because
> in another 20 years it will be replaced with pure electric propulsion. That
> was one of the things the news report said last night.
>
> This relates to cold fusion and the business strategy that might be used
> to make money with it. It is a strategy only a large company like Toyota
> could use. I have never heard of this strategy, or thought of it myself. It
> is clever! I may discuss this in messages here. Or, you can read my
> thoughts about this starting here:
>
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5654-brillouin-energy-corporation-bec-updates/?postID=108407#post108407
>

Re: [Vo]:a bit of honesty in a complicated world

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, risk aversion so they all react 'safe'. CYA and political correctness
comes with the territory, big organizations not allowed to fail


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 17:59 H LV  wrote:

> In contrast with Big Tobacco of the 1970s, I think the big car companies
> and big oil have investors who suffer from risk aversion rather than naked
> selfishness.
>
> Harry
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:45 PM Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> He did not mention explicitly : "investors from the petroleum industry"
>>> since that is a given ... but the implication is that he gets constant
>>> negative feedback from some of his investors, at the level of Board of
>>> Directors, NOT to pursue electric vehicles... Imagine that...
>>>
>>
>> I expect this is what led to the destruction of the GM EV1, and to the
>> long delay in introducing electric cars. However, when the market for
>> electric cars began to heat up, and when Tesla began to outsell all other
>> luxury cars combined, this motivation evaporated. GM, Ford and the others
>> feared they would face extinction if they did not develop electric cars.
>> They would not let influential Board Members or politicians prevent them.
>>
>> For the same reason, GM, Ford and the others rushed to build hybrid cars
>> after the Prius become popular. Hybrid cars greatly reduced gasoline
>> consumption, so if there were Board Members with connections to big oil, I
>> suppose they would have opposed them. I don't know if there were such
>> Members but if there were, GM ignored them.
>>
>> Again, for the same reason, they are now pouring billions into
>> self-driving automobiles. There may be industries and groups that oppose
>> that oppose that technology. I wouldn't know. But no auto executive would
>> listen to opponents, because after Toyota or GM starts selling self-driving
>> cars, the others better have one within a few years or they will be doomed.
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage

[Lennart Thornros]

Adrian i read your article. I agree 100 percent with you. Particularily the
part about exucation. Happiness is not money they say, i agree. I do not
think a doctorate is happiness either. I have employed many people with
much better education than i have. The impressive academical records means
nothing to a persons ability to contribute in a team is what i learnt.
Academia is good but only for a few  who have that passion. My mum never
heard about pythagoras but she was smarter than most people i met. Yes i am
biased😃
Thank you for the article.

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 AM Adrian Ashfield 
wrote:

> Lennart,  the problem is deeper.  You may enjoy this but it is mainly
> political so most can skip it.
>
> http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Thornros 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this
> stage
>
> Bs
>
> On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:
>
> From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device,
> cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed
> that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start.
> People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote:
>
> ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest
> compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small
> amount of inexpensive fuel."
>
>
> My response:
>
> That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we
> could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were
> generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on
> earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at
> the earliest opportunity.
>
> The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you
> describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power
> shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more
> reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of
> money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no
> idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*.
> No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it
> will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good
> indication they don't know what they are talking about.
>
> Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like
> the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of
> millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is
> probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R&D techniques.
> See:
>
> http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1:
>
> Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will
> put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the
> same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So
> we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory,
> so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology
> before 1700. The technique was mainly trial and error, so it took centuries
> to accomplish what modern science can accomplish in decades.
>
> So far, almost all of the investors and venture capitalists have been
> unwilling to lift a finger or risk any money to make that transition. Other
> than I.H. and the Mysterious Person funding Texas Tech., venture
> capitalists have been useless. They are waiting for the outcome to be a
> sure thing before they invest. As Mark Twain said about bankers, they will
> only give you money when you don't need it.
>
> Based on my experience, venture capitalists say they are in business of
> taking risks, but most of them are lying. They do not actually want to take
> risks. They want to invest in a sure thing that looks like a risk to other
> people. Those other people know less about the product, so they will not
> invest. This lowers the cost and lets the venture capitalist buy a larger
> share from the people who developed the product (the inventors,
> programmers, or businesspeople). Venture capitalists want to look as if
> they are taking a risk, without actually taking one. Cold fusion is an
> actual risk, so not one in a thousand venture capitalists will touch it.
>
> The other problem with the present era is that money is sloshing around in
> unprecedented amounts looking for a home, y

Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage

[Lennart Thornros]

No i have poor internet connection so i answered with what i really should
have said before.
Yes we need to to get rid of the political / insustry / pentagon complex.
Now is the time. We all have access and need no representatives. I know
people say that does not work as most are pootly informed / educated. Not
so. Only interested people will participate. No chance to skim the pools
and a minimal admin to excecute what is asked for. Republican or democrate
or xyz same ol idea. Enrich myself then who helps me and what can i do to
him so he owes me.
We need to participate all of us.
Lennart

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 12:58 PM Adrian Ashfield 
wrote:

> Lennart,
> Thank you for replying.  I don't know if you got to the end of the long
> article and saw that I wrote it.
> I won't rehash it here but merely point out that I think the Democratic
> platform is pathetic.
> The Republicans are even worse as they seem to like starting wars.
> Something is sadly wrong if China's GDP has grown at a rate of three times
> that of the US for 20 years.
> Adrian
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Thornros 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2018 12:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this
> stage
>
> Hello Adrian
> Yes, most can skip it.
> My comment was perhaps fed by irritation over the whole idea that money is
> of different kind and that some money are good and other not.
> I am not in the mode of writing a book so i will just touch the subject
> briefly.
> The idea that economy is a sience and can be better utilized by having
> highly educated people restricted by laws and rules to achieve a better
> outcome is flawed.
> The only money that can enhance inventions are risk willing capital.
> You cannot make rules and formulas to marry an invention with capital. In
> our society there is a form to fill in and a license (a piece of paper with
> no connection to the issues at hand) to obtain capital. Does not matter if
> the money is our tax money or our savings, handled by banks, which are
> heavily regulated (and protected) by the bureacrazy. They can create
> companies like facebook. They cannot support a passionate inventor.
> I believe the only marriage that will propel new technology is between a
> risk willing individual with capital and a passionate inventor.
> I am not sure about the american say but i am sure it is close to a
> Swedish say; real basic need is the mother of all inventions. Thus a bit of
> suffering, hard work, willingness to risk it all are among the ingrediences
> required to progress.
> Let me just say that i think the academical knowledge is very important.
> Not to find the solutions but to point out possible routes and to explain
> the relationships so we can use that for further progress.
> Economy is simple. There is no magic formula. There is no regulation to
> make it better (or fair if that is what we want).
> Lennart
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 Adrian Ashfield 
> wrote:
>
> Lennart,  the problem is deeper.  You may enjoy this but it is mainly
> political so most can skip it.
>
> http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Thornros 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this
> stage
>
> Bs
>
> On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:
>
> From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device,
> cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed
> that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start.
> People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote:
>
> ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest
> compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small
> amount of inexpensive fuel."
>
>
> My response:
>
> That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we
> could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were
> generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on
> earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at
> the earliest opportunity.
>
> The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you
> describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power
> shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more
> reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of
> money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. 

Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Adrian
Yes, most can skip it.
My comment was perhaps fed by irritation over the whole idea that money is
of different kind and that some money are good and other not.
I am not in the mode of writing a book so i will just touch the subject
briefly.
The idea that economy is a sience and can be better utilized by having
highly educated people restricted by laws and rules to achieve a better
outcome is flawed.
The only money that can enhance inventions are risk willing capital.
You cannot make rules and formulas to marry an invention with capital. In
our society there is a form to fill in and a license (a piece of paper with
no connection to the issues at hand) to obtain capital. Does not matter if
the money is our tax money or our savings, handled by banks, which are
heavily regulated (and protected) by the bureacrazy. They can create
companies like facebook. They cannot support a passionate inventor.
I believe the only marriage that will propel new technology is between a
risk willing individual with capital and a passionate inventor.
I am not sure about the american say but i am sure it is close to a Swedish
say; real basic need is the mother of all inventions. Thus a bit of
suffering, hard work, willingness to risk it all are among the ingrediences
required to progress.
Let me just say that i think the academical knowledge is very important.
Not to find the solutions but to point out possible routes and to explain
the relationships so we can use that for further progress.
Economy is simple. There is no magic formula. There is no regulation to
make it better (or fair if that is what we want).
Lennart

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 Adrian Ashfield  wrote:

> Lennart,  the problem is deeper.  You may enjoy this but it is mainly
> political so most can skip it.
>
> http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lennart Thornros 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this
> stage
>
> Bs
>
> On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:
>
> From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device,
> cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed
> that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start.
> People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote:
>
> ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest
> compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small
> amount of inexpensive fuel."
>
>
> My response:
>
> That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we
> could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were
> generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on
> earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at
> the earliest opportunity.
>
> The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you
> describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power
> shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more
> reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of
> money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no
> idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*.
> No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it
> will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good
> indication they don't know what they are talking about.
>
> Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like
> the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of
> millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is
> probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R&D techniques.
> See:
>
> http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1:
>
> Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will
> put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the
> same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So
> we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory,
> so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology
> before 1700. The technique was mainly trial and error, so it took centuries
> to accomplish what modern science can accomplish in decades.
>
> So far, almost all of the investors and venture capitalists have been
> unwilling to lift a finger or risk any money to make that transition. Other
> than I.H. and the Mysterious Person f

Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage

[Lennart Thornros]

Bs

On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device,
> cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed
> that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start.
> People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote:
>
> ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest
> compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small
> amount of inexpensive fuel."
>
>
> My response:
>
> That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we
> could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were
> generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on
> earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at
> the earliest opportunity.
>
> The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you
> describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power
> shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more
> reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of
> money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no
> idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*.
> No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it
> will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good
> indication they don't know what they are talking about.
>
> Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like
> the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of
> millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is
> probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R&D techniques.
> See:
>
> http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1:
>
> Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will
> put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the
> same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So
> we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory,
> so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology
> before 1700. The technique was mainly trial and error, so it took centuries
> to accomplish what modern science can accomplish in decades.
>
> So far, almost all of the investors and venture capitalists have been
> unwilling to lift a finger or risk any money to make that transition. Other
> than I.H. and the Mysterious Person funding Texas Tech., venture
> capitalists have been useless. They are waiting for the outcome to be a
> sure thing before they invest. As Mark Twain said about bankers, they will
> only give you money when you don't need it.
>
> Based on my experience, venture capitalists say they are in business of
> taking risks, but most of them are lying. They do not actually want to take
> risks. They want to invest in a sure thing that looks like a risk to other
> people. Those other people know less about the product, so they will not
> invest. This lowers the cost and lets the venture capitalist buy a larger
> share from the people who developed the product (the inventors,
> programmers, or businesspeople). Venture capitalists want to look as if
> they are taking a risk, without actually taking one. Cold fusion is an
> actual risk, so not one in a thousand venture capitalists will touch it.
>
> The other problem with the present era is that money is sloshing around in
> unprecedented amounts looking for a home, yet paradoxically the wealthy
> have never been wealthier. There is no need for them to take risks, so they
> will not take any. They can make a fortune by rentier capitalism. This was
> situation in California after the discovery of gold in the 1850s, which is
> why the Transcontinental Railroad could not be funded. San Francisco was
> filled with millionaires who could make another million easily and without
> much risk, by opening another gold or silver mine. The would literally --
> actually -- light cigars with burning $100 bills to flaunt their wealth.
> Not one of them would risk investing an railroad, because they could make
> money without risk elsewhere. The railroad had to wait until Lincoln passed
> a law under which the Federal government subsidized the construction and
> lent a lot of money. Uncle Sam took most of the risk. It was a sure thing
> after that. Capitalists such as Leland Stanford were then willing to risk
> their own money, knowing that Uncle Sam had their back. (They might have
> lost money, but it was unlikely. They did have to pay back the loans, but
> they had decades to do that.) It was finished in 1869. The government made
> a lot of money on the interest for the loans, so it benefited everyone. The
> point is, capitalists would never have taken that risk on their own.
>
> From

Re: [Vo]:Plastic bags

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes Nigel.
Poor countries do dispose all garbage into the sea. See Haiti, which has a
system of stocking drainage ditches with garbage, then next rain fixes the
problem The collection is made and then dispursed into the sea.
Lennart

On Sat, May 26, 2018, 04:40 Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> There have been some studies about this, covered in a recent Scientific
> American article
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-oceans-clogged-by-millions-of-tons-of-plastic-trash/
>
> Most of the plastic in the oceans comes from rivers in Asia and Africa.
> The problem is that there is often no organised waste collection in
> these countries so the plastic just gets dumped into the rivers.  We can
> burn or dissolve all the plastic we like in the west and it will not fix
> the problem.  Fixing it requires a change in the culture of collecting
> waste in a number of Asian and African countries.
>
> Nigel
>
> On 26/05/2018 01:54, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Plastic bags are made primarily of hydrocarbons.
> >
> > 1.Dissolved in a solvent, they might make a useful diesel fuel.
> > 2.Bundled and compressed the bags might be burned instead of coal.
> > 3.Added to a blast furnace, they could replace, or augment coal.
> > 4.  Subjected to pyrolysis, they might yield lighter hydrocarbons
> that
> >  could be used in the chemical industry.
> >
> > All of these options are better than them swimming around in the ocean.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
> >
> > local asymmetry = temporary success
> >
> >
>
>

RE: [Vo]:guaranteed pay

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with you Chris.
The problem is how to distribute the assets. Assets can't be owned by the
society in general (communism). It is proven useless  Assets can't be
handled by other big entities (banks etc.) as they will act similarly to
communism.
In a healthy society the assets are benefitting most people. We have a
middle class. Over the last 50 years we have concentrated the assets. That
is dangerous as it creates a base for action due to unfair distribution.
That outcome is not beneficial to anyone.
Lennart

On Sep 5, 2017 06:38, "Chris Zell"  wrote:

> http://nypost.com/2015/03/25/us-stock-market-is-just-way-too-riggin-easy/
>
>
>
> This sort of thing is happening all over the world, not just Japan.
> Central banks stimulating their economies by buying up bonds and stocks.
>
>
>
> If you think of these banks as part of their respective governments ( if
> not THE government), then the trend is towards communism by default.  Right
> now, the Fed is talking about downsizing their assets purchased thru
> stimulating the economy – while many experts believe that’s a pipe dream.
> In fact, it may be the only thing preventing collapse.
>
>
>
> In addition, low interest rates and mergers have greatly reduced the
> number of publicly traded companies in the US.  So, another trend that may
> accelerate the default conversion of whole economies towards communism (
> like it or not) as there are fewer stocks to buy up.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:guaranteed pay

[Lennart Thornros]

I think this is a solution. All the rambling about that jobs disappear to
China, to robots etc. does very little to solve the problem.
I guess the Republican Party believe this is violates their basic
philosophy. In reality it is just right on their philosophy. It takes care
of
the problem we face when being human (i.e. giving healthcare to uninsured)
conflicts the rules, it gives freedom to persuade your personal goals.
I think that it should be combined with limitations in inheritance. There
are few logical reasons for a distribution based on an agriculture
society. I think it is hard to find a good solution to inheritance because
of long time indoctrination. Nothing says that a will or an old law provide
a fair solution. If society provides the basic human rights, then there is
little need to take care of the offspring after you are dead. Thus dead
people's assets could be argued to belong to the community. The problem is
that to let the political entities take over will make the assets
detoriate. See communism, everybody owns it but it is nobody's
responsibility. In my opinion a good solution with today's measurements of
how to handle the inheritance, can make the way for this idea with basic
income. It is also solving the problem with 'how to fund the reform' and
the debate about the one percent.
Lennart
On Sep 4, 2017 20:53, "Axil Axil"  wrote:

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-robots-jobs-spurs-bold-idea.html

Fear of robots taking jobs spurs a bold idea: guaranteed pay

Re: [Vo]:Sound Pulses Exceed Speed of Light

[Lennart Thornros]

On Sep 3, 2017 11:09 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:

> They did.   See article below.
>
> Physicists Demonstrate Record Breaking Long-Distance Quantum
> Entanglement in Space
> Futurism.com ^
> Posted on 9/2/2017, 8:35:07 PM by TBP
>
> IN BRIEF
>
> Chinese physicists managed to demonstrate long-distance quantum
> entanglement in space, breaking previous records. This development,
> made possible by a novel method, could lead to improved information
> storage and transfer in the future. SPOOKY ACTION GETS TO SPACE
>
> When it comes to weird science stuff, quantum entanglement is probably
> near the top of the list, especially back in the days when Einstein
> referred to it as that “spooky action at a distance.” Physicists have
> since demonstrated the “spooky” phenomenon to be possible, but now
> they want to extend its reach. A new study shows it’s possible for
> quantum entanglement to span far longer distances than previously
> demonstrated.
>
> “We have demonstrated the distribution of two entangled photons from a
> satellite to two ground stations that are 1,203 kilometers [748 miles]
> apart,” lead author Juan Yin, physicist at the Science and Technology
> University of China in Shanghai, explained in a research paper
> published in the journal Science. The previous record for entanglement
> distribution reached only 100 kilometers (62 miles).
>
> Yin’s team used the Micius, the world’s first quantum-enabled
> satellite which China launched in 2016, to transmit entangled photons
> to several ground stations separated by long distances. They managed
> to achieve this feat by using laser beams to prevent the light
> particles from getting lost as they traveled.
>
> “The result again confirms the nonlocal feature of entanglement and
> excludes the models of reality that rest on the notions of locality
> and realism,” Yin and his colleagues wrote.
>
> WIDENING POSSIBILITIES
>
> Though quantum entanglement is incredibly complex, it’s possible to
> explain it in simple terms. Two or more particles are entangled or
> linked when a change in one’s state or properties instantaneously
> affects the other’s. What makes this stranger is that this link works
> regardless of distance. This phenomenon becomes particularly useful in
> storing information — as in the case of using quantum bits (qubits) in
> quantum computing.
>
> https://youtu.be/1zD1U1sIPQ4
>
> By proving that quantum entanglement can be maintained in space over
> such a long distance, this work paves the way for long-distance
> satellite quantum communication and maybe even realize the
> possibilities for quantum teleportation. “Long-distance entanglement
> distribution is essential for the testing of quantum physics and
> quantum networks,” Yin’s team wrote.
>
> Advances in quantum cryptography, which rely heavily on extending
> entanglement, could change the way information is stored and
> transferred in the future — opening up applications in improved
> security in communication and even payment systems.
>
>
>
> On 9/3/17, H LV  wrote:
> > Why can't one build a detector sensitive to the motion of a group wave so
> > that it would be possible to send a signal faster than c?
> >
> > Harry
> >
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones, yes lawyers are big winners as in all lawsuits.
Agree that Rossi got what he wanted and paid for it. If it is junk it
remins to be seen. IMHO he could retire on 4 mil also.
Dumb Swedes, maybe future will tell. How you KNOW is mindboggling to me. He
is an entrpreneur, a risktaker and he does search for an answer. not manyof
us can live up  to that or you show me your contribution in those regards.
i admire your theoretical knowledge *cannot judge the quality. That is good
for the discussion. your simple negative opinion about the person  is
misplaced, to not use stronger djective.
Lennart

On Jul 27, 2017 15:18, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:

Living in fantasy land is like living in the desert with head in the sand
IMHO---not unlike the land where religious dogma is prevails.



My wondering did not take long to be resolved.



Bob Cook





F*rom: *Jones Beene 
*Sent: *Thursday, July 27, 2017 5:38 AM

*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'



Anyone who thinks Rossi "won" is living in fantasy land.


The only big winners were the attorneys for both sides.

Both sides submitted bills to the Court of about $7.5 million each,
hoping the judge would assess those costs to the other side. This
similarity of bills looks like collusion on their part - but there is no
reason to believe that they were paid substantially less by their clients.

That means most of the initial $11 million which Rossi got from IH was
lost to him in the filing of the lawsuit. But he is not home-free. Rossi
gets to keep his junk IP and apparently the Swedes love him, so he may
resurface over there if he can stand the winters.

Rossi was not charged with perjury for his deposition - at least not
yet. IH believes he should have been charged - and that could still
happen. No agreement with IH will protect him from perjury.

As for the legal fees of IH plus the other money they paid to Rossi up
front - that is probably over $20 million, BUT they offloaded all of
that expense and more to a British Investment firm - which has actually
gone up in value since they made the $50 million investment in IH/Cherokee.

If you are "following the buck" in all of this, here is how it stands:

1) Rossi has a net of about $4 million ($11 million minus attorneys fees)
2) Darden has a net of about $30 million ($50 million from Woodford
minus $20 million)
3) The attorneys have a net of about $15 million
4) Woodford Patient Capital Trust is up about 14% from when they
invested in IH

In a way, it looks like Darden is in fact the biggest winner here ...
but in one of the never-ending mysteries of capitalism - the big loser
is not apparent... other than the vorticians who wasted hundreds of
hours posting and reading a "show about nothing"

... with apologies to Jerry, his nothing was at least funny...

RE: [Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with Bob.
It has been a lot of name calling here on Vortex during the last year.
Especially AR has been given very demeaing epithets.
I still don't know how well his invention works. I know he is a true
entrepreneur. He believes in his ideas. One overwhelming proof is that he
settled for just freedom from poor bed fellows to persuade the ideas. He
could have retired before filing and had enough for the rest of his life.
Che could learn about benefits in free society isn't always driven by Money.
Jed could learn that things get done without government is involved and
that unortodox methods  can be used.
I hope his invention has a great value.
Lennart

On Jul 26, 2017 21:22, "bobcook39...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:

The folks on Vortex-l that in the past have suggested Rossi was a fraud etc
must be busy eating crow based on the significant silence of their
anti-Rossi claque.



Bob Cook







*From: *Che 
*Sent: *Friday, July 21, 2017 7:58 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject: *[Vo]:Why Rossi 'won'





This has likely already been pointed out here -- but I'll point it out now
(again), if it hasn't.





Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority






The bottom line appears to be that IH 'settled' -- because they simply
could not *prove* fraud (which perhaps, never actually took place -- at
least the way IH sees it). Simple as that. So they would have _lost_ the
case if it had gone to trial -- and been liable for whatever _they_ would
have been liable for.



Rossi OTOH, strategically forewent the money he was 'owed': because he
valued the IP over everything else -- and is smart enuff to know when to
'fold' and walk away.





Is that it, or close enuff..?

Re: [Vo]:Rossi versus Darden trial settled

[Lennart Thornros]

Frank
Is it 1.094 MHz?

On Jul 19, 2017 10:12, "Frank Znidarsic"  wrote:

>
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Brian Ahern 
> wrote:
> >
> > There are no room temperature superconductors. They are theoretically
> > impossible.
> >/snip
>
>
> This is exactly what I expected.  Terra hertz radiation forms a
> vibrationally reinforced Bose condensate (a superconductor) in nano sized
> particles..  Again,  "The constants of the motion tend toward the
> electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is stimulated at a dimensional
> frequency of 1,094,000 meters/ second".
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.516...71M
>

Re: [Vo]:Interest in cold fusion has waned

[Lennart Thornros]

The whole discussion after the TRAIL is useless. Accusations between vorts,
discussions trying to determine how Rossi is a fraud or not - all of
counter productive.
Rossi has a small window to show that he has something. His ethics need no
analysis. Rossi as a person is of little interest if the focus is LENR.
The only that came out of this lawsuit was that nobody has picked up a path
to a commercial LENR.
The interest in LENR has gone down as it obviously still is no solution.
Still the interest exceeds what was before Rossi's appearance in this
field.
I suggest to change the focus to possible solutions and let Rossi return
with his better mousetrap when or if he has one.
Lennart

On Jul 9, 2017 19:03, "Che"  wrote:



On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Che  wrote:
>
>
>> Clueless, DEAD wrong, AND delusional. All in one email post!
>>
>
> That is not what I would call a cogent response, but I appreciate the
> brevity of it. You needn't say more, since your responses are canned and
> never deviate from party doctrine.
>
> - Jed
>
>
We are following an old script, here. If you want to pretend there's an
actual dialog going on, feel free. Just don't pretend to the others that
you're 'winning' something here, OK?

In any case: the political-economic aspects of the Rossi fiasco are every
bit as 'cogent' as the fyzix and engineering. At this point -- even more so.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi v. Darden

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I am not going in to a long discussion with you but I think your 'besser
wisser' attitude needs a comment.
You are saying the ERV report is proof of fraud. Well, that is using a very
low level to qualify a proof. The truth is that you with some support of IH
has made that conclusion and so maybe others also. I have not even read the
report. It would mean nothing to me. Even if I think my knowledge of
science exceeds junior high. Technical flaws can have many explanations.
One is the one you hold as the obvious truth.
In another logical shortcut you use vague indications from one of Rossi's
competitors as evidence that Rossi is a fraudster. My guess is that the
same competitor has negative indications about all the other players in the
field.
The above I mention as a background showing your ill-will or lack of
positive thinking. You dismiss anyone else'es opinion as wishful thinking.
I doubt you are a qualified judge of others opinion or conclusions.
I have no idea about to which degree Rossi has anything contributing to
LENR or not. However, it will show. In the conflict with IH the outcome is
not determined by facts regarding Rossi's contribution to LENR but by a
legal system very few can understand or predict. Sure is that  IH has not
handle the issues the way I would have expected from a serious investment
company. Maybe they are smarter than I, maybe they have other ideas about
what is fair and how to conduct business. Reality is that we are different.
You say that Rossi is hurting the possibilities for LENR funding in the
future. I would say that his contribution to the renewed interest in LENR
is evident. He has stirred up the interest more than any other player. Your
idea that LENR will be discredited from a possible failure by Rossi to show
a result is flawed. You are searching for critic against Rossi even without
minimal logic involved. Due to Rossi's involvement we have many people
doing experiments and that is positive. I personally believe that Rossi has
at least ideas about how to make LENR work, possibly he has a solution. Let
him reveal that. He has promised after the trial to show us. Rossi looks
not as a fraudster to me. He act as a passionate entrepreneur in my
opinion. It is required to be an optimist to get that kind of label.
Sometimes the entrepreneurial spirit contains a teaspoon of wishful
thinking as you call it. It can be labeled vision also.
Let us wait and see.
The ongoing trial will either:
- give Rossi money and ability to show that he is genuine.
- give  ability to IH to support other LENR ideas.
- change nothing and all parties can go ahead as they see fit.
My only question to you is why do you find it so beneficial to label
people. As I see it you have no qualification in that field. Personally I
think very few if any has that ability.
Lennart



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 Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> Whoa. The ERV report is not really self-evident proof of anything to a
>> jury - other than that it supposedly provides a basis for Penon's
>> conclusion. These are average citizens who don't do data, so to speak.
>>
>
> I hope you are wrong about that, but I know nothing about trials and
> juries, so I cannot judge.
>
>
>
>> A top scientist could believe what you state, and I suspect that 95 out
>> of 100 scientists might agree with you.
>>
>
> More like 999,999 out of a million I think. As Smith showed, anyone who
> agrees the laws of thermodynamics are valid will see this is fraud.
>
> I meant that technically knowledgeable people will see that the Penon
> report describes a blatant fraud. I don't know about the man on the street.
> Obviously, as we see here and at some web sites, there are people who have
> heard of the laws of thermodynamics yet who still believe in Rossi. They
> are in thrall to him. Wishful thinking has overwhelmed their ability to
> think rationally and do junior-high-school physics.
>
> It seems that Rossi has spent his adult life cultivating such people and
> then stealing from them. Unfortunately, in the course of doing this, he may
> have destroyed the last hope of funding for cold fusion. Unless the Texas
> Tech project pans out, this time cold fusion may be gone for good. It will
> be forgotten.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Income inequlity

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with all three previous statements. We have to make sure we put a
global view on it. People in third world countries will not tolerate the
big differences.
Problem will stay because nobody wants to spearhead a real solution, it
doesn't propel reelection. Fight over details and allow special interest
having impact provides positioning oneself for reelection. Making the
systems full of red tape under the cover of security makes it hard to
change anything. We need to begin to trust again. Eight character long
password with one capital, one digit and one of this special characters,
all to be renewed every six months, does no good. Just the opposite.
Basic income for all is a solution for part of the problem. Unqualified
inheritance should be looked upon. I am not for confiscation, but to just
inherit and be unqualified is a reason we have great resistance to a change
that will come. Pay with your head as it has been more cosmetic than to any
use. Great quote Axil.

On Jun 14, 2017 17:05, "Axil Axil"  wrote:

> History teachers and the wise learn the French, Communist and American
> revolutions, the rise of Nazisim, and Trumism all show what happens when
> the tensions between the haves and the have-nots reaches a breaking point.
>
> Jobs, jobs, jobs...
>
> "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"...If the haves want to keep their heads,
> they should be more sensitive to the feeling and needs of the have-nots.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Adrian Ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Frank,
>> I have been writing about this for several years.  Read this, starting
>> about a third way down.
>> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/paul-craig-roberts/power
>> ful-man-earth/
>>
>> I think it was inevitable anyway as a result of AI and robotics, but
>> offshoring made it happen earlier.
>> I hope the LENR, if it works out, will cushion the blow, but sooner or
>> later we will need something like UBI  (Universal Basic Income.)  I don't
>> see that happening with our present government until after there is blood
>> on the streets.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Frank Znidarsic 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Wed, Jun 14, 2017 2:19 pm
>> Subject: [Vo]:Income inequlity
>>
>> i have been watching the stock market.  It's on a tear on the way up.
>> 28% returns for the first half of this year.  Wealthy investor are even
>> doing been with private equity.
>>
>> In the mean time all social programs are under the ax.
>>
>> We are in the mist of one of the largest transfers of wealth from the
>> poor to the rich in history.  How will this end?
>>
>> Frank Z
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test

[Lennart Thornros]

Brian it is not a question of being a believer. Rossi has propelled LENR
forward. If he has what says _ then great.
If he does not have it we will soon learn. Than he still has contributed. I
then have a hard time understanding why he still works on the project
Why not save the good earnings. Well there is something there. Until he is
proven wrong I think he needs full support. Yours and worse Jed's
statements are not founded on anything but guesses. Wait and see. I am sure
that you have been the target of others unfounded critic. Not funny or did
you enjoy?
Lennart Thornros

On Feb 18, 2017 08:45, "Brian Ahern"  wrote:

> I was watching a program about O.J. Simpson and how he had a loyal
> following. I see parallels to Rossi's loyal following.
>
>
> "Feed a cold and starve a fever;
>
> argue with no true believer."
>
> It is a waste of effort to expect the citizens of Planet Rossi to abandon
> their hero.  He is too charismatic and has hypnotized a  group by appealing
> to their hopes and dreams of clean energy.
>
> It is futile to expect logic and evidence will be able to de-program the
> earnest followers.
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning
> an instrument
>
> That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
> You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all
> Rossi's data and so how would you get it?
>
> AA
>
> On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
>> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>>
>
> Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
> messages from you.
>
> Done and done.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:An argument against intellectual property rights

[Lennart Thornros]

I think the value of the patent institution is diminutive. There are more a
source for conflict and unethical behavior. The institution might have had
a value in another era
Today I think the only way to really get to benefit from an invention is to
organize financing and marketing resources and keep the secrecy as long as
possible.
The reason is our society is more complex and the patent institution does
not cover things like financing and marketing, which are factors with equal
or larger impact on the possibility to reap the benefit of an invention.
Time to retire the patent institution

On Jan 31, 2017 15:59, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>
>> Later, 1500s-1600s, the process became more standardized and written in
>> laws and cultural process.
>>
>
> Lincoln said it was 1624: "Next came the patent laws. These began in
> England in 1624, and in this country with the adoption of our
> Constitution." He was an expert in high technology and related law.
>
> There were older "patents" as you mentioned, but they covered a lot of
> things other than intellectual property.
>
> For a while, there were patents issued for existing technology. This
> caused a lot problems, such as when James Watt had to invent around a
> patent for a crank, using a planet gear instead.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear spallation and resonance

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello George,
I am sure you are a more experienced guy in regards to LENR than I am.
Probably a better sailor. If it only comes down to years I am rather close
or just a tack ahead (67 years).
I am not drawing any conclusions, I just try to evaluate the circumstances.
Not always do you need to find a . port, sometimes staying at sea is more
advantageous.
I do think positive about indications and fair winds is better than no
wind. Taking advantage of the wind is the crux. Unfortunately the
predictions are very diverse. Now one can decide to be optimistic and I
hope my optimistic conclusion is correct but if it is no wind than I just
need to wait. Of course if it is a storm I have to ride t out.

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 Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> Lennart, the old adage ‘any old port in a storm’ is simply not practical.
> We’ve been weathering the storm against cold fusion for nigh unto 30 years.
> We don’t need any old port/theory, some of us have chosen to just weather
> the storm and lumber on.
>
>
>
> How Long Have You Been a Sailor ?
>
>
>
> All my bloomin' life.
>
> Me mother was a mermaid.
>
> Me father was King Neptune.
>
> I was born on the crest of a wave
>
> And rocked in the cradle of the deep.
>
> Seaweed and barnacles are me clothes,
>
> Every tooth in me head is a marlinspike,
>
> The hair on me head is hemp,
>
> Every bone in me body's a spar,
>
> And when I spits, I spits tar.
>
> I'se hard, I is, I am, I are.
>
>
>
> --- an Old Answer to an Old Question
>
>
>
> *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2017 8:34 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear
> spallation and resonance
>
>
>
> Hello Mats,
>
> I think this is interesting. I understand the critic from Jones and Russ
> but at least it is a theory and it is based on the result of Lugano. Maybe
> it was not such a flawed demo just made so it has too many openings for
> critic. This also enhances the profile of Rossi. He has support from
> scientists with a lot too lose (prestige) if Rossi is a scam as has been
> indicated here. I cannot wait for the next report from Rossi and hopefully
> a up to date experimental report from Lundin / Lidgren. Sounds to me we are
> slowly progressing towaa realization of lenr, keeping essential business
> secrets until the last  minute before market.)Looks good.
>
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
>
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899 <(916)%20436-1899>
>
>
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Mats Lewan  wrote:
>
> The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog
> post:
>
> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-
> scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/
>
>
>
> is now public here:
>
> https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=
> 3086323A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20161026&DB=&locale=en_EP
>
>
>
> Mats
>
> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Patent application by Lundin & Lidgren – nuclear spallation and resonance

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Mats,
I think this is interesting. I understand the critic from Jones and Russ
but at least it is a theory and it is based on the result of Lugano. Maybe
it was not such a flawed demo just made so it has too many openings for
critic. This also enhances the profile of Rossi. He has support from
scientists with a lot too lose (prestige) if Rossi is a scam as has been
indicated here. I cannot wait for the next report from Rossi and hopefully
a up to date experimental report from Lundin / Lidgren. Sounds to me we are
slowly progressing towaa realization of lenr, keeping essential business
secrets until the last  minute before market.)Looks good.

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 Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Mats Lewan  wrote:

> The LENR patent application by Lundin and Lidgren referenced in this blog
> post:
> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-
> scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/
>
> is now public here:
> https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=
> 3086323A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20161026&DB=&locale=en_EP
>
> Mats
> www.animpossibleinvention.com
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Lennart Thornros]

Alain
I have the same experience about China.(France and US).
Isn't a good idea neglect political labels. There is none providing a
'best' result or worse for that matter. The culture with which they are
implemented is more of an important factor.
Eliminating energy pro lens would be a step to reduce tension in the world.
LENR is an important issue. Another important factor would be to eliminate
the bureaucrats supported by various political and cultural dogma. I think
that can happen when we find out that life is not a zero-sum game. Just the
opposite.
Lennart

On Dec 9, 2016 04:09, "Alain Sepeda"  wrote:

> the mentality of Chinese people is very capitalist at local level, and
> also more family than individual oriented.
> However at the political level they seems more imperial, and abroad they
> tolerate the local authorities, even local criminality as long as it is not
> impairing business...
> It is a mix we have problem to understand in the West.
> In a way I see a similar misunderstanding between French culture
> considering US way. It is hard to see in france that US solidarity is more
> group/community driven than state driven, even if things are changing (and
> many disagree, in both countries).
>
> The "policy mix" of a culture is surprising for another culture.
> In China "capitalism" is more popular in poling than in france and even in
> USA.
>
> french are more negative than people of irak about their future...
>
> Note that China may not be globally capitalist, more Mercantilist or
> Colbertist as we say in france (Crony too)... Not so different from US-way
> in foreign trade, with huge state implication in business to protect
> installed players.
> However both US and China (more China) unlike France, have a very strong
> local free capitalism with huge competition.
>
> 2016-12-08 22:26 GMT+01:00 Chris Zell :
>
>> China is the nation to watch as to Communism. I understand that it sees
>> capitalist methods as useful on a path to Communism and has never given up
>> on this idea.   If they can hold back corruption, they may continue with
>> the Party being dominant over all corporate forces (unlike the US in which
>> it is the other way around).
>>
>>
>>
>> Communism is mostly about developing and maintaining enough resources to
>> be easily shared.  If abundance can be created technologically, there could
>> be a withering away of the state. Think about what free energy, future 3-D
>> printing and digital currencies could accomplish. We already have an
>> enormous resource of free information at our fingertips – that frustrates
>> centralized media and governance. Who knows what follows next?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Lennart Thornros]

Che
I am impressed.
You have the solution to implement Marxism and you are a remote medical
guru.
I'd say you probably should taste your own medicine.  As there are few
evidence you even have a solid argument. Try Venezuela. I meet people daily
with experience from there visitors and people leaving long term living
there.
Lennart

On Dec 7, 2016 19:01, "Che"  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Che
>> What else. do you know?
>> I guarantee that I have seen more of communism than you.
>> I guess what you meant was you have no argument.
>> Lennart
>>
>
> What's it like to be a senile old fart, Lennart?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2016 23:25, "Che"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Che you  hit the wrong guy. The bureaucracy cannot take any thing from
>>>> me except my pension. They try but . . .
>>>> You believe in an idea almost 200 years old andays refuse to see that
>>>> communism has failed since the 1850is  . That is doing the same thing over
>>>> aND over again. . .. Move to Venezuela.
>>>> Lennartout
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Speak about things you actually understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 6, 2016 18:32, "Che"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Lennart Thornros >>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Che,
>>>>>> Venezuela,  Cuba!
>>>>>> How about accepting bygones,  live today and plan for the future.
>>>>>> Have a goal.
>>>>>> Maybe moving to Venezuela could be yours?  Bring some food as they
>>>>>> are starving. If you like the system , well then I suppose food is a 
>>>>>> minor
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blah, blah blah I'll wait to see what you have to say when the
>>>>> looming next stage of the World financial crisis loots your 'wealth'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lennart
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 6, 2016 18:04, "Che"  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem remains the *capitalist* organization of society. NOT
>>>>>> automation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No capitalists are EVER going to fix it. That's a job for Socialism.
>>>>>> Opinions to the contrary are worthless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/technology/amazon-moves-to
>>>>>>> -cut-checkout-line-promoting-a-grab-and-go-experience.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazon Moves to Cut Checkout Line, Promoting a Grab-and-Go Experience
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The millions of jobs working the checkout lines are going to go away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Upto 3.5 million jobs are on the cutting block payung about 20K a
>>>>>>> year. What will Trump do about this new automation threat?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Lennart Thornros]

Che
What else. do you know?
I guarantee that I have seen more of communism than you.
I guess what you meant was you have no argument.
Lennart

On Dec 6, 2016 23:25, "Che"  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Che you  hit the wrong guy. The bureaucracy cannot take any thing from me
>> except my pension. They try but . . .
>> You believe in an idea almost 200 years old andays refuse to see that
>> communism has failed since the 1850is  . That is doing the same thing over
>> aND over again. . .. Move to Venezuela.
>> Lennartout
>>
>
>
> Speak about things you actually understand.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2016 18:32, "Che"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Lennart Thornros 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Che,
>>>> Venezuela,  Cuba!
>>>> How about accepting bygones,  live today and plan for the future.
>>>> Have a goal.
>>>> Maybe moving to Venezuela could be yours?  Bring some food as they are
>>>> starving. If you like the system , well then I suppose food is a minor
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Blah, blah blah I'll wait to see what you have to say when the
>>> looming next stage of the World financial crisis loots your 'wealth'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lennart
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 6, 2016 18:04, "Che"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem remains the *capitalist* organization of society. NOT
>>>> automation.
>>>>
>>>> No capitalists are EVER going to fix it. That's a job for Socialism.
>>>> Opinions to the contrary are worthless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/technology/amazon-moves-to
>>>>> -cut-checkout-line-promoting-a-grab-and-go-experience.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazon Moves to Cut Checkout Line, Promoting a Grab-and-Go Experience
>>>>>
>>>>> The millions of jobs working the checkout lines are going to go away.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Upto 3.5 million jobs are on the cutting block payung about 20K a
>>>>> year. What will Trump do about this new automation threat?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Lennart Thornros]

Che you  hit the wrong guy. The bureaucracy cannot take any thing from me
except my pension. They try but . . .
You believe in an idea almost 200 years old andays refuse to see that
communism has failed since the 1850is  . That is doing the same thing over
aND over again. . .. Move to Venezuela.
Lennart

On Dec 6, 2016 18:32, "Che"  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Che,
>> Venezuela,  Cuba!
>> How about accepting bygones,  live today and plan for the future.
>> Have a goal.
>> Maybe moving to Venezuela could be yours?  Bring some food as they are
>> starving. If you like the system , well then I suppose food is a minor
>> problem.
>>
>
> Blah, blah blah I'll wait to see what you have to say when the looming
> next stage of the World financial crisis loots your 'wealth'.
>
>
>
>
>> Lennart
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2016 18:04, "Che"  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problem remains the *capitalist* organization of society. NOT
>> automation.
>>
>> No capitalists are EVER going to fix it. That's a job for Socialism.
>> Opinions to the contrary are worthless.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/technology/amazon-moves-to
>>> -cut-checkout-line-promoting-a-grab-and-go-experience.html
>>>
>>> Amazon Moves to Cut Checkout Line, Promoting a Grab-and-Go Experience
>>>
>>> The millions of jobs working the checkout lines are going to go away.
>>>
>>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm
>>>
>>> Upto 3.5 million jobs are on the cutting block payung about 20K a year.
>>> What will Trump do about this new automation threat?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

[Lennart Thornros]

Che,
Venezuela,  Cuba!
How about accepting bygones,  live today and plan for the future.
Have a goal.
Maybe moving to Venezuela could be yours?  Bring some food as they are
starving. If you like the system , well then I suppose food is a minor
problem.
Lennart

On Dec 6, 2016 18:04, "Che"  wrote:


The problem remains the *capitalist* organization of society. NOT
automation.

No capitalists are EVER going to fix it. That's a job for Socialism.
Opinions to the contrary are worthless.





On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/technology/amazon-moves-to
> -cut-checkout-line-promoting-a-grab-and-go-experience.html
>
> Amazon Moves to Cut Checkout Line, Promoting a Grab-and-Go Experience
>
> The millions of jobs working the checkout lines are going to go away.
>
> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/cashiers.htm
>
> Upto 3.5 million jobs are on the cutting block payung about 20K a year.
> What will Trump do about this new automation threat?
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

Alain, as usual a great analysis.
The only way in an UBI economy, we would not have a better distribution of
capital is that we let the establishment prevent natural development with
political conservation laws.

On Nov 27, 2016 18:11, "Alain Sepeda"  wrote:

> from exchange it seems that one big problem and neglected point is about
> allocation of the capitale.
> what people name "robots are taking our jobs" is simply the well known
> "replacement of work by capital".
> One psychological problem marxist but mostly old fashioned simply, is that
> people don't consider they are capitalist.
> Hernando De Soto is much more aware of how poor emerging societies works
> and actively try to defend poor-people capitalism, to defend their
> unprotected hidden capital.
> www.huffingtonpost.com/hernando-de-soto/piketty-
> wrong-third-world_b_6751634.html
> Most of rich people capital is very much protected but also mostly wind.
> Most of poor capital is solid, tangible and productive, but unrecognized
> as so.
>
> There is no problem of losing your job for a robot, if you own the
> robot... it is like a farmer who own his tractor (after an acceptable loan
> eventually).
>
> If capital is too unequally allocated it is inefficient, after it is
> unfair.
> Usual  way to correct that is that real capital need work to be managed,
> and lasy capital exploiter lose their capital (wrongly managed, stolen by
> insider.
> Another better mechanism is the technology revolution, which create
> inequalities, but new inequalities different from the previous.
>
> What I call beside UBI is a kind of agrarian revolution for capital.
> UBI can be a mechanism to allow people to own an eternal security that
> they can use to acquire capital.
>
> in fact this is what was observed with UBI in India, and as reported here
> in Africa.
>
> another point people don't understand here is that if bots really are
> working for free, this mean they cost nothing, and poor people can buy them.
> if they cost something, this mean they requires work, and poor people can
> build them.
>
> the only and key problem is training. In France it is clearly our problem,
> with the educated workforce nearly fully employed (5% unemployed,
> frictional), with work market tension making enterprise margin going into
> salary rises (when not in taxes). Beside this German Style of workmarket,
> there is a mass of uneducated workers with above than 25% unemployment,
> short contracts, ...
>
> many people moan for globalization, but they refuse to admit it have given
> purchase capacity to the poor. today everybody moan, while globalization
> have stalled, commerce is falling...
>
> My feeling is that we have problem of education and training and on the
> other of lack of innovation.
>
> there is anyway much innovation , but it is deflationist (Uber, e-bay,
> blablacar, heetch, Airbnb...), which is a pain for the indebted actors,
> first the states, then US families.
> Note that sharing economy is ... way to make you a capitalist exploiting
> your assets.
>
> Future is to have UberPop of botcars.
>
>
> 2016-11-27 13:32 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros :
>
>> Axil,
>> Your scenario is a good example of how the economy really is.
>> It  is not a zero sum game. Our resources are built on previous
>> generations innovations and progress. After that we all have 24 hours per
>> day. We can use them productively (in a wide sense) or just misuse them.
>> Computers, houses, robots will be part of what we can do with those 24
>> hours a day.
>> There are needs all over the globe. There are also resources (everyone's
>> 24 hour a day).
>>
>> This out of the box thinking about economy has its problems. We have
>> built a debt system we inherit with all the good things (not only monetary
>> debt). That needs a solution and I am sure confiscation is not a solution.
>> However, billion dollar assets inherited has no justification either. I do
>> not have that solution but I think those two factors will together with
>> creative thinking build a better world.
>>
>> Pacifistic? Idealistic? Perhaps both but if we can change thhe attitude
>> toward  money we can create a lot. Money are just means. Who need to accrue
>> more resources than he/she can utilise.? The real resources are time (which
>> is equally distributed) and creativity (which needs recognition).
>>
>> 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 com

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

Axil,
Your scenario is a good example of how the economy really is.
It  is not a zero sum game. Our resources are built on previous generations
innovations and progress. After that we all have 24 hours per day. We can
use them productively (in a wide sense) or just misuse them. Computers,
houses, robots will be part of what we can do with those 24 hours a day.
There are needs all over the globe. There are also resources (everyone's 24
hour a day).

This out of the box thinking about economy has its problems. We have built
a debt system we inherit with all the good things (not only monetary debt).
That needs a solution and I am sure confiscation is not a solution.
However, billion dollar assets inherited has no justification either. I do
not have that solution but I think those two factors will together with
creative thinking build a better world.

Pacifistic? Idealistic? Perhaps both but if we can change thhe attitude
toward  money we can create a lot. Money are just means. Who need to accrue
more resources than he/she can utilise.? The real resources are time (which
is equally distributed) and creativity (which needs recognition).

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, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> China will lead the way. China has 1.5 billion people to keep happy with
> no jobs to offer. It is true that all coastal cities worldwide within 100
> miles of the coastline will be underwater and in need of relocation inland,
> That should produce a number of jobs.
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>
>> Why do you think taxation won't be very heavy?
>>>
>>
>> Because it will not cost much more than today's welfare systems, as I
>> said.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Money won't appear out of nowhere, minimum wage will only accelerate
>>> collapse.
>>>
>>
>> Money always appears out of nowhere when the economy improves. This will
>> improve the economy. The minimum wage is supposed to accelerate the
>> process. We want a transition to robots doing all the work. A higher
>> minimum wage will help produce that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And there is still no answer about the debts.
>>>
>>
>> We just need to raise taxes back to where they were under Reagan or
>> Clinton. The deficit and the debts will gradually go away. There is no
>> crisis.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In any case, there will be a finance disaster way worse than that of
>>> 1929.
>>>
>>
>> There might be, if it is done wrong. If it is done right it might work as
>> well as the period from 1945 to 1980, which was the most prosperous in U.S.
>> history, with the highest taxes. The two can go together if it is done
>> right.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

i did not say you complained - maybe expressed myself poorly.

i agree we have no government that can take radical steps. thus we fall
behind in every juncture.

we already have UBI just using 500 laws and regulations and it is totally
unfair.  one single social resource - free market - and no marginal taxes.
LENR could be the catalyst as it would fix a large portion of the debt.

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 Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 5:37 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Laenart,
> I'm not complaining about UBI.  The problem I see is that out present
> government will never implement it.
> At least Ontario is planning to give it a try and it needs to be tested to
> see what the problems are.
> http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work
>
>
> On 11/25/2016 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
>
> I think there are too mch of zero sum pessimism in the discussion.
> It will let people chose to do what they like and are good at. That will
> generate new enterprise and innovations. Thus creating more money to
> circulate.I think flat taxing is best as that keep the interest up to
> innovate.
> People do not live only on bread . . .  The entertainment industry will
> grow. That makes people happy and a lot of artists
> I think we will have more jobs. The companies need to be very small. It is
> much easier to be competitive when you have no overhead and just hire what
> you need when youneed it and someone can offer (see uber taxis).
> We are in a new era and I think LENR has a place. If  LENR can mean
> distributed resources (avoiding greenhouse gases etc is a plus but not the
> driving force cheap energy is), then it will help the development of a new
> society.
> New economic models is a must for successful LENR implementation.
>
>
> 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 Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:26 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> Danial,
>> I don't agree.  The output of robots can be taxed in a number of ways so
>> that the money is distributed to the population   Rather than being
>> something the government spends it is something that the population does.
>> With UBI it is an alternative to socialism.  The money is just as real and
>> still gets circulated.  Those that make, install and run the robotics will
>> get super rich or they wouldn't bother do it.  Contrary to general opinion
>> 73% of those on welfare have jobs: it is just that they can't bring back
>> enough money to live on.  If companies had shared the gains from
>> productivity we would not have had wage stagnation and the transition could
>> have been postponed a while.
>> In my opinion, the lack of growth in the US economy is due to so many not
>> having any money to spend.  Reducing taxes and trickle down won't solve the
>> problem.
>>
>>
>> On 11/25/2016 7:57 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>>
>> There is an intermediate until full robotization. That is, when robots
>> are efficient but not that much. So, I wonder who will pay the debts when
>> robots/smart algorithms become more and more advanced. With people being
>> jobless, companies won't have to whom to sell stuff. There is the
>> suggestion of "basic income", but in this extreme case, it is merely
>> printing money, it won't circulate with enough quantities to pay enough,
>> well, basic stuff. Not even companies will find ways to invest, since their
>> products will not yield profit, since there is nothing beyond the basic to
>> buy them. But, even if people slowly use the basic stuff to buy some
>> products, all the debts, and worse, with growing interest, will not be
>> pardoned.
>>
>> So, in this intermediate stage, I think people will get despair and there
>> will be a societal collapse, if the debtors simply do not forgive debts. I
>> see some of the sort of stuff happening nowadays. Many of the advanced
>> countries are injecting money, but a quite large portion of it is not used
>> for investment, but it is simply hoarded for especulation (futures
>> investiment). It looks like a vicious cycle. Japan, it seems, it is using
>> negative interest, but is not working well.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

I think there are too mch of zero sum pessimism in the discussion.
It will let people chose to do what they like and are good at. That will
generate new enterprise and innovations. Thus creating more money to
circulate.I think flat taxing is best as that keep the interest up to
innovate.
People do not live only on bread . . .  The entertainment industry will
grow. That makes people happy and a lot of artists
I think we will have more jobs. The companies need to be very small. It is
much easier to be competitive when you have no overhead and just hire what
you need when youneed it and someone can offer (see uber taxis).
We are in a new era and I think LENR has a place. If  LENR can mean
distributed resources (avoiding greenhouse gases etc is a plus but not the
driving force cheap energy is), then it will help the development of a new
society.
New economic models is a must for successful LENR implementation.


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 Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:26 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Danial,
> I don't agree.  The output of robots can be taxed in a number of ways so
> that the money is distributed to the population   Rather than being
> something the government spends it is something that the population does.
> With UBI it is an alternative to socialism.  The money is just as real and
> still gets circulated.  Those that make, install and run the robotics will
> get super rich or they wouldn't bother do it.  Contrary to general opinion
> 73% of those on welfare have jobs: it is just that they can't bring back
> enough money to live on.  If companies had shared the gains from
> productivity we would not have had wage stagnation and the transition could
> have been postponed a while.
> In my opinion, the lack of growth in the US economy is due to so many not
> having any money to spend.  Reducing taxes and trickle down won't solve the
> problem.
>
>
> On 11/25/2016 7:57 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> There is an intermediate until full robotization. That is, when robots are
> efficient but not that much. So, I wonder who will pay the debts when
> robots/smart algorithms become more and more advanced. With people being
> jobless, companies won't have to whom to sell stuff. There is the
> suggestion of "basic income", but in this extreme case, it is merely
> printing money, it won't circulate with enough quantities to pay enough,
> well, basic stuff. Not even companies will find ways to invest, since their
> products will not yield profit, since there is nothing beyond the basic to
> buy them. But, even if people slowly use the basic stuff to buy some
> products, all the debts, and worse, with growing interest, will not be
> pardoned.
>
> So, in this intermediate stage, I think people will get despair and there
> will be a societal collapse, if the debtors simply do not forgive debts. I
> see some of the sort of stuff happening nowadays. Many of the advanced
> countries are injecting money, but a quite large portion of it is not used
> for investment, but it is simply hoarded for especulation (futures
> investiment). It looks like a vicious cycle. Japan, it seems, it is using
> negative interest, but is not working well.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Brian
You are right on. Proving my point.
There are no Rossi followers. Just that some of us let people show there
hand before we decide they are wrong and we are prepared to celebrate and
congratulate if he is right.
Just like LENR the economy needs to be accepted by the masses before it
becomes of any use. UBI is in about the same state of development and is
complementary.
I admit easily I am not able to discuss nuclear physics with you. However
your theories are not worth water if you do not see its place in the full
picture. It is irrelevant if D0-D fusion causes radiation or not. I am glad
you know and I would appreciate a good explanation so even if can
understand. I do understand that D-D fusion is cumbersome and not what
LENR  should be if providing the advantages often advocated here.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 25, 2016 8:12 AM, "Brian Ahern"  wrote:

The economy is too important to be decided by amateurs.  The LENR community
is neo-amateur as we believe in D-D fusion without radiation.

Rossi followers are a mindless cult. Their opinions are irrelevant at best.


--
*From:* Lennart Thornros 
*Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 5:51 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford


Brian,
Axillary.I wrote about how poorly the LENR community works together. Every
one just keep what they know so everyone needs to go through the same
issues.
The main reason for that situation is greed combined withe inability to see
the total picture.
Only you and Jeff think this is communism. It is not.
It has one thing in common with communism;  it is hard to implement.
Widen your horizon and find this as a part of a future LENR  society.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 24, 2016 8:59 PM, "Brian Ahern"  wrote:

Is this a technical discussion group or: A bunch of dilitantes expounding a
socialist agenda.


How did that work for Russia?


--
*From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com  on behalf of
Alain Sepeda 
*Sent:* Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:27 PM
*To:* Vortex List

*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

I am not afraid of the extreme wealth.
Ad De Soto explains  (he is connected to real world or emerging economies)
most of the "wealth" is pure hot air on stock market... What count is what
you buy for your fun.

Never forget that what you invest is no more your money but one of an
entrepreneur.
Money you save, idem.
Now when you are rich and don't give money to other to exploit it, you have
to give it to someone to please you...
this man you have to please have now a job, and money...

Anyway there are problems that make this seemingly simple evidence, not so
evident.

one is that the money you invest, or store may not be used efficiently
you may put it in a central bank to finally pay unproductive bank in
administration that build and demolish pyramid of papers (with great
courage, effort and good will, but uselessly) . you may create bubble that
just make people feel they are rich but does not allow them but hire a
starving neighbour..

another problem is something I discovered discussing Tango professor in
Indonesian elite : there is cultural incapacity to pay people of lower
caste at a price you can afford, to please you, just because you feel it is
not fair/moral...

For example there is very hard jobs that nobody want to do, that are very
useful, but they are not well pad, yet the community or the rich can pay
them.

the result is that money circulate between member of the same caste.

anyway it could even be solved if people who are poor could hire their
neigbours who have no job...

anyway I'm not so sure it is a real problem, . my feeling is that the
problem of poor people often is
1- that they could not benefit of technology progress, and education, and
lose time and miss opportunities, because they have no tool/competence...
it is a lack of capital , and UBI may allow them to take the risk to invest
in tools, in trainings, and in the tools and training that is the cheapest
and the most efficient for their own market
2- because they have no access to some market, because lack of offer-demand
matching (see UberPop as a solution)
3- because the market they participate is controlled by an oligopoly
(oligopsone in fact), or by regulation, like the kind of stupid examination
France is trying to put to prevent suburban people to be Uber drivers (like
asking French about UK history, or language)

the problem of the 1% is problem of hidden economic rents, monopolies,
hidden barriers to entry, manipulated prices, discriminations... not pb of
wealth.

I know that very well because as a french I explain my wife that in France
you don't get things because of money, but because of network, often linked
to family and geography, through culture and real-estate.
To have the best education in France you don't need to pay private school,
just to live in the good place in

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

Brian,
Axillary.I wrote about how poorly the LENR community works together. Every
one just keep what they know so everyone needs to go through the same
issues.
The main reason for that situation is greed combined withe inability to see
the total picture.
Only you and Jeff think this is communism. It is not.
It has one thing in common with communism;  it is hard to implement.
Widen your horizon and find this as a part of a future LENR  society.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 24, 2016 8:59 PM, "Brian Ahern"  wrote:

Is this a technical discussion group or: A bunch of dilitantes expounding a
socialist agenda.


How did that work for Russia?


--
*From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com  on behalf of
Alain Sepeda 
*Sent:* Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:27 PM
*To:* Vortex List

*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

I am not afraid of the extreme wealth.
Ad De Soto explains  (he is connected to real world or emerging economies)
most of the "wealth" is pure hot air on stock market... What count is what
you buy for your fun.

Never forget that what you invest is no more your money but one of an
entrepreneur.
Money you save, idem.
Now when you are rich and don't give money to other to exploit it, you have
to give it to someone to please you...
this man you have to please have now a job, and money...

Anyway there are problems that make this seemingly simple evidence, not so
evident.

one is that the money you invest, or store may not be used efficiently
you may put it in a central bank to finally pay unproductive bank in
administration that build and demolish pyramid of papers (with great
courage, effort and good will, but uselessly) . you may create bubble that
just make people feel they are rich but does not allow them but hire a
starving neighbour..

another problem is something I discovered discussing Tango professor in
Indonesian elite : there is cultural incapacity to pay people of lower
caste at a price you can afford, to please you, just because you feel it is
not fair/moral...

For example there is very hard jobs that nobody want to do, that are very
useful, but they are not well pad, yet the community or the rich can pay
them.

the result is that money circulate between member of the same caste.

anyway it could even be solved if people who are poor could hire their
neigbours who have no job...

anyway I'm not so sure it is a real problem, . my feeling is that the
problem of poor people often is
1- that they could not benefit of technology progress, and education, and
lose time and miss opportunities, because they have no tool/competence...
it is a lack of capital , and UBI may allow them to take the risk to invest
in tools, in trainings, and in the tools and training that is the cheapest
and the most efficient for their own market
2- because they have no access to some market, because lack of offer-demand
matching (see UberPop as a solution)
3- because the market they participate is controlled by an oligopoly
(oligopsone in fact), or by regulation, like the kind of stupid examination
France is trying to put to prevent suburban people to be Uber drivers (like
asking French about UK history, or language)

the problem of the 1% is problem of hidden economic rents, monopolies,
hidden barriers to entry, manipulated prices, discriminations... not pb of
wealth.

I know that very well because as a french I explain my wife that in France
you don't get things because of money, but because of network, often linked
to family and geography, through culture and real-estate.
To have the best education in France you don't need to pay private school,
just to live in the good place in Paris where flat cost many million, if
you buy it today. France is Priceless. With good network you can get
subsidized, helped, informed, funded, and without you cannot.

Don't fight the 1%, fight the monopolies and barriers.

2016-11-24 19:19 GMT+01:00 a.ashfield :

> Alain,
> I agree with much of what you wrote.  Not so sure about a flat tax.
> Something more will be required to redistribute the extreme wealth of the
> top 1%.
> As you say, many will take the opportunity to work,  Many small startup
> companies.  There will be growth in the entertainment business and
> interesting consequences from sexbots.
> Possibly the most important aspect is restarting GDP growth.  Beats me why
> economists can't see that the problem is too many people struggling under
> debt that they can't afford to buy new stuff.
>
>
> On 11/24/2016 6:21 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> UBI can be implement in many way.
> Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is intended
> to replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive to work.
>
> the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is a
> tax, a disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country like
> France t

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

Very well explained Alain.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 24, 2016 07:21, "Alain Sepeda"  wrote:

> UBI can be implement in many way.
> Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is intended
> to replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive to work.
>
> the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is a
> tax, a disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country like
> France this tax may sometime not be far from 90%, if not above 100% (at
> least facially at short term).
>
> another problem I know well is that safety net follow a bourgeoisie vision
> of how to behave, of what is good, how to earn your life, how to be
> organized...
> It may be counter productive.
>
> Earning your life only by selling garden vegetable, driving for Uber,
> babysittng, renting your tools, buying and selling on e-bay, delivering
> salad, should not be punished compared to looking for a full-time work in a
> factory.
> Living in a trail and using all your money to skydive should not be
> treated differently as owning a big house and playing in the garden.
>
> UBI also is , contrary to the myth, promoting MORE work and MORE risk
> taking, more investments, more school. It was measured in india with poor
> people.
>
> note that for the UBI to be neutral, it should be associated with a flat
> tax that make any way to earn your life as attractive as any other.
>
> Neutrality is essential, so flat tax and unconditionality are keys.
> In fact most people are more intelligent to solve their own problems than
> administration (this is the anti-communist moto). they better know where to
> invest, BUT if they are in risk of ruin, starvation, death, they refuse to
> take risk, and as any financial expert know this mean getting less benefits.
>
> UBI is a life insurance that promote risk taking, entrepreneur spirit,
> investments in education and business... It is also a way to transform a
> flat tax system into a globally progressive tax rate, keeping the marginal
> tax rate neutral.
> UBI can really boost the economy.
>
> of course it can be implemented wrongly. It will probably be, and many UBI
> announces propose something not unconditional, not basic, not neutral.
>
> For example in France most observers imagine that it will not be
> universal, it won't cancel all other charity system, so it will just be a
> new fat charity system, not an autonomy enabling system to "laisser-faire"
> the people.
>
> Note that about the disappearance of work, I am opposing this vision.
> Work will not disappear. Work will move BACK to a less "factory-style"
> notion of job (exploiting submissive taylorized zombies and bureaucratic
> managers), and we will go a little back to what is fund in Africa, in Uber,
> but not totally as stable workforce is useful (NB: a French company
> operating Amazon like online shops in many African countries explained thay
> have to improve fidelity and training of a usually Uberized workforce).
>
> However full-time life-time work will probably not be possible nor
> desirable, and people will have multiple activities, including usual work,
> but also independent work, off-time businesses, e-bay shops, UberPop
> phases, like you see in emerging countries.
>
> This is why neutral UBI is a key to make full-time-work not a condition to
> be protected by the community.
>
>
>
> 2016-11-23 22:19 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
>> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>>
>>> This is neo-communism.
>>>
>> Yes, it is. Except that instead of exploiting other people's labor, it
>> would exploit robots. Robots don't care. They will not be upset.
>>
>> All of us helped develop robots and computers with our tax money, so we
>> should all get the benefits from them.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

No Brian,
This is the opposite to communism.
This takes care of the problem with unemployment. It gives an elite an
opportunity to more. It is human.
It  has nothing to do with "workers in all nations join together". It is
national and it can be adjusted to fit local needs.
It should be part of the GOP program. I think they just do not see the
issues. Neither do you I guess.

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 Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> This is neo-communism.
>
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:36 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford
>
> I'm very glad to see Ontario is thinking about giving UBI a trial.  Not
> only is a trial needed to see what the snags are, but the concept is so
> alien to the GOP that right now they would never consider it.  There has to
> be some way of taking care of those made unemployed by AI and robotics.  I
> don't know of a better way of doing that.
>
> On 11/22/2016 8:20 PM, H LV wrote:
>
> From The Belleville Intelligencer
>
> 'Ontario is on the precipice of a three-year pilot to test out the concept
> of a guaranteed basic income and residents have been invited to share their
> views on the proposal online, as well as during several public
> consultations ...
>
> 'It’s a consultation Ruth Ingersoll, executive director for Community
> Development Council of Quinte, certainly plans to get in on.
> '
> “I like the model and the idea of a basic income,” said Ingersoll, adding
> it would relieve many of the barriers surrounding the complex Ontario
> Disability Support Program (ODSP) and social assistance programs. “I think
> basic income is a more dignified and respectful way to give people money
> and it would give everybody an income floor.”
>
> 'Ingersoll also said she believes it would eliminate chronic cycles of
> poverty exacerbated by the systems currently in place — having to liquidate
> assets and prove they’re poor in order to receive assistance.
>
> '... A basic income would also open up more opportunities to those living
> below the poverty line, like getting a post-secondary education or to
> supplement part-time “precarious” work.
> '... It goes beyond just money in the bank for Ingersoll, it also removes
> a lot of anxiety and stress in people’s lives.
>
> '“Our poverty isn’t just with people on social assistance and ODSP, our
> poverty is with the working poor as well. People are only able to find
> part-time minimum wage jobs.
>
> '“We have people coming in our doors working two to three jobs just to
> make ends meet.”
>
> 'A common argument against basic income is the worry it will incentivize
> people to stay unemployed and live off the government.
>
> 'It’s a worry Ingersoll doesn’t share, saying she feels the opposite is
> more likely.
> 'Part-time work, added to a basic income, would allow people currently on
> social assistance to live above the poverty line.'
>
> Read more ...
>
> http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work?
> <http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work>
> Can guaranteed basic income work?
> <http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work>
> www.intelligencer.ca
> What would you do if your income was taken care of?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Quoting the article:
>>
>> "Yet figuring out how such a system [Universal Basic Income] could be
>> afforded -- and not turn a country into a nation of slackers -- is unclear."
>>
>>
>> As usual the author misses the point. If robots do all the work why
>> should anyone care whether people turn into slackers?
>>
>> This sort of thinking has always been common. When writing was invented
>> the ancient Greeks supposedly complained that young people no longer
>> memorized The Odyssey. Now that we have computers, people complain that
>> grade school students no longer learn how to write in script. I suppose
>> that when automobiles became common, elderly people fretted that young
>> people no longer knew how to ride horses.
>>
>> You cannot expect people to know how to use obsolete technology they do
>> not use. Someday that will include all technology. People will hardly know
>> how to tie their own shoes, never mind cooking or building a h

RE: [Vo]:LENR INFO< VISIT OF ROBERT COOK, 1MEGA-pageviews

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello everyone
Just wanted to express my agreement about that Peters blog has great value
and he provides insight to issues that finally will be required to a
successful LENR
In addition Peter has compassion openness and treat everyone with respect.
Good job Peter
Lennart
On Oct 9, 2016 14:10, "Russ George"  wrote:

> Peter, Your blogging is a good thing as it is a contribution to a larger
> cause not merely for yourself. This is the essence of how we find happiness
> as opposed to satisfaction. By applying oneself to a worthy cause of larger
> proportions than self, one is assured happiness.  Herein lies the lesson
> taught so poignantly by Viktor Frankl  http://www.rjgeib.com/
> thoughts/frankl/frankl.html
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 9, 2016 10:40 AM
> *To:* Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; Dagmar Kuhn; David
> Daggett; doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian;
> Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter
> Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio;
> Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park; Valerio Ciampoli; vlad; VORTEX
> *Subject:* [Vo]:LENR INFO< VISIT OF ROBERT COOK, 1MEGA-pageviews
>
>
>
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/10/oct-09-2016-visit-
> of-robert-cook-1.html
>
>
>
> Very nice and intersting discussion with Robert Cook a nice Vortex
> colleague and friend.My blog had over 1 million pageviews- fine but I know
> I hve to improve it
>
> peter
>
> --
>
> Dr. Peter Gluck
>
> Cluj, Romania
>
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Lennart Thornros]

One should not judge without all info.
One does not need to believe that AR has anything, but 'we sure as hell
should' give him the right to prove himself before judgement.

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 Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> We sure as hell do should not unify behind Rossi, if that is what you are
> thinking. If researchers endorse flimflam artists such as Rossi and
> Defkalion it will be the end of cold fusion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I am fighting for the right to think differently

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed
You asked;

Who are you fighting? Who prevents you from thinking differently?

Somtimes a question becomes A great answer. This reveals an enormous naive
mindset. It also explains your inability to see that the truth has many
appearances sometimes in conflict but true.
Thanks for explaining yourself.
Kennett Thornros
On Sep 11, 2016 19:48, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> I am fighting for the right to think differently.
>
>
> You brave soul! How admirable.
>
> Who are you fighting? Who prevents you from thinking differently?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Mats Lewan on LENR theory

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, Nobody has proven anything and you jump to conclusions.

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, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> I don't understand how people on this forum like Jed can be so adamant
>> that Rossi was a fraud from day one and never produced anomalous heat.  The
>> weight of evidence suggests that he has.
>>
>
> The photos of the ceiling proves he has not produced anomalous heat. He
> would dead if he had.
>
> The unanswered questions in Exhibit 5 and the blatant fraud in JM Chemical
> company proves that he is a fraud.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR- Doors to open/close to what?

[Lennart Thornros]

Che,
I agree with you but that was about a hundred years ago. That was how
communism got foothold. Now the problem is  more about how we have
developed a new class of royalist - the politicians and their bureaucratic
slaves.
I grow up in a country with a very pro-socialistic government. That took
away from the working class. After some real fiascoes in handling pension
funds the country has emerged as perhaps one of the most desirable places
to live in (based on public polls). There is a need for balance.
I think the growth of the economy in many previous undeveloped countries
are a good thing and has nothing to do with type of idealism. (See China -
most progress is developed where communism loosened the the idealistic grip
and allowed for private initiative. That should tell everyone that private
initiative can create progress. Government or any organization is incapable
to create anything only people can create result. That is by definition. In
my opinion it would be better that we had a more flexible society than we
have in most countries I have experience from.

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 Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Che  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>> Dear Che,
>>
>> Very probably e both have a simplified opinion/impression of each other.
>> Have you read for example:
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/02/sue-ellen-principle-and-kaltwasser.html
>>  ?
>>
>> You have tarted with aggressive attacks and insinuations, I was very
>> angry for your POV re real socialism/communism, you have not demonstrated
>> real
>> knowledge, now globalism is the new destructive form of idealism.
>> I am ready to discuss with you sine ira et studio bout these problems.
>> In private.
>> Try to be rational nd unprejudiced and have empathy and deep
>> understanding for the experience of hundreds of millions  captive and
>> oppressed in Stalinism (again a simplified concept)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Imperialist propagandists just love what your type dishes out, Gluck --
> but the rest of the Planet worries instead about the LONG, long history of
> Capitalist enslavement, OK..? Only middle-class types in the NATO West and
> their masters obsess about us 'stealing' 'their' property.
>
> Speaking of leaving 'egos out' of matters... just stick to Cold Fusion.
> However, every time I happen to see you slandering the long history of
> working-class struggle against Capitalist exploitation -- I *will* say
> something.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Che  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Peter Gluck 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Che,
>>>>
>>>> I have sent you in North Korea for re-education and it seems you are
>>>> back too early.How could you manage to go through the border?
>>>> Or the comrades hve found you are not worth to be converted in a New
>>>> Man?
>>>> Than sorry for you!
>>>> peter
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a shame that your stalinist experiences -- especially the more
>>> bizarre ones you suffered under Ceausescu -- have warped your mind about
>>> many things.
>>>
>>> Redeem yourself: stick to Cold Fusion. (And stop rambling so much on
>>> your blog.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (P.S.: just because I use the name 'Che', doesn't make me what you
>>> assume me to be. For that matter: I wonder how many Romanians are sick of
>>> the failed experiment of 'Capitalist freedom' in their country now...)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Lennart Thornros]

Craig, I like your analysis.
Therefore I think any statements in regards to technial,legal and moral
status is very disturbing. Personal judgment based on the situation is just
slander.
I am not a betting man, but I think the odds are reversed.
On Jul 4, 2016 20:13, "Craig Haynie"  wrote:

>
>
> On 07/03/2016 08:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> But I have reason whatsoever to believe that somebody's idea of how Rossi
>> could cheat was actually implemented.
>>
>
> Yes, you do have a clear idea. The person who told you how Rossi cheats is
> Rossi himself. He said refused to allow anyone into his pretend customer
> site. The only plausible reason for doing that is to hide the fact that
> there is only a 15 kW radiator in there. Other reasons that have been
> suggested are absurd. If there was an actual machine in there, Rossi would
> be paid $89 million for showing it to the I.H. experts. There is no way he
> would fail to do that.
>
> It is obvious he is covering up fraud by doing that. Add to that the fact
> that there is no heat or noise coming from the pretend customer site, and
> it is case closed.
>
>
> This may be the case, but there's also another valid reason why Rossi
> wouldn't allow anyone to come into this customer site. First of all, let me
> say that I think there's probably only a 30% chance that Rossi has a
> working device. So if I was a betting man, I would give odds. Also, if I
> was IH, there is no way in hell that I would give Rossi 89 million dollars
> unless I was convinced, absolutely, that the thing worked. So I don't doubt
> that the device may not work, and that IH may not believe in it, either.
>
> But having said all this, if I was Rossi, I would not want anyone in the
> customer site during the year long trial, either before or after, and I
> would write the agreement accordingly -- and Rossi did this. He wrote an
> agreement which prevented IH from doing any evaluations of their own on the
> device, during this one year test. The reason to prevent them from
> interfering or doing any type of evaluation on their own, is simply because
> the test is going to take a year. If I were Rossi, what I would want is an
> independent evaluation of the device, from which, neither side could
> dispute the results. It is just way too much time to waste on another
> demonstration test for IH. Two years had already passed. The IP had already
> been used by IH to build the Lugano reactor. So much time has already gone
> by, that if IH did not believe the device worked at this time, then they
> should be out the door -- before any type of one year test was performed.
>
> From Rossi's point of view, the purpose of the one year test was not to
> prove to IH that the device worked -- but to finalize the deal; to
> demonstrate to both Rossi and IH how it performed over the course of a
> year. This was a test to objectify the results; nothing more. This is how
> the agreement was written, and why I believe that Rossi could very well win
> this lawsuit -- without the court ever trying to ascertain if the device
> works, because the agreement does not depend on whether the device works.
>
> So Rossi may be a fraud, but if he's legitimate, then his behavior during
> the test is totally expected.
>
> Craig
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed (from your kill list),
I think people are entitled to be believed until proven wrong.
You are spewing your 'wisdom; as if you were the only one with a right to
be believed.
Whatever is the result IH has handled this poorly. One could expect better
from an investor of their size. I am disappointed. That in itself makes me
wonder is there a financial agenda in the bottom of this.
Technically you say you know. Well the proof of your knowledge does not
hold water in regards to well known and accepted principals for
establishing proof of any statement. This is regardless we use science,
judicial, moral principals. In my opinion your judgment is showing little
tolerance for other people and a close minded attitude combined with a self
centered way of looking at information.
If you were to be correct in a technical way you anyhow lost. In the
opposite situation you will have egg on your face for a long time. I can
for my life not understand why you put so much prestige on line for an
issue - you have no 100 percent clearity.

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, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed we have been through this twice already.  I do not find anything Rossi
>> has said shows that he was cheating.
>>
>
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.
>
>
> You have no idea what machinery was in the J M Products' plant although
>> you also imply that you know.
>>
>
> Whatever machinery it was, it produced no heat measurable from outside or
> from the vents on the roof.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Another motion filed in Rossi suit

[Lennart Thornros]

Bob,
You could be right. However, the situation is far from that simple.
There is no way IH can claim right to licence if they do not prevail in
getting out of Rossi's lawsuit.
Just now they are in a very bad situation with the license. That is my
believe that is why they do not come right out proclaiming the IP is
useless.
That follows the old rule of eating the cake and still have it :) Does not
work.

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 Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It is interesting and self-destructive that Rossi appears to have
> unilaterally declared that the license sold to IH is null and void.  Having
> accepted money for that license, he is in a legally binding contract.  Yet
> Rossi seems intent to market that license to others as though he had no
> other contract.  This is clearly fraud, and a fraud that will quickly put
> Rossi back in jail for a good long contemplative period.  He should be
> collecting his reading material on antigravity.
>
> I couldn't help myself.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Lennart Thornros]

Che
How did you become a pro?
Reading a book?
That goes a long way, but in the end it is like in science the experience
of physical experiment is what counts.
Then you will find there are many opinions and in my book they are all ok.
Seldom are we 100% right.
On Jun 24, 2016 21:30, "Che"  wrote:

> OT for vortex-l, but a short reply (since an off-hand slagging of
> 'communism' was prominent in a LENR article):
>
> No good marxist need learn any lessons from poor old East Europeans about
> 'communism'. We know from long, personal experience with you all, that 99%
> of you are clueless about it. All you people really have is your lived
> experience of 'Actually-Existing Socialism' -- i.e. stalinism -- and the
> willingness of westerners to use you for the propaganda value in having
> hated it (just to throw you away, after, when your services are no longer
> required...)
>
> All of which is pretty useless for the most part, for the World
> working-class. And completely and utterly wrong, need I add.
>
> So like I said: stick to LENR science. You're no good at the politics
> thing. Leave it to us pros.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Peter Gluck 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Che,
>>
>> what do you want to know about Communism?
>> my experience with it is from 1948 to 1989 Romanian style.
>> Feel free to ask anything
>> Peter
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Che  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Gluck is clearly not qualified to comment on 'communism' -- or probably
 anything else political, for that matter.

>>>
>>> Well, he did live under communism for a long time, so he can draw no
>>> personal experience.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LERNR and Evil, some info

[Lennart Thornros]

Guys, what kind of comments are these.?
I have marginal experience from socialistic states from travelling meeting
people and participated in some deflection.
Peter knows this area either he wants it or not.
You might not like his ideas but he certainly have seen it. Because of his
position he has also been able to see different formats of communism. As I
know he has seen other government formats as well and has a better position
to have opinion than most of us.
Che, do not know your background but . . . . ..

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 Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Dear Che,
>
> what do you want to know about Communism?
> my experience with it is from 1948 to 1989 Romanian style.
> Feel free to ask anything
> Peter
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Che  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Gluck is clearly not qualified to comment on 'communism' -- or probably
>>> anything else political, for that matter.
>>>
>>
>> Well, he did live under communism for a long time, so he can draw no
>> personal experience.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed, My morals or ethics require more than rumor before I make such very
serious acqusations.
I do not know Rossi.
Investors need to do their due diligence. I do not need to tell them that
and I doubt your advice will weigh very heavy. Rossi's performance will.

I agree with you we do not need to discuss the issue. We just need to have
different opinions. I have no kill file. I do not need one.
On Jun 6, 2016 19:21, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> Dewey Weaver, from who Jed likely got his data, works for an IH investor.
>>
>
> Where I got it from is irrelevant. The data originated with Rossi, because
> it has the same numbers he quoted to Lewan.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, in my opinion, which I understand you already know more about than I
do (quick to judgement and throwing stone sitting in glasshouse);
Your opinion about that you are entitled to call others 'idiot', 'scammer',
:'criminals' etc. is just free from all moral I subscribe to.--.In addition
you claim others should listen to you because you know and all others do
not.  It is ignorant and shows an incredible poor understanding of people
with different thinking than Jed.
You said
There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Your behavior is poor judgment and unproven assumptions at best. There is
no need to defend AR or the ERV as far as we know there are allegations
from you and that is hardly good enough. Far from mindless and fully
ethical until anything else is proven. Some people do not think they stink
so they accuse others - truth is we all stink more or less. Ashamed, did
not know you had that word might come in handy.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Jed,
>> You are certain you know the answers.  I don't claim I do and think there
>> are still many unknowns.
>>
>
> For the last time:
>
> I am pretty sure I know the answers BECAUSE I HAVE THE DATA.
>
> You do not claim you know the answers BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING. YOU HAVE
> NO DATA. You have no way to judge anything, and no way to judge how much is
> unknown, and how much is perfectly clear.
>
> You and I are not on equal ground. I am informed and you are ignorant.
>
>
>
>> I don't like ad hominem attacks you make on others such as Rossi and that
>> is the only reason I have replied to you.
>>
>
> I have attacked both the claims and Rossi, separately, so it is not ad
> hominem. That is defined as follows:
>
> "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the
> position they are maintaining."
>
> I am not directing the arguments against the person *rather than* the
> position. I am directing separate arguments *against both*.
>
> I attacked the person because he refused access to the company, and
> because the company is a dummy corporation with no income, no business, no
> employees, and no inspections, so obviously it does not have equipment
> using 1 MW of process heat.  It is hard to imagine better proof of a
> fraud, or a better reason to attack someone!
>
> There is nothing unethical about attacking someone who has repeatedly
> committed illegal and immoral acts. On the other hand, you are mindlessly
> defending this person, and that is somewhat unethical. Frankly, it stinks.
> You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[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

[Lennart Thornros]

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

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


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

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


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

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

Eric, I have not even read their (IH) reply. From my experience I think
they are more vague than I expected from a professional investor. That
saddens me a bit. They have not denied the accusations about using positive
results from Rossi to attract capital, which I had expected.

Jed, you are repeating your argument and the one about not giving IH access
to the customers facility is rather weak. Could be many reasons for that.
I am sure you have more information than I have. However, that information
you keep to yourself and yes than it is of no value for anybody but Jed. It
is just like the argument in the sandbox when one guy says he his dad is
stronger than yours so believe in me.
The difference between you and me is that:
I do wait and see before I decide.
I do not label people.
I can tell you my opinion about Rossi, not that it matters but;
He is an entrepreneur,  he is a risk taker,  he believes he has something
and he is only taking support from other risk takers. That is far from
being an idiot. Regardless of the outcome.
On Jun 3, 2016 19:50, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> No, Jed.
>> There are no facts.
>>
> Yes, there are. Rossi himself gave them to you. He said the I.H. expert
> insisted on seeing the customer site, but he did not allow it. If you think
> that points to anything other than fraud, you are a poor judge of people,
> business and calorimetry.
>
> Rossi as much as bragged that he is fraud! Yet people such as you and
> Gluck do not even see that he is playing you for fools.
>
> You have decided the outcome and then you make statements based on facts
>> you say are secret.
>>
> Do you have a problem with secrets? Is there something unethical about my
> making an analysis based on information that I have and you do not?
>
> Why can't you just reserve judgement? Just wait until the data is
> published. You have no business even talking about this, because you do not
> know anything about it other than the fact that Rossi bragged he locked the
> door on the customer site. Oh, and if you look at his numbers you will see
> they are surprisingly round, to 3 or 4 digits, and improbable in various
> other ways.
>
> The labeling of people is totally unsubstantiated and very biased plus
>> unnecessary rude.
>>
> Rossi himself announced to the world he is a fraud who locked the door to
> the pretend customer site -- the puppet customer set up by his own lawyer.
> And you say I insult him?!? What could I say that would be worse than what
> he said about himself? You can't insult the man. It's like trying to insult
> Donald Trump. Whatever insult you come up with, he brags about it already.
> There is no point to accusing him of being a philanderer when he writes
> books bragging about how many other men's wives he has seduced.
>
>
>> Wait and see or substantiate your claims.
>>
> Rossi did that for me already.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

No, Jed.
There are no facts.
You have decided the outcome and then you make statements based on facts
you say are secret.
The labeling of people is totally unsubstantiated and very biased plus
unnecessary rude.
Wait and see or substantiate your claims.
IH has not played there hand very wisely, which surprise me. What are they
hiding?
Rossi has a difficult situation regardless of what he can show next. At
least do not judge before you have facts. I mean facts supported of reality
if you want any acknowledgement of your scientific claims. The personal
attacks are way out of line.
On Jun 3, 2016 19:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

Peter Gluck  wrote:

How do you know what I know and what not?
>

I can tell by reading your blog.


Do you can give examples of unfounded nonsense
> and absurd mistakes I have made in this IH Rossi discussion.?
>

I gave you some examples, right in your blog. You and your Rossi-fan
readers dumped a bucket of shit on head in response, so I do not intend to
write any more comments there.

I suggested, again and again, that you should wait to hear what I.H. has to
say before judging this situation. You seem incapable of doing that, and
incapable of even imagining that Rossi is wrong or that he is a fraud.
Since you cannot wait and reserve judgement, you are not capable of
objective thinking regarding Rossi. You are driven by emotion. Rossi is
manipulating you with the lies in his blog.

You have not even addressed the fact that Rossi locked people out of the
customer site, including the I.H. expert who insisted he must have access.
There is no plausible reason for doing that other than fraud. You and other
people mesmerized by Rossi will probably think up dozens of reasons to
justify this outrage, but in the real world only one reason makes sense:
Rossi was hiding the truth about the customer site to cover up a fraud. I
expect there is no customer, no industrial equipment, and no ventilation. I
estimate there is at most ~15 kW of heat being released in the locked room.



> Do you think you are convincing many people here?
>

Only the people who are willing to look at facts, such as the fact that
Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert examine the pretend customer site.
People who refuse to think about that, or who give excuses for it, are a
lost cause.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Get of your high horses.
You claim btter information than anyone else.
You do not share data.
You do not share source.
You admit bias in favor o ih.
Then you get upset when you don't have support for your conclusions.
Your message is just a copy of ih. They might be right then you also.
Let us hear from both parties and THEN me conclusion.
On May 27, 2016 06:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

a.ashfield  wrote:


> No one died because there was only ~20 kW of heat.
>
> But again, that is not the point I am trying to make. One last time:"
>
>
> Jed I am an engineer who took aeronautics as a subject.  I am quite
> capable of calculating the air flows and ventilation required.  I just
> don't think what you write has been proven.
>

What hasn't been proven? What the hell is your point?!? What are you trying
to say? Look, this is really easy:

IF there is a 22" vent with a large fan, and if the air temperature in the
vent is high, THEN yes, there is 1 MW of heat. We all agree on that.

HOWEVER if there is a smaller vent, or the air temperature is low, then
there is only ~20 kW of heat.

SO the I.H. expert has to investigate the ventilation. Because the flow
calorimetry from Rossi shows no heat.

Do you understand? Why does this have any connection to your expertise in
ventilation? I suppose you would be well qualified to make this
measurement, but the point is, Rossi did not allow anyone to make this
measurement. So we have no evidence for the 1 MW claim. The only evidence
Rossi provided shows conclusively that it did not work.


If you are saying it has not been proven that Rossi's calorimetry shows
nothing, you happen to be flat-out wrong. I have seen the proof. You have
not, so you have no business contradicting me. You should say "I suppose"
or "my gut feeling is" . . . Not "I don't think." You have no basis to
think anything about anything, yet.

You do know for a fact that Rossi refused to let the I.H. expert in. He
told you that himself. Why would he block the door if the ventilation
proves his 1 MW claim is real? He knew that I.H. disagreed with his 1 MW
claim. Anyone with an ounce of sense would disagree! It is ludicrous.You
need only glance at the equipment and the data to see it can't possibly be
true. The only plausible reason he blocked the door is that it proves he is
wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Daniel that did not make it clear to me.
I can take critic. I just think throwing rocks when you sit in a glasshouse
is less than smart.

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 Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:

> It seems to be a meme. Like, a person that cannot handle criticism:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=There%27s%20no%20crying%20in%20baseball
>
> Or maybe it means that Tom Hanks got a brain damage during Forest Gump and
> after it only played characters that are way, way too serious.
>
>
>
> 2016-05-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Lennart Thornros :
>
>> Steven,
>> I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
>> Fun - did not see the connection though.
>>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Steven,
I wish I had Hanks ability to express myself.
Fun - did not see the connection though.

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 Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:13 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Lennart:
>
> > Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have to
> > verify anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse.
> > You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx8cCDthsuk
> Starting around 0:40 to 1:17
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> orionworks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> stevenvincentjohnson.bandcamp.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi vs I.H.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, how come you can repeat your statements but so not have t o verify
anything or tell the whole story because some lame excuse.
You basically say that you think your horseshit does not smell.
On May 23, 2016 18:28, "Jed"  wrote:

>  "a.ashfield"  wrote:
>
> > Several of Jed's charges such as the released heat being lethal
>
> Would you PLEASE stop repeating that horseshit! I never said that! NEVER!
> I said that without ventilation it would be fatal, therefore the IH expert
> must examine the ventilation system.
>
> Why do you keep misrepresenting what I said? That is rude.
>
> >
> > It should be possible to measure the input and output of a black box.
>
> Yes. That method showed no excess heat. Therefore it was necessary to
> examine the customer machinery and ventilation. Rossi did not allow that.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:1 MW of heat in a 6,500 sq. ft. facility without industrial ventilation would be fatal

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, if I understand you right the world is full of idiots and scammers and
potential jailbirds.
All technical skepticism you have been provided are done by people without
common sense.
You obviously have more information than anyone else (only from IH?) and
that means your opinion is the one that makes sense.
Although you do not say which info you have. You just say others are a
little stupid or full-blown idiots for even questioning your statements.
It is a wonderful world. It is totally surrounded by mirrors. Only showing
the glory.
religion comes to mind.


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, May 21, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alan Fletcher  wrote:
>
> I accept your claim that 1MW in an un-ventilated, insulated room would be
>> fatal.
>>
>> But that is not the case : a 30,000 CPM is sufficient to ventilate it,
>> and there is a fan (of similar dimensions to one particular example) on the
>> roof. (Plus convective loss, which would reduce the need for ventilation).
>>
>
> Alan, you are missing the point!! Please read carefully:
>
> Yes, if there is a 30,000 CPM fan in the customer room, and yes if it is
> running the temperature will not go up. THEREFORE, in order to prove the
> heat is real, Rossi has to show the I.H. expert this fan. The expert has to
> measure the air temperature and flow with an HVAC tool such as this one:
>
> http://www.tequipment.net/ExtechAN200.asp
>
> This confirmation is essential because Rossi's own calorimetry shows no
> excess heat.
>
> This confirmation would be essential in any case, even if Rossi's
> calorimetry showed excess heat. No one is going to write a check for $89
> million without taking every reasonable step to make sure the heat is real,
> and this is an important test to confirm that. You want to measure heat at
> the boiler, heat coming from the industrial equipment, and heat removed
> from the room by the ventilation equipment. These should be in reasonable
> agreement.
>
> All large HVAC equipment has to be periodically tested for safety. When
> they do these tests, they measure the COP of the boilers, and they measure
> how well the chimney and fans are working. Anyone thinking of paying $89
> million will demand the same kinds of tests.
>
>
>
>> Rossi presented no calorimetric data to Lewan (see my separate thread), .
>> . .
>>
>
> I heard he did, but I could be wrong about that. Rossi quoted enough
> numbers to allow a calculation of the fluid temperature. The numbers he
> quoted were the same as the sample I analyzed.
>
>
>
>> Rossi filed his contract with IH with the court.  See sections 3(c) and 5
>> . . .
>>
>
> No, he did not. He is a fraud. His own data shows that his machine does
> not work. He tried to cover up additional proof of that by preventing
> access to the customer site.
>
>
>
>> Rossi says  (and will presumably produce in court) that IH and JM signed
>> off on a strict separation (double-black-box) policy.
>>
>
> JM is a shell company made by Rossi's lawyer. Their agreements mean
> nothing. Rossi had access to the facility.
>
>
>
>> There is NO evidence at all that ERV Penon is "Rossi's" man.
>>
>
> Yes, there is. He is also a certified idiot. If he sticks around in the
> U.S. he will be twice an idiot, because he will probably end up in jail.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed,
My motto is ,there is always two possibilities. I an sure you have found
the only thing that contradict that statment.
You may have inside information but you have claim for having THE answer.
On May 21, 2016 13:32, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

H LV  wrote:

4. Apply some common sense. Ask yourself: what other reason would Rossi
>> have to refuse admittance, other than the fact that there is no 1 MW
>> machine, and no ventilation system or other means of getting rid of the
>> waste heat? Can you propose ANY reason why an honest person would hesitate
>> to open the door?
>>
>>
> ​
> You maybe invoking a concept which at present doesn't exist in US contract
> law.
> ​
>

I do not know a thing about contract law, and I am not discussing. I am
saying that a. ashfield should use some common sense instead of coming up
with improbably nonsensical hypotheses that might possibly explain why
Rossi's behavior is innocent in a parallel universe. Here in this universe,
the only plausible reason why he refused to let the I.H. people in is
because there was nothing in there. He was covering up fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed I do not know the results. I know not to spout firm controversial
judgment. the  without support.
I am sure you know. I am less sure of you judgment, based on your vague bak
up of your statements
On May 20, 2016 17:29, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
>> Vague data and very mean conclusion.
>>
> There is nothing vague about it! Rossi's own numbers show the temperature
> of the fluid is just above 100°C. That is his own data, in the Lewan
> interview. What more can you ask for? He did not quote the pressure,
> because that would show it is hot water. That plus other data shows it is
> below 100°C. There is no steam!
>
>
>> There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
>> Just reflects back on you.
>>
> I am telling you clear-cut facts, confirmed by Rossi himself.
>
> Furthermore, you are evading, dancing around the issues, and refusing to
> face reality when you will not admit that Rossi's blocking the door to the
> customer factory proves beyond any question that he is a fraud. If there
> was a machine in there consuming 1 MW of process heat he would be thrilled
> to show it. It would be the first thing he shows everyone. There can be
> NOTHING in there.
>
> Your blather and evasions are tiresome. Rossi torpedoed himself in that
> interview. He inadvertently proved once and for all that there is no heat,
> and that the test was fake.
>
> If you disagree, tell us why he would refuse to show definitive proof of
> his own claim. Go ahead, give a reason. Amuse us. Rossi himself has not
> even tried to invent a reason. He just says "it isn't important." Do you
> buy that? Do you think it is not important? Why do you let Rossi feed you
> such arrogant, foolish nonsense?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, if I had nothing I should say nothing.
Vague data and very mean conclusion.

There is no win in that behavior regardless of if you are right or wrong.
Just reflects back on you.
On May 20, 2016 16:45, "a.ashfield"  wrote:

> Jed,
> I have not seen any convincing proof from you either.
> “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence.”
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

But Jed, if you have the data why do you advice me to ask Rossi instead of
just sending them.
On May 20, 2016 15:16, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree.
>>
> Show you what? You don't believe what Rossi said to Lewan? He said that
> the I.H. expert insisted, but he did not allow it. From that alone it is
> clear he is running a scam.
>
> You don't even believe the truth when Rossi admits it! Or brags about it,
> I should say. He as much as told you he is committing fraud. If anyone else
> said "no, you are not allowed to look at where the 1 MW of steam is being
> used" you would conclude that person is a crook. You must be mesmerized by
> Rossi because you give him a free pass.
>
> The calorimetry problems are pretty clear already from Daniel Rocha's
> analysis. This is hot water, not steam. There are other reasons confirming
> that, and there are other mistakes in the calorimetry.
>
> Just sitting there telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no
>> sense. Show it.
>>
> Ask Rossi for the data. Ask him for the ERV Penon report. Ask him for
> photos and a complete description of his equipment, and of the customer's
> equipment that uses 1 MW of process heat. He is the one covering up the
> facts. Despite his efforts to hide the truth, it will come to light in the
> court proceedings, unless the parties settle out of court.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Show me and the all Vortex and we might just agree. Just sitting there
telling a bunch of smart people how it is makes no sense. Show it.
On May 20, 2016 14:34, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
>> Because you believe?
>>
> No, because the data shows it.
>
>
>> If IH is in control they would come free . . .
>>
> I.H. is not in control. As Rossi said in the Lewan interview, the I.H.
> expert insisted he must see the customer machinery, but Rossi refused.
>
> My data comes from Rossi. His instruments. Not from I.H. The numbers I
> have are the same as the ones quoted by Rossi in the Lewan interview. What
> he does not say is that he screwed up the analysis, the configuration and
> choice of instruments, and that every expert who has looked at the data
> concluded there is no excess heat. Plus every non-expert such as me.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another.
Because you believe?
If IH is in control they would come free and not gossip their findings.
Tell me one reason they should not. Do not say lawsuit as it is on the
contrary if they have solid ground.
On May 20, 2016 13:53, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH reason to
>> not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.
>>
>
> Perhaps I.H. has many reasons, but the the reason they gave is that the e-
> cat does not work. There is no question this is true. The numbers quoted by
> Rossi in the Lewan article are the same ones in my sample data. These
> numbers prove that the e-cat produces no excess heat.
>
> Let us have some sanity in this conversation. Why would anyone pay $89
> million for a machine that does not work??? No sane person would pay even
> $1 for it. It has no value.
>
> Why are you searching, scraping and hypothesizing to come up with some
> other reason? The fact that it does not work is reason enough. Would you
> pay for a machine that does not work?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Bob I think business climate is important. I have not been so
impressed by Swedish business climate in the past, but it has some
advantages to the US systems particularly the government and the
universities are only part of the equation. The Royal academy of science
and similar organization has  a say as well. They are mostly made up of the
private industry. My information is 30 years old so . . .

Jed, you think you have the answer. If you gave the background I might see
the same , but as you just continue to say the same sure thing without any
support it sounds really weak. That IH should pay if the result was
positive is not absolutely true. Many reasons has been brought up here and
on other blogs why that is not so sure. To me there is other evidence that
'proves' the opposite; i.e. when Rossi has received $10M plus and knows he
is a scammer why does he not just walk away and live the rest of his life
in peace. No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH
reason to not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork.

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 Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>
>> As he mentioned on his blog several times, he was preparing numerous
>> patents for something—the Quark X IMHO.  When this came out IH got upset I
>> would imagine.  They decided that they would not pay the extra $89M for
>> only the E-Cat IP license.  And that is where it stands now.
>>
>
> As I said, that is not what happened. The statement from IH makes it very
> clear what they claim happened: the 1 MW reactor does not work. It does not
> produce any excess heat. None of Rossi's present reactors produces excess
> heat. The one at Lugano did not, as far as I know.
>
> Why do you keep inventing imaginary reasons for this dispute when I.H. has
> clearly stated why they do not wish to pay? They have said there was no
> heat. Rossi says there was fifty times input. Surely you agree that is a
> large enough bone of contention to justify a lawsuit. If both sides
> sincerely believe what they say, you do not have to add any additional
> motivation for a lawsuit.
>
> Perhaps you are saying you do not believe there was no heat. You think
> I.H. is lying. Based on my analysis of the calorimetry I am sure you are
> wrong about that. Perhaps you will not take my word for that, but you
> should at least wait to see the calorimetry yourself before you go off
> inventing imaginary reasons for the dispute.
>
> If you have a chance to learn calorimetry, you will see that I.H. has good
> reason to believe there is no heat. As do I, for that matter. I am not just
> making this stuff up. Even assuming both sides are completely honest and
> sincere, and that Rossi made no attempt to defraud anyone, that is more
> than enough grounds for a lawsuit.
>
> There's *nothing more* to this dispute than that. It is not about Rossi
> refusing to teach his IP. It is not about a failed replication attempt by
> I.H. employees. It is not about Rossi's more recent claims. It is not about
> I.H. "stealing" patented technology and giving it to Brillouin, which is an
> absurd concept. This lawsuit came about because machine does not work.
> There is no excess heat.
>
> If the machine did work, every indication is that I.H. would be happy to
> pay the $89 million.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one
of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not
specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their
shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:)
IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
detailss then who to blaim.???

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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:
>
> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
>>
>
> I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language
> pertaining to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it
> readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also
> stipulated that Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to
> make use of his technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they
> would be interesting.  Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the
> license agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
>
> With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
> applications filed by Rossi.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I never said it is the ultimate answer, or the only thing needed. I said
> that government has made many essential contributions, such as railroads,
> steam ships, highways, the computer, nuclear power, weather forecasting,
> satellites, the GPS, the Internet, the laser, most fundamental physics and
> medical research funding, and so on. Bill Gates and many other successful
> businessmen agree with me, so perhaps you are wrong and I am right. You
> should consider that possibility.


​Yes Jed, you are right.
You and the government that cannot do anything - by definition, and Bill
Gates. I am so impressed by the heavy argument.
Talk about philosophy.


I meant there is no technology in the dispute just now. Psychology is all
up to 90%.
Then there is the issue of conduct. Hard to say but it is not engineering.

IMHO you have no right to call Rossi a scammer. To call him crazy is just
bouncing right back in your face  then.​


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)

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Eric.
I think he is a man on a mission.
I do not say your two conclusions are wrong. I think there are many more
conclusions and to select is hard or impossible. Yes, if we limit the field
to engineering than they are fewer. Both yours are possibly thoughts
created by an entrepreneur and all psychological.

The assumption that Rossi's behavior is rational is not an axiom I accept.

I hope he has the COP > 3. That would be good for us all. Unfortunately I
 see very little light in the tunnel otherwise. Maybe my fellow country man
Holmlid has a better solution. Problem is that he is in the academical
world - good from many reasons other than speed. I think there is no reason
to throw Rossi under the bus. There are details (that is amazing to me)
that indicates he has something. They are not worth speculating about but I
am sure you have seen a few yourself.
Let us wait and see if Rossi is such a darn good scam artist than he can
sell his story to Hollywood (entrepreneurial thinking and still come out
ahead. The LENR community is in no hurry (waited over 25 years) so they can
throw him under the next bus when he is in Hollywood

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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
> As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much
>> of his behavior tells me he is a real guy and as most inventors /
>> entrepreneurs hard to deal with. They are by nature hardnosed and outside
>> ghe box.
>
>
> Consider this detail: from what is now publicly available about how the
> 1MW test has proceeded since early on, Rossi has not made an effort to
> persuade IH of the truth of anything.  He has proceeded above their
> objections like a man on a mission, checking off the checkboxes in the
> license agreement and perhaps trying to hew to the letter of it (although
> not exactly, as we see with the switch to the four "tiger" modules).  If we
> are to assume rational behavior on some level, which is not guaranteed, one
> of the following conclusions is hard to escape:
>
>1. Rossi assumed that IH would pay up, whether or not IH believed the
>1MW test was persuasive; or
>2. Rossi assumed that IH would not pay, in which case Rossi would sue
>and then either obtain the full amount through the judgment of the court,
>or IH would settle for some lesser amount out of court.
>
> What is not listed in these possibilities is that Rossi would try to make
> a convincing, rigorous case to IH or to the court that there was a LENR
> reaction producing 1MW, with a COP of 6 (or 50).
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
You believe that government is the ultimate answer to progress - that is
far from business  as the moon from the sun (Yes, they appear similar in
size and color). I just do not think that is of any value to know that one
of us are more business experienced than the other. All I am saying the
iceberg is mostly larger under the water.

Contrary to you Jed, I do not judge Rossi. I say his behavior corresponds
with and inventor /entrepreneur. Your darn calorimetry does not even enter
the scene as a tool for seeing the qualities of Rossi. No it has nothing to
do with engineering. The more time that elapses the more I am inclined to
believe it is 90% psychology and 10% personality while from the beginning I
had those numbers reversed.

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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>>
>> Your statements indicate that you have little understanding about
>> business.
>>
> You are mistaken. I have good understanding of business, and experience in
> it.
>
>
>> As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much
>> of his behavior tells me he is a real guy . . .
>>
> You cannot judge his claims by looking at his behavior. You have to
> examine the calorimetry. Based on that, we know that his present device
> does not work. Some of his previous ones may have worked. It is difficult
> to judge.
>
> This is a matter of engineering, not psychology or personality.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, I am not going over all your statements.
Your statements indicate that you have little understanding about business.
It is seldom black and white. Yes, there is a standard of conduct between
competitors in any industry, so in the community of investment companies.
Your hang up on technical details may or may not be of any impact. It is
the famous trees that block the view of the forest. That people leak
information is part of the game. You may , or may not be a conduit for such
leaked information. As your information is so limited, I have suggested you
should not make so absolute sure judgment about the situation. I still
think that is the case.

As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much of
his behavior tells me he is a real guy and as most inventors /
entrepreneurs hard to deal with. They are by nature hardnosed and outside
ghe box.
On May 19, 2016 09:58, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

Peter Gluck  wrote:

too much psychology...IH admits paying 11 million was a mistake
> specifically for NOT paying the due 89 millions. A simple gambit.
>

That's absurd. Why would they not pay if the technology works? They will be
plagued with lawsuits. If they try to commercialize it, everyone will see
they stole it, and they will then lose a much larger lawsuit.

What you are suggesting makes no business sense. There is no way they can
avoid paying $89 million if the technology works and they want to use it
for any purpose. Even if they "steal" it and give it to Brillouin Energy,
that does not get them anywhere. People will find out Brillouin is using
it, and Brillouin will have to pay a license fee the same as anyone else.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Alberto.
That is why Jed's claims are so hard to buy. IH should have business acumen
as most investment companion I have met with.
On May 18, 2016 17:30, "Alberto De Souza" 
wrote:

Based on what Jed said so far, I.H. is very good at calorimetry but very
bad at doing business. I would expect the opposit. Rossi on the other
hand...

Alberto.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Lennart Thornros]

Should have been 1 MW turbine.
On May 16, 2016 19:00, "Lennart Thornros"  wrote:

> I said to you, Jed,  that I think my suggested usage is as valid as yours.
> BTW I have a great deal of experience from this industry but not as an
> engineer/operator. Your very demeaning statements are followed by you very
> lose claim of expertise in all industrial processes.
> I know the temperature is off but a 1MW could sit in the area. You are
> just sending poorly substantiated 'truth' based on your experience for as
> to swallow although unlike Mats you are jnable to mention your source and
> how they convinced you.
> I do not understand your anger and demeanor. Not a sound exchange of
> argument. That is regardless if you are right or wrong.
> On May 16, 2016 18:47, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:
>
> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Jed, there is nobody saying the heat is consumed in the building.
>> If it was not Florida I could suggest that they used the heat to warm
>> residential buuldings. The size of such a 'machine' would easily fit (a few
>> pumps).
>>
> Ah ha. Okay. Would you like to do a reality check on that? Maybe think
> about it?
>
> This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Builders recommend 20 BTU per square foot.
> That's 63 kW. The heater supposedly produces 1000 kW, so it is enough for
> sixteen buildings of this size. Do you think there are pipes running out of
> the building in some kind of district heating scheme? Do you think the
> state of Florida would allow that without an investigation or precedent?
> Steam running in pipes suspended over the street perhaps?
>
>
> I do not speculate but it is at least as realistic as 100 steam cleaners.
>>
> On the other hand, you might spend some time reading about industrial
> equipment and how much process heat it takes. That is, if you would like to
> ground your assertions in reality.
>
> I am not speculating. I am telling you how things actually work here in
> the real world, and how much heat it takes to heat a building. You could
> have looked that up yourself.
>
>
> To put it another way --
>
> The customer's facility is 6,500 sq. ft. This is enough heat to heat
> 170,607 sq. ft (at 20 BTU/sq. ft.). When you use process heat, nearly all
> of the heat eventually comes out. Only a little is absorbed in whatever
> endothermic process you are doing. So this is how much heat you use for
> space heating in an area 26 times larger than this. Does anyone think that
> 2 exhaust fans would be sufficient to keep that area safe for human
> occupation? Have you ever been in a hot building?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Lennart Thornros]

I said to you, Jed,  that I think my suggested usage is as valid as yours.
BTW I have a great deal of experience from this industry but not as an
engineer/operator. Your very demeaning statements are followed by you very
lose claim of expertise in all industrial processes.
I know the temperature is off but a 1MW could sit in the area. You are just
sending poorly substantiated 'truth' based on your experience for as to
swallow although unlike Mats you are jnable to mention your source and how
they convinced you.
I do not understand your anger and demeanor. Not a sound exchange of
argument. That is regardless if you are right or wrong.
On May 16, 2016 18:47, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Jed, there is nobody saying the heat is consumed in the building.
> If it was not Florida I could suggest that they used the heat to warm
> residential buuldings. The size of such a 'machine' would easily fit (a few
> pumps).
>
Ah ha. Okay. Would you like to do a reality check on that? Maybe think
about it?

This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Builders recommend 20 BTU per square foot.
That's 63 kW. The heater supposedly produces 1000 kW, so it is enough for
sixteen buildings of this size. Do you think there are pipes running out of
the building in some kind of district heating scheme? Do you think the
state of Florida would allow that without an investigation or precedent?
Steam running in pipes suspended over the street perhaps?


I do not speculate but it is at least as realistic as 100 steam cleaners.
>
On the other hand, you might spend some time reading about industrial
equipment and how much process heat it takes. That is, if you would like to
ground your assertions in reality.

I am not speculating. I am telling you how things actually work here in the
real world, and how much heat it takes to heat a building. You could have
looked that up yourself.


To put it another way --

The customer's facility is 6,500 sq. ft. This is enough heat to heat
170,607 sq. ft (at 20 BTU/sq. ft.). When you use process heat, nearly all
of the heat eventually comes out. Only a little is absorbed in whatever
endothermic process you are doing. So this is how much heat you use for
space heating in an area 26 times larger than this. Does anyone think that
2 exhaust fans would be sufficient to keep that area safe for human
occupation? Have you ever been in a hot building?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, there is nobody saying the heat is consumed in the building.
If it was not Florida I could suggest that they used the heat to warm
residential buuldings. The size of such a 'machine' would easily fit (a few
pumps).
I do not speculate but it is at least as realistic as 100 steam cleaners.
None of them are right and that is not the problem.
Money is the peoblem. How and by whom I do not know.  I think IH stands to
lose credibility by not come out with a statement that at least make
Rossi's statement to Mats look less convincing.
On May 16, 2016 18:09, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> People(Jed?) have criticized that the data was hand written by the ERV,
>> but this would avoid any computer related data manipulation.
>>
>
> A person can easily manipulate data written by hand! It is easier than
> manipulating computer data.
>
> This takes me back . . . to a stroll down memory lane.
>
> Back in the days when bookkeepers at companies and banks kept data by
> hand, they often embezzled money by entering fake numbers into the ledgers.
> Often they would do this by keeping two sets of books, a fake one, and a
> real one which was hidden. When computers were first introduced, embezzlers
> tried using similar methods. Programmers soon learned how to defeat them.
>
> I began programming in 1978 in some accounting applications. Programmers
> were then in the last stages of defeating the old manual methods of
> embezzling and cooking the books. I heard a lot about it. The crooks had
> also learned some new computer-based methods of stealing, such as the
> salami slice technique and ZZubrinski, Z., which were a lot of fun to learn
> about.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, I think you take the prize.
Mats has produced a report from interviewing one of the parties in the
conflct. Insane and an idiot - maybe as Peter Gluck suggested you don't
really mean what you say. It is a metaphor.
I hope so.
There are two interviews one by Mats with open references to whom and whar.
Obviously there are a few statements saying that his findings are not
leading to total believe of Rossi and his claims. However many things
indicates thar Rossi has valid arguments.  I am flabbergasted over his
description about how IH wanted to cost the cooperation. I think IH cannot
afford to behave so all out of professionalism, so something is not all
correct.  What or who I don't know.
Then we have your secret report. No name, nothing substation but lots of
real sure and demeaning responses. You this is built on the testing
capacity of different parties. I think this is far from a measuring method
dispute. Regardles, if you want your statements have any weight you need to
give the whole story. No more of this anonymous dirt slinging.

I will point out I have no connection with either party, no competence in
the measure mentioned technology above basic understanding of energy laws.
I do not know that e=cat works. I just think we have a professional report
and then we have unsubstantiated rumors that Rossi is a fraud. Well, it is
not hard to say that Rossi has more substantial comments and done with
dignity. IMHO IH need to step up and clear their motives. Not to me - but
to the LENS community and there investors. Several accusations are so
damaging for IH, that they need to clear their name.
On May 16, 2016 14:24, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

Quoting Mats Lewan's report:

"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."

This is flat out insane. This is one of the most outrageous things I have
ever heard in my life.

No importance?!? Any person with a half a brain would inspect the
customer's equipment and confirm that it is actually using 600 kW of
process heat as claimed.

Rossi's other statements are also insane. I won't even go into the reason.
That particular statement takes the cake. Anyone who imagined the test
might be valid should understand from that statement alone that it was
totally worthless. You should also now agree with me that Penon is a
certified idiot for "explaining" that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed, I make no false statements. I make no statements at all, except
thar you judge people based on poor basis and that you want to be believed
based on confidential information.
That you then attack others, for not swallow your conclusions without
wondering about its credibility, is not above the sandbox IMHO.
On May 14, 2016 14:43, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

Stephen Cooke  wrote:

Regarding the waste heat, you mentioned that all the waste heat can't be
> transferred to the water? But surely if the heat source is inside the water
> tank it can only be transferred to the water. Isn't this how we do
> calorimetry?
>

Look at photos of the shipping container. It has shelves with
insulation-wrapped large metal boxes on them. Each box is a cold fusion
generator. Water flows into the boxes and then out from the shipping
container in a single pipe. At least, that was the configuration in Italy.

The boxes get hot internally, and some of the heat transfers to the water
flowing through. However, it cannot all transfer. Some of it radiates out
from the boxes to the inside of the shipping container. This is waste heat.
The insulation reduces it, but cannot eliminate it.

I am not capable of determining how much radiates, but an HVAC guy
estimated that if there is ~1 MW transferred to the water, there would have
to be several hundred kilowatts of waste heat. Here is a 6-burner 212,000
BTU/h (62 kW) restaurant stove:

http://www.therdstore.com/page/IFSES/GSTOVE/SR-6-36

That is much bigger and hotter than any stove at home, which typically have
4 burners totaling at most 40,000 BTU/h (12 kW). 212,000 BTU/h is 62 kW, so
if the waste heat if 300 kW (conservatively) that would be the equivalent
of 5 restaurant stoves or 25 home stoves going full blast in large steel
box, making the box a large oven.



> As long as the water tank was insulated for 120 deg C and the water or
> steam flow ensured this temperature was not exceeded I don't see why it
> would get hotter In the container.
>

The boxes would have be very hot inside to produce 1 MW of heat. There are
not many boxes. 50 as I recall. Each one has to produce 20 kW.



> I suppose other kinds of boilers that have an external furnace for coal of
> gas this is not the case, as the furnace it self might be much hotter?
>

Yes, space heating and water heating furnaces heat sources are always much
hotter than the fluid. This is wasteful. It is an impedance mismatch.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
You say that Gluck arguments are childish.
You need a mirrot.
Your statements,including label people as idiots, based on information you
say is confidential,  is of th
e same level i heard in the sandbox many years ago.
It is not a question of taking sides. IH have provided very little
information and has been vague in general, maybe exemption for
communication with you.
I think Rossi needs a chance to prove his claims. If he cannot then it is a
problem for Rossi.  If he is  right it is a winner for us all. If IH has
decided to follow other directions and leave Rossi because of technical
reasons it makes very little impact on anyone but IH. It amazes me that IH
does not clarify the situation if th
ey have water tight argument. IH has the vague unclear argument  (obviously
not in communication with you but in general)).
I could see that Gluck attacked you, rather your for sure argument without
any bak up.
On May 14, 2016 11:26, "Stephen Cooke"  wrote:

> Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant
> would cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I
> have recently checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other
> heat sources it seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for
> industrial applications and are often accommodated in warehouses. The sizes
> also seem to me to be comparable to the e-cat. I didn't get the impression
> from those sites that they are too hot for the warehouse. Perhaps I miss
> some details and a boiler engineer will add something.
>
> In case it helps here are some links:
>
> Note the first one deals mostly with "high pressure boilers" but makes a
> good list of typical applications,  where as the second one also gives some
> typical "low pressure steam boilers" that run with steam about 120 deg C.
> This does not sound too dissimilar to the 1MW ecat to me. Are you sure 1MW
> heat is so difficult to handle?
>
> http://www.bosch-industrial.com/files/BR_IndustrialBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf
>
>
> https://www.viessmann.com/com/content/dam/vi-corporate/COM/Download/Oil-gas-boilers-and-hot-water-boilers.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original.media_file.download_attachment.file/Oil-gas-boilers-and-hot-water-boilers.pdf
>
> Of course we still need to see how the heat was applied in the e-cat case
> but maybe it was along the lines of one of the applications mentioned in
> the first link? I understand from your information that you have heard
> there was no application though, which I agree sounds strange.
>
> On 13 mei 2016, at 20:37, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
> In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> "However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being
>> pushed somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible
>> position so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not
>> know much about IH's real position , arguments and justifications. Do you
>> agree, Jed?"
>
>
> No, this is completely wrong in every respect, as I have pointed out many
> times previously:
>
> No one is pushing me.
>
> There is nothing unnatural, implausible or unbelievable about I.H.'s
> claim. Any person who understands calorimetry and examines the data will
> agree with their analysis. If Rossi and Penon seriously believe there is 50
> times output they are both certified idiots (not just Penon).
>
> As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the
> calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong.
> I have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside
> of I.H., so I am sure it is real.
>
> I know enough about I.H.'s "real position" regarding calorimetry to judge
> this matter, although I look forward to learning more. I know nothing about
> business arrangements or contracts.
>
> I have enough information to judge these things with confidence. You, on
> the other hand, know nothing about them. All you have to go on are Rossi's
> assertions from his blog. These range from nonsense to impossible. The
> information he already released in the lawsuit rules out his claims. If the
> reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the
> building would be cooked. They would be dead. In fact, it is not producing
> any excess heat. If and when I.H. becomes free to publish the technical
> data, everyone will see this, and you will see that Rossi has been playing
> you for a fool.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Jack, I respect that people change opinion. I mostly disagree with the
labels put on Rossi in this case. I do not know him as Jed points out.
However, I have met a few entrepreneurs and he certainly sounds like one.
Another thing is that I have operated as IH and I understand their dilemma.
I am sure they are unhappy. I am just a little confused over that they are
not able to find resolution.

Entrepreneurs are a little bit like artists, some of them cut of their ear,
others are socially accepted. All of them are egocentric.

I do not ask IH what they think. They would say the same as they said to
Jed. However, that might not be all there is to it. My indication is that
they do not resolve the issue.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>  I heard a few reports that I.H. was not happy.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>> can you reveal why?
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed - nobody but Rossi has a claim with IH.
I think you need to tell what you know and how that makes you so sure about
the situation. I still do not agree with the way you have thrown Rossi
under the bus. Not long ago you sounded different. You have other info you
need to present it or your say is just BS,

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
>
>> I  forgot to mention the Japanese ( I think Misuno) R&D work.  They are
>> not above spoon feeding.  They even pay as a dessert course.  I trust you
>> remember your job as a consultant on calorimetric measurements for their
>> experiments.
>>
>
> That has nothing to do with the Japanese government. Mizuno has been
> retired for a decade. He did that with his own money. The government knows
> nothing about it.
>
>
>
>>   As I recall Dave Robertson with my input finally convinced you that the
>> ambient air temperature had an influence on the water cooling system
>> temperatures in the Japanese tests.  So much for the adequacy of HVAC
>> knowhow.
>>
>
> You did not convince me of anything. As I wrote in the first version of
> the report, a calibration is needed. Mizuno agreed with me. It took him a
> few months to do the calibration. As soon as he did, the problem was
> apparent. That is what I wrote:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreportonmi.pdf
>
> This was his mistake, his problem, and his lack of HVAC equipment. I will
> grant that I should have seen it earlier, but I did say we need a
> calibration to be sure.
>
>
>
>> You have a short memory, if you think the Government’s opposition to cold
>> fusion is “simply absurd.”
>>
>
> As I said, some factions oppose it. However, nearly all funding for cold
> fusion from 1989 to the present has come from governments, including the
> U.S. government. The would have been forgotten long ago if it were not for
> government support and funding. You can confirm that easily.
>
> Governments have spent millions, and they have published their reports.
> Some of the best research was done with government money at Los Alamos and
> China Lake, and the Italian ENEA. SRI was funded by DARPA. To suggest that
> these agencies and researchers are also secretly plotting to discredit
> Rossi or to fool me is absurd. Rossi has discredited himself. Time after
> time, he has failed to meet his obligations, or do what he said he would
> do. He promises to do a test and then reneges. Then he becomes furious
> because the people who agreed to fund him based on the test pull out.
>
> To suggest that I.H. spent $11 million and now for some mysterious reason
> they are lying and claiming it does not work is utterly absurd. It is
> crazy. They want it to work! Why would they spend all that money if their
> purpose was to discredit him? They could have ignored him. He would be long
> gone by now. They did everything they could to make it work. They gave
> Rossi all that he asked for. They were prepared to give him $89 million
> more. If it worked, they would be thrilled to give him the money. But he
> failed to show any sign of excess heat, just as he failed so many previous
> tests with other private venture capitalists, and with the Navy, NASA and
> others.
>
> I.H. will get nothing out of the deal. No intellectual property. Nothing.
> Because they did not pay the $89 million. If they actually thought it
> worked, why would they turn their backs on it now, and write off the $11
> million?
>
> There is no intellectual property in any case, because the gadget does not
> work.
>
> Everyone else working with I.H. agrees with me that they are honest,
> knowledgeable, they offer generous terms, and they stick with the
> researchers through thick and thin. Only Rossi claims they have been unfair.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Why the hell do you say what you are saying?
You are disappointed. Well we all are.
No Rossi is Rossi. He is an entrepreneur.
He does thing others think are stupid.
That is how entrepreneurs are.
You make judgments with no knowledge or facts. Just your emotions.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/11/25/rossis-engineer-i-have-seen-things-you-people-wouldnt-believe/
>>
>> Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’
>>
>
> People wouldn't believe for good reason. All of Rossi's previous claims
> were either false or demonstrated so badly it is impossible to judge. I got
> tired of his shenanigans years ago. If he had what he claimed, he could
> have done a proper test and convinced everyone. Many experts advised him on
> ways to do a convincing test. He ignored them. Instead, he did test after
> test in ways that proved nothing.
>
> When Jim Dunn and the people from NASA pointed out that he was making a
> dangerous mistake and the reactor was plugged up, and on the verge of
> exploding, he was furious with them. He refused to fix the problem or do
> the test again. He threw them out! They were offering him millions of
> dollars and he would not even lift a finger to do a proper test. After that
> incident there was no doubt left in my mind that Rossi is either very
> stupid or a fraud -- or both. Anyone who would do that has zero credibility.
>
>
>
>> Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani continues:
>>
>
> I don't believe that guy either.
>
> Is he an employee of I.H.? I doubt it, but if he is they should fire him.
>
> Rossi's blog is not a reliable source of information.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Bob well said.
Jed, quick to judgment because you decide who is right before you have the
facts and to no value. What you believe does not propel the issue forward.
Instead your hints that you know it all is doing the opposite.
Better capacity for measuring does say nothing. If yoI do not. If you have
something substantial I suggest you just tell.
You ask how I know they have not arrived at a solution. I do not. I just
think that IH wanted to tell the world ASAP that they have settled.That
must  be in their interest.
You say it is a lawsuit and that the lawsuit will end up resolving the
issue. No, Jed the lawsuit will resolve nothing for LENR and will just tie
up everybody's resources to no avail.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Nothing I have seen reported, has *proven* Rossi has no technology now
> and never had any.  Maybe it is not as good as Rossi claims.  Maybe even
> Rossi is deceiving himself.  Maybe Rossi has "guilded the lilly" - has
> deceptively over reported his results.  I don't believe Focardi was
> deceived - I think Focardi saw real energy creation - and that is what
> leaves me with hope for this Rossi episode.  So, I am NOT willing to say at
> this point that I think Rossi has no LENR technology.  Though the case of
> "always net 0" is still possible.
>
> I do believe IH is honest and has NOT been able to produce any working
> LENR technology using what Rossi has *disclosed* to them.  This is a
> completely different situation than Rossi having no technology.  We know
> Rossi is a difficult character from which to get technology transfer.  Look
> at his previous failed relationships.  I suspect that he sold the license
> agreement to IH for the large initial investment of $11.5M and then he just
> threw them a few bones of information - this is not technology transfer.
>
> How should this be resolved?  Rossi should now be joined at the hip
> permanently with IH until he delivers what he promised them.  Rossi is
> claiming high COP, high power LENR technology.  Let Rossi start from
> scratch and teach every single detail to IH, and get IH to reproduce this
> reactor in their lab.  Their creation should be measured in IH's lab
> together and agree on the performance.  If it doesn't work reliably, then
> Rossi needs to stay until the team of IH + Rossi invents a way to make it
> reliable.
>
> It is only with this kind of enabling technology transfer that IH will be
> able to move toward making a profit from the license Rossi sold them.
> Rossi should not be allowed to escape his agreement until he cooperates and
> delivers this kind of technology transfer.  If he truly has no technology,
> then he is stuck there until he develops it and transfers it, or until he
> admits that he really has nothing (at which time IH is entitled to
> damages).  He will have to prove himself without the smoke and mirrors.
> Once he has done this successfully, he should be entitled to the full terms
> of the contract.
>
> The courts should not allow Rossi to behave as a scoundrel and escape his
> contract.  I don't see how anyone could believe Rossi is the victim in this
> situation.  Rossi should "man-up" and do the right thing.
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press
>>> release:"
>>>
>>> I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said.
>>
>>
>> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying
>> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat.
>> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do
>> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as
>> he has been wrong so often in the past.
>>
>>
>> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now.
>>>
>>
>> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion.
>>
>>
>> Either of us could be right.
>>
>>
>> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely
>> I.H. is right. That's my point.
>>
>>
>>   The point is we don't know yet.
>>>
>>
>> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better
>> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic
>> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, why so quick to judgment.
All parties are in this mess. I am sure that someone will dig themselves
out of the mess.
I am amazed that IH has not found someone to get a solution.
I have been in IH position I am sure they want result and clarity so they
can go on.
Evaluation of different peoples technical capacity is one thing but it
hardly says anything about who is suppressing data or full information.
I am sure that something is wrong in those discussions between the parties.
I am amazed every day that goes by and IH has not come out and tell either
that they have a solution or what they have done to resolve the situation.
Just a little bit I think it weighs in Rossi's advantage, that they cannot
resolve the situation..

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>>
>
>> "I refer to first-hand statements by I.H., especially in their press
>> release:"
>>
>> I thought you were more interested in facts than what people said.
>
>
> Obviously, I assume these people are reporting a fact. They are saying
> they evaluated the calorimetry, and they do not think it shows excess heat.
> I do not think they are lying, or mistaken. I think Rossi is wrong. I do
> not know whether he is lying or mistaken, but I think he is wrong, just as
> he has been wrong so often in the past.
>
>
> Seems that facts are thin on the ground right now.
>>
>
> Not a bit. They are certain of their conclusion.
>
>
> Either of us could be right.
>
>
> But, based on the track records of Rossi and I.H., it is much more likely
> I.H. is right. That's my point.
>
>
>   The point is we don't know yet.
>>
>
> We know what both sides said, and I know which side usually does a better
> job. When an incompetent person with a track record of making idiotic
> mistakes argues with experts, usually the incompetent person is wrong.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Hi Jed,
I actually said that negotiations maybe under way. I certainly cannot prove
the negative so here is what I said.
"Maybe it is underway in a silent format.".

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Thanks for posting that.  It reinforces my recent viewpoint that this area
> is now ripe for fraud and fantastic magicians who know of a great chemical
> trick that confounds trained observers.
>
> But I take heart in Houdini's magic trick when he visited Tunisia to fight
> piracy and challenged their  strongest men to lift the box that he carried
> onto the stage.  4 of their strongest men couldn't do it.  Houdini lifted
> the box easily by flicking the electromagnetic switch between him and the
> stage.  He demonstrated American superiority in magic.  Yes, those
> observers still believed in magic at the time.
>
>  I think what we have here is a modern Houdini, but far more brilliant.
>
>   But the outcome was electromagnetic switches, so we're all winners...
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>> Frank Znidarsic,
>> I think you are being unfair to Rossi.  It has not been "A very long
>> time" to develop what is a completely new technology.
>> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.  You
>> have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain optimistic about
>> new developments.  He sued IH not the other way around.
>>
>> me356 said it well in his recent report.
>>
>> "Now I understand perfectly why Rossi is working on the e-cat so long.
>> You have something that is working, you have a prototypes and you are
>> nearly ready for mass production. Then you will find something amazing,
>> that can increase the excess heat significantly so that previous work is
>> not important anymore. But there are again many difficulties and unknown
>> things that it can take a few years to get a fully working prototype based
>> on the new discoveries, but it is surely worth. You can continue endlessly,
>> because LENR is opening doors of something completely unknown and much
>> more. not just energy conversion. It is possible that in 10 years,
>> everything will be completely different."
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Let's continue to think about passive vs active approach to LENR 's existentil problems

[Lennart Thornros]

Hi guys,
I see no reason to decide the outcome just a few weeks before the proof
will be there. One way or the other. Yes, I understand the disappointment
as most of us would have expected a clear situation by now.
I am also optimistic.
Who is more believable?
There are too much money involved to  believe that anyone is forthcoming.
I agree with that  IH has a lot to lose  if they do not play within the
rules and that is the fact that I have a little doubt.
It is in my opinion rather poorly handled in general. Why after several
weeks are there no negotiations going on?
If IH are seriously believers in LENR then they certainly would have found
a mediator who could talk to Rossi and then continue there own path in
LENR. Rossi cannot just sit back as that will eliminate his lawsuit.
We can agree something is fishy and it should be taken care of - old fish
smells.
Maybe it is underway in a silent format.

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, May 8, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> In recent years, Rossi has in fact done what he said he would do.
>>
>
> Not a chance. Just looking at the facility you know there cannot be a 1 MW
> heat source in it. It would cook everyone in that part of the building.
> That is enough heat for 100 dry cleaning machines. You couldn't fit that
> many in such a small area, never mind operating them.
>
>
>
>>   You have no proof that the 1 MW plant didn't work and I remain
>> optimistic about new developments.
>>
>
> I.H. says they have proof. Based on my experience dealing with I.H. and
> Rossi, I find I.H. far more believable.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info

[Lennart Thornros]

I think you guys have many good suggestions so I am not dissing what you
say.
However, IMHO there are a couple of factors that makes your excellent ideas
hard in today's society.
First we have patent laws combined with greed from misc. academical
organizations trying to get some edge over each other. They all are funded
by us tax payers but internal competition makes the utilization of new
findings slow and tedious - inefficient if you prefer.
Then we have the fact that most funding is coming from the same place. That
means; 'old boys network', brown-nosing and corruption (mostly as 'if I
scratch your back you will scratch  mine'). will have at least as much
influence over where funds are allocated as result. (See fusion.)
Another thing that I am sure is an obstacle is that there is no
organization with purpose involved. If ideas were developed by teams under
leadership of people good at organize and lead rather than  scientists a
more efficient progress can be accomplished. My experience is that
leadership often goes to the sciebtist with the best knowledge of the
subject. That is a poor solution. Rather let the scientist handle what he
is best at and leave the leadership to a pro (who does not need to know
anything about the topic).

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Ruby--
>
> You noted:
> ”Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect
> to see,
> so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.”
>
> Not to drive a dead horse, but I would not call the “many” that “see only
> what they expect to see” scientists.  That state of mind keeps them from
> the rolls of scientists, IMHO.
>
> For humans in general your comment that “so the obvious to one is not the
> obvious to another” is very true IMHO.  This agreement coming from  being
> married to a good human for 50 years in July of this year.
>
> To reach your goal of consensus on basic ideas, you need a committee of
> three true scientists that are all independent (never worked together) to
> select two committees of scientists (not too many—maybe 7 or 9) who are to
> develop a consensus—100% agreement on the basics. The 3 original selecting
> persons should oversee the working committees actions and discussions and
> by consensus of the 3, replace any working committee members not using
> scientific process in deliberation, or not able to grasp the obvious.
>
> The results of the committees should be compared at the end of the work.
> The 3 member selection committee should be responsible for identifying
> reasons why the two separate consensus of basics were different, if they
> are not the same.  This would be accomplished by questioning the two
> committees as to the rational of the basic ideas set forth, and listening
> to the comments/responses of one  committee to the others consensus.
>
> The committee of three would then be responsible to establish their own
> consensus of basics ideas—theories.
>
> I worked in an organization for 18 years where a similar tactic was used
> to develop a working technology.  The competition among committees (groups
> of engineers and scientists) was an important factor in a quality
> consensus.  However, there was generally only one or two individual
> technologists—scientists/engineers—instead of a committee of 3 making the
> final decision about the theory.
>
> Bob
>
> *From:* Ruby 
> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 8:09 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: great paper by Ed Storms, quarrel, a bit of info
>
>
> Thank you Bob for clarifying that.
> I did not know what you meant.
> I do agree, science should not reject obvious data -by definition!
>
> Alas it is true, scientists are human, and many see only what they expect
> to see,
> so the obvious to one is not the obvious to another.
>
> LENR is unique in that there is no consensus on what is happening from the
> community itself even after almost three decades of research data.
> there is no clearing house of the obvious for everyone to shop around in
> to form the theory.
> Max Born's "facts of experience" are different for all.
> So how to build a theory when the same facts are not obvious to everyone?
>
> I would like to see a Common Ground Theory meeting where theorists would
> pledge to come away with some consensus on some basic ideas, and that would
> form the core of the obvious.Might need a miracle there ..
>
> Ruby
>
>
> On 4/25/16 9:47 AM, Bob Cook wrote:
>
> I wanted to make the point that science—scientists

Re: [Vo]:cold fusion class action

[Lennart Thornros]

Russ,
I think you are justified and I understand your frustration.
I just cannot forego the chance to once again point out that patents and
patent applications, which might have been of value 150 years ago, are a
totally obsolete institution that only feeds lawyer in all ends.

I am glad I do not have to pay those lawyers. Maybe you can get an
ambulance chaser to sue on behalf of everybody(class action) on contingency.
Good Luck (as they say in Vegas.)

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 Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Russ George  wrote:

> The momentum in cold fusion as recently illustrated by Homlid’s
> astonishing and unexpected findings, Piantelli’s new patent fought through
> with success in Europe, and of course the cat and mouse game of Rossi have
> got me agitated… hence I am asking for those like me with inventions and
> claims wrongfully and woefully denied by the US Patent office over the
> decades to lend a hand to see if we have sufficient numbers to do something
> to put the USPTO into real heavy water!
>
>
> http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/19/cold-fusion-class-action-lawsuit-puts-uspto-in-heavy-water/
>

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Rossi: 1MW Plant Customer Bought Three More Plants

[Lennart Thornros]

What is amazing is that AR has time / energy & nerve to persuade business
this way. By nerve I mean that in this situation when IH claims that he has
not performed as per contract he says that others see his performance as
good. If it works as AR says, then we will soon here from the real customer
as I think it will be hard to keep secret who it is. Then AR will great
support. OTH if he does not have anything and there is no order, why would
he stick out his head? He would just lower his chances in court.
I see no problem with that there is a lawyer as head of the 'customer' I
think Sean has that right.
I agree with you Francis that IH is not the customer at any time. It has to
be a substantial entity if they can order three more and the result must be
good.

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 Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:

> Yes, but is the “customer” he refers to  IH contracting to install more
> reactors or is this Rossi’s lawyer or other Rossi shell companies that want
> additional units at the Florida location for other purposes?  It just
> doesn’t make sense that Rossi would be selling anything to IH while
> pursuing a lawsuit for lack of payment – more likely it is for Leonardo
> Corporation or other licensee and incorporates some of the new technology.
> Did Rossi indicate if these new reactors would be the same technology as
> original? I could see Rossi using the Fla location as a showroom for his
> technology and perhaps customers are needed to finance the new reactors but
> I remain skeptical that IH could be “the customer” while claiming the unit
> fails to meet agreed upon gain in litigation.
>
> Fran
>
> *From:* Sean True [mailto:sean.t...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2016 11:40 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Rossi: 1MW Plant Customer Bought Three
> More Plants
>
>
>
> There appear to be shell and holding companies. This is not unusual, nor
> is it unusual for a lawyer to act as a cutout. This keeps prying eyes (us)
> from observing the principals (people who want many watts of steam)
> closely.
>
>
>
> Try penetrating a real estate trust, sometime.
>
>
>
> Throwing additional dust into the air, it's also possible that more than
> one law firm is working for Rossi, but only one shows in the court filings.
> Less likely, but possible.
>
>
>
> -- Sean
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
> I thought the problem was the "customer" is also Rossi's lawyer?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 10:51 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]: Rossi: 1MW Plant Customer Bought Three More Plants
>
> So Rossi says the customer has ordered three more plants and he hopes to
> build them in 180 days.
>
> I expect the skeptics will write about "Rossi says" but I recall them
> not believing the first plant existed because it was secret. Do they
> accept the plant is real yet?   I don't know.
>
> Anyway, if he has three orders in hand from the original customer, I
> would say that is worth more than any expert's report when it gets to
> court..
>
>
>