from:"a.ashfield"

Eric,
Agreed self driving trucks will be a few years off. They won't dump
fairly new ones and a retrofit may not be worth it. - but coming. Did
you see Dubai is planning to start a pilotless drone taxi service this
Summer? http://www.ehang.com/ehang184

It looks like changing things that don't need a lot of expensive
hardware is moving faster. Like writing articles for the media, reading
X-Ray images and anything where the human is making a lot of money like
pharmacists. Most stock exchange trading is already done by computer
and many hundreds have been laid off.

On 4/2/2017 8:15 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
A topic long of interest on Vortex is what implications the revolution
in technology of the last few decades will have for employment. With
the imminent advent of self-driving vehicles, one occupation that
seems at risk is that of driving trucks. But one gets the sense that
any dramatic changes in that sector are a few years off. An
occupation I wasn't expecting to be on the line is that of managers of
actively managed mutual funds. Recently BlackRock began consolidating
its actively managed funds with funds that rely on algorithmic
trading, along the lines of Vanguard's exchange-traded funds:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/dealbook/blackrock-actively-managed-funds-computer-models.html?_r=0

There are still some actively managed funds at BlackRock, and this
area of the business is still profitable. But it's not clear how long
it will continue to be.

Eric

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


Brian,
So your pledge not to reply to my posts didn't last long.
I would have thought even you would know what a pyramid scheme was.
AA

On 4/2/2017 6:46 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:



Rossi kindled interest in a similar fashion to Bernie Madoff!


*From:* Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:38 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
<http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/>
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.



Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.







AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously
here on vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a
great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending
time boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others
here, more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM

<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=223#comment-1273347>


Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be
real to obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked
yesterday, gives one proton, one electron and one
antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you
have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
number conservation law: therefore you have to assume the
emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton
( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that
the law is respected. You could say that this sounds a
little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit
without this trick the Standard Model would brutally
crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is
better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


Che,
Have you ever done anything apart from bitch about others failings? 
Well. do tell us.


AA

On 4/2/2017 4:38 PM, Che wrote:



On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 1:33 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
<http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/>
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.



Where's the BEEF??
Where's the damned water-heater the World was promised..?
(Where's the 'Orbo' Revolution, for that matter...)

Damned 'private-property' interests.
Capitalist 'efficiency' (Over-Unity, at that) at its best...
Pfft.







AA



On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously
here on vortex-L?

At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a
great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending
time boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others
here, more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM

<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=223#comment-1273347>


Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be
real to obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked
yesterday, gives one proton, one electron and one
antineutrino: why? Because at the left of the neutron
decay equation you do not have leptons, at the right you
have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
number conservation law: therefore you have to assume the
emission of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton
( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) =
zero leptons also at the right of the equation, so that
the law is respected. You could say that this sounds a
little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is, albeit
without this trick the Standard Model would brutally
crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is
better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Boston Dynamics latest robot looks less humanoid


I hope others watch the following videos of the Atlas series of robots too.
Imagine what the next generation will be like powered by LENR instead of 
batteries.

AA

On 4/2/2017 12:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Here is the latest Boston Dynamics robot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7xvqQeoA8c

It looks less humanoid, and less like a pack horse or other animal 
than previous models. It travels on wheels, but it can easily go down 
a flight of stairs, or hop over a large object. It is faster, more 
maneuverable and more graceful than previous models. It has evolved 
away from the animal model toward something you can only build with 
machinery.


As I see it, this is a good example of the evolution of new 
technology. It starts off literally built from old technology. Then it 
becomes an imitation of the old. Early railroad carriages were made 
from horse carriages. They were terrible! See:


http://railroad.lindahall.org/essays/rail-cars.html

Early automobile resembled buggies. Later, as designers become used to 
the new invention, and they understand its potential better, it looks 
less like the older version.


As I said in my book, in the early stages, in some cases: "With 
ingenuity and extra effort, the limitations of the old were imposed on 
the new."


Here is a cute robot that pedals and balances a miniature bicycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3vfSQePcs

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/
Like it or not,  Rossi rekindled interest in LENR like no other has.
AA


On 4/2/2017 12:12 PM, Che wrote:


Have I missed something? Why is Rossi still being taken seriously here 
on vortex-L?


At the very least, his proprietary secrecy has cost Science a great deal.






On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time
boning up on atomic physics.

What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here,
more expert than me, will comment.

1.
Andrea Rossi
March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM

<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892=223#comment-1273347>


Eugene Atthove:
As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the
nuclear physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to
obtain the respect of the leptons conservation law.
For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday,
gives one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why?
Because at the left of the neutron decay equation you do not
have leptons, at the right you have one lepton and this would
be against the leptons number conservation law: therefore you
have to assume the emission of an antineutrino, so you have
one plus lepton ( the electron ), one minus lepton ( the
antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the right of the
equation, so that the law is respected. You could say that
this sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is,
albeit without this trick the Standard Model would brutally
crack down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is
better the trick.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


Axil,
I suppose that the paper you referenced could be right but their 
explanation is so lousy I don't know.  I know what a soliton is but a 
half soliton sounds like clapping with one hand.  It is reminiscent of 
string theory.
You are right is saying "Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in 
science, LENR is very esoteric."  It is unfortunate.  At least Mills 
tries to explain things in a more visual way.  Seems to me that if one 
really understands something it can be described in a much more lucid 
fashion.

AA

On 4/1/2017 9:21 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
LENR will redefine a goodly amount of our current science. 
Unfortunately because of this new paradigm in science, LENR is very 
esoteric.


To support my assertion, this following reference shows that the 
Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) quasiparticle produces a monopole 
magnetic field.


Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly.  I don't know and
don't have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well
enough to understand if they are right.  As far as I know, no one
has ever demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them
as real.  The proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's
E-Cat works. In both cases I'd rather wait and see.

AA

On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a
monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field
formatted to support  monopole flux lines.

The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic
field (almost a monopole formated magnetic field).

This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html
<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html>


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these
smaller particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the
individual's belief than pinned down by experiment.  Let me
know when someone /proves/ the existence of a magnetic monopole.

AA


On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and
the weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic
particles are the effects of how those forces function. The
strong and the weak force produce the pion, muons, and
mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But
these particles are just the effects of what the strong
force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition where the strong
force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the
results of this change in behavior.

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of
nature cannot change unless they are affected by the
application of extremes in energy. If enough energy is
present, then the fundamental forces will gradually become
unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not
behave in this way. As Rossi states, these forces change
when a special type of magnetism is applied to the
fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the
quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the
action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But
informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the
proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole
magnetic force.

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having
LENR theory correct in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha
<danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something
evident. And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi
and I think all is wrong with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi
learnt that. Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy
evidence does nothing for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


Axil,
So you say, and I don't mean that disparagingly. I don't know and don't 
have the time to investigate those esoteric theories well enough to 
understand if they are right.  As far as I know, no one has ever 
demonstrated a magnetic monopole but some talk about them as real.  The 
proof is less convincing to me than that Rossi 's E-Cat works. In both 
cases I'd rather wait and see.


AA

On 4/1/2017 7:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a 
monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to 
support  monopole flux lines.


The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropic field 
(almost a monopole formated magnetic field).


This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.

That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.

To refresh your memory, see

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg108069.html


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:36 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller
particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's
belief than pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone
/proves/ the existence of a magnetic monopole.

AA


On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the
weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are
the effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak
force produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now
factoring into his theory. But these particles are just the
effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a
condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The
particles are the results of this change in behavior.

Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature
cannot change unless they are affected by the application of
extremes in energy. If enough energy is present, then the
fundamental forces will gradually become unified. This is the
main tenet in supersymmetry.

But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in
this way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special
type of magnetism is applied to the fundamental forces of nature.
Rossi has picked the quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that
changes the action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong.
But informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the
proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic
force.

But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR
theory correct in its most basic aspects.

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha
<danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident.
And you seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all
is wrong with IH "evidences".

    2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt
that. Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does
nothing for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge
of particle physics. He probably learned about this when
writing his last paper.





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Partly true.  A lot of your professors probably went to school about 
that time.  I went to college before that.  I suppose it is impossible 
for you to  consider that one could keep up to date in a subject if 
motivated to do so.  In passing. General Relativity was discovered 1905 
- 1915.


AA

On 4/1/2017 6:42 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
That's philosophy of relativity. And that's from the 70's, not long 
after it was inventive. Moreover, you don't need to know particle 
physics to study relativity.


2017-04-01 16:39 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:


Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have
no reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for
many years.
AA

Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.


Axil,
I am not able to judge the properties of many of these smaller 
particles.  They seem to be more a matter of the individual's belief 
than pinned down by experiment.  Let me know when someone /proves/ the 
existence of a magnetic monopole.


AA

On 4/1/2017 3:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak 
force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the 
effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak force 
produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into 
his theory. But these particles are just the effects of what the 
strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition where the strong 
force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the results of 
this change in behavior.


Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature 
cannot change unless they are affected by the application of extremes 
in energy. If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces 
will gradually become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry.


But as witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this 
way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of 
magnetism is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has 
picked the quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the 
action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. But informed by 
other LENR experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active 
magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic force.


But we must give him his due, Rossi is very close to having LENR 
theory correct in its most basic aspects.


On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com 
<mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And
you seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong
with IH "evidences".

2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. 
Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing

for your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of
particle physics. He probably learned about this when writing
his last paper.





-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ

danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Rossi got a PhD in Philosophy with a thesis on relativity.  I have no 
reason to think he didn't know something of atomic physics for many years.

AA

On 4/1/2017 3:13 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am not being snarky. I am just stating something evident. And you 
seem to forget that I side with Rossi and I think all is wrong with IH 
"evidences".


2017-04-01 13:51 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:


Why be so snarky? You have no clue when Rossi learnt that. 
Jumping to conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for

your credibility.

AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of
particle physics. He probably learned about this when writing his
last paper.





--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com <mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com>

Re: [Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

Why be so snarky?  You have no clue when Rossi learnt that.  Jumping to 
conclusions on such flimsy evidence does nothing for your credibility.


AA

On 3/31/2017 6:10 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Not really a big deal. That's a merely cursory knowledge of particle 
physics. He probably learned about this when writing his last paper.

[Vo]: Rossi on atomic physics.

2017-03-31 Thread a.ashfield

It has been evident for years that Rossi has been spending time boning 
up on atomic physics.


What he writes here makes sense to me, but perhaps others here, more 
expert than me, will comment.


1.
   Andrea Rossi
   March 31, 2017 at 12:55 PM
   


   Eugene Atthove:
   As a matter of fact, neutrinos and antineutrinos in the nuclear
   physics equations are “tricks”, assumed to be real to obtain the
   respect of the leptons conservation law.
   For example: the neutron decay, of which we talked yesterday, gives
   one proton, one electron and one antineutrino: why? Because at the
   left of the neutron decay equation you do not have leptons, at the
   right you have one lepton and this would be against the leptons
   number conservation law: therefore you have to assume the emission
   of an antineutrino, so you have one plus lepton ( the electron ),
   one minus lepton ( the antineutrino ) = zero leptons also at the
   right of the equation, so that the law is respected. You could say
   that this sounds a little bit tricky, like an artifact, but…it is,
   albeit without this trick the Standard Model would brutally crack
   down: realistically, between a crack and a trick is better the trick.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-30 Thread a.ashfield

Alain,
Your linked piece set up a straw man. I have been around too long and
seen to much of the world jump on board the latest consensus. With LENR
the evidence that is works is sufficient to think it does. That can't
be said for individuals like Rossi and Mills - yet. I don't know for
sure, but then neither do the very vocal opponents who have done great
harm to the science by ensuring adequate funds to prove it one way or
the other is withheld.

Hang in there. Rossi says he will demonstrate the QuarkX this Summer
and Mills expects to have a working prototype then too. It has not
taken longer than usual to reach this point with a new, revolutionary
technology.

On 3/30/2017 3:47 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

color blind in a sea of red flags

It seems some consider that a place wher you can debate is a place
where the enemy have control, especially if he raises a mass of clear
evidence that are very very annoying.

LENR community have to clean it's glasses, like APS have to.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/REP_4_BW_nolinks_corrected%201.pdf
<http://www.princeton.edu/%7Erbenabou/papers/REP_4_BW_nolinks_corrected%201.pdf>

Let it be clear that, like most of all people having an opinion, I am
paid by nobody, have no asset invested (unlike Sifferkoll who have
clear conflict of interest, unlike ECW who depend on e-cat).
Lenr-forum is, by luck, branded on LENR, a solidly proven phenomenon,
who scope is however questioned (from proven PdD, to much more like
NiH, biotransmutation, ), and moderators (not me, i don't moderate,
sorry) stuggle with aggressive people on all sides, attacking ad
hominem, often without arguments, or like here with conspiracy
theories, because available facts cannot be defended.

I'm sincerely tired to see how we tolerate scam artist.
I wait for the hanging of a few more.

Suspending you disbelief is a good things (I did that on Rossi for too
long), provided this is not to believe however, but there is a moment
where evidences are so clear, that like a physisict have to admit LENr
is a real phenomenon, we have to admit Rossi manipulated the tests,
and Levi failed to measure heat correctly in Lugano.

As jed says, it seems the domain is expiring slowly despite our
unjustified enthusiasm.

How many good lab professional calorimetry published recently ?
How many modern instruments used to analyse details of the NAE,
radiation emitted, anisotropy and spectrum ?

there are, but so few.
SKINR, ENEA, Coolescence ? and even, what is the real budgets?
I compare their equipments wit the one used to develop next generation
of accumulators, of superconductors, of TEG ...

Most work are done with old equipments, if not kitchen devices,
sometime manipulated by experienced scientists, and sometime just by
hobbyists.

Time for spring cleaning.

2017-03-29 23:32 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

I view post modernism as a sick joke, expressed by generally
meaningless sentences. Why Puckrose would waste so many words
writing about it is a puzzle. Making astroturf has a purpose
even if it is evil and for greed.
AA

On 3/29/2017 4:38 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Maybe this is because of the French

https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/

<https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/>

I have the subtle impression some of us live in an information
bubble...
Is it me?

2017-03-29 18:14 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:

It seems that this forum with Beene, Jed Rothwell et al are
doing a pretty good job of "astroturfing"
https://youtu.be/-bYAQ-ZZtEU (Thanks Sifferkoll)

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-29 Thread a.ashfield

I view post modernism as a sick joke, expressed by generally meaningless 
sentences.  Why Puckrose would waste so many words writing about it is a 
puzzle.   Making astroturf has a purpose even if it is evil and for greed.

AA

On 3/29/2017 4:38 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

Maybe this is because of the French
https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/

I have the subtle impression some of us live in an information bubble...
Is it me?



2017-03-29 18:14 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:


It seems that this forum with Beene, Jed Rothwell et al are doing
a pretty good job of "astroturfing"
https://youtu.be/-bYAQ-ZZtEU  (Thanks Sifferkoll)

See also.

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/why-is-it-important-for-dardenindustrial-heat-to-take-control-of-the-lenr-forum/

<http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/why-is-it-important-for-dardenindustrial-heat-to-take-control-of-the-lenr-forum/>

AA


On 3/28/2017 4:00 PM, a.ashfield wrote:

Beene,
What makes you think that is Rossi?
Or do you just lap up fake news?

AA


On 3/28/2017 3:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing
mystery image of the reinvented-inventor has appeared on
lenr-forum.com <http://lenr-forum.com> ...


https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451685095794-8147171188661115195-o-jpg/

<https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451685095794-8147171188661115195-o-jpg/>


It's early for jury consultants, but the "Redford look" is
in this year, or perhaps AR is lecturing new hires at his
factory in Miami where robotic mass production of the
quark-X is underway... no? what about taking a break from
audition for "Most Interesting Man in the World" beer ad ?
Dos Equis can relabel it "quark-XX" if he gets the gig?

Stay thirsty my friend...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-29 Thread a.ashfield

It seems that this forum with Beene, Jed Rothwell et al are doing a 
pretty good job of "astroturfing"

https://youtu.be/-bYAQ-ZZtEU  (Thanks Sifferkoll)

See also. 
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/why-is-it-important-for-dardenindustrial-heat-to-take-control-of-the-lenr-forum/


AA

On 3/28/2017 4:00 PM, a.ashfield wrote:

Beene,
What makes you think that is Rossi?
Or do you just lap up fake news?

AA


On 3/28/2017 3:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing mystery 
image of the reinvented-inventor has appeared on lenr-forum.com ...


https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451685095794-8147171188661115195-o-jpg/ 



It's early for jury consultants, but the "Redford look" is in this 
year, or perhaps AR is lecturing new hires at his factory in Miami 
where robotic mass production of the quark-X is underway... no? what 
about taking a break from audition for "Most Interesting Man in the 
World" beer ad ? Dos Equis can relabel it "quark-XX" if he gets the gig?


Stay thirsty my friend...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Beene,
What makes you think that is Rossi?
Or do you just lap up fake news?

AA

On 3/28/2017 3:43 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
For anyone needing a smile (and don't we all?) an amazing mystery 
image of the reinvented-inventor has appeared on lenr-forum.com ...


https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/1532-17504250-10154451685095794-8147171188661115195-o-jpg/ 



It's early for jury consultants, but the "Redford look" is in this 
year, or perhaps AR is lecturing new hires at his factory in Miami 
where robotic mass production of the quark-X is underway... no? what 
about taking a break from audition for "Most Interesting Man in the 
World" beer ad ? Dos Equis can relabel it "quark-XX" if he gets the gig?


Stay thirsty my friend...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Beene,
You don't get to order me not to comment.
As I said, it it probably better for you to insult those who are not 
here to answer you.  Otherwise they might show up your "palpable ignorance,"


AA

On 3/28/2017 12:45 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

 a.ashfield wrote:

I confirm that I am not being paid by anybody.  If you think my 
English is the same as Rossi's you need your head examined.


Enough of this nonsense. How about this - I refrain from comment on 
your posts and you don't comment on mine...

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Beene,
I confirm that I am not being paid by anybody.  If you think my English 
is the same as Rossi's you need your head examined.


I have not said I KNOW if the E-Cat works, despite your claim.  I have 
consistently said "Wait and see."  II think it probably does work.  
Unlike you I don't automatically assume the evidence is all error or fraud.


As I suggested earlier, perhaps you should restrict your insults to 
those who are not here to defend themselves.


AA

On 3/28/2017 11:33 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:


I concluded some time ago that Ashfield is not being paid by Rossi 
and is commenting in a manner that is well meaning, independent and 
without any kind of compensation, be it egotistical gratification or 
otherwise.




OK, he is not being paid - I will accept your word on that, although 
Rossi has on numerous occasions posted to his own forums, and possibly 
to a few others, using a made-up identity and making the customary and 
identical grammatical mistakes as a tip-off to the duplicity.


I am not saying that AA is Rossi's sock puppet or surrogate, but it is 
curious that he wants everyone else to withhold judgement on AR except 
himself... which does not sound very scientific to me. "Idealism" on 
any cause - though often admirable, can be dangerous when taken to 
extremes.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


ps.
My understanding of the capacitors was that they were required to start 
the plasma from cold.  Not clear if they are required with the new 
liquid silver electrodes.

AA

On 3/28/2017 9:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.


Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to 
account of the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that 
Mills power supply contains large caps - as shown in early images 
which Mills removed from his site. Either way that is ignorance of 
basic facts which explain the lack of a real anomaly based on appearances.



The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is 
further ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very 
long periods on capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea 
to stop so-called "libel" of Rossi is further ignorance of both law 
and facts.



I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane 
pro-Rossi postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. 
Apparently, since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share 
the blame, instead of admitting his gullibility. He should be posting 
to Rossi's sock-puppet blog - where his views will be appreciated.




 Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did 
not comment on capacitors.




----
*From:* a.ashfield
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone 
after it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what 
conditions are attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but 
of course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by 
division by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.



--------
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input 
power why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.




----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, 
or do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a 
large amount of excess heat.."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. 
He could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within 
two days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it 
and conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure 
=  ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel exp

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Beene,
"It (plasma) can simply be considered as a gaseous mixture of negatively 
charged electrons and highly charged positive ions, being created by 
heating a gas or by subjecting gas to a strong electromagnetic field. 
However, true plasma production is from the distinct separation of these 
ions and electrons that produces an electric field, which in turn, 
produces electric currents and magnetic fields" Wikipedia.
Apparently you think a relatively cool, partially ionized gas like a 
neon display is the same as a more fully ionized hot plasma in the sun, 
or  what apparently is in the SunCell.


You accuse me of not understanding capacitance well enough to know that 
they were used to fake the "self running" plasma.  Where did I say that 
didn't happen?  Earlier you claimed you had not written that.
You didn't give the period of self sustaining operation,nor the power 
required to run it unsustained, nor the capacity of the capacitors 
required t do that.  You simply waved your arms.  "Big" doesn't cut it.


If you used Occam's razor you would cut yourself because your bias is 
that neither the SunCell nor the E-Cat can possibly work, so ANY 
evidence that they do is either error or fraud.


Yes, you do make libelous statements although I doubt it is worth the 
time to go after you for them.


AA

On 3/28/2017 9:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



Ashfield's ignorance of basic facts here is palpable.


Either he does not understand that capacitors store enough energy to 
account of the "self-running" of the SunCell, or he was unaware that 
Mills power supply contains large caps - as shown in early images 
which Mills removed from his site. Either way that is ignorance of 
basic facts which explain the lack of a real anomaly based on appearances.



The statement that common CFL lighting does not contain a plasma is 
further ignorance. The belief that plasma devices cannot run for very 
long periods on capacitance is further ignorance. His continual plea 
to stop so-called "libel" of Rossi is further ignorance of both law 
and facts.



I am not sure what he hope to gain by these endless and inane 
pro-Rossi postings - but it is not respect for his technical ability. 
Apparently, since Rossi has made a fool out of him, he wishes to share 
the blame, instead of admitting his gullibility. He should be posting 
to Rossi's sock-puppet blog - where his views will be appreciated.




 Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did 
not comment on capacitors.




--------
*From:* a.ashfield
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone 
after it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what 
conditions are attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but 
of course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by 
division by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.



----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input 
power why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.




----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


On 3/26/2017 9:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
"Do you understand capacitance?"

You would do better if you stuck to insulting those that are not here to 
defend themselves.


AA


On 3/28/2017 5:31 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


I may be arrogant when it comes to Mills, Rossi  and Godes, but I did 
not comment on capacitors.




----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 9:48 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after 
it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are 
attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a 
plasma again?  Mills' plasma can melt large tungsten electrodes but of 
course that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by division 
by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.



--------
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.




----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, 
or do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional.  That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that 
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for 
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature 
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good 
evidence that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, 
though one might quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield 
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

PEVs are pocket change in a game of this magnitude. Time is of the
essence. If they were going to have trouble with a controller, that
would still happen.

On 3/27/2017 6:44 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
>> That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water
calorimetry.

I believe that they would not risk damaging the photovoltaics with a
bad controller and spend quite some time to make it robust and
verified, why not
spend time on validating the technology first or in parallel with this
effort. My impression is that they treat the PEV's as expensive
equipment that used
wrongly could stall the development. But you are right that if these
risks are small and if adding the PEV are a simple add-on then why not
buy a Tesla

and have some fun.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:19 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when
they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."

That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to
having photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with
water calorimetry.

On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:

As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to
close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old
water bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the
experiment after just a short time. Closing the system can reveal
new caveats and difficulties so this step can take considerable
more time than what we heard so far. I got the impression that
these validatoins will be done when they close the system
reliably and not when they manage to get the photovoltaics
functioning which is logical. But sure they should know by know
the ball park of the release of energy if they are honest, and
there have been several attempts to characterize this ballpark
and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW
from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and
rules of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just
the videos so the careful need to wait for better evidences as
always. As I tell all people I discuss this with, let's wait and
see, what comes will come but sure it is a fun and entertaining
ride - making energy from constructing dark matter, thats a great
lol, and even greater so if it turns out to be real.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins
<rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he
has made even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The
one quick bomb calorimetry demo done was very crude
calorimetry, was not believable, and a paper was not
published on it. If Mills wants to convince his critics, he
should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve
hours). He should describe the experiment in detail, and
provide data and analysis. He wouldn't have to publish
anything about what is inside his black box. He doesn't need
to wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this measurement.
He could establish credibility with one such paper. If he
published a credible paper, we would believe his result with
some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the
same class of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated
science. He shows pretty stuff, but the data is never
published, and then he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences.
Mills says he will demonstrate the SunCell producing
power soon after the required photovoltaics are developed
and in pace - later this year. Obviously he can't do
that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that,
without proof. I have trouble understanding the vocal
critics here who seem to be of a class "NO! What was the
question?" Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

<http://www.scotsman.com/news/

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Brian,
Neither you not I are close enough to know why Mills hasn't gone after 
it.  Probably he doesn't need it.  You don't know what conditions are 
attached to the $1B either.
Of course you assume the worst.  Where in every house is there a plasma 
again?  Mills' plasma can melt large  tungsten electrodes but of course 
that is no proof of high heat, right?

You asked me if I knew what a capacitor was.  Talk about arrogance.

AA


On 3/27/2017 6:17 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Sometimes it is best to shave with Occam's razor.


Bill Gates says he will invest $1B in any real new source of energy. 
Why hasn't Mills addressed this source.



Mills will not allow any discussion of this opportunity, because he 
would have to submit to due diligence.



But the mindless followers will argue about IP strategies to avoid 
this technological collision.



The people who want to give Mills, Rossi and Godes a free pass have 
succumbed to the infinite upside potential in contrast to modest 
investment.   They cannot fathom the magnitude of a successful 
experiment, so the risk/rewards calculations are obtained by division 
by zero.





*From:* Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com>
*Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 5:38 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.


If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is 
challenging.




----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat? 
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or 
do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point.  Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional. That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that 
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for 
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature 
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence 
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one 
might quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make 
sense of those equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit 
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly 
based on those equations.  If you can do this, it would be a very 
helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the 
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived 
from them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Niobium - Iridium thermocouples


Bob
I think Type S would be good for your range.  Type S works well for 
months.  I never understood why MFMP used type K.   I offered them an 
oz. of Pl/Rh alloy some while ago, that they could trade for type S 
thermocouples, but they never took me up on it.

AA

On 3/27/2017 5:22 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Presently I am using k-type thermocouples outside of their comfortable 
range to 1200C.  Bob Cook was suggesting the Nb-Ir thermocouples in 
place of k-type.  MFMP has used before a b-type thermocouple, but it 
was quite expensive.  I would love to find an inexpensive (but 
controlled) s-type or b-type thermocouple because they would be easy 
to integrate into my system.  If the Nb-Ir thermocouple were readily 
available at low cost and had a reasonable S/N I would welcome that 
too. When you buy from Omega, they have controls to insure the alloys 
are in spec. so as to control the voltage vs. temp to a standard.  I 
would like the same assurance for alternative thermocouple types too.  
I also need lead wires to the junction of about 40".


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:09 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Bob,
What do you want the thermocouples for?  ie what temperature?
I have never used Niobium - Iridium thermocouples in the glass
industry.  We always used type S, and type B for more stable
results over years duration, for things like furnace crowns at
1550C, but this had the disadvantage of smaller output.  The
platinum migrates to the Rh leg over time, but we found a minimum
wire diameter was also necessary for long life due to
crystallization of Pl.
AA

On 3/27/2017 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Regarding the Nb-Ir thermocouples ... Bob, can you suggest a
source for these thermocouples and their voltage calibration
data? For my experiments, the cost of the hardware is coming out
of my own pocket - not someone else's deep pocket.  For k-type
thermocouples, the voltage-temperature profile is built into my
DAQ. For the Nb-Ir, I suspect, I will have to read the voltage
and convert it to temperature with a custom LUT in Labview.  All
doable if the voltage is not too low to be noisy and if the
couples are not too expensive.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM, <bobcook39...@gmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Jones—

You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the
following:

“The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any
further conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an
enormous amount of money by Elforsk and yet made stupid
errors, notably failing to use high temp thermocouples for
verification - plus he also failed to calibrate near the
running temperature - unforgivable, since his errors have
poisoned the positive aspects.”

I recently made the same comment about using good high
temperature T/C’s to Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H
automated test at MFMP.  I suggested he use a Nb-Ir couple
for high temperature measurements of the outside of his glow
stick-like experiment.  The couple is good for more than 2000
C I believe.

With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium
combo is a reasonable thermo-electric source of power as
well, and it could well replace Pu-238 as a reliable,
long-term power supply for remote locations or space
applications without the hazard associated with Pu-238.

Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:Niobium - Iridium thermocouples


Bob,
What do you want the thermocouples for?  ie what temperature?
I have never used Niobium - Iridium thermocouples in the glass 
industry.  We always used type S, and type B for more stable results 
over years duration, for things like furnace crowns at 1550C, but this 
had the disadvantage of smaller output.  The platinum migrates to the Rh 
leg over time, but we found a minimum wire diameter was also necessary 
for long life due to crystallization of Pl.

AA

On 3/27/2017 2:30 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Regarding the Nb-Ir thermocouples ... Bob, can you suggest a source 
for these thermocouples and their voltage calibration data?  For my 
experiments, the cost of the hardware is coming out of my own pocket - 
not someone else's deep pocket.  For k-type thermocouples, the 
voltage-temperature profile is built into my DAQ.  For the Nb-Ir, I 
suspect, I will have to read the voltage and convert it to temperature 
with a custom LUT in Labview.  All doable if the voltage is not too 
low to be noisy and if the couples are not too expensive.


On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM, > wrote:


Jones—

You note regarding the Lugano test and Higgins assessment the
following:

“The systemic optical false assumptions have rendered any further
conclusion unscientific. Levi was reportedly paid an enormous
amount of money by Elforsk and yet made stupid errors, notably
failing to use high temp thermocouples for verification - plus he
also failed to calibrate near the running temperature -
unforgivable, since his errors have poisoned the positive aspects.”

I recently made the same comment about using good high temperature
T/C’s to Higgins with respect to his own Ni-H automated test at
MFMP.  I suggested he use a Nb-Ir couple for high temperature
measurements of the outside of his glow stick-like experiment. 
The couple is good for more than 2000 C I believe.


With a high temperature LENR heat source the Niobium/Iridium combo
is a reasonable thermo-electric source of power as well, and it
could well replace Pu-238 as a reliable, long-term power supply
for remote locations or space applications without the hazard
associated with Pu-238.

Bob Cook

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Stefan,
"I got the impression that these validatoins will be done when they
close the system reliably and not when they manage to get the
photovoltaics functioning which is logical."

That does not sound logical to me. They are close enough to having
photovoltaics that it seems pointless to mess around with water calorimetry.

On 3/27/2017 1:54 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:
As I understand the crucial thing to achieve good evidences is to
close the reactor and run it for long enough time with plain old water
bath calormetry. Previously he had to shut down the experiment after
just a short time. Closing the system can reveal new caveats and
difficulties so this step can take considerable more time than what we
heard so far. I got the impression that these validatoins will be done
when they close the system reliably and not when they manage to get
the photovoltaics functioning which is logical. But sure they should
know by know the ball park of the release of energy if they are
honest, and there have been several attempts to characterize this
ballpark and all tell the same story. Also a system that releases 10MW
from 10KW for say 15s should be obvious from pure inspection and rules
of thumb estimates - but that conclusion is hard from just the videos
so the careful need to wait for better evidences as always. As I tell
all people I discuss this with, let's wait and see, what comes will
come but sure it is a fun and entertaining ride - making energy from
constructing dark matter, thats a great lol, and even greater so if it
turns out to be real.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has
made even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The one
quick bomb calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was
not believable, and a paper was not published on it. If Mills
wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable
time period (at least twelve hours). He should describe the
experiment in detail, and provide data and analysis. He wouldn't
have to publish anything about what is inside his black box. He
doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to make this
measurement. He could establish credibility with one such paper.
If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result with

some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same
class of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science.
He shows pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then

he moves on to something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills
says he will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon
after the required photovoltaics are developed and in pace -
later this year. Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without
proof. I have trouble understanding the vocal critics here
who seem to be of a class "NO! What was the question?"
Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

<http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376>

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Bob,
" If Mills wants to convince his critics, he should publish credible
calorimetry of one of his devices over the course of a reasonable time
period (at least twelve hours). He should describe the experiment in
detail, and provide data and analysis."

I doubt he has any incentive to convert the skeptics. His schedule is
for a fully working SunCell this summer. From the comments here I doubt
even that will convince them

On 3/27/2017 12:16 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I don't think anyone outside of Mills' team can say that he has made
even 1W of excess heat from any of his devices. The one quick bomb
calorimetry demo done was very crude calorimetry, was not believable,
and a paper was not published on it. If Mills wants to convince his
critics, he should publish credible calorimetry of one of his devices
over the course of a reasonable time period (at least twelve hours).
He should describe the experiment in detail, and provide data and
analysis. He wouldn't have to publish anything about what is inside
his black box. He doesn't need to wait on mythical photovoltaics to
make this measurement. He could establish credibility with one such
paper. If he published a credible paper, we would believe his result
with some measure of confidence. There must be a reason he hasn't
established his credibility this way.

Without having done this, he is relegating himself into the same class
of pseudo-science as Rossi: hyped un-demonstrated science. He shows
pretty stuff, but the data is never published, and then he moves on to
something else.

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills says
he will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the
required photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this
year. Obviously he can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without
proof. I have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who
seem to be of a class "NO! What was the question?" Strikes me as
very unscientific.

Slightly related see.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

<http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376>

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

Brian,

He has demonstrated the SunCell to various audiences. Mills says he
will demonstrate the SunCell producing power soon after the required
photovoltaics are developed and in pace - later this year. Obviously he
can't do that before.

You are saying he is a fraud and will never do that, without proof. I
have trouble understanding the vocal critics here who seem to be of a
class "NO! What was the question?" Strikes me as very unscientific.

Slightly related see.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/uk-should-be-generating-research-into-world-changing-cold-fusion-system-1-4400376

On 3/27/2017 5:38 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:

It has never been independently observed, but is often quoted.

If it was true, he could openly demonstrate it operating.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Supposedly the plasma is >3500C. As it runs without any input power
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is
challenging.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or
do you think they are all lying?

On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:

A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large
amount of excess heat..."

Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and
conduct it for him.

Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is: No data = no failure =
ambiguity coupled with enticing potential profits = large
investments while showing nothing.

If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement. I think that is the
point. Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds
whether Mills is a genius or delusional. That he can come up with
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that
his program can show the position nuclei and electrons for
complicated molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature
to be so dogmatic that he is wrong. Likewise there is good evidence
that the SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one
might quibble about the actual value.

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics. I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.

Did you take a look at the link I sent? Can you help us to make
sense of those equations? What would be ideal would be an explicit
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly
based on those equations. If you can do this, it would be a very
helpful thing. My strong hunch: it is not possible, because the
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived
from them. But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?


Jones,
I wonder if you are confused by the rating of a CFL being 5000C. The 
argon in a CFL is not nearly completely ionized, it is a gas discharge, 
but not a full plasma. Being fully ionized is not necessary for the CLF 
gas, which is merely there to hold the mercury that emits the UV 
radiation that excites the visible light emitting phosphors on the 
inside of the tube. The mercury efficiently emits much of the power that 
is deposited by the electric current, which keeps the gas cool.


Considerable  heat from the SunCell is likely judging from the need of 
dark glass to view it, particularly as the bulk of the power is above 
the visible limit.  Whether it is excess heat depends on whether Mills, 
the independent verifiers, and the various audiences are telling the 
truth  You assume they are liars or incompetent or the whole thing is a 
fraud, without any proof.


I prefer to wait and see without making dogmatic libelous charges. Rossi 
was right, people like you will never believe any experiment only the 
sale of working commercial units.


AA

On 3/26/2017 9:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

a.ashfield wrote:

...Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C. 
A plasma at 3500C is commonplace and found in every house - but almost 
meaningless in terms of energy content... yet typical of Mills' genius 
at deception. The plasma in a common 5 watt CFL can be >6000C. 
Electrons in a plasma can be very hot since there is almost no mass to 
heat. Yet it sounds impressive!
As it runs without any input power why do you not think it generates 
any (excess) heat?
No excess heat is likely but low range excess is possible. Do you 
understand capacitance? A few ultracaps will power a small CFL for 15 
minutes with internal temps of 6,000C and thermal output in the few 
watt-hr range. There need be no input power to the circuit since the 
caps are charged at the outset.


Mills is the world expert at confusing gullible investors with 
meaningless combinations of inappropriate numbers. Rossi is less 
subtle. Mills favorite deception is conflating watts of power with 
watt-hrs of energy. And lest we forget, there was a picture of a 
prototype SunCell on the net a while back with distinctive blue 
Maxwell supercaps in the circuit, but that was before Mills restricted 
almost all relevant disclosure - so do not imagine that he is above 
the easy way to deceive.


Note: Mills could and probably does have excess energy, as this has 
been known/shown for a long time at low COP - but not enough to close 
the loop for an extended period. If he could close the loop, that 
would be the first thing he demonstrates. Same with Rossi. And 
everyone who matters would take notice!


Let's be clear -- Mills has not shown a system which will self-run for 
a week or even a day. A plasma running for an hour on ultracaps is 
YouTube teenage "gee-whiz" fodder.


Use your mind, man. You cannot assume total honesty when Mills/Rossi 
have built careers on misleading investors. The legal system is too 
slow to catch up with promoters who build scams on half-truths, usually.

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-26 Thread a.ashfield

Supposedly the plasma is  >3500C.  As it runs without any input power 
why do you not think it generates any (excess) heat?


AA

On 3/26/2017 7:35 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


They needn't be lying. Measuring energy flow with a plasma is challenging.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 1:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would 
you not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat?  
Several (hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or 
do you think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point.  Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional.  That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that his 
program can show the position nuclei and electrons for complicated 
molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature to be so 
dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence that the 
SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one might 
quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make 
sense of those equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit 
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly 
based on those equations. If you can do this, it would be a very 
helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the 
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived from 
them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-26 Thread a.ashfield


Brian,
Apart from some calorimetry on the SunCell in the early days, would you 
not think a self perpetuating plasma would produce some heat? Several 
(hired) independent investigators also back Mill's claims, or do you 
think they are all lying?


AA


On 3/26/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


A...". there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a large 
amount of excess heat..."



Amazingly, even RM offers no data or measurements on this issue. He 
could show water flow calorimetry to an accuracy of 50% within two 
days of set up and calibration. I would offer to pay for it and 
conduct it for him.


Alas, there is no calorimetry offered to the suggestible investors.

The mantra for Mills, Rossi and Godes is:  No data =   no failure = 
 ambiguity coupled with  enticing potential profits = large 
investments while showing nothing.


If they conducted tests and failed the investment stream would cease.

----
*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?
Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point.  Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds 
whether Mills is a genius or delusional.  That he can come up with 
values for particles that are more accurate than from QM and that his 
program can show the position nuclei and electrons for complicated 
molecules (proven) suggests to me that it is premature to be so 
dogmatic that he is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence that the 
SunCell produces a large amount of excess heat, though one might 
quibble about the actual value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the
skeptics.  I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in
Mills theories highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make 
sense of those equations? What would be ideal would be an explicit 
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly 
based on those equations. If you can do this, it would be a very 
helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the 
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived from 
them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-26 Thread a.ashfield


Eric,
I don't feel expert enough to pass judgement.  I think that is the 
point.  Physicists more expert than me can't make up their minds whether 
Mills is a genius or delusional.  That he can come up with values for 
particles that are more accurate than from QM and that his program can 
show the position nuclei and electrons for complicated molecules 
(proven) suggests to me that it is premature to be so dogmatic that he 
is wrong.  Likewise there is good evidence that the SunCell produces a 
large amount of excess heat, though one might quibble about the actual 
value.


AA

On 3/25/2017 5:52 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 4:49 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics. 
I have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories

highlighted by them.


Did you take a look at the link I sent?  Can you help us to make sense 
of those equations?  What would be ideal would be an explicit 
derivation of the electron-neutron mass ratio, which is purportedly 
based on those equations.  If you can do this, it would be a very 
helpful thing.  My strong hunch:  it is not possible, because the 
Mills neutron-electron mass ratio is ad hoc and was not derived from 
them.  But your knowledge here can help to dispel this impression.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Should Mills and Rossi be lumped together?

2017-03-25 Thread a.ashfield

To me it looks like the hand waving is largely from the skeptics.  I 
have yet to see a specific item that is wrong in Mills theories 
highlighted by them.


Rossi had it right years ago when he stated the skeptics will never 
believe an experiment but only the sale of working commercial units.


AA

On 3/25/2017 3:55 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Eric Walker wrote:
The thing that trips me up with BrLP is that the Grand Unified Theory 
of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) book is hand-wavy I guess I'm open 
to BrLP having some experimental phenomenon that keeps them going. 
But in that case I wonder why they would publish the several volumes 
of hand waving.  Is it because these books seem impressive to some 
people, who are unable to really assess the many pages of equations 
on their own?


It could well be more a case of an arrogant "genius" inventor who 
thinks a guaranteed way to win a Nobel prize is to produce an 
earth-shaking theory that ditches parts of QM, to explain anomalous 
energy producing experiments. He may have had a modest amount of real 
gain for a long time, in less than ideal form. The more hand-waving 
the better, to cover up the shortfall. Sound familiar?


So far, Mills has come close to the goal of having it all, and would 
probably have succeeded had he embraced the Thermacore work... way 
back then - especially if Chuck Haldeman had been allowed to publish. 
Too bad he could not bring himself to share the honors with others, 
since he is probably further away today from the big prize than in 
1995, even if the SunCell is gainful. Thermacore had solid gains of at 
least 150% over input, but that was not enough, apparently. Since 
then, Mills has alienated many scientists, seeing them all as jealous 
competitors.


Dufour and Mayer and others like Holmlid and Meulenberg may have saved 
the day for Ni-H ... in both theory and experiment, but their work 
contradicts Mills in important ways. Mills may be intellectually 
superior to any one of them alone, but may fail miserably in the end 
-- since he is locked into a fundamental error which they dodged.


You can look up the reviews of his Millsian software package and see 
why that too has been a huge disappointment.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Vertical farming

2017-03-18 Thread a.ashfield


Bob,
I didn't miss your point.  What Sardi said was that adding copper to a 
vitamin pill was not the answer.  I happen to have too much copper in my 
water even though the house is 27 years old, as I can tell from the 
blue/green stain left if the water drips.
Some, probably many, of the needs of the body for trace elements are 
poorly understood.  It is not a subject that gets much study and one 
reads that most published papers in medicine are not reproducible. I'm 
not an expert in the field, but as I said, think Sardi probably is.  If 
you know of a better one (or a better product) please let me know.  I 
have seen studies that claim there is no advantage for the average 
person to take a multi-vitamin pill.


AA

On 3/18/2017 8:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
I think you might have missed my point.  The body dumps excess 
minerals and vitamins out of your body through urination.  The body 
cannot separate zinc and copper in its task of dumping an excess.  So, 
if you have a normal amount of copper and supplement with zinc, the 
body will dump the excess zinc and will take copper with it.  Since  
you started with the correct amount of copper, by dumping copper 
(along with the zinc excess) you become copper deficient.  This also 
works the same way with sodium and potassium.  Take in too much sodium 
and the body's dumping of excess sodium can make you potassium 
deficient.  All of these "companion" minerals should be taken in balance.


Copper pipes passivate themselves pretty quickly with ordinary water, 
and the water that comes out of your tap will not contain much after 
the first year... Unless you have softened water. Soft water really 
wants to grab mineral salts and put them back into the water.  So, the 
combination of softened water and copper pipes will lead to a lot of 
copper in the water.  I have softened water, but it is flowing through 
plastic pipes.


On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 4:43 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Bob,
The Molecular Multi does contain Zinc.   I believe Dr. Sardi has
done his homework, although I suppose there are other opinions.  
Sardi writes this about copper.


Copper

NOT PROVIDED IN THE MOLECULAR MULTI

Copper is a strong oxidant. It is required for connective tissue
(collagen) formation.

The installation of copper in place of lead plumbing and piping
has changed the whole approach to copper nutrition. Inorganically
bound copper in dietary supplements and drinking water it much
more damaging to the brain than bound copper in foods. The
Alzheimer’s epidemic coincides with installation of copper
plumbing in developed but not undeveloped countries. [Nutrients
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26633489> 2015; Journal Trace
Element Research <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673823> 2012]

AA

On 3/18/2017 1:51 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

So, will the suppliers of the vegetables grown in this manner
supply a pill in the package for the missing nutrients in their
prodcuts?

It is not as easy as it sounds to find an acceptable supplement. 
The Formula Inc "Molecular Multi" is far from complete. Where are

the calcium, copper, and vanadium?  The body's regulatory system
dumps excess zinc and copper together (without discrimination). 
If copper and zinc are not taken simultaneously, dumping the

excess zinc will cause a copper deficiency.  Vanadium in trace
amounts helps prevent (and treat) adult onset diabetes. The
"Molecular Multi" may not even be "better than nothing".

So why aren't we in more trouble today with the lack of the
nutrients in farm produced vegetables?  Because meats are rich in
many of those nutrients and most of us eat meat. Despite the fact
that I hate the thought of eating animals, I recognize that with
today's marketplace foods, I would become malnourished by not
eating meat.  Eating veal is even more nutrient rich because
nutrient absorption by the young animals is far higher than older
animals.

Re: [Vo]:OT: Vertical farming

2017-03-18 Thread a.ashfield


Bob,
The Molecular Multi does contain Zinc.   I believe Dr. Sardi has done 
his homework, although I suppose there are other opinions. Sardi writes 
this about copper.


Copper

NOT PROVIDED IN THE MOLECULAR MULTI

Copper is a strong oxidant. It is required for connective tissue 
(collagen) formation.


The installation of copper in place of lead plumbing and piping has 
changed the whole approach to copper nutrition. Inorganically bound 
copper in dietary supplements and drinking water it much more damaging 
to the brain than bound copper in foods. The Alzheimer’s epidemic 
coincides with installation of copper plumbing in developed but not 
undeveloped countries. [Nutrients 
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26633489> 2015; Journal Trace 
Element Research <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673823> 2012]


AA

On 3/18/2017 1:51 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
So, will the suppliers of the vegetables grown in this manner supply a 
pill in the package for the missing nutrients in their prodcuts?


It is not as easy as it sounds to find an acceptable supplement.  The 
Formula Inc "Molecular Multi" is far from complete.  Where are the 
calcium, copper, and vanadium?  The body's regulatory system dumps 
excess zinc and copper together (without discrimination).  If copper 
and zinc are not taken simultaneously, dumping the excess zinc will 
cause a copper deficiency.  Vanadium in trace amounts helps prevent 
(and treat) adult onset diabetes.  The "Molecular Multi" may not even 
be "better than nothing".


So why aren't we in more trouble today with the lack of the nutrients 
in farm produced vegetables?  Because meats are rich in many of those 
nutrients and most of us eat meat.  Despite the fact that I hate the 
thought of eating animals, I recognize that with today's marketplace 
foods, I would become malnourished by not eating meat.  Eating veal is 
even more nutrient rich because nutrient absorption by the young 
animals is far higher than older animals.


On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:13 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


It's easy enough to take a good vitamin supplement like Fgrmulas
Inc's "Molecular Multi"

AA

On 3/18/2017 11:29 AM, H LV wrote:

Good questions.
Lets hope vertical farming is well studied before it becomes
common place or it could become another agricultural folly.

Harry

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Bob Higgins
<rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>> wrote:

One of the problems with agricultural vegetables today is
that they are devoid of the micronutrients that the human
body needs to be healthy.  These include a lot of trace
minerals (boron, calcium, vanadium, iodine, zinc, copper,
magnesium ...) that are found in fresh soil; but for 100
years, these micronutrients have been farmed out (and not
replaced). Farmers only add N-P-K back to the soil because
they found that doing so would make green plants, but that
doesn't mean that the resulting plants are chemically
nutritious for humans.  Historical farming was most
nutritious in flood plains because the flood silt would
restore the micronutrients to the soil.

Plants cannot absorb these micronutrients as oxides or
sulphates directly - they must be broken down by consumption
in bacteria within the soil and chemically converted to metal
chelates in the bacterial deficant before the plants can
absorb them.

So, how in a vertical farm are the core nutrients and
micronutrients supplied to the plant in a way that the plant
can absorb them?  Are they growing the bacteria in a vat from
which they extract the chelate-rich water (absorb-able
nutrients) for spraying on the plant roots?  Are the
resulting plants nutritious?

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:36 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com
<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Vertical farming is slowly becoming more common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_tvJtUHnmU
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_tvJtUHnmU>

Harry

Re: [Vo]:OT: Vertical farming

2017-03-18 Thread a.ashfield

It's easy enough to take a good vitamin supplement like Fgrmulas Inc's 
"Molecular Multi"


AA


On 3/18/2017 11:29 AM, H LV wrote:

Good questions.
Lets hope vertical farming is well studied before it becomes common 
place or it could become another agricultural folly.


Harry

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:


One of the problems with agricultural vegetables today is that
they are devoid of the micronutrients that the human body needs to
be healthy. These include a lot of trace minerals (boron, calcium,
vanadium, iodine, zinc, copper, magnesium ...) that are found in
fresh soil; but for 100 years, these micronutrients have been
farmed out (and not replaced). Farmers only add N-P-K back to the
soil because they found that doing so would make green plants, but
that doesn't mean that the resulting plants are chemically
nutritious for humans.  Historical farming was most nutritious in
flood plains because the flood silt would restore the
micronutrients to the soil.

Plants cannot absorb these micronutrients as oxides or sulphates
directly - they must be broken down by consumption in bacteria
within the soil and chemically converted to metal chelates in the
bacterial deficant before the plants can absorb them.

So, how in a vertical farm are the core nutrients and
micronutrients supplied to the plant in a way that the plant can
absorb them?  Are they growing the bacteria in a vat from which
they extract the chelate-rich water (absorb-able nutrients) for
spraying on the plant roots? Are the resulting plants nutritious?

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 8:36 AM, H LV > wrote:

Vertical farming is slowly becoming more common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_tvJtUHnmU


Harry

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-17 Thread a.ashfield

Jed Rothwell wrote:  AFAIK all of our great minds have so far failed to 
come to grips with consciousness


The difficulty had been exaggerated.  I don't think it is more than the 
ability of the brain to put together a 3D image of the local world and 
where you are in it.  Plus things like sound, temperature, smell and 
pressure on your body.


The smallest mammal is conscious  and they don't have large enough 
brains for anything more complicated.


AA

[Vo]:Good summary of LENR & Rossi by Mats Lewan

2017-02-28 Thread a.ashfield

Originally published in World Affairs in January, this has become 
available on Lewan's blog.
It is a good summary of the LENR situation with Rossi and the worldwide 
implications.


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/02/25/world-affairs-cold-fusion-an-impossible-invention/

AA

Re: [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?

2017-02-25 Thread a.ashfield


Thank you Brian.
I assume you mean 900C  ;-)
AA

On 2/25/2017 5:01 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:


Result for today:


At 650 Watts (full power) we could only reach 600C.

The K2CO3 melts at 891 C


We will add insulation and hopefully get to 9000 C tomorrow.




*From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 25, 2017 12:35 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?
Brian,
Where can we see the results?  Will you  be posting them here?
AA

On 2/25/2017 10:14 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


It is 1;12 aM

wE ARE LOADED, EVACUATED AND READY FOR 30PSI OF h2.

wE WILL SET THE POWER AT 400 WATTS TO BEGIN.


We hope to begin running by 11:30 AM




*From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
*Sent:* Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:10 AM
*To:* Vortex List
*Subject:* [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?
On this date in 1999, the great physicist Glen Seaborg died. Seaborg was
the discoverer of ten elements, including plutonium, and more than 100
isotopes - winning the Nobel prize in 1951. Element 106 is named 
after him.


And there is new action on this date which could make it a red letter
day, so to speak... kinda like the Scarlett letter??

It would be a fitting tribute if the "Thermacore runaway experiment"
being run today by Brian Ahern was to succeed (by self-destructing as
planned). It would open up a new era in Physics ...

...but don't let the heat (so to speak) get to you Brian ...

Re: [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?

2017-02-25 Thread a.ashfield


Brian,
Where can we see the results?  Will you  be posting them here?
AA

On 2/25/2017 10:14 AM, Brian Ahern wrote:


It is 1;12 aM

wE ARE LOADED, EVACUATED AND READY FOR 30PSI OF h2.

wE WILL SET THE POWER AT 400 WATTS TO BEGIN.


We hope to begin running by 11:30 AM




*From:* Jones Beene 
*Sent:* Saturday, February 25, 2017 10:10 AM
*To:* Vortex List
*Subject:* [Vo]:On this date ... in 2017?
On this date in 1999, the great physicist Glen Seaborg died. Seaborg was
the discoverer of ten elements, including plutonium, and more than 100
isotopes - winning the Nobel prize in 1951. Element 106 is named after 
him.


And there is new action on this date which could make it a red letter
day, so to speak... kinda like the Scarlett letter??

It would be a fitting tribute if the "Thermacore runaway experiment"
being run today by Brian Ahern was to succeed (by self-destructing as
planned). It would open up a new era in Physics ...

...but don't let the heat (so to speak) get to you Brian ...

Re: [Vo]:Working on the SIM gang

2017-02-23 Thread a.ashfield

The wired article is nonsense.  True that the entertainment industry 
will grow as people have a lot more spare time, but why should it be 
mainly in video games?   I think it more likely that many will start 
very small businesses in order to supplement the government UBI paycheck.


AA

On 2/23/2017 10:20 AM, Jones Beene wrote:


https://www.wired.com/2017/02/clive-thompson-future-of-work-is-gaming/

Interesting article here about the "future of work," presumably more 
relevant in a few decades when robots have all the jobs... but it make 
slightly more sense if you buy into the SIM argument. Well, it makes 
sense if you think about it without the immediate objection of turning 
reality into little more than child's play.


Yet, the SIM argument could be far more than ontological driveling, 
even if it ultimately spirals into a contest on a superficial level, 
and in fact many top thinkers have bought into the premise, especially 
Elon Musk. But even if entirely fictional and hypothetical, the base 
argument is a decent metaphor, in that it posits that all of us, 
including all of physics, are nothing more than a form of intelligent 
testing ...being played out either in "reality" or on a very advanced 
AI network... and/or there could be no difference as one will evolve 
to the other.


Now we add one more datum into the mix ... the identity of the players.

Gamers. But not just gamers of the "shooter" variety, being 
pre-programmed by the Pentagon to kill enemies of the state ... more 
like gaming of the SimCity type (on steroids). This would be a form of 
advance planning ("Dark City"  beings as in Roger Ebert's favorite 
film) where the "Strangers" who rebuild the world nightly are in fact 
gamers on their day job, including recently laid off Physicists 
needing a paycheck.


This is the BIG SIM where discoveries made in the digital world itself 
are immediately usable in the analog world... all of which of course 
assumes that at some level there is a "real world", instead of turtles 
all the way down.


In fact, this methodology (for low cost discovery beyond the limits of 
the known), which is done in the brain of an AI, could be why in one 
particular SIM the LENR game-level is still unsolved and going strong. 
No gamers have yet found out how to get off of this level. But a few 
could be getting close...

Re: [Vo]:Penon described the position of flow meter

2017-02-21 Thread a.ashfield


Jones,

This seems a typical negative piece from you.
I'm not a lawyer but I understand there are other ways to get the ERV's 
report entered as evidence, besides having Penon show up.


Why do you say Rossi would make a bad impression in court?  Everyone who 
has met him (IH excepted) say he is courteous and makes a favorable 
impression.


AA

On 2/21/2017 10:36 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Speaking of Penon, or should I say the absence of Penon, has anyone 
considered the rules of evidence in Federal Court for getting that ERV 
report into evidence?


As it stands now, Penon - who is the supposed expert who collected the 
data and wrote the report is unavailable to appear for deposition. 
This means that the data in the ERV report may not be entered into 
evidence at a trial, which means that the case will have to be 
dismissed... since the contract revolves directly around that report 
and its validity. But there are strict rules for admission of 
evidence, more so for criminal trials but also for civil and generally 
it would seem that Penon must appear in order to have his report 
allowed into evidence at all.


In fact, an eventual dismissal of the case, after maximizing the 
delays as long as possible - looks like a *desired outcome *from the 
Rossi perspective. He then can then blame both IH and the legal system 
as well as Krivit and so on. But the drama drags on - kind of a cross 
between Seinfeld, a "show about nothing" and The Leftovers, which is a 
warped take on what it means to have faith. Rossigate is about warped 
faith, no doubt there.


The one thing Rossi does not want is to risk a jury which rules 
against him. He would not be a believable witness with his ego and 
temperament, and a good lawyer will tear him to shreds on the stand. 
He expected to settle in the beginning (probably getting bad legal 
advice) - but IH refused and now Rossi cannot walk away without 
looking bad ... but without Penon, a favorable jury verdict is 
probably not possible due to the problem of getting the report 
admitted at all, not to mention the dubious details.


Bottom line: additional reliable information on the science of Ni-H  
will probably not be forthcoming to the public this year and further 
delay is anticipated. Rossi may be content to leave everything in 
limbo and claim to be a victim of greedy investors. That may work to 
his benefit for the next round in another location.


A nebulous outcome would allow him to look for new backers in Europe 
or Russia. The suckers who invested $20 million in Steorn - a 
completely obvious scam, are still out there.


But if a jury rules against him, the party is over. Do not hold your 
breath for a June trial.

Re: [Vo]:Penon described the position of flow meter

2017-02-21 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
I thought you said earlier that you had the plumbing layout but were not 
allowed to show it.  If so, there should be no doubt about whether there 
is  U in the system.


AA

On 2/20/2017 8:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There has been some discussion here about the position of the flow 
meter in Rossi's configuration. I have information from Rossi showing 
it was located in the gravity return between the customer site and the 
reservoir. I do not think there was a U pipe but I cannot rule that 
out 100%. Nothing like that is shown and no one who was there told me 
there is one -- and I did ask. Anyway, Abd pointed out that Penon 
described the configuration in one of the lawsuit documents. It is a 
little hard to understand Penon's English, so Abd added the comments 
in square brackets:


Quote

The steam is then passed through the customer’s facility, where it
cools up to its condensation. *

– flowmeter for measuring the flow rate of cooling water inlet
into the shelter. It is located along the line of return of the
water. between the Plant of the Customer and the 1 MW E-Cat.

The cooling water is contained in a tank, placed inside the Plant,
that receives the water from an external plant [sic, “tank”].

It is conveyed by pumps in [sic, “into”] the unit’s E-cat[s],
where it is heated to vaporize. The steam is collected in one tube
of the steam line, which conveys it to the outside of the shelter.

The water is so recycled to the internal [sic, external] tank in a
closed loop. The water is distilled water.

The external tank is connected with the internal tank, by a water
line and a floating valve, so that the level of water inside the
internal tank is maintained constant. The water flows from the
external tank to the internal tank by gravity. […]



* Note from Jed: "Cools up to its condensation" means it cools down 
until it condenses.


This contradicts assertions by Peter Gluck.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR Theoryplex, discussions some info

2017-02-21 Thread a.ashfield


Peter,
Thanks for posting Ed Storms comment.  I find it the best summary of the 
situation that I have seen so far.


I find the basic problem is with the Patent Office.   By making it so 
difficult to get patents related to LENR they have prevented the 
knowledge from becoming public.  Rossi has had no choice but to try and 
keep details secret.


 I think the way forward is most likely that Rossi will start selling 
the reactors.  I think the Tiger E-Cat works even if we don't know the 
COP, but the real hope of L:ENR becoming accepted this year is the tiny 
QuarkX.  Pity that so little is known about it.


AA

On 2/20/2017 3:27 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:


http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/02/feb-20-2017-lenr-theoryplex-discussions.html

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

Re: [Vo]:Nickel isotopes, cat-mouse and Russia

2017-02-19 Thread a.ashfield

Jones,
You have called me a Rossi fan but I have no trouble considering that he
may have used a rare isotope of Ni. That is the point. Nobody knows and
it is better to wait for full information.

It does not seem necessary, at least for relatively low COPs. See this
example of a paper on replicating Rossi. Or are you one of those like
Jed who is certain that it doesn't work and any replication must be flawed?

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ExcessHeatInLAH-Ni_Stepanov_English.pdf

On 2/19/2017 11:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Interesting article turned up, for those following the ongoing
Rossigate drama... starting about the 7th paragraph concerning Russia,
and the deployment of nickel isotopes for power, first to replace
strontium-90 but also "with possible applications for space travel."

http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2016-04-russia-setting-up-for-new-radioactive-batteries-months-after-norway-helped-shut-down-the-old-ones

According to the article, the active fuel will be Ni-63 which has been
produced from Ni-62 "in a centrifuge".

That info is a bit senseless without more detail - but it does point
to two things. First, Russia is already deploying Ni-63 as a beta
emitter which is a fully developed fuel source, not an inventor's
dream, and second the active isotope is derived from Ni-62 in some
undisclosed way - possibly as a byproduct. We already know that there
is large market for Ni-62 which Russia dominates - since the US
stopped making it twenty years ago.

Moreover, Ni-63 has a short half-life of 73 years and only releases
electrons of moderate energy - 67 keV which would NOT have been
noticed in LENR. For a light house, with an intense light beam, it
would require kilograms of Ni-63 so it must be moderately affordable
to Russians, in that context. The present price here is about
$20,000/gram and all US sellers get it from Russia.

There is further implication from this scenario - possibly that Ni-63
could be produced from Ni-62 more easily than being irradiated in a
nuclear reactor and then separated by centrifuge. LENR. Many theories
of NiH suggest that dense hydrogen acts as a virtual neutron. Would
the route for gain then first involve using dense hydrogen to convert
Ni-62 to Ni-63 using dense hydrogen in situ?

Funny thing, Rossi initially staked everything in his IP on a patent
application which protects the use of Ni-62 and admitted in his blog
that he was using it. Then the patent application appears to have
rejected, and we hear nothing more on it after the IH contract.

Ironically - for some idealist reason, even Rossi's strongest
supporters balk at the suggestion that his secret is a rare isotope,
despite its obvious fit, his many messages about it and the original
patent application. They apparently resist the implications of a
required costly isotope because of a preconceived notion about the
larger field of LENR providing almost limitless "free energy". But, it
is easy to see how the rare isotope fits into the category of "mouse"
if you believe that myth... so the inventor may have thought he could
solve the high-cost problem by using less of it, as a trigger.

It is unwise to be too idealistic about cheap energy such that one
refuses to consider what is becoming most likely from looking into the
public record, which includes the reality of Lugano being gainful, but
less gainful - and not with the salting of the ash with Ni-62, but
with the isotope being the actual fuel from the start, but the
inventor needing to hide that fact.

This viewpoint suggests:
1) LENR can happen with NiH far more easily with enrichment of the
isotope of nickel-62, which converts to Ni-63 via dense hydrogen

2) LENR as a robust energy source is therefore dependent on the cost
of a rare isotope, limiting its market

3) Ni-63 can be converted in situ and then produces about 50,000 time
more energy than combustion.

4) Even though the Ni-62 isotope will be brought down in cost,
eventually, in a similar way that U235 was, it will be expensive and
thus LENR will not propel society into the lofty realm of energy
independence as idealists want to believe.

5) To explain the failure of the megawatt system - this is of course
hypothetical but probably relates to the inventor's own self-deception
about steam, along with the fact that a two-stage "cat and mouse"
system with a tiny amount of Ni-62 as a trigger does not work as well
as he imagined, since he thought all along that his data was real
when it was bogus from the start, thanks to Penon. Rossi fooled
himself to the end.

In conclusion, it looks like the Ni-62/63 reaction, would provide a
compact source of energy as is already being implement by the
Russians, but likely too expensive for widespread civilian use, except
for a few niche applications. The big $ market could be military and
aerospace - where any small advantage can be "priceless" as they

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

2017-02-19 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
It looks to me that Bob was repeating my comment.  It is impossible to 
be sure, one way or the other. that the E-Cat works, without having all 
the data.  You said I was calling you a liar because of this and stopped 
replying to me.


If the instrumentation was so obviously useless on the 1 MW plant why on 
earth did IH agree to the instrumentation recommended by the ERV and 
even show potential customers around the plant saying how well it worked?


AA

On 2/18/2017 11:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bob Higgins > wrote:


Jed,   You are backing yourself into an extremist position with
your latest comments.


Saying that an experiment failed is not extremist. Most experiments fail.

  I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to
_prove_ that there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a
contrived "GPT".


The instruments and configuration that Rossi used could not prove 
anything. There might have been excess heat, but he would never detect 
it. However, I.H. used better instruments and saw nothing.


  XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi
claims, but that is not the same as 0 XH.


There was no excess heat. That is what they say, and I am confident 
they know what they are doing. Unless they are lying to me, they got 
nothing. It is not hard to see the heat balance is zero within the 
margin of error.


I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have
demonstrated that there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano
fuel system.


I do not think so. I think they made mistakes.

  In fact, MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH
in the Lugano experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by
the Lugano experimenters (JofCMNS v21).


MFMP has not seen any significant excess heat. In retrospect, there 
were so many mistakes at Lugano I do not think it means anything.


  Since this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it
lends credence to the claim that Rossi does have _some_ working
technology.


I disagree.

Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes
that Rossi has nothing . . .


You are wrong. They say he has nothing. I agree with their analysis. 
It is possible he had something in the past, but he has nothing now.



It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was
"throwing them a bone".  It is a low power, high temperature
technology.  I personally believe this works or I would not be
actively developing test systems for it.


You have no reason to think it works. There is no experimental 
evidence for that.


  I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to
him speak.  I believe he has working Ni-H technology.


Piantelli has nothing to do with Rossi. He does not believe Rossi. 
Also, Piantelli has not been replicated, so there is no reason to 
believe his claims . . . yet.


- Jed

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


Axil,
Have you not seen Rossi's patent?
It doesn't even mention LENR and protects very little.
AA

On 2/18/2017 6:08 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. It is worthwhile 
to verify that that patent is valid.


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Axil,
Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work
reminds me of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann.
What happens if the experiment did work?  Then IH would have given
away Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little
protection he does have.
AA


On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a
statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their
assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth
that IP is nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and
advance their case against Rossi.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want
with Rossi's IP.  If that were the case why would they have
agreed to give Rossi $89 million?  Surely his technology, if
it works, is worth more than $11 million.

I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that
Rossi never had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if
I'm wrong. If so, why would Brian want to work on it?

As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all
known and we should wait for full information.  It does not
seem to be a popular view.
AA



On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators
of Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern and an
additional hundreds that will enter the field as soon as
Rossi's tech is made available. I am disgusted with all the
innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will
be refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified or
disproved by research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs
to do with it as they see fit. The licence agreement no
longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE
FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it
doesn't help to have this run by avowed enemies.
Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the replication of
Pons & Fleischmann?

AA


On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

IH would be well served to release all the Rossi
provided INFO involving the Rossi reaction to the open
source community and Brian Ahern as its most
prominent member**to allow that community to run tests
to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This
verification would support IH in their claims about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern
<ahern_br...@msn.com <mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> 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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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:

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


Jed, "none of these replicators has succeeded. Not one."
Russian Group Claims Rossi/Parkhomov Replication Success
http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/10/05/russian-group-claims-rossiparkhomov-replication-success/
AA

On 2/18/2017 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil > wrote:

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of
Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern . . .


Ahern is trying to replicate an experiment that was done many years 
before Rossi began work. It has nothing to do with Rossi, except for 
the materials, and Rossi was not the first to use nickel or nickel powder.


You are distorting the facts here. Plus, you should note that none of 
these replicators has succeeded. Not one.


- Jed

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


Axil,
Going into the experiment with the idea of proving doesn't work reminds 
me of MIT and Pons & Fleischmann.
What happens if the experiment did work?  Then IH would have given away 
Rossi's IP for nothing and stripped Rossi of what little protection he 
does have.

AA

On 2/18/2017 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
Brian Ahern would want to verify that Rossi's IP is a fraud as a 
statement of verified fact. IH et al wound want to verify their 
assertion that Rossi's IP does not work. If IH is telling truth that 
IP is nothing, then they lose nothing related to that IP and 
advance their case against Rossi.


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:35 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with
Rossi's IP.  If that were the case why would they have agreed to
give Rossi $89 million?  Surely his technology, if it works, is
worth more than $11 million.

I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that Rossi
never had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm
wrong.  If so, why would Brian want to work on it?

As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all
known and we should wait for full information.  It does not seem
to be a popular view.
AA



On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of
Ross's tech working now including brian Ahern and an additional
hundreds that will enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is
made available. I am disgusted with all the innuendo that is
involved in the Rossi tech issue. It will be refreshing to deal
with FACTS that can be verified or disproved by research. IH paid
for that IP and it is theirs to do with it as they see fit. The
licence agreement no longer is binding. LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND
NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it
doesn't help to have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember
how MIT and CalTec bodged the replication of Pons & Fleischmann?

AA


On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided
INFO involving the Rossi reaction to the open source
community and Brian Ahern as its most prominent member**to
allow that community to run tests to see if Rossi's
technology is a fraud. This verification would support IH in
their claims about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern
<ahern_br...@msn.com <mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> 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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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]:Changing the topic back to the test


Axil,
I don't think it follows that IH is free to do what they want with 
Rossi's IP.  If that were the case why would they have agreed to give 
Rossi $89 million?  Surely his technology, if it works, is worth more 
than $11 million.


I also thought Brian Ahern had expressed his opinion that Rossi never 
had anything and was just a fraud.  Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, why 
would Brian want to work on it?


As for facts - I have stated many times that they are not all known and 
we should wait for full information.  It does not seem to be a popular view.

AA


On 2/18/2017 4:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
There are dozens of well  motivated open source replicators of Ross's 
tech working now including brian Ahern and an additional hundreds that 
will enter the field as soon as Rossi's tech is made available. I am 
disgusted with all the innuendo that is involved in the Rossi tech 
issue. It will be refreshing to deal with FACTS that can be verified 
or disproved by research. IH paid for that IP and it is theirs to do 
with it as they see fit. The licence agreement no longer is binding. 
LET US HAVE THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS.


On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't
help to have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember how MIT and
CalTec bodged the replication of Pons & Fleischmann?

AA


On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO
involving the Rossi reaction to the open source community and
Brian Ahern as its most prominent member**to allow that community
to run tests to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This
verification would support IH in their claims about Rossi.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> 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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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]:Changing the topic back to the test


Axil,
Apart from some of that information being proprietary it doesn't help to 
have this run by avowed enemies.  Remember how MIT and CalTec bodged the 
replication of Pons & Fleischmann?


AA

On 2/18/2017 2:53 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
IH would be well served to release all the Rossi provided INFO 
involving the Rossi reaction to the open source community and Brian 
Ahern as its most prominent member**to allow that community to run 
tests to see if Rossi's technology is a fraud. This verification would 
support IH in their claims about Rossi.


Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com 
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> 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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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]:Changing the topic back to the test


Leonart,
I agree with you.  It serves no useful purpose to repetitively run down 
Rossi like Jed and Brian do.
I do think Rossi has discovered something for the reasons Frank Acland 
wrote here: (saves me writing it myself.)

http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

AA

On 2/18/2017 12:21 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:


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" <ahern_br...@msn.com 
<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> 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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>
*Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 8:11 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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]:Changing the topic back to the test

I note your pseudo skeptical certainty, but the truth will not be known 
until all the data comes out in the trial.  Now set for June.


AA

On 2/18/2017 7:44 AM, 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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
*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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 
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]: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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument


Jed,
I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping 
drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.

If it was indeed so damaging to Rossi IH would have published it already.
As far as I can tell IH haven't even claimed the 1 MW didn't work, only 
that they could not replicate it.

(Show me the exact quotation if they have.)
AA

On 2/17/2017 5:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) . . .


You have no reason to doubt it. You are accusing me of lying here. I 
don't take kindly to that.


please post the much requested layout of the piping.


I will not post it. I have told you many times: I will not post 
anything not revealed by Rossi or I.H. I will say it is a gravity 
return. You can see that from the reservoir, which cannot be airtight.


If you do not believe me, I suggest you ask Rossi. You will get 
nothing more from me, so if you are not satisfied, I suggest you 
ignore my messages.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument


Jed,
If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) please post the much 
requested layout of the piping.


AA

On 2/17/2017 2:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

I rather liked Rossi's comment. Discussing the flowmeter on the
blogs before the full information is released in court is about as
useful as discussing the sex of angels.


That is bullshit. We have Rossi's data. We have detailed information 
on this flowmeter, including the manual. These conclusions are 
inescapable --


The pump is far too big for this application. A pump that registers 36 
times per day is absurd.


The flow data is impossibly regular, as is the other data.

The flow data shows 36,000 kg/day and high heat on days when _Rossi 
himself reported the reactor was turned off_. Would you like to 
explain that miracle? How much "full information" do we need to know 
that's impossible?


The pumps that feed the reactors cannot move as much water as claimed.

The manual warns you not to use it in a partially empty pipe.

The flowmeter is 80 mm in diameter (3"). The gravity return capacity 
of a 3" pipe is 140 gpm:


http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes

Even assuming Rossi's flow rate was accurate (which is physically 
impossible), Rossi reported the flow was 6 gpm, which is far less than 
the pipe capacity, so the pipe would be mostly empty. Therefore the 
flow meter cannot possibly work.


A mostly empty gravity return pipe looks like this:

http://benfranklinplumberhouston.com/images/blog/plumber-houston-sewer-line-cleaning.jpg

Peter Gluck believes no such thing exists, but anyone who has used 
pipes and pumps will know this is how it looks.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument


Jed,
I rather liked Rossi's comment.  Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs 
before the full information is released in court is about as useful as 
discussing the sex of angels.


AA

On 2/17/2017 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Peter Gluck > wrote:

Jed.  have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the
instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real
one. (now this is 4X)


Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was 
zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.



The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution-
scending pipe is simple and fine.


No, it is not "perfectly plausible" that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the 
flow rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the 
machine was turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much 
water as shown. It is not possible the machine consumed more electric 
power than the power company supplied. That is not "perfectly 
plausible"; it is outrageous nonsense.


The main differences to the Doral plant case:
a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has
that ascending pipe


That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return 
pipe, according to Rossi's schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy 
of that schematic, since you do not believe me.


b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting,
a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the
parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare
reading and effective flow.


That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long 
the water runs.


You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is
anomalous in a way.


Completely wrong.


Now there are two cases possible in principle:
 A. Normal professional setup:
RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant
errors possible


No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who 
looked at it saw that immediately.


B. Setup according to Jed


The setup is according to Rossi, not me.

FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if
flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air
inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable
system.


There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because:

1. The pipe was half empty.
2. It was the wrong kind of meter.
3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water.

Various other reasons such as --

4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat 
source.


Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.


This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen.

BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?


You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer 
the issues raised by Gamberale?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

2017-02-04 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
You are getting desperate if the Mafia is the only example you can come 
up with.  News to me that Rossi goes around threatening physical harm to 
IH personnel.


As for Santilli, "It was then made clear to me (Film director John 
Jopson) that if the footage was exposed as a hoax before the show aired, 
the ratings would suffer."

Beats me how you think that is Santilli taking a victim to court.

AA


On 2/3/2017 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

I would have thought you could tell the difference between some
one who has set up a long running fraud and someone trying to take
advantage of the legal system who had no part in causing the problem.

I asked you for one example of the former who has then taken the
victim to court and you have not been able to find one.


Santilli! And countless other con-men. Threatening a lawsuit is widely 
used by criminals, such as the Mafia in Italy. See:


http://www.newsweek.com/italian-mafia-intimidating-journalists-worst-levels-violence-90s-306352

". . . as well as the increase in mafia violence, defamation lawsuits 
are also to blame for the lack of journalistic freedom in Italy. “When 
a journalist knows that they could face a lawsuit between  €5,000 and 
€60,000, they may have more of a tendency to self-censor . . ."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.


Jones,
I don't find it incredible that you believe any bad fake news you can 
find on Rossi.
According to what I've read the waste was reclassified as toxic 
retroactively.
In order to prove your point you need to show a photo copy of the final 
sentences and appeals, not the charges.  I won't hold my breath.
Rossi was convicted of tax evasion and possibly not paying duty on an 
import, from what I've read.

AA


On 2/3/2017 5:26 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Adrian,

Incredibly, you state as fact that

As for "Petroldragon," he was cleared of all charges.  Doesn't that 
count?


It might count, but he was NOT cleared. This is another Rossi deceit. 
How it stays online is incredible and indicative of blind followers 
who, like yourself, reinforce his continuing mythology.


According to court documents found by journalists at Swedish Radio, 
Rossi was convicted and sent to prison on three accounts of 
environmental crime on which he was never acquitted. [16] The 
government of Lombardy spent over forty million euros to dispose of 
the 70,000 tonnes of toxic waste that Petroldragon had improperly 
dumped.[4] According to the mayor of Lacchiarella, Luigi Acerbi, "In 
the years when [Rossi] was working here, he didn't produce a single 
drop of oil, as far as we know."[15]


See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)#Petroldragon

Adrian - Why not do your homework before blindly quoting Rossi and 
sounding like one of his sock-puppets?


It might save you further embarrassment.

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.


Jed.
I would have thought you could tell the difference between some one who 
has set up a long running fraud and someone trying to take advantage of 
the legal system who had no part in causing the problem.


I asked you for one example of the former who has then taken the victim 
to court and you have not been able to find one.


AA

On 2/3/2017 4:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.


It happens all the time! Using the court system to commit fraud is a 
very common M.O. For example, people suit for fake damage claims, 
hoping to get paid. They pretend to slip on a banana in a grocery 
store, file suit, and try to settle out of court.


Frauds and criminals also use the threat of lawsuits to frighten off 
people and stop newspapers from publishing facts about them. That guy 
Santilli in Florida files lawsuits at the drop of a hat. He is one of 
the the worst scientific fraud I know. See:


http://www.scientificethics.org/ir2.htm


That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.


Nope. Cases seldom come to trial. Most people settle out of court. 
That is what the frauds hope for.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.


Jones,
Of course truth is a defense against libel.  Why act like this is 
kindergarten?
The problem, as you well know, is whether the accusation you made WERE 
true.  You have no proof of it and it is just malicious speculation
"an ongoing scam"  (There's no need of a trial as you KNOW the answer 
already)
"Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking in lots of cash...so 
he sued to get a bigger share"
As for "Petroldragon," he was cleared of all charges.  Doesn't that 
count?  I read that someone has recently started a similar process here 
as the patents have run out.
"so he can gloat in fake support. He needs clinical help."  Apart from 
being a great scientist (perhaps you can post your achievements) you are 
a psychologist too?


Likewise your ad hominem attack about me being a "Rossi lover."  I know 
that is untrue, or do you claim to know what I'm thinking better than I 
do?.  Can I now sue you?


AA

On 2/3/2017 3:15 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


Adrian,

Why do I have to keep reminding you that in the USA, truth is a 
defense to libel?


Do you simply not understand this, or do you not want to understand it 
because you adore Rossi to such a strange and unhealthy degree?


As for "defamation of character" - Rossi has no favorable reputation 
to defend, given his past scams, failures, crimes and repeated 
dishonesty - even stooping so low as to compose adulating mail to 
himself - with fake sender names so he can gloat in fake support. He 
needs clinical help.


Plus, defamation requires proof of malice, and I have no malice 
whatsoever against Rossi. In fact at one time, both Rothwell and 
myself thought he could be a great and misunderstood inventor. We 
called AR "the most interesting man in the world" until the level of 
dishonesty became overwhelming. Apologies to Dos Equis for sliming 
their guy in the process :-)


I would love to see megawatt overunity proved by Rossi or anyone else 
and I hope he can show something of value when this litigation is 
over. Problem is - Rossi has not been been capable of proving any 
claim scientifically. Even so, I am willing to believe that he has 
discovered an anomalous effect of Ni-H because so many others in the 
field have done so before him at lower levels. But he is not content 
to show what others have shown and wants to be seen as special. Sadly, 
he is not special and no longer qualifies as interesting.


And please stuff the libel crap back where it came from... it derives 
from the naive and unhealthy adulation of a con artist.



On 2/3/2017 11:37 AM, a.ashfield wrote:

Jones,
Probably.  Probably this and probably that.  Never give any proof, 
just libelous speculation


AA


On 2/3/2017 12:31 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


I would add this to what Giovanni has observed.

Rossi probably sued first because not only was his failure to 
perform obvious to all insiders at IH, but moreover - he considered 
Industrial Heat to be his actual partner in an ongoing scam which 
"could have" dragged on for far longer (had they been dishonest).


The problem was - Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking 
in lots of cash from investors - far more of the loot than Rossi was 
getting, so he sued to get a bigger share -- hoping they would 
settle, rather than expose what he thought was a joint windfall, in 
which he was not getting his fair cut.


He possibly believed that IH had valuable deep pocket investors in 
other projects of dubious merit, and did not want to risk loosing 
them when the money seemed to be flowing in strongly from Europe and 
China. The "brownfield" businesses of IH and Cherokee etc had itself 
been claimed by some to be ripe territory for scam artists, and 
Rossi was fully familiar with that niche in Italy due to his prior 
scam in brownfields: the Petroldragon affair.


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

When viewed from the perspective and history of Petroldragon, 
Leonardo, brownfields and Rossi's past contacts (at high level in 
our DoE - the other Leonardo) which were involved with his TEG scam, 
then a "silent partner in crime" scenario makes sense ... especially 
to a delusional inventor like Rossi.



Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.
So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued 
first.

The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have
all the facts come out IN COURT.

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.


Jones,
Probably.  Probably this and probably that.  Never give any proof, just 
libelous speculation


AA


On 2/3/2017 12:31 PM, Jones Beene wrote:


I would add this to what Giovanni has observed.

Rossi probably sued first because not only was his failure to perform 
obvious to all insiders at IH, but moreover - he considered Industrial 
Heat to be his actual partner in an ongoing scam which "could have" 
dragged on for far longer (had they been dishonest).


The problem was - Rossi could see that IH/Cherokee etc. were raking in 
lots of cash from investors - far more of the loot than Rossi was 
getting, so he sued to get a bigger share -- hoping they would settle, 
rather than expose what he thought was a joint windfall, in which he 
was not getting his fair cut.


He possibly believed that IH had valuable deep pocket investors in 
other projects of dubious merit, and did not want to risk loosing them 
when the money seemed to be flowing in strongly from Europe and China. 
The "brownfield" businesses of IH and Cherokee etc had itself been 
claimed by some to be ripe territory for scam artists, and Rossi was 
fully familiar with that niche in Italy due to his prior scam in 
brownfields: the Petroldragon affair.


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiPetroldragonStory.shtml

When viewed from the perspective and history of Petroldragon, 
Leonardo, brownfields and Rossi's past contacts (at high level in our 
DoE - the other Leonardo) which were involved with his TEG scam, then 
a "silent partner in crime" scenario makes sense ... especially to a 
delusional inventor like Rossi.



Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.
So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued 
first.

The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.


Giovanni,
You seem to be one of those who can't resist trying to pull down anyone 
in the news.  Rossi has never defrauded you.
There is a lot of evidence that Rossi has in fact discovered something.  
See http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/


The evidence from IH is all second hand and as far as I can tell 
unsubstantiated.   For example Dewey/Jed saying the steam temperature 
was 100.1C when in fact it was reported to be over 103C.
You need to wait for the actual facts to come out and hold off declaring 
Rossi guilty before the trial.

AA


On 2/3/2017 11:26 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
The courts are full of frivolous lawsuits and crazy claims of all 
types. People spin the truth or straight lie all the time in court 
proceedings from divorce to business cases.
And it is well known that filing first gives you a psychological 
advantage.

So Rossi could have simply anticipated he would be sued so he sued first.
The fact he filed first is not the proof of anything.
Giovanni



On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the
fraudster took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all
the facts come out IN COURT.

AA
.

On 2/2/2017 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

    a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
It was the other way around.


Your analysis is too narrow. You are missing the point. The point
is, people such as Madoff and Rossi have enormous chutzpah, and
they are reckless. They will say or do anything. They assume they
will always find a way to win out. Rossi must have thought he
could blazon his way through and demand money from IH. He thought
they would fold, and pay something, if not the full amount.

The specifics details about whether Madoff was sued or Rossi
filed suit is not at all what I am getting at. The key thing is,
these people will do or say anything, even filing a lawsuit they
cannot win.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.


Jed,
It is you who is missing my point.  Show me one case where the fraudster 
took his victim to court.
That is the last thing a fraudster would want to do, to have all the 
facts come out IN COURT.


AA
.

On 2/2/2017 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
It was the other way around.


Your analysis is too narrow. You are missing the point. The point is, 
people such as Madoff and Rossi have enormous chutzpah, and they are 
reckless. They will say or do anything. They assume they will always 
find a way to win out. Rossi must have thought he could blazon his way 
through and demand money from IH. He thought they would fold, and pay 
something, if not the full amount.


The specifics details about whether Madoff was sued or Rossi filed 
suit is not at all what I am getting at. The key thing is, these 
people will do or say anything, even filing a lawsuit they cannot win.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

2017-02-02 Thread a.ashfield


I don't recall either of them taking their victims to court.
It was the other way around.

AA

On 2/2/2017 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

At this point it strikes me that it is extraordinarily unlikely
that a fraudster would take the supposed victim (IH) to court.


Your personal level of incredulity is not a valid metric. Look at 
famous scams such as Ponzi or Bernie Madoff. They seem incredible, but 
they were real.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

2017-02-02 Thread a.ashfield


Jones,
I understand the legal system well enough.  Like in England, the law is 
an ass  (as stated by the Chief Justice.)


What I said was that, relatively speaking, the customer is unimportant.  
What really matters is if there is a commercial LENR plant.  I've read 
the supposed contract (I don't believe much that is posted) and it 
didn't strike me that the customer mattered.


At this point it strikes me that it is extraordinarily unlikely that a 
fraudster would take the supposed victim (IH) to court.   If anybody 
knows if the E-Cat works it is Rossi, who has been working on it for ten 
years with many different models.   Many writers here and on the LENR 
forum write in continuously insulting terms, to the point that it seems 
only MIT of CalTec are to believed.  As I recall they blew the 
replication of Pons & Fleischmann in order to meet a deadline and failed 
to adequately load the Palladium.  I suppose the claim that hot fusion 
is only ten years away - for 60 years, passes your clean hands 
criteria.  ITER is only costing $25 billion and will provide lifetime 
employment and fat pensions for hundreds.


I don't even find it curious that so many libel Rossi.  Typical troll 
behavior.



On 2/2/2017 1:06 PM, Jones Beene wrote:



Adrian,


Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand the US legal system, 
insofar as you maintain that it "doesn't matter" that Rossi may have 
committed fraud by inventing a fake customer and fake manufacturing 
plant to use the steam.



Note - I am not saying he did or didn't invent the customer. From the 
pleadings, it appears that IH believes that they are the victim of a 
fraudulent scheme with a fake customer that Rossi called J 
Chemicals. Under our legal system, a plaintiff cannot commit fraud and 
then use the courts to win a monetary judgment in a situation where 
the defendant was misled by the fraud.



That is true even when the the fraud is relatively minor. This is due 
to the rule of law known as the "clean hands doctrine".


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=211


The only thing which really does not matter here would be that IH 
"failed to find a customer." That is, unless they were contractually 
obligated to do so. Remember, IH did not dream up this test and they 
claim that they wanted it done in North Carolina under any 
circumstances, but Rossi refused.



For over a year, in dozens of posts to his blog, Rossi maintained that 
there was a real customer using the steam. Rossi even led his loyal 
flock to believe that the customer was a subsidiary of Johnson and 
Matthey the famous supplier of the palladium for Pons and Fleischmann.



Maybe there was a customer even if not J It does not have to be 
them but it needs to be someone, if there is to be no fraud involved. 
We should find out soon.



Apparently Rossi will be deposed this month, so we should find out 
then if the customer was fake or not. One thing is certain, if there 
was no real customer but Rossi led IH to believe that there was, then 
that is fraud and he cannot win a judgment because of it, no matter 
how much excess heat is claimed.



I find it curious and disappointing if not morally repugnant that 
Rossi's followers are suggesting that he could be justified in 
devising a fraudulent plan, as if the end justifies the means - and 
furthermore blaming IH as being partly responsible. Sick.





On 2/2/2017 9:09 AM, a.ashfield wrote:
Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn 
whether the customer was real of not.  IH failed to find a customer 
for a year and possibly Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink.
What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed.  Did it really produce 
1 MW with a COP of ~86?  We won't know until a drawing showing the 
layout of things like the flow meter is made available and 
speculation from second hand sources doesn't really help.


As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it 
obviously comes as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use 
the most convenient dimension, particularly if it is in comment use 
and understandable by most.  Most people don't think in terms of 
millions of grams per second.


"something real that he is blundering with." Blundering with?  A 
possible working LENR device?  Comments like that are something up 
with which I will not put.


Adrian Ashfield

On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount 
of steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH 
was allowed to visit) could be instantly validated if there was 
indeed a real customer using the steam.



If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a 
real manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much 
reputed steam was being supplied.



This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the 
judge if Rossi cannot

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. Seebelow.

2017-02-02 Thread a.ashfield

Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn 
whether the customer was real of not.  IH failed to find a customer for 
a year and possibly Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink.
What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed.  Did it really produce 1 
MW with a COP of ~86?  We won't know until a drawing showing the layout 
of things like the flow meter is made available and speculation from 
second hand sources doesn't really help.


As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it 
obviously comes as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use the 
most convenient dimension, particularly if it is in comment use and 
understandable by most.  Most people don't think in terms of millions of 
grams per second.


"something real that he is blundering with."   Blundering with?  A 
possible working LENR device?  Comments like that are something up with 
which I will not put.


Adrian Ashfield

On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote:



To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount 
of steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was 
allowed to visit) could be  instantly validated if there was indeed a 
real customer using the steam.



If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real 
manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed 
steam was being supplied.



This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge 
if Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a 
real customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty 
simple, no?



Was there a customer using the steam or not?


Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of 
fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading 
allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that 
deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual 
will act upon it to her or his legal injury.



Brian Ahern wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the 
water was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. 
The metering device cannot function with a compressible fluid. It 
will always measure higher values than measuring it as a single 
liquid phase at the input.


Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output 
temperature is below  100C.  Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C 
is a surfire way to get inflated flow measurements.


Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it 
anyway because it is so easy the provide inflated values.


I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible. 
 Use the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters 
operate in a two phase mode that is guaranteed to over report flow 
rates due to the increased compressibility.


Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .




*From:* bobcook39...@gmail.com 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
*To:* Jed Rothwell; Vortex
*Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blundering with. Seebelow.


The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the 
change of the phase of water to steam at about 100 C. This is about 
540 calories per gram and should add to the heating of the liquid 
phase over about 30 C.


This amounts to 540 /30  or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or 
calories whatever units you want-- IMHO.


Bob Cook

Sent from Mail  for 
Windows 10


*From: *Jed Rothwell 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
*To: *Vortex 
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blundering with. Seebelow.


Brian Ahern > wrote:

The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1
day/84,600 sec/day = 425.5 G/sec

Note:

1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is 
what Rossi told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this 
spreadsheet, in the "reduced flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 
32,400 kg instead of 36,000 kg.


2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in 
the gravity return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The 
manual for this flow meter says it does not work in a pipe that is 
half full, so the flow rates are far too high. It is difficult to say 
how far off they are, but they cannot be right.


3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be 
exactly the same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the 
nearest 1000 kg, which is ridiculous, but given that it does, it 
would record

Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South China Sea Islands

2017-01-22 Thread a.ashfield


Jack Ma had the best answer to Tillerson.

“Over the past thirty years, the Americans had thirteen wars spending 
40.2 trillion dollars,” said Ma, speaking at the World Economic Forum in 
Davos. “What if they spent a part of that money on building up the 
infrastructure, helping the white-collar and the blue-collar workers? No 
matter how strategically good it is, you’re supposed to spend money on 
your own people.”


“And the other money which I’m curious about is that when I was young, 
all I heard about America was Ford and Boeing and those big 
manufacturing companies. The last 10-20 years, all I heard about is 
Silicon Valley and Wall Street,” he continued.


“And what happened? The year 2008: the financial crisis wiped out 19.2 
trillion dollars in the USA alone and destroyed 34 million jobs 
globally. So what if the spent on Wall Street and the Middle East was 
spent on the Mid-West of the United States, developing the industry 
there? That could change a lot.”


According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , the 
United States spent $596 billion, or 3.3 percent of its GDP, on military 
expenditure in 2015, which is higher than any other country in the 
world. In Ma’s opinion, this is partly responsible for the loss of jobs 
in America’s Rust Belt.


“So it’s not that other countries steal jobs from you guys, it is your 
strategy! You do not distribute the money in a proper way,” he summarized.


Ma also expressed the view that overall globalization was a positive 
thing as it had brought many benefits to both China and the world. 
However, it should be improved by making more room for small businesses 
rather than the current system run by the World Trade Organization 
(WTO), which was developed to protect corporate interests.


“The WTO was great but it was mainly designed for developed countries 
and big companies. There’s no opportunity for small business. We want to 
build up an EWTP – an Electronic World Trade Platform – to support young 
people, small business.”


https://youtu.be/Np-HQH_ruGY

On 1/22/2017 2:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


Doubt it.  The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, S.Africa) 
have launched a major global effort to provide a competitor to 
BIS/World Bank/IMF, and I seriously doubt if Russia would jeopardize 
all that by siding with U.S./Japan/Philipines on China’s expanding in 
S.China sea.


*From:*Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 3:14 AM
*To:* John Milstone
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South 
China Sea Islands


Perhaps the strategy is to get in good terms with Russia and both 
surround China?

[Vo]:[Vo]Microwave innduced ransmutation

2017-01-18 Thread a.ashfield


Microwave Induced Nuclear Transmutation in Compact Flourescent Lamps
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WUlh4c3dJWlh5Rjg/view

From MFMP facebook.

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

2017-01-18 Thread a.ashfield

Ooops, I thought I was replying to Mats,and didn't see it was a link 
from Vortex.
As Jones Beene points out it is lacking proof.  Perhaps the new 
experiment they talk about will provide it.
I thought it interesting that they forecast the production of light in 
view of what we have hear about the QuarkX

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

2017-01-18 Thread a.ashfield


Mats,
Most interesting.  This sounds like one of the most plausible theories 
to me.
I haven't looked at the figures yet but surely this must lean heavily on 
what Rossi has already done?


Adrian



On 1/18/2017 7:43 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=3086323A1=A1=D==20161026==en_EP

Mats
www.animpossibleinvention.com

Re: [Vo]: Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

2016-12-22 Thread a.ashfield

There are several child prodigies at singing that one can see thanks to 
YouTube.  The most recent is Laura Bretan on America's Got Talent

https://youtu.be/xCoxGV7j71c?t=1  (@2:50)   (see all 4 great performances)

Patricia Janeckova first caught my ear in 2012 .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOy6M_X2MO8=False
Then all grown up at 18.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN8JDGjrHQ=RDybPQKhrQaJ4=8
So much for the critics who claim starting so early ruins your voice.


On 12/22/2016 9:56 AM, Frank Znidarsic wrote:

She is great.  Thanks I need that.

Frank Znidarsic


-Original Message-
From: Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>
To: VORTEX <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 22, 2016 9:51 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

thank you a lot...
dear Adrian do you like opera?
I do not know if you have read (and listened)

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/03/explaining-opera-music-of-all-noises.html

the problem is that some audios are outdated.

As regarding religioud music, do you know the Romanian
COLINDE  DE CRACIUN- you can discover some really good
by simple search on You Tube.

warm greetings,
Peter

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:38 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Dear Peter,
Thank you for your kind words.   I find Amira's voice so beautiful
it moved me to tears.
She became famous on Holland's Got Talent, that she won.  Watch
her performance here.
https://youtu.be/qDqTBlKU4CE
Adrian


On 12/22/2016 4:37 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

Deaar Adrian,

amazingly beautiful.- great Thank you!

Merry Christmas and surprisingly good new Year 2017!

Peter

,



On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 9:44 PM, a.ashfield
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Merry Christmas.  Thanks to all for this interesting blog.
Amira Willighagen's rendition of Caccini's Ave Maria (11
yrs old)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1X2GW1b3U
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1X2GW1b3U>

Amira Willighagen - "Ave Maria" Gounod Duet (Reykjavík,
Iceland) - Christmas Concert 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEImCJWI_ak=4=RDcnjF1vre9sg

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEImCJWI_ak=4=RDcnjF1vre9sg>




-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck

Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
<http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com>





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

Re: [Vo]: Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

2016-12-22 Thread a.ashfield


Dear Peter,
Thank you for your kind words.   I find Amira's voice so beautiful it 
moved me to tears.
She became famous on Holland's Got Talent, that she won.  Watch her 
performance here.

https://youtu.be/qDqTBlKU4CE
Adrian

On 12/22/2016 4:37 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

Deaar Adrian,

amazingly beautiful.- great Thank you!

Merry Christmas and surprisingly good new Year 2017!

Peter

,



On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 9:44 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:


Merry Christmas.  Thanks to all for this interesting blog.
Amira Willighagen's rendition of Caccini's Ave Maria (11 yrs old)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1X2GW1b3U
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1X2GW1b3U>

Amira Willighagen - "Ave Maria" Gounod Duet (Reykjavík, Iceland) -
Christmas Concert 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEImCJWI_ak=4=RDcnjF1vre9sg
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEImCJWI_ak=4=RDcnjF1vre9sg>




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

[Vo]: Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

2016-12-21 Thread a.ashfield


Merry Christmas.  Thanks to all for this interesting blog.
Amira Willighagen's rendition of Caccini's Ave Maria (11 yrs old)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V1X2GW1b3U

Amira Willighagen - "Ave Maria" Gounod Duet (Reykjavík, Iceland) - 
Christmas Concert 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEImCJWI_ak=4=RDcnjF1vre9sg

Re: [Vo]:Article about Artificial Intelligence in NYT

2016-12-17 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
I basically agree.  I think many animals including most mammals and 
birds are conscious,  but there is a wide range of intelligence.
I am baffled by the mysterious, esoteric properties of consciousness 
that academics often apply to it, ruling out all animals.

AA


On 12/16/2016 5:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

I think it follows we will have a "conscious" computer even
earlier than Kurzweil forecasts.


I think there are various levels of intelligence. Roughly speaking 
here are three points on the spectrum:


1. Thinking. You can make a case that even guppies and earthworms do this.

2. Conscious. Awareness of surroundings. Some ability to make choices, 
rather than purely instinct driving, hard-wired brain functions. I 
expect that mice are conscious. In this article it was estimated that 
present-day artificial intelligence computers have roughly as many 
virtual synapses as a mouse brain has.


3. Sentient, or self-aware. At the lowest level, this means knowing 
that you are an animal and an object in the real world. There is no 
doubt that apes and other intelligent creatures have this. At the zoo 
in Boston, when you take a picture of a chimpanzee with a digital 
camera, it will pose and then demand to see the back of your camera. 
Especially males do this, according to my daughter, who is studying 
biology.


My guess is that computers are somewhere between 1 and 2. They have 
probably not achieved 2 because people who design computers are not 
trying to achieve this at present. Perhaps consciousness will emerge 
on its own as a meta-phenomenon.


There are an infinite number of steps between each level. There are 
various mental achievements. For example, male crickets are capable of 
fighting for domination, which is sophisticated behavior. It is 
impressive for such a small brain. Surely, this is a form of thinking, 
even if it is mainly instinct driven. Unfortunately for the crickets, 
they cannot tell one another apart, and they cannot tell the 
difference between a cricket and a plastic model of one. So, 
naturalists who wanted to give a male cricket an inferiority complex 
engaged in ritual combat with him using a plastic model of a cricket. 
They did this over and over again with the same plastic model. The 
poor guy-cricket did not realize he was fighting the same dummy 
cricket every time. Apparently this sapped his male hormone supply, 
a.k.a. precious bodily fluids.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Article about Artificial Intelligence in NYT

2016-12-16 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
Thank you for posting the link to that most interesting article.
For some years now I had thought that consciousness was just the brain 
making an image of one's surroundings and examining that image.  I see 
now that is unnecessary, that the brain examines the actual image in 
real time and doesn't have to make a new 3D image fifteen times a second 
and look at that.  The basic concept remains though, that consciousness 
is simply the act of examining the image together with inputs from the 
other sensors.
I think it follows we will have a "conscious" computer even earlier than 
Kurzweil forecasts.

AA

On 12/15/2016 5:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There was a long article about artificial intelligence (AI) in the New 
York Times:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html

It was pretty good, with some technical detail. You will find more 
detail in recent Sci. Am. article by two of the leading people in the 
field. I can't find it on line . . .


There has been an important breakthrough with neural networks. They 
have been around for decades, going back to the 1950s I think. The 
difference is they are now many orders of magnitude larger, and they 
are multi-level, with the output of one network connected to the input 
of another.


This was the technique that led to a computer beating the world 
champion in go. The NYT reports that Google has applied this to their 
translation software, resulting in dramatic improvements. In a few 
months, the quality of the translations improved as much as it did in 
10 years with the older technology. The article quotes an example. 
This sentence in Spanish by Borges:


Uno no es lo que es por lo que escribe, sino por lo que ha leído.

The old Google translate system rendered this:

One is not what is for what he writes, but for what he has read.

The new one:

You are not what you write, but what you have read.


I ran some Japanese and some English text through the latest Google 
translate. This is mainly text that I translated myself. The new 
Google translate is remarkable. A little unnerving. Because, you see, 
if you run some of my translated essays you will see that I took 
liberties, adding information I thought would help a native speaker 
understand. These are not literal or exact translations. Since I wrote 
the original text myself, I am allowed to to that. But, I also did it 
with Mike McKubre's paper. I am a little worried that someone may call 
me out on it! Sooner or later, Google's computers will be getting in 
touch with me, calling me out. Google sells a gadget that sits in the 
room listening to your conversations, awaiting your commands, the 
Google Home:


https://madeby.google.com/home/

I can see the day coming when the Google Home speaker will blare out: 
"ROTHWELL! Get over here. What is the meaning of this?!? McKubre wrote 
'I was tasked' and you have it: 'the conference organizers asked me to 
. . .' We are now in the process of reviewing all of your work going 
back to 1998, which will henceforth be called Calendar Year 1 of Our 
Lord Google."


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

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

2016-12-12 Thread a.ashfield

Do you know of any other solution to the mess?  I fear we are in for 
more of the same, just with a different slogan.

AA

On 12/12/2016 10:52 AM, Chris Zell wrote:


I read most of your letter and found it articulate.

*From:*a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
*Sent:* Monday, December 12, 2016 10:44 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

Chris,
I take it you didn't read the piece I linked after your previous comment
AA

On 12/12/2016 10:18 AM, Chris Zell wrote:

During wartime or prison camp conditions, people commonly turn on
one another and slide backwards into predation.  I think much of
that fight for survival would be eliminated with free energy and
whatever “communism” emerged would be very different from the
horrors we’ve seen in the 20^th century.   Someone once argued
that part of the drive to conquer eastern Europe by the Nazi’s was
derived from their failure to make agriculture more productive.

We already have services that are managed in common such as
national parks, police and fire departments.

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

2016-12-12 Thread a.ashfield


Chris,
I take it you didn't read the piece I linked after your previous comment
AA

On 12/12/2016 10:18 AM, Chris Zell wrote:


During wartime or prison camp conditions, people commonly turn on one 
another and slide backwards into predation.  I think much of that 
fight for survival would be eliminated with free energy and whatever 
“communism” emerged would be very different from the horrors we’ve 
seen in the 20^th century.   Someone once argued that part of the 
drive to conquer eastern Europe by the Nazi’s was derived from their 
failure to make agriculture more productive.


We already have services that are managed in common such as national 
parks, police and fire departments.

Re: [Vo]:Even more millions of jobs are going away

2016-12-08 Thread a.ashfield


Axil,
See my letter in the post above

On 12/8/2016 6:46 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/carls-jr-wants-open-automated-location-2016-3

The fast food industry will be automated

Re: [Vo]:more jobs are going away

2016-12-08 Thread a.ashfield


For another solution see my letter to the DelcoTimes.
Real change is needed to end this mess
http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20161205/letter-to-the-editor-real-change-is-needed-to-end-this-mess


On 12/8/2016 4:26 PM, Chris Zell wrote:


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]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English


Jed,
If you read it in context it is obvious.
I don't know the pipe was only half full.  You still haven't come up a 
layout.

There is no point in rehashing this all again.
AA

On 12/6/2016 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Evidence from IH suggests they didn't,


They didn't what?

but Rossi was the one who instigated this expensive court case. 
Do you really think he would do that, knowing the results would

come out, if he didn't believe he had a case?


I cannot read his mind or judge his motivations. Perhaps he was hoping 
they would negotiate a quick end to the lawsuit. I know little about 
lawsuits.


Here is what I do know. I know how instruments work. I know that they 
do not produce exactly the same numbers day after day for weeks. I 
know pressure cannot be 0.0 bar. I know that you cannot use that kind 
of flow meter in a half-empty pipe. I know that it is not possible to 
generate 1 MW of heat in a warehouse with no ventilation without 
killing the people inside.


In short, I can judge the technical issues. I know enough about 
instruments and calorimetry to do that. When I saw the data, after a 
few minutes I knew it was impossible, and much of it was fake. You can 
see the reasons in Exhibit 5. If you disagree with me, and you think 
the reasons in Exhibit 5 do not prove the claims are wrong, then you 
are technically illiterate and incapable of judging even the simplest 
experiment.


If you think the claims in Exhibit 5 are lies, then you should explain 
why Rossi himself repeated those same lies to Lewan. Is he 
deliberately trying to make himself look like a fraud?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English


Jed,
Evidence from IH suggests they didn't, but Rossi was the one who 
instigated this expensive court case.  Do you really think he would do 
that, knowing the results would come out, if he didn't believe he had a 
case?



On 12/6/2016 1:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Both Rossi and the ERV say the plant produced 1 MW.


Their data showed that it did not. The photos of the warehouse shows 
that would be physically impossible. Their own description of the 
equipment shows it would be impossible. The flow meter and pressure 
meter they listed cannot work. The values in their data cannot be real.


  IH says it didn't


No, Rossi's data says it didn't. IH has not expressed any opinion. 
They only pointed out that Rossi own data proves he failed.


Wait for the court case to see who is telling the truth.


I do not need to. Anyone who understands instruments and elementary 
calorimetry can see the truth at a glance.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English

Both Rossi and the ERV say the plant produced 1 MW. IH says it didn't
Wait for the court case to see who is telling the truth.

On 12/6/2016 10:48 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Here is a photo of the ~80 original design reactors in the 1 MW
plant test. as backup for the four 250 kW reactors.

http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ecat-MW1-USA-team-at-working.jpg

<http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ecat-MW1-USA-team-at-working.jpg>
They were not used in the test. Why would Rossi build 2 MW
capacity if he didn't intend to produce any heat at all?

You would have to ask him. The reactor produced no heat. If he had
reactor components that did produce heat, he should have used them.

It looks like you got all your information from IH and none from
Rossi. We have to wait for the court case to find out who is
telling the truth.

I am sure the Exhibit 5 data came from Rossi. He quoted key parts of
it in his interview with Lewan. That is the truth. Exhibit 5 proves he
was lying. We don't need a trial to see that. You have given no reason
to deny that.

"None of that matters to me. I am sure the pressure was not 0.0 bar."

If the steam was condensed at the customer's plant this would
result in negative pressure there.

That is not possible. Not with 1 MW of steam.

Why would Rossi not install working reactors when he would be paid
$90 million to do it?!???"

I can think of several possibilities. IH may not have had $90
million to pay him.

That would not be a reason for him to run the reactor with components
that do not work. He would run it to produce heat. Then he would
produce data showing actual heat, and he would use that data in a
lawsuit. Instead, he produced data that shows he himself is a fraud,
and he described that same data to Lewan, proving it came from him.

IH may have thought they had enough information that they didn't
need Rossi anymore.

He could sue them for that. He cannot successfully sue them when his
own data shows no heat and when large parts of it are obviously fake.

IH was misled by Murray who got it wrong.

No, he got it right. I and others came to the same conclusions he did,
looking at the same data, before I saw his analysis.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English

Jed,
"None of the used units produced any heat, period. If the unused
ones could produce heat, WHY DIDN'T ROSSI INSTALL THEM? You need to
answer that question, not me."

Here is a photo of the ~80 original design reactors in the 1 MW plant
test. as backup for the four 250 kW reactors.

http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ecat-MW1-USA-team-at-working.jpg
They were not used in the test. Why would Rossi build 2 MW capacity if
he didn't intend to produce any heat at all?
It looks like you got all your information from IH and none from Rossi.
We have to wait for the court case to find out who is telling the truth.

"None of that matters to me. I am sure the pressure was not 0.0 bar."

If the steam was condensed at the customer's plant this would result in
negative pressure there.

"Suppose the 80 units that were not installed actually worked. In
that case, if he had installed them, installed proper calorimetric
instruments, and showed IH how to make them, IH would have paid him $90
million. There would be no lawsuit. Why would he not do that? Why would
he launch an expensive lawsuit if he had working reactors sitting there
unused? That makes no sense, and I do not believe it for one second. I
am amazed that you believe it. Why would Rossi not install working
reactors when he would be paid $90 million to do it?!???"

I can think of several possibilities. IH may not have had $90 million
to pay him. IH may have thought they had enough information that they
didn't need Rossi anymore.
IH was misled by Murray who got it wrong. They were caught flat footed
by Rossi's immediate law suit.

On 12/5/2016 11:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

I find it strange that you didn't know there were 2 MW of reactors
in the plant.

I do not know such details at all. The only thing I know about is the
sample data. I immediately saw the problems in that data such as the
pressure of 0.0 bar. The data is obviously fake, and physically
impossible. The problems I saw were all described in Exhibit 5, along
with some other problems I did not know about. So, read that Exhibit,
and you will know everything I know. That is my only basis for saying
the experiment did not produce heat, and it was fraud. (If you
disagree then I think you do not understand machinery.)

I thought that was common knowledge.. The first set of the older
design were what you saw in the photo montage that Rossi
provided. (Nothing to do with Lugano - low temperature units)
The second set of four 250 kW units were right at the end.

None of that matters to me. I am sure the pressure was not 0.0 bar. I
am sure that flow meter was the wrong kind. I am sure these problems
and the others described in Exhibit 5 preclude any possibility of
excess heat and they prove it was fraud. The reactors themselves play
no role in this evaluation.

It is pretty weak to say that they all didn't work without any
evidence of that.

The evidence is all in the calorimetry! It makes no difference what
reactors were installed. The calorimetry shows they did not work. They
can be considered a black box. In fact, they _have to be_ considered a
black box, or the test method is invalid.

That Rossi didn't attempt to use them is fairly strong evidence
he was satisfied with the four 250 kW units, no matter what you
have been told by IH.

His satisfaction is irrelevant. His data and the photos of his ceiling
proves that his claims are fraud.

Do you really think he would build about 80 units for fun and
not use them if needed?

Suppose the 80 units that were not installed actually worked. In that
case, if he had installed them, installed proper calorimetric
instruments, and showed IH how to make them, IH would have paid him
$90 million. There would be no lawsuit. Why would he not do that? Why
would he launch an expensive lawsuit if he had working reactors
sitting there unused? That makes no sense, and I do not believe it for
one second. I am amazed that you believe it. Why would Rossi not
install working reactors when he would be paid $90 million to do it?!???

One of the design of these unused units was what passed the
initial test.

None of the used units produced any heat, period. If the unused ones
could produce heat, WHY DIDN'T ROSSI INSTALL THEM? You need to answer
that question, not me.

IH was bleating about how he used a different design for the
test and tried to make out that disqualified it, if you recall.

Nonsense. The only thing they said, and I said, was the the test
failed to show any excess heat, and many of the numbers were obviously
fake. They don't care about the design, as long as it works. I have
spent a lot of time talking to them about calorimetry. I have not
talked at all abou

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English

2016-12-05 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
I find it strange that you didn't know there were 2 MW of reactors in 
the plant.  I thought that was common knowledge..  The first set of the 
older design were what you saw in the photo montage that Rossi 
provided.  (Nothing to do with Lugano - low temperature units)  The 
second set of four 250 kW units were right at the end. In Rossi's photo 
he is listening to one with a stethoscope.
It is pretty weak to say that they all didn't work without any evidence 
of that.  That Rossi didn't attempt to use them is fairly strong 
evidence he was satisfied with the four 250 kW units, no matter what you 
have been told by IH.   Do you really think he would build about 80 
units for fun and not use them if needed?  One of the design of these 
unused units was what passed the initial test.  IH was bleating about 
how he used a different design for the test and tried to make out that 
disqualified it, if you recall.




On 12/5/2016 7:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net <mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Jed,
Rossi had a double set of reactors in the 1 MW experiment.  The
standby reactors were of the old design that you think may have
worked.


No, I meant the little cylindrical one used in the first Levi tests:

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

I have no idea why the other cylindrical ones at Lugano did not seem 
to work.


I did not know there was a double set of reactors in the 1 MW 
experiment. That's news to me. I have no idea whether the unused ones 
might have worked.


My only technical knowledge of this test is what is in Exhibit 5 and 
in the photos. As I said, I know that Exhibit is based on Rossi's own 
data. Everything I could tell from the data was in Exhibit 5, plus 
some stuff I could not tell. Exhibit 5 was also partly confirmed by 
Rossi's comments to Lewan.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov presentation translated into English

2016-12-05 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,
Rossi had a double set of reactors in the 1 MW experiment.  The standby 
reactors were of the old design that you think may have worked.
If the four 250 kW units didn't work why did Rossi not use the backups?  
As far as is known they were never activated.



On 12/5/2016 5:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Frank Znidarsic > wrote:

Jed how can Parkhomov claim successes by following Rossi when
Rossi had none?


I suppose Parkhomov is mistaken, or misinformed about Rossi's work.

There are several other possibilities --

Takahashi and others have tested finely divided nickel and reported it 
produces excess heat. Perhaps they are right, and Rossi is wrong. In 
other words, Parkhomov may have successfully replicated Takahashi, 
only he does not realize this.


It is possible that Rossi's earlier tests actually worked. It is 
difficult to judge, but I cannot rule that out. Again, if Takahashi 
succeeded, it is not out of the question that Rossi did as well. I am 
sure that Rossi's 1-year test was a failure and a fraud, but his 
earlier work may have been okay.


Piantelli has claimed that bulk nickel produces heat. He has not been 
replicated as far as I know, but if he is right, it would not be 
surprising if finely divided nickel works too. It might work better 
than bulk material.


There is pretty good evidence that some of the Thermacore nickel 
experiments worked. Again, Pakhomov may be replicating Thermacore 
without realizing it. I do not think anyone knows enough about Rossi 
or Parkhomov to judge how closely their experiments resemble one another.


I think we cannot rule out the possibility that Parkhomov's results 
are invalid, and he has no heat. His previous work was pretty lousy.


- Jed

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

2016-11-27 Thread a.ashfield

Last I looked the sea was rising about 2 -3 mm/yr.  What makes you think 
so much will be flooded?


On 11/26/2016 11:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
cities worldwide within 100 miles of the coastline will be underwater 
and in need of relocation inland,

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

2016-11-27 Thread a.ashfield

You are not paying attention to what has been said.  One of the 
advantages of UBI is that it will provide money to the people to spend 
on things made by robots.  Goods manufactured by robots will keep 
getting cheaper.  The tax paid by manufacturers and service providers 
will be about the same as now.
The main problem with the current economy is that people have so much 
debt and little money to spend.


On 11/26/2016 11:15 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
How will economy improve if people are simply not buying? And it will 
be much more costly. I am thinking about 90% of unemployment.

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


Jed Rothwell wrote:
The big question is: Will the robots themselves be owned by 1% elite, 
or controlled the 1%, or will they be like today's personal computers, 
owned by everyone, and used by everyone? I predict the latter, and I 
also predict the cost will fall because of competition by different 
robot makers. If I am right, there is less danger of concentration of 
wealth by robots, and somewhat less danger of massive unemployment. If 
I have a robot that produces most of the goods and services I need, I 
don't need a job. (It isn't quite that simple, as I said, but that is 
the general principle.)


I see it slightly differently.  For at least the next ten years robots 
will be concentrated in large companies working down to smaller 
factories, making stuff.  It will be a long time before there are 
household robots that do more than clean and cook.
The universal house robot that can make many things is waaayyy off. (3D 
printing?)
So again the car analogy holds.  Robots will probably be made by a dozen 
or so large companies and bought and owned by the user.  I suppose they 
could be leased too.  One would expect there will be a few entrepreneurs 
who will start a small manufacturing company and grow to be large like 
Apple. The future remains difficult to forecast...

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


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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net 
<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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


Ruby,
I agree with Ford.  It will have to get worse before our pathetic 
government will take the necessary steps.


On 11/25/2016 3:12 PM, Ruby wrote:
QUOTE  "It's going to get worse. The inequality will get worse. 
There's going to be more anger and social upheaval," said Martin Ford 
, author of Rise of the 
Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. "What we're 
seeing is in large measure because of technology."

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

Jed,
I think for the foreseeable future robots will wear out and the industry
will be more like the car industry where you have to buy a new one every
so many years and it will then have more advanced features. Advanced
robots will not be cheap.
Likewise, the government will still be needed for some things like
defense and law enforcement, so the manufacturers will be taxed. UBI
will be required to allow the robot makers/owners make some money and
have some incentive to keep going.
Entertainment will obviously grow with the need and that has to be paid
for, so again the need for UBI.
Maybe in the very, very distant future, with the singularity and repair
robots, the game will change, but that is too far off to speculate about.

On 11/25/2016 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

H LV > wrote:

Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal.

It was first proposed by conservative economists Friederich Hayek and
Milton Friedman. There is a lot of conservative support for it. See:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

As far as I know Karl Marx never called for a basic income, and
today most trade unions oppose it.

It would never work in the 19th century. You need an robot-based
economy where Watson-class computers are ubiquitous, so human labor
has no value. We are not there yet, but we will be in a generation or
two. We need to phase in something like a basic income.

Perhaps I am the proverbial man who has only a hammer and sees all
problems as a nail, but I think technology changes everything. A
proposal such basic income would be impossible in 19th century. It
would be immoral in the 20th century, because we would have to exploit
people to make it work. It would also be destructive, because it would
reduce incentives to work, and we needed people to do many jobs that
paid poorly or were disagreeable. But, as robots increase, there will
be fewer and fewer jobs like that. If many people become lazy and
spend their lives doing frivolous things that pay little, or don't pay
at all, it will not hurt society. We will not need their labor
anymore. We will have no use for it. So we might as well let the
robots support them. It will not take money out of my pocket of a
machine works for you and gives you everything you need.

Here is a purely imaginary example which is quite different from how
the economy is likely to work, but it illustrates my point. Imagine in
2050 someone buys an all-purpose robot and some tool attachments. The
person goes off to rural area with a 10 acres of land. The robot
builds a house using mainly local materials. It builds and runs a
small automated greenhouse/food factory. With a food factory that's
more than enough to grow all the food you need. They have cold fusion
power supplies. They have a 3D fabrication machine. In other words,
the robot supplies the person with nearly all of the necessities of
life at zero cost. The person is autonomous.

Some people have said that in the future, whoever owns all the robots
will monopolize power and income. But suppose everyone has a robot?
After the robot is paid for, why would anyone pay pay corporations to
manufacture things with robots when he has his own robot and a 3D
gadget to make most things? Robots will be cheap because there will be
competition.

The isolated person in a rural area is not how it would actually work.
Most people will probably live in suburban or urban areas. But the
principle is the same. If people have a guaranteed basic income and
access to robots, autonomy will likely increase, and large
corporations are likely to lose political and economic power.

Also bear in mind that patents run out and technology gets cheaper
over time. In the 19th century, railroads monopolized transportation
and exploited farmers who needed to ship goods to markets. With
automobiles, the railroads lost their monopoly, and faded in
importance. In the 20th century, AT was given a telephone monopoly,
because the technology did not allow multiple phone companies in the
same community. Microsoft developed a "natural monopoly" because
computers only work well when they are exactly alike, and there can
only be two or three standards (PC and Mac). Facebook presently has a
near-monopoly on social media, and Amazon on retail sales. These
monopolies are caused by technology, and as technology changes or
enters the public domain they tend to gradually fade away. Ownership
of robots and Watson-class computers may be concentrated at first, but
eventually we will all have Watson computers costing a few hundred
dollars each. IBM is developing an MPP computer on a chip with 50,000
processors.

- Jed

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


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