Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Hi, It's so sad to notice that my gutfeeling about Defkalion was unfortunately right. On 15-5-2014 20:11, Jed Rothwell wrote: It seems the whole thing fell apart after Rossi broke the contract. My guess is that he never transferred the technology to them. That's what he said, and I suppose it must be true. Maybe they thought they knew how to make the gadget work without his help, but they did not. I hope Rossi's device will be available soon for the entire world. We really need it! Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Maybe DGT made a mistake with a hose! -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
I wrote: > I heard from Mike Nelson today, and confirmed that is what it was. "More > extensive tests were needed." DE finally did these extensive tests, and now > we know the facts. > I mean that Mike Nelson said "More extensive tests were needed." Lewan described Nelson's report: "The report was fairly extensive but contained no data, only a sort of checklist of what had been implemented and a summary of the results. The summary was interesting, though Nelson stressed that the results must be considered provisional until more accurate tests had been performed." Nelson agreed. In a message to me he commented, "And that was exactly what happened" He said "more extensive tests were needed" and that is just what we finally got -- more tests. He never meant to endorse the claims. He sure did not endorse them when I spoke with him last year. As I have said many times, he and the others said things like, "it doesn't work" or "I couldn't tell" or "more tests are needed" or "meh, it wasn't worth the trip." Not one of them told me it worked, and I sure as heck would not have reported they did, after hearing so many negative reports. I figured it was a mistake. It looks more like fraud now. Inept fraud. But I can't tell. I am not an investigator. I cannot bring those people into a police station and grill them, or get a warrant to look through their business records and correspondence. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Axil Axil wrote: The right word might be crimination. I don't believe that I am meeting the > spirit of Jed's responces as follows: > > 1. to charge with a crime. > 2. to incriminate. > 3. to censure (something) as criminal: condemn > Franco Cappiello implied they are criminals, or at least that they will be open to civil suits. I am just reporting what he said. As I said, I do not know enough about the facts to judge whether it was stupidity or fraud. Cappiello said: We can talk about activities that will surely have legal aftermath, in the courts of the countries where Defkalion Green Technology has [operated]. Possiamo parlare di attività che avranno sicuramente strascichi legali, nei tribunali dei paesi dove Defkalion Green Technology ha operato. The Defkalion GT put in front of all the NASA report, reports, and measurements made by important scientists specialists calorimetry, but then you have verified that they were all manipulated and exploited for their own use . It is clear that behind all this there could be a criminal intention È chiaro che dietro a tutto ciò ci potrebbe essere un disegno criminoso. In my opinion the NASA report Cappiello refers to was a checklist, not an endorsement. I heard from Mike Nelson today, and confirmed that is what it was. "More extensive tests were needed." DE finally did these extensive tests, and now we know the facts. Axil is upset with me because of what the people at DE said, and what president Xanthoulis of Defkalion confirmed. His anger is misdirected. He should railing against Xanthoulis, not me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Daniel Rocha wrote: The level of competence needed to verify the claimed error is not much > higher than of a plumber. > Not higher at all. Any plumber on earth could have verified it in 10 minutes. That is exactly what plumbers do when they test boilers. You can see that in the forms they fill out for certified safety inspections. This is one of the tests they do. Some of the others are more complicated and difficult. See: http://www.peci.org/ftguide/ftg/SystemModules/Boilers/Functional_Testing_for_Boilers.htm The people at DE were able to prove the thing does not work as soon as everyone from Greece went home and they had a free hand. When they set up verification equipment before that, the Greeks removed it "without discussion." That's suspicious behavior, to say the least. But, you don't know the staff of DGT to make such claim. > I am not sure what you mean by that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Axil Axil wrote: DGT was producing steam, not 212 water. > They were producing a little steam because there was no water flowing into the cell. > The change of state energy from water to steam was not reflected in the > COP calculations. Yes this is inaccurate, but gross under estimate of the > COP. > That would only be true if the flow is correct. Or partially correct. When you adjust for a much lower flow rate, or no flow at all, then the steam does not indicate any excess heat, any more than steam from a pot of water on an electric stove proves there is an anomaly. > Jed, you are whipping yourselfer into a frenzy of recombination. > Well, at least recombination is appropriate for this field. > Such a negative position will damage your reputation if DGT does have > something that you say they don't. > If they have something and they publish it, of course I will agree it is real. As long as they publish nothing I am justified in saying "as far as I know they have nothing." > A charge of bad judgment might be leveled upon DGT success. > Since they have not published any evidence of success, no one can blame me for concluding they have had no success. I do not have ESP. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Judas Iscariot was said to be the brightest of the 12 apostates, but the > least trustworthy. Just the opposite, according to the Gnostic Gospel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
The right word might be crimination. I don't believe that I am meeting the spirit of Jed's responces as follows: 1. to charge with a crime. 2. to incriminate. 3. to censure (something) as criminal: condemn On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> >> >> Jed, you are whipping yourselfer into a frenzy of [recrimination]. >> > Pot, meet kettle. > > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > > > Jed, you are whipping yourselfer into a frenzy of [recrimination]. > Pot, meet kettle.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
*Judas Iscariot* was said to be the brightest of the 12 apostates, but the least trustworthy. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >"Gamberale has a PhD in theoretical high energy physics from the > University of Milan, and at the Milan based Pirelli Labs he has further > developed the theoretical work in coherent electrodynamics by his > countryman, late Dr. Giuliano Preparata. Among his experimental work he has > been assessing the technology of Black Light Power. He has also made > studies on electrochemical loading of palladium wires." > > > > Gamberale’s association with Preparata speaks for itself. Martin > Fleischmann described Preparata as “ the smartest person I ever knew.” Here > is a nice obit by Miley of an unsung hero of LENR: > > http://newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Preparata.shtml > > > > Unless he has suffered recent “brain damage”… ala Hillary/Rove … one would > have to conclude that Gamberale’s level of competence surpasses the entire > staff of DGT by an order of magnitude. > > > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
The level of competence needed to verify the claimed error is not much higher than of a plumber. But, you don't know the staff of DGT to make such claim. 2014-05-16 13:07 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene : > Gamberale’s level of competence surpasses the entire staff of DGT by > an order of magnitude. > > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
"Gamberale has a PhD in theoretical high energy physics from the University of Milan, and at the Milan based Pirelli Labs he has further developed the theoretical work in coherent electrodynamics by his countryman, late Dr. Giuliano Preparata. Among his experimental work he has been assessing the technology of Black Light Power. He has also made studies on electrochemical loading of palladium wires." Gamberale’s association with Preparata speaks for itself. Martin Fleischmann described Preparata as “ the smartest person I ever knew.” Here is a nice obit by Miley of an unsung hero of LENR: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Preparata.shtml Unless he has suffered recent “brain damage”… ala Hillary/Rove … one would have to conclude that Gamberale’s level of competence surpasses the entire staff of DGT by an order of magnitude.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Recombination shoud read Recrimination. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > DGT was producing steam, not 212 water. The change of state energy from > water to steam was not reflected in the COP calculations. Yes this is > inaccurate, but gross under estimate of the COP. I am depending on memory, > correct me if I have erred. > > Jed, you are whipping yourselfer into a frenzy of recombination. Such > a negative position will damage your reputation if DGT does have something > that you say they don't. A charge of bad judgment might be leveled upon DGT > success. > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Axil Axil wrote: >> >> I judge the MIT conference that DGT pulled out of as a sign of disgust >>> with the powers that be in the LENR field and the first step at going dark >>> to them for DGT. >>> >> >> They pulled out because they knew this scandal would soon break. They >> knew the jig was up. >> >> I knew it too. I have heard from NI and many others that the flow rate >> was bogus. I did not know it was as bad as this! I assumed it was a mistake. >> >> There is world of difference between an honest mistake and a company that >> does not allow its own joint venture to take elementary precautions to >> confirm the measurements. We all make stupid mistakes from time to time. >> But when a company goes out of its way to prevent a proper test, that >> stinks. It is tantamount to fraud, even if fraud is not intended. >> "Tantamount" meaning it might as well be fraud, for all intents and >> purposes. If I were on the jury I would hardly see the need to make the >> distinction or prove intent. >> >> I cannot imagine why Axil is defending these people, when their own >> president has clearly stated the flow calorimetry was wrong. He knew that >> the day after the ICCF18 demo. He has been covering up ever since. What >> more proof of dishonesty and bad faith can you ask for? >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
DGT was producing steam, not 212 water. The change of state energy from water to steam was not reflected in the COP calculations. Yes this is inaccurate, but gross under estimate of the COP. I am depending on memory, correct me if I have erred. Jed, you are whipping yourselfer into a frenzy of recombination. Such a negative position will damage your reputation if DGT does have something that you say they don't. A charge of bad judgment might be leveled upon DGT success. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > I judge the MIT conference that DGT pulled out of as a sign of disgust >> with the powers that be in the LENR field and the first step at going dark >> to them for DGT. >> > > They pulled out because they knew this scandal would soon break. They knew > the jig was up. > > I knew it too. I have heard from NI and many others that the flow rate was > bogus. I did not know it was as bad as this! I assumed it was a mistake. > > There is world of difference between an honest mistake and a company that > does not allow its own joint venture to take elementary precautions to > confirm the measurements. We all make stupid mistakes from time to time. > But when a company goes out of its way to prevent a proper test, that > stinks. It is tantamount to fraud, even if fraud is not intended. > "Tantamount" meaning it might as well be fraud, for all intents and > purposes. If I were on the jury I would hardly see the need to make the > distinction or prove intent. > > I cannot imagine why Axil is defending these people, when their own > president has clearly stated the flow calorimetry was wrong. He knew that > the day after the ICCF18 demo. He has been covering up ever since. What > more proof of dishonesty and bad faith can you ask for? > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Axil Axil wrote: I judge the MIT conference that DGT pulled out of as a sign of disgust with > the powers that be in the LENR field and the first step at going dark to > them for DGT. > They pulled out because they knew this scandal would soon break. They knew the jig was up. I knew it too. I have heard from NI and many others that the flow rate was bogus. I did not know it was as bad as this! I assumed it was a mistake. There is world of difference between an honest mistake and a company that does not allow its own joint venture to take elementary precautions to confirm the measurements. We all make stupid mistakes from time to time. But when a company goes out of its way to prevent a proper test, that stinks. It is tantamount to fraud, even if fraud is not intended. "Tantamount" meaning it might as well be fraud, for all intents and purposes. If I were on the jury I would hardly see the need to make the distinction or prove intent. I cannot imagine why Axil is defending these people, when their own president has clearly stated the flow calorimetry was wrong. He knew that the day after the ICCF18 demo. He has been covering up ever since. What more proof of dishonesty and bad faith can you ask for? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Axil Axil wrote: I am referring to the documents and presentations produced by Dr. Kim with > DGT for ICCF conferences. Have you read any of them? > Kim based his statements on data from Defkalion, showing excess heat. That data was completely wrong. It was either a mistake or fraud. I am pretty sure the other data from Defkalion about magnetic fields and so on was also bogus. Kim based his statements on a complete fantasy. He never even saw the machine work! (Supposedly work. Appear to work.) > Does Rossi produce like data? > No, but ELFORSK did. Also, that is real data, whereas Defkalion's "data" was bogus nonsense, as the president of Defkalion admitted. I do not understand why you believe data that the president of the company now admits was wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
I judge the MIT conference that DGT pulled out of as a sign of disgust with the powers that be in the LENR field and the first step at going dark to them for DGT. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > I am referring to the documents and presentations produced by Dr. Kim with > DGT for ICCF conferences. Have you read any of them? > > Does Rossi produce like data? > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> Axil Axil wrote: >> >> Experimental information describing the Ni/H reactor is dammed hard to >>> come by. >>> >> >> Yes, because Defkalion refused to publish anything. Now that Gamberale >> has published and Xanthoulis, the president of Defkalion confirmed him, we >> have all experimental information we need. It is case closed. >> >> >> >>> With the negativity toward DGT shown by much of the LENR elite, our best >>> source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. >>> >> >> What do you mean "cut off"?!? This is the first time any technical >> information about Defkalion has ever been published. It is detailed. It is >> definitive. It proves they have no heat and their calorimetry is completely >> mistaken. This is rock solid information, confirmed by the president of >> Defkalion. What more do you want? >> >> >> >>> What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, >>> especially such a rich source of info. >>> >> >> I have nothing to do with this. I played no role. I have no influence on >> Defkalion. I have not "undercut" anyone. The top people at Defkalion Europe >> proved that the claims are bogus. The president of Defkalion agreed with >> them. >> >> If you do not even believe Xanthoulis on this matter, who will you >> believe? >> >> >> >>> Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info . . . >>> >> >> What you are talking about??? There has never been ONE SCRAP OF >> INFORMATION FROM DEFKALION. Not one graph, not one table of numbers. >> NOTHING. If you disagree, show me some data published previously. >> >> You need to stop blaming this on me. If you know of some data from >> Defkalion, you need to point it out. I do not mean theoretical speculation >> from Kim, either. I mean experimental data. They never published any. They >> still have not published anything. The joint venture company Defkalion >> Europe published. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
I am referring to the documents and presentations produced by Dr. Kim with DGT for ICCF conferences. Have you read any of them? Does Rossi produce like data? On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > Experimental information describing the Ni/H reactor is dammed hard to >> come by. >> > > Yes, because Defkalion refused to publish anything. Now that Gamberale has > published and Xanthoulis, the president of Defkalion confirmed him, we have > all experimental information we need. It is case closed. > > > >> With the negativity toward DGT shown by much of the LENR elite, our best >> source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. >> > > What do you mean "cut off"?!? This is the first time any technical > information about Defkalion has ever been published. It is detailed. It is > definitive. It proves they have no heat and their calorimetry is completely > mistaken. This is rock solid information, confirmed by the president of > Defkalion. What more do you want? > > > >> What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, especially >> such a rich source of info. >> > > I have nothing to do with this. I played no role. I have no influence on > Defkalion. I have not "undercut" anyone. The top people at Defkalion Europe > proved that the claims are bogus. The president of Defkalion agreed with > them. > > If you do not even believe Xanthoulis on this matter, who will you believe? > > > >> Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info . . . >> > > What you are talking about??? There has never been ONE SCRAP OF > INFORMATION FROM DEFKALION. Not one graph, not one table of numbers. > NOTHING. If you disagree, show me some data published previously. > > You need to stop blaming this on me. If you know of some data from > Defkalion, you need to point it out. I do not mean theoretical speculation > from Kim, either. I mean experimental data. They never published any. They > still have not published anything. The joint venture company Defkalion > Europe published. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Where did you get that Defkalion Europe was a joint venture? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Axil Axil wrote: Experimental information describing the Ni/H reactor is dammed hard to come > by. > Yes, because Defkalion refused to publish anything. Now that Gamberale has published and Xanthoulis, the president of Defkalion confirmed him, we have all experimental information we need. It is case closed. > With the negativity toward DGT shown by much of the LENR elite, our best > source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. > What do you mean "cut off"?!? This is the first time any technical information about Defkalion has ever been published. It is detailed. It is definitive. It proves they have no heat and their calorimetry is completely mistaken. This is rock solid information, confirmed by the president of Defkalion. What more do you want? > What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, especially > such a rich source of info. > I have nothing to do with this. I played no role. I have no influence on Defkalion. I have not "undercut" anyone. The top people at Defkalion Europe proved that the claims are bogus. The president of Defkalion agreed with them. If you do not even believe Xanthoulis on this matter, who will you believe? > Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info . . . > What you are talking about??? There has never been ONE SCRAP OF INFORMATION FROM DEFKALION. Not one graph, not one table of numbers. NOTHING. If you disagree, show me some data published previously. You need to stop blaming this on me. If you know of some data from Defkalion, you need to point it out. I do not mean theoretical speculation from Kim, either. I mean experimental data. They never published any. They still have not published anything. The joint venture company Defkalion Europe published. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Eric Walker wrote: > As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. > We do know a lot about him. Lewan has a link to his biography, and he just added this to his blog: "Gamberale has a PhD in theoretical high energy physics from the University of Milan, and at the Milan based Pirelli Labs he has further developed the theoretical work in coherent electrodynamics by his countryman, late Dr. Giuliano Preparata. Among his experimental work he has been assessing the technology of Black Light Power. He has also made studies on electrochemical loading of palladium wires." Anyway, we don't need to know about him. The president of Defkalion agreed that the flow calorimetry was wrong. So did Hadjichristos and the guy from NI. Everyone now agrees it was not working. Only one question remains: was it a mistake, or fraud? > I recall that his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others > you know. > Yes. Others including Alexander Xanthoulis, the president of Defkalion, quoted by Lewan. Who else are you waiting for? What more proof do you want? > We have two different accounts that conflict in spirit, one in which > Xanthoulis says that Gamberale decided how to do the measurements, and one > in which Gamberale says that Defkalion decided how to do the measurements. > Defkalion's "methods" were garbage. They had numbers on the screen with no verification at all. I have been putting numbers on computer screens for 40 years and I am here to tell you that numbers mean nothing without proper verification. When Gamberale used his own methods, he discovered the problem immediately. It is obvious that his methods work and Defkalion's do not. This is beyond dispute. Gamberale's methods are the ones that I or anyone else with an ounce of common sense would use. As I said, this is not rocket science. > But I am not persuaded one way or the other that Gamberale's account is > not an exaggerated or misleading one in some details. > NI and everyone else who has looked into in confirm the account. The numbers in the report tell the story. There is no doubt about any of it. The flow rate was completely bogus. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
*our best source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, especially such a rich source of info.* DGT isn't basing their decisions to release information to the public based on what Jed thinks or has to say on the subject (or any of us for that matter). As I said, I'm keeping an open mind, and I'm willing to give DGT till at least this summer to produce something of relevance (assuming their statements about independent testing, etcetera, is true). I don't see much point in being hyper-negative about the entire thing either. But to say they have been a "rich source of info" is a dubious statement, and to think that they definitely will be a "rich source of info" in the future is also a leap of faith based, I think, on your own emotional/psychological attachment to them. Again, you hint at all this valuable information, but it seems only you and Peter are privy to it, leaving the rest of us in the cold. *Jed is narrow in his priorities, all he is interested in is boiling water.* Jed may rub you the wrong way and be a tad snarky & hard-nosed sometimes, but that's a bit silly. Are you doing the same by questioning your own priorities and reasons for defending DGT, as much as you question Jed's reasons for challenging them? I'm not so sure. *So what if DGT has made some mistakes at this specialty. Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info for water boiling mistakes that everybody makes? It is just so unfortunate.* I don't think we're risking anything by being critical. DGT doesn't give a damn what we think quite frankly. The only thing that matters is them living up to the standards of their investors, which doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. I'll agree with you that the situation overall is unfortunate, and I'm happy to give them a bit of time to respond/prove themselves, but criticism and negativity is not exactly unwarranted all things considered. But at the same time we can still root for them. It would be silly not to. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Experimental information describing the Ni/H reactor is dammed hard to > come by. With the negativity toward DGT shown by much of the LENR elite, > our best source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. > What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, especially > such a rich source of info. Jed is narrow in his priorities, all he is > interested in is boiling water. So what if DGT has made some mistakes at > this specialty. Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info for water > boiling mistakes that everybody makes? It is just so unfortunate. > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > >> I haven't made up my mind one way or another, I want DGT to succeed as >> I've always had a certain amount of belief in them despite their >> shortcomings, but in regards to labeling Jed as biased, couldn't the same >> be said of you? I.e. that it's comforting to think Gamberale >> is unfairly attacking and trying to undermine DGT for no good reason, who >> you've based much of your theory crafting and had some variety of >> relationship with for awhile now? You always seem to claim they've proved >> far more than they have. Jed is not the only one with doubts, and you have >> some sort of personal involvement with DGT (whatever it is) that could be >> clouding your judgment as well, so we should quit with the armchair >> psychology unless we want it turned back upon ourselves. Anyone who says >> it's "for sure" this way or that is taking a rather large leap of faith and >> not a wait-and-see rational approach. I'll leave it at that. >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> Human nature demands that you believe the guy who states exactly what >>> you want to believe. >>> >>> Gamberale gives Jed a warm feeling. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Eric Walker wrote: >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: "I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t > dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric > set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale > confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict > instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such > as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal > heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by > Defkalion personnel without discussions." > > If they are not swindlers . . . then for some reason they are trying > to make themselves look like swindlers, when they do things like this. > As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. I recall that his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others you know. But I haven't he
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Experimental information describing the Ni/H reactor is dammed hard to come by. With the negativity toward DGT shown by much of the LENR elite, our best source of this precious info will be cut off for no good reason. What good does it do for Jed to undercut anyone in this field, especially such a rich source of info. Jed is narrow in his priorities, all he is interested in is boiling water. So what if DGT has made some mistakes at this specialty. Why risk the flow of rich LENR experimental info for water boiling mistakes that everybody makes? It is just so unfortunate. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Foks0904 . wrote: > I haven't made up my mind one way or another, I want DGT to succeed as > I've always had a certain amount of belief in them despite their > shortcomings, but in regards to labeling Jed as biased, couldn't the same > be said of you? I.e. that it's comforting to think Gamberale > is unfairly attacking and trying to undermine DGT for no good reason, who > you've based much of your theory crafting and had some variety of > relationship with for awhile now? You always seem to claim they've proved > far more than they have. Jed is not the only one with doubts, and you have > some sort of personal involvement with DGT (whatever it is) that could be > clouding your judgment as well, so we should quit with the armchair > psychology unless we want it turned back upon ourselves. Anyone who says > it's "for sure" this way or that is taking a rather large leap of faith and > not a wait-and-see rational approach. I'll leave it at that. > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> Human nature demands that you believe the guy who states exactly what >> you want to believe. >> >> Gamberale gives Jed a warm feeling. >> >> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Eric Walker wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >>> >>> "I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t dispute the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by Defkalion personnel without discussions." If they are not swindlers . . . then for some reason they are trying to make themselves look like swindlers, when they do things like this. >>> >>> As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. I recall >>> that his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others you know. >>> But I haven't heard about validation of all of his statements, especially >>> the ones concerning his being made to do this or that. We have two >>> different accounts that conflict in spirit, one in which Xanthoulis says >>> that Gamberale decided how to do the measurements, and one in which >>> Gamberale says that Defkalion decided how to do the measurements. >>> >>> To be sure, even with what has been substantiated, the situation is an >>> embarrassing one for Defkalion. But I am not persuaded one way or the >>> other that Gamberale's account is not an exaggerated or misleading one in >>> some details. It would be nice to know more about him or to have >>> third-party verification of some of the other things he's saying. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
I haven't made up my mind one way or another, I want DGT to succeed as I've always had a certain amount of belief in them despite their shortcomings, but in regards to labeling Jed as biased, couldn't the same be said of you? I.e. that it's comforting to think Gamberale is unfairly attacking and trying to undermine DGT for no good reason, who you've based much of your theory crafting and had some variety of relationship with for awhile now? You always seem to claim they've proved far more than they have. Jed is not the only one with doubts, and you have some sort of personal involvement with DGT (whatever it is) that could be clouding your judgment as well, so we should quit with the armchair psychology unless we want it turned back upon ourselves. Anyone who says it's "for sure" this way or that is taking a rather large leap of faith and not a wait-and-see rational approach. I'll leave it at that. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Axil Axil wrote: > Human nature demands that you believe the guy who states exactly what you > want to believe. > > Gamberale gives Jed a warm feeling. > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> >> "I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t dispute >>> the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at >>> the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed >>> this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict >>> instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such >>> as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal >>> heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by >>> Defkalion personnel without discussions." >>> >>> If they are not swindlers . . . then for some reason they are trying to >>> make themselves look like swindlers, when they do things like this. >>> >> >> As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. I recall that >> his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others you know. But >> I haven't heard about validation of all of his statements, especially the >> ones concerning his being made to do this or that. We have two different >> accounts that conflict in spirit, one in which Xanthoulis says that >> Gamberale decided how to do the measurements, and one in which Gamberale >> says that Defkalion decided how to do the measurements. >> >> To be sure, even with what has been substantiated, the situation is an >> embarrassing one for Defkalion. But I am not persuaded one way or the >> other that Gamberale's account is not an exaggerated or misleading one in >> some details. It would be nice to know more about him or to have >> third-party verification of some of the other things he's saying. >> >> Eric >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
Human nature demands that you believe the guy who states exactly what you want to believe. Gamberale gives Jed a warm feeling. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > "I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t dispute >> the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at >> the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed >> this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict >> instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such >> as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal >> heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by >> Defkalion personnel without discussions." >> >> If they are not swindlers . . . then for some reason they are trying to >> make themselves look like swindlers, when they do things like this. >> > > As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. I recall that > his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others you know. But > I haven't heard about validation of all of his statements, especially the > ones concerning his being made to do this or that. We have two different > accounts that conflict in spirit, one in which Xanthoulis says that > Gamberale decided how to do the measurements, and one in which Gamberale > says that Defkalion decided how to do the measurements. > > To be sure, even with what has been substantiated, the situation is an > embarrassing one for Defkalion. But I am not persuaded one way or the > other that Gamberale's account is not an exaggerated or misleading one in > some details. It would be nice to know more about him or to have > third-party verification of some of the other things he's saying. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: "I called Alexander Xanthoulis and asked for a comment. He didn’t dispute > the result of the report but pointed out that the calorimetric set-up at > the Milan demo was not made by Defkalion but by Mose. Gamberale confirmed > this but explained that the set-up was made according to strict > instructions from Defkalion, and that when Mose added some component, such > as another independent flow meter or another method for measuring thermal > heat output, these additional components were immediately removed by > Defkalion personnel without discussions." > > If they are not swindlers . . . then for some reason they are trying to > make themselves look like swindlers, when they do things like this. > As has been mentioned, we don't know much about Gamberale. I recall that his conclusion about the flow meter was validated by others you know. But I haven't heard about validation of all of his statements, especially the ones concerning his being made to do this or that. We have two different accounts that conflict in spirit, one in which Xanthoulis says that Gamberale decided how to do the measurements, and one in which Gamberale says that Defkalion decided how to do the measurements. To be sure, even with what has been substantiated, the situation is an embarrassing one for Defkalion. But I am not persuaded one way or the other that Gamberale's account is not an exaggerated or misleading one in some details. It would be nice to know more about him or to have third-party verification of some of the other things he's saying. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion looked promising at first
I am going to upload Gamberale's report to LENR-CANR.org. I will add a news item about Lewan's book and this report. - Jed
