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

It seems to me that calorimetry is a weak subject to base a defence on.
Nether the judge or any of the jury will have even heard the word let alone
understand why the ERV messed it up. The layers for the defence will need a
expert witness to educate the court on what is good and what is ill in LENR
gain measurement. Since you are a sympathetic backer of IH, you may well
get the call to teach and convince the court. I will be interested in the
show that will come; how you perform under pressure, and how you will
avoid ad hominem attack with Ponon and Rossi in the court room. You will
face Rossi head to head, mono e mono with a huge $Billion
responsibility on your shoulders. Ask for a large expert fee, IH can afford
the best.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Why did IH allow Penon to remain the ERV if he was incompetent or
>> dishonest? Why did IH allow the test to continue with a flawed  calorimetry
>> plan? Why wasn't the calorimetry design changed to the satisfaction of IH
>> early on in the test?
>>
>
> I do not know, but these issues have nothing to with calorimetry. You
> cannot use these questions to magically discover what type of instruments
> were used, or how they were employed.
>
> Only one thing counts here. Did the machine produce 50 times input? Or did
> it produce no excess heat? The questions you ask will not bring you any
> closer to the answer. Only the data can answer that. Without data, you know
> nothing, and you cannot being to guess or speculate who is right. You
> should not take sides when you know nothing.
>
>
> Did you ash your contacts at IH these questions? What did they say?
>>
>
> Those questions have nothing to do with calorimetry and they are none of
> my business, and none of your business either. If I did hear anything about
> such things, I would not say a word about them. This is a technical
> problem. It is not about company water-cooler gossip. You will not learn
> the COP of this machine by asking nosy questions about business contracts.
>
>
>
>> As Rossi claims, why was everything OK until it was time to pay the money?
>>
>
> Rossi claims?!? Rossi has claimed he had a production line set up when
> there was no such thing. He claims he spent hours inside a 1 MW reactor in
> a shipping container, when that would kill him in 10 minutes. He has
> claimed countless ridiculous things. Ignore his claims. Everything was NOT
> okay, as I have said many times before.
>
>
>
>> Did IH confront the ERV about their concerns? Did they prepare any
>> documentation describing their concerns?
>>
>
> Whether they did or not has no bearing on calorimetry.
>
>
>
>> If this documentation exists, get its ID so it can be located in the
>> trial docket.
>>
>
> I.H. has not filed a docket yet. Did you not notice that, Mr. Pretend
> Lawyer?
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

Why did IH allow Penon to remain the ERV if he was incompetent or
> dishonest? Why did IH allow the test to continue with a flawed  calorimetry
> plan? Why wasn't the calorimetry design changed to the satisfaction of IH
> early on in the test?
>

I do not know, but these issues have nothing to with calorimetry. You
cannot use these questions to magically discover what type of instruments
were used, or how they were employed.

Only one thing counts here. Did the machine produce 50 times input? Or did
it produce no excess heat? The questions you ask will not bring you any
closer to the answer. Only the data can answer that. Without data, you know
nothing, and you cannot being to guess or speculate who is right. You
should not take sides when you know nothing.

Did you ash your contacts at IH these questions? What did they say?
>

Those questions have nothing to do with calorimetry and they are none of my
business, and none of your business either. If I did hear anything about
such things, I would not say a word about them. This is a technical
problem. It is not about company water-cooler gossip. You will not learn
the COP of this machine by asking nosy questions about business contracts.

> As Rossi claims, why was everything OK until it was time to pay the money?
>

Rossi claims?!? Rossi has claimed he had a production line set up when
there was no such thing. He claims he spent hours inside a 1 MW reactor in
a shipping container, when that would kill him in 10 minutes. He has
claimed countless ridiculous things. Ignore his claims. Everything was NOT
okay, as I have said many times before.

> Did IH confront the ERV about their concerns? Did they prepare any
> documentation describing their concerns?
>

Whether they did or not has no bearing on calorimetry.

> If this documentation exists, get its ID so it can be located in the trial
> docket.
>

I.H. has not filed a docket yet. Did you not notice that, Mr. Pretend
Lawyer?

- Jed

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

Why did IH allow Penon to remain the ERV if he was incompetent or
dishonest? Why did IH allow the test to continue with a flawed  calorimetry
plan? Why wasn't the calorimetry design changed to the satisfaction of IH
early on in the test? Did you ash your contacts at IH these questions? What
did they say? As Rossi claims, why was everything OK until it was time to
pay the money?

The story that IH is spinning does not line up yet. More info is required
about the way IH monitored the test. They seem to be disinterested during
the test. Did IH confront the ERV about their concerns? Did
they prepare any documentation describing their concerns? If this
documentation exists, get its ID so it can be located in the trial docket.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> Jed States:
>>
>> "If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should
>> pack his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves
>> the stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud."
>>
>> This judgement seems to be very harsh, cruel, damaging, and severe.  This 
>> statement causes
>> me to wonder what the basis of this hostile feeling about a complete
>> stranger comes from. There is no case made to support this reaction and no
>> logic that leads to it.
>>
>
> Yes there is a case to be made for this, but you have not yet seen it. You
> will have to wait to see what I.H. presents before you can judge.
>
> Think about it for a moment. Rossi says the machine is producing 50 times
> input. I.H. says it is producing no heat. One of them has to be drastically
> wrong. Completely, utterly mistaken, and grossly incompetent. Or, perhaps,
> fraudulent. There is no middle ground here.
>
> As you know, I think I.H. is right and Rossi is wrong, based on what I
> know of the calorimetry. Therefore, I think Penon is either stupid or he is
> taking part in a fraud. I cannot tell which it is. Either way, he will be
> in trouble if he says it works, because any licensed HVAC engineer they put
> on the stand will have to testify that Penon is drastically wrong. Unless
> that engineer is willing to lose his license, he or she will have to say
> that. Rossi and Penon will be in trouble whether they are sincere or not.
> They will look bad. The authorities will suspect they are engaged in a
> fraud if they testify to something that every genuine expert says cannot be
> true.
>
>
>
>> As far as my opinion on the law that applies in this case, I simply want
>> to go on the record with an opinion based on logic and research.
>>
>
> This is about calorimetry. No information about the calorimetry has been
> released. There is no record for you to go on, and nothing for you to
> research. There is nothing for you apply logic to. You cannot do
> calorimetry by ESP. You have to look at actual facts. All of the "facts"
> you have presented here are either irrelevant or made up and false.
>
>
>
>> How you reach your feelings appears to be based on hearsay from one of
>> the parties in this dispute.
>>
>
> Several parties, with good confirmation.
>
>
>
>> You seem to be inured to the self
>> serving motives that might produce this information from such people.
>>
>
> I do not think there is any motivation for I.H. to throw away $11 million
> for no reason. If they thought it worked, they would pay for it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

Jed States:
>
> "If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack
> his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the
> stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud."
>
> This judgement seems to be very harsh, cruel, damaging, and severe.  This 
> statement causes
> me to wonder what the basis of this hostile feeling about a complete
> stranger comes from. There is no case made to support this reaction and no
> logic that leads to it.
>

Yes there is a case to be made for this, but you have not yet seen it. You
will have to wait to see what I.H. presents before you can judge.

Think about it for a moment. Rossi says the machine is producing 50 times
input. I.H. says it is producing no heat. One of them has to be drastically
wrong. Completely, utterly mistaken, and grossly incompetent. Or, perhaps,
fraudulent. There is no middle ground here.

As you know, I think I.H. is right and Rossi is wrong, based on what I know
of the calorimetry. Therefore, I think Penon is either stupid or he is
taking part in a fraud. I cannot tell which it is. Either way, he will be
in trouble if he says it works, because any licensed HVAC engineer they put
on the stand will have to testify that Penon is drastically wrong. Unless
that engineer is willing to lose his license, he or she will have to say
that. Rossi and Penon will be in trouble whether they are sincere or not.
They will look bad. The authorities will suspect they are engaged in a
fraud if they testify to something that every genuine expert says cannot be
true.

> As far as my opinion on the law that applies in this case, I simply want
> to go on the record with an opinion based on logic and research.
>

This is about calorimetry. No information about the calorimetry has been
released. There is no record for you to go on, and nothing for you to
research. There is nothing for you apply logic to. You cannot do
calorimetry by ESP. You have to look at actual facts. All of the "facts"
you have presented here are either irrelevant or made up and false.

> How you reach your feelings appears to be based on hearsay from one of the
> parties in this dispute.
>

Several parties, with good confirmation.

> You seem to be inured to the self
> serving motives that might produce this information from such people.
>

I do not think there is any motivation for I.H. to throw away $11 million
for no reason. If they thought it worked, they would pay for it.

- Jed

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

Jed States:

"If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack
his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the
stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud."

This judgement seems to be very harsh, cruel, damaging, and severe.
This statement causes
me to wonder what the basis of this hostile feeling about a complete
stranger comes from. There is no case made to support this reaction and no
logic that leads to it.

As far as my opinion on the law that applies in this case, I simply want to
go on the record with an opinion based on logic and research. Oftentime,
experts are kind enough to correct or agree with the offered option and the
logic that underlies that opinion. The reaction to this opinion then
transforms into a opportunity for learning.

How you reach your feelings appears to be based on hearsay from one of the
parties in this dispute. You seem to be inured to the self
serving motives that might produce this information from such people. I
hope that they are not betraying your trust, reputation, friendship, and
good nature.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as
>> the agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement
>> were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms
>> of the Licence agreement were met. . . .
>>
>
> Are you the judge? A friend of the judge, perhaps?
>
> Are you a lawyer? Because if you are, I am surprised you passed the bar.
> Every lawyer I have asked thinks that what you are saying is nonsense, and
> they think you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack
> his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the
> stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

The ERV made two rulings first to award 1.5 million to Rossi and then
> another $10,000,000 based on his judgement that the Rossi reactor worked.
> This sets a precedent that IH accepted . . .
>

Again let me point out you are not a lawyer, you know nothing about this
case, and people who are lawyers tell me that these opinions you are
pulling out of . . . thin air, are nonsense. That latest one is factually
incorrect as well. Stop pretending you know anything about this.

Perhaps you are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect. See John Clesse:

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

Please note that I do not pretend to a be a lawyer, so there is no
equivalence here.

- Jed

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

The ERV made two rulings first to award 1.5 million to Rossi and then
another $10,000,000 based on his judgement that the Rossi reactor worked.
This sets a precedent that IH accepted the judgment of the ERV as
competent, impartial, valid and binding.

But now when it comes down the billion dollar judgment, the ERV is a fraud.
I don't think that line of reasoning will hold up in court. Such and
argument seems inconsistent, against precedence, arbitrary and self serving.

Is the ERV competent when he serves the interests of IH? Is that justice
and fair play; the court will decide.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as
>> the agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement
>> were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms
>> of the Licence agreement were met. . . .
>>
>
> Are you the judge? A friend of the judge, perhaps?
>
> Are you a lawyer? Because if you are, I am surprised you passed the bar.
> Every lawyer I have asked thinks that what you are saying is nonsense, and
> they think you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack
> his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the
> stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the
> agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement
> were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms
> of the Licence agreement were met. . . .
>

Are you the judge? A friend of the judge, perhaps?

Are you a lawyer? Because if you are, I am surprised you passed the bar.
Every lawyer I have asked thinks that what you are saying is nonsense, and
they think you have no idea what you are talking about.

If the ERV say in court that he thinks the terms were met, he should pack
his bags and take the first airplane for Italy as soon as he leaves the
stand, to avoid being arrested for perjury and fraud.

- Jed

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

The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the
agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement
were met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms
of the Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert
judgement, the terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then
rule that the terms of the licence agreement were met and that
89 million must be paid to Rossi.

What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used
to make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this
arbitration. The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he
is the absolute agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to
the legal case at hand.

After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were
Rossi's lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling
any LENR based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH
products contain no Rossi IP.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>>
>
> IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have
> any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as
> it stands now, and as it will always stand.
>
>
> If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
>> pay Rossi the 89 million?
>>
>
>> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
>> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
>>
>
> As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
> cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well
> be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.
>
> It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
> reactor does not work.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-05-14 Thread Eric Walker

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

I guess/hope we don't need to wait too long now before things are resolved
> and hopefully become clearer.
>

If the past few years are anything to go by, I think the opposite
assumption is a safer one.

Eric

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

2016-05-14 Thread Lennart Thornros

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

Stephen Cooke  wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jed

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

Thanks Jed,

You are modest, but I know your understanding of Calorimetry far exceeds mine, 
and much of this is over my head so thanks for your patience. 

I suppose if the heater was immersed and surrounded by water the heat would 
either transfer through the water by conduction, convection or radiatively 
through IR. I suppose the water itself would not exceed 120 degC. Does the 
waste heat component mean that some of the IR transfers through the water and 
out of the device with out heating the water, or perhaps directly heating the 
container that then radiates slowly through the insulation? Hmmm... Does this 
impact the calorimetry? I wonder is that why IH question the results maybe?

If there was no IR leakage I suppose the water or steam flow through the 
container would still need to be pretty high to keep it in low temperature 
range though, I'm curious if those kind of flow rates are possible?, but I 
guess only an HVAC engineer or someone who builds boilers would know. 

Probably I should be patient and wait for HVAC reports if any are released. 

I guess/hope we don't need to wait too long now before things are resolved and 
hopefully become clearer.

Stephen

> On 14 mei 2016, at 20:43, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
>> Regarding the waste heat, you mentioned that all the waste heat can't be 
>> transferred to the water? But surely if the heat source is inside the water 
>> tank it can only be transferred to the water. Isn't this how we do 
>> calorimetry?
> 
> Look at photos of the shipping container. It has shelves with 
> insulation-wrapped large metal boxes on them. Each box is a cold fusion 
> generator. Water flows into the boxes and then out from the shipping 
> container in a single pipe. At least, that was the configuration in Italy.
> 
> The boxes get hot internally, and some of the heat transfers to the water 
> flowing through. However, it cannot all transfer. Some of it radiates out 
> from the boxes to the inside of the shipping container. This is waste heat. 
> The insulation reduces it, but cannot eliminate it.
> 
> I am not capable of determining how much radiates, but an HVAC guy estimated 
> that if there is ~1 MW transferred to the water, there would have to be 
> several hundred kilowatts of waste heat. Here is a 6-burner 212,000 BTU/h (62 
> kW) restaurant stove:
> 
> http://www.therdstore.com/page/IFSES/GSTOVE/SR-6-36
> 
> That is much bigger and hotter than any stove at home, which typically have 4 
> burners totaling at most 40,000 BTU/h (12 kW). 212,000 BTU/h is 62 kW, so if 
> the waste heat if 300 kW (conservatively) that would be the equivalent of 5 
> restaurant stoves or 25 home stoves going full blast in large steel box, 
> making the box a large oven.
> 
>  
>> As long as the water tank was insulated for 120 deg C and the water or steam 
>> flow ensured this temperature was not exceeded I don't see why it would get 
>> hotter In the container.
> 
> The boxes would have be very hot inside to produce 1 MW of heat. There are 
> not many boxes. 50 as I recall. Each one has to produce 20 kW.
> 
>  
>> I suppose other kinds of boilers that have an external furnace for coal of 
>> gas this is not the case, as the furnace it self might be much hotter?
> 
> Yes, space heating and water heating furnaces heat sources are always much 
> hotter than the fluid. This is wasteful. It is an impedance mismatch.
> 
> - Jed
>

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

Stephen Cooke  wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Jed

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

Hi Jed 

Regarding the waste heat, you mentioned that all the waste heat can't be 
transferred to the water? But surely if the heat source is inside the water 
tank it can only be transferred to the water. Isn't this how we do calorimetry? 
As long as the water tank was insulated for 120 deg C and the water or steam 
flow ensured this temperature was not exceeded I don't see why it would get 
hotter In the container. But perhaps I miss something simple like the flow rate 
is not sufficient or something? I suppose other kinds of boilers that have an 
external furnace for coal of gas this is not the case, as the furnace it self 
might be much hotter?

Stephen

> On 14 mei 2016, at 19:11, Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jed, 
> 
> thanks for your extended reply, I'm also far from being able todo the HVAC 
> calculations so respect you have an experts input and are better informed 
> than me about what is possible.
> 
> Thanks also for the link rsbiomass.
> 
> To be fair the pictures of the Bosch plant I think we're for 38 MW or 19 MW 
> plants, so a little bit bigger than 1MW ;) I guess it also has to vent its 
> fuel exhaust somehow.
> 
> Of course these kind of boilers also include volume for the fuel burning, I 
> suppose the most comparable ones for LENR would be electrical.
> 
> I think there are better comparisons in the viessmann link which have smaller 
> boilers with different fuel including some close to 1MW.
> 
> I take you points about ventilation I'm also a little surprised we don't see 
> much, but am not enough of an expert to comment. I know electrical kilns I 
> have been near have been sometimes well insulated outside unless opened some 
> times other kilns I have been near not so much insulated but I suppose they 
> were not any where near the 1MW so it's difficult for me to compare.
> 
> Were the industrial heaters you were with before operating at higher 
> temperatures than 120 degC?
> 
> For further information about boilers that I think is interesting in the 
> context, here are a couple more links.
> 
> http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/Reference-Center/Resource-Library/Webinars/2014-Webinars/Boiler-Basics--Design-and-Application-Differences.aspx
> 
> http://www.nationalboiler.com/blog/industrial-boilers/4-ways-to-classify-types-of-industrial-boilers/
> 
> I agree the application is a puzzle, I'm curious to find out what it is some 
> day.
> 
> Thanks again for your earlier clarifications
> 
>> On 14 mei 2016, at 18:30, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> 
>> Stephen Cooke  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant 
>>> would cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I 
>>> have recently checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other 
>>> heat sources it seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for 
>>> industrial applications and are often accommodated in warehouses. The sizes 
>>> also seem to me to be comparable to the e-cat.
>> 
>> I think the e-cat is smaller than the boilers you showed in the linked 
>> document. It is a lot smaller than this 1 MW boiler as well:
>> 
>> http://rsbiomass.com/products/urbas-biomass-plant/biomass-boiler-plant/
>> 
>> The smaller the unit, the more intense the heat inside the shipping 
>> container.
>> 
>> Regarding this analysis, I am not capable of doing it either. This is what I 
>> heard from an HVAC engineer who examined the photos of the reactor and the 
>> warehouse. I cannot describe this in detail, because the analysis is over my 
>> head, and I do not have the exact numbers. Here is the gist of it:
>> 
>> In a factory using this much process heat, you need large ventilation 
>> equipment, which is not in evidence. Without that, the room would overheat 
>> enough to kill the occupants.
>> 
>> A typical use of process heat is for a dry cleaning shop, which uses 10 kW. 
>> So this is enough heat to operate 100 dry cleaning machines, which is far 
>> more equipment than you can fit into this building. There are factories with 
>> 100 times bigger equipment than a dry cleaning shop has, such as carpet 
>> mills, but those factories are big!
>> 
>> The inside of the shipping container would be like an oven, even with the 
>> doors wide open. I believe Rossi claims he spent hours inside it. The 
>> individual generators are wrapped in insulation, but there would still be 
>> hundreds of kilowatts of waste heat from them. It cannot all transfer to the 
>> water. Standing inside it would be like sitting on top of a conventional gas 
>> or electrically fired 1 MW heater, like the one you pointed to here:
>> 
>> http://www.bosch-industrial.com/files/BR_IndustrialBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf
>> 
>> I have been within 10 feet of an 80 kW industrial heater in a factory. You 
>> cannot get any closer than that. It is like standing next to an open fire. 
>> If you were thrown against it or held above it,

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

Hi Jed,

The kilns I have been near are smaller ones for ceramic crafts and artwork, but 
I wonder if something like this can be applicable.

https://www.vpbay.com/product/pellet-burner-kiln/

I'm far from knowledgable about industrial applications but I guess it's not so 
simple to match a boiler to this kind of device especially if it's different 
temperature ranges, but it shows the kind of thing that is possible.


> On 14 mei 2016, at 19:11, Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jed, 
> 
> thanks for your extended reply, I'm also far from being able todo the HVAC 
> calculations so respect you have an experts input and are better informed 
> than me about what is possible.
> 
> Thanks also for the link rsbiomass.
> 
> To be fair the pictures of the Bosch plant I think we're for 38 MW or 19 MW 
> plants, so a little bit bigger than 1MW ;) I guess it also has to vent its 
> fuel exhaust somehow.
> 
> Of course these kind of boilers also include volume for the fuel burning, I 
> suppose the most comparable ones for LENR would be electrical.
> 
> I think there are better comparisons in the viessmann link which have smaller 
> boilers with different fuel including some close to 1MW.
> 
> I take you points about ventilation I'm also a little surprised we don't see 
> much, but am not enough of an expert to comment. I know electrical kilns I 
> have been near have been sometimes well insulated outside unless opened some 
> times other kilns I have been near not so much insulated but I suppose they 
> were not any where near the 1MW so it's difficult for me to compare.
> 
> Were the industrial heaters you were with before operating at higher 
> temperatures than 120 degC?
> 
> For further information about boilers that I think is interesting in the 
> context, here are a couple more links.
> 
> http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/Reference-Center/Resource-Library/Webinars/2014-Webinars/Boiler-Basics--Design-and-Application-Differences.aspx
> 
> http://www.nationalboiler.com/blog/industrial-boilers/4-ways-to-classify-types-of-industrial-boilers/
> 
> I agree the application is a puzzle, I'm curious to find out what it is some 
> day.
> 
> Thanks again for your earlier clarifications
> 
>> On 14 mei 2016, at 18:30, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> 
>> Stephen Cooke  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant 
>>> would cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I 
>>> have recently checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other 
>>> heat sources it seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for 
>>> industrial applications and are often accommodated in warehouses. The sizes 
>>> also seem to me to be comparable to the e-cat.
>> 
>> I think the e-cat is smaller than the boilers you showed in the linked 
>> document. It is a lot smaller than this 1 MW boiler as well:
>> 
>> http://rsbiomass.com/products/urbas-biomass-plant/biomass-boiler-plant/
>> 
>> The smaller the unit, the more intense the heat inside the shipping 
>> container.
>> 
>> Regarding this analysis, I am not capable of doing it either. This is what I 
>> heard from an HVAC engineer who examined the photos of the reactor and the 
>> warehouse. I cannot describe this in detail, because the analysis is over my 
>> head, and I do not have the exact numbers. Here is the gist of it:
>> 
>> In a factory using this much process heat, you need large ventilation 
>> equipment, which is not in evidence. Without that, the room would overheat 
>> enough to kill the occupants.
>> 
>> A typical use of process heat is for a dry cleaning shop, which uses 10 kW. 
>> So this is enough heat to operate 100 dry cleaning machines, which is far 
>> more equipment than you can fit into this building. There are factories with 
>> 100 times bigger equipment than a dry cleaning shop has, such as carpet 
>> mills, but those factories are big!
>> 
>> The inside of the shipping container would be like an oven, even with the 
>> doors wide open. I believe Rossi claims he spent hours inside it. The 
>> individual generators are wrapped in insulation, but there would still be 
>> hundreds of kilowatts of waste heat from them. It cannot all transfer to the 
>> water. Standing inside it would be like sitting on top of a conventional gas 
>> or electrically fired 1 MW heater, like the one you pointed to here:
>> 
>> http://www.bosch-industrial.com/files/BR_IndustrialBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf
>> 
>> I have been within 10 feet of an 80 kW industrial heater in a factory. You 
>> cannot get any closer than that. It is like standing next to an open fire. 
>> If you were thrown against it or held above it, you would be scalded to 
>> death in no time.
>> 
>> I do not think 1 MW is possible. These considerations reduce the possible 
>> amount of excess heat, but they do not rule out excess heat. As I recall the 
>> contract called for 6 times

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

Jed Said:

"No, as I told you several times, I pointed to the paper Penon published on
the internet. In my opinion, it shows he is an idiot. You can read it
yourself. Perhaps you will disagree."

My issue is the evaluation of what was done before the contract was signed
and what was done after it was signed and the reasons for those acts.

Why was JED who is renowned for his expertice in LENR testing not consulted
before the test was contracted? If IH has 89 million and and additional
billion on the line via this contract, why wasn't the top man in the field
contacted for his opinion about the ERV.

If the ERV is the sole arbiter of the validity of the technology, evey warm
body including Jed should have be contacted.

It sounds like IH ask Rossi for his recommendation, and Rossi
supplied Penon. This does not make sense to me. If IH intended to meet the
terms of the contract, they should have done more due diligence.

Instead, they made Penon the only person with the authority to make
a judgement in this test.

Penon in effect became Jubge Judy in this arbitration between Rossi and IH.

*Judge Judy* is an American arbitration-based reality

 court show  presided over by
retired Manhattan  family court
 Judge Judith Sheindlin
. The show features
Sheindlin adjudicating real-life small claim
 disputes within a
simulated  courtroom set. All
parties involved must sign contracts agreeing to arbitration
 under Sheindlin.

Once the contract is signed, Judge Judy is given absolute legal authority
in the case at hand. When the verdict is rendered by this Judge, the issue
is legally resolved.

The plaintiff cannot say that Judge Judy is an idiot and plaintiff is not
bound by what she says. NO, the issue at hand is adjudicated.

It does not matter who or what Penon is, he was given the authority by the
two parties involved in the contract to make the judgement and
his decision is absolute.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Your statements,including label people as idiots, based on information
>> you say is confidential . . .
>>
> No, as I told you several times, I pointed to the paper Penon published on
> the internet. In my opinion, it shows he is an idiot. You can read it
> yourself. Perhaps you will disagree.
>
> Please stop repeating false statements.
>
> It is not a question of taking sides.
>>
> Gluck has taken sides! He presents Rossi's point of view only. He attacks
> I.H. and me, even though he has not heard the technical arguments by I.H.
> yet.
>
>
>> IH have provided very little information and has been vague in general,
>> maybe exemption for communication with you.
>>
> Then you must wait for I.H. to provide more information before you try to
> judge who is right. That's all I am saying.
>
>
>> I think Rossi needs a chance to prove his claims.
>>
> Yes, he does. You have to wait to see his technical presentation as well.
> You cannot simply believe he is getting 50 times input just because he says
> so.
>
>
>> It amazes me that IH does not clarify the situation if th
>> ey have water tight argument.
>>
> It amazes me that you keep repeating this nonsense. I.H. cannot clarify
> the situation in public at this time, because they have to respond to a
> lawsuit. That is how lawsuits work. The lawyers tell both sides to shut up
> until the dockets are filed.
>
> I.H. will lose $89 million if they fail to file the arguments, or if their
> arguments are not water-tight. So you can be sure they working hard to
> prepare convincing argument.
>
> You should note that Rossi did not present any data in defense of his
> claims. That should tell you something.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

2016-05-14 Thread Eric Walker

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

Finally, here is a reality check. Rossi's customer is a listed as a
> chemical distribution warehouse. Do you think a chemical distributor can
> use enough process heat for a good-sized factory? I doubt it! This is
> implausible, to say the least.
>

There are two questions that come up in this connection: (1) is the
customer a bona fide business, independent of Rossi, that has simply been
hidden behind a shell company by Rossi for its protection; and (2) was the
bona fide customer using the heat as process heat, i.e., to do something
useful?

The answers to both are unclear at this point, but count me as highly
skeptical of (2) having been the case.

Eric

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

2016-05-14 Thread a.ashfield

lenr-forum.com sheds some more light. Apparently Darden visited the
Lugano team to explain that they got erroneous results and no heat was
generated.. (Confirmed by Mats Lewan ) It seems they had thermocouples
that they used intermittently and found the readings disagreed with the
IR camera. It is reported the Lugano team has now understood there is a
problem and are working on a revision of the paper..

This presents several difficulties for me.
1. It is not easy to get good reading with a contact thermometer. It
really needs to be in a hole.
2. IH had two representatives there. Why did they not compare their
results with the Lugano team at the time?
3. As I wrote then, it was bad practice not to use type S thermocouple
in the first place. My direct experience with IR cameras taught me how
difficult it was to determine the emissivity, particularly on a curved
surface.
4. This does not rule out my earlier supposition that the problem IH has
was trying to reproduce the results. They manufactured the Hot Cats
used and we have heard little about them from Rossi.
5. There would probably have been six Lugano people plus two IH people
watching Rossi unload the charge. Is Rossi a good enough magician to
swap that without being caught?

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3196-Cutting-Through-the-Fog-Surrounding-the-Rossi-IH-Dispute-Josh-G/?pageNo=46

ps. Rossi stated yesterday he would release the ERV's report after it
had been entered in court.

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

Hi Jed, 

thanks for your extended reply, I'm also far from being able todo the HVAC 
calculations so respect you have an experts input and are better informed than 
me about what is possible.

Thanks also for the link rsbiomass.

To be fair the pictures of the Bosch plant I think we're for 38 MW or 19 MW 
plants, so a little bit bigger than 1MW ;) I guess it also has to vent its fuel 
exhaust somehow.

Of course these kind of boilers also include volume for the fuel burning, I 
suppose the most comparable ones for LENR would be electrical.

I think there are better comparisons in the viessmann link which have smaller 
boilers with different fuel including some close to 1MW.

I take you points about ventilation I'm also a little surprised we don't see 
much, but am not enough of an expert to comment. I know electrical kilns I have 
been near have been sometimes well insulated outside unless opened some times 
other kilns I have been near not so much insulated but I suppose they were not 
any where near the 1MW so it's difficult for me to compare.

Were the industrial heaters you were with before operating at higher 
temperatures than 120 degC?

For further information about boilers that I think is interesting in the 
context, here are a couple more links.

http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/Reference-Center/Resource-Library/Webinars/2014-Webinars/Boiler-Basics--Design-and-Application-Differences.aspx

http://www.nationalboiler.com/blog/industrial-boilers/4-ways-to-classify-types-of-industrial-boilers/

I agree the application is a puzzle, I'm curious to find out what it is some 
day.

Thanks again for your earlier clarifications

> On 14 mei 2016, at 18:30, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant 
>> would cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I have 
>> recently checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other heat 
>> sources it seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for 
>> industrial applications and are often accommodated in warehouses. The sizes 
>> also seem to me to be comparable to the e-cat.
> 
> I think the e-cat is smaller than the boilers you showed in the linked 
> document. It is a lot smaller than this 1 MW boiler as well:
> 
> http://rsbiomass.com/products/urbas-biomass-plant/biomass-boiler-plant/
> 
> The smaller the unit, the more intense the heat inside the shipping container.
> 
> Regarding this analysis, I am not capable of doing it either. This is what I 
> heard from an HVAC engineer who examined the photos of the reactor and the 
> warehouse. I cannot describe this in detail, because the analysis is over my 
> head, and I do not have the exact numbers. Here is the gist of it:
> 
> In a factory using this much process heat, you need large ventilation 
> equipment, which is not in evidence. Without that, the room would overheat 
> enough to kill the occupants.
> 
> A typical use of process heat is for a dry cleaning shop, which uses 10 kW. 
> So this is enough heat to operate 100 dry cleaning machines, which is far 
> more equipment than you can fit into this building. There are factories with 
> 100 times bigger equipment than a dry cleaning shop has, such as carpet 
> mills, but those factories are big!
> 
> The inside of the shipping container would be like an oven, even with the 
> doors wide open. I believe Rossi claims he spent hours inside it. The 
> individual generators are wrapped in insulation, but there would still be 
> hundreds of kilowatts of waste heat from them. It cannot all transfer to the 
> water. Standing inside it would be like sitting on top of a conventional gas 
> or electrically fired 1 MW heater, like the one you pointed to here:
> 
> http://www.bosch-industrial.com/files/BR_IndustrialBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf
> 
> I have been within 10 feet of an 80 kW industrial heater in a factory. You 
> cannot get any closer than that. It is like standing next to an open fire. If 
> you were thrown against it or held above it, you would be scalded to death in 
> no time.
> 
> I do not think 1 MW is possible. These considerations reduce the possible 
> amount of excess heat, but they do not rule out excess heat. As I recall the 
> contract called for 6 times input. This is still plausible, I suppose. 
> However, the analysis of data by I.H. and by me (with a smaller dataset) rule 
> that out for other reasons.
> 
> 
>> I didn't get the impression from those sites that they are too hot for the 
>> warehouse.
> 
> I have been in factories and in ship engine rooms with equipment on this 
> scale. The spaces are much larger, or in the case of the engine rooms, the 
> ventilation equipment is huge.
> 
> Also, operating industrial equipment that uses this much heat makes a lot of 
> noise and commotion. I am sure that warehouse is not zoned for anything like 
> 100 dry cleaning machines or a

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

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Your statements,including label people as idiots, based on information you
> say is confidential . . .
>
No, as I told you several times, I pointed to the paper Penon published on
the internet. In my opinion, it shows he is an idiot. You can read it
yourself. Perhaps you will disagree.

Please stop repeating false statements.

It is not a question of taking sides.
>
Gluck has taken sides! He presents Rossi's point of view only. He attacks
I.H. and me, even though he has not heard the technical arguments by I.H.
yet.


> IH have provided very little information and has been vague in general,
> maybe exemption for communication with you.
>
Then you must wait for I.H. to provide more information before you try to
judge who is right. That's all I am saying.


> I think Rossi needs a chance to prove his claims.
>
Yes, he does. You have to wait to see his technical presentation as well.
You cannot simply believe he is getting 50 times input just because he says
so.


> It amazes me that IH does not clarify the situation if th
> ey have water tight argument.
>
It amazes me that you keep repeating this nonsense. I.H. cannot clarify the
situation in public at this time, because they have to respond to a
lawsuit. That is how lawsuits work. The lawyers tell both sides to shut up
until the dockets are filed.

I.H. will lose $89 million if they fail to file the arguments, or if their
arguments are not water-tight. So you can be sure they working hard to
prepare convincing argument.

You should note that Rossi did not present any data in defense of his
claims. That should tell you something.

- Jed

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

2016-05-14 Thread Lennart Thornros

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

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

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

Stephen Cooke  wrote:

Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant
> would cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I
> have recently checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other
> heat sources it seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for
> industrial applications and are often accommodated in warehouses. The sizes
> also seem to me to be comparable to the e-cat.
>

I think the e-cat is smaller than the boilers you showed in the linked
document. It is a lot smaller than this 1 MW boiler as well:

http://rsbiomass.com/products/urbas-biomass-plant/biomass-boiler-plant/

The smaller the unit, the more intense the heat inside the shipping
container.

Regarding this analysis, I am not capable of doing it either. This is what
I heard from an HVAC engineer who examined the photos of the reactor and
the warehouse. I cannot describe this in detail, because the analysis is
over my head, and I do not have the exact numbers. Here is the gist of it:

In a factory using this much process heat, you need large ventilation
equipment, which is not in evidence. Without that, the room would overheat
enough to kill the occupants.

A typical use of process heat is for a dry cleaning shop, which uses 10 kW.
So this is enough heat to operate 100 dry cleaning machines, which is far
more equipment than you can fit into this building. There are factories
with 100 times bigger equipment than a dry cleaning shop has, such as
carpet mills, but those factories are big!

The inside of the shipping container would be like an oven, even with the
doors wide open. I believe Rossi claims he spent hours inside it. The
individual generators are wrapped in insulation, but there would still be
hundreds of kilowatts of waste heat from them. It cannot all transfer to
the water. Standing inside it would be like sitting on top of a
conventional gas or electrically fired 1 MW heater, like the one you
pointed to here:

http://www.bosch-industrial.com/files/BR_IndustrialBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf

I have been within 10 feet of an 80 kW industrial heater in a factory. You
cannot get any closer than that. It is like standing next to an open fire.
If you were thrown against it or held above it, you would be scalded to
death in no time.

I do not think 1 MW is possible. These considerations reduce the possible
amount of excess heat, but they do not rule out excess heat. As I recall
the contract called for 6 times input. This is still plausible, I suppose.
However, the analysis of data by I.H. and by me (with a smaller dataset)
rule that out for other reasons.

I didn't get the impression from those sites that they are too hot for the
> warehouse.
>

I have been in factories and in ship engine rooms with equipment on this
scale. The spaces are much larger, or in the case of the engine rooms, the
ventilation equipment is huge.

Also, operating industrial equipment that uses this much heat makes a lot
of noise and commotion. I am sure that warehouse is not zoned for anything
like 100 dry cleaning machines or a carpet mill.

Finally, here is a reality check. Rossi's customer is a listed as a
chemical distribution warehouse. Do you think a chemical distributor can
use enough process heat for a good-sized factory? I doubt it! This is
implausible, to say the least.

- Jed

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

Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant would 
cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I have recently 
checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other heat sources it 
seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for industrial 
applications and are often accommodated in warehouses. The sizes also seem to 
me to be comparable to the e-cat. I didn't get the impression from those sites 
that they are too hot for the warehouse. Perhaps I miss some details and a 
boiler engineer will add something.

In case it helps here are some links:

Note the first one deals mostly with "high pressure boilers" but makes a good 
list of typical applications,  where as the second one also gives some typical 
"low pressure steam boilers" that run with steam about 120 deg C. This does not 
sound too dissimilar to the 1MW ecat to me. Are you sure 1MW heat is so 
difficult to handle?

http://www.bosch-industrial.com/files/BR_IndustrialBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf

https://www.viessmann.com/com/content/dam/vi-corporate/COM/Download/Oil-gas-boilers-and-hot-water-boilers.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original.media_file.download_attachment.file/Oil-gas-boilers-and-hot-water-boilers.pdf

Of course we still need to see how the heat was applied in the e-cat case but 
maybe it was along the lines of one of the applications mentioned in the first 
link? I understand from your information that you have heard there was no 
application though, which I agree sounds strange.

> On 13 mei 2016, at 20:37, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote:
> 
>> "However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being pushed 
>> somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible position 
>> so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not know much 
>> about IH's real position , arguments and justifications. Do you agree, Jed?"
> 
> No, this is completely wrong in every respect, as I have pointed out many 
> times previously:
> 
> No one is pushing me.
> 
> There is nothing unnatural, implausible or unbelievable about I.H.'s claim. 
> Any person who understands calorimetry and examines the data will agree with 
> their analysis. If Rossi and Penon seriously believe there is 50 times output 
> they are both certified idiots (not just Penon).
> 
> As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the 
> calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong. I 
> have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside of 
> I.H., so I am sure it is real.
> 
> I know enough about I.H.'s "real position" regarding calorimetry to judge 
> this matter, although I look forward to learning more. I know nothing about 
> business arrangements or contracts.
> 
> I have enough information to judge these things with confidence. You, on the 
> other hand, know nothing about them. All you have to go on are Rossi's 
> assertions from his blog. These range from nonsense to impossible. The 
> information he already released in the lawsuit rules out his claims. If the 
> reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the 
> building would be cooked. They would be dead. In fact, it is not producing 
> any excess heat. If and when I.H. becomes free to publish the technical data, 
> everyone will see this, and you will see that Rossi has been playing you for 
> a fool.
> 
> - Jed
>

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

a.ashfield  wrote:

I doubt anyone outside IH and Rossi's camps knows what happened.
>

Actually, several people know, including me. At least, we know what both
sides claim. I.H. says there is no heat, and Rossi claims the heat is 50
times input. That is not to say I.H. is necessarily right.

> IH did not specify the 1 MW plant didn't work in their statement, although
> Jed has said he was told it didn't.  What they said was they could not
> reproduce the results.

No, what they said was they were not able to "substantiate" the results.
That means measure, observe, confirm. The dictionary definition is "provide
evidence to support or prove the truth of." It does not just mean a failure
to replicate, although it would cover that as well.

  This could mean the IP they received from Rossi was not sufficient.
>

Nope, they mean they were not able to provide evidence in support of
Rossi's claim. Specifically, it means Rossi's calorimetry is wrong, and
there was no excess heat.

I find it difficult to believe the ERV could make such a large error.

It is surprising, but I have no doubt he either made a large error, or
possibly he is committing fraud. It is even more difficult to believe that
the people from I.H. made such a large error in the other direction,
because they are more skilled than Penon.

> So, as before, we should wait for more definite information in order to
> make sense of the situation.
>

Yes, that is my advice. Just wait. I wish Peter Gluck would wait instead of
spreading poisonous nonsense in his blog. I do not demand that people
believe I.H. or me, but I am suggesting that until Gluck gets a chance to
see what I.H. has to say, he should reserve judgement, stop taking Rossi's
side, and stop attacking me. This is kindergarten-level fairness. Frankly I
am appalled that Gluck or any other scientifically minded person does not
do this.

If you have not seen the data, you have *no reason* to assume that Rossi is
right and I.H. is wrong. The argument that it is "difficult to believe the
ERV could make such a large error" works equally well in the other
direction. It is just as difficult to believe that I.H. would make such a
giant error. For that matter, I have seen some of the data, and I hope that
people will give me some credit and grant that it difficult to believe that
*I* would make such a giant error.

- Jed

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

2016-05-14 Thread a.ashfield


I doubt anyone outside IH and Rossi's camps knows what happened.
IH did not specify the 1 MW plant didn't work in their statement, 
although Jed has said he was told it didn't.  What they said was they 
could not reproduce the results.  This could mean the IP they received 
from Rossi was not sufficient.


I find it difficult to believe the ERV could make such a large error.  
He is not an idiot and there were others involved too.   So, as before, 
we should wait for more definite information in order to make sense of 
the situation.

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

I am just bring into focus what the theory of Rossi's case is...the
avoidance of the $Billion payment in licence fees. It has nothing to with
Rossi's tech not working. If IH claims that Rossi's IP does not work, they
will lose their case since their duly authorized agent who designed and
conducted the test certified that it does work and proved to his own
satisfaction that it does work.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
>> they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
>> OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.
>>
>
> This theory is bonkers. The machine DOES NOT WORK. It does not produce any
> excess heat. Therefore, there is no IP, and there will be no products.
>
>
>
>> This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
>> performed because they never intended for that test to produce any
>> contractual results.
>>
>
> The test produced clear-cut results. It showed that the machine does not
> work. Those are contractual results. They give I.H. the right to terminate
> the contract.
>
> Whether it produces heat or not cannot be decided by nutty legal theories,
> or based on the notion that I.H. wanted to throw away $11 million for no
> reason, or by some similar lunatic notion. This question can only be
> settled with reference to data and calorimetry. I am confident that any
> person who understands these subjects if given the opportunity to analyze
> the data will agree there is no excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
> they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
> OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.
>

This theory is bonkers. The machine DOES NOT WORK. It does not produce any
excess heat. Therefore, there is no IP, and there will be no products.

> This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
> performed because they never intended for that test to produce any
> contractual results.
>

The test produced clear-cut results. It showed that the machine does not
work. Those are contractual results. They give I.H. the right to terminate
the contract.

Whether it produces heat or not cannot be decided by nutty legal theories,
or based on the notion that I.H. wanted to throw away $11 million for no
reason, or by some similar lunatic notion. This question can only be
settled with reference to data and calorimetry. I am confident that any
person who understands these subjects if given the opportunity to analyze
the data will agree there is no excess heat.

- Jed

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

The theory of the case is centered on the $Billion that IH would save is
they could somehow use Rossi's IP in their own products and that of their
OEMs but avoid paying 1 billion dollars in licensing fees.

This theory explains why IH did not care how the one year test was
performed because they never intended for that test to produce any
contractual results.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> I am developing my opinion of what Rossi's opinion of the case is.
>
> “A theory of a case is a cogent statement of an advocate’s position that
> justifies the verdict he or she is seeking. A theory of the case is not
> necessarily cast in the words that will be sued with the jury, but words
> that are heard in the lawyer’s mind as the case is prepared. The goal of
> the trial plan is to create factual support for the advocate’s theory of
> the case….
>
> ”If the advocate has no theory of the case, she would have no unifying
> focal point to the various portions of the case….
> "Only by adopting a theory of the case can a lawyer prepare for trial."
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> If IH can somehow use the IP of Rossi but get out of the licence
>> agreement with Rossi, they will save one $billion. This may explain the
>> motivation in the actions of IH. This is just a theory of the case.
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results
>>> of the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they
>>> had Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and
>>> that of their other EOMs.
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

 What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented
 the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's
 IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
 figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
 disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
 IH.

 The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed
 with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
 evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
 evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?

 It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers
 should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden,
 unless I was certain of the outcome.

 Craig

>>>
>>
>

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

I am developing my opinion of what Rossi's opinion of the case is.

“A theory of a case is a cogent statement of an advocate’s position that
justifies the verdict he or she is seeking. A theory of the case is not
necessarily cast in the words that will be sued with the jury, but words
that are heard in the lawyer’s mind as the case is prepared. The goal of
the trial plan is to create factual support for the advocate’s theory of
the case….

”If the advocate has no theory of the case, she would have no unifying
focal point to the various portions of the case….
"Only by adopting a theory of the case can a lawyer prepare for trial."

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> If IH can somehow use the IP of Rossi but get out of the licence agreement
> with Rossi, they will save one $billion. This may explain the motivation in
> the actions of IH. This is just a theory of the case.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results
>> of the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they
>> had Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and
>> that of their other EOMs.
>>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>>
>>> What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
>>> Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
>>> worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
>>> figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
>>> disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
>>> IH.
>>>
>>> The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed
>>> with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
>>> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
>>> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>>>
>>> It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers
>>> should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden,
>>> unless I was certain of the outcome.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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

If IH can somehow use the IP of Rossi but get out of the licence agreement
with Rossi, they will save one $billion. This may explain the motivation in
the actions of IH. This is just a theory of the case.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results of
> the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they had
> Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and that
> of their other EOMs.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>>
>> What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
>> Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
>> worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
>> figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
>> disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
>> IH.
>>
>> The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed
>> with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
>> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
>> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>>
>> It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers should
>> have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden, unless
>> I was certain of the outcome.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>

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

Their motivation makes sense if they never intended to take the results of
the one year test seriously. They did not care what the EVR did, they had
Rossi's IP in hand that they could transfer to their own products and that
of their other EOMs.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Craig Haynie 
wrote:

>
>
> On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
>
> What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
> Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
> worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
> figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
> disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
> IH.
>
> The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed with
> Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>
> It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers should
> have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden, unless
> I was certain of the outcome.
>
> Craig
>
>

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

Craig Haynie  wrote:

The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed with
> Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to independently
> evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or reject, the
> evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, Penon. Why?
>

I have no idea. Let me speculate that they now regret to agreeing on Penon.

Anyway, this has no connection to calorimetry. You cannot go from this
strange decision by I.H. to conclude that maybe the test worked after all.
You can only judge the test by evaluating the data. Since you do not have
the data, you cannot judge it.

You might take my word for it, but I advise you to follow the motto of the
Royal Society, "nullius in verba" -- take nobody's word for it. Don't
believe Rossi, or I.H. or me, or anyone until you see the data.

What I strongly advise you not to do is speculate and speculate and build
castles in the air the way Axil does. You cannot judge calorimetry by
pointing to rumors about what people did, or what they may have thought, or
by imagining that I.H. would automatically do exactly what *you* would have
done in "the first few days" of a test that was going badly. You sure as
hell cannot judge calorimetry by reading the stream-of-consciousness
fantasy blather that Rossi puts out in his blog! I stopped reading that
years ago. I can confirm that back then when he was claiming production
lines were being set up, I fact checked some of his claims with people who
were working with him, and I determined that there was not one molecule of
truth to most of what he said. He makes stuff up!!

> It doesn't make sense to me.
>

It does not make sense to me, either. Maybe it was a dumb mistake?

> It's not something that their lawyers should have allowed . . .
>

Lawyers make mistakes too.

> . . .  nor something I would have agreed to, if I was Darden, unless I was
> certain of the outcome.
>

You can never be certain of the outcome, but I agree Darden should have
been more careful. I feel sorry for him.

- Jed

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF
> Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of
> its start. . . .
>

Stop right there. Even in these first sentences you have already made
unwarranted assumptions about events you know nothing about.

I know very little about these events, but as I said several times, I.H.
and Rossi disagreed. That I am sure of. I was hoping they would reconcile
their disagreements, and I gather I.H. also hoped so. They thought it was
wrong, but evidently they wanted to give Rossi every opportunity to make it
right and prove his point. That seems sensible to me. You say "IH would
have terminated the test within days of its start" as if that were a fact.
As if you were in charge! I wouldn't have terminated the test. I.H. did not
terminate it. So they disagree with you.

You should not speculate about things you know nothing about. You are
building castles in the air.

> IH recognized Rossi's IP worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.
>

I doubt you know anything about this, or that you have any proof of that.
You should not make such strong assertions about other people's business
that you know nothing about.

Stop confusing your own speculation with facts.

- Jed

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

2016-05-13 Thread Craig Haynie




On 05/13/2016 04:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented 
the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that 
Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent 
application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It could b that 
their was a management disconnect where the "plan" was not understood 
by all of the employees of IH.


The other thing that confuses me, is that in the contract they signed 
with Rossi, they didn't have a clause which allowed them to 
independently evaluate the device; nor did it allow them to certify, or 
reject, the evaluation of the EVR; and they agreed to Rossi's guy, 
Penon. Why?


It doesn't make sense to me. It's not something that their lawyers 
should have allowed; nor something I would have agreed to, if I was 
Darden, unless I was certain of the outcome.


Craig

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

What confuses the  analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the
Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP
worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot
figure out their motive here??? It could b that their was a management
disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of
IH.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows.
> IF Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days
> of its start. If IH believed that Rossi;s IP worked, they would have
> started setting up a production plant early on to get a jump on E-Cat
> production before the test was completed. IH did nothing. IH recognized
> Rossi's IP worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.
>
> IH must realize that Rossi's IP worked in some degree to place it in
> Brillouin's product. IH never intended to pay Rossi for his IP, but instead
> use it in other products where the cost of licence is far less. IH never
> intended to manufacture the E-Cat, they never intended to pay Rossi the 89
> million, they intended to be a competitor of Rossi's world wide by
> disguising Rossi's IP in other products that they intended to sell without
> licencing the E-Cat.
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>>>
>>
>> IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have
>> any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as
>> it stands now, and as it will always stand.
>>
>>
>> If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
>>> pay Rossi the 89 million?
>>>
>>
>>> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
>>> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
>>>
>>
>> As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
>> cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well
>> be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.
>>
>> It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
>> reactor does not work.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

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

The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF
Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of
its start. If IH believed that Rossi;s IP worked, they would have started
setting up a production plant early on to get a jump on E-Cat production
before the test was completed. IH did nothing. IH recognized Rossi's IP
worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.

IH must realize that Rossi's IP worked in some degree to place it in
Brillouin's product. IH never intended to pay Rossi for his IP, but instead
use it in other products where the cost of licence is far less. IH never
intended to manufacture the E-Cat, they never intended to pay Rossi the 89
million, they intended to be a competitor of Rossi's world wide by
disguising Rossi's IP in other products that they intended to sell without
licencing the E-Cat.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>>
>
> IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have
> any IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as
> it stands now, and as it will always stand.
>
>
> If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
>> pay Rossi the 89 million?
>>
>
>> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
>> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
>>
>
> As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
> cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well
> be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.
>
> It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
> reactor does not work.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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

Axil Axil  wrote:

> IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
>

IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have any
IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as it
stands now, and as it will always stand.

If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
> pay Rossi the 89 million?
>

> Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
> produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
>

As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I
cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well
be discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.

It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW
reactor does not work.

- Jed

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

IF and when IH pays Rossi the 89 million, what does IH get? IH gets the
right to use Rossi's IP to produce and sell E Cat product in their
territory granted by the Licence.

IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.

Can IH sell product that contains Rossi's IP that has been incorporated
into the product line of other vendors such as Brillouin?

How can Rossi identify his IP in the products of others that IH offers for
sale?

Can Rossi make an IP claim without that IP protected by a patent?

Can IH claim that Rossi's IP does not work and yet use it in products
produced by others connected to IH?

If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to
pay Rossi the 89 million?

Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the
produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> "However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being
>> pushed somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible
>> position so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not
>> know much about IH's real position , arguments and justifications. Do you
>> agree, Jed?"
>
>
> No, this is completely wrong in every respect, as I have pointed out many
> times previously:
>
> No one is pushing me.
>
> There is nothing unnatural, implausible or unbelievable about I.H.'s
> claim. Any person who understands calorimetry and examines the data will
> agree with their analysis. If Rossi and Penon seriously believe there is 50
> times output they are both certified idiots (not just Penon).
>
> As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the
> calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong.
> I have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside
> of I.H., so I am sure it is real.
>
> I know enough about I.H.'s "real position" regarding calorimetry to judge
> this matter, although I look forward to learning more. I know nothing about
> business arrangements or contracts.
>
> I have enough information to judge these things with confidence. You, on
> the other hand, know nothing about them. All you have to go on are Rossi's
> assertions from his blog. These range from nonsense to impossible. The
> information he already released in the lawsuit rules out his claims. If the
> reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the
> building would be cooked. They would be dead. In fact, it is not producing
> any excess heat. If and when I.H. becomes free to publish the technical
> data, everyone will see this, and you will see that Rossi has been playing
> you for a fool.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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