Re: [Vo]:Credible news services picking up Holmlids work

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Jed I give you that one.
I should have said that I do not think he is eccentric either.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> . . . he is a very serious and not an eccentric person.
>>
>
> A person can be very serious and eccentric too, if I do say so myself.
> Academia is full of such people. So are disciplines such as programming and
> code breaking. When Churchill visited Bletchley Park, he supposedly said to
> the head of MI6: "When I told you to leave no stone unturned recruiting for
> this place, I didn’t expect you to take me literally."
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Credible news services picking up Holmlids work

[Lennart Thornros]

Just the notion that Holmlid is nuts is rather poor. No, substance. I
decided to check the background:
I think he is very sincere scientist. Not that I know him but his way of
presenting his material and the way he present himself indicates that he is
a very serious and not an eccentric person.
I read his comment about people saying he is a nutcase. In his opinion he
found that more indicative of the person who made such accusations, than it
had anything to do with him.
I do not think he is an entrepreneur. I know he will find backers and I
hope they can succeed in making this hot-cold fusion work.
Do I understand right that he actually has a method to handle hot fusion?.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> All the better. The line between mental health and genius has always
>> been blurred and inversely correlated – going back to the Greeks.
>>
>> Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Curie, Socrates – all nutty as a fruitcake.
>>
> Newton was a bit nutty, I think. I disagree about Einstein. I don't know
> about the others. This article says:
>
> Albert Einstein has also been subject to scrutiny. Einstein was a loner as
> a child and didn’t speak until he was three, then he repeated sentences
> obsessively for several years. In adulthood he lacked grooming (note the
> wild crop of hair) and was reportedly lax about hygiene.
>
>
> I have read that is not true. He spoke at the normal age, and he had a
> happy childhood. He also got excellent grades in school contrary to what
> you read in some accounts. That I confirmed with original sources, which
> are now online.
>
> He was somewhat lax about grooming but most physicists were then and still
> are. It is an in-group thing. Programmers in the 1970s and 80s also
> resembled an unmade bed, including me. Here is a wonderful clip from the
> movie "IQ" portraying the grooming habits of 1930s physicists. This
> includes one of my favorite movie lines: "This is a tie. This will hold up
> your pants."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7stiKJsGjY
>
> Einstein was popular with the ladies, and had many affairs. Evidently they
> did not mind his grooming.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Credible news services picking up Holmlids work

[Lennart Thornros]

Hey Axil,
The technical reasons he is no good is your opinion. I have no way to
counter that.
Just make sure you are not going to have to eat that. It is easy to be
categoric using all existing knowledge and in the end have to eat crow. :)
If you are right and he has the time to google our blog he will certainly
think it over. If I could I would tell him your point. I just do not fully
see the difference.
I am sure you can email him at Goteborg's univeritet.
He looks alive:0

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Holmlid is not thinking logically. First, there is only hot fusion and
> cold fusion, nothing in between. If he is producing hot fusion, then he
> would see gamma radiation coming from the impact of high speed neutral
> particles produced by the copper shield that surrounds the reaction spot.
> The lack of gamma radiation is a sure sign that the reaction that he is
> producing is cold fusion.
>
> Holmlid is a smart guy, it is hard to understand how he could not
> understand the difference between hot and cold fusion. Could Holmlid be
> doing the same thing that R. Mills has done, to deny that his research is
> based on LENR to get people to take him seriously. Does he want to get the
> scientific community to swallow the hook so that he can reel them in? Once
> they are flopping around on the dock, he will tell them that they are
> seeing cold fusion.
>
> One of those hot fusion developers will eventually ask how Holmlid is not
> dead from high energy neutron exposure and gamma radiation, What will
> Holmlid say then? He cannot hide reality from the world forever.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.chem.info/news/2015/09/scientists-closing-small-scale-nuclear-fusion
>>
>> http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/karnkraft/article3933699.ece
>>
>> Too bad Mats didn't get to write that :(
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Ahmed Mohamed case and distrust of experts

[Lennart Thornros]

James,
I think I have some experience in the issues about culture or not in the
US.
I think you are missing the point.
I agree with you about that the feds has done no good for the US. Just the
opposite. We still expand the influence from the feds over the states. I
agree about the little info produced regarding some bad events, while
others have a constant media attention.
However, when you characterize the US culture I am at loss. The problem is
that there is no culture. The settler culture that once where a common base
is no longer relevant. Now we agree to having a million cultures and we
keep them separated. Cannot even have a common language. (Try to live in
Austria and not speak German).
I have seen both Europe and the US about equal time as an adult. I would
not even be able to describe any culture that is national culture in the
US. I do not even think there could be. The problem as I see it is that we
try fuse together all under a federal agenda and make an artificial culture
as Daniel says rules implemented on the middle class. (Which pay dearly for
that and has done since WWll.)
Yes, there needs to be birth control but not imposed by outsiders but from
realization.
The law you copied above is certainly a great example of laws that make no
sense, have no way to be enforced and is unclear as unclear can be.
For a long time I have had as an example another stupid law in California.
'You cannot smoke in the car if any passenger is under the age of 15'.
Impossible to enforce, makes no good, has no impact. I mean a simple law -
' you must not smoke inside cars' I could understand but when you need to
see the birth certificate of others before you know that you break the law.
Your defense of the actors is not understandable.
I am not much of a fan to Donald Trump and think his motto is stupid but in
this case, the one who called the police or initiated it - 'You are fired'.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:15 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The world is threatened when the likes of Norman Borlaug are replaced by
> immigrants from India, that his green revolution created despite his
> warnings about the need for birth control, and then proceed to take over
> key positions in the Iowa government, where Borlaug was from, that make
> decisions directing funding away from workable technologies for the green
> revolution and toward fellow immigrants from India who are given plumb jobs
> pursing unworkable technologies that are given empty awards in the name of
> Norman Borlaug.
>
> And, yes, that happened right here in Shenandoah, IA, not a mile from
> where I type this.
>
> But you don't care about the world.
>
> You care about your moral vanity.
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So now, settlers are hippies. It might actually explain why you see
>> yourself (or whoever group you feel belonging to) to feel threatened. When
>> you are a willing immigrant, you do more to overcome difficulties. This is
>> obvious. The old ones become lazy and xenophobic.
>>
>>
>> 2015-09-19 15:24 GMT-03:00 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> [image: Boxbe] <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> This message is
>>> eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (jabow...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule
>>> <https://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DYVvchE2oDVgxgJ0anX5SXqhe8NA0yRc5RQdLSAzVuICSMz26gaqut8W1IPN8gRB7HbsWoMyZNN25gRca%252BDGBsX4rqQPtfovMeFPSK5XWvLoKXEW3jhmdhamt1nHdQQnLNm8CmHn1MBk%253D%26key%3DEAhVYMr4VnxKX%252BrYXkjllJMouYgUVfH94OQoMt1KoZo%253D_serial=22697444536_rand=1793395280_source=stf_medium=email_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD_content=001>
>>> | More info
>>> <http://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=22697444536_rand=1793395280_source=stf_medium=email_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADD_content=001>
>>>
>>> What zombie talk!  That which doesn't exist cannot be destroyed but it
>>> can, of course, destroy that which does exist and therefore justice
>>> dictates that it should be destroyed despite it not existing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Perhaps shooting myself in the foot

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Steven,
Yeah to some degree it hurts to know that I cannot learn this very
illogical language after I have been in school for 10 years and then spent
as long time as you are old practising (incl of school). However, my
excuses are that the language is illogical. I fight the issue daily a
teenage daughter all American and a British wife. Do you think I hear about
my grammar. Youshould hear what they say about my accent:)
Good to have different opinions.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Lennart
>
>
>
> > I will take risk.
>
>
>
> > This video about how strong the word is. (The critic (well founded btw)
>
> > about my grammar should probably not make me bring this but I think it
>
> > is so good that I take chance. Have a cigar it is Friday.
>
> > Words mean a lot.
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Good link, Lennart. Glad you provided it. Enjoyable and informative. I
> liked the part where the speaker, at the end of his toast, crushed the
> cigarette within his fist.
>
>
>
>  deity on Friday>
>
>
>
> If some of the above was in reference to my prior criticism of your use of
> the English language, let me add that my American ability to speak Spanish
> is abysmal, despite the fact that I had plenty of opportunity to learn it.
> In child hood I lived in El Salvador, Central America, for three years. All
> during that time I went to a bi-lingual school. The simple truth of the
> matter was that I was lazy. I had plenty of other interests as well. At
> that awkward early teen-age time in my life I was more interested in
> studying the social order of ant colonies while simultaneously becoming
> infatuated with girls who rarely noticed my existence on this planet. There
> was a lot on my dinner plate to sort through. As far as I was concerned I
> had no time left over to apply myself (as if my future welfare was as
> stake) on learning Spanish. In retrospect if I had been truly motivated, at
> least to a point where might have been able to carry on an awkward but
> reasonably cognizant conversation in Spanish, it would have served me well.
> This is without a doubt.
>
>
>
> Yes, words mean a lot. So, keep practicing, Lennart. I’m not sure how
> compulsory it really is but it’s my understanding that many European
> countries both routinely and simultaneously teach English alongside their
> native tongue. Why? Because many countries know their country’s future
> welfare may depend on having enough of their own citizens fluent in
> communicating in English, simply for business purposes. In the United
> States, we do teach other foreign languages in school as electives. That
> said, I suspect it’s not anywhere near as compulsory as it probably is in
> other countries. Lately, there have been grumblings from conservative
> right-wing factions that suggest our country has already gone too far in
> allowing Spanish to spread through the United States. Hopefully, their
> xenophobia will be ignored.
>
>
>
> I’ve already learned enough from your prior posts to know that I
> occasionally agree and disagree on certain points you have expressed. That
> means the art of communication your Point of View has tended to have been
> more successful than unsuccessful. What more can one ask from “words”.
>
>
>
> PS: As for me, while I might have the “girl” issue reasonably sorted out
> (Yes, I’m a nerd, take it or leave it.), I don’t know whether I’ll ever get
> my multiyear Kepler Research project sorted out to my satisfaction before
> kicking the bucket. Yes, Sancho, I know. Just boil the damned egg, will you!
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

[Vo]:Perhaps shooting myself in the foot

[Lennart Thornros]

I will take risk.
This video about how strong the word is. (The critic (well founded btw)
about my grammar should probably not make me bring this but I think it is
so good that I take chance. Have a cigar it is Friday.
Words mean a lot.
http://www.businessinsider.com/toastmasters-public-speaking-champion-mohammed-qahtani-2015-9
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap. However, I live in
the PG land so it is a little false background. I can actually produce
electricity with a diesel generator at lower cost than I can buy it.
If you cut in to pieces what I say you can object but as whole your
arguments are rather weak.
Producing electricity locally, in my opinion as local as possible has a
long list of advantages. It is less vulnerable, no transmission cost to
mention a few. If I can produce electricity at ten percent of what I pay
today I would sat 'Tesla here I come'. In that scenario the price will be
such an attraction that I would even set aside the difficulties with Teslas
as it is today. I would not be the only one so the fear you have for high
cost of transforming gas stations in to battery exchange stations has no
merit. There will be more than adequate incentives for the investment. In
addition I read about a lot of development as it pertains to charging of
batteries quicker and big capacitors. I am sure that my suggestion about
battery exchange will have more attractive alternatives I am unable to
predict.
You are saying there are disadvantages with electrical cars besides slow
recharging. The price is one and I can guarantee that the cost of batteries
will decrease if there is a real competition. Just now there is no
aftermarket (not attractive due to high entry cost and small market), large
scale production is rare (Tesla's plant in Reno, NV will change that).
You say that generating plant should be in the Gigawatt scale. I think we
are so far apart in that opinion so I hardly know where to begin. Reality
is that the idea of big, inflexible, vulnerable, is an bygone idea. Small
flexible society where we can minimize the number of rules to a level that
you and I can understand and accept them requires a decentralized society,
which is locally managed. (Locally can sometimes be local from other aspect
than geography.) I am fine with one generator per house. It might be the
best. There are factors like back up, safety and service that might drive
the size. I agree with that one generator per house / building seems best.
In addition to other advantages investments will be of a scale that make us
all part of the decision making. We all have a hard time see the impact
from large dollar commitments. Horatius Parkinson in the 1940-is gave an
example from a meeting of the local town decision makers. There were two
items on the agenda; a new bike-stand for the only guy fully employed by
the town as he now parked his bike so it scratched the facade of the town
hall, secondly a purchase of a new statue for the town square. The cost of
bike stand was $29 and the statue was proposed at a million dollars. A long
debate where all elected representatives had opinions. The employee could
buy a bike stand, one could find a cheaper bike stand etc. etc. It ended
with that the issue was tabled to next meeting. Then came the question
about the statue took no time. It was approved after a positive
presentation by the most informed person. Long story but it is meant to
show that we are much more careful about numbers of the size we are used to
deal with as private people. Nobody question if there are savings of
$100,000 or $10,000 or even $20 on the statue.
So to the safety issue. I based my statement on the fact presented in the
suggested LENR induced by laser. I sounded safe and the suggestion was that
it was possible to use in small scale.  I would say that if we have been
able to refine the ottomotor to a relatively safe product - it seems that
with some engineering this proposed  product has fewer hurdles to overcome,
albeit it will require resources and time.
Your point about electrical cars having issues. short range and power
weight ratio is of course correct. I think the range will be extended and
the weight reduced in next generation batteries. However, I am sure that we
all can see reasons for driving an electrical car versus a gasoline powered
ditto. Most of the time 84 miles is enough. It is convenient to have an
electrical motor. I could change my car for an electrical one any day. JUst
now the only hurdle is the capital investment.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> If there is cheap electricity electrical cars are simple - fast to
>> recharge.
>>
>
> Electricity is already cheap. It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile.
> Electric cars are not fast to recharge; they are slow. Cold fusion would do
> nothing to change that. Even if electricity cost nothing, electric cars

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[Lennart Thornros]

Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:


> I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.
>

It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile. About 4 times
cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline. You are now including energy
taxes and big brother's energy politics. That is fine with me as that is my
main idea that we are so over regulated that even the faintest hint of
common sense cannot be made. No, Jed electricity is not cheap.


Producing electricity locally, in my opinion as local as possible has a
> long list of advantages. It is less vulnerable, no transmission cost to
> mention a few.
>

Yes. As long as you are doing that you might as well bring it to each
individual house and get rid of the transmission network altogether. I see
no advantage to grouping houses and 20 and supplying one generator for each
group. You would still need wires connecting the houses.
 Surpise surprise I totally agree with you. However, even if there are
issues with implementation of the product I am sure we will benefit from
not having to use the total grid. It could be that best is to have two
generators for ten houses. Redundancy nad installation cost. The wires are
already there.

You are saying there are disadvantages with electrical cars besides slow
> recharging. The price is one and I can guarantee that the cost of batteries
> will decrease if there is a real competition.
>

Batteries have been in widespread use for 150 years. Enormous efforts have
gone into reducing the cost of batteries, without much progress. Perhaps
someday this R will pan out, but there has been real competition all
along. OK batteries has been worked on for a long time. I am sure if you
make a graph you will find most progress has been made the last ten years.
Just read the parallel thread about Mega Farad capacitors. You think that
is the final step> No it is not.



> You say that generating plant should be in the Gigawatt scale.
>

Only if cold fusion turns out to be unsafe for some reason such as because
it produces large amounts of tritium which cannot be reduced. I doubt that
is the case. I expect it will be safer than any conventional source of
energy such as natural gas, high-voltage electricity, or gasoline. The
beuty of LENR is that it can be deployed small scale. I read the article

http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2049-Small-scale-nuclear-fusion-could-become-a-new-source-of-energy-Press-release-fro/
they say there will be no significant radiation. I see no other safety
issues, lots of engineering though. I understood there was no issue with
Tritium production maybe  I read wrong. Here is what I read:
"No radiationThe new fusion process can take place in relatively small
laser-fired fusion reactors fuelled by heavy hydrogen (deuterium). It has
already been shown to produce more energy than that needed to start it.
Heavy hydrogen is found in large quantities in ordinary water and is easy
to extract. The dangerous handling of radioactive heavy hydrogen (tritium)
which would most likely be needed for operating large-scale fusion reactors
with a magnetic enclosure in the future is therefore unnecessary.
"



> I think we are so far apart in that opinion so I hardly know where to
> begin. Reality is that the idea of big, inflexible, vulnerable, is an
> bygone idea.
>

You misunderstood what I said. I would only advocate large reactors if cold
fusion is unsafe.I would rather engineer the safety issues or find another
LENR without the problem. Large scale is the problem.



> Your point about electrical cars having issues. short range and power
> weight ratio is of course correct. I think the range will be extended and
> the weight reduced in next generation batteries.
>

If cold fusion can be controlled and made safe there will be no reason to
develop next generation batteries. at this point I just disagree. I think
batteries will be attractive. There should be no reason to haLPG gas
bottles in a home plumbed for natural gas. Well it is.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.
>>
>
> It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile. About 4 times
> cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline.
>
>
> Producing electricity locally, in my opinion as local as possible has a
>> long list of advantages. It is less vulnerable, no transmission cost to
>> mention a few.
>>
>
> Yes. As long as you are doing that you 

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[Lennart Thornros]

Thank you Jones.
At the same time the issue is not the relative cost of electricity before
LENR.
I am #2 in line for the model 3.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* Lennart Thornros
>
>
>
> I am not in agreement with that electricity is cheap.
>
>
>
> JR: It is much cheaper than gasoline per mile in an automobile.
>
>
>
> LT: You are now including energy taxes and big brother's energy politics.
> That is fine with me as that is my main idea that we are so over regulated
> that even the faintest hint of common sense cannot be made. No, Jed
> electricity is not cheap.
>
>
>
> Ø  About 4 times cheaper, depending on the cost of gasoline.
>
>
>
> Not in Sept. 2015. Today, with the drop in fuel cost, electricity is about
> 2 times cheaper, on average, but not everywhere; and most of that is due to
> no road tax on electricity – not the relative cost of fuel at the pump.
>
>
>
> In California, electricity is double the national average and the cost per
> mile  can be more expensive than gasoline - especially if you have a high
> mileage hybrid vehicle like the Prius (even if you never charge the car
> from the grid) !
>
>
>
> In any event, it’s not fair to compare the best EV against the worst gas
> hog. The cost has been well studied. Our government (DoE) says this:
>
>
>
> *“Comparing Energy Costs per Mile for Electric and Gasoline-Fueled
> Vehicles”*
>
>
>
> The fuel cost of driving an electric vehicle depends on the cost of
> electricity per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and the energy efficiency of the
> vehicle.  The national average cost for electricity in the U.S. (average
> residential rate) is about 11.7 cents per kWh. Average electric vehicles
> have energy efficiencies of about 2 miles per kWh. The average cost in the
> USA for electric cars is therefore about 6 cents per mile. However, in much
> of California and several other states, the cost per mile is close to twice
> the national average.
>
>
>
> The average gasoline mileage is 22 mi/gal. A gasoline vehicle with an
> energy efficiency of
>
> 22 miles per gallon costs about 11 cents per mile when gasoline costs
> $2.40 per gallon and 17 cents per mile when fuel is $3.60. A few years ago,
> gasoline was more expensive than electricity almost everywhere, but not
> today.
>
>
>
> In the largest state, with by far the most cars, the recent cost of
> gasoline per mile for a hybrid, which never needs a grid charge, can be
> less per mile than the cost of electricity per mile for all electric
> (Tesla).
>
>
>
> That will change, and many of us still want all-electric. Where do I sign
> up for the Model 3 ??
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: The megafarad capacitor

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed with your numbers, which I am sure you have right, it seems to me that
nuclear power is great for H production when we implemented LENR on a local
level. Those mega investment that never can be economically sound could get
a second life.
I think if you are in France solar is an alternative lately, a little wind
and hydro in the Alps but limited by the environmentalists, seems import or
nuclear are the two realistic alternatives. In addition the European grid
is well connected so it might be possible to keep all nuclear power plants
operational 24/7 and turn off a coal powered station in England or Italy.
Europe (West) is small size of Texas.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Regarding generating a hydrogen infrastructure, many years ago I recall
>> Dr. Peter Zimmerman (Dr. Mills' worst nemesis) claiming we should redirect
>> many of our nuclear plants towards the primary task of cracking H2O into
>> hydrogen.
>>
> No can do. Nuclear power plants are all in use 24 hours a day to generate
> electricity. They produce baseline electricity. Gas and to a lesser extent
> coal-fired plants are turned on and off in response to demand but the nukes
> stay on all the time. They produce ~20% of U.S. electricity. There are only
> about 100 of them, so taking even one out of service calls for a lot more
> coal or gas.
>
> Using a nuclear plant part-time or using one for anything other than
> electricity would be economic insanity. The electricity is very cheap when
> you generate it 24/7, but it would be hideously expensive if you turned one
> on and off. That is because the equipment costs outrageous amounts --
> $3,850 /kWe officially but I have heard it is more like $6,000 with
> overruns, interest payments for late projects, etc. "Construction costs are
> very difficult to quantify but dominate the cost of Nuclear Power" - as one
> website puts it. Whereas the fuel is very cheap.
>
>
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/
>
> "Fuel costs make up 30 percent of the overall production costs of nuclear
> power plants. Fuel costs for coal, natural gas and oil, however, make up
> about 80 percent of the production costs."
>
>
> http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle
>
> See also:
>
> Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in
> the Annual Energy Outlook 2015
>
> http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
>
>
> I cannot imagine how the French electric power industry works with such a
> high fraction of their power coming from nuclear reactors. Turn one off and
> you pay a million bucks a day for nothing!
>
> Wind turbines are also very expensive, $3,000 to $8,000 per kilowatt of
> capacity:
>
> http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost
>
> In this case the fuel is absolutely free, even cheaper than uranium. The
> cost of decommissioning wind turbines is also much lower than nuclear power
> plants.
>
> The cost of a wind turbine accident is negligible, whereas the cost of the
> Fukushima nuclear accident bankrupted the world's largest power company.
> The cost of an accident is so high that it would be impossible to buy
> accident insurance for any nuclear power plant, anywhere in the world. All
> of them have always been insured by governments. See the Price-Anderson act.
>
> Coal is around $3,500/kW these days, with modern pollution controls:
>
>
> http://www.synapse-energy.com/project/coal-fired-power-plant-construction-costs
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with you David.
However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is practical
if one is not prepared to pay the price.
Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can almost
guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place. We will
soon hear about that I think.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> This type of deception makes me angry.  Also, how stupid are they to
> assume that this will not be uncovered?   All of those guys in management
> associated with this decision should be terminated.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 3:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details
>
> The EPA test was detected by the VW if the rear wheels weren't spinning. A
> while back, Cadillac did the same thing but used a open hood as a indicator
> that a EPA test was underway.
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is somewhat off-topic but . . .
>>
>> I have had trouble understanding the news reports about the Volkswagen
>> scandal. I have not found a clear technical description of what happened. I
>> think the reporters do not understand.
>>
>> The gist of it is that when someone plugs a computer into the automobile
>> onboard computer, something changes. Press reports seem to indicate that
>> either the actual performance changes, or that the onboard computer begins
>> to generate fake data. It turns out to be the former. When you disengage
>> from the onboard computer, NOx emissions increase to a level ~40 times
>> above US allowed standards. Furthermore, fixing this problem will probably
>> degrade the performance or fuel efficiency of the car.
>>
>> Here is a short but clear explanation:
>>
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagens-cheating-engines-cant-be-easily-fixed-2015-9
>>
>> Zoom into the graphic box, "how Volkswagens defeat device works."
>>
>> The article says they are thinking of installing a Urea injection system
>> to fix the problem. Piss on it, in other words. Bringing to mind the
>> saying, "If you was on fire I wouldn't bother to . . ."
>>
>>
>> The people at Volkswagen were unbelievably stupid thinking they could get
>> away with this indefinitely.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with you Steven, not much will happen before it can be proven BLP
has a product. However, to me it is really sad that BLP need to go to court
to resolve this type of issues. IMHO there is no upside for either party
regardless of the outcome. The only guys laughing all the way to the bank
are the lawyers.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> AndyTheGrump?
>
>
>
> BLP has it in for Grump as well. They filed a law suit against him and
> others.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/blacklight_power_inc._complaint.pdf
>
>
>
> Have no idea if BLP's complaint has managed to get any traction or not. I
> suspect it's gone nowhere. If BLP want's restitution they need to present
> to the public a working prototype that proves OU is occurring. Until then I
> suspect the Grump and all of his cohorts will remain safe as a bug under
> the rug until then...
>
>
>
> We're still waiting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Please Jed, you think it was intentional and that the guy did not care if
his product would kill people. Then I guess the problem is all solved. No
more company will provide peanuts which are a risk to eat. I have not
followed the case as detailed as you have. However, if he did the things
you say (intentionally poisoned people) then is the very exemption among
CEO's. VW CEO did not intentionally wanted to destroy our air. He wanted to
sell cars and was informed about an agreement with someone about a
moratorium (which he hoped would never expire) or some industry standard to
solve this issue. I do not think it is excusable. I just think it goes on
and is reality, because the legislation sometimes is impossible to live up
to. I think it needs to be simple laws that can be enforced without
difficult analysis.



I eat food wherever I am. I eat local food. Yes, I have been sick a couple
of times. I was once in a high end restaurant in  Redwood city California -
so the location is not the issue. There are many factors working together
and there is no way you can regulate them away. You cannot even reduce the
risks.

I have mentioned before (yes, you know) the idea that bigger is better is a
factor. In old times people knew where the food came from. It was possible
to follow the problem to the source. Making large scale operations makes
the path very anonymous. The solution for you and most people is to make
limits and legislate the limits. Works on the paper. Is not even close to
reality. The large batches also means that when a problem occurs it is too
late to stop the problem.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
>> producing would lead to any deaths.
>
>
> Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
> he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
> about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
> he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
> he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.
>
> There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
> saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
> products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
> analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
> repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
> behavior, what would be?
>
> I have been following this story because it happened here in Georgia, and
> it has been the local papers.
>
>
> I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has been
>> around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to the
>> public.
>>
>
> If so, he is an idiot unaware of what has been common knowledge for over a
> century.
>
>
>
>> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
>> production as well.
>
>
> If that were true, and if the processing or cooking did not fix the
> problem by sterilizing the meat later, thousands of people who get sick or
> killed by chicken, and no one would eat it.
>
> If you go to India or South America you will find lots of food that does
> not meet U.S. standards. If you are foolish enough to eat it, you will
> probably be violently ill for days or weeks. Once you recover, you will
> never, ever, eat that food again. If this contamination were common in
> chickens in the U.S., people would soon find out by getting violently ill.
> Word would get out, and the entire chicken industry would be wiped out.
>
>
>
>>   Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and did not make a
>> conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a callous way.
>
>
> I am sure he did make a conscious decision to risk people's lives! That's
> why they sent him to prison for 28 years.
>
>
>
>>   Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was dangerous during
>> that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or more dangerous?
>
>
> The ones that are equally dangerous, such as the recent batch of
> cucumbers, have also sickened or killed people. "Every year, Salmonella is
> estimated to cause one million illnesses in the United States, with 19,000
> hospitalizations and 380 deaths."
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/salmone

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed you are the eternal defender of regulations. No, it is not with
consent. Yes, they work for putting high entry cost to a market. The
biggest entities often become part of an initial agreement and then the law
is a fact and various parties now negotiate exceptions and some of them not
so kosher.
I have been in the food industry. No Jed the federal inspection does no
good. As a matter of fact it is so full of side deals that it is a joke for
all involved. I think David is correct about the peanut scandal. Reality is
that the company probably had dealings (agreements) that gave them OK to
not have the zero tolerance level enforced (zero tolerance is common in the
food industry - but not possible). At some point in time the test probably
became a joke as it was always OK even if it was not. Perhaps they just
abandoned the test. Why spend time on testing when their is no limit. I
think like David that nobody believed the product was dangerous. It was
good for years - of course it is good today also.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> Jed, you mention Mr. Parnell and his case.  I hope and believe that he
> did not think that the peanut butter he was producing would lead to any
> deaths.   I suspect that he was of the opinion that this sort of issue has
> been around for many years and did not reflect any significant danger to
> the public.
>
> I have read that a very large portion of chicken is infected during
> production as well.  Surely, he assumed that this was business as usual and
> did not make a conscious decision to cause additional loss of life in a
> callous way.  Does anyone really believe that only peanut butter was
> dangerous during that time frame?  How many other foods were equally or
> more dangerous?
>
> Perhaps I am underestimating his level of criminality, but to put a
> businessman in jail for making a mistake in judgement is going a little too
> far.  People make similar errors in judgement all the time.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 5:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details
>
> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> However, one cannot make laws / rules that are violating what is
>> practical if one is not prepared to pay the price.
>>
>
> The people who draft these rules are industry experts, recruited from the
> leading companies. In the U.S., regulatory agencies *never* pass rules
> that have not be vetted by industry experts, and recommended by them. That
> is not to suggest that regulators are always captives of the industries
> they regulate, although in some cases they are! I am saying that
> regulations are always passed with cooperation and advance knowledge of the
> corporations being regulated. They reflect the best practices of
> responsible companies.
>
> In many cases, the corporations themselves ask for and pay for the
> regulations. In the past this was sometimes done to prevent competition by
> making it hard for new companies to enter the field, in a subtle but
> effective violation of anti-trust laws. That happens less often today.
>
> If the government were to try to force through regulations without
> industry consent, there would be a hue and cry.
>
> One of the purposes of regulations is to keep dishonest people from taking
> over an industry sector. For example, if food inspections are reduced you
> can be sure more vendors will sell peanuts tainted by salmonella. Stewart
> Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for doing this. Responsible
> peanut suppliers do not want thousands of consumers poisoned and killed by
> salmonella because they know that people will stop buying peanuts if that
> happens. Criminals such as Parnell don't care how many people they kill. It
> is not enough to have general laws against poisoning people. You must have
> to have inspections and standards with a host of specifics about peanuts.
>
>
>
>> Maybe this problem is only related to diesel motors but if not I can
>> almost guarantee that other manufacturers have similar systems in place.
>>
>
> I think the chances of that are zero to none. The other automobile
> companies are probably not run by blithering idiots who do things that will
> destroy the company. I expect experts are checking to be sure though.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brief explanation of Volkswagen scandal technical details

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, I have been in those countries.
Yes, the mortality rate from misc. things are higher than in the US.
The factors are not to be found in the regulations. It is mostly other
factors.
Often third world countries adopt US or European regulations. The
possibilities to avoid the legislation is by far more abundant in third
world countries.
Next time you visit any third world country, check with what the locals do.
They usually will tell you where the risks are.

You bring up a number of other things you think are better because of the
regulations. The contaminated water is not unhealthy because they do not
have good regulations. If the water supply is very limited and you have no
funding for or infrastructure to handle purification you will drink less
good water. Take your rules to a village in Kongo and tell them; "here is
what we do in the US - we do not die from bad water" Then you mention the
death rate among newly born. Long time since I checked but ten years ago
approximately the death rate among newly born in the US were ten times
higher than they were in Sweden. This amazed me so I looked upon why and my
conclusion is that it is an attitude question. It certainly has nothing to
do with the rules / laws forced on the mothers or doctors or anyone else
involved as they are more or less identical. .

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
wrote:

> Please Jed, you think it was intentional and that the guy did not care if
> his product would kill people. Then I guess the problem is all solved. No
> more company will provide peanuts which are a risk to eat. I have not
> followed the case as detailed as you have. However, if he did the things
> you say (intentionally poisoned people) then is the very exemption among
> CEO's. VW CEO did not intentionally wanted to destroy our air. He wanted to
> sell cars and was informed about an agreement with someone about a
> moratorium (which he hoped would never expire) or some industry standard to
> solve this issue. I do not think it is excusable. I just think it goes on
> and is reality, because the legislation sometimes is impossible to live up
> to. I think it needs to be simple laws that can be enforced without
> difficult analysis.
>
>
>
> I eat food wherever I am. I eat local food. Yes, I have been sick a couple
> of times. I was once in a high end restaurant in  Redwood city California -
> so the location is not the issue. There are many factors working together
> and there is no way you can regulate them away. You cannot even reduce the
> risks.
>
> I have mentioned before (yes, you know) the idea that bigger is better is
> a factor. In old times people knew where the food came from. It was
> possible to follow the problem to the source. Making large scale operations
> makes the path very anonymous. The solution for you and most people is to
> make limits and legislate the limits. Works on the paper. Is not even close
> to reality. The large batches also means that when a problem occurs it is
> too late to stop the problem.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
>
> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a
> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I hope and believe that he did not think that the peanut butter he was
>>> producing would lead to any deaths.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps he hoped it wouldn't lead to deaths. That would be stupid because
>> he knew the peanuts were contaminated with salmonella, and anyone who knows
>> about food, knows that salmonella often causes sickness or death. I guess
>> he was betting they would not lead to deaths, or if they did kill someone,
>> he hoped no one could pin the deaths on him.
>>
>> There is no doubt of his criminal intent. He sent memos to his employees
>> saying: "lie about the sales if it saves us money." He failed to submit
>> products for testing, and he sent the customer falsified certificates of
>> analysis (fake documents saying the peanuts were inspected). He was warned
>> repeatedly that the peanuts were contaminated. If that is not criminal
>> behavior, what would be?
>>
>> I have been following 

Re: [Vo]:The Ahmed Mohamed case and distrust of experts

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Guys ,
I like this discussion.
The real solution is to make the definition; what is a fake bomb?
How does it look?
Goes it sound?
Any significant thing that gives away that this is a bomb?
Blaze says , "It is a felony to make a fake bomb".
Anything can be considered looking as a bomb.
Conclusion; we are all felons and will soon be in prison.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> if someone with notion of electronics says that it looks like a bomb, I
>> remove even his bachelor of science immediately.
>>
>
> You and Jed have both missed the point.  The skill that went into the
> thing has nothing to do with what is of concern.  The intention is what is
> of concern.  What does a young kid who brought such a thing to a school
> intend to do?  Perhaps the intention was harmless, or perhaps it was other
> than harmless.  Now the school administration has a situation to sort out.
> The thing looked like a stage prop from Mission Impossible.  It does not
> look like an accurate prop, or a finished prop.  But it definitely looks
> like the makings of a Hollywood briefcase bomb.  Anyone who argues against
> this only discredits himself, greatly.  The kid said it was just a clock.
> He may have discredited himself in the process, perhaps escalating things.
>
> In an earlier time, this might have just been a harmless electronics
> project.  In this time, there are additional considerations to be taken
> into account.  None of this is to say that there was no racism in the
> incident.  But ignore Mohamed's race and religion for a moment, and the
> concerns remain.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Ahmed Mohamed case and distrust of experts

[Lennart Thornros]

Larry,
I agree with you. There is a constant fear for doing what one think is
logical and instead give in to fear. Thus creating stupid, non-enforceable
laws, which needs exemptions and support laws to cover the loopholes and
then we have this situation when we do not allow LENR (as an example) as it
might effect someones position for tenure.
Columbine, yes we all agree we need no more of that. The reasons why it
happened is of course the target for a discussion with no finality (one
party has stopped giving info). My point is that to stop the next incident
new laws and different measures of generic nature will have no impact on
the outcome. It requires logical and straight forward thinking people with
personal courage to act to do that. Something, which is very hard to foster
or demand.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Lawrence de Bivort <ldebiv...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The biggest tragedy is that adults have failed to learn an important
> lesson--don't pander to your fears, don't embrace your bigotry, and don't
> throw our laws (against false arrest, and the right of adolescents to have
> their parents present when they are being interrogated) for example) and
> racial profiling.
>
> A bomb can be hidden in a thick school book. Let's ban school books in
> schools  They are probably not a bomb. Maybe, though!!!
>
>
> Blaming Ahmed for not learning lessons is blaming the victim for what was
> done to him.
>
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> Ahmed gets his revenge in TIME Magazine:
>> http://time.com/4038305/ahmed-mohamed-clock-mit/?xid=newsletter-brief
>
>
> The biggest tragedy is that Ahmed appears to have failed to learn an
> important lesson in the incident -- don't bring something that looks
> vaguely like a bomb to school.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[Lennart Thornros]

I saw the papers from Leif Holmlid and Sveinn Ólafsson. It sounds as if
they feel they have a product idea viable for commercialization.
I am not capable of making a judgment but it sounds realistic.
If correct we need neither AESOP technology nor to worry about the relation
Watt/ kg - I assume. Electrical cars and low cost electricity generated
very locally is my vision..
It fits with my general idea about small scale operations.
As an example of how stupid our very complicated system is I saw some info
from the prelim presidential rep. program. There are 4.5 million people
working for the Federal government. In addition we have state and county
and city.  I also learnt that we have 85,000 pages of tax code. That is a
stack, you need a ladder to reach the top of, if stapled on top of each
other. Just want you to know that we all are supposed to know the content
of those 85,000 pages or we pay a fine to IRS.
I would really like to have one of those laser induced LENRs. It will of
course generate a couple of thousand pages of tax code. Energy tax must be
collected but we have lot of exemptions, for example if you are involved
in fossil fuel you need to be compensated or if your income suffer from the
new order:) I would keep my LENR hidden and claim I use no energy.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:39 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> In reply to  Alain Sepeda's message of Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:00:59 +0200:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The
> >non-energy commodities are also a huge issue, first and foremost minerals,
> >which largely confirms the research that I I started with Olivier Vidal,
> of
> >the Institute of Earth Sciences 2 in Grenoble.
>
> There is no such thing as a non-energy commodity. All commodities require
> energy
> to obtain and process, and are at least to some degree dependant upon the
> cost
> and availability of energy. Some more than others, Aluminium being the most
> obvious example of one that is strongly dependant upon energy.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CONVERTING LENR HEAT INTO ELECTRICITY WITH UNIQUE AESOP ENERGY ENGINES

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Jed, I might express myself poorly
If there is cheap electricity electrical cars are simple - fast to
recharge. Even exchange of batteries is a possible way.
I really do not care for to have the reactor in the car. I am fine to have
it locally. Neighborhood power stations. 20 homes or similar.
There are many advantages with that as I think we all can see. Besides we
can fix a job for the gas stations. Battery exchangers.
New product idea. A robot that can exchange car batteries as fast as we
fill gas today.
Thus power to weight is not of great importance.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If correct we need neither AESOP technology nor to worry about the
>> relation Watt/ kg - I assume. Electrical cars and low cost electricity
>> generated very locally is my vision..
>>
>
> Electric cars require a high ratio of power to weight (watts per
> kilogram). Otherwise the car engine is too heavy and too big, making the
> car difficult to drive. Like a drag-racing car with a huge engine. This
> requirement relates to automotive engineering, not to cold fusion per se.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Jed,
No, I do not think the government does anything for progress.
The problem is that we give them all the resources. The result is that we
fail to make changes at a pace we otherwise could.
I am the first to agree that many people in the government are good and
provide a service well within the expectation.
Every year we employ more and more people in that sector, then we request
more resources and that enables more employees in this enormous
organization. Maybe it starts with more resources but the cycle is there.
Of course there are good, able, willing people in the organization.The
problem is that the guidelines are changing. The primary guideline is CYA.
You said so your self '  No one gets money by revolting. They just fire you.
'. Sad isnt it?
I am not giving you any list. Mills and Defkalion are others for example.
However, that is not the issue. The thing is that entrepreneurial skills
gets killed in the bureaucracy. Fleischman was of course revolting. He did
not succeed in Toyota either you say. That should come as no surprise; that
is another (too) big organization and the rules are the same as in
government.

I am not rewriting history. As you say facts are facts. Any progress
initiated within a large organization has an uphill battle. It has its pros
and cons a sieve if you will that let good ideas that sustain the process
to succeed while stopping others is the positive thing. However, its format
is totally devastating for radical changes and risk taking. All I am saying
it needs to be a balance. Unfortunately we are skewing the balance and
eliminating the possibilities for 'progress by revolution' (my expression
not literally meant) in favor of 'progress by evolution'.

Just to think about; ' Organizations cannot make result but people can'.
This in response to your statement about how all good ideas are born by the
government in GB and the US. Sorry, that reminds me about when I was in the
sandbox and the adversary said 'my dad is bigger than yours'.:)

You said 'Rossi would not *exist* were it not for Fleischmann and Pons!
Plus he got a lot of help from Focardi and other government researchers. He
may be ahead of government researchers now, but they discovered the
effect.' Yes,
if almost all resources are within one organization, then people in that
organization make contributions some more (get zapped) and some after CYA
can still work in government. BTW are you including the Italian government
in the sphere of GB and the US? Long time since I visited but that
government works a little different:)

Then you say that government are entitled to 'steal' (my expression) the
show as they have monopoly but no factories. I am not commenting - your
statement is enough.

You go on saying: (as a response to those among us that think
government suppression of technology is a reality) 'That is not possible.
This can only be done with patents, and patents are public by definition.
If there are no patents then other countries will take the technology for
free.'
It has happened many times, in the US and Russia more than elsewhere. I am
not a believer of that will happen with LENR.  Your ideas about patents are
naive. Patents are a good source for information and protects nobody. They
do create wealth - for lawyers. A well documented patent written by
somebody with small resources (an entrepreneur/inventor) will be
immediately stolen. Countries will issue patents to protect their own
industry and therefore eliminate the protection you are dreaming about. I
am not sure about the next but I do think there is a provision for the
government to suppress technology by classify it as a 'national
interest' in the US. In my opinion that is terrible. What is national
interest? Is there an interest to allow some but not others? (Reminds me
about Orwell and that 'All animals are equal' - '*but pigs are more equal*'.
I thought WWll showed that it does not hold water - we are all on the same
planet and need to find ways to co-exist. That requires less envy and more
empowerment of others. It is NOT a zero sum game. It is the opposite - the
more you put in for others the more you will gain.

I could respond to all your statements about the government but it all ends
up as; Organizations cannot make result but people can.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> Read about Fleischmann; sounds to me like an entrepreneur. F was
>>> certainly not supported by the government.
>>>
>>
>> He was a professor at a national university his entire working life. The
>> University of Southampton is a public research university. He never worked
>> for anyone other than the British Government.
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
first of all thanks for the many advices you give. I will try to get hold
of a book at some point in time.
I understand that what I think does not change the world. However, facts
like government (or any organization cannot achieve result is true. That
does not mean that organization is worthless. What I try to say it certain
organizations work better than others for different tasks / jobs. I do have
some experience of that from real life and I spent considerable time to
work with government in changing situations - that does not work at all -
ever. I have done similar job in small organizations and achieved rather
good result. So my statements are built more on experience and less on
books.
Having said so I have learnt the statement that;'Organizations cannot get
result but people can', in a book. Maybe I read to many books - you confuse
me. Or is it so that there is a book supporting most any opinion you have?
I am not claiming any good understanding of LENR or its history. I did not
know Mr. Fleischman. If you say he expressed contempt for entrepreneur I
believe you. I still say he had some entrepreneurial characteristics.
Unfortunately he was in an environment that made it impossible or at least
very difficult to develop / utilize those entrepreneurial skills.
No I did not (do not) answer as you want. I answer in my way.
The answer to I have given you many examples of major technologies that
were discovered by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a
single one of these examples. No, technology has been discovered by the
government. You should say that the queen of spain should be celebrated
on Columbus day with your logics (nonexisting btw).
​and​

You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
their names. You have not given a single one.
​ Can be found here;​ has been given in general form and supported with a
couple of examples.

Finally you have not heard much I conclude from, '
That is the most idiotic assertion I have heard in many years.
​'​ Instead of reading a book perhaps some hands on work is a good advice
to you.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No, I do not think the government does anything for progress.
>>
>
> What you think is irrelevant. Read any history of technology and you will
> see that you are wrong. Your opinions cannot change facts or rewrite
> history books.
>
> I have given you many examples of major technologies that were discovered
> by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a single one of these
> examples.
>
> You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
> their names. You have not given a single one.
>
> You claimed that Fleischmann "sounds to me like an entrepreneur" and that
> he was "certainly not supported by the government." That is preposterous.
> He worked for the government his entire life, except at the end when he
> worked for IMRA, and that went badly. He was never anything like an
> entrepreneur. He expressed contempt for entrepreneurs and businessmen in
> general.
>
> You clearly know nothing about the history of technology or cold fusion,
> and nothing about Fleischmann or the other researchers. Before you spout
> off about a subject (any subject) I suggest you read books and learn
> something about it.
>
>
>
>> Organizations cannot make result but people can.
>>
>
> That is the most idiotic assertion I have heard in many years. Do you
> think individual people can build railroads, run corporations, eliminate
> smallpox or win World War II? On their own? Without an organization to back
> them up and coordinate their efforts? Most professors I know are so
> helpless, and so inept at anything outside their specialty, they cannot
> type a paper without organizational support. Without people like me, to be
> specific. They can barely order lunch.
>
> Without organizations human society and civilization would not exist.
> There would be no continuity, no support systems, and no accomplishment
> larger than a single person can handle in one lifetime.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Let us leave the dispute about organizations.
I actually started to address the topic in the headline by saying:
The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the
answer. I do know that it is not a question we can control (i.e. I doubt
anyone created the ice- age(s)). For many other reasons I can agree that
limiting our carbon pollution has its advantages. Global warming will not
be totally depending on the CO2 level in the atmosphere, many other factors
will be as or more important. I think we need to get better information and
then search for the solution that still makes this place liveable. I think
we have time but to limit use of fossil fuel (limit CO2 in the atmosphere
is good in the meantime.
There are many other factors involved solar flares etc, They are way over
my understanding so I stay rather neutral in the debate. To limit the
manmade pollution is good. To believe that is the solution to control the
temperature on this planet is naive or beyond naive.
The show in Paris is just that, a show, entertaining for people in
governments. Perhaps it also give reason for further expansion of
governments (in all countries not just the US and GB). The politician have
one thing in common world wide - they want more power, more impact on our
daily life. The ROI of this show will never reach a positive number - ever.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
wrote:

> Jed,
> first of all thanks for the many advices you give. I will try to get hold
> of a book at some point in time.
> I understand that what I think does not change the world. However, facts
> like government (or any organization cannot achieve result is true. That
> does not mean that organization is worthless. What I try to say it certain
> organizations work better than others for different tasks / jobs. I do have
> some experience of that from real life and I spent considerable time to
> work with government in changing situations - that does not work at all -
> ever. I have done similar job in small organizations and achieved rather
> good result. So my statements are built more on experience and less on
> books.
> Having said so I have learnt the statement that;'Organizations cannot get
> result but people can', in a book. Maybe I read to many books - you confuse
> me. Or is it so that there is a book supporting most any opinion you have?
> I am not claiming any good understanding of LENR or its history. I did not
> know Mr. Fleischman. If you say he expressed contempt for entrepreneur I
> believe you. I still say he had some entrepreneurial characteristics.
> Unfortunately he was in an environment that made it impossible or at least
> very difficult to develop / utilize those entrepreneurial skills.
> No I did not (do not) answer as you want. I answer in my way.
> The answer to I have given you many examples of major technologies that
> were discovered by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a
> single one of these examples. No, technology has been discovered by the
> government. You should say that the queen of spain should be celebrated
> on Columbus day with your logics (nonexisting btw).
> ​and​
>
> You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
> their names. You have not given a single one.
> ​ Can be found here;​ has been given in general form and supported with a
> couple of examples.
>
> Finally you have not heard much I conclude from, '
> That is the most idiotic assertion I have heard in many years.
> ​'​ Instead of reading a book perhaps some hands on work is a good advice
> to you.
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, I do not think the government does anything for progress.
>>>
>>
>> What you think is irrelevant. Read any history of technology and you will
>> see that you are wrong. Your opinions cannot change facts or rewrite
>> history books.
>>
>> I have given you many examples of major technologies that were discovered
>> by or paid for by governments. You have not addressed a single one of these
>> examples.
>>
>> You claim researchers outside the government have replicated. I asked for
>> their names. You hav

Re: [Vo]:Why scientists oppose discoveries: it is usually about money

[Lennart Thornros]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sinclair had in mind when he said: "It is difficult to get a man to
> understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding
> it!"
>

​Jed, finally - you got it.
If there is only one source of income . . .  . .?
I suggest diversity.​


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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

Re: Re; [Vo]:Climate And Nuclear Energy

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Bob isn't it funny; we have two large organizations both concerned
with our best. They just end up with different opinion about issues that
has a definite answer. Now we need a committee to find out what is the
truth. That will be a secret committee (it is about radioactive material).
After long research and three to five years later we will never hear about
either side of the issue. I think it ends up with a secret agreement -
nobody can reveal the outcome - were NASA get enough plutonium for free as
it cannot be sold or given away but the military can lend it for the next
250 years. Then NASA will have to return the plutonium:.)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> My understanding is that there is a glut of fissionable materials
> (plutonium) in the hands of the military today - both in the US and Russia
> - due to the strategic arms limitation treaty and decommissioning of many
> nuclear weapons.  It would be surprising if either power is significantly
> concerned about breeding more plutonium.
>
> This is in stark contrast to NASA's position on not being able to get
> their hands on plutonium for their deep space probe RTGs.  When I read that
> the military has a glut of plutonium, how hard can it really be for NASA to
> get an increased allocation?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've heard about them as very safe. I understand that Russia is going
>>> full on with breeder reactors - as expensive but endless power.
>>
>>
>> I would not be surprised if the focus on breeder reactors is due to the
>> ability to create fissile material for weapons.  (I had not heard about
>> such a focus until now.)
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, glad you can see that the government cannot just select who is the
expert. I hope you can find the conclusion that it is only people that can
get results. Next conclusion could be; that if people are positioned in a
comfortable way, with very little impact from the result achieved, they
will tend to avoid risk taking. CYA becomes the norm.
Your argument to why the people addressed are the wrong people is very
typical. You can search for ever and never ind the RIGHT person/position as
they are all more or less CYA or as you say they get fired because
revolting.
In other words there is no way we can ask the government what will happen
with the climate. Impact by Exxon, Goldman Sachs and all the others will
impact the response.
Going back to the Paris meeting; do you think there will be anything
positive coming out of that? There is a bunch of politicians, influential
economic interest and a lot of people cashing in perks meeting with a few
scientists. With very few exceptions the scientists has no way of
communicate with the others as the others are as poorly educated in the
subject as I am in regards to the scientific speculations about LENR. Would
you like me to make decisions about how to go ahead with LENR research?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the
>> Dept of Energy.
>>
>
> For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in
> coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy.
>
>
>
>>   I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm
>> that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there
>> is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature.   I have a
>> friend there that tries to bring up the subject, but he is told to shut up
>> as LENR is pseudo science.  Experts are not immune from group-think.
>>
>
> You misunderstand. Those are not experts. Not with regard to cold fusion.
> They are probably experts about other sources of energy, or about physics.
> They think of themselves as experts on cold fusion, but actually they are
> ignorant. If they were experts they would know that cold fusion is real.
>
> They are also not experts on the scientific method, because they do not
> understand that experiments overrule theory.
>
> Just because people call themselves experts and just because many members
> of the public think they are experts, that does not actually make them
> experts. They have to be correct about critical aspects of the subject
> matter.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

If I take your own arguments and ask you to read them. Does that not tell
you that government are incapable of handling changes and to take risks.
You say that the people knows more about other issues but LENR. Just one
single argument for that statement would be a surprise. Why do you not
accept that large organizations foster a CYA mentality.

As we talked about the Paris conference I had an email from a health letter
I subscribe to. For reasons I do not understand sometimes they send me
investment advices. Here is what this newsletter said. I think that is a
correct observation.
December 3, 2015

The War on Climate Change Means Big Profits for Savvy Investors
by Keith Fitz-Gerald





Dear *Total Wealth* Investor,

More than 30,000 diplomats have converged on Paris, France for what is
being called "one of the most important international conferences in
history."

*"Tackling climate change is a shared mission for mankind," said China's
President Xi Jinping, the head of the world's largest carbon emitter. "All
eyes are now on Paris."*

*"If we act here, if we act now," President Obama added, "if we place our
short-term interests over air our young people will breathe... it won't be
too late for them." *

*"Here in Paris," French President Hollande declared, "we will decide on
the very future of the planet." *

Perhaps I'm too skeptical for my own good, but that's very similar to what
world leaders said in 1997 just before the Kyoto Accords. And *those* have
proven to be little more than lip service.

Even if 100% of the Kyoto requirements are followed by 100% of the 192
countries that signed them, they will deliver less than 0.020 C in cooling
by *2050* despite costing hundreds of billions of dollars.

Is that worth it?

I have no idea - I'm not a scientific expert.

But I do know beyond any shadow of a doubt that trillions of dollars are
going to get set in motion no matter what happens in *La Ville Lumière*.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> "For most sources of energy that is true. The DoE does have top experts in
>> coal, oil, and nuclear power and other conventional energy."
>>
>> I don't buy the argument that you can be specialized in conventional
>> energy and dead ignorant about anything new.
>
>
> They are dead ignorant about cold fusion. It is likely they are not so
> ignorant about other new discoveries.
>
> As everyone here knows, there is widespread bias against cold fusion. A
> great deal of misinformation about it spread by opinion makers such as
> Nature magazine, Scientific American and even Wikipedia. The DoE experts
> are affected by society and they share this bias. That is not surprising.
> Many scientists outside the DoE also share in it. This is why there are no
> corporations or universities developing cold fusion.
>
> Michael Melich was talking to a top DoE official. He asked: "Why do you
> put the editor of Nature in charge of US energy policy?" I do not think the
> guy answered. He was reportedly miffed.
>
>
>
>> The staff are almost all PhDs, supposedly the best scientists our
>> universities can turn out . . .
>
>
> They are necessarily the very best, but they are in the top tier. For that
> matter so are the editors at Nature and the administrators at the APS. Yet
> we know they are completely ignorant of cold fusion. Smart people often
> believe stupid things. History is full of examples.
>
>
>
>> . . .  what the hell do they learn about science if they are not able to
>> look at anything new?
>
>
> I expect they look at other things, but not cold fusion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
So, you are telling me that the experts in the government are positive to
LENR/CF. Funny to me to support but forget the wallet.
Reality is that there are very few government supported experiments that
has reported success.
Rossi is not the only person having results outside of the government.
Reality is that the few positive indications we see by government are from
people revolting against the organization they are working in. Thus
actually being entrepreneurs. I have said it before organizations cannot
achieve results but people can.
I read your article/speech from 2013. I liked that. Read the part about
chaos; do you think government would support that? Read about Fleishman;
sounds to me like an entrepreneur. F was certainly not supported by the
government.
I am not saying that I know what it takes to succeed with LENR. I know it
takes entrepreneurship, creativity, focus, vision, tenacity coupled with
knowledge and funding. Government has either of those attributes. That is
why Rossi is ahead of the government. Unfortunately, at the time Rossi's
success is a clear fact, the government will through in their enormous
funding and IMHO steal the show. Some think the government will take over
and hide the result to protect the interests, which empower the government.
It hurts me that intelligent people can believe that government will take
the lead in any changing situation.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> However, you lack in logic when you say:
>> If there is one lesson the history of cold fusion teaches it is that the
>> experts are usually right, and you should not listen to strange people from
>> outside the scientific establishment.
>> That is only true if you think that LENR/CF is impossible.
>>
>
> No, you have that backward. Nearly all of the experts who have looked
> carefully at cold fusion have concluded that it is real. Dieter Britz is
> the only one I know who is not convinced.
>
> The scientists who claim it is not real know nothing about the research.
> They have not read the literature. They are not experts; they are ignorant
> fools. You can see this in the negative comments of the 2004 DoE panel,
> which are preposterous:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf
>
>
>
>> I know you and I have different opinion about what large organization are
>> good and bad about.
>>
>
> Nearly every major mainstream organization that performed serious
> experiments in cold fusion produced positive results by 1990. Over 180
> organizations have replicated, and every one of them is at a university,
> national laboratory or corporation. Not a single researcher outside of the
> mainstream has ever replicated cold fusion as far as I know, except
> possibly Rossi.
>
> See the list here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf
>
> There were a few places such as Kamiokande that got negative results,
> because they made many mistakes and there were no electrochemists in their
> group. Without electrochemists  they could never succeed. They were
> bumbling amateurs *outside the electrochemical establishment*. See:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
>
> Imagine what would happen if electrochemists tried to build a Tokamak
> reactor. They would fail as badly as this.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Story on climate crisis would need some comments

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Jed,
I think your heart means well. However, you lack in logic when you say:
If there is one lesson the history of cold fusion teaches it is that the
experts are usually right, and you should not listen to strange people from
outside the scientific establishment.
That is only true if you think that LENR/CF is impossible.
I know you and I have different opinion about what large organization are
good and bad about. I think it is fair to say that if you want to avoid
changes and have things be the same as 'yesterday' even tomorrow, then
government is a safe bet. However, if you want flexibility and change, then
government is useless.
The debate about global warming is far from conclusive. I do not know the
answer. I do know that it is not a question we can control (i.e. I doubt
anyone created the ice- age(s)). For many other reasons I can agree that
limiting our carbon pollution has its advantages. Global warming will not
be totally depending on the CO2 level in the atmosphere, many other factors
will be as or more important. I think we need to get better information and
then search for the solution that still makes this place liveable. I think
we have time but to limit use of fossil fuel (limit CO2 in the atmosphere
is good in the meantime.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Mats,
>> I have commented as shown below.
>>
>> Global warming has been exaggerated.  To understand why see:
>>
>> http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
>> Note Fig 2b.
>>
>> There is nothing unusual about the weather.  . . .
>>
>
> Beware of statements like this. You have cited one person who has one
> opinion. It is contrary to the opinions of a large number of climate
> experts. It is possible this one person is right and the experts are wrong
> but it is unlikely.
>
> If there is one lesson the history of cold fusion teaches it is that the
> experts are usually right, and you should not listen to strange people from
> outside the scientific establishment. People often think that cold fusion
> teaches just the opposite lesson, but they have it wrong. In cold fusion,
> the established experts in electrochemistry and calorimetry were able to
> replicate and they published definitive proof that the effect is real.
>
> Most of the people criticizing these results were either scientists in
> unrelated fields who did not bother to read the literature, blowhards such
> as Robert Park, or anonymous, ignorant fanatics at Wikipedia who name
> themselves after comic book characters. In other words, they are outside
> the establishment. They have no credibility.
>
> As Fleischmann often said, "we are painfully conventional people."
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The conspiracies do exist!

[Lennart Thornros]

OK Blaze we do not want you to despair:)
I think this is (unfortunately) not a conspiracy. That is how our modern
world works. We have directed all the money to one entity. Now there is
only one way to influence the future. Electrical cars or medicine or risk
analysis does not matter what is correct as you know that the one with the
best connections and the biggest wallet will set the stage as it suits his
interests.
Conspiracy no - a one party state yes.Do not say there is two parties -
they have both the same ambition to be reelected. Everything is of no
interest.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote:

> I would point out that this prostitution can extend in any direction.
> Recall that in the documentary, “Who Killed The Electric Car?” there was an
> academic who came forward to California authorities and spoke glowingly
> about the promise of fuel cells so that the EV-1 could be eliminated and
> destroyed.
>
>
>
> Of course, here we are decades later with no mass use of such technology
> on our roads.  I hope he was well paid for his betrayal.
>

Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, if all three gave you the same useless recommendation and you
disagreed and did something else that worked. I would say you had a better
understanding than the experts. I am not very good at medicine. However, I
often knows better about my body than the doctor. Sometimes they are just
plain wrong.

I think the answer to vaccination is less than clear. California has
mandated vaccination and that might be more good than bad. The problem is
that we now make vaccine for illnesses that are less severe and like any
alteration in the body vaccination has risks. It is a danger that the
benefits do not outweigh the risks and because of the political mandate any
evaluation will become impossible / not required. It is not cut and dry.
Instead it is a good example of something the experts has different
opinions about and perhaps there is room for many solutions. It also shows
you that a society with no competition / debate will eventually end up with
stupid and dangerous decisions. California's mandatory vaccination policy
fits big pharma and the politicians and it is easy to enforce. Scientists
are  depending on politicians and big pharma for grants, who is going to
critically examine the vaccination policy and new vaccines?

You have a clear misunderstanding of how well the majority can determine
what is best / correct. That we have a global warming seems undeniable.
That we had a global cold spell in the 17 century or so. None of those
facts is disputed. Also it is my understanding that most people agree that
pollution due to fossil fuel is no good. The connection between global
warming and our burning of fossil fuel is not so undisputed. Regardless it
will require economical and political *wants* and *determination* to make
that shift away from fossil fuel. Many issues are connected with this
change and it will take time as there is no determination or real will.
LENR might help speed up the process.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You go to three experts and the one who gives the correct answer is the
>> REAL expert. That is the problem in a nutshell - experts are often wrong
>> even if they say they are experts and it is hard to see which one is THE
>> expert.  I assume you did not go to the two first experts even as you know
>> they were less of an exper,t than the third one:)
>>
>
> Suppose all three had given me the same advice. I would be a fool to claim
> that I know better, wouldn't I? Suppose I were to go several hundred
> doctors, and almost every one of them recommended the same treatment? I
> would be insane not to believe them.
>
> To take a real-life medical example, the vast majority of doctors will
> tell you it is good idea to vaccinate your children. Only a few dangerous
> quack doctors will disagree. You should definitely go with the majority
> consensus, because you do not want to see your child die in agony from
> tetanus.
>
> In the case of global warming, nearly every expert agrees. Okay, you will
> find a small minority who disagree, but as a non-expert, you should go with
> the consensus.
>
>
> Getting back to the actual case of my rash, the second doctor, a GP, said
> to me: "Well if it is not getting better, why don't you go see Dr.
> So-and-so? He knows a lot about rashes." It is the mark of a true expert
> that he knows the limits of his own knowledge. He does not suffer from the
> Dunning-Kruger effect. He knows what he does not know.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Tri Alpha Energy web site

[Lennart Thornros]

Thank You Jones and Ed.

On this other note; Sailboats beats stinkers any day:)


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Lennart- simply because a large amount of energy ia applied to the fuel
>> at the start to achieve “ignition.” Yes, it is true that some devices which
>> are labeled as LENR also require plasmas which are relatively hot – at
>> least they cannot really be called “cold” (as opposed to small scale).
>> Mizuno’s glow discharge would be an example.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> Perhaps as we learn more, this will turn out to be a false distinction, or
> an arbitrary dividing line. But based on current knowledge, I think there
> are fundamental differences between something like the Tri Alpha Device and
> LENR, and Beene has described the most important difference.
>
> This is not LENR, although it may be valuable. Still . . . I would hate to
> see any kind of plasma fusion succeed now if it meant the end of cold
> fusion. No matter how safe or useful the plasma fusion reactor may be, I
> expect it will still be expensive. I think cold fusion has many intrinsic
> advantages, so it would be a shame to abandon it.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> To change the subject, here is something I have been thinking about for
> some time.
>
> "It would be a shame to abandon it." You can say the same about solar
> energy. (Or wind, gas or coal I suppose.) If cold fusion starts to succeed,
> people who have devoted years of effort to solar will surely feel regret.
> They will say: "Let's hang on to this! There might still be a niche market
> for solar!" No, sorry, probably not.
>
> Those people will resemble sailing ship captains in the late 19th century,
> who saw the end of their era approaching. They understood, of course, that
> steamships were much better in many ways. But naturally they still had
> regrets, and a feeling of nostalgia. Around 1935 when my father was in the
> merchant marine on a freighter in the Atlantic out of New York, they came
> upon a full rigged sailing ship, probably one of the last. The captain of
> the steamship hailed the sailing ship, and then slowed down and down, and
> steered a course slowly around it, twice. Then he finally pulled out and
> headed to the destination. A romantic gesture. My father said the captain
> seemed sad, and lost in memories of his youth. I suppose he was in his 50s
> and remembered the late 19th century when the harbors at New York still had
> many sailing ships. See:
>
> http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/SHORPY_4a09256a.preview.jpg
>
> (I expect these had steel hulls and auxiliary engines. They were still in
> use because it was cheaper -- you did not need coal.)
>
> People usually invest a measure of emotion and love in their jobs and in
> the tools they use. You can't help it. I recall a bumper sticker on a big
> truck on the highway, "A man and his truck -- it's a beautiful thing."
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I frequently say that I am not a qualified science person, particularly in
regards to nuclear science, which I have very little background in.
However, and to your disappointment:) , I will voice my opinion as I see
fit. If scientists had THE answer than the rest of us would be obsolete.
I think reality is that to take good informed decisions one need to take in
data from 'all walks of life'. The example given above about weather /
climate is a good example. There is a cost involved and there are political
issues to consider and on top of it all the problems are largest where the
economy will be most hurt by a quick enforcement of a world with no CO2
pollution. So even if the increase in global temperature is depending
mostly (which I doubt) on our CO2 pollution we need to overcome other
problems to get the issue in a better state.
US has been very late to adopt any pollution recommendations made by
institutions like UN. The reason has been that strong industrial powers did
not want this expensive regulation. Europe, which is more densely populated
, has had to take steps in this direction for a long time. Now the big
expense will hit areas where the economy cannot take the cost (same
reasoning as the  US put forward 30 years ago). In other words we need to
cough up the money if we want to see any progress in that field. LENR would
certainly be a great help. In the meantime we will see statements like the
one from Paris coming out at great cost and with zero impact. When US make
a 10% import fee on all Chinese  merchandise and then turn those money into
improvement of the pollution in China's developing cities then things will
happen. Popular - don't you think?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> there are case where communities of scientist were locked in groupthink,
>> often locally because until recently science was not globally judged.
>>
>> N-Ray was very popular in french science.
>> Wegener was very Impopular
>> LENR is unpopular
>>
>
>
> Those are bad examples:
>
> The N-Ray was briefly popular among a small number of scientists. It was
> never confirmed. Most scientists paid no attention to it. Polywater, which
> was similar, was only partially confirmed by one laboratory. Many others
> look for it, found nothing, and never claimed a replication.
>
> Wegner was unpopular but most scientists paid no attention to his findings
> or data. They did not know what he claimed, so they had no business
> criticizing it. Most scientists who criticize cold fusion know nothing
> about the subject. They are not experts in any sense.
>
> LENR is unpopular among scientists who know nothing about it. Their
> opinions count for nothing. As far as I know, every scientist with
> expertise in a relevant field, such as electrochemistry or tritium
> detection, who has looked at the data carefully has been convinced that
> cold fusion is real. Nearly every scientist, except for Dieter Britz.
>
> Seriously, asking a scientist who has read nothing about cold fusion to
> express an opinion is an absurd thing to do. How can they know anything?!?
> By ESP? You might as well ask police officers or cashiers at a grocery
> store whether cold fusion is real. It is like asking a typical Georgia
> politician whether global warming is real. Most of them are so ignorant
> they think the world is 6000 years old!
>
> What is so funny is that many of these politicians predicate their
> response by saying, "I am not a scientist but . . ." I would tell them:
> "Okay, if you are not a scientist then shut up! Since you are not a
> scientist you should defer to the scientists. Would you advise doctors how
> to perform brain surgery? Would you tell NASA how to fix a complex problem
> with the Curiosity robot explorer on Mars?"
>
>
>
>> What can lock people who seems honest is "Groupthink".
>>
>
> I think it is mostly just old-fashioned stupidity. Also the Dunning-Kruger
> effect.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:N. Y. Times article comment

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Jed you are right.
You go to three experts and the one who gives the correct answer is the
REAL expert. That is the problem in a nutshell - experts are often wrong
even if they say they are experts and it is hard to see which one is THE
expert.  I assume you did not go to the two first experts even as you know
they were less of an exper,t than the third one:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
> This is not to suggest that all experts are always right, but non-experts
>>> are never right, and they cannot be right, even in principle. If they
>>> happen to be right, it is a lucky guess.
>>>
>>
>> This is complete nonsense.
>>
>
> Obviously I mean with regard to complex technical subjects, such as global
> warming or brain surgery. Or controlling robot explorers on Mars.
>
> Experts are often wrong about ordinary subjects, and subjects outside of
> their own expertise. They can even be wrong about their own fields, but
> logically that means they are not actually experts.
>
> Anyone can judge an expert by looking at results. Over the last few months
> I have had an itching rash. I consulted with two doctors, and followed
> their advice, but it did not get better. Obviously they are not experts on
> that particular problem. I went to third doctor. The treatment he
> recommended seems to be working, so I guess he is an expert after all. Or
> he made a lucky guess. I can't judge.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Tri Alpha Energy web site

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones,
Why is disqualified as LENR/CF?


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield
>
> Tri Alpha Energy now has a web site.
>
> http://www.trialphaenergy.com/
>
>
> Slick. No, beyond slick. But this is not LENR, and only differs from hot
> magnetic containment fusion in the simplicity of the system, and of course
> the aneutronic fuel.
>
> The promo video looks almost "too perfect" to be real ... as if it was it
> produced by Hollywood for an upcoming film using actors instead of
> scientists. This is suspicious but if it has not been staged (such as: for
> use as a prelude to an IPO) then it could be a game changer. Certainly a
> ton of money has been poured into the hardware.
>
> As for the science- the claim is to fuse boron with protons in plasma
> phase. Usually this requires lasers, but this is different. If true, it
> would be an ideal solution, since boron-11 is the most promising form of
> aneutronic fusion... if indeed they can completely avoid neutrons. The
> video shows techies working inside the reactor, so (assuming this has not
> been staged by Hollywood) there is indeed no neutron activation.
>
> Yet - how far are they from breakeven? That detail seems to have been
> carefully avoided.
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pluralism in Science​​: A Call to Action​

[Lennart Thornros]

I do not know that we need a new philosophy (not qualified to judge about
that).
However, having said that I agree with most of the writing (the excerpt
from H Chang's book).
'There are always two possibilities' is a rule I think is a simpler way of
accepting something similar to what you propose.
If there always are two possibilities then there is an infinitive number of
possibilities - just they can only be overcome a pair at a time.
I did read Peter Gluck's blog this morning (as I do most mornings), he is a
smart guy so he also think that the solution to LENR need better
organization (leadership, passion, openness to different ways to find a
solution).
I think Vortex has several sharp minds with solutions that might be
correct. The problem is that there is no openness to verify, THE ONE
solution and then take the next step.
I understand that there is a desire to be the one providing the right
theory or to make a whole lot of money from creating the commercial LENR.
That is normal and fine with me. As Peter suggested if we can find a person
willing to fund the research, then we can create an organization with the
right composition of intelligence and knowledge. The idea is not new. I
know at least one website that propose to create this organization, I think
that most things has its time and that this is the right time to create
this organization. The progress indicated by A. Rossi and IH should make
someone with a passion and deep pockets intrigued and willing to take a
calculated chance.
Even if AR and IH are well ahead the gap can be covered in a very short
time. In addition the market place will easily include many players.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From off list
> 
>
>
> Dear H. Veeder,
>
>
>
> I think the link I provide below is well suited to your Vortex thread and
> is rather self-explanatory.
>
>
> Perhaps you would post it there, as a reply (received privately).
>
>
> http://philosophypeterkinane.com/
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter Kinane
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The post ​b
>> elow
>> ​includes
>>  part A of chapter 5 from the book
>>  ​
>>
>>
>> Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism
>> ​
>> by ​
>> Hasok Chang
>> ​, 2012.​ (available on amazon.com)
>>
>>
>>
>> link to complete C
>> ​hapter 5​:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5aHRQUTdoN3o2d3c/view?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> Chapter 5. Pluralism in Science
>> ​: A Call to Action​
>>
>>
>> Part A. Can Science be Pluralistic?
>> ​Plurality: from acceptance to celebration
>> Monism and pluralism
>> Why pluralism is not relativism
>> Is pluralism paralyzing?
>> Can we afford it all?​
>>
>>
>> Plurality
>> ​: from acceptance to celebration​
>>
>>
>>
>> I became a pluralist about science because I could not honestly
>>
>>
>> convince myself that the phlogiston theory was simply wrong — or even
>>
>>
>> genuinely inferior to Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemical theory. OK,
>>
>>
>> that is an oversimplification, but I really was pulled into a pluralist
>> way of
>>
>>
>> thinking about science by a set of historical episodes in which discarded
>>
>>
>> past theories turned out not to be obviously absurd on a closer look.
>>
>>
>> More positively, in the course of doing the research for this book, I
>>
>>
>> became convinced that there was something worth preserving in
>>
>>
>> Priestley’s phlogiston, in Ritter’s elementary water, in Dalton’s HO
>>
>>
>> formula for water, and so on without denying the merits of the new ideas
>>
>>
>> that came to replace them. My previous work had already prepared me
>>
>>
>> in this direction, for example when I realized that the caloric theory of
>>
>>
>> heat had much to recommend it, and even some merits that made it
>>
>>
>> superior to the early kinetic theories of heat for many decades until the
>>
>>
>> middle of the 19th century. Of course it would be unwise to make
>>
>>
>> generalizations from a few particular studies, but they were too
>>
>>
>> suggestive to ignore. Like an itch demanding a scratch, they made a
>>
>>
>> persistent call for a re-examination of some fundamental assumptions
>>
>>
>> about the nature of science that were deeply ingrained into my own
>>
>>
>> thinking. They made me seriously call into question the common
>>
>>
>> intuition that there can only be one right answer to a scientific
>> question,
>>
>>
>> and that once science has answered a question definitively its verdict
>>
>>
>> was final.
>>
>> ​​
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
There is a Swedish say; "Venture capital is not for widows and orphans."
 (Perhaps a little off the political correct scale but has some relevance .
. .)
If the government gets involved then they actually do involve people who
for one reason or the other should not take that kind of risk.
As, I am old and was involved in the investment business in the 80is in
Sweden, I experienced how the government managed to lose substantial money
from a pension fund that all Swedes had to contribute to (mandatory). Who
paid in the end? Good guess the retired people after the mid 90is.
Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is what
allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the taxpayer's
money.
You might think the US government is better or the state of Georgia or
Atlanta city. No, they are not. The system makes the outcome not only
predictable but a self-fulfilling profetia. The say that power corrupts
describe part of it, if you prefer an American say.

Hoping we do not need to see any more of those profitable non-scandal
Solindra business during 2016.

Happy New Year to everybody.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
>> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
>> renegotiate the price . . .
>>
>
> Source:
>
> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>
> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
> not have anything up and running.
>
> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are
> making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
> line. That's how it works.
>
> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>
> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and
> oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I am not bragging but I actually have studied some history.

That, however, is not important. I have experience from real life and that
counts. You say I have no data to back up my statements! Did you read about
the Swedish pension funds I wrote about?

However, that is no so important either. Your misconception of government's
role and its achievements are scary. I have said it before; 'Organizations
cannot achieve result, people can.' If we channel most funds to one
organization (government in this case) then they are able to take the glory
for all positive development. You allow them to although they just used
your money without you having any say (Yes, I know about voting rights.)
You think that small scandals in the billion dollar size is OK as they do
so much other good thing. Well, we have the government you deserve. You are
pointing out what areas the government have been involved in one way or the
other. It is unavoidable as I said above if we channelize all funding that
way. As you suggest that I better my history knowledge, maybe you can tell
me why 1750 is the year the government became good. Does it have to do with
the creation of USA? I guess the old guys, I have read about (Archimedes to
Kopernicus,) they were just lucky to do anything good, as they did not even
have the support the church in some instances. Are you still of the
*opinion* that I have no* facts*?
Your opinion that government made a lot of progress in science since the
renaissance is barock (pun intended). The fact as you call it is;
scientists has made a lot of progress since the renaissance and you want
the government to have the credit for that. Talk about history but some
guys in Russia about 100 years ago they said that government can produce
much better than those individuals, which control the resources today. Let
us make it everybody's resources and we will all benefit. Well, the
experiment lasted for some 75 years. In China they adopted the same system
30 years later and it has no resemblance with the ideas of Mr. Marx any
longer. I know you think, that when it comes to science,  the government is
well equipped. Think again.
Happy New Year.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
> Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is
>> what allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the
>> taxpayer's money.
>>
>
> Such as the development of railroads, steamships, aviation, highways,
> subways, city traffic light control, sewers, water treatment plants,
> nuclear power, the computer, the laser, space based weather forecasting,
> the GPS, the Internet and decoding the human genome. Right? All paid for by
> governments. All bad, bad, BAD misuses of the taxpayer's money.
>
> Oh, and cold fusion. Discovered by government researchers. Paid for by
> governments.
>
> Add to that technology subsidized by governments, such as precision
> machine tools and mass produced interchangeable parts (both invented for
> military firearms), antibiotics (also used in war), telegraphs,
> semiconductors and PV and what is left? Nothing! Essentially, no important
> technology has been developed since 1750 without direct involvement and
> funding by governments.
>
> You need to study history. You keep making this empty assertion, but you
> have no historical data or present data to back it up. This is a matter of
> fact, not opinion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, because the government paid for it. Also organized it. The scientists
> could not have done what they did without the government.
> ​ Any organization could have done that. It would be better if there at
> least were several organizations competing about the funding (They tried in
> Russia as I said). I guarantee the scientists could do it with support from
> many organizations. If free enterprise we would see organizations much more
> efficient .​
>
>
> If I build a factory and I hire people to work in it, I get some of the
> credit for what they do, even though they do the actual work.
> ​ Yeah, in Karl Marx ideal society. Besides that if you do not do a good
> job you go bankrupt. Also called accountability - that does not exist
> without competition.​
>
>
> I definitely think the State of Utah deserves some credit for cold fusion,
> since it employed Pons and provided the lab space for the experiments. F
> could not have done it without a paycheck and lab equipment.
> ​ Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
>
>
> Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley deserved the Nobel prize, but we also have
> to thank the management at Bell Labs for hiring them, paying their
> salaries, providing lab space, secretarial help, etc. I am sure the
> secretaries and the other support staff did a lot essential work to enable
> the discovery. Everyone at Bell Labs deserved a small share of the credit.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​ If you eliminate the three names there would be very little fame to
> share or  . . . ​
> ​
>
>
> Governments pay for most fundamental research. Corporations do not
> contribute much, because it does not often pay back directly. Of course
> corporations have made important contributions, such as integrated circuits
> invented at Texas Instruments. Following that invention, rapid progress was
> made mainly thanks to NASA and Defense Dept., which ordered many ICs and
> paid for additional R
> ​ BTW I ordered a few 7400  series IC's in 1965. Do I deserve credit for
> TI's invention?:) To your statement; Why corporations have short term goals
> is determined by how funds can be allocated and how corporations can
> benefit over short and long time​. That in  its turn is decided by tax
> laws and if our philosophy is distributed resources or all in
> one uncontrollable pile. That my friend is the pivot point.
>
>
> Most real-time computer technology such as core memory, the CPU designs,
> and so on, were invented at MIT in Project Whirlwind (1946 - 1953). Just
> about every future important hardware designer participated at one time or
> another. It was the training ground for the whole generation of people who
> went on to invent modern computing. "Whirlwind alumni/ae have founded
> countless companies and have made numerous innovations in technology and
> software." (http://museum.mit.edu/150/21)
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>
>
> That was entirely paid for by the U.S. Air Force.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>
>
> In the 1960s, IBM and other corporations took the lead in computer R
> The Air Force had to lead in the early 1950s because the research was not
> profitable yet. It was more theoretical. It was vitally important to the
> military, but not yet profitable.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>



Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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

Re: [Vo]:An update on my on-going Kepler research efforts

[Lennart Thornros]

Good.
One needs to focus.
Happy new year.
On Dec 31, 2015 5:21 PM, "Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson" <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> After having been kicked out of Dr. Mills Yahoo Classical Physics group
> earlier this year I came to the realization that I should probably spend
> more time focusing on my own personal research work rather than wasting
> endless hours indulging in circuitous conjecture that never gets resolved.
> Resolution will only happen when (and if) Dr. Mills can pull his CHIT
> technology together and demonstrate a working prototype that generates
> electricity from the breakdown of water, some powdered metal, and the CHIT
> catalyst. After that defrocking, combined with some additional
> self-reflection I decided to unsubscribe from Vortex as well. This
> additional self-imposed banishment was also done to help encourage me to
> redouble my efforts to work on my on-going Kepler project. That I have done.
>
>
>
> As 2015 comes to an end I decided to briefly re-subscribe to Vortex...
> just long enough to give a brief update to the Collective on how my
> research is going. So… here goes:
>
>
>
> Back in October I experienced a minor epiphany concerning my Kepler
> research. It occurred at my local Noodles and Co restaurant while scarfing
> down a chicken Caesar salad. I was pouring over some Mathematica generated
> graphics depicting plotted orbital positions and accompanying velocity
> vectors. I suddenly noticed an interesting correlation having to do with
> the two foci that make up a typical elliptical orbit. My epiphany came from
> looking at the following link over the duration of several years. See:
>
>
>
> http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/orbit/orbit.2d.html
>
>
>
> These simple Mathematica graphics were generated from the physics
> department of College of Saint Benedict (Saint John’s University) located
> in Minnesota. Besides Wikipedia, additional useful resources for
> understanding much of the physics behind Orbital Mechanics can be found at:
>
>
>
> http://www.jgiesen.de/kepler/
>
> and
>
> http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/kepler.html
>
>
>
>
>
> The subtle information pertaining to my personal epiphany is embedded in
> the geometry of the Mathematica diagrams. It’s related to how we apply
> “Kepler’s equation” in order to plot the position of planets traversing an
> elliptical orbit. The new information isn’t obvious at first sight. In
> fact, it took me years to notice the startling new correlation. As best as
> I can tell none of these orbital mechanical websites have carried through
> and rearranged the geometry of some of these Keplerian diagrams in a manner
> that I think Kepler would have eventually found himself doing had he lived
> long enough to do so. Based on my own research I think it wouldn’t have
> taken Kepler not all that much more observational powers to have discovered
> three more Keplerian laws, additional laws that are just as important as
> the 1st, 2nd law and 3rd laws. What stopped Johannes was the eventual
> morality we all must face: Short lives… and perhaps not having sufficient
> computing power at his quill to plot out a few additional theoretical
> orbits to verify certain suspicions he may have speculated about.
>
>
>
> As we all know Kepler’s 1st law of planetary motion states: *“The path of
> the planets about the sun is elliptical in shape, with the center of the
> sun being located at one focus.* (The Law of Ellipses)” Over the
> centuries there has been conjecture as to what might be happening at the
> other (empty) foci. Does this seemingly unused focal point exhibit any kind
> of particular Keplerian law of the same caliber as Kepler’s 1st law? As
> best as I can tell nobody has managed to uncover a unique Kepler law that
> specifically uses the other empty foci in an exclusive manner similar to
> Kepler’s 1st law. Over the centuries respected researchers have puzzled
> over this enigma including Richard Feynman. You can view some of Feynman’s
> ponderings on the matter out at:
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qzcrpoy
>
>
>
> The best representation, to date, that I know of that tries to employ the
> other "empty" foci is the string tied into a loop method which is then
> placed around two separated thumbtacks. The two thumbtacks represent the
> two foci of a hypothetical ellipse arrangement. This allows one to trace
> out an ellipse when a pencil is placed between the two tacks and the string
> is held tight. It’s quite clever in all honesty! Nevertheless, this
> arrangement does not reveal anything exclusive as to what the empty foci
> might reveal in its own right, similar to what Kepler’s 1st law reveals. I
> confess, WHAT THE EMPTY UNFILED FOCI MIGHT REVEAL HAS BEEN AN OBSESSIVE
> CURIOSITY THAT HAS SUCK WITH ME FOR, FOR DECADES. And now, in my early 60s,
> I think I have managed to uncover the mystery of what the so-called empty
> foci represents.
>
>
>
> I admit it is probably arrogant for me to say this (and it’s still
> 

Re: [Vo]:21% of U.K. energy from renewable sources

[Lennart Thornros]

thanks

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:17 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> In reply to  Lennart Thornros's message of Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:35:09 -0800:
> Hi Lennart,
> [snip]
>
> Try "Continental shelf" in English. ;)
>
>
> >Sorry Jed poor or only half translated :)
> >Part of the North Sea is relatively shallow. It is an extension of the
> >European continent. Thus it could be called the base for Europe GB etc.
> >It is known as a base (socket) thus the poor translation.
> >As it is in the North Sea it is windy and there is no more fish to catch
> so
> >energy is the name of the game:)
> >
> >Best Regards ,
> >Lennart Thornros
> >
> >
> >lenn...@thornros.com
> >+1 916 436 1899
> >
> >Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> >enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The amount of wind energy in GB has to do with that the Brits have the
> >>> right to a large portion of the North Atlantic and the continental
> sockel
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sockel??? Typo?
> >>
> >> Perhaps you mean the North Sea. That is the best place in Europe to put
> >> wind turbines. It is very shallow. I read that turbines in the North Sea
> >> could generate 4 times more electricity than Europe consumes.
> >>
> >> - Jed
> >>
> >>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Lennart Thornros]

I think those claims are what we have been waiting for. (some of you guys
actively for 25 years). It cannot be right to say it is not serious. I
agree that there is no proof before it is in the market or scientifically
explained / tested. However, you must not disbelieve a final and good
outcome. I think it is trilling and fascinating and can hardly wait until I
can see the next chapter.
If he can produce electricity why is a jet engine  implausible? Even if it
is not engineered or cannot produce trust in comparison with the common
fossil fueled jet engine - I can understand that it is tempting to make
such experiment. It certainly would be a very lucrative market and AR and
IH could easily get much needed funding for further investments (building a
robot factory for example).
If he can get market dominance for a few years he can put in place a
business method that favors his product. I doubt that minimal fuel packages
is a good idea but perhaps the Sony idea (if it is not built by Sony it is
not compatible - maybe an old situation when Sony where dominating laptops).
In short there is finally lots of good news. They are not spoken with
openings for to return with explanations that gives any reasons to doubt
the statements to be both true and serious. I am admiring AR for putting
all his goodwill on the line. A nonperformance would ruin his credibility.
Unfortunately it would also make LENR obsolete for another 25 years.
I think we need to support the home team.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I gather this is with regard to Rossi's claims. I do not take his claims
> seriously. I think they are more stream-of-consciousness than lies.
>
> Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Whopper of the Week
>>
>> 1)  140 patents in progress
>>
> How do you know this is not true? There is a lot of money behind Rossi.
> "In progress" can mean a lot of things. It could mean people are drafting
> patents (which does not cost much), or it could mean patents they have
> actually been filed (which costs a lot).
>
>
>> 2)  Direct electricity or heat – either one or both
>>
>> 3)  Jet engine application
>>
> Implausible at best.
>
>
>> 4)  Fully Robotic factory to make fuel wafers
>>
> Is he saying there is such a factory? Or that they are planning one. I am
> pretty sure there is no factory at present.
>
>
>> 5)  Reactor hotter on outside than inside
>>
> He says this is because of EM fields. That is plausible. It is not a
> violation of any law. The sun is hotter on the outside corona layer than
> the inside.
>
>
>> 6)  No fuel module replaced in last 300 days
>>
> That's entirely likely. I see no reason to doubt this. Any cold fusion
> device should be able to run that long. When the technology matures, they
> should go for years.
>
> The only surprising thing about this is how short the duration is. I
> suspect they may be engineering the thing to need a new fuel module as
> often as possible. In the old days we would say they are hoping to sell the
> razor at cost and then make money selling the blades. Nowadays it would be
> selling the printer at cost and then profiting on the ink cartridges.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones,
I agree about your statement about supporting LENR. I do think that just
now Rossi is the best shoot we have. Worship is not involved. Neither does
an opinion (or lack thereof) imply anything about the quality of others in
this group or outside.
I do disagree that LENR will will be regarded as valid if Rossi fails. You
 are saying that LENR is valid anyhow. That might be true but it will be
more uphill than it has so far - I think we agree that it is too much
slanted the wrong way already?
I do not know Rossi. I think from what I have read that he has qualities,
which I easily can recognize That is not making sure that his statements
are built on solid ground (integrity). There are many (most) entrepreneurs
/ risk-takers that have a high level of integrity, unfortunately the
opposite exists also. The same as with scientists.
You that Rossi will not succeed. I believe and hope he succeed.Our
differences in that regard does not matter much. It is what it is and I
have patient and will wait and see the outcome.
As we made no bet ( I do not even want to) there is no personal gain if I
am right. Therefore I really should just say nothing. What worries me is
that you think Rossi will fail and even indicate some kind of gleefulness
over that. First of all it has no more validation than the issues you are
questioning about Rossi, secondly and more important it will hurt LENR's
future.
Nobody needs con-artists. However, they are everywhere and are hard to sort
out, they would not be con-artist if they where, by definition. I see no
reason to judge one person just before he says he will give us evidence. At
least wait until you hear the excuses and the blaming of others.
I like your  sentence in the end end; "In short, no one can be sure that
Rossi is not the hi-tech messiah that his loyal fans seem to believe.
Either way, we should know fairly soon." I just think it is far from being
a fan or worship.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Definition of “whopper”
>
> 1.   something unusually large or otherwise extreme of its kind
>
> 2.   an extravagant or monstrous lie.
>
>
>
> Which one applies here?
>
>
>
> Let me make one thing clear. LENR (the field of inquiry) is … or should be
> what we seek to support – not a controversial inventor and certainly not
> some kind of warped hero-worship. LENR is valid, even if Rossi proves to be
> a con-man, and that could easily be the case.
>
> It is astounding that Rothwell can admit on the one hand: “I do not take
> his claims seriously. I think they are more stream-of-consciousness than
> lies,” and then proceed to defend those extreme claims which have no basis
> in fact and make serious scientists think everyone here is a crank.
>
>
>
> This lack of character in a main player is not the way science should
> proceed. We demand personal integrity in scientists – and Rossi provides
> almost none. It is a huge mistake to believe that a failure by Rossi dooms
> the field.
>
>
>
> In fact, that scenario is exactly my expectation. We will see AR implode
> this Spring, and shortly thereafter, we will see LENR blossom –despite his
> failure and the extreme funk of the loyal followers.
>
>
>
> Put simply- there is ample evidence in the reality of LENR but there is no
> valid scientific evidence that Rossi has ever demonstrated a megawatt
> device, nor even a watt device at high gain, nor that he even has a real
> “customer” who is hosting a year-long demo. This could all be a product of
> an unscrupulous sociopath’s imagination, along with the silent cooperation
> of gullible investors, who may face legal problems over their lack of
> proper vetting.
>
>
>
> As the time for approaches for that long-awaited report on this mystery
> device, we are probably seeing the expected signs of an artful-dodger and
> something like the old bait-and-shift. That is … if Rossi knows there will
> be no positive report which can be independently verified then he will
> vigorously attempt to deflect the expected criticism by this ploy which he
> is testing out now. Possibly, he will say that he has switched to a new and
> much better design or blah, blah, blah… and blame the lack of the report on
> Cherokee/IH or someone else. The situation is starting to stink already.
>
>
>
> Do not put you faith in Rossi. Instead look to the 25 year history of LENR
> and an evolving understanding of a valid field - which will mature and
> florish, with or without the assorted con-artists. My expectation is that
> it will be “without Rossi” but if

Re: [Vo]:Whopper of the Week

[Lennart Thornros]

-Jed,
You said ;

​'​
It is implausible at this stage because jet engines require extremely high
temperatures and power density
​'
​
I might have missed something but I thought LENR has high energy density.
How to get high pressure is an engineering issue if I understand right. I
take Rossi's statement as an indication that they can see openings to
create a propulsion unit for airplanes.Your timeframe is not my experience
(I went to school 300 feet from a jet propulsion lab - probably why I did
not like school so much:).The safety aspect is there regardless of which
application we talk about. I think the progression is directed by the
market so either the easiest or the most profitable. My thinking was that
there is resources in the aerospace industry and they know that ROI takes
its time and the winner is the one that can command the new technology
first and best.
How and why and what can be developed I do not know. I am glad that you can
see the positive possibility p let us hope that Rossi has everything under
control for the sake of LENR and even more for the sake of having cheap
energy helping us even things out between different part of the world
without having to adopt islam.
Exciting is what I think.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If he can produce electricity why is a jet engine  implausible?
>>
>
> It is implausible at this stage because jet engines require extremely high
> temperatures and power density -- much more than any other application. It
> take 10 or 20 years to develop a new jet engine, compared to only ~2 to ~5
> years for an internal combustion engine or a generator (depending on the
> size of the machine).
>
> The other reason this is unlikely is that aerospace engines and other
> aerospace components such as radar are the most safety critical and
> expensive machines on earth. They are the last thing you develop, not the
> first. A jet engine failure can easily become catastrophic in a way that no
> automotive or marine engine would be.
>
> If cold fusion pans out I am sure that various aerospace engines will be
> developed, but they will be the last thing people develop, not among the
> first. They will be developed after many decades when the technology is
> mature and billions of other machines have been manufactured and run for
> billions of years cumulatively, making reliability as high as it is for
> today's liquid fuel heat engines.
>
> Near term aerospace applications might include propeller engines for
> drones, cold fusion electric power supplies, and synthetic liquid fuel made
> with cold fusion energy, which would lower the cost of air transportation.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Lennart Thornros]

You are correct Eric.
He was a maverick with humor and self irony.
I think we need many of that kind.
Still want to know what is not logical in the 'electrical universe'. I know
I am in over my paygrade so I am Ok to take a hit or two. Just curious why
the idea has not become more accepted. So let me have it.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
> wrote:
>
> I have been hearing about the 'electrical universe' since long time.
>> Hannes Alfven was a Swedish scientist and an entertaining person and this
>> 'gravity' is so not  intuitive to me.
>>
>
> There's an interesting section in the Wikipedia article about him:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n#Research
>
> Apparently he was treated as a maverick of sorts and found it difficult to
> publish his papers, even after being given the Nobel prize.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?

[Lennart Thornros]

Thank You for responding Eric. Yes, that is correct.
To me it makes a lot of sense.
I saw that  Wikipedia has found it to be obsolete.  As of 2015, the vast
majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not
match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted
cosmological theory.
I think that is a little vague, though.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:49 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> We briefly discussed an idea similar to what you show Eric.  It seems
> logical to me that magnetic and electric forces should have been the major
> factors that allowed for the building of bodies in the solar system.  They
> are a zillion times larger than puny gravity especially for very small
> bodies.
>
> And, it is apparent that iron and nickel are the main materials within the
> centers of solid bodies.  Strange that they happen to be magnetic.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 10:46 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter?
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
> wrote:
>
> Still want to know what is not logical in the 'electrical universe'. I
>> know I am in over my paygrade so I am Ok to take a hit or two. Just curious
>> why the idea has not become more accepted. So let me have it.:)
>>
>
> Is the "electrical universe" a reference to this proposal?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:An experiment by Klimov

[Lennart Thornros]

I understood this video much better than your other explanation:
"velocity derived Lorentzian properties of dilation and contraction that
accumulate so slowly at our near stationary end of the spectrum wrt C while
a Lorentzian effect produced by suppression might side step this
inefficient Pythagorean relationship entirely – It still has to subtract
from the square law/isotropy that dominates gravity in the surrounding
macro world but as the geometry gets more and more radical it may trump the
isotropy to the point where it becomes negligible and positive/negative
vacuum energy segregation varies the relativistic factor":)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 3:51 AM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tkplPbd2f60
>
>
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015, Roarty, Francis X <
> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>> Axil, welcome to my limb, great company but hope we don’t fall :_) When
>> you said [snip] This experiment can provide a time comparison profile of
>> how the flow of time is increased by positive vacuum energy as a function
>> of distance traveled by the LENR reaction products from the zero point of
>> the reaction.[/snip] IMHO your “function” is of Lorentzian type and the
>> fabric of space itself becomes transforming medium that changes the
>> radiations into a safe thermal energy source [traveling distance we can’t
>> see from our perspective and encountering time dilation along the way
>> “back” to our inertial frame in the “unsuppressed” macro world. In replying
>> to your email I start to wonder if I too am attributing too much to the
>> standard velocity derived Lorentzian properties of dilation and contraction
>> that accumulate so slowly at our near stationary end of the spectrum wrt C
>> while a Lorentzian effect produced by suppression might side step this
>> inefficient Pythagorean relationship entirely – It still has to subtract
>> from the square law/isotropy that dominates gravity in the surrounding
>> macro world but as the geometry gets more and more radical it may trump the
>> isotropy to the point where it becomes negligible and positive/negative
>> vacuum energy segregation varies the relativistic factor within these
>> regions wildly with even the slightest motion of gas atoms in any direction
>> wrt surrounding geometry – I have said this before but if these regions are
>> really relativistic then the possibility of nested regions becomes possible
>> and recent threads on single ions being catalysts could be the things Mills
>> spoke of WRT self catalyzing hydrinos. All the pcs fit if Casimir effect
>> and catalytic action are interpreted as relativistic artifacts due to
>> suppression including patents / claims of anomalous decay rates.
>>
>> Fran
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2015 2:56 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:An experiment by Klimov
>>
>>
>>
>> newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf
>>
>> Regarding:
>>
>>
>> Heterogeneous plasmoid behind PVR nozzle is γ-radioactive. Soft
>> X-radiation 100 ÷ 1 eV from this plasmoid. X-radiation decrement is
>> very small (radiation intensity decrease is about 20% at L = 100 cm).
>>
>>
>>
>> This experiment shows that the thermalization of gamma radiation from
>> nuclear activity from this LENR system is not instantaneous but still very
>> fact.
>>
>> This experiment can provide a time comparison profile of how the flow of
>> time is increased by positive vacuum energy as a function of distance
>> traveled by the LENR reaction products from the zero point of the reaction.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:16 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You mention that gamma radiation is thermalized in some common manner.  I
>> still find it difficult to believe that any high energy gammas are
>> generated during these reactions.   How would all of these be captured?
>>
>>
>>
>> For this reason it seems unlikely that gammas ever form in the first
>> place.  Instead one might suspect their formation is efficiently
>> short-circuited by another, faster channel, that is available only in a
>> closed-in environment, in contrast to the open environment of a plasma.  My
>> own favorite possibility: the energy that would normally be emitted as a
>> gamma photon is instead dumped into one or more nearby electrons, which are
>> stopped in the material or gas, causing low-energy atomic transitions which
>> gradually radiate away the energy imparted by the electrons as they come to
>> a stop.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Attacking website

[Lennart Thornros]

It is hard to understand that some people are more interested in judging
than arguing the content. Personally I do not see the point in that kind of
behavior.
How can anybody feel good from hurting or diminish another person. Not that
I promote that, but at least I can see the motivation, if it entice some
personal winning. Here it is just judging for the sake of judging.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is what insecure people do.  They seek out people they think are
> vulnerable to some kind of attack in order to make them look bad.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 7:41 PM, H Ucar <jjam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Soon after my corresponce has been put on the blog (
>> https://upitec.wordpress.com) a personal attack refering my name has
>> been published on at https://crackpotwatch.wordpress.com
>>
>> I think this is ill practice.
>>
>>
>> H Ucar
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Attacking website

[Lennart Thornros]

Jawohl - Schadenfreude ist ganz gewöhnlich.
I know that. I just cannot see that as motivation.
To me it seems a waste of energy and I am a lazy guy.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> How can anybody feel good from hurting or diminish another person.
>>
>
> That is very common behavior! It is found in all cultures. Bullying and
> schadenfreude are two examples.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, the fact that IH has filed for dismissal is not an indicator of
anything.
I have read all the arguments from both sides. I think the reality is not
shown very well.
One side is claiming that IH has provided information under some kind of
NDA. The arguments are switching between that those secret facts are the
base to that Rossi's own statements makes him a scam artist.
Most of all I dislike the name calling of Rossi and the ERV.
Secondly I think the whole discussion is useless if the secret information
is not shared.
Thirdly Rossi has kept the whole LENR community in suspense for at least
four years, I think he has the right to explain / prove himself before we
forget about his contribution.
Forth is the fact that IH has not handle the situation very well. In many
juncture a firm stand would have prevented Rossi from filing a lawsuit.
Yes, it is possible they decided to take the risk with full understanding
of that they probably were taken for a ride. Thrm I suggest they are as
guilty and will pay for that.
Fifth is the fact that Rossi is spending his money persuading the LENR
solution he has. It does not make sense if his goal was to get some funds
for a happy retirement. It just does not make any sense. If I am wrong here
it will show very soon as Rossi needs to show his cards, perhaps not to us
but to a new partner, who is well warned about that it is hard to manage
Rossi and perhaps an investment is risky and without upside. I am sure
there will be serious due diligence before any money change hands.
Wait and see. Speculations will not bring clarity.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:31 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Well I apologize for my assumption.  If the only information you have is
> from Rossi please give his actual quote(s)  I have not seen anything from
> him to indicate that the plant did not operate well.  If you have other
> numbers, what were their source?
>
>
>
> On 6/5/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield < <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You  on the other hand are certain you know all the answers based on
>> information from IH. not from the independent ERV.
>>
>
> No, my information is from Rossi (or perhaps the ERV). I know it came from
> Rossi because the numbers I have are the same as the ones he quoted to
> Lewan in the recent interview.
>
> I have no information from I.H.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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

Peter Gluck  wrote:

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

I can tell by reading your blog.


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

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

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

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



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

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 7:52 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Saga Part 1

[Lennart Thornros]

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

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

[Lennart Thornros]

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

a.ashfield  wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

- Jed

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

[Lennart Thornros]

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

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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

[Lennart Thornros]

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

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

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

Re: [Vo]:LENR has roots, needs wings

[Lennart Thornros]

Harry, how about laser roots?
Children need to test their wings early, rather sooner than later. Laser
roots can always find them.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:37 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some people in positions of authority mistakenly believe it is necessary
> to cut children off from their roots before they can fly.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 'Flying roots' is an oxymoron I like much
>>
>> think about it, please  when reading:
>>
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/02/feb-09-2016-lenr-has-roots-but-needs.html
>>
>> peter
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why the automobile market appeals to cold fusion investors

[Lennart Thornros]

I think the car examples are because they are easy to communicate.
No serious investor will make that in itself a major factor in an
investment decision, We are talking millions and that is a lot of money
even for the super rich.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe that the LENR reaction can be adjusted to provide an output that
> is more well suited for the auto market. Both Mills and Papp generate a
> large amount of XUV and x-ray EMF, but papp added  xenon (Xe) and other
> noble gases to his fuel mixture. These additions convert XUV and x-rays
> into cluster explosions to produce a shock wave that can move a piston.
> These gases also eliminated the production of waste heat.
>
> Shock wave generation is the best interface for the LENR auto power plant.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The idea of making the device good for a car to justify its rapid
>>> introduction commercially was just a pipe dream for gullible investors in
>>> my mind.
>>>
>> Yes. Cold fusion researchers, "over unity" energy researchers and others
>> are mesmerized by the automobile market. They have good reasons. The
>> automobile internal combustion engine (ICE) is probably the second most
>> widely used machine on earth. Probably space heaters (furnaces) are number
>> one. People manufacture 60 million cars a year. The ICE market is unified.
>> If you can find a way to make a good replacement for an ICE, the whole
>> automotive market falls into your lap. Other major energy markets are split
>> up among many different machines, such as low temperature ovens, blast
>> furnaces, aerospace engines, marine engines, generators of vastly different
>> sizes, and so on. Only the automobile market calls for basically one
>> machine at one power level.
>>
>> The other reason people are attracted to this is because transportation
>> is the largest energy sector. People spend more money on transportation
>> energy so they would flock to a cheaper alternative. See:
>>
>> Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2014: ~98.4 quads
>>
>>
>> https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2014.png
>>
>> If you look carefully, however, you see that transportation is large only
>> because it is hugely inefficient. Compare transportation to the residential
>> sector. The residential energy sector consumes 11.8 quads, converting 7.66
>> of them into useful energy, wasting 4.12. That's 65% efficiency. The
>> transportation sector consumes 27.1 quads, converting 5.68 into useful
>> energy, 21% efficiency. Actually, as shown in the text at the bottom of the
>> page, that 21% is an estimate made by the authors of this chart. It is
>> accurate as far as I know.
>>
>> There are many reasons for this low efficiency, such as the fact that
>> electric cars are far more efficient than gasoline ones. Transportation
>> could be made as efficient as other sectors with existing technology such
>> as electric cars. In this case it would consume 8.7 quads, making it the
>> smallest of the four sectors. So perhaps it is not such as lucrative target
>> for cold fusion as it first appears.
>>
>> It is interesting to compare this Lawrence Livermore chart to the 2000
>> version, on the last page here:
>>
>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf
>>
>> Overall estimated energy use is down slightly, from ~98.5 quads. Actual
>> use in the four sectors has increased slightly from 70 to 73 quads. The
>> overall reduction of ~3.3 quads is in changes to electricity generation,
>> and in increased efficiency throughout the system with things like CFL and
>> LED lighting.
>>
>> Electricity Generation consumed 40.4 quads in 2000, and it now takes 38.4
>> quads. It was 30% efficient in 2000 and it is now 32% efficient. This is
>> partly because wind, solar and hydroelectricity are considered 100%
>> efficient, I believe. There is no wasted fuel associated with them. That is
>> not say that wind turbines convert 100% of wind into electricity.
>>
>> Coal has fallen from 20.5 quads to 17.9 quads.
>>
>> On this table, nuclear contributes 8.33 quads to electricity. Nuclear
>> power produces roughly 20% of US electricity, which is 2.48 

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

As with any change one can approach it at least two ways.
1. Fear it and see the doomsday approaching.
2. Accept it and try to regroup to get maximum benefit from it.

To me it is obvious and to most people it is when I put it this simple. The
problem occurs because people dive into details and observe that certain
things will be negatively affected. The reaction ought to be; we must
change this situation now so we better can benefit from future advances.

It seems I am the only one proposing smaller organizations. Maybe after a
long period of very large organizations it seems powerless. IMHO with
unprecedented access to information, with instant communication everywhere
(soon anyhow), there is no value in the large organization. The large
organization has very few advantages but a number of easily recognized
disadvantages:
1. They automatically carries a large amount of 'fat'. Therefore
ineffective.
2. In an open society with great access to information, there capacity for
deploying resources they harbor will no longer have a value. The same
resources can be deployed without formal and inflexible (read forever)
 organization.
3. Given the opportunity most people will produce better if given the right
to produce what they are interested in. Large organizations have to force
people to do things the organization deems important. Thus there is a
possibility for small organization with temporary liaisons to provide
better result if we embrace the new opportunity. I think there are two
issues one need to resolve before this can be a reality:
  a. Basic income needs to be separated from work. UBI is a
possible solution.
  b. People must be educated so they can see and utilize the
opportunity.

I do agree with Adrian in his analysis and suggested solutions.
I have lived my first 45 years in Scandinavia. I have first hand experience
and it certainly has its advantages. However, the differences between US
welfare and the Swedish ditto is very small. I sometimes feel there is less
freedom in the US system. (I know it is hard to believe and that many will
say - cannot be so.) There is one big difference. The Swedish system is
considered a right, the US system is murky in its implementation. This
might not be the best analysis but what I am trying to say is that there is
an attitude difference, which is hard to describe. Personally I have chosen
to live in California so it has to be some advantages or am I saying one
and doing the other? Reality is that days are longer and the sunshine
prevalent in California. The nuances in difference in regards to politics
are so small that there is hardly possible to distinguish between and they
for sure are evened out over time. As Adrian is saying; ' One possible way
of avoiding the looming conflict is conversion to a welfare system like the
Scandinavian countries employ'. It actually calms down the
revolutionary tendencies.
I just want to add that I think the comparison is very unfair. The US is 30
times more people, and even as Sweden has a large number of immigrants
lately, it is still a much more homogeneous population than the US. The
Scandinavian model cannot be implemented in the US. This model will not be
enough in Scandinavia either - more must follow. I think the most important
in the US is to decentralize the government.
1. Less in Washington and more in the neighborhood block.
2. Reduce the bureaucratic obstacles we have built with a good intention
but with totally wrong result. See the licensing system for different
trades, which is close to medieval rules for trade. I understand that there
need to be requirements for certain services. The question is who is
capable of judging - I for sure know government is totally incapable.

LENR has many characteristics, which would help future social development.
Just as we need to search for solutions in the energy field, that makes
life better, we need to find a model for distributing the resources and
make sure everyone has the basics.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:57 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I wrote a long piece about this last year covering the present, the near
> future and possible solutions. The third part on solutions follows.
>
> *Possible solutions.*
>
> The Triple Revolution (Cybernation.  Weaponry,  Human Rights)  was an
> open letter, signed by notables, sent to President LB Johnson on March
> 22, 1964.  Although now dated, the problems of automation were foreseen.
> All have been ignored to some extent and it will take a brave politician,
> considering how their elections are funded, to state the obvious that
> American adventurism can no longer be sustained and that the new unemployed
> must be supported.
>
> History sho

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
In medieval times there were rules decided by people in a certain trade if
they would allow any new person to establish business in that trade. They
were supposed to be able to see the need for more resources. Guess what?
They made competition non-existent. Today the licensing has ambition to
protect the consumer. In reality it is just no protection but plenty of job
opportunity and income to government. (Just FYI 1790 is not medieval time
to me. In addition the building codes is not what I talked about.)
You say 'for good reasons' which reasons are those good one. That rules has
not changed and that we have laws that cannot be enforced as they should
have been eliminated 50 years ago is hardly a good reason. It is rather a
sign for inefficient government and inability to adopt to modern times.
Examples can be laws about adultery.

You know Jed, who really make the rules is of less importance. The
politics, involved in making the rules, are so outrageously free from
common sense that trying to justify regulations with such statements is
like shooting oneself in the foot. ( I have my problem with the language
but tautology?)

You have never been involved in the setting of industry standards I can
hear. Reality is that it is filled with lobbying and people protecting
there own ways of doing things by forcing legislation to force other to go
the same (often expensive and meaningless). As I said the same impact as
medieval trust laws. So bringing private industry to the table is just
increasing the stupidity and eliminating competition.

The last paragraph shows a very low opinion of your peers and the
population in general. No, things does not become chaos because government
is not involved. There are not that many areas where we can see the
difference between one and the other. In some areas there are parallels but
than, when not government organized it is criminal and that skews the
picture. Examples are prostitution, weed sales etc.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> See the licensing system for different trades, which is close to medieval
>> rules for trade.
>>
>
> Not just close; they are the same in many instances, for good reason.
> People in medieval times were not fools. In another example, many building
> codes in Pennsylvania are the same today as they were in 1790.
>
>
> I understand that there need to be requirements for certain services. The
>> question is who is capable of judging - I for sure know government is
>> totally incapable.
>>
>
> All of these standards are set by industry, not by government. The
> government enforces standards which are set by organizations such as the
> ASME. Many laws simply reference ASME publications saying that products
> "will meet these standards." So this statement makes no sense. It is a
> tautology:
>
> Standards set by industry are set by industry.
>
> Naturally, government experts at places like NIST contribute to the
> standards, but no standard is ever implemented without consultation and
> expert input from industry.
>
> Without standards industry would be in chaos, unable to accomplish
> anything. The most important U.S. person of the industrial standards
> movement in the 20th century was Secretary of Commerce and later President
> Herbert Hoover. He was not a left wing figure, opposed to capitalism or
> industry.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I do believe you have a house inPA and that it is welluilt following rules
from 1790.
I am fine with your father was a good member of NIST if you say so.
I did not read much of your other examples of poor regulations. I actually
try to say that old obsolete laws are still in the law books as there is no
interest of implement changes. Instead there are in addition to people's
normal resistance to change a bureaucratic force added, when it comes to
working with old laws.
The degree of freedom one generation compared to another is hard to be
categorical about. If basic needs were not met then the freedom was not
real. Rules 150 years ago could often not be enforced so the reality was
the same, some laws made a difference and others were just shadow boxing. I
do not care. I would like to look forward and try to find ways to implement
the new and changing world to our society. (I know I brought in a word
about medieval trade practices. I thought that everyone agreed they were no
good. Obviously you believe different and therefore the example was no good
for you. )

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> In another example, many building codes in Pennsylvania are the same
>> today as they were in 1790.
>>
>
> I happen to know this because I own a house in the barn in Pennsylvania
> which were constructed in 1790. The man who reconstructed them is an expert
> in colonial and early American buildings, stone masonry and building codes.
>
>
>
>> Naturally, government experts at places like NIST contribute to the
>> standards, but no standard is ever implemented without consultation and
>> expert input from industry.
>>
>
> I know this because my late father was a top official at NIST (then called
> the national Bureau of Standards).
>
> The main difference between the present day and the colonial period and
> the 18th and 19th century is that today people have far more autonomy and
> freedom to do as they please. Guilds, industry and government have much
> less control over our lives. Right-wing people often say just the opposite,
> but this is because they have no knowledge of history. I will give four
> examples, but you can find hundreds more in any history book:
>
> Personal appearance was much more controlled. In New England in the 1840s,
> beards were out of fashion. That is to say, men who wore beards were
> sometimes accosted by crowds, beaten, forcibly shaved and jailed. In the
> 1960s long hair was unfashionable and a sign of antiwar protest. On some
> occasions young men with long hair were treated in a similar way, but this
> was rare, rather than being the rule.
>
> Until 1963 people's sex lives were far more restricted by laws than they
> are today. Adultery, homosexuality, contraception and pornography and much
> else were forbidden. Divorce was forbidden or difficult. Interracial
> marriage was forbidden in many states until 1967.
>
> In the 18th and early 19th century, hostels and hotels in the U.S. had to
> meet various strict, detailed standards. They had to provide fixed amounts
> of specific foods to travelers; and the room charges were fixed in a narrow
> range. The specifics varied by state but they were a matter of law.
> Nowadays, the only thing covered by law in a hotel or motel is the charge
> per room and the fire escape route posted on the door.
>
> Parents in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century had little control over
> the education or upbringing of their children. When parents did not teach
> their children how to read by age 6, or when parents set a bad example, or
> did not take the children to church, local governments could -- and did --
> take the children away and assign them to foster parents. The notion that
> parents have the right to raise their children away from society by their
> own lights, or to home-school them, is from the 1960s. It did not exist in
> the U.S. before that, for good reason. In my opinion, and it should not be
> allowed today. Although I will grant that government had too much power in
> 1642. For details, see:
>
> Massachusetts Bay School Law (1642)
>
> "Forasmuch as the good education of children is of singular behoof and
> benefit to any Common-wealth; and wheras many parents & masters are too
> indulgent and negligent of their duty in that kinde. It is therfore ordered
> that the Select men of everie town, in the severall precincts and quarters
> where they dwell, shall have a vigilant eye over their brethren &
> neighbours, to see, first that none 

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

No Jed,
I am not arguing with you about who read more history.
If you think you KNOW that today is far better than another time then be it
so. I still think that depends on what you think is important and if you
can satisfy basic needs.
I am sure Hover was a good guy.
Yes, Jed some laws were well enforced. However, due to lack of
communication and transportation there were plenty of opportunities to
avoid the law. Not so easy when you have a video camera in each street
corner.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I do believe you have a house inPA and that it is welluilt following
>> rules from 1790.
>>
>
> Actually, the guy who rebuilt it said that the stonework in the barn was
> incompetent and did not meet the standards of 1790. He said "whoever did
> this should have been ridden out of town on a rail." (The town being
> Gettysburg.) But it did hold up. He jacked up the building and rebuilt the
> inside wall with stone taken 100 yards away. So whoever did it in 1790
> could have done it right, as he pointed out.
>
>
>
>> I did not read much of your other examples of poor regulations. I
>> actually try to say that old obsolete laws are still in the law books as
>> there is no interest of implement changes.
>>
>
> You are completely wrong about that. Laws governing industrial standards
> are frequently updated to keep up with technology. The ASME, the ASTM, NIST
> and other organizations issue hundreds of revised and modernized standards
> every year. That is why computer plugs plug in without shorting and burning
> up the equipment. (In the 1970s I sometimes plugged in cables which *did*
> short out and burn up the equipment.)
>
> Let me put it this way: I am not nostalgic for the RS232 standard.
>
> Without such standards, modern technology would be impossible.
>
>
>
>> The degree of freedom one generation compared to another is hard to be
>> categorical about.
>>
>
> That is completely wrong! It is dead-easy to be categorical about, or to
> compare. Just read the laws and newspaper accounts from the past. Read any
> novel about the past, or diary. You will see that we are living in the
> golden age of personal autonomy. In no previous era, in no nation, were
> people as free to live and do as they please as we are. Just the fact that
> homosexual couples are allowed to marry would be mind-blowing to anyone in
> 1980. In 1968 there were many places where heterosexual couples could not
> divorce. Until the Loving versus Virginia judgement, people of different
> races could not marry in many states. Not just black and white people; in
> some states I would not have been allowed to marry a Japanese American or
> native Japanese. I would have been arrested for checking into a motel with
> a person of another race. Under the Cable act of 1922, anywhere in the U.S.
> I could have been stripped of my citizenship and forced to move to another
> country. See:
>
>
> http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/tp/Interracial-Marriage-Laws-History-Timeline.htm
>
>
>
>> If basic needs were not met then the freedom was not real. Rules 150
>> years ago could often not be enforced so the reality was the same . . .
>>
>
> They were most definitely enforced. These were not dead letter laws at
> all. You have no knowledge of history if you think that laws relating to
> race, sex and so on were not enforced.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

Eric,
Many wise words.
I agree with a slow implementation but I thing before any implementation
can take place we need to have a dramatic change of attitude.
An understanding of that borders are no good protection is an insight we
need to acquire. With our modern technology the world gets smaller and
smaller and to believe that borders protect is an illusion. Borders are
just arbitrary obstacles. Even here implementation can be slow but the
attitude should be refreshed quickly.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that the argument that the threat of starvation and economic
> marginalization can be useful for motivating people to do something with
> their lives is unpersuasive now, if it ever was persuasive.  I don't think
> people should face starvation, or even go without dental care, as a result
> of being lazy and unambitious, let alone mentally ill, disabled or
> physically handicapped.  I am hopeful that this awareness is starting to
> become widespread, even if it will be a while (hundreds of years?) before
> something practical is done with it.
>
> As the conditions during the industrial revolution show, Anglo-Saxon
> countries in general, and the US in particular, have an above average level
> of tolerance for the suffering of their own people. So I would not
> necessarily bet money on anything happening anytime soon in the US.  It
> seems just as likely that we could let things get pretty dystopian.
>
> What is also worrisome is what will happen to political power with
> narrowing economic opportunity.  You cannot even pretend to have a level
> playing field, with equal opportunity for all, when economic
> marginalization begins to affect a large number of young people, as well as
> a significant portion of the adult population, as structural changes
> gradually transform the present economy into something we can only guess
> at.  With profits currently accruing to a small portion of the total
> population, politics will also go in an unknown direction, no doubt for the
> worse.
>
> If a basic income can help with a little of this, I think we should try
> some small experiments to test it out over several years. I'm for
> piecemeal, incremental change, carried out a little at a time.  If the
> experiments go well, I would not mind if a number of present-day welfare
> programs, such as food stamps and workers' comp, were gradually
> consolidated into it.  We should not let ideology get in the way of this
> kind of experiment.  But at any rate economies are things that are
> supported and controlled by societies, and they are free to modify the
> rules however they want. The only thing limiting this beyond political will
> are any unintended consequences that follow, which is part of the reason
> you make changes in small batches rather than in one go.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

What a gang of pessimists!

Yes, there will be well paid jobs in the future. However, that is not the
immediate problem. We need to spread the resources so everybody is given a
fair chance to a life with no lack of the essentials.
It is only one way to do so. To make sure people less fortunate will
receive there benefit with a feeling of entitlement. Us old guys with
another upbringing will have a hard time accepting it. It still is required.
Then we need to find a reward system for those that take responsibility and
initiative to move our society forward. I think that will fall into place
more or less by default once we accept this new reality and our attitude
has changed.

Seen away from meteor hits and other catastrophes - I am convinced we will
move toward a better society. Perfect is still far away.

The debate about feminism I refrain to comment on. I know on Venus things
are different but as I never been there I cannot figure the difference.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But surely they cannot replace Vanna White
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:59 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs
>
>
>
> Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The last good paying jobs remain in healthcare.  How long will that hold
> up?
>
>
>
> Not long. When computers can drive cars better than people, and when they
> can win at Jeopardy better than the world's experts, it is only a matter of
> time before they take all remaining manual labor jobs.
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed you say:

​'​
This is either a problem or an opportunity, depending on how you look at
it, and how society chooses to respond.
​'​

Of course it is an opportunity. The only way to turn it into a problem is
to decide it is a problem.

What about this logic:
I assume transformation will take its time (decades).
If all our needs are taken care of by robots and LENR provides free energy
then there is only a distribution problem.
As the robots are so good they will quickly fix that also.
In my imagination people will be in charge of robots.(another assumption).
Then the robots will be instructed to distribute the basics in the right
quantities and the right time to the right place.
As I see it there are two areas we still need people for:
1. To instruct the robots.
2. To develop the robot technology (if nothing else because we cannot let
the robots develop robots and take over).
The more interesting thing is of course which opportunities will open up.
Sports (competition between people cannot be a robot thing)
Entertainment in most regards.
Philosophy.
Various ways explore things. Scientific experiment and the final LENR
solution.
Is the sun a liquid is for humans to find out.
Lots of opportunities I am sure the list is endless and I have only pointed
a few directions without much deep thinking - just taken a dig in one
corner an inch deep.
The reward system and how to distribute the luxuries  needs its solution
and it will be among those in charge of the robots in one function or the
other.
There is no need for 8 hour days. Maybe one can work a month a year. Then
go sailing for 11 months - would fit my idea of a good time.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> What I don't see is any agreement of how to handle the inevitable rise in
>> unemployed.  The group-think politician's answer still appears to be "more
>> education".
>
>
> Yes. Education is a good thing, and I guess it can help with this problem,
> but it cannot solve it. Lately, several smart people have shown that robots
> and computers are likely to replace many jobs that call for high
> educational attainment. Automation used to reduce manual labor only. Then
> it eroded clerical jobs and cashiers. Now is likely to reduce labor across
> the board.
>
> This is either a problem or an opportunity, depending on how you look at
> it, and how society chooses to respond.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Ludwik,
No, communism was old already when introduced in Russia (even older in
Poland). However, if we stay with that side of the communism that deals
with distribution of basic needs it has it points. The problem is that it
decides that one group has too little and that that has to be justified
with all and any means. This is a different situation today and the
argument has very little traction.
I believe that one need to have a way to distribute basic needs not only
within a country but globally. Otherwise there is no way of dealing with
the future robot society. You  cannot have people in a third world country
working 70 / 80  hours per week and just get the basics if people three
hours away can work 8 hours a week for the same reward. As the world has
better communications the differences will decrease. I do not think that
such borders will survive.
I think Eric is righ;t robots will only be able/allowed to handle so much.
There will be a need for change of attitudes and valued will be based
differently. I know that people (in general), of working class 125 to 150
years ago had no ambitions to develop their personality or travel for
educational reasons. They had their day cut out trying to survive. During
this period since then we have already made great progress to offer
everyone the basic needs in the west. This development is under way at a
much higher speed in all other countries today. I predict one can live with
similar security and promise of basic needs almost anywhere in the world
within 25 years. It is possible that the direct connection between
producing and reward will to some extent survive this period. However, if
the requirement for being productive is very low, like 8 hours per week,
then this direct relation will have to change. I hope to the better.
Once again I agree with Eric that there is a big risk that the transition
will be difficult. LENR would certainly help that transition. Disturbing to
me is that even here in the west, we cannot focus on adopting the new
technologies. We are still worried over that jobs are moving to China and
India. That is instead of building new infrastructure that utilize the new
possibilities. We still think that GM and similar giant organizations will
be in the lead. We even save them when they fail because they have outlived
there usefulness. We are afraid of the change!
China and India will not stay long as the low cost labor resource. Robots
and even less fortunate areas in the world will become the future cheap
labor resource. Don't you think a Chinese will ask for the same privileges
as a US or a German citizen? Of course they will.
I could add something about, smaller and more flexible organizations all
over the field, but  . . . :)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> About education -- in a future in which the economic difficulties being
> discussed are worked out to some extent, there will be a lot of free time.
> Furthering one's education seems like a good way to spend some of this
> time.  I suspect that education will change significantly in the next 200
> years, which is not to suggest that it will be unrecognizable. But if there
> is less pressure to get a job in order to survive and prosper, there may be
> less pressure to obtain a bachelor's degree, in contrast to getting
> specific certifications, which could potentially undercut the current
> tuition inflation.
>
> About the replacement of jobs by robots -- this is obviously happening and
> will increasingly happen.  But I think the argument only goes so far.  Not
> all creative jobs carried out by people will be replaced by robotic labor
> (I don't think anyone is arguing the extreme version of this).  I doubt
> there will ever be a time when robotic art, or music, or essays, political
> analyses or high-end mandolins will ever rival the best work of humans.
> This is not to say that many jobs that are currently somewhat creative will
> not be replaced.
>
> To elaborate, consider that for the last 50-60 years people have been
> infatuated with fast food, which has a consistent taste and presentation
> wherever you buy it.  There has been a similar uniformity in homes,
> suburban neighborhoods, furniture and fruit and vegetables.  But in recent
> years there has been a general reassessment of these kinds of preferences,
> and people have become more willing to pay more for the hand-made and
> idiosyncratic stuff.  I see this trend increasing over time.  In addition,
> there are areas that people may naturally gravitate towards, such as
> gardening, which, although the work could be capably carried out by a
> sufficiently intelligent set 

Re: [Vo]:Intelligent Robots??

[Lennart Thornros]

Chris I agree with you about the equality under law. It is a joke. OJ
Simpson etc.
The poll you showed I am less impressed with. Too many of the questions are
based on the government and how it is done. That type of question will
probably make people vote along party lines.
It does not say how many of each group is polled so the significance of the
numbers are questionable. In any case the richest 1% is a sad split and in
this case they have very little impact.
Jed's idea that 13% of the 'elite' is better than nothing is disturbing as
there is no value in waiting for the government to take action.
I do not know Nick Hanauer. I think he is right.
Going back 100 plus years there were revolutions because government did not
react in time.
Seldom have such revolutions created a new better world. However, the
intention was to do so.
In this day and age with so good communication this type of reaction is
around the corner any day.
If the government is a king or a class by themselves, which have more
privileges than people in general coupled with a very uneven spread of
wealth, then the prerequisite for revolution is there.
Many people think that a distribution of the wealth via the government will
be effective. (Why now, when they never did anything effective.)
No, it is a question of adopting new technology, new law etc so people have
a feeling of autonomy. That is a very important factor often translated as
freedom.
Alain has a good argument for a base income for all, in a parallel tread.
It is obviously not time yet. It will take one of three routes as I can see.
1. People can see the advantages and it will change the attitude and
politicians will no longer be a class by themselves.
2. A revolution. (Not desired as it creates instability.)
3. The government implement a watered down form to keep the revolution at
bay. Most likely but with no long term value.
There are of course many ways it might not happen in addition.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote:
>
> Attitudes of the rich?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/29/1302820/-Someone-finally-polled-the-1-And-it-s-not-pretty?detail=emailclassic
>>
>>
>>
>> There you go.  Yes, they have a tendency to be SOB’s.
>>
>
> Ugh. Well . . . On the other hand, 13% of them say it is "the
> responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income
> between people with high incomes and those with low incomes."
>
> 13% is better than nothing.
>
> 46% of other people said this. They are Democrats, I am guessing.
>
> Other wealthy people throughout history have said this sort of thing.
> Theodore Roosevelt, for example. This is called enlightened self interest.
> Here is a modern example I posted before:
>
> "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014#ixzz3hr7nlghY
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
Why do you think it is OK that people in Russia and Saudi loses job. I
could accept your idea 100 years ago as an egoistical stance. Today it does
not even have that excuse. We live in an interconnected world.
Now I think there will be transfer of work due to introduction of LENR.
Reality is that the 'winners' will have to support the 'losers'. This
transfer will create jobs just in the transfer. Then you will find that
what was not so plausible before will now be very much an option. For
example with very low energy cost we here in CA would rather build
desalination plants in South CA then try to import water from far away.
Thus creating development jobs, construction jobs, maintenance jobs etc.
I have said it before it is not a zero sum game. On the contrary lower
cost, more effective solutions opens up new ways to do things.
I do think you are right in that many (particularly trade unions and the
political establishment) will cry over what might be lost, because they
cannot see outside there own little box. Everything outside is unknown and
scary.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not to introduce politics but . . .
>
> A Clinton campaign spokesperson is quoted in the news today: "We think
> that she came into Michigan with a very strong economic agenda and message
> about how she would create jobs and put manufacturing sector around clean
> energy . . ."
>
> I think people in both parties are starting to say this. They are
> justified. Alternative energy is labor-intensive. It now employs more
> people than coal mining. That is one of the reasons wind and solar remain
> more expensive than coal-fired electricity. (They are arguably less
> expensive when you take into account the cost of pollution and global
> warming, but the immediate costs are higher.)
>
> From our point of view, the problem with this is that cold fusion will not
> be labor-intensive. On the contrary, it will wipe out all jobs related to
> energy. It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them
> will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will wipe
> out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors
> remains to be seen.
>
> This means that cold fusion will have yet another built-in enemy as soon
> as it emerges from the laboratory. Yet another vested interest will be
> opposed to it. Not only will it face opposition from fossil fuels, wind
> solar and other alternative energy, but also from organized labor and
> politicians in both parties who want to "preserve jobs."
>
> My guess is that in the long term cold fusion may create new industries,
> but in the first twenty years it is used, it will mainly reduce expenses.
> When you save money, someone else loses income. You may spend that money
> elsewhere, but in the meanwhile someone, somewhere is hurt. In the case of
> fossil fuels, many of the people who will lose income are in Saudi Arabia
> and Russia. I do not feel sorry for them.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

I think you are right Russ. However, I do not thing that rumors by 'fans'
or negative statements (a la Ahern) has any impact on IH's statements. I
read the statement as background to admit problems and to induce a positive
climate for the benefits shown by this long (and costly) test. They can
hardly continue to send money into a total failure. They would have
abandoned the test long time ago if it did not show indications of a
possible good outcome.

Next step is going to take some serious capital. They will need to raise
that capital one way or the other (sell the concept, develop the market and
distribution etc.) I think the statement is there to keep the interest up
until they want to produce the result. I can see a lot of reason why they
want to delay ( patents, negotiations with third party etc.)

I do not read the statement as preparation for a negative report. Why would
they have to prepare for that? They hopefully have better ways to
communicate with the investors than by making general statements. Negative
results would have been shared with major investors long time ago.

I do not know if Peter Gluck's number is correct. Does it matter? It is a
report built on rumors and therefore we cannot evaluate it - we do not know
the source. It could be IH making sure that they get attention.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's clear they (IH & Rossi) are not happy with Peter Gluck's (and others)
> speculative boosterism post(s)/reports on the effectiveness of the e-cat
> extended mewling test. Rossie and IH are clearly out to monetize whatever
> tech they have and offering the details to competitors as all of the social
> media caterwauling calls for is not the smart path. Doing what e-cat fans
> and groupies (and competitors) call for would certainly be evidence of not
> showing legally mandated fiduciary responsibility to their investors and
> stock-holders. In fact they risk staggering legal challenges and costs with
> regard to breaching their fiduciary responsibility to their investors
> regardless of whether such legal challenges even see a court room or not.
> Neither Rossi nor Darden are that naïve. Meow!
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 8:32 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat
>
>
>
> [Marianne Macy asked me to post this]
>
>
>
> The following statement has been released from Industrial Heat for
> Infinite Energy Magazine today, March 10, 2016.   —Marianne Macy
>
>
>
> Statement of Industrial Heat Regarding LENR Industry Developments
>
>
>
> March 10, 2016
>
>
>
> Industrial Heat’s objective is to make clean, safe and affordable energy
> available everywhere, and in doing this we want to build a company that
> demonstrates respect for all. LENR is a key focus of Industrial Heat and we
> believe multiple technologies in this sector warrant further investigation
> and development.
>
>
>
> Industrial Heat has licensed, acquired or invested in several LENR
> technologies from around the world. We have developed a group of LENR
> thought leaders, and we have built a world-class engineering team. We are
> pleased with the technologies we have assembled and with the group of
> scientists and engineers working on them. Presently, the Industrial Heat
> team is in the midst of assessing and prioritizing the technologies in our
> portfolio.
>
>
>
> Our operating philosophy is to foster scientific and engineering rigor in
> the development of LENR. We will thoroughly assess data derived from sound
> experiments which we design, control and monitor.
>
>
>
> Embracing failure as well as success is important, because we learn from
> both. Unfortunately, there is a long and continuing pattern of premature
> proclamations in the LENR sector.
>
>
>
> Because of this, we encourage open-minded skepticism. We believe society
> suffers when technological advances and innovative experimentation are
> stifled; likewise, society and the industry suffer when results are
> promoted and claims are made without rigorous verification and precise
> measurement.
>
>
>
> We value credibility through sound LENR research. That’s why any claims
> made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if
> affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have
> verified our results in repeated experiments.
>
>
>
> Our portfolio of work has never been stronger and we remain excited about
> the potential we see. This optimism is grounded in more than just hope, yet
> a great deal of work remains. The energy challenges of today must be met
> with viable, clean, safe and affordable solutions.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Politicians and Clean Energy

[Lennart Thornros]

No, Chris it is not a mystery.
I think your  history description is correct.
To me it says three things:
1. Decisions made for a good reason and seemingly fair at the time of
decision may backfire if not constantly monitored and renewed.
2. Decisions made by large organizations are unlikely to be changed.
3. Decisions made to eliminate the market powers will do more harm than
good in the long run.

Of course the coal workers are angry so will the auto industry workers be
(if it is not already a fact), because they priced themselves out of the
market place.
Prevailing wages for government work - anyone's guess?
Minimal wages - anyone's guess?
Of course the situation is ripe in such situation to be the first and most
lucrative target of new technology. No, puzzlement.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote:

> Clean energy and jobs?  Once Upon a Time, there were coal miners who were
> well paid in large part because a previous generation paid a price in blood
> for unionization.
>
> They heap the coal onto railroad cars – also operated, quite often by well
> paid union members.
>
> After that, the coal is off-loaded by well paid utility workers into
> boilers to make electricity.
>
>
>
> Then they installed windmills and after the temp jobs in their
> construction ended,  all of the above got fired and  an IT guy manages
> loads on a computer.  Once a year or so, a maintenance guy works on the
> windmill.
>
> And that’s that.
>
>
>
> In the years that followed, pundits and other famous commentators
> expressed puzzlement as to why so many voters were so angry. A mystery,
> they said…..
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

Hello Jed,
I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not to attractive.
It's better be over 1.
I think well above so the inconsistencies which will be determined by
'scientists' with a better measuring technology can be of no significance.
The result will be deemed over COP =1 irregardless.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
> It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
>> than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
>> If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
>> I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there
>> will be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a
>> new energy source.
>>
>
> If the results are certain, then it makes no difference whether the COP is
> 2 or 0.02. It would be insane to abandon this research just because the COP
> happens to be low in some cases. We know that the effect often occurs with
> no input power, with a COP of infinity. If that can happen once, after we
> learn to control the effect, it can happen every time.
>
> The COP is a canard. It is of no importance at this stage in the research.
> Worrying about the COP now is like fretting about the need for retractable
> landing gear on airplanes in 1904, six months after the first flight at
> Kitty Hawk. There are a thousand issues more important than this, and when
> the other issues are solved -- especially control -- we will have any COP
> we want.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Politicians beginning to count on "clean energy" for job creation

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, we have a certain amount of resources when it comes to the work force.
Factors like how long work days shall we have, time lag between that the
educational system can produce useful skills and when it could have been
used and many other things will determine how much over capacity
(unemployment) we will have. Regional unbalances because of large gap
between standard of living also has impact.
The resources will eventually be all engaged. There will always be new
things to discover and to develop. At least until the day we all go blaze
and no longer are curious.
I agree with that there is a short term problem.
That problem does not go away if we try to slow down the progress. That
just makes the problem exist for longer - so long that it becomes an
institution in itself.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The QuarkX will produce electricity. Heat production will minimized and be
> a waste product. The QuarkX will be produced in a similar way as a ITEL
> processor chip. Most E-Cat reactors will be produced using robots.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them
>>> >will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will
>>> wipe
>>> >out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors
>>> >remains to be seen.
>>>
>>> Someone has to work in the factories that build the generators. This is
>>> especially true if the generators are home sized rather than GW plants.
>>>
>>
>> I am afraid that analysis is incorrect. Manufacturing a cold fusion
>> generator will not require more labor or materials than manufacturing
>> something like a gas fired conventional electric generator. Manufacturing a
>> cold fusion automobile engine will require less material and less labor
>> than an internal combustion engine, because you do not need pollution
>> controls and you can trade off Carnot efficiency for a simpler design.
>>
>> Assuming the total demand for generators and motors remains about the
>> same as it is now, the cost and labor of manufacturing these machines will
>> be about the same as it is now. The cost of supplying them with fuel will
>> be zero. It is the fuel production segment of the economy that will vanish.
>>
>> Of course you can say the same thing for wind and solar energy. The fuel
>> cost is zero. However, as it happens, these two technologies require
>> considerably more labor per unit of energy then fossil fuel or nuclear
>> power. The maintenance costs of wind turbines are also higher per
>> megawatt-hour than they are for things like coal and gas turbines. So
>> employment is not reduced.
>>
>> Employment may be somewhat reduced with utility scale solar energy
>> compared to conventional generation or wind.
>>
>> Maintenance costs for cold fusion devices will eventually be lower than
>> they are for any of today's energy sources. Again this is because you can
>> trade off Carnot efficiency for a low maintenance design. There is no use
>> for Carnot efficiency above 5% in a cold fusion device. (5% is roughly the
>> efficiency of automobiles in 1960.) Low efficiency just means you have lots
>> of waste heat going up the chimney. It costs nothing.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

Response to Jed.
If the COP is less than one, I guess it will be VERY difficult to get
funding for future development.
Us with the limited imagination can hardly come to a decision to invest in
new technology that hold no promises.
Unfortunately, the type of education / experience people have is not a good
base for to judge the level of creativity and risk willingness they have.
The problem is that the willingness to take calculated risk is suppressed
by the fact that decisions about investment in new technology often is
determined by a 'committee'.
That is the basic reason that LENR development is spearheaded by one
entrepreneurial guy. Without his vision - believe - etc. I think we would
have to wait another 25 years for LENR investment.
Universities and the big community of scientist, which are employed there
are ill equipped to take risks. I can elaborate about that but I think we
already been there.  .

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
> I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come.
>>
> I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not [too]
>> attractive.
>>
>
> I would compare it to seeing a charged electric wire deflect a magnet in
> 1820, and from there extrapolating to the telegraph and the electric motor.
>
> (André-Marie Ampère suggested an electromagnetic telegraph in 1821, one
> year after Oersted discovered the effect. Here are some nifty pictures of
> early electric motors, which were as varied as cold fusion devices are
> today: https://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php)
>
>
> Or, you might compare it to Mme. Curie and others seeing radioactivity
> in1895 and extrapolating to nuclear power reactors and bombs. That was not
> such a stretch. HG Wells described nuclear bombs in 1913 in the book "The
> World Set Free." (He got the details completely wrong. He imagined them as
> miniature suns producing continuous heat lasting for a long time rather
> than a single rapid event. However, he did understand the overall energy
> release and destructive power.)
>
>
>
>> It's better be over 1.
>>
>
> Only to people who have little imagination and no knowledge of the history
> of technology.
>
> Unfortunately many people who have little imagination, and many of them
> are in charge of industrial corporations. So in that sense your point is
> well taken. If the people in charge of corporations understood science &
> technology they would have poured billions into cold fusion already.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Statement from Industrial Heat

[Lennart Thornros]

It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP
than what for example Peter Gluck has heard.
If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it.
I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there will
be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a new
energy source.
I am rather confident that will happen.
As a comparison I will suggest that some of you as old as I am should look
upon how the transistor (semiconductor industry) evolved.
I went to engineering school in early 60-is. A very wide spread skepticism
just began to give away in favor for the transistor versus the vacuum tube.
Many still believed that vacuum tubes would prevail in certain areas. Yes,
evene large corporations misjudged the situation and therefore do not exist
today or at least are much less important.
So ten years after the invention most of the engineering was still in the
future. Actually the engineering phase is still ongoing. That is 65 years
after Shockley.
I guess there will be development in LENR the same way.
I understand that after 37 years of promises there is not a lot of
patience. The important thing just now is that there is enough  progress to
keep engineering keep on the progress.
Let me say that if Peter Gluck's information is correct, then we will have
an enormous pressure on all players in this field to quickly bring LENR to
the market. The IH statement would then serve to slow down the demands, as
they need to establish the resources before they can provide the desired /
demanded market introduction.

The late news that China invested 121 million dollar make me believe that
IH are making sure they can provide what the market wants. The Chinese did
not invest without having something positive to pin it on.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Ok, they want a bit more discipline- but have you idea what viable LENR
>> technology they could have beyond Rossi's ?
>>
>
> I wouldn't know about other technology. Based on the Lugano report, I do
> not think Rossi's technology is viable. I have not seen more recent reports
> about it.
>
> The first Levi study seeming promising, but the Lugano report showed no
> excess heat, as far as I can tell. Granted, it was poorly done, so it is
> hard to judge.
>
> "Viable" is a slippery word. Many cold fusion experiments are promising,
> but none (other than Rossi) are claimed to be remotely close to a practical
> or viable source of energy. They can be compared to nuclear fission in 1939.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's 3rd party is really not a 3rd party at all

[Lennart Thornros]

Daniel,
I disagree with you.
Arms-length distance can be obtained using an agreement.
It is like the bank makes an appraisal of your home, when you are selling
it.
The whole idea is that it should be a third party.
I can see that the payment creates a financial connection, which could sway
the outcome.
Therefore it is important that they have chosen a third party with good
reputation.
I think that is much of a third party you can ask for.
Nobody will do the evaluation for free.

The whole debate about the credibility of the players involved is pathetic.
We will know the outcome of the report within a few days.
In any case I am sure that the report will not be so detailed as would be
required from a scientific point of view.
There are business reasons for creating the report and that is it.
They want to help the value of IH shares and perhaps Leonardo's ditto.
They want to open for the marketing of the product.

I do believe the report is positive because they are business people.
If the result showed no valuable (from business point) data, they would
have cancelled the evaluation long time ago.
Who wants to pay for an expensive consultant when you know that the result
is useless?
Unfortunately the publicized part of the report will leave many here
disappointed as I doubt much 'evidence' of LENR will be given.
It is another wait coming up for the marketing and sales of the product.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> So, the 3rd party was partially paid by Leonardo Corporation. If it were
> paid by Industrial Heat only, I am not even sure if I'd give it a pass.
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I think you are correct in who would be more qualified in one regard;
experience and training is valuable if you want really objective scientific
measures.
However, in the real world it is a number of factors involved. We just do
not have the full picture to evaluate what would have been a better
solution taking all aspects into consideration.
The real game here seems to be about money and investment capacity. It is
of course possible that IH will come back with a rebuttal that claims the
test was not professional and the result is not proven. Then your point
will come to play.
Personally I believe this will enhance the possibilities that LENR get the
funding it deserves. The squeaky wheel story.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> about Penon "non independence", except having an italian name and having
>> done a previous test, is there any relationship established with rossi
>> predating the Ferrara test ?
>>
>
> They have been working together for many years.
>
> It seems to me that an independent test should be conducted by someone you
> have not worked with, who has not measured the performance of your previous
> devices. Also, as I said, it should be someone fully qualified and licensed
> to render a professional evaluation of an industrial-scale boiler in
> Florida. $100 million is at stake! You cannot even get a license to operate
> this kind of machine without approval from a certified, licensed engineer.
> You sure would not pay $100 million without that level of proof. It would
> be insane.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
The info about COP I took from Rossi's pressrelease:
 According to the independent third party report, over the 352 day test
period, the E-Cat consistently generated energy at a rate in excess of six
(6) times the amount of energy consumed by the plant, often generating
energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the
same period. According to Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation considers the
results of the third party test to be "an overwhelming success" and that
It is just mind boggling to me that you disqualify the measurements and the
methods before you have any details.
Just let things play out. It has been in pipeline for over 25 years, there
is result from serious tests that confirm that it is possible. I agree
there are several steps to go: engineering, theory etc.. See the positive
and I think Rossi is correct saying; "the world is one step closer to the
realization of a commercially available new, clean and efficient energy
source."


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree Jed.
>> I think you have received a message as good as you could expect. COP is 6.
>>
>
> You mean in the 2012 Penon report. Right? Where does it say the COP is 6?
> It says output was 2.5 ~ 3.7 kW, and input was 3.6 kW.
>
> I do not think much of the methodology. I recommend calibrations and the
> use of thermocouple to augment the IR camera.
>
> I admit I have not looked as closely as I did to the Levi reports, but I
> am not impressed. I have no idea how Penon measured the output from the 1
> MW reactor, but he does not seem good at calorimetry.
>
>
>
>> The quality of the person doing the report and his qualifications you can
>> judge when you have all information. Way too early to put up new obstacles.
>>
>
> If you are talking about the 2012 report we have had plenty of time and
> information. I am not sure what you refer to.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

I disagree Jed.
I think you have received a message as good as you could expect. COP is 6.
The quality of the person doing the report and his qualifications you can
judge when you have all information. Way too early to put up new obstacles.
Yes, it is a pity that obviously IH and Rossi have different opinion about
hoe to go on. It is not unusual for partnership to face problems - the
opposite is unusual.

I think - without being able to examine the scientific strengths of the
discussions here at  Vortex - that there is a rather good theory being
formed. Many details but I can hear that there is some kind of joint
'noise' in comparison to previous. Than we have Rossi's report about COP is
six. This is a fall forward.

I am sure money will be poured into research and result will follow.
Rossi's X-cat will be talked about in Stockholm in June.

I understand that if you believed it should come out clear theories and
firm plans for automated assembly plants then it is disappointing. Really
it is very good news (except for Rossi and IH, having to sort things out in
court.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If someone can give us a link to pacer.gov, Case No. 16-CV-21199-JLK, I
> would appreciate it.
>
> This press release confirms that "the independent third party validation
> test was performed by Dr. Ing. Fabio Penon, a Ph.D. in Nuclear
> Engineering." As I wrote here previously, this is like having an HVAC
> engineer look for radioactivity from a nuclear reactor.
>
> Jones Beene has a low opinion of Dr. Penon, which I suppose is based on
> this:
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
>
> I agree this is nothing to write home about.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

89 million dollars is a lot of money.
I think there will be a settlement within three months.
I do not think we need to find out who is the bad boy.
I think they all are in a league they have not played before.
My reasoning for believing in a settlement is that they destroy the lead to
the market if they drag this out.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
wrote:

> Jed,
> I am amazed. You just say things. no support as far as I can see.
> You said in black I think in red.
> While I have not disqualified these measurements, I have some doubts about
> them because:
>
> 1. Based on his previous work, Penon is not qualified to do calorimetry. I
> have no clue about how well you know this guys qualifications except you
> read a report you think was flawed. If the COP was 50, then I (and I am not
> good at calorimetry) could give the answer that at least COP6 was reached.
>
> 2. Penon is not independent of Rossi. How do you know that? How could IH
> use a guy they suspect is in Rossi's pocket. You underestimate the players.
>
> 3. He is not licensed in Florida to do this kind of measurement. Sorry
> but license is just an issue of passing a simple exam and pay the fees. I
> know there is probably some experience required but that can always be
> fixed - believe me.BTW if he is licensed anywhere would that make a
> difference.
>
> 4. I. H. said they disagree with the result. They know more about
> calorimetry than Penon does, so I am inclined to believe them. Now you
> are way out of line. IH does not know anything. My guess is that Darden and
> I are equal when it comes to calorimetry. Other people in IH are not in the
> picture and then calorimetry is not the only way to get things secured.
>
> I will have to wait to see the report. I agree you are way too early. My
> guess is that it will never be published, so we will never know who is
> right. I would have agreed with you a couple of days ago. Now we might
> see a lawsuit and then this report will be fully disclosed. It will take a
> couple of years but . . .
>
>  I do not know if you doubt that we are approaching a new technology that
> can have positive impact on many areas of life or ???
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The info about COP I took from Rossi's pressrelease:
>>>  According to the independent third party report, over the 352 day test
>>> period, the E-Cat consistently generated energy at a rate in excess of six
>>> (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the plant, often generating
>>> energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the
>>> same period.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is just mind boggling to me that you disqualify the measurements and
>>> the methods before you have any details.
>>>
>>
>> I have not disqualified these measurements. I have not seen them. I was
>> talking about Penon's previous report. It was lousy.
>>
>> While I have not disqualified these measurements, I have some doubts
>> about them because:
>>
>> 1. Based on his previous work, Penon is not qualified to do calorimetry.
>>
>> 2. Penon is not independent of Rossi.
>>
>> 3. He is not licensed in Florida to do this kind of measurement.
>>
>> 4. I. H. said they disagree with the result. They know more about
>> calorimetry than Penon does, so I am inclined to believe them.
>>
>> I will have to wait to see the report. My guess is that it will never be
>> published, so we will never know who is right.
>>
>>
>>
>>> See the positive and I think Rossi is correct saying; "the world is one
>>> step closer to the realization of a commercially available new, clean and
>>> efficient energy source."
>>>
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I am amazed. You just say things. no support as far as I can see.
You said in black I think in red.
While I have not disqualified these measurements, I have some doubts about
them because:

1. Based on his previous work, Penon is not qualified to do calorimetry. I
have no clue about how well you know this guys qualifications except you
read a report you think was flawed. If the COP was 50, then I (and I am not
good at calorimetry) could give the answer that at least COP6 was reached.

2. Penon is not independent of Rossi. How do you know that? How could IH
use a guy they suspect is in Rossi's pocket. You underestimate the players.

3. He is not licensed in Florida to do this kind of measurement. Sorry but
license is just an issue of passing a simple exam and pay the fees. I know
there is probably some experience required but that can always be fixed -
believe me.BTW if he is licensed anywhere would that make a difference.

4. I. H. said they disagree with the result. They know more about
calorimetry than Penon does, so I am inclined to believe them. Now you are
way out of line. IH does not know anything. My guess is that Darden and I
are equal when it comes to calorimetry. Other people in IH are not in the
picture and then calorimetry is not the only way to get things secured.

I will have to wait to see the report. I agree you are way too early. My
guess is that it will never be published, so we will never know who is
right. I would have agreed with you a couple of days ago. Now we might see
a lawsuit and then this report will be fully disclosed. It will take a
couple of years but . . .

 I do not know if you doubt that we are approaching a new technology that
can have positive impact on many areas of life or ???

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The info about COP I took from Rossi's pressrelease:
>>  According to the independent third party report, over the 352 day test
>> period, the E-Cat consistently generated energy at a rate in excess of six
>> (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the plant, often generating
>> energy exceeding fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed during the
>> same period.
>>
>
>
>
>> It is just mind boggling to me that you disqualify the measurements and
>> the methods before you have any details.
>>
>
> I have not disqualified these measurements. I have not seen them. I was
> talking about Penon's previous report. It was lousy.
>
> While I have not disqualified these measurements, I have some doubts about
> them because:
>
> 1. Based on his previous work, Penon is not qualified to do calorimetry.
>
> 2. Penon is not independent of Rossi.
>
> 3. He is not licensed in Florida to do this kind of measurement.
>
> 4. I. H. said they disagree with the result. They know more about
> calorimetry than Penon does, so I am inclined to believe them.
>
> I will have to wait to see the report. My guess is that it will never be
> published, so we will never know who is right.
>
>
>
>> See the positive and I think Rossi is correct saying; "the world is one
>> step closer to the realization of a commercially available new, clean and
>> efficient energy source."
>>
>
> I doubt it.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
You do not have to be impressed. Just that is not of any value. COP 6
although we talk about a conservative number. I am not licences but COP 50
I can detect particularly in a 350 day test. I just do not see the reason
to attack the person.

I appreciate your experience. It does have nothing to do with this report
or any licensing. I can pass the exam just takes some time and effort.

The problem is that you do judge people. You have no ground for that.
Meeting people at a conference - I like and believe them offering me a
beer. Then I am at home thinking - too fast. IH is an organization and know
absolutely nothing.





Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 1. Based on his previous work, Penon is not qualified to do calorimetry. I
>> have no clue about how well you know this guys qualifications except you
>> read a report you think was flawed. If the COP was 50, then I (and I am not
>> good at calorimetry) could give the answer that at least COP6 was reached.
>>
>
> As it happens, I just posted a message describing some of the reasons I am
> not impressed.
>
> If you read the report, and you were impressed, I think you need to learn
> a little more about calorimetry. It was as bad as the Lugano report. Some
> of the same mistakes were in both.
>
>
>
>> 3. He is not licensed in Florida to do this kind of measurement. Sorry
>> but license is just an issue of passing a simple exam and pay the fees. I
>> know there is probably some experience required but that can always be
>> fixed - believe me.BTW if he is licensed anywhere would that make a
>> difference.
>>
>
> A license and the proper procedures can be the difference between life and
> death. The exams are NOT simple. I have seen them, and I am sure I would
> fail them.
>
> I have never worked with large industrial equipment. But I have been in
> factories, and in ship engine rooms. I have talked to OSHA inspectors and
> HVAC engineers. My late father was fireman first class in the engine room
> of a steamship built around 1910, and he told me a lot about it. He did
> that for 6 years until his arm was crushed in an accident. There are not
> one, not two, but DOZENS of ways you can kill yourself, blow up the
> building or sink the ship when you make a mistake with a boiler. Even
> today, with all the automatic controls, it is still dangerous. And yes, you
> can confuse 200 kW with 1 MW (or vice versa) by doing it wrong. That is why
> boilers blow up. Look at Defkalion for an example of how badly you can make
> a mistake doing industrial scale calorimetry.
>
>
>
>> 4. I. H. said they disagree with the result. They know more about
>> calorimetry than Penon does, so I am inclined to believe them. Now you
>> are way out of line. IH does not know anything.
>>
>
> I have met with those people at conferences. I can judge their knowledge.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

Once again it is not judging about how well it worked for you. Just saying
that there is no guarantee coming from being licensed.
I could tell you the opposite experience when common sense did not give me
a license for brokering companies because I had no experience in Real
Estate sales.
There is not any negative coming from a license. It is just not a
qualification / guarantee..

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Thu, Apr 7, 2016 12:30 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor
> Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.
>
> Sorry but
> license is just an issue of passing a simple exam and pay the fees
>
>
>
> Not so.  I am licensed professional engineer in PA.  I had to take a test
> upon graduation called the EIT.
> About 1/2 of the engineers failed.  I passed.
>
> Then I had to work for 5 years under the supervision of a professional
> engineer.  I was lucky to get this.
>
> Finally I had to take the PE exam.  Many tried to the pass the exam
> several times and failed each time.
> I studied for 6 months.  It was a hard exam.
>
> There is nothing simple about it.
>
> Frank Znidarsic PE
>
> I worked 15 years at large utility doing a good job.  My job was
> eliminated in a downsizing.  I complained,  I was one of the few engineers
> with a PE license and military service.  Human resources told me point
> blank "affirmative action trumps both military survive and a PE licence."
>  Hey, that's not what they told me while I was in the military.  What about
> that builds character stuff!
>
> My cozen Bill kept his job and got more offers than I ever did.  How do
> you do it Bill?  He explained that he is a disabled vet.  Disabled vet
> trumps affirmative action, PE license, and everything else.  He advised
> that I should have shot myself in the foot when I was on active duty.
>
> There you have it.  I may soon retire my license and my foot is beginning
> to hurt.
>
> Frank Z
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones ,
My evaluation of twitter is like yours.
However, are we not wrong. People actually pay that kind of money for
twitter. Or . . .

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Craig Haynie
>
> > Actually, this whole mystery could be the result of a failure by IH to
> raise the expected $89 million to finalize the deal.
>
> Maybe, but if Rossi really has the goods ... given that useless concepts
> like "Twitter" are valued at $24 billion IPO with almost no sustainable
> income, then Rossi would be smart to simply cancel IH's license and go for
> his own $500 billion IPO next month. Let IH sue him if they don't like the
> cancellation.
>
> The fact he is even pursuing the lawsuit is insane if the technology is
> solid, since his Lawyer will cost him more than an IPO, out of pocket (the
> Banks get their cut at the end). This little bit of financial realism is
> indicative that Rossi does not believe his own COP=50 nonsense.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Press Release - Cold Fusion (LENR) Verified - Inventor Sues Industrial Heat, LLC.

[Lennart Thornros]

Not minimizing the test.
Just not thinking a license is indicative of good or bad.
if you pass in PA are you then suddenly no good in FL.?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote:

> Sorry but
> license is just an issue of passing a simple exam and pay the fees
>
>
>
> Not so.  I am licensed professional engineer in PA.  I had to take a test
> upon graduation called the EIT.
> About 1/2 of the engineers failed.  I passed.
>
> Then I had to work for 5 years under the supervision of a professional
> engineer.  I was lucky to get this.
>
> Finally I had to take the PE exam.  Many tried to the pass the exam
> several times and failed each time.
> I studied for 6 months.  It was a hard exam.
>
> There is nothing simple about it.
>
> Frank Znidarsic PE
>

Re: Re : [Vo]:Defending Rossi at this point is an action of the absolute naive

[Lennart Thornros]

Adrian, I like the new statement you provided.
No, it is no proof of Rossi's claim in any regards.
However, that leaves a very clear and final message about what is and what
is not.
To keep any credibility he needs to produce (and sell( Ecats. He cannot do
so if he does not show performance.
It is not an answer this week but within six months.
Until then we can expect the report from the 12 months test and the
response fro IH in the lawsuit.
I see no reason to condemn Rossi with the information we have today.I think
he has been the only source of positive LENR news for years. If he has had
nothing he must be the master of all magicians and I think he is an
entrepreneur and as such he he takes some wide turns now and then - typical
for entrepreneurs.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:29 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> You could just as well argue that attacking Rossi without evidence is
> naive.
>
> Andrea Rossi April 11
> "I have enough money to spend to start the mass production, the rest must
> arrive from the products sale. I want not to sell paper, I want to sell
> products. I am an industrialist, not a yuppy or an opera ballet etoile.
> Alessandro Toninelli"
>
> April 11, 2016 at 4:21 AM
>
> Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
> since we have to expect discredit on the ecat ( that has already started)
> and the ‘powers that be’ will try to delay the mass production, I ask:
>
> – When will Leonardo corp. be ready to receive orders ( i mean for the
> already tested 1MW power plant) and deliver in a few weeks?
>
> – Is Leonardo corp already organized in this sense and ready or when it
> will be?
>
> I think it is of great importance since from then all the discredits wil
> be of no importance.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
>
> Alessandro – Ecatnews.it
> Andrea Rossi
> April 11, 2016 at 7:46 AM
>
> Alessandro Toninelli:
> 1- now
> 2- yes
> 3- you are totally right
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>
> In passing...
> The Securities and Exchange Commission Issued Administrative Ruling
> Against Cherokee Investment Partners
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=127890
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
In court they do not admit hearsay. You have heard from others that Rossi
is hard to negotiate with. You say that you have negotiated with him and it
was hard. Well, that kind of increases Rossi's credibility. I doubt he saw
that you had anything to offer that he wanted. All negotiations comes to
the point when there are mutual benefits to be exchanged or there is not.
Your analogy with Trump only says that you speak Japanese as determined by
you, Jed.

If the reality is that you are qualified to judge others skill after you
met a few representatives than you should offer those skills as they would
out- compete any other organization or person. I doubt that is far from
reality. People from IH are managed by people with no skills in the regards
we talk about here. That means their results are managed by people with
other motivations. How you know Rossi's capacity is another mystical issue.
Give me one reason he could hired someone as good as yourself when it comes
to caliometry. How do you know he has not. I just try to say; you sound
like you have all the pertinent information although I suspect you have
fraternised with the people you claim to be able to judge for hours at
best, while as I said previous it takes months to be able to begin to
really evaluate others.

Then you hide behind the word 'doubt' while you actually said


I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have already
.

He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared.

We agree upon that if he does not provide any progress (production or
reports) he will lose credibility.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You write.  "I know how the people at I.H. do it,"
>> How do you know that?
>
>
> As I said, I have met with them and discussed this with them.
>
>
>
>> I doubt anyone who writes about this story knows the players better than
>> Mats Lewan.   I judge him technically competent.
>
>
> He says he has not read the Penon report yet, so he cannot judge. The
> people at I.H. have read it. At this point, we can only compare Rossi's
> evaluation with I.H.'s. In my informed opinion, they are better at
> calorimetry, so it is likely they are right.
>
> I am not talking about personality, motivation, or anything else. I have
> narrowed this down to one question. Who is better at evaluating
> calorimetry? In my opinion, I.H. is, but I could be wrong.
>
> I take the two press releases at face value. I am assuming that Rossi
> means what he says, and I.H. means what they say. If I.H. actually thought
> the machine works, they would be crazy not to pay him the $89 million.
>
>
>
>> I get the feeling Rossi simply doesn't care about making a foolproof demo.
>
>
> He must do this if he wants the $89 million. That is what is stipulated in
> the contract.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, (I should say nothing but) has AR's lawyer said it is advisable to do
so (publish the report)?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> AA. From long before the end of the 1 MW plant test Rossi said that public
>> release of the ERV report required agreement of all three parties.
>
>
> There are only two parties as far as I know: Rossi and I. H. Penon is
> so-called expert but I do not think he has a veto.
>
>
>
>> What makes you think you know better?
>
>
> I have discussed this with the parties.
>
>
>
>>   Do you have any facts to back up your opinion?
>>
>
> That's what they say.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed - My point was that you have talked to some people.
You do not know if they said things to make you 'just go away'. There was
no reason to fill you in with more than what sat on their tongue.
You are drawing conclusions and make them sound like facts based on very
weak contacts.
In addition Mats might obtain the info in time for his decision to cancel
the meeting. (I do not know his deadline).
There are timing issues and sitting on the outside with sparse info is not
of any value as a factual argument.
You see how it is sometimes very hard to tell ALL the truth. You do not
want to say with whom you spoke. I am sure you have your reasons.
To talk about your inside info. Then not reveal reveal the contact makes
your argument weak at best.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
> Jed, (I should say nothing but) has AR's lawyer said it is advisable to do
>> so (publish the report)?
>>
>
> In January, February and March, Rossi announced his intention to publish
> the report. The lawsuit preparations were underway at that time. If his
> lawyer said "do not publish" it was recently.
>
> He also said he would attend Lewan's symposium, which -- he knew -- would
> not happen without the report. So he was either lying then, or he is lying
> now, or -- possibly -- his lawyer changed his mind at the last minute.
>
> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Say you talked to the parties is very unhelpful.  To whom did you talk
>> and what did they say?
>>
>
> Sorry, but I cannot say.
>
> I can say that mainly I have been talking to Mats Lewan, because I am
> scheduled to speak at his symposium. He was confident Rossi would give him
> the report and attend the symposium. Rossi said nothing about holding it
> back.
>
> Based on our recent conversations, I have a feeling Lewan may now doubt
> that the report is forthcoming, but I do not wish to put words in his mouth.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

YES - Jed

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
> Jed - My point was that you have talked to some people.
>> You do not know if they said things to make you 'just go away'.
>>
>
> I can usually tell when that is the message.
>
>
>
>> There was no reason to fill you in with more than what sat on their
>> tongue.
>>
>
> How do you know that?
>
>
>
>> You are drawing conclusions and make them sound like facts based on very
>> weak contacts.
>>
>
> How do you know that? You are the one who is drawing conclusions (about
> me) without any knowledge of who I spoke with or what I know.
>
>
>
>> In addition Mats might obtain the info in time for his decision to cancel
>> the meeting. (I do not know his deadline).
>>
>
> His deadline has passed several times. Because I am scheduled to speak
> there, I have been in close communication with him about this.
>
>
>
>> There are timing issues and sitting on the outside with sparse info is
>> not of any value as a factual argument.
>>
>
> I am on the inside of the symposium planning. I am a speaker. Look at the
> program.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Lennart Thornros]

Lots of speculations.
The good news is thanks to the lawsuit we will soon learn what an Ecat can
do.
To me it is amazing that no other indication, and a weak one - the press
release mid March, signaled the rift between IH and AR. Maybe Alain is
correct the whole lawsuit is a PR job:
Wouldn't that be great humor - Harry?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> just a naive/stupid idea ?
> does IH just want Rossi to bring good and solid evidence to the court, so
> they have to pay, and then be rich with LENR industry, whoever's technology
> is used and paid ?
>
> after all, who cares if E-cat can be sold.
> if E-cat is proven to work, instantly thousands of startup will bring new
> technologies around LENR, some reactors, and some just applications.
> VC and crowdfunding will fuel research and developments...
>
> who will care of someone who sued his VC?
>
> 2016-04-08 23:48 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>>>
>>
>> Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by
>> the contract.
>>
>> If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
>> He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Lennart Thornros]

Russ I agree - I rather tried to be humorous.
It baffles me that IH let it go to lawsuit without negotiations. It is of
course possible such negotiations has been ongoing for a long time, on the
other hand.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Unlikely a PR stunt not unlikely a negotiation over the $89 million.
>
>
>
> *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 8, 2016 4:06 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> Lots of speculations.
>
> The good news is thanks to the lawsuit we will soon learn what an Ecat can
> do.
>
> To me it is amazing that no other indication, and a weak one - the press
> release mid March, signaled the rift between IH and AR. Maybe Alain is
> correct the whole lawsuit is a PR job:
>
> Wouldn't that be great humor - Harry?
>
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
>
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
>
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> just a naive/stupid idea ?
>
> does IH just want Rossi to bring good and solid evidence to the court, so
> they have to pay, and then be rich with LENR industry, whoever's technology
> is used and paid ?
>
>
>
> after all, who cares if E-cat can be sold.
>
> if E-cat is proven to work, instantly thousands of startup will bring new
> technologies around LENR, some reactors, and some just applications.
>
> VC and crowdfunding will fuel research and developments...
>
>
>
> who will care of someone who sued his VC?
>
>
>
> 2016-04-08 23:48 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>:
>
> Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> No, IH wants to know how Rossi can get a COP of 50 and they can't.
>
>
>
> Sure they can. Just pay him $89 million. He would then have to abide by
> the contract.
>
>
>
> If, as you say, he does not want to abide by it, he can refuse the money.
> He is not refusing it. He is suing to get it!
>
>
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Lennart Thornros]

As there is no trade agreement between the US and China transfer of IP from
the US to China is really hard to understand that IH have transferred the
IP.

I agree with that this is the way we will get final clarity about how well
or at all the E-cat works. That might be good - I think so.

The other side of the story as I see it is that it shows how useless
patents are. Only lawyers gain from the existence of patent. I can remember
more License agreement that caused headache and controversy, than the ones
that created mutual benefit. Contrary to the critic, against Rossi for the
way he has accepted the agreement, I think it was smart to take money
upfront. Then we will see what is in the pudding.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
> wrote:

> Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production
> very rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race
> will ensue where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the
> Chinese. Making Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and
> world trade will demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting
> the tech slip away would be bad for them but possibly very good for the
> world.
>
> Fran
>
> *From:* Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP
> rather than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.
> IH has had advertised substantial involvement with various entities in
> China.
>
>
>
> The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade
> secrets of his fuel formula, secret?
>
>
>
> If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion
> by Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.
> Rossi raised this issue in his recent complaint.
>
>
>
> I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese
> Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in
> order to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was
> not a listed IP associated with the agreement.
>
>
>
> Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But
> as has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining
> reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants,
> and  consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific
> theories” or validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than
> elsewhere, IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>
> I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this
> situation, whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.
>
> If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a
> burden - and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself
> is an admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that
> IH is in fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well
> to a jury, and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is
> evidence of such a ploy.
>
> Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go
> direct to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of
> that? There is no doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else,
> and that an e-cat may never be viable in the USA. That could be the big
> picture dynamic.
>
> It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More from Goat-guy

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones, I think the Goat-guy is correct - I just read other things into his
statement.
Fukushima and Chernobyl both had licensed, well educated experts designing
and running the plants - it still went 'BOOM'. The conclusion I draw is not
that they are so free from moral that they do not hesitate to lie if it
seems to be an advantage for their employer. I think it happened because
they did not have enough imagination to see the outcome and consequences of
unforeseen complications. That is part of being human. Yes, there is a
possibility that both those tragic accidents happened because of evil
planning. I doubt it and I would never state that being the fact without
having very good indicators (evidence) to back up such a statement.

Your conclusion that those guys have violated some US law is not
substantiated. They might have had a permit would that make any difference?
They might operate on the customer's permit.
Then you say they should be deported and fined. How does that make anything
good fro anybody. Why is that helping LENR.?
Then you say that Rossi (the bad guy in your thinking) has sent them to
Tuscany. How do you know? Does it matter where those guys are?

Let me understand; 'Deportation would be a blessing.'  for whom? and
why?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In answer to those who claim that Rossi’s friends and countrymen - Penon
> and Fabiani are qualified engineers, even though neither has professional
> certification in this country and both were admittedly illegally
> operating a boiler within the City of Miami in violation of municipal
> codes, there is the following… from the goatster.
>
> BTW… the Leonardo complaint - alone can probably be used to prove both of
> these fine “engineers” are subject to immediate deportation for committing
> numerous misdemeanors and violations of other US laws while on a work visa
> …
>
> Goat-guy has this to say:
>
> “There were absolutely competent engineers and nuclear experts working at
> the Chernobyl nuclear plant for years. And it went 'boom'. There were
> hundreds of completely competent engineers, physicists and designers
> overseeing the construction of the Japanese coastal nuclear power plants.
> Fukushima demonstrated that they hadn't considered the consequence of a
> natural disaster. Engineers, for all their earnestness aren't
> particularly good at being either curious enough  -- or more-delicately, are
> not inclined to say anything bad about their employer's machinery” END of
> quote.
>
> If Penon did not know about the clever way Rossi designed the test, which
> allowed data to be easily faked, then he might escape the legal consequences.
> If he knew, and said nothing, then it could cost him much more than Rossi
> has paid him.
>
> Deportation would be a blessing.
>
> Industrial Heat - should petition the Court to depose the two of them ASAP
> so they are on record before disappearing into Tuscany. However, Rossi is
> probably smart enough to have sent them packing already.
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, it is not  worth to discuss.
If he has no legal paragraph that prevent him is of no significance.
He has legal concerns with respect to the lawsuit.
He needs his lawyer to advice him I guess.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have
>> already.
>>
>> He has stated he will publish as soon as the legalities are cleared.
>>
>
> He is lying. There are no legalities preventing him from publishing. He
> could publish it anytime he wants.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jones, both you and Ahern take on the issue with Ecat by accusing Rossi of
being a person with lower moral than for example you.
That is an judgmental attitude that takes you nowhere and in addition has
nothing to do with LENR.
I have not any qualifications to judge about ECAT. (BTW English is my
second or third languish so we do not have to debate that).
I do have experience of investment in high tech start ups ( VC industry ),
I have even more experience as an entrepreneur.
In my opinion Rossi is a true entrepreneur. I appreciate that quality. It
would amaze me if Rossi has been able to lie to IH and make them pay $11M.
That would indicate flaws in IH ways of invest.
I can imagine that there is problem with replication of performance of the
Ecat.
It can be a reluctance from Rossi to provide the info required by agreement
due to IH are involved with other LENR business without handling the
communication between those entities over the board.
Then there is the possibility of totally unknown reasons for the conflict.
Disturbing to me is that IH, which I consider being a professional
investor, let this be played out in court.
Yes, one can have different opinions until we have all the fact and they
will be here rather soon I understand.
Rossi might have his flaws but to call him unethical with no proof is worse
and tells more about the one "who throws the first rock . . ."

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 7:05 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Jones,
>
> You claimed I was childishly ignorant and naive.  This seems typical of
> your jumping to conclusions without the facts.   What have you done to
> justify making that judgement?
> I don't give a damn what you think about me.
> I do object to you libeling others who are not here to defend themselves.
>
>
> Jones wrote.  ""... besides consulting for ... institutions like EPRI.
> What great things have
>
> you done that makes you think you are so superior?"
>
> Did I say "superior"? This isn't a pissing contest between the two of us -
> instead we should be talking specifically about Rossi, LENR, the threat
> posed
> to the narrow field of LENR when his scam is discovered and dealt with by a
> physics establishment which is looking for every opportunity to put the
> final
> nail in the coffin (for funding the work started by P).
>
> As to the field of LENR itself, you have demonstrated no insight,
> understanding
> or appreciation of the technology - and will no doubt write it off as
> pathological and be long gone, shortly after Rossi is exposed.
>
> If you really consulted with EPRI - then you are probably aware of Ahern's
> work. If you think I am skeptical of Rossi, multiply that by 1000% for
> Ahern.
> He has superior credentials, experimental work and ought to be one of
> Rossi's
> main supporters... except he knowns this story so well - including New
> Hampshire, together with the history of the master scammer decades ago.
>
> How can you blandly dismiss Rossi's past fraud as irrelevant? There is no
> evidence that he has changed. He has more practice now but it is the same
> old
> scam. Even without Petro-dragon and the tax fraud and the sixty odd
> appearances
> in criminal court and 12 years of incarceration - please tell me how you
> can
> justify his conduct in the USA starting with UNH and the TEG scam - the
> two Lab
> fires that got him off the hook (such luck) and the millions of US taxpayer
> dollars he squandered and scammed then? How many free passes does this guy
> get?
>
> Just bad luck? Maybe you are not a US taxpayer and don't give a damn. Or
> maybe
> you haven't really thought about it? You simply cannot overlook this
> dreadful
> past conduct in a situation which is so similar.
>
>
>
>
> "
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fabio Penon

[Lennart Thornros]

So, if your credentials are not from the US then you can be called any
demeaning name?
Well, maybe I need to talk to people with a wider approach to life.
I have met many and employed a few people with very good education and
other credentia , which turned out to be without any indication of their
ability to do the job - and I have seen the opposite. (People with no
formal education being very capable.)
There is debate going on about how difficult it is to implement caliometric
technology. I can guarantee that evaluate other people is by far more
difficult and more full of pitfalls than any caliometric technology. Most
people have unique qualities. Unfortunately some does not know or
understand their capacity and others have a blown up self centered believe
that they are capable in all trades. I think both situations are pitiful.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nor is Jones Beene, he has no credentials even proving he passed
> kindergarten!
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 10, 2016 12:58 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Fabio Penon
>
>
>
> Sean,
>
>
>
> He is a professional engineer in Italy by their standards.
>
>
>
> Until he is licensed in the USA as a professional engineer, he is a
> “glorified mechanic”.
>
>
>
> He is no PhD or Doctor in either country.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sean True
>
>
>
> His curriculum vita: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123620809_1.pdf
>
>
>
> His registration with the Italian National Council of Engineers: 
> https://www.tuttoingegnere.it/PortaleCNI/it/albo_unico.wp;jsessionid=2B2157893F630F8D03291BDA1DDD3B14.tomcatprogetti?internalServletFrameDest=8=/ExtStr2/do/ricercaRegistro/dettaglio.action=false=FABIO.PENON.PD2311
>
>
>
> Mr Beene may be posing an equivalence being a Professional Engineer and being 
> a mechanic.
>
> If I were to criticize Ing. Penon's credentials, it would be that he appears 
> to spend a lot of time doing management consulting and not reading gauges. 
> Not exactly "glorified mechanics".
>
>
>
> -- ST
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:39 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a direct reference for Fabio Penon's qualifications?   I
> see him listed in several European sources as: Dr. Ing. Fabio Penon, Ph.D.
> in Nuclear Engineering (with 110/110 summa cum laude at the Alma Mater of
> Bologna-Italy ).
>
> Jones Beene has stated he doesn't have a PhD and is just a glorified
> mechanic.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

I beg to differ, when it comes to your ability to judge people.
Your examples - Donald Trump and you?

I do not know Rossi at all. I am sure he threads carefully about publishing
material just now.
How you know that he will not publish is a mystery to me. I think he will
or then he will lose credibility in this case.

If it is hard to negotiate with or not depends on who negotiates. In other
words you could have said that you are not able to negotiate anything with
Rossi.

Sorry Jed - you are now talking in some kind of out of mind state. I have
hired many people. I have really tried to find methods to reveal what I
think would be essential for a certain position. Very seldom have found the
true qualities before the person been hired for months to years. Based on
that your statement that you know the players is not good enough for
judgment if you have not worked with them closely and for longer time than
a dayy or so.


Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
>
>
>> My opinion is that there is no way to qualify the right answer or sort
>> out anything of this mess - based on judging people's character.
>>
>
> I am not talking about character so much as technical ability. I can judge
> that. When you know people as well as I know I.H. and Rossi, you can say
> with confidence who has more technical ability, and who has credibility.
> Just as anyone can say with confidence that Mike McKubre knows much more
> about electrochemistry than I do, or that I speak Japanese better than
> Donald Trump does.
>
>
>
>> Why not wait for the report, which Rossi says is coming?
>>
>
> I doubt that it will come. If he wanted to release it, he would have
> already.
>
>
>
>> IMHO it is remarkable that IH did not resolve the issue by negotiate with
>> Rossi.
>>
>
> In my experience, it is difficult to negotiate anything with Rossi.
>
>
>
>> Why make risky judgment of character based on rumors / gossip / evil
>> tongues.?
>>
>
> I would not do that. My judgments are based on my own knowledge of
> research done by the two parties.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, everyone can have an opinion.
My opinion is that there is no way to qualify the right answer or sort out
anything of this mess - based on judging people's character.
Why not wait for the report, which Rossi says is coming?
IMHO it is remarkable that IH did not resolve the issue by negotiate with
Rossi.
IH are a professional investor and even if $11M is a lot of money measured
with what most of us are used to - it is not that much of a deal for IH.
They probably have similar size investment go bad now and then.
That situation indicate that something is very wrong between IH and Rossi.
It will be an answer to what is and what is not.
>From what Rossi has committed to the next phase is commercialization of the
Ecat. I do not think Rossi can sell this 250kW Ecat without having a test
facility where the customer can make sure it is a sane investment.
The good thing is that we will soon know.
Why make risky judgment of character based on rumors / gossip / evil
tongues.?

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


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

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


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Thank you for proving my  point  (Skeptics will not believe any test)
>> You have no idea what tests were run on the 1 MW plant by the EVR but you
>> have already dismissed it sight unseen.
>>
>
> But not without reason. Those of us who are familiar with the people and
> the work of I.H. find them more credible than Rossi. When Rossi says the
> test was positive, but I.H. says it was not, then sight unseen I will
> assume I.H. is right.
>
> I would say the same if McKubre had examined the results and it was his
> word against Rossi's. Some people have more credibility than others.
>
> This is not a scientific method of judging a result, but it is valid.
>
> - Jed
>
>