Russ and others-- A. Renoir went through the same kind of attacks when he started painting in the 1870’s. The art critics were vicious. Nevertheless one of the large paintings (Au Moulin de la Galette) he made early on (which now occupies a prominent position in the Impressionists Wing of the d’Orsay Museum in Paris) is now considered one of the best paintings of all time. I agree and have a large silk print on my bedroom wall. When I first read the history of Renoir and the meanness of the art establishment then, I immediately thought of the early Cold Fusion situation and P&F.
Artists and scientists can be narrow minded and very biased, particularly when they have something to lose, that something being their stature and financial status. Bob Cook From: Russ George Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat progress One simple explanation regarding the persistent babble about Rossi ‘real or unreal’ might be that it is led by petulant groupies, trolls and wanna-be competitors. It is a perfect match for the banality that surrounded ‘The Beatles’ when they became famous, unending pompous posturing by those who were out of their minds with jealously, envy, and avarice over the ‘fab four’ who gained such notoriety coming from such common roots. The power of the internet of course has applied such magnification effects that the most insignificant piss-ant is made large enough to be noticed. The age old art of patience is long lost. From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat progress Jones, why is it so " beyond reasonable doubt" it can be many honest explanations as well.. I understand the reasons to debate the Lugano report from an academic / scientific point of view. I do not understand why it is important to find out if the insufficiency is caused on purposeful manipulation or even worse try to find the sinner. Not that I can do any better than read what you well versed people (in this field) have found being less than good, but why do I need to find out who is the sinner, Obviously the experiment had flaws. The silence from the involved can be because of many reasons , NDA being a prime possibility. I am sure the silence is there for a reason. I am glad we can see that in "a commercial venture with millions of dollars at stake" it is naive to think they risk there position to satisfy competition or any scientific need. Unless the test is a base for investing in Leonardo for example it is not possible to have demands on the quality. If I read right Rossi refuses funding from private people. This is for VC's and other professional risk takers. If my understanding of Rossi is correct in this regard I would say he is way above committing any fraud. 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, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: From: alain.coetmeur@gmail Ø saying it is a fraud seems not fair for me. Lugano report is visibly insufficient, unlike anything manufactured to look good... Alain - I should have been more specific. It is beyond reasonable doubt that Rossi “salted” the reactor with enriched isotope and did not tell anyone. At the same time, even with sloppy measurements, there was probably excess heat, but not as much as claimed. Bob Higgins says that salting the reactor is not necessarily “deception” because Rossi had no obligation to tell anyone, and he has the right to protect his trade secrets. After all, this is part of a commercial venture with millions of dollars at stake. I can see Bob’s point, to an extent. This kind of cheating (don’t ask, don’t tell) makes the Lugano isotope salting look sleazy and unscientific, but possibly not fraudulent, in a criminal sense. However, if Rossi then used a dishonest report as a submission to USPTO in order to obtain a patent, or if he used the report as a milestone for continued funding from IH, or to obtain funding from any other licensee - then the dishonesty is elevated to fraud.
