Yes of course. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros
[email protected] +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 1, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > dear Lennart > > your POV too (as Jack's) deserves to be known by The Readers. May I offer > it in Ego Out now? > peter > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Lennart Thornros <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He >> is not a fraud if he does not show that it works but still claims it does. >> I assume that a positive outcome will be used by Rossi & IH to finance >> the market roll out. Therefore I think we will receive some information >> from the 'plant'. >> >> Rossi &IH do not need any particular tests to be performed. Not in there >> interest. >> >> No, it is not science. Not even close. It is business. >> >> Be patient as there is only days until we will receive some information. >> I do not think that information will contain scientific evidence and third >> party testimony. >> The real thing to look for is if IH will reveal a plan to do further >> investments in Ecat and other felines of this type. Maybe announce a >> factory, maybe another investment in Xcat. I would say that is going to >> tell more than the data coming out. >> >> The ongoing evaluation of Rossi is not required. >> I read that he does not have enough scientific knowledge to handle the >> development. >> I hear he has made mistakes - live long enough and you too will. Admit >> them ? That is another story. >> I hear he has been overly optimistic. Yes, otherwise he would have given >> up longtime ago - like many others did. >> I think he is an entrepreneur with a vision and a passion to solve this >> LENR puzzle. >> Maybe he has and then I am happy for him. >> Maybe he is not there yet. I will applaud if he goes further and can make >> someone to invest so he can. If he decide it is over I know (without ever >> talked to him) that he will be disappointed and that would hurt more than >> others name calling. >> >> I do believe that the Stockholm meeting will be a good indicator of if >> LENR is for real. I am not saying anything about science. I am purely >> looking for if LENR can be commercialized within a decade or not. >> >> I do understand that several of the other players Mills for example are >> more qualified scientists. However, the science side is certainly >> interesting but not critical in the way the business side is. >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> [email protected] >> +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 1, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: a.ashfield >>> >>> > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will >>> find some reason why it might be wrong. >>> >>> >>> Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe. >>> The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how inadequate the >>> report, Rossi's flock of gullible idealists will say it is proof-positive >>> of his inflated claims. >>> >>> Forget those extremes. Both are tripe. >>> >>> Let's assume that we are all intelligent people who cherish the >>> scientific method and who can discern the truth when it is openly presented. >>> >>> All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will >>> convince many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day >>> hour-by-hour with thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to >>> test any summaries which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that? >>> >>> The "customer" assuming that there was a bona fide customer, since even >>> that point is in doubt - supposedly received hot water as their heat >>> source, and there should be data of that usage hourly - over the ~8000 >>> hours of operation (if it was 24/7) or at least over 2000 hours. If there >>> is less than 2000 hours of raw data, then it will probably mean that some >>> data has been purged to make the results look better. >>> >>> This would be flow-rate of water and temperature. If they are an >>> independent customer - then of course they kept records of thermal usage. >>> How else would they know if they could afford to buy the thing without it? >>> >>> Ask yourself this: How hard is it to compare heat delivered against the >>> corresponding power bill from Florida Power and Light? Rossi should have >>> had his own power meter installed. That is step one. Step two is to verify >>> the official data has not been altered. The power bill is based on kW-hrs >>> of usage and the customer knows how much hot water they used, anything less >>> is suspicious. >>> >>> If Rossi claims not to have had a power meter from Florida Power >>> installed then YES the stink is starting to rise. Of course, having real >>> raw data to share is painfully obvious, and if Rossi should have some >>> flimsy excuse why this cannot be done - to justify why there is no real raw >>> data, then Yes - that is where the problem will center. This is what IH >>> already knows and it would explain why they are distancing themselves from >>> Rossi (if they are). >>> >>> If the expert - and it does not matter who paid him - cannot provide >>> testable data for heat delivered, to compare against a bona-fide power bill >>> form the power company, knowing that that obvious and simple step presents >>> the prima facie case, then yes all the skeptics and even some of the flock >>> that drank the Kool-Aid, will be put on alert that the con game is afoot. >>> >>> Bottom line, if there is good raw data to compare, then the truth will >>> out. IH already knows this - so we will look to them for guidance. But >>> let's be clear from the start - this is science - not politics. If >>> believable real raw data is not available initially - then certainly >>> everyone including IH will know that the report is a sham. No one gives >>> away a trade secret by sharing that kind of raw data. >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
