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
