Jones: I thought you were a lawyer, what you discuss isn’t fraud. So for example, let’s say Rossi knew that by setting up the constraints associated with testing the ash, (1% from stuff that fell out), everyone would be misled as to what was actually happening. That’s more appropriately described as protecting your IP. It isn’t actionable and I am not even sure it is unethical. We have no right to IH’s IP. Misleading you may be good business and you are not in privity.
Now if the whole thing doesn’t really work, now that is a horse of a different color, but even then we wouldn’t be wronged. The parties with rights would be those in privity, IH, any other investors. I doubt even the testers would have an actionable right, but it would be possible depending on the agreement. Ransom _____________________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. From: David Roberson * Jones-please continue to speculate about new thoughts as that is our best method of getting to the truth. I get a bit concerned when I hear you speak of scams. Please suggest a better word to describe the actions of an inventor – if he has a breakthrough which could benefit society hugely, resorts to dishonesty designed to protect details which he does not understand in hopes that other cannot benefit, instead of himself. Of course, if he has nothing at all it is a more obvious scam, but is there a euphemism for this subset? Would “quasi-scam” be more appropriate? This is not “victimless”. Would not society be better off if Rossi chose to reveal nothing? This level of deceptive conduct could actually be more despicable than the blatant TV scams such as Acai berries, diet pills, Miss Cleo or the Video Professor - since it is designed to keep intelligent people and researchers in the field from finding the truth, instead of merely enriching the scammer at the expense of the gullible. * You apparently have drawn that conclusion at this point due to the isotope measurements and that is certainly strange. But, have you considered that something unusual is happening to the fuel that perhaps enabled the enriched Ni62 to be expelled but trapped most of the other material? Yes, I have agonized over this for many days – scouring the technical journals, hoping to find any glimmer of an alternative scenario which would not imply intentional deception. There is none. Again, let me paraphrase JSM: it is delusion that one can do no harm if he sits back, observes and forms no opinion. Dishonest men need nothing more than that good men should stay silent and do nothing. Dave - I made it clear that this was my opinion. Can I not express my opinion? In order to fill in the blanks, to make a complete scenario – that does require speculation. But it is fact, ABSOLUTE FACT - that the odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. Given that, a scam is the only probable scenario. From there on, follow the buck. I share some concerns about the temperature measurements and how they might influence the output power, but there is certainly no serious evidence that Rossi was able to impact the testing in a serious manner. Temperature is not my concern. In fact, the temperature measurement could be correct or even on the low side. The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. That is my problem. Why do you continue to suggest a scam of some type? The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. If anything happened in error I for one believe it was an honest mistake. The odds of finding pure Ni62 in a sample are astronomical. There is no room for honest mistake given that the testing was done two different ways by two different people with the same result. This isotope was salted into the sample. From there on, the details to make it fit together are speculation, but so is extending you paper model to an un-calibrated experiment which was improperly performed. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
