Why Cherokee changed its tune?

I don't know that anyone has asked themselves this, but why would a 350 day test be a part of a milestone in a technology development contract? Answer: such long tests are evidence that the technology in question is ready to be inserted into a product for the marketplace.

This implies that when IH licensed Rossi's technology, milestones were written for Rossi to take a demonstrated technology and engineer it to be reliable enough for preparation as a product. The question is, did Rossi's 350 day test demonstrate the contractually required reliability?

I have seen a lot of polarization in the speculations about the test. I hope that the raw data will be released because I would like to analyze it myself as an engineer. The results of the 350 day test are likely to be a mixed result. It is highly likely that Rossi demonstrated that LENR is real, and can produce substantial heat; but the question is, did he demonstrate the contractually required reliability that would put IH in a position to start delivering product and making money?

Many times the first pass at such reliability testing finds core problems in the reliability that requires re-engineering; or worse, re-invention, before the technology can be brought to market. So, it would not be surprising if Rossi's technology worked, but was simply not reliable enough to move to a product development/delivery phase - a phase where IH would realize profit from the delivered technology.

A couple of other clues in this ... Rossi was constantly blogging about babysitting his reactors for long periods and until late hours in the night. A reliably engineered technology would not seem to need such babysitting, because the babysitting implies readiness for manual intervention. Second, as I recall, DGT, whose earlier role was to become the manufacturer of Rossi's technology, claimed that Rossi had not delivered a reliable reactor, and because of this they didn't pay. This reliability issue with Rossi's eCat technology may be a problem that Rossi has not yet resolved.

This issue of reliability of a technology is a contentious point between businessmen and technologists. It is one thing to demonstrate that a technology (LENR) is real, and a completely different matter to demonstrate that is ready for delivery into a product that can be sold to make a return on investment. The businessmen are correct to insist that a technology meet a reliability milestone sufficient for insertion into product before production scale investment.

To: Thomas Clarke
Re: Leonardo v Cherokee
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my earlier post. In view of the extraordinary number of issues to be litigated in this case, Rossi may need the services of more than one law firm if only to make sure that every conceivable aspect of all the issues are thoroughly covered. Rossi probably already has adequate Patent attorneys and is now represented by a Florida civil litigation firm, but he may need the services of nationally known and highly rated litigation firm such as Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boies,_Schiller_%26_Flexner ] This firm could probably supervise and co-ordinate all aspect of the litigation and best anything the Cherokee gang could come up with. The stakes in this litigation are too high to leave anything to chance or something overlooked or underestimated by only one law firm's staff. I'm a firm believer in the tactical mobility strategy and if ever there was a case demanding the full commitment of several law firms at once; it's this case.
You would be a better judge of this matter as to whether or not a suggestion of this nature should be forwarded to A. Rossi at this time. Thanks, again, for you earlier response.
DDB Far Rockaway, NYC

Bob, that is mostly true.

But the license agreement does not require reliability beyond the number of operational days (which Rossi claims to have met). And IH state in the PR something much stronger, that they have been unable to substantiate Rossi's technology. There is, so far, no reliability information and therefore nothing to substantiate.

The big picture is that if Rossi had a working device as claimed, even if unreliable, it would be an immensely valuable breakthrough and surely worth paying Rossi to license and prevent competition (from Rossi) while working on reliability issues.

Certainly Rossi's shipping container efforts look like a plausible case for a suitable computerised control system which Rossi could help IH develop. It is not a deal breaker.

Tom

@Tom,

Yes, I agree, immensely valuable. However, if the reliability has not been demonstrated per the contract, and/or Rossi has not taught IH how to build and operate the technology, it is fair to withhold the funds until he does complete his end. In such case, the technology would still be licensed to IH, and Rossi should continue to work out the bugs; particularly if invention is still required to eliminate those bugs.

It is common for an inventor type like Rossi to want to move-on in sort of an ADD way before the technology is ready to be released for product engineering. I found myself in that position many times working for a large technology company. In fact, the company created a new department to deal with the transition from Research to Product Development Engineering - they created a middle Advanced Development department whose job it was to iron out all of wrinkles from the new technology. When a technology enters a product engineering phase, there should be no invention required to get to product - it puts the schedule at risk.

I don't think IH was setup to be a research company - they were probably at most planning to be a product engineering company. Because of that, they need to receive from Rossi a reliable, ready for product engineering technology, and the training required to implement and maintain the technology. I would think that was what the $11M was given to Rossi to do.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Probably Rossi and IH each have a somewhat defensible position. Such civil cases almost always get settled out of court.

Quote

it is fair to withhold the funds until he does complete his end

I absolutely agree Bob. But don't you think after working with Rossi IH would have got the idea that if they do not pay, Rossi will likely go ballistic? From the outside given Rossi's reaction to other events that seems a strong possibility. So for IH the equation is whether it is best for them to pay Rossi the money, or not do that and risk the loss of license + very bad publicity they now get. I agree that technically they may not have lost the license, given Rossi does not meet conditions, but after such a break with Rossi, if the technology ever to come good, they would surely be in a disadvantaged position.

Not about "what is fair" but realistically "what has best cost/benefit".

Bob

So, if it gets settled out of court what will that mean for us? Will it mean we can comfortably speculate that the technology 'works'?

Will it be inferred it is reliable?

Best regards
Frank

PS: Sorry just speculation on the nature of potential speculations, by the way, pleased you don't appear to be 'ruffled' by any of this, great admiration for the MFMP project and indeed Martin and Stanley, what would they think of this I wonder.

Since IH is a start-up, it is not clear to me how much engineering acumen they have in their stable. It is also not clear if IH's business model is to license the technology from Rossi and build products or if it is to license it from Rossi and sub-license it to real engineering companies to make money. If they were smart, their interaction with Rossi should be the same, they should be sure they have license to a technology that is ready for product engineering in either case.

If the eCat technology is not ready for product engineering, I can tell you that there are likely a dozen good and controlling patents between where the technology probably exists today and where it will be when it is ready to enter product engineering. Who will own these patents? It could be IH, or their sublicense-ees. These patents could become controlling and would be very valuable, probably more valuable than any dubious core patents that are in process.

Bob

Thanks for that, all the best with the 'open source' MFMP, hope this is not too much of a distraction.

Best regards
Frank

Thomas Clarke

You said, "Darden/Vaughn were like the Swedish scientists extremely foolish". Your list of fools is getting very long.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The two Ferrara tests also have a known failure mechanism based on bad measurement of power. They are the best of the bunch, but the followup to Ferrara, intended by the same authors to be more rigorous, with additional input power checks, is Lugano. This followup is known not to have worked as above.

It was a point of confusion for me and probably not anyone else, but after looking into it I've come to understand that there were not just two Ferrara tests (i.e., by Levi et al.). There were indeed two by Levi et al. (December 13-17, 2012, and March 18-23, 2013), using optical thermometry. But in addition there was also the first validation test for the IH license agreement, carried out by Penon in Ferrara on May 1, 2013, and mentioned in paras. 56-58 of the lawsuit, which used flow calorimetry, if I've understood the details correctly.

Quote from BBCK777

Thomas Clarke

You said, "Darden/Vaughn were like the Swedish scientists extremely foolish". Your list of fools is getting very long.

It is the same reason in both cases. Difficult not to be foolish when offered a miracle.

Anyeway - I'm sure you agree the Swedes were foolish, and Darden is (I think) on record as being impressed by the Lugano evidence. So that is sort of proof?

Quote

It was a point of confusion for me and probably not anyone else, but after looking into it I've come to understand that there were not just two Ferrara tests (i.e., by Levi et al.). There were indeed two by Levi et al. (December 13-17, 2012, and March 18-23, 2013), using optical thermometry. But in addition there was also the first validation test for the IH license agreement, carried out by Penon in Ferrara on May 1, 2013, and mentioned in paras. 56-58 of the lawsuit, which used flow calorimetry, if I've understood the details correctly.

It is confusing. I've been looking at:

Two Penon tests (June? and August 2012 - one report for both - see thread under players forum for report link)

Two Swede tests (one with just Levi and Foschi Dec 2012, the second with the team March 2013 - one report now linked from the thread under "players" Forum) Which I call Ferrara. They did another test which broke the reactor, no data.

Lugano

The flow calorimetry Penon test has not been looked at by me, I don't think the report has ever been released. It would be the 24 hour $10M test?

For the first two reports I've got threads.

Quote

So now what are the odds that all of this is because Rossi's device couldn't work. I would say increasingly smaller and smaller.

This is confirmation bias.

BLP has been saying things for 20 years - and recent evidence is no better (in fact worse) than previous. It is just more impressive because it creates a strong electric arc.

Brillouin have only been going for 6 (?) years but again have no new evidence better than old.

Neither has anything other than lab experiments with very dubious calorimetry that they claim show heat excess.

If they are getting more attention now (which is possible) it is because the apparent success of Rossi encourages people to think they might have something too. The opposite of your argumnet. You can see the circularity.

Quote

I think the fact that trolling activities have increased so much in the past 72 hours is a significant clue.

Do you consider me a troll? The fact is, I deal with the substance (of the tests, and what IH might have made of that) in as much detail as anyone and without vague generalisations. I have a strong case and just as it bugs me that comment is so biassed against IH here I'd guess it bugs others too. Darden and Vaughn may have been foolish in not asking for better validation - but they are following YOUR rule that most scientists don't give LENR a fair chance because of bias. I'll bet that is why in spite perhaps of some reservations over report integrity they went ahead.

They are clearly in it for the "good of the world" reason and unlike Rossi (who buys property, is secretive, has previously extracted money from many people for stuff that does not work) Darden has a record of real philanthropy and Vaughn is a strong committed Christian.

To spin this matter so that they have behaved badly and Rossi well is just not fair, and also requires far more complex intellectual contortion than the simple and probably true explanation for current events.

Lies haunt everybody. History shows that the religious certainly do not stand on some moral highground. Bringing religion up in this case sounds like desperate damage control. Just saying

On Aug. 7th 2012, I conducted a test on the high temperature (800-1200° Celsius) EnergyCatalyzer in the course of the current product certification process. On this occasion, the range of temperatures and COP obtained were found to be comparable to the ones recorded for similar power input values in the previous validation test (see full report attached) performed on July 16th, 2012.
(Signed)Fabio Penon, M.Eng (Nuclear Engineering Specialist)

The only report (written after the first test I guess) is what I look at. He simply says that the August test was the same. But the first test required care, but was done with extreme lack of care as shown in the report.

If there were two separate reports, with the good one "hidden" you would have a point. Although not really - carelessness doing tests is not acceptable.