Statement From Andrea Rossi on IH Patent Application

  • Quote from Eric W

    Another (speculative) possibility is that Rossi has been approached by new investors


    I'd never rule that out. You'd think that any new investor with half a clue would be wary of Rossi after the IH debacle. But, Rossi promises miracles, and some just can't resist that, it seems!

  • The customer was a company set up by Rossi's lawyer's friend in order to perform the test. This was not an existing plant using power, it was created for purpose. So it could have been Rossi, through the customer, paying IH for power. "Up to $1000 per day," from the Complaint


    Abd,


    I don't like to speculate, but since I will be speculating on your speculating, it's not like I am technically speculating. :)


    Lot of good points, as so many here have. I thought it odd, that this one particular quote of yours hasn't been noted before by the skeps, as it, along with Penon, calls into question the validity of the 1 year test. By the way, that disclosure came from Mats Lewan over on ECW. Here is his complete comment:


    "Ok, so this is what I heard from sources having visited the plant and talked to the customer (who could of course be an actor, playing his part in a scam…) – that JMC set up a production unit of the same kind that they already have in UK, although smaller. Given the experience from their units in the UK they knew perfectly well how much energy should be consumed and how much energy was needed to run the unit. At least one engineer was sceptical in the beginning, but soon found out that the consumed electric energy was much less than expected, using the E-Cat plant as energy source for the hot steam. And the customer was happy as a lark with this."

    So the plant was not even a bonafide production facility. Apparently it was a copy of one from the mystery companies UK operations, and they only went by what: "they knew perfectly well how much energy should be consumed". I am no scientist, but that doesn't sound too exacting, and as a believer makes me uncomfortable.


    But we shall see, as I can't imagine Penon, and hopefully his "team", even though he worked with Rossi before, would put his reputation on the line for such a ridiculous, and obvious scam set-up as a temporary factory, producing fake widgets, with a paper president, without assuring first that he wasn't professionally compromised, and his data collection would not be corrupted.


    But, as is always the case in this saga, the believers could counter that IH probably wasn't stalling in finding a suitable facility for the test, as the Ecat is not certified, and it has that damning "N" word in it's description...So this type scheme was the only viable alternative. Something that has been noted well before this.


    But were I IH, I could make either case legally, skep or believer, depending on how difficult Rossi is being, both arguments to my advantage, with the facts to back it up. And I do think much of this, when revealed, will fall on Rossi's shoulders due his personality.


    Other than that, the only exception I take with what you so well say, is that I wouldn't call Rossi insane. Eccentric yes, and probably they are about the same, but eccentric seems more appropriate here. Especially so if he turns out right. If he fooled us all....then yes, he is insane.

  • Quote

    But we shall see, as I can't imagine Penon, and hopefully his "team", even though he worked with Rossi before, would put his reputation on the line for such a ridiculous, and obvious scam set-up as a temporary factory, producing fake widgets, with a paper president, without assuring first that he wasn't professionally compromised, and his data collection would not be corrupted.


    Shane, please read the Penon report - and Rossi corrections - from the two Dec 2012/march 2013 tests. You don't need technical info for this.


    Fabio Penon now has no reputation to lose in the area of Rossi device testing! He makes the following errors in his initial published report:


    (1) Given two concentric hot cylinders he reckons the total radiated heat must be the sum of that from the inner and outer. Absurd even to a lay person - since the inner radiation is immediately absorbed by the enclosing outer cyliner. This was corrected by Rossi but stands in the original published report.


    (2) He says in the report (you would not believe this, and I'm paraphrasing only slightly):


    "The input power as measured by the voltmeter and ammeter was quite different from the input power as measured by the kWh panel meter. Therefore I decided to discard the kWh readings"


    Not only did he discard them, but he does not tell us what they are, or why he is preferring the voltmeter and ammeter readings, or what is the reason for the difference.


    (3) Having decided a voltmeter and ammeter are better than a kWh meter, he does not tell us in the report anything about which voltmeter and ammeter he is using. It is sort of tester 101 that you first list all your measurement equipment, where it came from, has it been calibrated. In this case it matters because many voltmeters and ammeters will give a massive under-reading of power in this setup: you need very good meters to do a correct true RMS reading of such a spiky waveform.



    You don't have to be technical to see that his own report is damning. Someone who can write such a report is either grossly unfamiliar with how to conduct tests, or deliberately skewing the results and not caring for his reputation.

  • Quote

    If [Rossi] fooled us all....then yes, he is insane.


    He did not fool us all. In fact if he had fooled many people the "Rossi revolution" would have been front page of every newspaper. But I agree with you that insane is too strong a word. Just emotional, paranoid, irrational and untrustworthy.

  • Quote from robwoudenberg: “This included the trade secrets to prepare the hotcat 'fuel' which is not described sufficiently in the patent applications.”
    This would seem to imply that the published patents are not enabling ones, which, I would…


    The published patents applications, including the one Rossi got granted this year (US9115913B1) cover only what is claimed. Most of Rossi's patent applications claim constructions and some fuel basics in combination with a new physics phenomenon. If the constructions in combination with such new physics are unique and inovative enough they can be patented excluding the details how to generate the new physics phenomenon. Another example is Airbus who recently claimed an engine based on gasturbine principles having a LENR reactor in place. Such combination is likely unique and innovative enough to grant their claims. It does however not include details how such LENR reactor should be implemented.


    In the case of Rossi <> IH, Rossi very likely revealed to IH the trade secret how to prepare 'e-cat' and 'hotcat' fuel, which is part of the agreement, but not part of the patent applications.
    However, if the x-cat requires a completely new recipe (a new trade secret), IH can be bypassed in my view. (See also my earlier remarks regarding x-cat not being part of the agreement)

  • I think this paves the road for Rossi and IH both developing the same tech and making a lot of money of it, and you know eventually the legal battle is going to end, but in the meanwhile they make a lot of money and you know that in court result is going to be for a lot less.


    This makes sense specially to IH because if they build a better product than Rossi's eventually they win anyway, its in the history, repeated several times.


    I dont think IH cares about who is the inventor really, its all about the $ for them.

  • Quote

    So you are peas in a pod there I think.


    Dear moderators, please could frankwtu be told to desist from insulting me (the comparison with Rossi)? I am neither a liar nor a cheat. :)


    Rossi, here, is not burning down a haystack. he is viciously attacking Darden & Vaughn who have done much to help LENR, and will continue to do more.

  • My apologies Thomas,


    it was not my intention to compare you with the characteristics of 'liar and cheat', neither terms were used in my post so I am a little perplexed.


    I can only conclude the reason Barty deleted my post was that he felt that Rossi is indeed a 'liar and a cheat' and so to compare you with him is in fact an insult.


    Rossi seeks to engage in a battle for what he believes to be right and so do you, that was the comparison I intended to make and why I used the term 'peas in a pod', but of course I failed.


    Again I apologise.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Thomas


    Firstly, I don't apply the rules of this forum, because I'm not a moderator. So nothing I say can censor you. You will notice that I have not reported any of your posts and would only do so in very extreme circumstances which I can't imagine would happen. My tolerance level is high.


    I wonder why Barty deleted my post then, do you think he was wrong? I know you have strong views on censorship.


    Barty


    Why did you delete my post? Did you think it was a legitimate request from Thomas rather 'than tounge in cheek' as he says. Are you able to re instate it?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Thomas


    I have no wish to put Barty on the spot, you have indeed been a 'gentleman' about this so an end to it.


    However, I think it would be legitimate to ask if Rossi is now considered to be a 'liar and cheat' in respect to his
    accusation: “Today I have been informed that IH has again made another patent using my name as the inventor and my invention, to make a patent assigned to Industrial Heat, without my authorization”.


    Such an accusation, if true, could provide critical evidence in Rossie's case against IH but as I understand it, the reference he gives to the particular patent application does not provide such evidence, does anyone know for sure, I mean as an undisputable fact?


    IH could indeed legally file the patent without Rossi signing it (or even knowing about it), and Bob is just not up to date on that fact.


    My concern is that we all deal with 'facts' not 'inuendo' since to do otherwise risks prejudicing the outcome of the trial itself as the court will not take kindly to any of the jurors having been influenced by inaccurate media reports, where jurors have been found to have been 'unduly influenced' particularly by biased media comments, then they have ordered a re trial with a new set of jurors.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Hi all.


    Just an additional thought regarding Rossi's statement, I suppose it all hinges on whether IH owned the IP they used in the alleged patent application. If they did then Rossi will loose on that, but would the first two payments in the contract be enough for IH to claim ownership of the IP used in the patent application? Would that ownership still be valid, even if as both sides claim, there has been a breach of contract.


    Rossi has not received the patent for SSM and therefore he might still consider it as R&D info still under development and not IP since the SSM must be engineered into the wafer. I.H. will not pay Rossi the 89M until they get SSM.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Quote

    Today I have been informed that IH has again made another patent using my name as the inventor and my invention, to make a patent assigned to Industrial Heat, without my authorization


    Well the license, which Rossi signed and (if rumours are correct) was hawking around to others apart from IH, provides permission for IH to do this, so I don't think that is true. IH have been doing this, as you'd expect, and as the license agreement says they can. Rossi says they have now broken the agreement by not paying but they say Rossi broke it by not providing them with the knowhow to get his reactors which they have paid for working as they did in his many independent tests.


    I don't know how the legal arguments will go, but I don't think IH could in all honesty have paid Rossi $89M until they had got his stuff to work in their own tests. Do you?

  • "Why do IH get patents if rossi's stuff does not work"


    Well they can never be sure his stuff does not work. patents cost little, and take time to develop. So that what comes in now may have had the money spent (patent lawyers) some time ago when they were still hoping Rossi's stuff will work. I guess they still hope it will work, but are now less positive than they were previously. They started off with high hopes based on those 7 independent tests.

  • axil wrote:
    Rossi has not received the patent for SSM and therefore he might still consider it as R&D info still under development and not IP since the SSM must be engineered into the wafer. I.H. will not pay Rossi the 89M until they get SSM.



    Axil,


    The first time Rossi mentioned the "fuel wafer" was this past summer in his USPTO approved patent for a "Fluid Heater". Here: http://ecat.com/news/e-cat-patent-granted-by-uspto , in the question and answer, Rossi mentions that the wafer was being used in the 1MW plant for the 1 year test, and that at that time...180 days into the test, the wafer had not needed changing.


    Up until that time, I believe he always referred to his Ecat's fuel charge as some granular composition, or am I wrong on that? Now, the Hotcat fuel for sure was granular, as he scooped some samples to give the Lugano professors. Also, the replicators world wide, MFMP, Parkomov, Sheng-Sing, are also using granular mixtures.


    The lawsuit itself mentions the wafer as the heart and sole of his technology; having been developed, and used by Rossi for 20 years.


    Anyways, I am confused and hope maybe you can put this fuel thing together, as you seem to think it related to SSM in some way?

  • At the risk off going 'off topic' I have been following me356 which I know strictly speaking is a Parkamov replication. But the complexity and subtlety of the process astounds me. Well done to me356.


    The point here is that the case is going to be extremely complex. There are two avenues I think; (1) the contract and (2) the invention. it may well be that the invention can be shown to work to the satisfaction of the jury especially if the principle of LENR can be shown by reference to other inventions to be sound, but the issues around 'breach of contract' will I think keep the lawyers employed for a long time.


    Best regards
    Frank