An IH-friendly reason for the claimed delay in finding a test site

  • We do not know IH's side of the story about the long-term test. Maybe they did not delay. So this thread is speculative. But I have not heard any good reason for IH to delay, and have just now thought of one!


    So: assume that Rossi is 100% correct, IH did not find him a test site (and were not going to do so). Why is this?


    IH, if sensible, would want to make sure that Rossi's independent test results (e.g. a hot-cat with COP=3 or so) could be reliably repeated before committing to the long-term test with 100 reactors and a lot of effort.


    If, as I've been arguing, IH were stuck unable to substantiate Rossi's test results themselves (as they say), they would be very unwilling to move to this big test. After all, till they have got to the bottom of why stuff does not work for them maybe Rossi's tests were the problem and another test could equally be a problem.


    It is also disproportionate effort and expense. The rule in engineering is you get a single unit to work reliably, characterise it, before moving to a complex 100 unit system. Their engineers would therefore would view the long-term 1MW test as premature. They presumably say this to Rossi, who is indignant. He wants to do the long-term test and get his $89M. IH do not publicise this awkward situation. It would be bad PR, and unprofessional to ait these arguments. If at any time in the long-term test they are able to resolve their doubts about Rossi's tests and get stuff to work, there is no problem.


    There are several versions of this according to how much IH formally agree to the long-term test. As far as I can see the contract does not require them to agree to it.


    The other issue is whether they agreed to Penon. I'd expect them to want a new ERV if uncertain about earlier tests. So either they could not change the ERV because the contract says he stays the same, or Rossi did this on his own without their agreement.


    I'd not expect IH to make a detailed description of their relationship with Rossi in an immediate PR. It would be highly unprofessional and also not helpful for the legal action defense. We may get a bit more information within 3 weeks when they make their formal reply to Rossi's action.


    Also, it is worth realising that IH's position would be gradually changing from optimistic to pessimistic as they discover more about the operation of Rossi's devices and maybe look again at the 6 positive tests and realise they are not quite what they seem.


    Who thinks they knew the full mistake in the Lugano measurements (which when corrected gives COP=1 and critically no acceleration, so no evidence of an exothermic reaction) when they paid $10M, when Rossi started the long-term test? They were saying very positive things about it quite late in the day. All they need do is look at my refutation and get a competent physicist to check it and their views would become quite a lot more negative, because at that point they would also no longer trust the two Ferrara tests. (I know the Lugano mistake could not occur so easily in Ferrara but they would lose trust in the testers).


    Maybe this did not happen. But it could be?

  • Thomas


    You are right, that's what it is - speculation. There was a time you would not have been seen in the same room as the 'speculators' unless it was based on Bayesian logic. Yes indeed speculation; but you are not on your own, unfortunately most of us on this forum are now entering the 'fog' and claiming to see all kinds of apparitions which are most likely none other than a figment of our own imagination.


    We don't need fog or apparitions, what we have forgotten are the haystacks and the needles that are in them that have to find.


    Hoping for a fine day
    Frank

  • Quote

    You are right, that's what it is - speculation. There was a time you would not have been seen in the same room as the 'speculators'


    Very true - but I get annoyed by all this speculative trashing of IH. It is uncalled for and grossly unlikely. Personally, I think they are backing the wrong horse with LENR but they do this from good motives and it is not fair their name should have mud slung at it just because Rossi has a (typical for him) case of paranoia. :)


    The "Noble Rossi is being shafted by greedy corporate Darden" idea is posionous.

  • Thomas - from what I have heard hinted from folks close to the matter your hypothesis seems very likely.


    Here are the rumors I have heard:


    1) Rossi moved forward with Penon as ERV for yearlong test without formal agreement from IH. Rossi likely believed that since Penon performed the 24 hr test he did not need IH's approval (and contract language might support this).


    2) IH cared very little about the yearlong test, as what mattered to them was the transfer of all know-how that was to immediately follow the $10M payment. Therefore, they decided not to rock the boat over Penon or the apparent shell 'customer', as the test held no meaning for them. Being able to make the tech on their own was critical, as that would allow them to test to their heart's content and both resolve any remaining doubts from independent tests as well as make refinements to optimize performance. Didn't matter to them if the yearlong test was or was not a sham.


    3) On several occasions prior to conclusion of the yearlong test IH reached out to Rossi indicating they were having a hard time replicating his results and asking for his help. Rossi's supposed response was that he was focused on the yearlong test and would only help them after the $89M payment (which seems to violate contracted terms).


    4) Sounds like Rossi constructed the contract as it was apparently shopped around to other potential investors in more or less the same form who rejected it on the basis that Rossi wanted installment payments and no ownership in the partner entity. Other potential investors worried this was a hallmark of a potential scam. So unlikely that Rossi was duped or tricked into any of the contract terms (and Rossi's complaints about what IH has been doing regarding the IP all appear to be ok under terms of contract).


    This paragraph is all my interpretation - IH viewed the $11.5M as a necessary "ante-up" payment to get access to the know-how. It was a substantial sum, but one they could afford to write off if things didn't pan out. Now the test is completed and Rossi has moved the goalposts refusing to help them independently make it work until after the $89M payment despite contract clearly stating that was to happen as a prior condition. IH has invested in other LENR researchers and is seeing encouraging results, they have also seen encouraging results when Rossi has been directly involved in tests so they want to keep the contract open, but that is not enough to justify paying $89M more on hope that Rossi will finally show them how to replicate. From their perspective a pre-condition of the $89M payment has not been fulfilled by Rossi, so they are legally justified in delaying and the contract remains in place along with all other conditions (e.g. first right to purchase additional territories, Rossi non-compete, access to all new inventions, etc.) until Rossi meets contracted terms. They are at a stalemate, but one that legally appears to favor IH despite the fact that Rossi has spun public opinion in his favor with selective truths and partial statements. To be clear - I don't think this is fraud, I think Rossi truly believes in the results he is generating, but I also think it most likely that due to his own paranoia he is holding back from IH and mischaracterizing them as trying to screw him out of his money.

  • Guest,


    Thanks. I trust your sources are good? It sure fits in nicely with the best emerging theory, and that is that this involves an IP conflict brought on by Rossi's eccentric personality. Lewan's sources also back your account up, by reporting that IH had been looking for other LENR players, or scientists, to help them develop what technology Rossi did transfer. That shouldn't be necessary if the Ecat truly works as Rossi claims, and Rossi transferred ALL his secrets to them.


    It wouldn't surprise me if IH were slipping these details...the real story, into the LENR blogosphere to quietly counter Rossi's scathing attacks against them and their integrity. But thankfully, I think the picture is becoming more clear.


    I think your post may deserve a separate thread? Some good, good, stuff in there!

  • Yawn....


    Lets see the IH response and the ERV report.


    In the meantime I'm doing a reno on the lab.


    Edit: Not yawning at Guest, who's scenario is plausible. Just the general subject which has been novelized to War and Peace levels already this early stage.

  • @Guest
    Thanks for that very interesting comment. It does fit all available information. The issue of whether Rossi's stuff works can be left hanging with one speculative comment.


    If Rossi's stuff did work he had a $89M incentive to help IH obtain good results. It is impossible for me, if the 7 independent tests are as claimed, to see why this should be particularly difficult, and there was a lot of time.


    That Rossi did not do this is indicative. I suppose he could have wanted to back out of his own license agreement, and done it in this way, but legally I doubt that will work and anyway it seems unlikely somone else would give him money up front after this.


    Tom

  • What does Rossi IP mean?


    Rossi has one patent for the Lugano Hotcat. Rossi was preparing 204 other patents and these may have been submitted but this information is not IP until one or more of the 204 patients have been approved by the UDPTO. IP does not include patents that have not been granted. I.H. does know how the 1 MW plant works to some level of detail because they built it. They have the right to patent that info in Rossi's name and site themselves as co-inventors. They do not have the rights to other designs that Rossi still has patent pending and that Rossi has not yet revealed to I.H.


    When Rossi properly holds back pending info, I.H. shall not connect that act of revelation of R&D data with the agreement to base final payment solely on the report of the ERV. But let the court decide.

  • My sources have been pretty good so far, at least good enough to have indicated both ERV and customer identities prior to that information having become public, and close enough to the action to reasonably have a sense for what's going on. Everything I've heard so far has confirmed what I had heard, but I guess we'll see what happens with court filings (might take years... :-\).


    To Axil, a couple comments:


    The contract defines 'E-Cat IP' rather broadly (not just issued patents), stating "any and all inventions, discoveries, concepts, ideas, information and anything else which relate to the E-Cat IP or are useful in the business or activities in which the Company is or may become engaged... including without limitation, enhancements, improvements, alterations, additions, deviations, changes, variations, as well as all derivative works...shall be and shall remain within the scope of the definition of E-Cat IP and shall be included in the License" (section 13.4). So it's not just the patents, but ideas, data, etc.


    Also, to your assertion that IH does know how the 1MW plant works - in his interview with Mats, Fabiani stated "I don’t have knowledge on the reaction because the formula is not my concern. When it is time, Rossi makes his mixtures according to his formulas, puts the charge in the cores and gives me the complete cores". This appears to be a contradiction of Rossi's statements that IH is responsible for making everything, and backs up the theory that he may not have given them all they need to replicate.

  • Hi Thomas, I saw you posted my comment on animpossibleinvention.com as well, would you mind editing that comment slightly to include the "Here are the rumors I have heard:" portion?


    I want it to be clear that this is not yet confirmed fact. I believe it to be accurate, but don't have direct confirmation of the statements and don't want to position it as being concrete.


    It really riles me up that most of the Rossi supporters make statements about how they know IH is shady, dishonest, etc. so just want it to be clear what is known fact and what is still unproven at this point.

  • Hank, they might have replicated, but not with high COP and with long term stability. Like Parkhomov for example. And they might therefore argue that Rossi has retained some essential info, even though Rossi claims he told them everything. The devil is in the details.


    Rossi has a technology called Self Sustain Mode(SSM). Rossi uses one reactor called the activator to power 15 satellite reactors which are unpowered but identical to the activator. I.H. has applied for a patent of the activator which was based on the Lugano test results. That patent was granted. I.H. must beleive that the activator works since they patented it along with Rossi. That alumina tube based patent used Lugano test results extensively. Rossi gave I.H. the IP for the activator including the fuel mix; that system has a COP of 1.5. Rossi has not given them the tech for SSM which pushes the COP to over 50. I.H. wants the IP for the SSM mode. 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.

  • Hi @Hank Mills


    I have seen your questions and Rossi's response on JONP, and agree the stories sound incompatible. If Rossi has the evidence to back all of his claims up then we shall soon see, but I believe there will be concrete evidence on the other side as well.


    I agree with @Mats Lewan though that the devil is in the details. It is possible that one or both parties are lying, it is also possible that there is room for both stories to be accurate but misleading - i.e. maybe IH tested reactors in front of investors but Rossi was directly involved and ran the tests, or they ran a test and got brief positive results but were not able to stabilize.


    I do know of at least one example where the public story from another party directly contradicts Rossi's statements (your #2), and that came from @Mats Lewans published interview with Fabiani with quote above that Rossi was the only one who made the core charge. That interview was well before the lawsuit, so to me doesn't seem like it would be driven by false positioning. I don't know where the wiggle room in that one is though...


    I wonder if Rossi would answer the direct question 'did you receive any indication from IH prior to the conclusion of the 1-year test indicating they were having trouble replicating your results and asking for your assistance?' I would guess that if such communication exists per my #3 above it will be part of IH's response to the lawsuit (so public in the near future). He may answer with the standard I can't comment on the ongoing litigation, but I really don't see how that would be a valid response as that question would be of very narrow scope and factually provable.


    Who knows though, at this point based on currently available public information it really is a He says vs He says debate, and it comes down to which party you view as more credible.

  • @axil


    I see a lot of people making similar statements that IH filing for patents confirms they have been able to replicate his results:


    Quote

    I.H. has applied for a patent of the activator which was based on the Lugano test results. That patent was granted. I.H. must beleive that the activator works since they patented it along with Rossi.


    This is where I think an important distinction is necessary. IH can apply for patents based on the results they have seen achieved with Rossi's involvement/collaboration, it does not necessarily mean they have been able to achieve the same results without Rossi. The stories are all still compatible.


    I know I have responded separately on your narrow definition of IP as only granted patents, but again, IP as defined in the contract is a much broader definition, and Rossi was to have provided all IP, know how, fuel recipes, assistance etc. for them to be able to replicate his results and operate the 1MW reactor to similar performance standards (which would include SSM mode).

  • Mixing the fuel is more art than a science. Rossi adjust the fuel mix based on the requirements of the reactor's run. For example, Rossi mixed the Lugano fuel to run for 30 days. He mixed the 1 MW reactor fuel to run for 1 year but fell short near the end of the run when performance dropped prematurely in one 250 kw unit. Rossi said he learn from that error. Therefore mixing fuel requires much experience like mixing the proper color on a fresco.

  • Mixing the fuel is more art than a science. Rossi adjust the fuel mix based on the requirements of the reactor's run. For example, Rossi mixed the Lugano fuel to rum for 30 days. He mixed the 1 MW reactor fuel to run for 1 year but fell short near the end of the run when performance dropped prematurely in one 250 kw unit. Rossi said he learn from that error. Therefore mixing fuel requires much experience like mixing the proper color on a fresco.


    Perhaps you're right (I have no idea), but if so that still doesn't remove the contractual condition that Rossi teach them everything (and provide any and all assistance) they need to produce the fuel and replicate his results.


    If mixing or preparing the fuel truly is an art-driven process that can only be manually performed by one person alone (Rossi), then the technology would probably be worthless from a commercial standpoint. I hope that's not the case!



  • You are correct. I am learning patent law and now realize that my initial ideas about IP are too narrow.


    Patent Application = IP protection, on a first to file basis. So when Rossi submits all his patents to the USPTO, he is protected. But has he submitted them all at this juncture?


    Reading how the 89M is paid to Rossiu has nothing to do with IP. Final payment is strictly based on a positive ERV report. IMHO, I.H. cannot holdback payment because they are not satisfied with the distribution of IP. That was decided with the 10M payment.


    Any IP issues are red herrings with regards to the final payment $89M based on the letter of the licence agreement.

  • and Rossi's complaints about what IH has been doing regarding the IP all appear to be ok under terms of contract


    One question I have about the actions of IH in this connection is that there was language in the license agreement around non-competition. It is hard to see how IH's funding of Brillouin and Miley would be compatible with this language, even if there was no transfer of Rossi's IP.