Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

@Argon
The thermocouple primarily only needs to be attached long enough to get a good calibration. MFMP has easily managed this.
For extra assurance, it would be good to have a thermocouple attached all the time, if this is possible.
Note that the MFMP thermocouple problems that they have had do not lead to 100's of degrees errors in temperature. They can be off a bit, but they are in still in the right neighborhood. (They read low when detaching)
IR is a good candidate for thermography of non-isothermal objects, when used correctly. Covering the entire device with thermocouples, or extrapolating across large areas of the reactor based on very few thermocouples is obviously not going to be very accurate, especially on an unknown and irregular object.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Just one point here. None of the E-Cat patents enable someone skilled in the art to make LENR work. If they did the world would be a very different place. IH I expect now will confirm that, but it is pretty obvious... They still might have some indirect value if some other IP actually got the LENR magic going.

Thomas,

I agree, that by comparing the patents "claim by claim", someone may find, that some claims in Rossi's patent might have a future value.

But that is not the elementary premise of the License Agreement.

There was a reason, why they have used terms like "sole owner" and why Rossi had to commit warranties. I.H. licensed (and payed for) ALL IP (not only some claims) and that in an ENFORCEABLE state. That's the primary context of the contract and maybe this was the case, at the time they signed to contract "bona fide". (This would be the positive view.)

But I'm stuck with my judgment, that the License Agreement at this time can be seen as insubstantial. The technical aspects of this case will become irrelevant, if the premise of the contract is invalid.

Quote

None of the E-Cat patents enable someone skilled in the art to make LENR work

Yes. If you refer to Rossi's patent. But I'm not so sure regarding Piantelli's patent ... It's too soon, maybe this needs some more time ...

With best wishes

Tom

Quote

some limited thermocouple data was captured by IH observers during the Lugano test

"observers", so more than one.

Then for the magician trick ash swap hypothesis, Rossi had to do the swap with maybe 9* people watching? (And be totally ready for it.)

*(six main authors, Bianchini, and (at least) IH two observers)

Frank - Just to be clear - Rossi sold territorial rights to his Ecat IP including derivative rights for $11.5M. No additional money is owed by IH - the rights are purchased and Rossi has an obligation to fulfill his side of the contract - apparently a very difficult thing for him to understand. Rossi may get to make his case as to whether or not he earned the additional $89M for the 1 year, 1MW test. At a minimum, IH will be coming at him with a professional and comprehensive defense. Claims of a passing a successful test in exchange for $89M require a standard of integrity that Rossi has yet to achieve in his lifetime. We'll see whose standard holds up the best in the judicial sunshine.

Shane D - Rossi put the thermocouples on the Lugano reactor as part of his control system then refused to capture / keep the data. He ran all of his test systems that way. He went nuts when we told him we were buying NI Labview for data acquisition and refused to allow anything like that to be connected to his test ecats. He took manual measurements and logged them by hand. The notebooks are a mess.

After he shipped out to Miami then proper DA / logging gear was attached to the experiments with very disappointing results.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Shane D - Rossi put the thermocouples on the Lugano reactor as part of his control system then refused to capture / keep the data. He ran all of his test systems that way. He went nuts when we told him we were buying NI Labview for data acquisition and refused to allow anything like that to be connected to his test ecats. He took manual measurements and logged them by hand. The notebooks are a mess.

After he shipped out to Miami then proper DA / logging gear was attached to the experiments with very disappointing results.

Why wasn't the data acquisition method defined by the test plan before the test began. If IH wanted to use a certain data acquisition method used during the test, they should have not committed to running the test until this issue was resolved as confirmed before the test through a signed agreement between both parties.

This pretest agreement is standard contractual procedure in the business world. I beleive that IH was incomitant in the way they contracted and manages the test.

Dewey Weaver - Do you know if the Lugano Report authors are under NDA regarding the test? I've often wondered about their seeming silence. While it could be that they just do not want to discuss the results in any public way, I'm wondering if there are other factors.

Did Rossi Disappear? His http://www.rossilivecat.com/ hasn't been updated for almost a day.

d

Quote from sifferkoll

Wow! You IH folks really do need to prove your endless stupidity in court now, dont you?

IH is a very poor investment. From their behavior it is obvious that they have not hired the right people. As a systems integrator. they would have been well served to hire some top ranked systems engineers and project engineers from the defence industry were testing and contractual procedure is a fine art. Successfully controlling subcontractors, OEMs, and consultants are what keeps these middle managers employed and many don't make it for long. Long lived manages know all the tricks and all the pitfalls. IH has done nothing right, they are a disaster.

For example, if IH wanted to make a change in the test...data recording procedure... they could have negotiated a "change order" which is an addendum to an ongoing contract.

Quote

Term Definition of a Scope Change Request

A scope change request is used to request an addition or subtraction to the agreed upon scope of work agreed upon for a project. The scope change request may be managed as part of a pre-defined scope change process outlined as part of the Project plan. This process would determine what changes may be approved by the Project Manager and the procedure as well as authority for approving other changes.

The success of a project depends on controlling and project scope management. Changes in scope can impact the cost, schedule, risk and even the quality of the project. The client, the project sponsor or other stakeholders can initiate scope changes. The scope of work is defined very early in the project planning and estimation phases. However, scope can change for a number of reasons including internal factors (stakeholder requires insight into a problem), or external factors (government regulations, market conditions).

Quote from sifferkoll

Wow! You IH folks really do need to prove your endless stupidity in court now, dont you?

I have waited five years for Rossi to prove his endless stupidity. Let's see if he can prove anything in court.

Quote from DNI

I have waited five years for Rossi to prove his endless stupidity. Let's see if he can prove anything in court.

The determinative issue in this case is the legal status of the ERV.

I predict that the court will only deal with contractual issues and delegation of authority to the ERV. If the ERV is judged to be the agent given total authority by IH to design and implement the test, and to make judgements and determinations in their stead, then any technical matters will be avoided. Rossi will get his money. Whatever the ERV says will be legally binding on the two parties in this case.

If the ERV was not a valid agent assigned by IH, then the test will be judged invalid with no force in law. The test will be ignored.

I'm at a loss as to the heated nature of some of the posts here.

Quote from sifferkoll

Again. The ERV report says what it says. Penon was agreed upon as ERV. If the report says COP~50 IH should pay.

This is your interpretation of the license agreement as it applies to the current circumstance. The court will have its own interpretation, and they may not agree with yours.

Quote from Nigel Appleton

Nor can I see why the writer should have checked with Mats before posting.

I believe the writer obtained the information from Mats. Perhaps the information was provided together with a request for confidentiality.

Quote from frankwtu

So in that scenario, no Lugano no ERV report, who would have thought that!

Note that if Darden has shipped off to Sweden to talk to the professors, this is good reason to think that the Lugano report might enter the docket.

Quote from StephenC

I just had a strange image two great knights standing in the clouds on top of a mountain one swinging his sword shouting "divide, conquer, divide conquer"

Only in Monty Python would a knight say such a thing on the top of a mountain peak.

Quote from Shane D.

Also, like others, I don't buy that the Swedes thought things were fine until recently. There was almost an immediate shit-storm after the Lugano results were posted on Elforsk's site. They knew about the controversy, and responded by accepting to answer "reasonable questions"...which they never did.

As has been suggested, perhaps there has been an NDA in effect. Another possibility: they are trying to reassess the findings and are taking their sweet time to make sure they have everything straight, including perhaps doing additional measurements, before getting back to their critics.

Weaver said, "Thomas will be pleased to know that some limited thermocouple data was captured by IH observers during the Lugano test. That information is in the hands of the Uppsala folks as part of their present review of the report."

Indeed there were IH personnel in Lugano ..
Guess who posted this picture on FB in March 2014.
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123567537_1.jpg

Not sure this is the guy Weaver counts on though.

(Credits to user Nevanlinna on the Cobraf blog, 18 Oct 2014, 21:28, http://www.cobraf.com/forum/to…ly_id=123567537#123567537 )

Quote from Paradigmnoia

<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1651-Argon/">@Argon</a>
The thermocouple primarily only needs to be attached long enough to get a good calibration. MFMP has easily managed this.
For extra assurance, it would be good to have a thermocouple attached all the time, if this is possible.
Note that the MFMP…

Yes actually I agree, as long as thermocouple is at least steadily 'hanging' around same distance of the body, error margin is limited and pretty constant (at least was in MFMP videos). From MFMP videos I also first time learned that Optris is pretty reliable (in its error margins) as long as emissivity setting is correct and heat radiation profile is somehow 'typical'. I don't know the topic enough, but seems that this 'typical' is what @Thomas Clarke @randombit0 was arguing. Alumina seems to have special optical properties making IR measurement less trivial.

From that I got an idea that (mainly for MFMP and other replicators), should someone try to separate thermocouple further from too hot body by purpose. For example attach wide and thick enough (half?)ring of clay or something around body and inject thermocouple there half way. Temperature reading of the thermocouple would be lower, but would protect it better. I think reading then follows some pretty accurate heat transfer/heat dissipation formula and thus can be calibrated and compensated (at least) in post test calculations. That way replicators could have control readings to verify Optris readings. Clay was just one example, as long as material have some thermal resistance and can stand the heat.

But in topic of this thread I have additional question. Why Lugano report is still in so big importance as Swedes re-involvment and many comments here indicates? If dispute is about Rossi getting IH contract and $11,5m by falsified Lugano tests, then contract would be declared invalid, and in court IH would get rid of 89m payment and even ask refund of 11,5m? Now Mr Weaver has indicated here that they want 'Rossi to transfer the knowledge and keep IH license valid'. Why to concentrate on Lugano and discredit Mr Rossi in that case?

My answer is still that it is about Rossi interpreting contract covering only E-cat and Hot-Cat technologies, which both seems to be worthless because of bit earlier Celani(?) patent. Rossi might have Quark-X which could have some unique IP and also (business wise) superior technology over older models. Rossi wants to get rid of too cheap contract and lost trust in their business relationship after Bril.. and Asian partners involvement by IH.

This obsessive Lugano interest might be just preparing one tool for court case to discredit Mr Rossi, but in my understanding using that in court would not lead to desired successfull IP transfer to IH but invalidation of the whole contract instead. And that is what Mr Rossi is targeting anyway, so this saga snake is now eating its tail - literally.

So @Dewey Weaver is the only viable conclusion of all this that IH doesn't believe Rossi is having any working E-cat technology or Quark-X in his sleeves and IH is just preparing for invalidation of the contract and demanding for 11m refund instead? If so, you must be pretty sure, since in business risk calculations has always 'benefit' factor, and in this case it is huge at the minimum...