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

Quote from Shane D.

Axil,

I don't know. What difference would it make?

From ECW

Quote

Industrial Heat Files New International Patent for ‘Energy-Producing Reaction Devices’Posted on August 27, 2015 by Frank Acland
Thanks to Bernie Koppenhofer for finding the following:

Today, August 27, 2015, Industrial Heat, LLC has filed an International Patent for: ENERGY-PRODUCING REACTION DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS

Link is here:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2015127263&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription

Inventors are listed as Andrea Rossi and Thomas Barker Dameron.

The abstract reads: “A reactor device includes a reaction chamber; one or more thermal units in thermal communication with the reaction chamber configured to transfer thermal energy to the reaction chamber; and a refractory layer between the reaction chamber and the one or more thermal units.”

This one, unlike the recently approved Rossi patent is very extensive, and will take some time to go through. More details will be added here as information is digested.

I guess this will put an end to the rumor that Industrial Heat is no longer interested in the E-Cat!

Display More

Pub. No.: WO/2015/127263 International Application No.: PCT/US2015/016897 Publication Date: 27.08.2015

When will this patent be discontinued in the light that the Lugano test showed no merit?

This is the full disclosure link with Appendixes!

https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…WO2015127263.pdf?download

Quote from Shane D.

New Industrial Heat USPTO Patent Application

Yes, I know about that one. The L-F link above shows a follow up application that stirred some additional debate here. Patents give me a headache. Trust me, I am up on this stuff. Patents, their application filings, the process that follows, the rules, law, nuances, all seem so simple at first blush, but then an expert like David French comes along to really explain it all, and you realize...we know nothing. We all try and make a stab at it nonetheless, including moi on occasion, but to a man, we all fail miserably. Except David French.

That said...tell me how YOU think this IH patent application, and it's apparent renewal recently, plays into this? Yes, I know: "if IH didn't think the tech works...why bother? Maybe some procedural thing? Maybe a "just in case"? Maybe, as Sifferkoll has hammered on, they think there is something, but Rossi has not been contracturally forthcoming (good one actually).

Anything else though?

Display More

It's not what IH says that matters, it's what they do that counts.

Why this application matters is that it disseminated plenty of IP to the whole world. The whole world can look at it, and build a Lugano device almost perfectly. And a couple of other ones.
Of course, no one has done an exact three phase copy of the Lugano device, at least publicly.
IH did not have to hand any instructions from Rossi to its other investments secretly. They did it in front of the whole planet.

After all the fuss and bluster, there are NO real Rossi replications.
No Fluid Heater
No Lugano
No low-T E-Cat

Lots of sort-of replications. A real Lugano replication would be very expensive....

Axil - your basis of facts have you deep in the weeds. You're flailing to the point where you at risk of falling out of a Planet Rossi orbit. You believe Rossi's tale the IH gave Brillouin IP - that is a complete fabrication by Rossi with no basis of fact beyond his vivid imagination.

You also need to understand that IP strategy is like global 3D chess. Speculate away but understand that provisional / patent applications are filed all the time for many reasons. Filings that end up not being useful or that do not align with offensive and/or defensive IP strategy are simply dropped or assigned away. There is no there there.

Regarding thermocouples - how do you think Rossi made control decisions for his input power settings - with IR camera feedback? No - he used thermocouples and they seemed to keep working throughout the Lugano test. Get yourself together man and good luck getting back into orbit!

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Axil - your basis of facts have you deep in the weeds. You're flailing to the point where you at risk of falling out of a Planet Rossi orbit. You believe Rossi's tale the IH gave Brillouin IP - that is a complete fabrication by Rossi with no basis of fact beyond his vivid imagination.

You also need to understand that IP strategy is like global 3D chess. Speculate away but understand that provisional / patent applications are filed all the time for many reasons. Filings that end up not being useful or that do not align with offensive and/or defensive IP strategy are simply dropped or assigned away. There is no there there.

Regarding thermocouples - how do you think Rossi made control decisions for his input power settings - with IR camera feedback? No - he used thermocouples and they seemed to keep working throughout the Lugano test. Get yourself together man and good luck getting back into orbit!

I am just bring into focus what the theory of Rossi's case is...the avoidance of the $Billion payment in licence fees. It has nothing to with Rossi's tech not working. If IH claims that his IP does not work, they will lose their case since their authorized agent who designed and conducted the test certified that it does work.

Interesting webpage on fog production .. maybe lithium will cure my fogged up brain

https://thenewfire.wordpress.c…merican-energy-companies/

I am not convinced that either the E-cat or the ME356-cat works. Clearly others do.
The proof I see that is of all the experiments so far are not proven beyond a doubt. I understand this is from ones point of view. And what is wrong with that ? This is an open forum after all. But alas, this is enigma is not that simple and this is not a proven device like a light bulb.

My point is that the vitriol needs to come down a bit. I am just saying that the dialog is disrespectful regardless of perspective, and people do not listen they tune out.
Also I guess that it is too late to say "It's how you say it that matters" but maybe before you post take a breath and look at the content of what you are saying. How can anyone be expected to be taken seriously if it becomes name calling?

[

I understand MFMP are looking for an efficient cloud chamber? It's a pitty we can't put some of this fog in a chamber and send it to MFMP for tracking exotic particles. It's seems the fog generation here is almost inexhaustible, and almost for free.

Actually It already seems to be being used to generate and observe the trajectories of exotic particles of information.

Quote

axil wrote:IH was well into the year long test when the Lugano demo occurred.
Axil,The Lugano test took place in March 2014. The 1MW 1 year test began Feb. 2015 and ended Feb 2016.So just to be clear...Lugano ended well before the 1 year test began.

This is an excellent example of the sort of misinformation that characterises so much of the discussions round LENR.

In this case the original false assertion was corrected. That is not always the case.

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

If Rossi's stuff doesn't work why would that give them the better result?

(1) Easier to prove. How can they prove a negative? All they can prove is that Rossi has no proof his stuff does work.
(2) Better PR, because their mistake in backing Rossi is then less egregious?

I don't know - but I'm not sure you can rule this out?

This characterises so called 'fact' which masquerades on this forum now, which is no more than 'fairy stories. The courts will take absolutely no notice of whatsoever. Why, You are sure something can be 'ruled out' without knowing 'why' you put 'propositions' and qualify it with the statement 'I don't know'.

Thomas, you are sliding into the abyss of 'maybe but I don't really know. Where is the 'old Thomas' who judged everything by Bayesian logic.

This is not 'court material.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from TC

If Rossi's stuff doesn't work why would that give them the better result?
(1) Easier to prove. How can they prove a negative? All they can prove is that Rossi has no proof his stuff does work.
(2) Better PR, because their mistake in backing Rossi is then less egregious?I don't know - but I'm not sure you can rule this out?

Quote from Frank

This characterises so called 'fact' which masquerades on this forum now, which is no more than 'fairy stories. The courts will take absolutely no notice of whatsoever. Why, You are sure something can be 'ruled out' without knowing 'why' you put 'propositions' and qualify it with the statement 'I don't know'.

So, there is a logical issue here (not bayesian) that you have lost.

Where have I maintained this as a fact? What have I said can be ruled out? You are taking my argument here as a definitive statement of certainty when logically it is a statement of uncertainty. A hypothetical.

I was arguing against the apparently factual argument "IH can never get a better Court result by only arguing their own Rossi devices do not work, if it is the case that in fact all Rossi's devices do not work".

That is a definite 100% factual statement. If true, and Court case ends up not showing Rossi's stuff is illusory, you could reasonably conclude that Rossi's devices do indeed work, because IH could have done better for themselves by proving this in Court, and they are advised by expensive and presumably therefore savvy lawyers.

I am not saying I know this statement to be false. I don't. For all I know IH may well go hell for leather proving Rossi's device is illusory because that is in their best interests. I was just pointing out that I am not certain of that argument. I was doing that by showing possible hypothetical reasons why it might not hold.

Frank - can I suggest you look back through all the statements where you think I am making speculative positive statements and ask how many of them are in fact hypotheticals? Such a hypothetical cannot prove anything. But it can disprove some statement made by somone else. Disproving is not the same as proving the contrary.

For example:
"I saw Father Christmas dressed in green yesterday" (statement)
"You are red/green colorblind. He could have been dressed in red" (hypothetical).

The hypothetical disproves the original implicit claim (no evidence Father Christmas was dressed in green). But it does not prove the reverse (there is also no evidence Father Christmas was not dressed in green).

And we are not here a court of law, most of the debate here relates to things that may never be considered by the Court. Indeed, in this case, the Court may never consider anything at all...

Best wishes, Tom

@Dewey Weaver

Quote

Deleo - Mats seemed to be aware of certain details from the Sweden meeting within 30 minutes of it ending. The posted interpretation seems pretty far off from my understanding of the discussion. The Uppsala folks are good people and they want to set the record straight if their revised findings mandate a change to the Lugano report. I don't know exactly where they are in their review at present or what their timeframe will be but do know they are well into this reconsideration. We'll all know soon enough.

I'm very glad the Lugano (non-Levi) testers want to set matters straight. It is no less than I'd expect. Good on them.

Quote

Darden was invited to Sweden for multiple reasons. The Uppsala folks have been studying alumina emissivity and other IR camera matters on their own initiative for quite some time now.We only recently became aware of that.

I am also very glad of that. Perhaps they paid some attention to my (or other) comments? These guys are not Levi and the fact Levi still believes the original calculations good I guess says nothing for their view.

IH have in the past had poor technical advice. They paid Rossi $10M thinking Lugano was good (unless I've got the timeframe wrong here?) when in fact competent technical advice would have told them it was not good. They now (forgive me) seem to be relying on the same guys who got Lugano wrong initially to get it right now. Well, they may be able to do that. But how can IH be sure? There were a lot of subsidiary issues (like current clamp saturation) in the Lugano test that would need revisiting before any restatement of its results is made that is safe. I hope very much the Uppsala guys do all this - I'm sure they want to, but less sure they are aware of all the issues.

The potential penalty - for IH - of an incomplete Lugano analysis is that holes in this get found out in Court by expert cross-examination.

Woodford funds will have absolutely no comeback unless they can prove that their due diligencers were purposely deceived. They (and their investors) accept that there will always be heightened risks when investing in unlisted companies working with new technologies

Quote from Sifferkoll

No. IH are actually extremely careful to NOT say it does not work. As Weaver pointed out they scared shitless to loose the license and are as we speak acting accordingly.

For once I'd partly agree with you. It is just not clear to me which way IH will jump here, I doubt they know themselves yet. If they get evidence of fraudulent behavior they may push that - or may even then think it better PR not to do so.

My statement relates to the Rossi stuff they have. They will undoubtedly (and correctly) say it does not work. Much more difficult for them to say anything about other Rossi stuff they have never been able to test for themselves...