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

    Bob


    There is a third option; if Rossi's claims are true, that IH built a working reactor without his help, that might suggest IH has the IP and expertise. I understand Rossi is claiming IH built the Lugano reactor.


    If the Lugano test results are thrown out by the court as 'invalid' in this case this might be negative for Rossi's case, but if they are not then the spotlight turns to IH and the question arises 'are they not being truthful about their 'without success' claim. If they press ahead with this then it will be necessary for them to discredit the Lugano test and perhaps the 3 monthly and annual ERV report; which of course will be interesting in itself.


    I don't think they will do that, the most likely scenario is that both parties believe the Rossi Effect invention works but that Rossi is in breach of contract by not supplying IP and assistance or IH are not being truthful about their claims; could go either way!


    Best regards
    Frank

    • Official Post
    Quote from BobHiggins

    IF IH is truthful in their claim that they cannot make any of Rossi's technology work


    IH never said AFAIK 'it doesn't work'. What they said was they were 'unable to substantiate his claims'. This could for example mean that it was working but COP of 5 not 50 which AR told them it would achieve. Slippery things, worms and their precise meanings.

    Frank - your theory is very interesting. Rossi first has to survive the hearing that determines whether his lawsuit is legit or not. What the 'Rossi effect" actually stands for will be determined by the outcome of this court battle. I can share with you that IH is in no mood to settle right now. If Rossi decides that his long term prospects might be improved with a settlement offer then IH has been saying all along that 100 watts excess heat and a COP of 6 would be acceptable on a fully vetted system. For the record, that will not be a 1 year test using the systems and techniques invented on Planet Rossi.

    @ Dewey Weaver


    Was that ever included in the contract? it sounds to me what you are saying is that IH will not accept the ERV report as evidence of a fully vetted system. Have they indicated this in writing anywhere, i.e. that the ERV report is not evidence of 'fully vetted' and described what is evidence; and agreed this with Rossi, If Rossi is unaware of this 'formally' then it is unlikely to form part of the 'contract'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law


    Best regards
    Frank

    Frank - Let's go back to the step before that - the IP transfer which didn't happen. The problems start there and will become fully evident if this gets to trial.


    Next let's move to the 1 year 1MW test. Are you saying that Rossi gets to determine whether the test was a success or failure based on the Penon report? You have no idea what has been conveyed in writing but Rossi and Penon surely do.

    Looks like this is getting some attention based on who is showing up. The last time couple of times that IH got to start sharing information the plug got pulled. First by Mats then by Frank.


    I'm hopeful that the moderators on this board have more balance and are more interested in both sides of the story.

    Frank - We're in agreement regarding your statement that it will be up to the court to interpret the contract.


    I think that visibility will improve when the Penon report and supporting data can be reviewed by more of the interested parties on both sides of this matter. There will still be fog but not as much of it when that happens. I don't have any idea about timing yet - we'll see what happens.

    Dewey


    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    I think that visibility will improve when the Penon report and supporting data can be reviewed by more of the interested parties on both sides of this matter.


    Both sides and their interested parties (attorney's) in the dispute already know the contents of the ERV report. We are not in the 'need to know' list.


    You mentioned IH has shared information, my guess is that the moderators here would be just as excited about that as anything else at the moment, do you have anything that would 'reduce the fog in the meantime' in particular anything from IH.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Alan

    Quote from Alan Smith

    IH never said AFAIK 'it doesn't work'. What they said was they were 'unable to substantiate his claims'. This could for example mean that it was working but COP of 5 not 50 which AR told them it would achieve.


    Okay, if this is the case then the court will have to decide if it is 'reasonable' for IH to attach conditions that are 'additional' to the contract and that these conditions were 'agreed' between all parties, they will of course require evidence which is likely to be in the form of 'written evidence'. Alternatively they will need to confirm this was indeed part of the 'contract'. I understand the contract says a COP >6 and refers to the authority of the ERV report.


    So where are these new requirements and did anyone tell Rossi?


    Best regards
    Frank

    Quote from BobH

    If Rossi really has a working technology, then this whole drama could be eliminated by going back and working closely with IH's engineers to make the technology understood and reproduced within their staff. I hope the courts order exactly that. If Rossi is uncomfortable with releasing his "secret"; too late - he should never have signed the license agreement and accepted the $11M.


    While this is true, it is possible to be more precise.


    If Rossi has working technology and is even half rational:

    • He will at least be prepared to give IH something working as well as what he gave the testers for the Lugano test (which was itself an IH replication).
    • That must have been Rossi's best shot at something that works (since lots of money for him rested on the test result)


    Therefore if IH say they cannot get Rossi's stuff to work, either:
    (1) They are lying
    or
    (2) Rossi is not even half rational
    or
    (3) Rossi's stuff does not work


    While (2) is tempting, (3) seems almost certain from this argument. I don't believe that Rossi would turn down the possibility of so much money easily.

    Frank - Rossi launched a concerted PR war when he filed his lawsuit against IH.
    His plan was mainly a slash and burn hyper-conspiracy slant that slandered some folks but actually seems to have backfired on him. Everyone will have their own opinion there.


    As a next step - can we establish a little more clarity around who you actually are? If you're not comfortable with that them pls. just say so.


    Thx,
    Dewey

    Thomas


    (1) If IH are lying, Rossi is likely to win although I don't discount many complexities
    (2) Rossi is not even half rational - the court will not be interested in Rossi's rationality, they will be interested in facts in two distinct areas (I) the Patents and Information property - are they valid, which I suspect you think they are not. (ii) the contract. They may conclude (a) if the Patents and Information Technology are not 'safe' the contract is invalid then everyone will loose. (b) the Patents and information technology is 'safe' i.e. the Rossi Effect is 'real', but there has been a 'breach of contract'. If they rule there has been a 'breach of contract' they may rule against Rossi or they may rule against IH et al or both.
    (3) Rossi's stuff does not work - If The court rule the Patents and IP is worthless i.e. 'they do not work' and 'they are not or will not be useful' then this opens the door to further claims from people who have incurred 'damages' for example Woodford and the alleged Chinese investors all of whom could then theoretically sue both IH et al and Rossi.


    So to me, both of the actors in this little game have most to loose if your scenario (3) is correct so I disagree with you, I think your Bayesian logic has let you down on this one.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Dewey


    The court will not be interested in PR wars except if any information from such PR wars reaches the jury they will be instructed to ignore it. If the judge thinks they are unable to ignore it he/she will dismiss the effected jurors and call for new jurors who have not been so influenced. If after taking precautions the Judge cannot prevent the Jury being 'influenced' he/she will call a 're trial. There is no advantage to any side in propagating a PR war and there are distinct disadvantages one of which is 'contempt of court' which may carry a prison sentence.


    Best regards
    Frank

    • Official Post
    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    that will not be a 1 year test using the systems and techniques invented on Planet Rossi.



    Dewey,


    Now we are getting somewhere. I gather from this comment of yours, along with another that the 1MW plant used for the 1 year test was padlocked by both IH and Rossi, that IH is convinced Rossi's test set-up was not valid through either incompetence or outright fraud. And the ERVs report, which IMO is most likely positive, was therefore DOA.


    That is not a big revelation as the same has been said elsewhere, but it does seem to indicate IH feels Penon was either complicit with Rossi in joining him on "planet Rossi", or incompetent in his duties as an independent expert by not ensuring the test was conducted in such a way that the results could be trusted by both parties.


    Also, regarding the question Hank Mills just asked in response to your comment about transfer, or lack thereof, of the IP; kind of confusing, as it seems IH should argue one way (IP), or the other (test rigged)...not both. So which is it? If you argue the IP wasn't transferred, you are implying the 1MW works because you think the IP has value. If you argue the test was rigged, or scientifically worthless, the IP is worthless anyways, so why would IH care in that case?

    • Official Post

    there are few question for which I think I have the answer, but different from many people discussing on that subject.


    1- does the required IP transfer included in the contract applies to COP50, Ecat-X, SSM and Quark technology
    2- are companies working with IH, on others LENR technology, considered as competitor of Rossi
    3- did IH share valuable trade-secret with those companies, that was not already published on JoNP or in patents or in lugano test.
    4- can IH share valuable know-how or trade secret with it's own partners, even if considered as competitors of Rossi ?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.