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

  • AlainCo


    As I understand IH does not own Rossi's IP, but have a license on it, to use it in some territory.


    Yes, I can see that now, thanks, my error.


    Dewey


    IH would like something besides a lawsuit in return for the $11.5M paid to Rossi and will get it one way or another.


    Does this mean, IH think Rossi has something? And if they do; can you foresee IH and Rossi 'cooperating once again? And if they cooperate, will Rossi get his $89 million? This sounds suspiciously like an 'out of court settlement' you are inferring, am I right?


    If there is an out of court settlement, can we infer that the 'something' that IH want is 'rights' and 'full knowhow' to the 'Rossi Effect' and if that is so can we (and the rest of the world) infer the 'Rossi Effect' is 'real'?


    Best regards
    Frank

  • @ Thomas Clarke


    I apologize for being so dismissive. Out of all of LENR's indefatigable detractors, you are by far the most polite, respectful, thoughtful and patient, and I do believe your response to my questions deserves a substantive rejoinder. Currently I don't have time, but I will get to it...! I think your point about binary assumptions is very much on target. But based on everything we have heard so far from IH insiders, I believe that assumption has a lot of support. But I'll have more to say when I find the time for a full response.


    For now I will say that it seems clear to me (and I know I'm not alone) that the real issue at the heart of this lawsuit is that Rossi has not transferred all of his know-how (IP) to IH (and Dewey basically said as much ITT), and they are withholding final payment as leverage to have him tell them the rest. And you know what? If I was in IH's shoes, I would be pissed about that as well, since the contract clearly (to me) says that he has to tell them everything he knows. So in this scenario I can totally see where they are coming from. (But Rossi might also have good reasons for withholding, beyond his fear that they will share it with their partners like Brillouin). The main claim that I am incredulous about is the one where IH was never able to get the e-cat to produce (significant) excess heat. (And as much as some here still think that 'not substantiate' is a slippery word without precise meaning, it has been clarified by both Dewey and Jed Rothwell as meaning that they have never been able to get any excess heat from the e-cat, which I pointed out in my original post linked to at the top of the thread.)


    But on top of withholding payment, it seems to me that IH is playing hardball by engaging in a concerted effort (or as Dewey has called it, a PR war) to completely discredit Rossi's technology and ruin whatever is left of his reputation. Indeed, Dewey made a veiled threat that they might really start a campaign of character assassination that, apparently, could even invalidate his patents. So they're not just withholding payment as leverage, they've brought out the big guns (plus the pea shooters trolling the internet) and are threatening to utterly destroy him. Dewey's multiple hints on Mats' blog that Rossi is going to pull the health card during trial could also be viewed as a veiled threat, but we needn't go there. Rossi is either completely and irrevocably detached from reality, or he's got nerves of steel and grapefruit-sized cojones.


    Of course they'd prefer to work with him, as Alain has stated, but they tried that and it didn't work -- at least not to their satisfaction. And ultimately they don't need him, since they've got the license and eventually they'll be able to put together something based on Rossi's technology that they can market, assuming they are not deliberately delaying this tech breakthrough.


    BTW Thomas, I would be happy to hear your substantive critique of Miles's work on PI, but I think it is just WAY too off topic for this thread, as it really doesn't have anything to do with how his theory relates to LENR (which itself is off topic as it is). Feel free to e-mail me at the address given in the paper above if you want to say more about PI. But any comments you have about how his theory relates to LENR belongs here, I think (or in another thread), though you can feel free to e-mail those instead if you like.

  • Seems odd that Brillouin would be fishing for tips on getting a glowstick type reactor to trigger excess heat (me356: Reactor parameters) if they were NOT given Rossi IP, eh?


    It seems normal to follow what is said on other LENR technologies, competitors , partners, or simply others.
    Rossi admitted himself he read Brillouin's patents.
    it is also useful to read other's patent, to check you don't infringe anything, or you don't have a patentable improvement.


    Note that the cited remark refers to a point where Brillouin is very proud of full on/off control.

  • Hank wrote:

    I'm simply hoping that we can somehow figure out the enigmatic riddle as to why a few replicators achieve astounding and amazing results while the majority produce little to no excess heat whatsoever.


    It is only a riddle if you start from the premise that large false positives don't exist. That is disproven by a number of Rossi's tests which have proven large false positives. (The rest just have very likely large false positives). Such things can happen easily - and whereas a large negative error will immediately be checked and the mistake found, a large positive error can be seen as LENR without such careful checking.


    Quote

    Shane D said, "Tom,Instead of "cutting through the fog", you managed to make it even thicker."


    Only for those who, like you, pay no attention to the test results.




    hank wrote:

    Thomas You said:(1) The premise here was that IH was not lying (see above). And it is the simplest assumption - anything else is libelous. Disagree, what about your assumption Rossi is lying?


    I have never assumed Rossi is lying. Merely stated that he has been consistently unreliable in generating false positive tests which he no doubt believes. it is surely simpler to think that the ERV test is the same as the others, than that IH are lying.


    hank wrote:

    (2) You speculate as to what the Court will conclude when the only comment from a lawyer I have seen makes the point that most such cases never get to Court. And you don't speculate on scientific matters even though you are not a scientist?


    The technical matters I judge are within my expertise, and I provide detailed reasons which can be critiqued by others. If the legal matters you judge are within yours, then well and good, but you have not stated that, nor have you given legal arguments.


    in fact the only lawyer to have looked at this and published agrees with my (uninformed) speculation as to the law - that Rossi basically has not a leg to stand on here and is trying it on. (I did read the link you posted before you posted it :) )


    frank wrote:

    (3) Whether IH lose from this action or no is irrelevant here, they did not start it. Disagree


    Would you care to give reasons? The issue is whether the fact of the action and the IH reply makes Rossi having working product more or less likely? Please explain the relevance?






    Quote

    (4) You argue that Rossi is likely to have something because he would not take this step (the legal action) if he had nothing. This is not logical. On many different grounds! (I could expand). No I have not, but I have speculated on a number of opposing hypotheses.


    Speculation is free - and by adding complexity and supposed deceit you can always makes the business facts of any legal action fit whichever side you like.


    My point is a simple one which does indeed get lost in BBK's and Shane's "fog". Rossi's tests have always been highly flaky, the only independent tests (Hydrofusion and Lugano) show no excess heat. Rossi himself is known to favour measurement methods that give COP= X2.5 or so from electric heaters. These statements are proven scientific fact.


    In this context IH saying the same thing, and insiders saying that Darden gave investors very strong caveats about Rossi investment - viewing it effectively as a long odds gamble - is consistent.


    Where is the fog other than in the eyes of Rossi wannabe believers?


    BBCK wrote:

    That is Tom's Job

    You are stating that it is my "job" to post here in a way that confuses others. I take that as insulting and obviously untrue. You may not like or agree with what I'm saying, but I do not deliberately obfuscate. I'd like you to withdraw that personal and derogatory comment. I have a pretty thick skin but since your only contribution to this thread has been to make sarky comments insulting me you increase the noise and we'd be well off without you.

  • @joshg - in the interim - a reply to teh partial comment you did make:

    Quote

    For now I will say that it seems clear to me (and I know I'm not alone) that the real issue at the heart of this lawsuit is that Rossi has not transferred all of his know-how (IP) to IH (and Dewey basically said as much ITT), and they are withholding final payment as leverage to have him tell them the rest. And you know what? If I was in IH's shoes, I would be pissed about that as well, since the contract clearly (to me) says that he has to tell them everything he knows. So in this scenario I can totally see where they are coming from.


    That is indeed the only way you can argue for Rossi's device actually working, against IH statements. My point would be that there is no other evidence for Rossi's device working: the tests have all been thoroughly discredited - Rossi has over and over refused to correct defects in tests - the very few independent tests have been negative.


    Quote

    (But Rossi might also have good reasons for withholding, beyond his fear that they will share it with their partners like Brillouin).


    There are a few difficulties to this idea: not enough to rule it out (the test evidence is decisive here, not speculation about motives). (1) Rossi claims to have patent protection. (2) The license agreement which Rossi agreed and almost certainly wanted allows IH to use the tech in the licensed territories for a large up-front payment. Rossi can still make billions with the tech in Europe. And I don't know about you, but it is pretty obvious to me that Rossi wanted that large up-front payment, which he clearly would prejudice by not obeying the license.


    Quote

    The main claim that I am incredulous about is the one where IH was never able to get the e-cat to produce (significant) excess heat. (And as much as some here still think that 'not substantiate' is a slippery word without precise meaning, it has been clarified by both Dewey and Jed Rothwell as meaning that they have never been able to get any excess heat from the e-cat, which I pointed out in my original post linked to at the top of the thread.)


    I agree with you, the IH statement is clear - it always was but many quoted without the "all" qualification that strengthen's its meaning.


    Your incredulity would be based on either the record of Rossi tests - all of which are discredited and in such a way as to make it more likely Rossi has nothing than something - or in Darden's initial enthusiasm. That is a double standard - he is an LENR beleiever and while more cautious than the ECW fan-group he will just as much see the enormous possible gain and be optimistic about that in the absence of disproof. I see the long string of independent tests especially Lugano as giving Darden much confidence (but without his losing sight of the negatives). Of course accurate technical evaluation of these tests requires that you get an evaluator with the right collection of expertise and a willingness to look hard at the experiment. That is not an easy ask.

  • Shane D - we had our eyes wide open going in. The license fee to Rossi opened up entire sector. IH would like something besides a lawsuit in return for the $11.5M paid to Rossi and will get it one way or another.



    Dewey,


    I think you are a bit hard on "believers", which is why I made my comment. Especially so since you guys (IH) are technically believers also, taking it to new heights actually, by investing millions in Rossi. Yes, you went in eyes wide open, but most of us did also, but lacked access to the inner sanctum, so to speak, to make solid judgement. So we started keying on your actions. As long as you seemed happy, we were happy, and Rossi still, possibly, had something.


    The day believers began jumping ship from the SS Rossi, was the day IH put out that press release...the first clear signs that things were not well. The exodus increased with IH's response to the suit, new tales of his brand new shiny toy (Ecat-Quark), to where now, even in Ecat la-la land (ECW), skepticism is common, and true believers few.


    So give us just a little slack. :)


    Take care.

  • Shane D - I missed your slant - with apologies. I fully believe that LENR is a real phenom and have seen many positive events that bring only encouragement. The challenge is to fully characterize the reactors and measurement systems then verify to a point where confidence levels are beyond reproach. We're talking 5 to 6 sigma. We've witnessed several amazing reactions that turned out to be explainable or were actually still "in the noise" once all data was considered. The replicators are all working with limited resources and equipment and need to be careful with their claims. I personally would love nothing better than for a replicator to find something that works. There are many smart folks giving it a go on their own dime - what is there not to love about that. Another personal opinion, I think that Rossi may have had a small amount of excess heat back in the Focardi days. I don't want replicators to spend time on those reaction configurations because I'm only speculating but Focardi had integrity.


    One last comment - it is painful to watch Rossi's pseudo-logic and abnormal view of the world unfold thru his online comments. He really doesn't seem to understand how many things work. He seems to have somehow convinced himself, along with many of his imaginery friends, that his invention works and that his contrived methodologies are good enough to convince others / save the world. He is only making a bigger mess and digging a deeper hole for himself. I hope that he can come to his senses and wise up before things get much worse for him. We're talking about the "Rossi Effect redefined".

  • Thomas


    Speculation is free - and by adding complexity and supposed deceit you can always makes the business facts of any legal action fit whichever side you like.


    I agree, I think a more than healthy proportion of our contributions leads to confusion, we should wait and see. I know Rossi is complaining of 'fraud' on the part of IH et al. I would be persuaded towards some of your arguments if IH were to accuse Rossi of fraud in their response, or press for 'impeachment' placing his character on trial.


    I keep an open mind.


    Best regards
    Frank


    PS: Yes I have some background in law and the courts.

  • Sifferkoll wrote:

    Strange. First, he argues that WE have no idea what the ERV report says. Then, he says that HE dont know it himself either. Then it turns out it is in the neighborhood after all …


    Not to mention ignoring the fact, and trying to marginalize, of the signed License Agreement that clearly states the ERV report determining success or not. COP~50 is a huge success, regardless of which dim sum lunch Mr. Weaver had …


    Sifferkoll: my I suggest that you consider possibilities?


    Here for example: what makes sense of Weaver's comments is if the ERV result is provably wrong.


    (1) There is a clause about correctness in the license agreement which I'd hope means therefore that a provable incorrect test proves nothing. It would be weird were that not true?


    (2) Rossi has past form in this area. Have you counted how many of Rossi's previous tests were provably incorrect? (Hint - they are all probably incorrect - in the sense that either the tester is known to have deliverd past incorrect measurements, or the assumptions made to get the positive result are provably unsafe.


    As you say, we will see. But I really would not count on this test being different from the others.

  • Tom,


    I think Sifferkoll's point is that Dewey's lack of detailed knowledge of the situation, and occasional contradictory comment about certain things, casts doubt on his claim to be an IH insider. I think he does make a case for that using Dewey's very own words. The thought has occurred to me before this.


    Actually, with all I have read over the years to feed my addiction to this story...I wouldn't have any problem playing a better insider than Dewey! Frank could do the same. You too. When you get down to it, there is nothing he has said I couldn't have said -in many cases better, sounding very much like I was Darden's pal. I surely would have known why everyone was talking about this COP50 thing!


    Hopefully Dewey understands this is not an insult, but simply common sense to not trust identities, or claims, on the net. Trust but verify, and so far there has been no verification. Until that happens, no trust. ;) That said, I do like to read him.

  • Thanks Shane - You guys make your own decisions. Yep - I don't know everything but my comments are sure having an interesting impact at the crux of the biscuit.


    Sifferkoll has his agenda which is to support his investment that he apparently thinks puts him in conflict with IH.


    We'll see how that wave breaks.

  • Dewey,


    I don't think you should mock those who took Rossi on his word as you have done, and then take offense when we don't trust you on yours. Do you?


    If you are who you claim, then you will take this as a challenge to go do your homework, learn everything, *really* read the ERV report, and feed us info only an insider would know. If you are a imposter, like so many before, you will play it for all it is worth, see how many you can fool, and when satiated...disappear.


    That said, I hope you stick around.

  • Quote

    I think Sifferkoll's point is that Dewey's lack of detailed knowledge of the situation, and occasional contradictory comment about certain things, casts doubt on his claim to be an IH insider.


    Well Dewey claims to be an investor and therefore privy to more info than us - but not an IH super-insider. And his very imperfectness, for me, is plausible. Take what he says with a pinch of salt as always, and ignore his speculation, as always. But while you can make a story for the facts he has brought to the table being lies the simplest case (usually true) is that they are more or less true.


    As far as elaborate spin - IH has no motivation to spin this matter using lies. It would in the end backfire and for them a relationship with the LENR community is important. But for the same reason seeing Rossi's words go unchallenged when they represent such a distortion of the truth would be hard - not surprising we get a few people from their mouthing off.


    I generally reckon people tell the truth more often than lie. Even Rossi - if you factor in his mistaken apprehension that flawed tests are ok and give correct answers - evidenced spectacularly by Mats ages ago - does not exactly have to be lying - just spinning things the way people do. I've noticed this about Rossi.