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

Quote

It is interesting that we have a problem even if both ash samples were genuine. For the 2011 sample there is no viable reaction that could give excess energy! If the active reaction in Lugano were Ni-->62Ni (which would give some energy), one could conclude that the E-Cat and the Hot-Cat use completely different reactions for producing heat. How likely is it that Rossi has found not one but two different routes to LENR?

And yet another unlikelihood - suppose there is some reaction. It must be highly exothermic looking at the nucleon masses for the relevant possible nuclei. The energy released is some 10X higher than the highest possible even given errors from the Lugano measurements.

So we have that the isotopic analysis must be highly atypical of the whole sample, with most of the Ni not so converted, but that measured 99% converted. It is a matter of plausibility, which those who argue this isotopic evidence is somehow good ignore.

What gets me is we have all these different contraindications each of which is very strong and they are all independent - every one of these objections must somehow be disposed of in order for the isotopic results to be meaningful.

So, what has any of this got to do with “Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute”?

Just to remind us, this 'case' has now been transferred to a 'patent' court, and claims 'breach of licence and fraud' now, of critical importance are two things (1) The case is before a 'patent' court and (2) before a 'jury': It is not 'primarily about 'calibration' and whether a contributor to this forum is English speaking or not.

Below is a list of issues that I think this thread is about and it reflects Rossi's claim against IH et al.

A. That IH and IPH have breached the License Agreement:
B. That ROSSI and LEONARDO be awarded all damages adequate to compensate them for IH and IPH’s breach of the License Agreement; such damages to be determined by a jury;
C. That IH and IPH have been unjustly enriched by utilizing the E-Cat IP without compensating ROSSI and LEONARDO for use of the same;
D. That ROSSI and LEONARDO be awarded all damages adequate to compensate them for IH and IPH unjust enrichment occasioned by the use of ROSSI and LEONARDO’s intellectual property;
E. That IH, IPH, DARDEN, VAUGHN and CHEROKEE both conspired to misappropriate, and misappropriated ROSSI and LEONARDO’s trade secrets;
F. That ROSSI and LEONARDO be awarded all damages adequate to compensate them for the Defendants’ conspiracy and misappropriation of trade secrets, such damages to be determined by a jury;
G. That IH, IPH, DARDEN, VAUGHN and CHEROKEE engaged in fraud, and that IH, IPH, DARDEN and VAUGHN engaged in constructive fraud with the intent that ROSSI and LEONARDO rely upon their fraudulent statements and/or omissions to their detriment;
H. That ROSSI and LEONARDO be awarded damages adequate to compensate them for the Defendants’ fraud, such damages to be determined by a jury;
I. That IH and IPH have infringed upon ROSSI and LEONARDO’s U.S. Patent;
J. That ROSSI and LEONARDO be awarded all damages adequate to compensate them for IH and IPH’s infringement of the U.S. Patent, such damages to be determined by a jury;
K. That the damages awarded to ROSSI and LEONARDO for the patent infringement be trebled, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
L. That the case be declared an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. S285 and that ROSSI and LEONARDO be awarded their attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with this case;
M. That this Court enter a permanent injunction enjoining IH and IPH from continuing to infringe upon ROSSI and LEONARDO’s patent; and enjoining IH, IPH, DARDEN, VAUGHN and/or CHEROKEE from further disclosing any of ROSSI and LEONARDO’s trade secrets, including intellectual property, to any other party; and
N. That ROSSI and LEONARDO be awarded such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

See http://www.infinite-energy.com…ustrial-heat-lawsuit.html

However, In contract law, an illusory promise is one that courts will not enforce, so if Rossi's invention does not work it will be an illusory promise and dismissed I think.

Offer and acceptance are elements required for the formation of a legally binding contract. This is more complex, providing the courts do not throw out the case by identifying Rossi's invention as being 'illusory' then they will consider to what extent both Industrial Heat et al and Leonardo et al have 'complied with' or 'frustrated' the agreed arrangement.

So to summarise I think the court will rule :

(I) whether the invention works or not and therefore whether it is 'illusory'.
(ii) if the invention is judged not to be 'illusory' then to what extent Rossi's Claim that IH et al have 'frustrated the contract' unfairly and illegally and to what extent IH have any defence which of course we do not know what this might be at this stage because it has not been 'disclosed' in the 'court docket'. So speculation is useless until we know.

Best regards
Frank

Frank:

a) The issues about incorrect past tests surely are relevant to your (i)

b) The license requires all documents submitted about Rossi's technology (test reports I assume) to be "correct". Lack of correctness voids the contract. Surely that makes these test matters even more relevant though I'm not sure which documents, and hence tests, are so counted. Perhaps you'd like to comment.

c) Although we don't know the IH defence we can have a pretty good idea it will include that Rossi did not make reasonable efforts to help them get his stuff to work, and that it will include a claim that the long-term test is scientifically invalid. Perhaps you'd like to comment on how these two issues, if proven, affect (i) and (ii)?

d) It may include a claim that Rossi made the long-term test invalid deliberately and fraudulently - though I'd have thought that would be more difficult to prove and needed only if they want their $11M back. Perhaps you'd like to comment on whether for them to counter-claim this, they have to show Rossi fraudulent, or whether given the contract it would be enough to show the evidence he submitted to get the $11M is incorrect? I'm unclear on this point: but it should be a matter of law.

e) Those interested should note that the Canadian lawyer who looked at this stuff (frank linked above) viewed many of Rossi's claims against IH as legally very unlikely to have merit - based only on the claim itself and the license. Which is relevant information. Though of course he was not giving a formal opinion and not in possession of the facts.

Most of this stuff is and must be speculative, unlike the evaluation of past test merit.

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

and hence tests, are so counted. Perhaps you'd like to comment.

Perhaps, but under the contract both IH and Rossi agreed on a suitable arbiter, Penon. We will have to wait to see if IH bring into question Penons report, until they do it stands under the contract.

Now, if they question its authority, and I agree they may, that will be interesting on a number of fronts not least the 'alleged' fact that the interim reports were used to raise funds for IH, the question will then arise what changed IH's position.

Which part of my post above do you consider 'speculative'?

We can speculate as much as we like but wait to see if IH et al question the ERV report.

What this forum think will not matter, what the scientific community think, will not matter, what will matter is how the judge instructs the jury, and what the jury finally think in the course of giving their verdict. It is not unknown for a jury to misunderstand the Judge's instructions or to ignore them.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Longview

Do you have a source on that? One of the most notable features of Randombit0's writing is the flawless English (to my 6th through nth generation British Isles, N. American ears and eyes, anyway).

Admittedly, that was just speculation on my part. But the conclusion seems pretty likely to me; straightforward even.

Quote from frankwtu

It is not 'primarily about 'calibration' and whether a contributor to this forum is English speaking or not.

I find it very interesting when an unusual individual who knows something about electrical engineering appears on the scene as sort of a reverse MY, bearing the profile picture of someone else, speaking from an unusual familiarity with the details of the Lugano test and seeking to strike down technical statements left and right as though a gladiator in an arena. That raises my curiosity, and I want to know more. This forum is crawling with strange and unusual participants, many anonymous, some with a direct stake in the story that is unfolding. What is that stake, one wants to know, in order to better assess their statements. The matter of English was mentioned only to clarify one possible misunderstanding about a participant's identity, in which case it was relevant, but not otherwise.

Quote from frankwtu

We will have to wait to see if IH bring into question Penons report, until they do it stands under the contract.

It is for the courts to decide whether IH would be acting improperly to set aside the contract while the matter was adjudicated.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

5 second is all that is needed to do a substitution!

As I told You the testers provided their own sample (of which they took a probe). The test sample has been marked and they got it back.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

If I've mistaken this please let me know. The difference, known as the CREST FACTOR, can be up to 10 in Triode controlled waveforms as here.

Average current is between 40and 50 Amps (p. 3) according to the report --> thus peak is around 60-70 amps...(single phase, 80A three phases overlapping) Otherwise You have to proove how your assumption can be put in place without burning the power supply...But anyway this has "no" decisive influence on the dummy/fueled reactor test ratio!!

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The "calibration" was restricted to low temperatures. The "first ten days" run at a claimed temperature of 1250C , which was actually due to emissivity errors 700C. The rest of the test was claimed 1400C actual 780C. Please indicate where in the report the authors say they have calibrated this 1250C temperature reading? I believe you are mistaken, because I have read the report carefully and its says the TiO2 calibration dots can be used only at low temperatures:

Did You also take into account that the rods + the wires emmited more than 40% of the total input Watt heat? compared to 20% in test run?
I would suggest to use the rod temperature for a comparison. Interesting is Watts emmited by rods increased 300% but T Caps (on rod) only increased 25% but input power
has been doubled.. Thus the radiation heated the rods in a T-range where we dont need any discussion about the handling of the optris.

Just for the importance of this thread::

Ratio test/dummy > 2/1. This must not be prooven by calculation of the exact total emissivity. For this the relativ comparison is enough. Simply look at the rods.

If they overestimated emissivity by a factor of three then the ratio only goes back 2/1 not to 1:1 because the same over estimation (to a somewhat less extent) was also used to calculate the base values.

Here, there is no way Mr. Clark that You can somebody make claim that there was no LENR reaction with a COP of at least 2.

The only statement that holds and we all agree about: The test was not high level and thus we dont know the exact COP but we know it was certainly >= 2!

(Disclaimer: We assume that no fraud (testers side) was in place..)

Longview: "So, do you, anonymous, think Randombit9 is too good at EE to look that much like a model?"

No. But Ms. Friedson was an English major at university and English majors typically suck at current clamps and physics lab stuff; just like physics majors suck at grammar and spelling.

Quote

I really thinking stalking someone like this is just a tad creepy. It seems as if you are doing it (at least it in part) because the poster appears to be a woman - a dangerous woman who doesn't agree with you.

Alan:
(1) Please read my previous comments in this thread. you will see that I enjoyed replying to randombit0
(2) I made this point because two others were arguing about whether randombit0 was a native English speaker. I was just giving the obvious answer. I'm not terribly concerned with who randombit0 is.
(3) If there is any stalking here it would seem to be from people like Wyttenback and you who post rather aggressive comments directed at me and based on not having read the relevant stuff, or paid attention.

I'd agree though that maybe why randombit0's nationality was a topic of conversation could be because of the attractive female icon - unusual on this site. But that was not my instigation, and if you go back to my interaction with said poster, you will understand your comment is way off beam.

And the saga of weirdness continues...

Eric Walker

Please explain, why do you think randombit0 is not the owner of the icon, bear in mind this could be quite a serious accusation if this is what you are claiming. If you are of course claiming this then I think you must say why you believe this and produce evidence otherwise you of all people will I think be adding to the fog , not helping to dissipate it.

It will of course be quite easy to email Ms Friedland and ask her.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Wyttenbach

Average current is between 40and 50 Amps (p. 3) according to the report --> thus peak is around 60-70 amps...(single phase, 80A three phases overlapping) Otherwise You have to proove how your assumption can be put in place without burning the power supply...But anyway this has "no" decisive influence on the dummy/fueled reactor test ratio!!

OK - so you get this wrong because you assume the waveform driving the heater is a sine wave. BTW where the report says average current it is a misnomer - in such an ac system average is always 0. From the equation used they must mean RMS current. They make a few other minor mistakes, but not significant. Back to the main point - you need only work out the RMS value of a waveform to see that the spiky waveform they use from triodes will have a very high crest factor. (Even higher if you work out average current - but that would be silly).

Quote

the same over estimation (to a somewhat less extent) was also used to calculate the base values.

See below for more details. But the error was corrected for the dummy test by using reference dot calibration. This is thus correct. It is a very small amount of the higher temperature (1250C) test power that is at the low (calibrated <380C) temperatures, because the power increases as T^4.

Quote

Did You also take into account that the rods + the wires emitted more than 40% of the total input Watt heat? compared to 20% in test run?I would suggest to use the rod temperature for a comparison. Interesting is Watts emmited by rods increased 300% but T Caps (on rod) only increased 25% but input power has been doubled.. Thus the radiation heated the rods in a T-range where we dont need any discussion about the handling of the optris.

This comment tries my patience.

(1) The report authors could only calculate power out from temperature, which they miscalculate. So you can't use power out figures to determine the correct temperature!

(2) The rods + wires emit a small amount (maybe 10%) of the total claimed output heat. And you cannot suppose that they are accurately calculated. The temperature will vary from that of the reactor body to low, the hot parts will emit much more power since radiant power scales as T^4, and those hot parts will be miscalculated just as the main body is.

Quote

If they overestimated emissivity by a factor of three then the ratio only goes back 2/1 not to 1:1 because the same over estimation (to a somewhat less extent) was also used to calculate the base values.

I left out some stuff before this comment, because it becomes irrelevant when you understand the error here.

You think the error is proportional to the emissivity error. That would be true if this was an error in estimated power. But it is an error in estimated temperature. The effect on power is much more complex:The temperature scales as roughly emissivity to the power of -0.5. The output power then varies as Temperature ^4. Both these figures are approximate, and it is Kelvin not Centigrade that you must use. But for a very rough calculation you can see that the power varies as the inverse square of the band emissivity. 2.25X error in band emissivity leads to a 5X error in output power. This is then reduced by the fact that the total emissivity is higher at the real (lower) temperature.

There is no error in the dummy calculations because they used correct figures from calibration.

When you work this out (please read my comment for the details, and run the code yourself) you will see it beautifully matches.

Thomas

Now, this is a thread to discuss the dispute between Rossi and IH and particularly issues which might be made clearer. It will be considered in court and the jurors (ordinary citizens) will need to understand the issues well enough to make a ruling.

I don't think you are helping, do you?

Best regards
Frank

franktwu, at the risk of continuing an off topic thread, which I think nonetheless pertinent, I've laid out the case for why I think the profile is not genuine in previous posts. Perhaps you disagree with my reasoning. I agree that the matter is potentially a serious one, for the question of identity theft comes up. This is part of the reason I took interest. I would be upset if someone used my profile picture on a forum. It makes sense to approach Ms. Friedson directly and obtain clarification; I only worry about dragging LENR Forum into a potential legal risk.

Quote

Thomas
Now, this is a thread to discuss the dispute between Rossi and IH and particularly issues which might be made clearer. It will be considered in court and the jurors (ordinary citizens) will need to understand the issues well enough to make a ruling.I don't think you are helping, do you?
Best regardsFrank;

Well Wyttenbach is challenging what I thought had been settled long ago - and making false arguments here. If he moves his challenge to the other thread with a rediect from here I'll be happy to follow?

The integrity of the Lugano test is pretty clearly central to the legal arguments. It is also happily factual, not speculative. People making false statements about it is liable to mislead others. I'm sure Wyttenbach is only doing this because he has not read the prior work, but it is important that he understands these issues.

Moderators

Do you have a view on this? Guidance etc. I do not wish to request censure of Eric but since he has suggested randombit0 is using an icon belonging to someone else, my concern is what protection can LENR forum offer to Ms Frieden for potential unwanted attention if what Eric says is true. Of course I do not wish you to discuss this here but perhaps deal with this in a sensitive manner.

Thanks
Frank

Thomas

Thankfully the outcome of the case will not depend on whether we are 'off topic' or can agree to disagree whether here or anywhere else, It will depend on the judge understanding this case in terms of law, information property and patent; how that relates to the accusation of 'fraud', misappropriation of 'intellectual property' and 'breach of contract.

Now, many wish to create as much 'fog' as they possibly can. There are two issues with that.
(I) if the jurors are influenced, the judge will seek to replace them, since they must only take into consideration the 'evidence' placed before them in court.
(ii) if the judge himself/herself cannot be convinced Rossi's invention 'works' due to the disagreement in the scientific community then he may instruct the jury to consider the invention 'illusory'; at that point the trial will be abandoned as the law will not consider the contract (on which the case rests) to be 'safe'.

My understanding is that you Thomas will expect the Judge to rule Rossi's invention to be 'illusory', If he does not, you and your fellow 'sceptics' will have lost (in law) and the LENR 'believers' will be vindicated.

We must wait and see.

Best regards
Frank

Quote

My understanding is that you Thomas will expect the Judge to rule Rossi's invention to be 'illusory', If he does not, you and your fellow 'sceptics' will have lost (in law) and the LENR 'believers' will be vindicated.

The Law will do what it does, and I'm not part of this case. All I really want is for facts to be clarified. Whether the court action (if it even happens, which seems not very likely) will try to do that who can tell?

Quote

I think not Thomas, and almost every word above proves it. And if you can't see why, then shame on you. I thought this kind of patronising crap disappeared long ago.

Whereas your sort of abusive crap is of course timeless?

I treated randombit as I would anyone who says things here that are not true. I used her name because she so addressed me. And I respect the stated sex of people here, whatever their real sex may be. Thus MY was always she though in reality he.

Hi all, hope that you had a nice Saturday. First of all I changed my icon so you will stop making an OT discussion. Then reading among your posts I have understood one important point.

Quote from frankwtu

Now, this is a thread to discuss the dispute between Rossi and IH and particularly issues which might be made clearer. It will be considered in court and the jurors (ordinary citizens) will need to understand the issues well enough to make a ruling.

So we are NOT discussing of science here.
I think that in this case the Jurors must be warned that too many people in this forum seem to have a stake and too many seem not expert of the field.

I would like to write about Science. Just Science. So Mr. Clarke are you ready ?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The integrity of the Lugano test is pretty clearly central to the legal arguments. It is also happily factual, not speculative. People making false statements about it is liable to mislead others. I'm sure Wyttenbach is only doing this because he has not read the prior work, but it is important that he understands these issues.

The aim of Your former work was to disspove a LENR reaction at all. IF we follow your arguments, then we see only worst cases, and if the facts dissprove your arguments, then you simpliy blame people not beeing able to estimate the rods emissivity but the dummy run they did all right...

This sounds great for people witch have no access to the Lugano report, but for me its simple spinning.

The rod is calculated in detail within page 19 of the report. And if they did the dummy run OK - this is your statement - then, for teh rod, you have no "optris arguments" for the full run...

One more thing: If you look at the PCE830 output on page 6, you can clearly see that only 1/3 of the time power is running into the system. Thus the average (Watts!) is proportional to about 1/5 of the peak current.

If You can't explain why the rods produce 3x more Watt'age, without blaming other people, then let it be.

Bdw. I have read most of Your post's and they sound plausible, but as a spin-doctor You look only at things which help Your arguments. But rods are a hard stuff...