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

Quote from Shane D.

Well, the brilliant Rossi has done a good job protecting his IP going on 9 years. This great strategy of his has bought him some cheap Miami Beach rental units -thanks to IH, along with the headaches of being a slumlord, and NO viable patent (IP), with the one useless exception of a standard fluid heater, when he could have made billions going to GE 9 years ago.

I keep reading Rossi is a genius. Still waiting to see how.

Rossi does not want to work for GE, he wants to replace GE with his own company and not make the same mistakes that Edison and Tesla made.

Quote from axil

Rossi's goal is to keep his IP confidential until he patents it. He let's IP out to get investment funding but as little IP revelation as possible.

Rossi's business case is not advanced by revealing his IP to you or me.

The problem with this is that his IP can ONLY be protected by disclosure. Anything NOT disclosed is NOT protected in US patent law anyway.

Quote

Here's the thing. A well-designed test of a device of a suitable size, planned in cooperation with sympathetic skeptics, will require at most a few days to demonstrate conclusively that a chemical source can be ruled out. That some of us have followed this story since 2011 is a testament to Rossi's ingenuity for drawing things out, if nothing else.

No-one can deny his ability as a showman: and in LENR he has found his perfect audience with a real heartfelt desire to believe if at all possible, and an agenda of "saving the planet".

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

No-one can deny his ability as a showman: and in LENR he has found his perfect audience with a real heartfelt desire to believe if at all possible, and an agenda of "saving the planet".

Show time will soon be over, the courts will decide. Then you will be able to say: "told you so, its all an 'illusion'" or "well it might be real but no one can make it work 'commercially' and its unsafe anyway"

We must all wait and see, not long now!!.

Best regards
Frank

Quote

Just curious. Is this a scientific judgement of yours or just another ad-hominem conspiracy theory?

It is an engineering judgement. I think most people would reckon such a source of excess heat could be tested fairly quickly, with good equipment and will. We are not talking about marginal results, or inferred heat from temperature in which there are many uncertainties, but real large-scale heat production. Therefore simple bomb-proof techniques could be used and easily achieve 20% accuracy with no possibility of artifacts. The favoured method would be a water-cooled vessel in which the water is recirculated from a well stirred large cistern. Temperature rise in the cistern would indicate excess heat. Total pump and stirring power could easily be measured and kept much smaller than the heat increase. Temperature loss could also be made much smaller than the heat increase with insulation. Therefore we have an unambiguous measurement (heat increase in a large cistern of well-stirred water) that proves excess heat generation with no possible positive artifacts.

Heat loss calibration, etc, could make such a system much more accurate - at the expense of adding possible artifacts. But if the accuracy is not needed simple wins the day.

I don't get the conspiracy theory reference?

Rossi signed an IP license agreement and took $$ in exchange. He is committed by contract to teach and exchange the contracted IP to the licensee. If he doesn't deliver the IP and / or fails to teach the licensee adequately then contract issues come into play. In addition, have you noticed that the "Customer" arrangement isn't even part of the contract?

Quote

Rossi signed an IP license agreement and took $$ in exchange. He is committed by contract to teach and exchange the contracted IP to the licensee. If he doesn't deliver the IP and / or fails to teach the licensee adequately then contract issues come into play.

That is always what I have (naively) thought likely - reading the license agreement.

Quote

In addition, have you noticed that the "Customer" arrangement isn't even part of the contract?

Yes, the $89M payment is for guaranteed operation of the plant over 350 days. No customer. But for Rossi, the "customer" was a PR advantage, making many at the time (though not me) believe that therefore the plant must be working.

Hi Sifferkoll,

Quote from Sifferkoll

Just curious. Is this a scientific judgement of yours or just another ad-hominem conspiracy theory?

What is it with you and conspiracy theories? I'd really like to understand what these theories are you see in my posts? But I guess you see conspiracy theories in quite a lot of stuff, reading your blog...

Both statements are observations. Rossi does indeed spend a lot of time on his blog and with demos creating a good show for his audience, and his audience (see ECW comments) really wants to believe, and also sees LENR as a way in which the world can be saved.

Surely none of this is contentious? Do you disagree? If so with which bit?

Quote from sifferkoll

Just curious. Is this a scientific judgement of yours or just another ad-hominem conspiracy theory?

It is not a scientific judgment of mine, in that I don't know what would make it "scientific" (or not scientific) on my part, without being loose with language. It is a judgment of mine on the basis of simple considerations of physics. Consider a 1 liter volume of kerosene, and set it on fire. Kerosene has one of the highest chemical energy densities. It will all burn off fairly quickly and yield a certain amount of heat. Measure the heat using calorimetry of the kind Tom mentions. Now take a 1 liter E-Cat, and let it yield 1000 times more heat than was produced when the kerosene was burned, taking care about the input power that is needed. Once you've got a net heat in the live run, subtracting input power, that surpasses that of the kerosene by two or three or four orders of magnitude, what you have is not a chemical source and must be something other than chemical. This should not take too long if the E-Cat has a COP of 50, or of 6. Perhaps on the order of days. (An actual test would use a resistance heater as the control rather than a liter of kerosene.)

None of this is controversial. Many on Vortex would (and do) agree. A year-long 1 MW test was difficult to understand in more than one way. It didn't need to be anywhere near one year, and it didn't need to involve anywhere near 1 MW. It reminds me of ITER, or RAR, moving to a large scale before things have been fully demonstrated at a small scale. Rossi is a bit of a cipher, and he surely has his reasons. If one is generous, one might wonder whether his primary purpose was to investigate those details relevant to commercialization such as durability and output, with demonstrating a COP to IH being a nice secondary result.

Ad hominem is an argument that is "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." Can you clarify?

Sifferkoll

I particularly liked you link: sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/lenr-…icense-agreement-leaches/ the following quote (hope you don't mind) I think reflects the situation admirably:

We have now entered the fighting phase. As Mahatma Gandhi said First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Best regards
Frank

Sifferkoll - your voice is becoming as weak as your logic. Your spin, attack and misinformation tactics are tired.

Rossi sued IH as part of his escape strategy to another set of investors (he should patent that business model if it was legal). If he is allowed to continue, he'll soon be finished with you and your pals as well and off to his next escapade in Asia (you don't know about that one yet). You're already out your money so you just need to hope for the best instead of spewing vitriol all over the internet. IH has a paid-up license agreement in certain territories for whatever Rossi invents that is Ecat related. It will be in his absolute best interest to come through for somebody with something that veritably works some day soon.

At least we both want a cleaner planet - I'd advise that you also consider a hedged bet.

Dewey

Quote from Dewey Weaver

IH has a paid-up license agreement in certain territories for whatever Rossi invents that is Ecat related. It will be in his absolute best interest to come through for somebody with something that veritably works some day soon.

Yes, I agree, providing the contract is valid and not set aside by the court due to a 'breach of contract' by one or both parties.

We must wait and see!!

Best regards
Frank