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

  • Quote

    but I can't see what he might have told that group that they should not have known already - viz that severe and genuine doubts have been raised over their results as well as over everything else Rossi has been involved in.


    People are often resistant to new ideas. I doubt they considered seriously my critique (or the web precursors) till given additional evidence from IH in-house testing. You can see from discussions with randombit0 here (who seems finally to have vanished?) how subtle the thermography is and how people can get the wrong idea about what are the issues with the original report. Like Levi saying "even if you set the emissivity to 1 you stiil get COP=2" true, but missing entirely the point.

  • Nigel - sport and counter-espionage for the real and imaginary inhabitants of Planet Rossi.
    By the way, storm and chatter reports indicate that the living and fabricated citizens of Planet Rossi are not having one of their better days. Live by the IP…


    I guess you're trying to boost to your self esteem by creating a personal virtual reality to play games in ...

  • Frank - I misunderstood your docket statement and apologize. I'm confident the Penon report will eventually be in the docket but not sure when.


    IH has paid for full access to Rossi's IP with a paid-up license fee of $11.5m - it will be hard for Rossi to legally counter that argument. It will also be hard for him to prove that he has satisfactorily fulfilled his obligation to provide working IP to IH. I do agree that whether Rossi earned the additional $89M or not will be up to the courts to decide. I don't agree with your additional logic or order of events but this is new for most folks on this board and, if this case isn't thrown out by the judge, you'll get to learn how litigation unfolds and develops. Should the case proceed, we're all going to need to be very patient though as it normally takes years for a legit dispute to work thru the legal system.

  • Sifferkoll - there you go with that Man in the Mirror gig again. Its uncanny and quite humorous.


    We have to figure out who is going to play you in the Planet Rossi movie. Mini-me quickly comes to mind. Heath Ledger would have also been great if he were still around. I'll keep working on that and get back to you with some more suggestions.

  • Frank - I misunderstood your docket statement and apologize. I'm confident the Penon report will eventually be in the docket but not sure when.


    IH has paid for full access to Rossi's IP with a paid-up license fee of $11.5m - it will be hard for Rossi…


    I am not a lawyer, seek professional help and see the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. AFAIK the process is: Petitioner files a claim. Respondent files a response (June 12 due deadline) and perhaps a counterclaim. Discovery period begins, parties can depose each other and use subpoena powers to gather evidence and testimony. Motions, trial, finding of fact, award. If certain evidence is sensitive, parties may request that it be kept under seal. If that happens, we don't see the document. However, we might see quotes from it in various filings.


    How do I buy someone's ideas that they haven't thought of yet? I get that employment agreements cover that very issue as long as the inventor is an employee. Forever is a long long time. Was Andrea Rossi subject to that kind of agreement? What was the term of that agreement?

  • Dewey


    Sniping aside now, it seems to me there is a contractual obligation for IH to pay Rossi $89 million on the culmination of the year long test subject to the ERV report being positive within certain written criteria in the contract. But I understand there was no time limit on Rossi having to provide IP and support, I assume this would be because R&D is a continuous process. So from a contractual point of view Rossi will (I surmise) say he always intended to provide support and IP throughout the R&D process which we all know could take years, perhaps tens of years, particularly if radiation issues require solving.


    Best regards
    Frank

  • Sorry @Thomas Clarke I was not planning to ignore your reply earlier in thread, but do not have enough time to go through all claims @randombit0 wrote yesterday in science behind dispute -thread.
    I personally have newer even held IR camera in my hand (except once early 80's), so I won't start analyzing her claims. Easier just to withdraw and apologize you if I misread your exchange with her. Following your dicussion with great interest still.


    Related to that, I hope you check MFMP glowstick 5.2 videos and clearly see why Lugano thermocouple data, Mr Weaver is feeding you, cannot be used in calculations. If you want to save time, ask Bob Greenyer or read his analysis from this e-catworld glowstick 5.2 thread


    or additionally even study this thread before accept Mr Weavers offer. Your call, just wanted to make you aware...

  • On a lighter note... Cutting through the Fog? ;) I just had a strange image two great knights standing in the clouds on top of a mountain one swinging his sword shouting "divide, conquer, divide conquer", the other swinging his sword saying "parry, thrust, parry, thrust". Only when the clouds cleared they realized they were standing on different mountains.


    I guess the current battle won't have as simple a resolution but in the end I hope it resolves justly.

  • @Argon
    The thermocouple primarily only needs to be attached long enough to get a good calibration. MFMP has easily managed this.
    For extra assurance, it would be good to have a thermocouple attached all the time, if this is possible.
    Note that the MFMP thermocouple problems that they have had do not lead to 100's of degrees errors in temperature. They can be off a bit, but they are in still in the right neighborhood. (They read low when detaching)
    IR is a good candidate for thermography of non-isothermal objects, when used correctly. Covering the entire device with thermocouples, or extrapolating across large areas of the reactor based on very few thermocouples is obviously not going to be very accurate, especially on an unknown and irregular object.

  • Just one point here. None of the E-Cat patents enable someone skilled in the art to make LENR work. If they did the world would be a very different place. IH I expect now will confirm that, but it is pretty obvious... They still might have some indirect value if some other IP actually got the LENR magic going.


    Thomas,


    I agree, that by comparing the patents "claim by claim", someone may find, that some claims in Rossi's patent might have a future value.


    But that is not the elementary premise of the License Agreement.


    There was a reason, why they have used terms like "sole owner" and why Rossi had to commit warranties. I.H. licensed (and payed for) ALL IP (not only some claims) and that in an ENFORCEABLE state. That's the primary context of the contract and maybe this was the case, at the time they signed to contract "bona fide". (This would be the positive view.)


    But I'm stuck with my judgment, that the License Agreement at this time can be seen as insubstantial. The technical aspects of this case will become irrelevant, if the premise of the contract is invalid.


    Quote

    None of the E-Cat patents enable someone skilled in the art to make LENR work


    Yes. If you refer to Rossi's patent. But I'm not so sure regarding Piantelli's patent ... It's too soon, maybe this needs some more time ...


    With best wishes


    Tom

  • I missed this bit from Dewey on another thread, but it looks like there were some IH observers at Lugano who took some of their own TC readings:


    "Thomas will be pleased to know that some limited thermocouple data was captured by IH observers during the Lugano test. That information is in the hands of the Uppsala folks as part of their present review of the report."


    Brings up a lot of new questions too; like if the IH observers at Lugano could get a TC on the reactor body long enough for readings, why not the Professors? Hard to believe too that they were in the same room, or crossed paths, or at the least, coordinate a visit to the facility, and didn't bother to compare notes? And what was IH doing slipping in their own guys into what was supposed to be a neutral test?


    Also, like others, I don't buy that the Swedes thought things were fine until recently. There was almost an immediate shit-storm after the Lugano results were posted on Elforsk's site. They knew about the controversy, and responded by accepting to answer "reasonable questions"...which they never did.

  • Quote

    some limited thermocouple data was captured by IH observers during the Lugano test


    "observers", so more than one.


    Then for the magician trick ash swap hypothesis, Rossi had to do the swap with maybe 9* people watching? (And be totally ready for it.)


    *(six main authors, Bianchini, and (at least) IH two observers)

  • Frank - Just to be clear - Rossi sold territorial rights to his Ecat IP including derivative rights for $11.5M. No additional money is owed by IH - the rights are purchased and Rossi has an obligation to fulfill his side of the contract - apparently a very difficult thing for him to understand. Rossi may get to make his case as to whether or not he earned the additional $89M for the 1 year, 1MW test. At a minimum, IH will be coming at him with a professional and comprehensive defense. Claims of a passing a successful test in exchange for $89M require a standard of integrity that Rossi has yet to achieve in his lifetime. We'll see whose standard holds up the best in the judicial sunshine.

  • Shane D - Rossi put the thermocouples on the Lugano reactor as part of his control system then refused to capture / keep the data. He ran all of his test systems that way. He went nuts when we told him we were buying NI Labview for data acquisition and refused to allow anything like that to be connected to his test ecats. He took manual measurements and logged them by hand. The notebooks are a mess.


    After he shipped out to Miami then proper DA / logging gear was attached to the experiments with very disappointing results.

  • Shane D - Rossi put the thermocouples on the Lugano reactor as part of his control system then refused to capture / keep the data. He ran all of his test systems that way. He went nuts when we told him we were buying NI Labview for data acquisition and refused to allow anything like that to be connected to his test ecats. He took manual measurements and logged them by hand. The notebooks are a mess.


    After he shipped out to Miami then proper DA / logging gear was attached to the experiments with very disappointing results.


    Why wasn't the data acquisition method defined by the test plan before the test began. If IH wanted to use a certain data acquisition method used during the test, they should have not committed to running the test until this issue was resolved as confirmed before the test through a signed agreement between both parties.


    This pretest agreement is standard contractual procedure in the business world. I beleive that IH was incomitant in the way they contracted and manages the test.

  • Dewey Weaver - Do you know if the Lugano Report authors are under NDA regarding the test? I've often wondered about their seeming silence. While it could be that they just do not want to discuss the results in any public way, I'm wondering if there are other factors.

  • Shane D - Rossi put the thermocouples on the Lugano reactor as part of his control system then refused to capture / keep the data. He ran all of his test systems that way. He went nuts when we told him we were buying NI Labview for data acquisition and…


    Wow! You IH folks really do need to prove your endless stupidity in court now, dont you?

  • Sifferkoll - there you go with that Man in the Mirror gig again. Its uncanny and quite humorous.


    We have to figure out who is going to play you in the Planet Rossi movie. Mini-me quickly comes to mind. Heath Ledger would have also been great if he were…


    Heath Ledger was brilliant, but I'll be ok with his replacement J Depp as well. ;)

  • Frank - Just to be clear - Rossi sold territorial rights to his Ecat IP including derivative rights for $11.5M. No additional money is owed by IH - the rights are purchased and Rossi has an obligation to fulfill his side of the contract - apparently a…


    Updated my post on this comment: http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…r-not-the-cop50-1mw-test/


    ----


    Again. The ERV report says what it says. Penon was agreed upon as ERV. If the report says COP~50 IH should pay. So far there has only been ad-hominem attacks, FUD rumors and conspiracy theories hinting on a this not being the case.


    Since IH didn't pay according to the agreed upon contract without even mentioning this intent, the contract is invalid and Rossi has no obligations whatsoever.


    It is very interesting though, Weaver again changing focus from the MW test results to Rossi IP obligations (incl. territorial rights) ... As I've been saying; this is the core of the whole saga.


    Everything points to IH trying, but miserably failing, to use the "not paying" card in the IP negotiations with Rossi.

  • Wow! You IH folks really do need to prove your endless stupidity in court now, dont you?


    IH is a very poor investment. From their behavior it is obvious that they have not hired the right people. As a systems integrator. they would have been well served to hire some top ranked systems engineers and project engineers from the defence industry were testing and contractual procedure is a fine art. Successfully controlling subcontractors, OEMs, and consultants are what keeps these middle managers employed and many don't make it for long. Long lived manages know all the tricks and all the pitfalls. IH has done nothing right, they are a disaster.


    For example, if IH wanted to make a change in the test...data recording procedure... they could have negotiated a "change order" which is an addendum to an ongoing contract.


    Quote

    Term Definition of a Scope Change Request


    A scope change request is used to request an addition or subtraction to the agreed upon scope of work agreed upon for a project. The scope change request may be managed as part of a pre-defined scope change process outlined as part of the Project plan. This process would determine what changes may be approved by the Project Manager and the procedure as well as authority for approving other changes.


    The success of a project depends on controlling and project scope management. Changes in scope can impact the cost, schedule, risk and even the quality of the project. The client, the project sponsor or other stakeholders can initiate scope changes. The scope of work is defined very early in the project planning and estimation phases. However, scope can change for a number of reasons including internal factors (stakeholder requires insight into a problem), or external factors (government regulations, market conditions).

  • sifferkoll wrote:


    Wow! You IH folks really do need to prove your endless stupidity in court now, dont you?


    I have waited five years for Rossi to prove his endless stupidity. Let's see if he can prove anything in court.


  • I have waited five years for Rossi to prove his endless stupidity. Let's see if he can prove anything in court.


    The determinative issue in this case is the legal status of the ERV.


    I predict that the court will only deal with contractual issues and delegation of authority to the ERV. If the ERV is judged to be the agent given total authority by IH to design and implement the test, and to make judgements and determinations in their stead, then any technical matters will be avoided. Rossi will get his money. Whatever the ERV says will be legally binding on the two parties in this case.


    If the ERV was not a valid agent assigned by IH, then the test will be judged invalid with no force in law. The test will be ignored.

  • I'm at a loss as to the heated nature of some of the posts here.


    Again. The ERV report says what it says. Penon was agreed upon as ERV. If the report says COP~50 IH should pay.


    This is your interpretation of the license agreement as it applies to the current circumstance. The court will have its own interpretation, and they may not agree with yours.


    Nor can I see why the writer should have checked with Mats before posting.


    I believe the writer obtained the information from Mats. Perhaps the information was provided together with a request for confidentiality.


    So in that scenario, no Lugano no ERV report, who would have thought that!


    Note that if Darden has shipped off to Sweden to talk to the professors, this is good reason to think that the Lugano report might enter the docket.


    I just had a strange image two great knights standing in the clouds on top of a mountain one swinging his sword shouting "divide, conquer, divide conquer"


    Only in Monty Python would a knight say such a thing on the top of a mountain peak.


    Also, like others, I don't buy that the Swedes thought things were fine until recently. There was almost an immediate shit-storm after the Lugano results were posted on Elforsk's site. They knew about the controversy, and responded by accepting to answer "reasonable questions"...which they never did.


    As has been suggested, perhaps there has been an NDA in effect. Another possibility: they are trying to reassess the findings and are taking their sweet time to make sure they have everything straight, including perhaps doing additional measurements, before getting back to their critics.

  • I agree (for once) with axil that IH is a bad investment. But not for not hiring the wrong people. They themselves are the wrong people. They are faith driven, hoping that pie will fall from the sky if you are a good guy.


    Instead of blindly investing millions of dollars in LENR they should have invested half an hour in web research to learn that LENR is a non-existent technology with no hope of becoming reality.


    Impossible Heat be thy name.

  • Weaver said, "Thomas will be pleased to know that some limited thermocouple data was captured by IH observers during the Lugano test. That information is in the hands of the Uppsala folks as part of their present review of the report."


    Indeed there were IH personnel in Lugano ..
    Guess who posted this picture on FB in March 2014.
    http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123567537_1.jpg


    Not sure this is the guy Weaver counts on though.


    (Credits to user Nevanlinna on the Cobraf blog, 18 Oct 2014, 21:28, http://www.cobraf.com/forum/to…ly_id=123567537#123567537 )

  • <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1651-Argon/">@Argon</a>
    The thermocouple primarily only needs to be attached long enough to get a good calibration. MFMP has easily managed this.
    For extra assurance, it would be good to have a thermocouple attached all the time, if this is possible.
    Note that the MFMP…


    Yes actually I agree, as long as thermocouple is at least steadily 'hanging' around same distance of the body, error margin is limited and pretty constant (at least was in MFMP videos). From MFMP videos I also first time learned that Optris is pretty reliable (in its error margins) as long as emissivity setting is correct and heat radiation profile is somehow 'typical'. I don't know the topic enough, but seems that this 'typical' is what @Thomas Clarke @randombit0 was arguing. Alumina seems to have special optical properties making IR measurement less trivial.


    From that I got an idea that (mainly for MFMP and other replicators), should someone try to separate thermocouple further from too hot body by purpose. For example attach wide and thick enough (half?)ring of clay or something around body and inject thermocouple there half way. Temperature reading of the thermocouple would be lower, but would protect it better. I think reading then follows some pretty accurate heat transfer/heat dissipation formula and thus can be calibrated and compensated (at least) in post test calculations. That way replicators could have control readings to verify Optris readings. Clay was just one example, as long as material have some thermal resistance and can stand the heat.


    But in topic of this thread I have additional question. Why Lugano report is still in so big importance as Swedes re-involvment and many comments here indicates? If dispute is about Rossi getting IH contract and $11,5m by falsified Lugano tests, then contract would be declared invalid, and in court IH would get rid of 89m payment and even ask refund of 11,5m? Now Mr Weaver has indicated here that they want 'Rossi to transfer the knowledge and keep IH license valid'. Why to concentrate on Lugano and discredit Mr Rossi in that case?


    My answer is still that it is about Rossi interpreting contract covering only E-cat and Hot-Cat technologies, which both seems to be worthless because of bit earlier Celani(?) patent. Rossi might have Quark-X which could have some unique IP and also (business wise) superior technology over older models. Rossi wants to get rid of too cheap contract and lost trust in their business relationship after Bril.. and Asian partners involvement by IH.


    This obsessive Lugano interest might be just preparing one tool for court case to discredit Mr Rossi, but in my understanding using that in court would not lead to desired successfull IP transfer to IH but invalidation of the whole contract instead. And that is what Mr Rossi is targeting anyway, so this saga snake is now eating its tail - literally.


    So @Dewey Weaver is the only viable conclusion of all this that IH doesn't believe Rossi is having any working E-cat technology or Quark-X in his sleeves and IH is just preparing for invalidation of the contract and demanding for 11m refund instead? If so, you must be pretty sure, since in business risk calculations has always 'benefit' factor, and in this case it is huge at the minimum...