QuoteUnlike you I have no views one way or the other on this, except that there cannot be a contest over an agreement which based on an 'illusion'. So if the contest goes ahead for the distance, it will not be over something which is 'not there'.
Sorry Frank, but I think you must be logically wrong here.
If Rossi claims there is no "illusion" and Rossi insists there is, a context will be needed to ascertain the truth? That is compatible with the matter being an "illusion".
Thomas
Who made the equipment tested by the 'Lugano' professors, who made the equipment tested by the ERV? Who raised funds on the basis of the ERV's interim reports and who contracted these testers. If it was all down to Rossi alone, you may well be right, but it wasn't, Industrial Heat was well involved.
Don't get me wrong, I don't know what the courts will rule, but I do think if it gets past the first 'illusion' hurdle, it will be complex and nasty.
Best regards
Frank
IF and when IH pays Rossi the 89 million, what does IH get? IH gets the right to use Rossi's IP to produce and sell E Cat product in their territory granted by the Licence.
IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.
Can IH sell product that contains Rossi's IP that has been incorporated into the product line of other vendors such as Brillouin?
How can Rossi identify his IP in the products of others that IH offers for sale?
Can Rossi make an IP claim without that IP being protected by a patent?
Can IH claim that Rossi's IP does not work and yet use it in products produced by others connected to IH?
If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to pay Rossi the 89 million?
Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?
QuoteThomas. Who made the equipment tested by the 'Lugano' professors, who made the equipment tested by the ERV? Who raised funds on the basis of the ERV's interim reports and who contracted these testers. If it was all down to Rossi alone, you may well be right, but it wasn't, Industrial Heat was well involved.
The Lugano test delivered false results. There can be argument as to who was responsible but it was not IH, and that they made the Lugano device is not relevant to the false result.
IH again made the equipment delivered to Rossi, however IH (informally) claim that Rossi changed the setup. I'm sure this will be resolved but it is worth noting that every single one of Rossi's previous tests has been false, or interpreted in a false way. IH will be able to either prove that (in some cases) or give evidence as to why it is likely, in others.
I don't know what that does to the legal argument but naively it is pretty compelling.
Axil
I don't know.
But if there has been a breach of contract by either party then the contract may be declared 'void'. If it is, then much of what you say could be open to 'challenge' but this might involve endless legal challenges and potential bankruptcy for the weaker party.
Tesla lost his battle for patent infringement and died a broken and destitute man, only to be vindicated after his death by a US court.
There is some overlap in the causes that can make a contract void and the causes that can make it voidable. The fundamental difference between these two types of contracts is that a void contract is not legally valid (i.e. based on an 'illusion') or enforceable at any point in its existence, while a voidable contract can be legal (Rossi's stuff works) and enforceable depending on how the contract defect is handled.
This is not looking good.
I don't know what that does to he legal argument but naively it is pretty compelling.
If as Thomas asserts Rossi's stuff never worked, no one wins, and everyone looses.
Best regards
Frank
Thomas
IH again made the equipment delivered to Rossi, however IH (informally) claim that Rossi changed the setup.
Does that mean it worked when IH had it but didn't work when in the hands of Rossi?
Best regards
Frank
The product strategy of IH can be deduced from their actions as follows. IF Rossi's IP never worked, IH would have terminated the test within days of its start. If IH believed that Rossi;s IP worked, they would have started setting up a production plant early on to get a jump on E-Cat production before the test was completed. IH did nothing. IH recognized Rossi's IP worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.
IH must realize that Rossi's IP worked in some degree to place it in Brillouin's product. IH never intended to pay Rossi for his IP, but instead use it in other products where the cost of licence is far less. IH never intended to manufacture the E-Cat, they never intended to pay Rossi the 89 million, they intended to be a competitor of Rossi's world wide by disguising Rossi's IP in other products that they intended to sell without licencing the E-Cat.
What confuses the analysis of the motives of IH is that IH patented the Lugano device, as Rossi's IP. This indicated that IH knew that Rossi's IP worked and gave Rossi credit for it in a patent application, I cannot figure out their motive here??? It could be that there was a management disconnect where the "plan" was not understood by all of the employees of IH.
Axil
IH recognized Rossi's IP worked, since IH uses it in Brillouin;s product.
Is that your opinion or is it 'fact' as this could be central to aspects of Ross's claim.
Best regards
Frank
Thomas
If Rossi claims there is no "illusion" and Rossi insists there is,
Why would Rossi claim 'there is no illusion' and then insist 'there is' doesn't make sense. Do you mean Darden 'insists there is an illusion'?
Best regards
Frank
Display MoreAxil
Is that your opinion or is it 'fact' as this could be central to aspects of Ross's claim.
Best regards
Frank
To The best of my knowledge. IH added lithium to the Brillouin fuel mix. Before the IH hookup, Brillouin just used EMF stimulation via the q pulse. We know from an independent source (ME356) that lithium is critical to the LENR reaction. Rossi determined that lithium was essential to the LENR reaction way back in 2011. Lithium is patented Rossi IP.
QuoteDoes that mean it worked when IH had it but didn't work when in the hands of Rossi?
It never worked. IH would have thought it worked if it was tested by Fulvi using the same wrong methodology that the Lugano testers and presumably Rossi, certainly Levi, used and that randombit0 here still advocates. Or maybe they made it and left it to independent testing without any previous in-house testing.
QuoteWhy would Rossi claim 'there is no illusion' and then insist 'there is' doesn't make sense. Do you mean Darden 'insists there is an illusion'?
Yes Rossi will say his stuff works, IH that it does not.
QuoteTo The best of my knowledge. IH added lithium to the Brillouin fuel mix.
Is this knowledge or speculation?
Thomas
It never worked. IH would have thought it worked if it was tested by Fulvi using the same wrong methodology that the Lugano testers and presumably Rossi, certainly Levi, used and that randombit0 here still advocates. Or maybe they made it and left it to independent testing without any previous in-house testing.
Pretty amazing 'due process' I would say, wouldn't you? I can see Woodford and the Chinese, lining up to have a go at Darden already.
Best regards
Frank
Yes Rossi will say his stuff works, IH that it does not.
Why did IH patent the technology based on the Lugano test and give Rossi the IP rights via the patent? This does not make any sense to me. Please explain the IH motive.
If we ignore the themal heating source type. How big would a typical 1MW low pressure industrial steam boiler be? Are any of them used in a closed loop configuration. Looking on the web I think I have seen industrial boilers used in ware houses, if I'm not wrong they are also in the MW range. It seems there are a huge number of industrial applications that require use of industrial steam boilers sized to this range.
This link talks about high pressure boilers, but there are also low pressure ones.
http://www.bosch-industrial.co…alBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf
http://www.nationalboiler.com/…es-of-industrial-boilers/
====
edit: here are a couple of other ones:
http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/…lication-Differences.aspx
https://www.viessmann.com/com/…and-hot-water-boilers.pdf
===
Ofcourse I have no knowledge about this field but I wonder if an expert looks at it what he thinks?
To be honest given Andrea Rossi's industrial background I would think this kind of technology is something he knows a lot about.
Thomas
Yes Rossi will say his stuff works, IH that it does not.
So you think IH will be going for an 'illusion' ruling which will cause the court to pronounce the contract 'null and void' i.e. it cannot and never could be enforced?
That will put IH under the spotlight for not carrying out 'due diligence'.
Best regards
Frank
Thomas
[quote='Thomas Clarke','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3196-Cutting-Through-the-Fog-Surrounding-the-Rossi-IH-Dispute-Josh-G/?postID=19760#post19760']
Pretty amazing 'due process' I would say, wouldn't you? I can see Woodford and the Chinese, lining up to have a go at Darden already.
Best regards
Frank
Dardin can say that his other LENR OEMs can produce valid LENR results, Brillouin for example.
QuoteWhy did IH patent the technology based on the Lugano test and give Rossi the IP rights via the patent? This does not make any sense to me. Please explain the IH motive.
When they did the patent they thought it worked - or at least hoped this. Fram their POV the patent is still worth something. Although it does not work they cannot be sure that some variant will not work (though I guess by now they have pretty much given up on that).
As always in this story you need to allow non-binary views as to whether things work. It is only after a long period of attempting to get Rossi's stuff to work that IH have come out with "it does not work". You would not expect them to say that initially just because the first few tests failed. And, in any case, the tests using Rossi's (Fulvio's?) methodology would appear to succeed. My guess is that initial testing was positive for this reason.
QuoteDardin can say that his other LENR OEMs can produce valid LENR results, Brillouin for example.
He has not yet said that IH has found these results rigorous from independent tests? Remember the last but one PR...
