Rends - As an LENR-Forum moderator, do you really want to try and make a stand on what you just said regarding copyrights, IP filings by a licensee with clear financial incentive / permission to protect IP licensed IP? I'm very interested in what you have to say next.
The Playground
-
-
Display More
https://thenewfire.files.wordp…_2016_us20160051957a1.pdf
This IH patent application is a full plagiarism of the Levi et.al Lugano Report (or is it authorized?) ,
https://thenewfire.files.wordp…t_rossi_lugano_report.pdf
filed without permission of the original inventor, unauthorized putting in a co-inventor and every user here is able to build an own opinion about what is going on, you both can try to 'explain' what you want, what IH did is considered illegal from any direction.
I completely reject your statement "what IH did is considered illegal from any direction.". Your first blatant errors are assuming you know if there was or was not permission granted as well as the possibility that they have information about said patent that you do not. The inventor and/or co inventor situation everyone perpetuates is based solely on a good old trustworthy "Rossi says"...again a fail on your part.
-
Rends - As an LENR-Forum moderator, do you really want to try and make a stand on what you just said regarding copyrights, IP filings by a licensee with clear financial incentive / permission to protect IP licensed IP? I'm very interested in what you have to say next.
What can I say, since anyone can read how you and your sidekick are constantly trying to discredit all the IH skeptical users. But you can not dissuade me from repeatedly writing, that Industrial Heat by submitting this patent has disclosed everything they really want and that is to steal the IP of the inventor, another explanation simply does not exist and you know that and therefore your intention is also clear.
-
What can I say, since anyone can read how you and your sidekick are constantly trying to discredit all the IH skeptical users. But you can not dissuade me from repeatedly writing, that Industrial Heat by submitting this patent has disclosed everything they really want and that is to steal the IP of the inventor, another explanation simply does not exist and you know that and therefore your intention is also clear.
Rends, if you are going to ask respect of the users here as a moderator, I as one of them ask the same back from you. Don't start with that garbage.
-
Rends, if you are going to ask respect of the users here as a moderator, I as one of them ask the same back from you. Don't start with that garbage.
"Le ridicule déshonore plus que le déshonneur." François De La Rochefoucauld
-
"Le ridicule déshonore plus que le déshonneur." François De La Rochefoucauld
Ehh...I am definitely no fan of things french, but to stay in league....
-
Rends - IH no longer believes that the Lugano system worked as claimed. The IR camera settings do not come close to sync with Rossi's thermocouple control data.
Is it that IH built the Lugano system and therefore has access to the thermocouple data? That would imply that IH all along knew that the reported COP was wrong but still used the report in the US patent?
-
About Lugano inspired patent, the patent of Rossi are without any interest, and the Lugano patent just protect what was said in the report. Neither IH nor rossi's variant seems clear enough to allow what a patent do.
About the theory about what happened, I take what Dewey says with just less grain a salt than Rossi who have a long backlog of "imprecisions", bad calorimetry and ambiguous economic model.
What is however clear to me is that if IH have succeeded in making an E-cat that works, even imperfectly, they would be kind with the source of that technology, instead of launching a battle by refusing payment.
Now what Dewey says is more coherent with the full story than what Rossi says.
Anyway we should way to have the full story, becaus emany things we assume may not be reaLFor example on E-cat, I was positive because of those claims :
- the 1MW test was made with a real client using it for real production
- calorimetry was agreed and advised byIH
- IH have free access to the test
- ERV was competent and independentI have similar problems with Defkalion who looked nice because there was many shareholders (in fact Xanthoulis have bought back all shares), because Nelson test looked positive (in fact he was demanding better test to clear doubts).
I'm tired of that and now I bet on serious guys with serious calorimetry and more than the calorimetry with serious third party open test.
Dear Dewey, by the way, please keep calm. I was surprised to read your aggressive posts, even if I understand that
- you feel fooled by Rossi from data you have, and you lost skin you had in the game
- you feel "character assassinated" by conspiracy theories that consider you are son of the evil, puppet master...Barty was right when calming your contributions. You are not a victim on that point.
Unlike many here I know we need sanguine character like you to do the job. Revolution is not made by boyscout.
-
Well done Rends - there is actually not quite the IP urgency that you describe but it does all get fixed with the click of a mouse. With all due respect, IH had the obligation to protect any unintended disclosures by Rossi when he rushed to publish the…
Dewey. That is such a complete lie! Why are you deliberately distorting facts?
The Lugano Report was not released by Rossi. It was released by the Uppsala/Bologna team and by Elforsk. This was done after it was censored by arXiv.org, which is where it was planned to be published. (as was the case with the 1st ITPR).
-
Careful Rends - you're moving into territory that has previously made Barty eraser-happy.
Do you accept that there may be some alternate explanations beyond your interpretation of why IH filed some patent applications which are completely within their rights as a licensee of Rossi IP?
-
Good one Ozcar - you seem to have some inside knowledge with your response. You have no idea how or when IH came into some TC data. I can see that not many folks on team Rossi know how IP and patent filings work but that's okay. Rossi will continue to try and maintain this foothold in his castle made of sand.
-
Alainco et all - as long as Rossi and his minions attempt to maintain their PR war against IH, then more facts will continue to drip out and I'll defend my side. Should they choose to quiet down then I'll do the same. LENR will survive and we continue to make progress sans the recent unpleasantness.
-
As promised, some additional translation work has been completed from the recently discovered scrolls.
From the 2nd Book of Siffer, Chap 2, verse 3: Darkness I leave with you, my Darkness I give to you, not as the Light gives, but only as I may give. Embrace my Darkness and live in my lies.
-
Quote from Sifferkol
This was done after it was censored by arXiv.org, which is where it was planned to be published.
Rossi should be glad of that. Had the Lugano report been allowed on arxiv, then my comment would also have gone to arxiv - there would have been a clear public interest argument and I would have had no hesitation in submitting it.
Sifferkol - if you cannot see the large errors in the Lugano report - and ignore the multiple people here on all sides of the argument who admit those large errors - you should be ashamed of yourself. Given such large errors lack of publication is not censorship. Arxiv is designed for pre-publication of stuff of publisahbel quality. Go to Vixra if you have something more flakey.
There would then have been a clear trail in the literature so that those wanting to evaluate the report would be in a better position.
Although my comment got published on lenr canr that was because Jed asked for it - and since he had published the original report it seemed proper.
-
If Sifferkoll was to admit error in the Lugano report, he would be letting go of the keystone of the Rossi castle. Without the Lugano report, (which I absolutely do not trust) Sifferkoll has no basis for anything beyond "Rossi says". I have never seen a man so trusted on word alone with no concrete proof behind him as Rossi, since one certain "savior" of the world who is yet to return....or maybe he HAS!!!!
-
Careful Rends - you're moving into territory that has previously made Barty eraser-happy.
Do you accept that there may be some alternate explanations beyond your interpretation of why IH filed some patent applications which are completely within their rights as a licensee of Rossi IP?
Careful?
Let's be honest, if I were Thomas Darden, I would be horrified about your ridiculous attempt of a PR-action here in this forum (it's more of an amateur stunt). Just because you and your colleague can not be silent, leads to the fact that more and more dirt from the dark IH basement is unearthed and especially your clumsy questions, whether there could be another explanation for a more than obvious illegal act, causes that people take a closer look, compelling for sticking the finger more precisely in the more than open wound of Industrial Heat and Thomas Darden!
And another explanation as pure plagiarism and the attempts of theft of intellectual property? NO
-
That's what I find so hard to understand too, Rends. When I look at Tom Darden, first impressions of him were as a genuine person who wanted to find ways to resolve energy issues.
I'm very very surprised if he resorts to using a someone who wants to form a gang using school boy manipulation and bully tactics in a playground to get accross the facts and to fight or insult those who do not join him. Especially in a forum of adult and diverse opinions and more normally reasoned grown up debate. Even if he is in the right this approach makes me wonder about IH methods.
I wish Tom Darden would speek for him self or make clear where he stands and if it's right for us to assume that Dewey and others does or does not speek for him.
-
Quote
Just because you [Dewey] and your colleague can not be silent
What colleague?Quote from StephenCI wish Tom Darden would speek for him self or make clear where he stands and if it's right for us to assume that Dewey and others does or does not speek for him.
I don't see any need for clarification. Dewey is avowedly speaking personally as an investor in IH. He claims slightly more information on this matter than others (which is possible, leaks happen, but unverified) and IH would be very foolish to say anything formally about this information which must necessarily, in absence of IH comment, be unreliable. Personally I give credence to the general tenor of remarks but don't expect all details to be accurate.
Dewey is doing no more than Rossi does every day, except that whereas Rossi's statements can compromise his position Dewey's statements (not identical to IH) do not compromise IH's position.
I don't approve of Dewey's style - as you say bullying is not attractive, but I can understand the frustration of any IH investor seeing the deceptive half-truths from Rossi and wanting to put a known alternate view.
As for whether IH is advantaged or disadvantaged by this: how can it matter? IH's reputation will be determined by the results of the Court case, or any out of court settlement. If Dewey is correct, and IH will want to go for showing Rossi to have acted in bad faith, that is honourable, and will certainly make matters interesting for onlooker, though the pace of action may be too slow for some.
Whether it is wise depends on too many things I don't know!
-
That's what I find so hard to understand too, Rends. When I look at Tom Darden, first impressions of him were as a genuine person who wanted to find ways to resolve energy issues.
That is the masquerade!
I'm very very surprised if he resorts to using a someone who wants to form a gang using school boy manipulation and bully tactics in a playground to get accross the facts and to fight or insult those who do not join him. Especially in a forum of adult and diverse opinions and more normally reasoned grown up debate. Even if he is in the right this approach makes me wonder about IH methods.And this is the reality, not only concerning IH but the private equity business in general:
Fees, Fees and More Fees- How Private Equity Abuses Its Limited Partners and U.S. Taxpayers
By Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt for CEPR
http://cepr.net/images/stories…e-equity-fees-2016-05.pdf
Some Headlines - The SEC and Private Equity:
Lack of Transparency, Misallocation, and Fraud
Misallocating PE Firm Expenses and Portfolio Company Fee Income
Money for Doing Nothing
Waiver of Fiduciary Responsibility
Disguising Dividends as Monitoring FeesIt's all about money making out of money and power (big balls), bad boys games on the playground of reality.
-
With all of these accusations, one wonders if the pot and kettle meme was misunderstood.....hmm one just never knows.
