This could be the reason Dewey is a little bit upset.
Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test
-
-
Well, I finally got to meet the guy working the "other" IH agenda (than Dewey's diversions). Some of you probably know him from ECN as fredz777. He's name is Fred Zoepfl and he make you all look like saints (even you Dewey) Have a look: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/meet-fred-zoepfl-the-secret-weapon-of-ihapco-or-a-physisist-malfunctioning/…
Sifferkoll - where do you get this stuff from? I can only interpret this as a sign of effectiveness but not on your part. You're welcome to continue your slander and libel campaign - it is very helpful for upcoming remedies.
We have an interesting couple of weeks ahead - sitting tight for now.
Aw, Dewey, you don't stop to think you what you write can look to the paranoids. "Where do you get this stuff from" looks like a confirmation that it is true, so you are trying to find the rat so you can send the agents to eliminate him.
In fact, Sifferkoll is transparent. FredZ777 writes standard anti-Rossi rants on ecatnews.com, a site where anyone can pretend to be anyone, as far as I can tell, (There are at two Brian Josephson posts, one of them denying that the other is Brian), FredZ777 mentions Woodford, and from that, Sifferkoll claims that this "clearly indicates that IH is worried about Woodford." And then Sifferkoll presents reams of "evidence" that hardly indicates anything except to one who already believes a thing and is looking for evidence. If there is really something there, someone tell me, The information density was far too low for me to spend much time with it. There are countless internet users -- and trolls -- like Fred. What Fred writes doesn't show insider knowledge.
Who the heck is Fred Zoepfl? The name sounds like it might have fallen right out of the Rossi songbook.
Quote: “Who the heck is Fred Zoepfl? The name sounds like it might have fallen right out of the Rossi songbook.”
Oh, he is definately an IH insider as I shown, so he is in your team Dewey, to execute the <i>anti-Lenr-anti-Rossi</i> agenda. He's a little rude…
So anyone who writes anything that appears to agree with me is "on my team"? Hey, I like it. The whole planet is on my team, since nobody is 100% wrong all the time. Great concept! But ... am I responsible for what they write?
Sifferkoll - Where are you getting this information from?
Repeated question, when the answer is completely obvious.What information? Sifferkoll presents on his blog, all kinds of crap from his internet research. Trolls can be great at this, so Dewey has asked him his favorite question. However, Sifferkoll doesn't actually give links. This is all preaching to the choir. Without chapter and verse references, just pure "I'm right, aren't I smart" rant. You can do that on your own blog!
Now, the "very helpful for upcoming remedies" by Dewey could be complete nonsense if it is referring to Rossi (since, as far as we can tell, Rossi is not responsible for what Sifferkoll writes). It appears that participating in these fora rots the brain. It all starts to seem Very Important. Dewey must have more sophisticated than this, I'd hope.
The only possible upcoming remedy I can imagine has previously been hinted at, that Sifferkoll's blog has been libeling Dewey Weaver and others. From sufficient evidence, it could be shown in court that Sifferkoll here and the blogger are the same. The first remedy, though, could be legal requests to reveal Sifferkoll's identity, which is ordinarily not difficult Then there would be a cease and desist request letter from a lawyer, directed to the real person. If there is no satisfactory response, I'd assume that the next steps could include a takedown request to the domain host -- these can often be effective even if the cause is weak -- and an actual lawsuit against Sifferkoll for damages -- and criminal prosecution is not impossible.
When I pointed out this before to Sifferkol previously, he responded as if I was threatening him. No. I'm not going to do these things, and I have no information other than what I have read here and on his blog, plus my knowledge that he's messing with people with serious money. I suggested not poking bears unless it is absolutely necessary. Bears don't GAF about your free speech rights, which are not license to say whatever comes out of where you sit.
On Wikipedia, the Dewey comment might readily be interpreted as a legal threat, and Dewey would be blocked until he assured WP administration up and down he wasn't going to sue. But they would also have shut down Sifferkoll's rants long before.
It is one thing to rant here, and it would be difficult to claim libel on the basis of posts here, in tit for tat interchanges. Something about the local traditions, normal behavior in the context. But ... on one's own blog is something else. Yes, we are still responsible for what we write in a place like this, but publishing it adds a whole new level of responsibility.
Contrary to what Sifferkoll claimed before, I'm not telling him what he should do. I would, in fact, enjoy watching legal action come down. Trolls have been getting away with outrageous libel for years, and maybe it's about time it ends.
And I would not mind seeing Steve Krivit sued for libel, either. I'm aware of lots of evidence.... But I would not threaten it here. I wouldn't threaten it in a forum like this at all. Why? It would be meaningless. What would be meaningful is a letter, preferably from a lawyer, requesting that he cease and desist, and I wouldn't send such a letter unless I were fully prepare to follow up with legal action if required.
However, here, perhaps Dewey has a strategy: keep poking Sifferkoll, so that he creates even more libel. I wonder. Could that be a defense? "He was mean to me!"
After all, it worked when he was a kid!
-
IH does not 'own' the IP, they have 'licence to use it under contract. If that contract is now 'void' or 'invalid' because one or more of the 'parties' have breached this contract; then they own 'nothing'.
A contract does not become invalid because of a contract breach. It can become eligible for early termination/cancellation but note that Rossi's claims in his lawsuit are not relying on that the agreement now is cancelled. Dewey made a point of that it was a paid-up license and Rossi still had to perform. If this reflects IH's position , it seems that they don't have any intention to cancel either. Another thing to note is that the agreement does not have any termination clause, which this type of agreements usually have.This is more like an unhappy marriage than a break-up
-
@Eric, @IHFB
We are conflating different Rossi designs here.The Oct 6 2011 device was a massive iron monster with a metal core weighing 10s of kg. Therefore it has this large thermal mass. The hot-cat had a very low thermal inertia, obviously. The other hot-cat design used in some Rossi tests was different and I'm not sure what thermal mass - but in any case quite small and not the enormous mass of the "most impressive to Mats" Oct 6 2011 test.
IHFB is talking about patents but as far as I know none describe the Oct 6 2011 monster.
-
Quote from Zuffhaus
This is more like an unhappy marriage than a break-up
I agree, that is certainly how IH would like it to be seen. But Rossi has engaged a nuclear option and does not seem very amenable to reason. Perhaps with a little legal encouragement that will change?
I'm interested in Dewey's "We will get Rossi". It is just not in IH interests to get Rossi if Rossi behaves reasonably - which - admittedly - he was not doing when he started legal action. Maybe IH now would want to show Rossi fraudulent to save their embarrassment? I'm just not sure and though no fan of conspiracy theories I'd expect IH future actions to be highly variable based on how the legal stuff goes and how reasonable Rossi becomes.
-
If any single quote strongly indicates Zoepfl to be a hard core insider it is this one. He states the exact amount paid to Rossi by IH, long before we could read it in the complaint.
"Fred Zoepfl (March 10 on ECN)" wrote:
IH paid Rossi/Leonardo $11.5 million instead of the usual $50K to $100K that the other suckers paid. Why so much? Because IH was supposed to own the IP. I imagine it’s tough for a pathological liar like Rossi to keep up with all his lies, or maybe all is not copacetic between Rossi and IH.First of all, there was information on the internet about $11.5 million long before, from an SEC filing. However, I would agree that the comment probably indicates the possession of insider information. It is a major step from that to "strongly indicates ... hard core insider." I'm not sure exactly what "hard core" means here, nor why, in fact, it matters. However, I'd be surprised to see, at that point, a true IH insider -- i.e., an officer or employee or agent of the corporation -- to be chatting on a an internet
cesspoolforum that way. No, what is much more likely, if this was indeed insider information, is that this was passed to him. There have long been people, not insiders, claiming that they have inside information. That indicates leaks, and leaks happen. There would be a lot of people involved with IH and Rossi who would have that information.I'm just as interested in the $50K to $100K number. Who did that? If fraud is developed from evidence, those are people who would have standing to sue. The story Rossi always told, until IH came along, was that it was his own money invested. And in that context, Rossi could say he had a green cheese factory on the Moon, and it would be of no legal import. But I have also heard that Rossi bought licenses back. That could probably protect him against those investors.
This is Fred Zoepfl: https://disqus.com/by/fredzoepfl/ He was dismissing that a 1 MW reactor existed a year ago: https://disqus.com/home/discus…eaper/#comment-2108382846
The picture I see is of a very common animal: someone with some knowledge of physics who is highly skeptical about Rossi or LENR. It is extremely unlikely that he was, then, connected to IH. However, that would not rule out his obtaining inside information some time before his quoted comment. After all, there is this thing called "email" and human beings actually talk on the phone, and I've been told inside information that way. I have even heard of -- shocking, I know -- face to face meetings!So what was the context on ecatnews.com? Ug. Do I have to look? Ow! Stop twisting my arm!
http://ecatnews.com/?p=2683&cpage=9 search the page for "the other suckers paid." Nobody seems to have remarked on the $11.5 million figure.
-
IHFB is talking about patents but as far as I know none describe...
All of Rossi's patent applications show a tight coupling between heating element and core. I'm suggesting that it is highly unlikely that he made a loose coupling version just to throw everybody off on the temperature data. It violates Occam's razor.
-
Lol now the thinly-veiled threats appear every other post
Is the Rossi effect this powerful?
-
IH does not 'own' the IP, they have 'licence to use it under contract. If that contract is now 'void' or 'invalid' because one or more of the 'parties' have breached this contract; then they own 'nothing'.
I've seen this opinion. It's legally junk. The Agreement is very clear. For $11.5 million, IH was fully paid up for one 1 MW plant and a license was granted as described, which included full IP transfer, such that IH could manufacture and support their own devices. This is the Agreement: https://animpossibleinvention.…sdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf
There was then a payment due under the described conditions, of $89 million, more than a year later. An attorney told me that this looked like a collection issue. The agreement does not provide for security, that's not a secured payment. That is, if it's not paid, IH owes the money (assuming that Rossi has performed as promised), but doesn't lose the license. Obviously, if they can't pay, they might negotiate a return, or a change in conditions, but is certainly far from automatic. Rather, as with any collection issue, Rossi can pursue it as a debt. Now, he's claiming fraud. If he can prove fraud, all bets are off. But that is very, very unlikely. The standard of proof is high.The lawsuit makes no sense, like many Rossi actions over the years. Once again, I do urge people to read Lewan's book, An Impossible Invention. This is not an endorsement of Lewan's conclusions; Lewan became far too involved. But the history is real, and he is reporting what Rossi told him, some of which has been verified. Some not.
-
IH have to challenge the entire agreement, otherwise they will lose the case.
-
I agree, that is certainly how IH would like it to be seen. But Rossi has engaged a nuclear option and does not seem very amenable to reason. Perhaps with a little legal encouragement that will change?
I'm interested in Dewey's "We will get Rossi". It is just not in IH interests to get Rossi if Rossi behaves reasonably - which - admittedly - he was not doing when he started legal action. Maybe IH now would want to show Rossi fraudulent to save their embarrassment? I'm just not sure and though no fan of conspiracy theories I'd expect IH future actions to be highly variable based on how the legal stuff goes and how reasonable Rossi becomes.
IH as such has not said that much but the statement that the ecat never been substantiated doesn't leave much room for reconciliation, does it. Or even wearing gloves. Still, I think that Dewey's comments about what will happen should be considered as pre-match pep talk in the changing room, which we know is only loosly related to how the actual match will go down.
An argument from IH that Rossi ripped them of 11 MUS$ over two year or more may have its legal and perhaps factual merits, but from a broader professional stand point that is not something you'd want to pursue.
The only certain thing right now is the coming boom in sale of pop-corn.
-
Do Industrial Heat 'own' Rossi's 'Information Property'?
NO!
Does Darden et al need Rossi's 'cooperation' to make it work?
YES! ...............(Unless it is a 'fraud' or is baseless, then the court will judge the 'invention to be 'illusory' and very likely the contract 'null and void' or unless they have 'shared' Rossi's IP with his competitors and now don't need Rossi???).
Extract from 'complaint':
'Pursuant to the License Agreement, ROSSI and LEONARDO granted to IH a license to use the E-Cat IP within the specific limited geographic territories of North America, Central America and Caribbean, South America, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Arabian Emirates'
Is that licence still valid?
YES! ..................... But only until a determination has been made by the court, however, any action which may affect the case taken by Rossi et al or Darden et al (such as IH putting to use Rossi's IP) may prejudice the outcome of the case which IH may not wish to risk.
Best regards
Frank -
Quote
All of Rossi's patent applications show a tight coupling between heating element and core. I'm suggesting that it is highly unlikely that he made a loose coupling version just to throw everybody off on the temperature data. It violates Occam's razor.
Well in this case it is loose coupling to the primary circuit, more than to the core, that matters. And this device had a completely different thermal design from others so that invoking Occam's razor to suggest the details of its design are identical (when it is obviously very different in many respects) is just invalid.
We'd have to go to the thread analysing this experiment and look at the only arguments requiring specific thermal coupling which were not Jed's and quite mind-bogglingly complex. Really you don't want to do that! It is angels dancing on pins. The simple analysis shows that, for the most obvious heater design, the observed SSM is exactly explained by a hot core model.
It must be worrying for those who actually still believe Rossi's devices work that so many of his demos have these "obvious when you have worked it out" loopholes. You would not expect it unless they were deliberately engineered. But, to invoke Occam's Razor more correctly, having found that most of his tests do have these specific loopholes it becomes more likley that they exist in others.
-
Thomas
Based on your 'assumptions' you appear to be suggesting Rossi's 'invention is 'illusory', am I right?
if so then Darden et all does not need Rossi to make his invention work, because it doesn't and never did work in your opinion (superheated steam or not), am I right again?
If this is a reasonable interpretation of your position (and you are right) then the court will throw the case out as being based around an 'illusion' and the contract baseless, we shall see!!!
Best regards
Frank -
Thomas
Based on your 'assumptions' you appear to be suggesting Rossi's 'invention is 'illusory', am I right?
if so then Darden et all does not need Rossi to make his invention work, because it doesn't and never did work in your opinion (superheated…
The subtle point in this story is that fact and legally provable fact may be different. Also even if in principle this is legally provable it may not be in IH interest to prove it.
Also, what is meant by illusory? How can anyone ever prove that Rossi's devices do not exhibit some small amount, maybe COP=1.1, of real LENR? For that you would need a much more accurate test than ever done.
So, although I think his invention is illusory, I'm not sure this is provable in Court. It would depend I guess on what evidence was needed, and what evidence provided by IH.
-
Quote: “that Rossi has absolutely no technical training in nuclear physics...his "science" degree is from a mail-order diploma mill that was shut down for fraud for gods sake, but the notion that this unqualified fraudster would be the one to bring…
Yet another non-answer in Sifferkoll style lol. I should have expected nothing more! lol
-
Sifferkoll - It was just a suggestion. I'm sure that you've imagined that you'll be more useful to Rossi by continuing your ongoing slander, libel and fabrication campaign against me and others.
Well Dewey, if you were smart enough to put a (R) behind your name in an incredibly
egotisticalwise fashion, you and others would have NOTHING to worry about in the realm of slander, libel and fabrication. Didn't you know ALL the cool kids are doing it now? I am surprised Siffer doesn't use a logo or symbol like Prince as well...maybe he does. -
Quote from sifferkoll: “Well, I finally got to meet the guy working the &quot;other&quot; IH agenda (than Dewey's diversions). Some of you probably know him from ECN as fredz777. He's name is Fred Zoepfl and he make you all look like saints (even you…
Wow someone is a bit butt-hurt lol....
-
Thomas
Also, what is meant by illusory? How can anyone ever prove that Rossi's devices do not exhibit some small amount, maybe COP=1.1, of real LENR? For that you would need a much more accurate test than ever done.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illusory-contract/
This seems to be relevant to Rossi offering as a 'consideration' something which is 'worthless' as you suggest, in which case the contract is not 'enforceable'.
Illusory contract
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/illusory-contract.htmlDefinition -
: a contract in which at least one party makes an illusory promise.This again seems to fit with your opinion of what Rossi was offering Darden et al in the contested contract.
In particular an invention cannot be patented if it is 'illusory' i.e. patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.”
The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and herefore would not be granted a patent. Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.So, if Rossi's inventions have been issued with a 'patent' withstanding the above test, then they are unlikely to be determined to be 'illusory'. However, I know you are likely to disagree and if evidence is presented to court (such as your critique of Lugano) and this is viewed as evidence that Rossi's invention could not (in hindsight) comply with the above 'test' of 'usefulness etc., Then the Court will see this, as you do, that the invention does not work, the patents will be rescinded and the contract declared 'invalid' due to an 'illusory' consideration.
Best regards
Frank -
Quote
So, if Rossi's inventions have been issued with a 'patent' withstanding the above test, then they are unlikely to be determined to be 'illusory'. However, I know you are likely to disagree and if evidence is presented to court (such as your critique of Lugano) and this is viewed as evidence that Rossi's invention could not (in hindsight) comply with the above 'test' of 'usefulness etc., Then the Court will see this, as you do, that the invention does not work, the patents will be rescinded and the contract declared 'invalid' due to an 'illusory' consideration.
I can't see how you get that. As I said above I don't think it likely the court will rule Rossi's invention is illusory. Why would IH present evidence for this? They would rather hope there is some merit in the Rossi IP and just prove that he has not transferred IP as required, and/or that the long-term test results are incorrect.
As I read it proving Rossi's entire inventive corpus to be illusory would be both much more difficult (how do you do it?) and not in IH interests.
I think you are mixing up:
- Rossi's invention is illusory
- Rossi's invention is legally provable so (if IH want to do this)
- IH want to prove Rossi's invention illusory
I admit I'm not sure here - who can know what IH want to do - still I'd be surprised if you could be sure I'm wrong?
