Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test

Quote from IHFB

It appears that IH amended and cleaned up the claims. That they continue with the application is one of the first indications that we have that IH still sees value in the eCat technology. That is probably why Frank is highlighting this on his blog. Can you think of any other reason why they would take the effort to put the claims into better form and continue with the application?

I posted on this earlier - which Abd picked up and Sifferkoll incomprehensibly (to me) ranted on. I was just saying what is obvious.

You fall down a rabbit hole when you attempt to put binary ratings of certain knowledge onto other people's beliefs. Your implicit argument is that:
(1) IH know whether or not Rossi is fraudulent
(2) IH know whether or not his stuff works
(3) IH know whether or not his stuff exhibits some useful LENR (but maybe not at working levels)

None of these will be true (well - at best that might have absolute knowledge we do not of Rossi's fraud). They may have a strong view of what is likely, but no certainty. Nor is there linkage between these things. Rossi may well be fraudulent, with every one of his tests rigged, and yet he still has some valuable nuggets of LENR in his IP which could be burnished by IH. Even, Rossi could be innocent of fraud, but have rigged every one of his tests. Lying is not fraud.

So from IH POV given even a tiny bit of leeway for Rossi maybe to have something, they will proceed with the IP protection. In fact it is a condition of the license agreement that they do this, and they would be in trouble with shareholders if tey did not.

It is primary process (associative) thinking to imagine that things that look good imply other things that look good. It does look good that IH think there is some possibility that Rossi's IP might have value. But they are convinced of LENR, and thought a punt on Rossi might be worthwhile, so it is expected. If they had reservations from the start, as is claimed, the fact that those reservations have grown bigger do not stop them for grabbing (essentially at this stage for free) any IP that could just possibly down the line prove useful. The downside is a very tiny cost, mots of which is already paid. The upside, even if highly unlikely, is enormous. And for these reasons all VC companies adopt an approach of grabbing possible IP indiscriminately.

That is also why IH are not likely to say Rossi's stuff does not work. They cannot know that, and must hope that it does work. All they can know is that the stuff he has given them does not work after years of trying to get it to work.

In parallel - they may detect an attempt to mislead (or what they can represent as an attempt to mislead) in the long-term test or any other test. That (I'm no expert but would expect) might prove useful in the legal action. Somone here made an important point, that in Law you can have multiple contradictory defences. So the fact that IH are possibly claiming Rossi did not transfer IP, as required, and that his long-term test did not work, and other tests were spoofed, is not surprising.

Quote from Abd

If Lewan wants to recover, he could start to cover the other side, much more deeply, and with just as much sympathy as he has for Rossi. He could start to investigate the issues, such as whether or not the Clarke critique is cogent. He thought that since he was not -- he claimed -- qualified to judge it, it was simply a he-says, she-says standoff. No, he could consult other experts. He could develop a review. But that would be work, and it's not clear that he has the time....

To be fair to Mats, he does say that he has now sent the reports to independent people for review. I am very glad for that, it is high time since I gave Mats my comment some 12 months ago. It will be good to get additional critiques back and you may be sure that if such reviews are in my view not accurate I will point this out. Of course, new eyes on this matter may raise issues I have not considered - and that would also be interesting.

Thomas - haven't seen that Mats has sent out reports to independent people. Do you have more information on that bit of news?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Thomas - haven't seen that Mats has sent out reports to independent people. Do you have more information on that bit of news?

No news from Mats as to result.

Quote from Mats

I have contacted several experts to get a third party evaluation of the Lugano test report and the contesting papers by Thomas Clarke and Bob Higgins. Until I receive these evaluations I only note that the original result is contested, but that no conclusive result is agreed upon. The isotopic shifts remain unexplained, unless you assume fraud.

https://animpossibleinvention.…ilding-plus-more-updates/

Dated May 16th

Quote from IH Fanboy

It appears that IH amended and cleaned up the claims. That they continue with the application is one of the first indications that we have that IH still sees value in the eCat technology. That is probably why Frank is highlighting this on his blog. Can you think of any other reason why they would take the effort to put the claims into better form and continue with the application?

In addition to the points that have been made above by Tom about IH not knowing for sure what's going on, in order for anything to be made of this development, this action must be linked back to a decision maker at IH. There are essentially two: Tom Darden and JT Vaughn. If this action does not go back directly to one of them, it could be explained by something mundane, like the law firm on retainer to look after IH's IP portfolio being on autopilot, which it probably is.

All of this repetitive discussion (with each "side" fixed in their position) is a distraction. The scientific/engineering discussions about previous tests are interesting but have already been discussed ad infinitum. If the discussion is about IH and Rossi, then either Rossi has a valid technology (IP) or he doesn't. One can discuss various permutations of this, e.g. he doesn't and is committing fraud, he does but is withholding it, he does but IH is trying to suppress it, he does and IH knows it but still doesn't want to pay the extra $89 million, he had it but then lost it, he has it but is withholding the QuarkX and so they refuse to pay, etc. Either way, regarding Rossi's technology I expect that we will find out soon enough - either his QuarkX will be demonstrated, and if successful manufactured, or if IH is so certain and correct that he is a fraud then they will be able to demonstrate this.

However, the real issue to me - brought up by Sifferkoll - is the possible control of LENR IP by IH. The contract between IH and Rossi is amazingly restrictive and suspicious to me. The actions of IH, e.g. filing patents without Rossi's knowledge, and even outside their territory, and even while claiming that they can't substantiate his claims, are suspicious. The rather belligerent and sometimes self-contradictory and extremely exaggerated postings of one of their investors is also suspicious, given IH's actions and their public statements and tendency to remain low profile. IH's history of creating shell companies - some of which go bankrupt - is suspicious to me at the least. This doesn't seem like a company that has a history of manufacturing anything. (On the other hand, the contacts with China DO indicate a possible desire to "outsource" manufacturing.) Since I don't know much about IH I could be wrong about some of these issues.

But the one issue that does concern me is that of IH's attempts to control LENR IP, which I think should be the real issue that we are discussing. Such a complete control would allow them to either dominate the LENR market if they choose to, or alternatively to suppress and/or control the time-line with which LENR is released to the public. We are currently aware of several LENR companies/researchers that have received investment from IH, e.g. Lenuco, Brillouin, Rossi/Leonardo, Biberian that have been publicly disclosed. I am also aware of at least one other LENR researcher who has received support from IH but don't know any of the details. I'm sure that there are several others. So, the big question to me is, are the agreements between IH and these researchers/companies as restrictive as those between IH and Rossi? To put it another way, is IH gaining control of the IP of Lenuco, Brillouin, Rossi, Biberian, and many other LENR researchers which - while allowing them to claim that they are supporting LENR - would also allow them to "control the shots" in terms of the worldwide development, release, and application of LENR technology? I am concerned that this may be the case. If it is not the case, then I think that IH should declare this. If, on the other hand, their support of all of the non-Rossi players is accompanied by significant IP restrictions and/or control, then I think that we should know this.

P.S. As a number of people have pointed out, Bill Gates' foundation and similar foundations could easily support all of the excellent LENR research without any restrictions. Sifferkoll's (and my) concern is that IH, as the apparent but extremely secretive, "White Knight" supporting LENR , may have an agenda which is excessively driven by profit or other motives.

Quote from quizzical

Either way, regarding Rossi's technology I expect that we will find out soon enough - either his QuarkX will be demonstrated, and if successful manufactured, or if IH is so certain and correct that he is a fraud then they will be able to demonstrate this.

I wish that were the case. I've been waiting since early 2012 for Rossi to demonstrate and manufacture his technology. Be prepared to wait a while before robots in a large factory are assembling QuarkX's.

Quote from quizzical

The actions of IH, e.g. filing patents without Rossi's knowledge, and even outside their territory, and even while claiming that they can't substantiate his claims, are suspicious.

There was recently a change in US patent law (Sept. 2012) that allows companies to file patents without an inventor being involved, as long as the inventor's name is given (along with meeting some other conditions). Presumably this kind of filing is the normal activity of the lawfirm on retainer to help IH with its IP.

Quote from quizzical

IH's history of creating shell companies - some of which go bankrupt - is suspicious to me at the least.

I don't like shell companies either. Unfortunately they are pretty normal in business these days. Try to understand Google's (now Alphabet's) corporate structure and its "Dutch sandwich" legal arrangement. Rossi does use a lot of shell companies for being such a small outfit, I'll admit.

Quote from quizzical

But the one issue that does concern me is that of IH's attempts to control LENR IP, which I think should be the real issue that we are discussing.

As a software developer, perhaps I'm congenitally predisposed against all kinds of IP, which allow obvious improvements to be patented, which then get in the way of normal software development. I would probably throw the baby out with the bathwater if given the opportunity, and then try to come up with something more reasonable (here I'm making my position out to be more extreme than it really is). And if all of LENR were somehow to be patented, at least if the only process for bringing it about that anyone cares about was patented, you might get a situation where one person ends up making trillions of dollars (or something in this ballpark) and everyone else has to pay license fees for the life of the patent. There are several things mitigating and/or working against this outcome:

• It's usually possible to work around one of the claims in a patent
• Related to this, it's unlikely there is a single process involved for bringing LENR about
• There is so much prior art in the public domain, on sites like this and on Vortex, that there will be lots of grist to defeat a lawsuit that attempts to assert a LENR patent
• This whole thing is taking sufficient time that existing patents (e.g., Mills's and Piantelli's) will start expiring at some point
• I am doubtful that countries like Russia and China will allow international patent suits to proceed against LENR manufacturers within their own borders, on the basis of national security

Quote from IH Fanboy

This is false. Look back at Jed's careful falsification of this proposition. It has zero basis.

I don't know exactly which specific falsification are you referring to. I know that after the test held on October 6, 2011, Rothwell was very active on Vortex in supporting the Lewan's conclusions about the production of heat during the alleged SSM period. I find all his arguments wrong, for the same reasons recently discussed by Thomas Clarke (1), who showed as they can be all explained by mundane phenomena, assuming that a heat storage was placed inside the fat-cat. This heat storage hypothesis was raised almost immediately even on Vortex, but Rothwell rejected it vehemently (2).

A couple of months later, I tried to figure out quantitatively the behavior of a fat-cat, in case a heavy metallic mass was present inside its inner box. This study produced a numerical model, which Tom has properly named "hot core model". On the Lewan's blog (3-4), I recently explained the main findings of this model, which give reason of any measurement and phenomena reported for the October 6 test, with no need of considering any power source other than the electric heating. So, I presume it is the right interpretation of the results obtained in the October 6 test.

If you, or anyone else, have any technical objection about this model, please let me know, posting your comments in the forum already opened for this purpose (1).

(1) Mats Lewan's Test Report
(2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg52608.html"
(3) https://animpossibleinvention.…i-ih-affair/#comment-4465
(4) https://animpossibleinvention.…i-ih-affair/#comment-4883

Re: COP of 1.07
The two significant figures after the decimal point, I believe, are not justified.

Quote from Eric Walker

Quote from quizzical: “Either way, regarding Rossi's technology I expect that we will find out soon enough - either his QuarkX will be demonstrated, and if successful manufactured, or if IH is so certain and correct that he is a fraud then they will be…

Eric,
You made some good points in response to my comments. However, you ignored a few things. Since I'm not very good at posting quotes on this forum, I'll just number my additional comments sequentially:

(1) You mentioned the long wait for Rossi's demonstration/manufacturing (and I agree). However, you didn't address the issue of IH demonstrating easily (given that they have all of the data) that he is a fraud. If this is not made clear by IH soon, then I would conclude that Rossi has a valid technology even if it takes significantly longer for it to be manufactured. And remember IH are right now doing all that they can to actively convince others in Europe NOT to collaborate with Rossi.

(2) You mentioned the change in U.S. patent law, but does that allow filing without even notifying the inventor? More importantly, the contract with Rossi expressly forbids sales outside their territory, so why are they filing patents in this region?

(3) You may be right about the pervasiveness of shell companies. Apparently both IH and Rossi are doing this.

(4) You seem to think that IP/patents are not important or not restricting. If so, then why is IH filing them? At the very least, they can cause significant legal problems for possible competitors (and vice-versa). Perhaps more important (although I didn't mention it) is the concept of NDA. Rossi was (is?) tied up by an NDA. Could some of these other inventors/companies be tied up by NDAs with IH? This question goes to the heart of one of the problems of the development of LENR (which I hope is only foreshadowing an imminent "breakout" by at least one company) and that is the excessive secrecy by almost all of those involved. This was one of the reasons MFMP was founded, and I sincerely hope that they can have some success using their "open science" methods.

quizzical,

Quote from quizzical

You made some good points in response to my comments. However, you ignored a few things. Since I'm not very good at posting quotes on this forum, I'll just number my additional comments sequentially:

Almost never to I seek to address every point a person makes. Sometimes a point is one I agree with; or, not infrequently, there is a point I disagree with or take issue with or whose assumptions I don't share, but I don't feel a strong need to engage it. I don't think I'm ignoring points in those cases, especially ones where I basically agree with the point. It would be ignoring a point if the point were germane to some prior argument I had produced that I then failed to address.

Quote from quizzical

(1) You mentioned the long wait for Rossi's demonstration/manufacturing (and I agree). However, you didn't address the issue of IH demonstrating easily (given that they have all of the data) that he is a fraud. If this is not made clear by IH soon, then I would conclude that Rossi has a valid technology even if it takes significantly longer for it to be manufactured. And remember IH are right now doing all that they can to actively convince others in Europe NOT to collaborate with Rossi.

I don't necessarily think that IH will be able to easily demonstrate that Rossi is a fraud. I'm not sure whether this is one of their goals. They haven't said anything in this connection. We have yet to hear their reply to the lawsuit, which will reveal more about the legal strategy they will pursue. I'm not even sure they're convinced that Rossi's technology doesn't work; what's clear (as clear as anything is about their public position) is that they haven't been able to substantiate Rossi's claims. The press release where they said this was ambiguous and didn't even explicitly mention Rossi by name. People must add their own interpretations to it to get anything out of it. Other than that, IH's public position is a blank slate upon which one can project anything one wants.

I have seen no evidence that IH are doing all that they can to actively convince others in Europe not to collaborate with Rossi. Can you point to a link to something? Inferences drawn from statements made by Dewey Weaver do not count, as Dewey is not a spokesperson for IH.

Quote from quizzical

(2) You mentioned the change in U.S. patent law, but does that allow filing without even notifying the inventor? More importantly, the contract with Rossi expressly forbids sales outside their territory, so why are they filing patents in this region?

Yes, as strange as it may seem to the layman (of which I am one in this instance), my understanding is that a company can file without notifying the inventor, or even over and above the inventor's objections. I could be wrong about this. Someone who knows more about US patent law will need to clarify the changes to patent law and explain their intent. In this connection it is important to separate out the routine, day-to-day pursuit of a patent strategy, e.g., by patent attorneys hired by IH, from the valuation that Darden and Vaughn place on this IP. Keep in mind as well that IH have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to protect any IP they've acquired so long as the IP still might be valuable (with an emphasis on "might"). This, again, is independent of whether IH have at the present time high hopes for getting something useful out it.

Quote from quizzical

(4) You seem to think that IP/patents are not important or not restricting. If so, then why is IH filing them? At the very least, they can cause significant legal problems for possible competitors (and vice-versa). Perhaps more important (although I didn't mention it) is the concept of NDA. Rossi was (is?) tied up by an NDA. Could some of these other inventors/companies be tied up by NDAs with IH? This question goes to the heart of one of the problems of the development of LENR (which I hope is only foreshadowing an imminent "breakout" by at least one company) and that is the excessive secrecy by almost all of this involved. This was one of the reasons MFMP was founded, and I sincerely hope that they can have some success using their "open science" methods.

Without addressing each of the points you raise here, I'll say that I agree that secrecy has been the bane of LENR research, and I'm very happy with MFMP's championing open science.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Re: COP of 1.07
The two significant figures after the decimal point, I believe, are not justified.

Well when, as here one is giving a calculation which is precise, but based on uncertain values and assumptions, it is not entirely clear, but there is certainly a strong argument on your side.

However, I had one important reason that made it necessary to give 2 d.p. of precision and would have justified 3. A key argument of the Lugano report authors was the COP acceleration. It turns out this is an artifact and the COP for the two higher temperatures is identical to within 0.5%. In order to show that high silialrity - which actually provides substantial validation that my rather complex calculations are correct - I need high precision in the headline COPs.

Eric,
See, for example, Dewey Weavers's posts on this page regarding "warning" investors about Rossi.
Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

Quote from Ascoli65

So, I presume it is the right interpretation of the results obtained in the October 6 test.
If you, or anyone else, have any technical objection about this model, please let me know, posting your comments in the forum already opened for this purpose (1).

I have not taken the time to analyze your computation, but I will mention what most concerns me about this test, and I am sure I am not the first to raise this concern so apologies for posting old news. First of all, as [edit] Thomas Clarke outlined in "Mats Lewan's Test Report", the choice of a rather high water flow on the secondary circuit of the heat exchanger makes the computation very sensitive vs temperature of the second thermocouple.
Now the position of this thermocouple is right on the outlet of a piece of tubing that is a single block with the hot vapor inlet. On top of that, it is covered by foil wrapping. There is no reason to keep the thermocouple so close to the heat exchanger, since it is very easy to insulate water at 31°C from the 25°C environment: It could have been placed some 20 cm away adding a metal joint after a short rubber hose. By placing it in close proximity of the heat exchanger one cannot trust the temperature to really match the temperature of water without a weighted contribution of the hot casing.

[Edit: I read the discussion of last April on Mats Lewan's blog and indeed I see Ascoli65 mentioned the misplaced thermocouple as an obvious error source.. so little or no value added by my post. Didn't replicate calculations but they look very credible.
Actually the argument of explaining thermal profiles with a "selfsustaining reaction", when thermal inertia is instead an obvious explanation, is also present in the hotcat TPR1 in the section "remarks on the test" addressing the so called selfsustaining mode.
In that case I could almost perfectly mimic the temperature graphs judged "anomalous" by the authors, by modeling the reactor with a hot core "loosely coupled" to the external steel cylinder and adjusting the thermal conductance in between. All was needed was thermal inertia.

Quote from Ascoli65

Quote from IH Fanboy: “Quote from Ascoli65: “was able to keep the water at the boiling point for more than 3 hears, after the switching off of the electric heater.”

This is false. Look back at Jed's careful falsification of this proposition. It…

I happen to find Jed's explanation more persuasive. Thomas suggests a "heating element loosely coupled to both the hot core and the primary system." The simple problem with this hypothesis is that, to my knowledge, nobody saw or reported such a "loosely coupled" heating element. And the unit was opened for inspection for all witnesses to see.

Here we go again. Team Rossi drops leading insinuations and fabrications casually into their postings in an ongoing effort to shape the argument their way. An insipid strategy from these folks (F1 & F2). I'm thinking that we need another dose of truth in the near future.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Here we go again. Team Rossi drops leading insinuations and fabrications casually into their postings in an ongoing effort to shape the argument their way. An insipid strategy from these folks (F1 & F2). I'm thinking that we need another dose of truth in the near future.

Absolutely!

Bring it on, Dewey!