Tom - I guess that $11.5M and funding for a lot of the test devices, materials and overhead only buys you a lawsuit these days.
Also explains why Rends believes what he believes. To each his own.
Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?
-
-
POST REMOVED - POTENTIALLY LIBELLOUS AND INACCURATE - ALAN SMITH
-
Rends - they have stolen nothing. It doesn't work, remember?
It is not important if it is working or not, plagiarism is plagiarism and it is a crime, especially when it is used to fill a US patent application!
-
Rends - xxx paid Levi. Now that is fertile ground - we can go there if you'd like.
You did not get it, this report is an independent scientific report, the content is the intellectually property of the scientists named on the cover and if Industrial Heat LLC did not have a consent form of every single author of this report then it is plagiarism. -
Rends- Please remove that 'xxx''' quote if you would. It is a very contentious statement.
-
Rends - On which planet is it a crime to pre-file a test report on technology that you built, have a license to and attempted to protect in the form of a patent application as a precautionary measure? If you have good answer then you need to realize that it goes away with the click of mouse should the filing not prove useful or not be needed? I guess that I should also point out that IH had some really good IP legal advice on this matter. BTW, we have great lawyers as Team Rossi is just now figuring out.
-
Oh great - here comes the censorship game again.
-
Rends - On which planet is it a crime to pre-file a test report on technology that you built, have a license to and attempted to protect in the form of a patent application as a precautionary measure?
It is always a crime to use the intellectual property of others without permission. The Lugano Test Report is in complete the intellectual property of Levi et.al and the use by IH for an US Patent application is plagiarism.
-
Tough shit.You want to play here, remember to pass over a few opportunities for innuendos.
-
I'm waiting for the results of the ERV report before I can judge whether or not the one-year test was successful.
That's a good idea. Plus, you should wait to see I.H.'s analysis. I strongly recommend you first hear from both parties in a dispute before making up your mind which is right. That's what they teach in first grade.P.S. Are you telling me that IH did NOT conduct a 24-hour validation test to demonstrate a COP > 6, using an expert ERV chosen by mutual agreement between IH and Leonardo, as prescribed in Sec. 4 of the contract,
I have no idea. I know nothing about this. -
It is preposterous to suggest that they haven't done a single test in 3 years(!!!) in which they had the original 1MW container to their disposal, before the 1 year test even started.
I did not say they did or did not conduct tests. I have no knowledge of that. The only thing I know is what I.H. said in their press released and motion to dismiss: the reactors did not work. The measurements are flawed, and the instruments unsuitable. I agree with that, based on my own analysis of a sample of Rossi's data.I am sure it was Rossi's data, because the numbers are the same as he reported to Lewan. Magically round numbers.
If I.H. conducted tests, I suppose their tests also failed to show excess heat, but I wouldn't know. I am speculating based on the I.H. press release and motion to dismiss.
-
Rends - what part of the Lugano report is the intellectual property of Levi?
-
-
Nice one Alan - I return fire when attacked.
-
Quote from quizzical: “I'm waiting for the results of the ERV report before I can judge whether or not the one-year test was successful.”
That's a good idea. Plus, you should wait to see I.H.'s analysis. I strongly recommend you first hear from both…Jed Rothwell: "That's a good idea. Plus, you should wait to see I.H.'s analysis. I strongly recommend you first hear from both parties in a dispute before making up your mind which is right. That's what they teach in first grade."
Apparently, that is NOT what you have done!
You announced that the E-cat doesn't work (i.e. you "made up your mind") but as far as I can tell, since you haven't seen the ERV report and Rossi's other evidence, you haven't first heard from both parties!
And yet you're preaching to me and others - who haven't BTW said that we DID make up our minds (only you have apparently) that we're below "first-grade" level?
This seems like a huge inconsistency on your part. What am I missing?
-
Jed Rothwell: "If I.H. conducted tests, I suppose their tests also failed to show excess heat, but I wouldn't know. I am speculating based on the I.H. press release and motion to dismiss."
But you're sure that the E-cat does not work.
But you're only speculating.
But everyone else should wait before speculating.
But you can speculate (even claiming your speculations as fact) even though now you claim that you "wouldn't know" if the IH tests showed excess heat. I'm talking about the 24-hour test, which was specified in the contract, and required to show COP > 6 before IH paid Rossi the $10M! As I already argued, if this test failed, then why did IH pay Rossi the $10M?
Do you know whether or not it failed? If not, then why do you claim that you're sure that the E-cat hasn't passed any tests?
-
Display More
To substantiate my note:
It is rather likely that IH has got appropriate rights.
Claiming of a "theft" without knowledge of the agreements between the authors/IH is certainly not appropriate.
They have of course not the appropriate rights to use the Lugano report in the form they did it! If this where the case, they would have named all the authors and the source and not only made a simple reference link to arxiv.org. You can not copy the complete text and pictures of a scientific publication made by other, fill a patent application and then claim that all this is your invention and your intellectual property and in this special case IH vs. Rossi additionally, fill the application without the permission of the inventor and claiming that your invention does not work, which is not only criminal but also outlandishly stupid.
-
Apparently, that is NOT what you have done!
You announced that the E-cat doesn't work (i.e. you "made up your mind") but as far as I can tell, since you haven't seen the ERV report and Rossi's other evidence, you haven't first heard from both parties!
I have seen data from Rossi, as I have said several times. I am sure it is from Rossi because the numbers he gave Lewan in the interview were the same one I have seen. I have somewhat more data than was revealed in the interview, and a description of the configuration.I also have some information from I.H.
-
Jed Rothwell: "If I.H. conducted tests, I suppose their tests also failed to show excess heat, but I wouldn't know. I am speculating based on the I.H. press release and motion to dismiss."
But you're sure that the E-cat does not work.
But you're only speculating.
No, I base that on my analysis of Rossi's data, as I said. His magically round numbers.I also base that on what Rossi described in the interview: the I.H. expert insisted on seeing the customer site, but Rossi refused to let him in. I think the only plausible reason for doing that was to cover up the fact that there was not 1 MW of heat being released in the customer site. Anyone allowed into the room could confirm or deny the 1 MW easily, by examining the equipment in use there, or by testing the ventilation with standard HVAC tools.
-
I have seen data from Rossi, as I have said several times. I am sure it is from Rossi because the numbers he gave Lewan in the interview were the same one I have seen. I have somewhat more data than was revealed in the interview, and a description of the configuration.
Did the data that you had access to appear to show a measured temperature value of 100.1 C?
