Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?

    Quote from Rends

    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 claim that your invention does not work, which is not only criminal but also outlandishly stupid.


    It is true that one can't file for a patent, simultaneously claiming that the invention is not working.


    This is not the case here.


    IH had to assume that the test result is correct, when they had filed the patent application, even if this may be assessed differently today.


    It's obvious, that the time course has to be considered.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    IH had to assume that the test result is correct, when they had filed the patent application, even if this may be assessed differently today.


    It's obvious, that the time course has to be considered.


    The date of publishing of the patent application is Feb. 25, 2016 filled Feb.20,2015 so if IH had, as they claim in their papers to the court, the information in 2015 that the device does not work, then they have to withdraw the patent application and the application should have never been published. But nothing, the application is still available.

    Quote from Rends

    The date of publishing of the patent application is Feb. 25, 2016 filled Feb.20,2015 so if IH had, as they claim in their papers to the court, the information in 2015 that the device does not work, then they have to withdraw the patent application and the application should have never been published. But nothing, the application is still available.


    Until now, the lawyers of IH have not presented any argument that the device does not work.


    I think it's understandable that one cannot act beside the ongoing litigation.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Quote from IH Fanboy: “Did the data that you had access to appear to show a measured temperature value of 100.1 C?”
    As I recall, that is an average extrapolated from the data Rossi gave in the Lewan interview. See:


    <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg109919.html" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>…



    That extrapolation doesn't make any sense. Output temperature could be 105 C and we would still be close to 1MW.



    Moreover, we know that Penon only took into account the energy for vaporisation.

    Jed - don't forget Rossi's 100.1C flipchart math from the 2011 Krivit video.


    And don't be confused when you see 103.9C for every single steam temp measurement for March and April 2015 when the ERV finally publishes. I'm telling you, even with all the variable power input on the same graph, this was one hell of a steady state system. Absolutely spot on, dead nuts perfect temp performance for 60 straight 24/7 days. The world has never seen such an amazing device.

    I thought that any information published about a system in the public domain made that information "OPEN SOURCE".


    The Lugano report was published in the open and was discussed in many blogs in hundreds of posts. That Lugano report and the information that it contained is open source and in the public domain. Then there is all the replications of the Lugano reactor. They as also open source. How can IH patent that system as described in the Lugano report as their IP?


    The Lugano report is Prior art. I am thinking that IH is incompetent in many if not all facets of the business that they are in. Can anyone restore my confidence in IH as a capable LENR developer?

    Edited once, last by axil ().

    • Official Post
    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    Until now, the lawyers of IH have not presented any argument that the device does not work.


    I think it's understandable that one cannot act beside the ongoing litigation.


    You are absolutely right, not a single word in the Motion to Dismiss court paper that indicates, that the plant did not work!


    https://animpossibleinvention.…/ih-motion-to-dismiss.pdf


    And there are only two stated reasons why IH refuse to pay the $89 million, on the one hand they argue that the test was not accomplished in the agreed time period and secondly that no 6-cylinder version was used, whatever that 6-cylinder version might be, they brought the 1MW plant containers to the United States, so why then test another plant or version? As said above, not a single word in the court paper that the device did not work and I can not imagine a single reason why the by IH in their press statement claimed dysfunctionality of the Ecat is not mentioned with a single word! So I expect that the evidence is against IH's assertion (ie the ECAT works) and therefore the Johns Day lawyer advised IH not to play this card and therefore only two arguments are remaining: "tested to late" and "tested wrong version".


    http://ecat.org/2016/industria…t-regarding-rossi-action/

    Quote from JedRothwell

    As I recall, that is an average extrapolated from the data Rossi gave in the Lewan interview. See:


    mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg109919.html


    I'm confused. And I'm asking these questions with sincerity.


    The link you provided is to conjecture by Daniel Rocha. While interesting, it does not appear to contain any hard measured temperature values. Do you have a different link to the data provided by Rossi?


    Quote from JedRothwell


    I do not have the data I received on this computer, but I recall the
    temperatures were low. There were other indications the fluid was water,
    not steam.


    Where did this data come from, and what happened to it after you received it (i.e., why don't you have it any more)? Is this data that IH had shared with you? When you say you recall the temperatures were low, were these measured temperatures? Can you provide a ballpark range for what you remember?

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    Jed - don't forget Rossi's 100.1C flipchart math from the 2011 Krivit video.


    And don't be confused when you see 103.9C for every single steam temp
    measurement for March and April 2015 when the ERV finally publishes. I'm
    telling you, even with all the variable power input on the same graph,
    this was one hell of a steady state system. Absolutely spot on, dead
    nuts perfect temp performance for 60 straight 24/7 days. The world has never seen such an amazing device.


    So is this the post where you back off from your 100.1 C claim for the 1MW plant?


    Should we conveniently ignore what you said before, and focus our attention on something else--like, let's say, a new temperature value of 103.9 C? And oh, but this is bad because of the consistency of the temperature over a period of time? You might have a point here, but what happened to the 100.1 C claim? We're not talking about the 2011 flipchart and never were.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Rends

    You are absolutely right, not a single word in the Motion to Dismiss court paper that indicates, that the plant did not work!



    I disagree there is just a sentence:

    Quote


    Because Defendants are not permitted to introduce facts outside the Complaint and its Exhibits, this motion does not address, for example, the numerous errors in Plaintiffs’ purported “Guaranteed Performance Test” that the Complaint purposely ignores (such as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices).

    Hi all


    We need to look at the positioning of various major companies to see which are most likely to be the Licensed US manufacturers and retailers of E-Cat products.


    As I pointed out I think large companies with major manufacturing capabilities are the most likely candidates.


    One should consider car as well aircraft, and ship manufacturing perhaps also consider white goods and computer manufacturing.


    If they are moving into the field to replace IH I would expect them to be dumping Fossil Fuel based products and preparing new assembly lines so tool changing and design. To a large extent most of the car companies are already prepared for this, and have shifted to electric drive car designs already.


    Kind Regards walker

    • Official Post
    Quote from AlainCo

    such as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices)


    @AlainCo


    Found right now on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/The_New_Fire/status/739256750713516032


    The departing from the test plan, or better the argument to have delivered late is out of the race I think.


    - departing form the test plan | done, §5 issue
    - ignoring inoperable reactors | not able to adjudicate, it just says that some of the many reactor where inoperable, no global statement
    - relying on flawed measurements | that can only be decided by an expert, hitherto pure assertion
    - using unsuitable measuring devices | that can only be decided by an expert, hitherto pure assertion


    If IH would have been sure that the device is not working as claimed, or better is not working in a manner, that the COP target, set in the licence agreement was achieved, then they would definitely had pointed this clearly out "COP bigger than X not achieved", but they didn't!

    Quote from Rends

    As said above, not a single word in the court paper that the device did not work and I can not imagine a single reason why the by IH in their press statement claimed dysfunctionality of the Ecat is not mentioned with a single word! So I expect that the evidence is against IH's assertion (ie the ECAT works)


    A motion to dismiss outlines legal reasons why the trial should not be continued.


    If Jones Day know several reasons which explain why IH is not obliged to pay the 89m$ then they will of course identify the legal reasons that are the easiest to comprehend. That's what everyone would do.


    Stating a single reason that no payment obligation exists would have been quite sufficient .


    The two reasons which are mentioned here, are easy to understand. This says nothing about the evidence in a different argument, only that presenting this evidence would be very extensive and that the introduction of new facts could be required. Such an argument not conforms to a Motion to Dismiss.

    Walker - which US companies do you think will have execs and lawyers who would desire to sign a license agreement with Rossi in the coming months and years? Have you heard of the term "encumbered assets" before? Go study up - it will be helpful background knowledge as you work thru your proposed brainstorming plan. Back to companies that would touch Rossi with a 10' pole - I can only think of one right now - JM Products, USA division.

    Tom - Should Rossi's legal filing survive the MTD phase, his legal battle and expenses are truly just beginning. The odds of him winning on all the numerous legal issues that he must win to justify his position are very long. His legal bills are going to be huge. He is one cunning, crafty and nervy soul but he also plans to try and hang on to his shekels. Multiple realities should be dawning on Rossi now or in the near future. I'm not sure if he is capable of recognizing any of them.

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.