IH is probably still running tests with their experts, i.e. testing the specs of everything on hand and comparing it to the ERV, trying to find inconsistencies.
No reason to publish the ERV until they have exhausted all the "gotchas" they possibly can find and listed the spelling mistakes and missing page numbers.
I am soooooo happy IH's attorneys are costing ten times as much as Rossi attorney!!!!!!
IH is probably still running tests with their experts, i.e. testing the specs of everything on hand and comparing it to the ERV, trying to find inconsistencies.
It will not matter. Science is always progressing and who knows what we will understand about LENR in 5 or 10 years. What new knowledge is revealed from whatever quarter is nothing to do with the contract the ERV report as it stands is everything to do with the contract and was in fact the trigger for the payment of $89 million dollars the non payment of which is the subject of the complaint by Rossi.
The only time it will matter is if it can be shown that there is absolutely 'nothing' in the claims of Rossi regarding his invention. Then the contract will be judged to be based on an 'illusion' (which Dewey seems to be suggesting) A few things will happen then:
(1) The related patents will be worthless and or withdrawn
(2) The IP will be worthless
(3) The contract will be worthless and judged to be illusory.
But I see no move by IH towards that and so think (at the moment) that IH believe the invention is 'real' and 'worth a lot of money' certainly worth investing in high class lawyers for starters.
The opening gambit by IH is to me at least 'informative' if the MTD is allowed then they have potentially valuable IP for $11 million. Or will they if Rossi has rescinded the licence, maybe another court case to decide this?
For me, I will be waiting for IH to enter a counter claim of 'fraud' against Rossi (which I believe is what DW is paving the way for) that will be interesting. Until that happens, I can only assume Rossi's invention is real as is the position of the court at the moment, until of course they throw the case out for being 'illusory'. Then another appeal.
Who was it said this could go on for years?
Best regards
Frank
Why do you say that? Have you read the ERV? Have you discussed it with I.H.'s lawyers? If you have not, how can you know when it would best for them to publish?
Jed, if ERV would clearly prove COP ~1 and bad things about Rossi and possibly Penon, it would not need to wait court hearing. Instead publishing it sooner would be much better for defending IH:s reputation, compared to this continuous implying, hinting and drip dropping half truths and baked calculations.
I'm very easy to wait for real facts and real court case, but on what grounds someone thinks that this endless mumbling and speculating would help IH reputation beats me.
According to this text Rossi cannot release the ERV report without IH's permission
I do not know about that, but nothing prevents Rossi from writing another report summarizing his instruments, the configuration and the data. I am sure he could do that anytime, because he already has done it. He gave Lewan some information. He could give out a little more. It would not take much. He will not do this, because his choice of instruments, the configuration and the data are ludicrous. You can see that from what he already revealed. The numbers are absurdly round, and the fluid (probably hot water, not steam) is cooled by some secret machine in the pretend customer site next door, which he will not allow people to see. If that does not tell you he is a fraud, you are deluded.
Perhaps Rossi's lawyer advised him that he was not permitted to release the ERV report under the terms of the contract he signed.
I doubt it will be all that enlightening, anyway. It will contain none of the meaty stuff about who did what, when, how, and why.
It will be a load of data points, endless fuel for discussion, but probative of nothing - because the ways in which the data were generated will be the subject of most of the debate.
Jed, if ERV would clearly prove COP ~1 and bad things about Rossi and possibly Penon, it would not need to wait court hearing.
Who told you that it does need to wait for a court hearing?
Instead publishing it sooner would be much better for defending IH:s reputation, compared to this continuous implying, hinting and drip dropping half truths and baked calculations.
I have no idea what would be best for I.H. That is up to their lawyers and management. I have not discussed this with them, and I have no idea what their strategy is. I am sure the ERV is damaging to Rossi because his test was a farce.
Anyway, you are not satisfied with what I.H. tells you. In that case, I suggest you ask Rossi for more details, such as the make and model of instruments, where they were placed, temperatures, pressure and so on. He can write a new report. Nothing is stopping him from telling you this. He has already told you enough for any reasonable person to conclude that he is a fraud. You need only look at his refusal to allow the I.H. expert into the customer site, despite the fact that the expert insisted. You can ignore everything else, and you can assume that everything Dewey has revealed is false. You still know for sure that Rossi is a fraud. That fact alone is proof. There is lots of other proof in his data. I hope you get a chance to see it.
You can also do some homework and confirm that the customer does not exist. Even if he did exist, what would a chemical distribution company in a small warehouse be doing with 1 MW of process heat?
Jed
If that does not tell you he is a fraud, you are deluded.
So what is IH et al waiting for, why don't they make a counter claim of 'fraud' if its that simple. The only reason I can think of is that they are not confident it would fly, what does that tell us? It tells us IH et all think Rossi's invention 'works'. They have never said it does not work, Dewey has but not IH, all they have said is they cannot 'validate' it. Validation is not in the contract, only the ERV report at >6. So why don't they say, the ERV report says <6 is Dewey is right, it was <6? Seems like a good enough reason to withhold £89 million to me, why is it not that simple?
Best regards
Frank
So what is IH et al waiting for, why don't they make a counter claim of 'fraud' if its that simple.
Rossi already declared himself a fraud, when he blocked the door to the pretend customer site. You can look up that customer and see for yourself it does not exist. The other proof is icing on the cake.
I do not know know what I.H. is waiting for, but I know why Rossi never released the ERV or a summary of it. It makes him look terrible.
The only reason I can think of is that they are not confident it would fly, what does that tell us? It tells us IH et all think Rossi's invention 'works'.
Based on my analysis of the data I assure you, you are wrong. Anyone who spends 5 minutes examining the data and configuration will be confident that the test was a farce. It was as bad as Rossi's previous tests. Bad calorimetry scaled up is still bad.
They have never said it does not work, Dewey has but not IH, all they have said is they cannot 'validate' it.
They did say it does not work. In the motion to dismiss, they said: ". . . ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." Based on my analysis, I agree completely with the "flawed measurements" and "unsuitable measuring devices." "Unsuitable" is too polite. I would say "ludicrous instruments" that any expert would glance at and say: "What is this, a joke?!? You can't measure a damn thing with that!"
You should ask Rossi for a list of the instruments he used, and where they were placed. He will never tell you, but you might have fun riling him by asking.
The motion says "reactors" (plural). I agree the 1 MW reactor was inoperable, based on Rossi's data. I do not know about any other reactors.
If Rossi is under a NDA regarding the ERV report, what makes you think he can write his own report with the same info and publish it? Is that how you treat your own NDA?
Hit a nerve then Jed
If Rossi is under a NDA regarding the ERV report, what makes you think he can write his own report with the same info and publish it?
The fact that he has already revealed a great deal about the test in the Lewan interview makes me think he could write his own report and reveal more. He wouldn't have to reveal much more. The instruments, the configuration, some temperature and pressures would be enough.
I expect he already revealed more than he intended to. I was surprised he said that he did not allow the I.H. expert to see the pretend customer site. Anyone can look for information on that customer, put 2 + 2 together, and see that the customer is fake. The only plausible reason Rossi blocked the door was to stop the expert from confirming that the reactor is producing no excess heat. Seeing what is in the customer site would be the final nail in the coffin. But I am sure the expert saw enough in Rossi's own site to conclude that there is no heat.
Maybe Rossi revealed information he shouldn't have, maybe not, but that doesn't mean he can legally publish a rewritten version of the report.
Most likely his lawyer is advising him to wait, same as with IH.
Jed
So you know this or is this a guess?
If its a guess I'm not interested unless its an 'informed guess' then I would expect you to provide evidence'. No evidence I conclude you are making this stuff up.
BTW Rossi has said his lawyer has told him not to discuss issues directly related to the court case, but then we cant believe a word Rossi says can we.
Best regards
Frank
Maybe Rossi revealed information he shouldn't have, maybe not, but that doesn't mean he can legally publish a rewritten version of the report.
As I said, he has already published a rewritten version of the report. It was brief, but informative. I have not heard that I.H. was upset by this. Add a few more paragraphs, a schematic, and Bob's your Uncle.
I do not think I.H. would object. I expect they will publish the Penon report sooner or later. That is what Dewey said here, I believe.
More to the point, for months before the test came to an end, Rossi promised Lewan he would publish the Penon ERV report. He repeatedly said on his blog that he would publish it. He did not hint that I.H. might prevent him. Then, suddenly, after Rossi himself filed a lawsuit, he said he cannot publish because of the lawsuit that he himself filed. He must have known he was going to file that. That is not the sort of thing your lawyers draft overnight. He must have known he would not give the report to Lewan, so Lewan would not be able to hold his symposium. Rossi deliberately led Lewan on, thinking the report would come out in time for the symposium.
He could publish a summary, now. He has already released the most damaging detail: the fact that he himself refused to let people into the customer site.
So you know this or is this a guess?
I know this what? What do you refer to?
I do not know whatever it is you have in mind.
Jed
ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices
(1) If some devices were 'inoperable' and the plant was still achieving COP >6 that is a bonus in my book.
(2) The issue you raise about 'flawed' measurements' is interesting and suggests IH are gearing up to 'rubbish' the ERV's report, that suggests that my hunch is correct, that the ERV report is as Rossi says, otherwise it would not require 'discrediting' with a claim of 'flawed measurements' this will be an 'uphill battle' for IH, since the 'status quo' will be the ERV report as it stands, that is what the contract is based on.
(3) unsuitable measuring devices - How far will IH go down this path? All the way to prove Rossi has nothing, to prove he is a fraud, they risk putting the IP, the contract itself and the patents at risk, and since they have been making their own patent applications and modifications based on Rossi's invention I suggest they will not want to go all the way, just enough to avoid paying the $89 million and just enough to keep the IP and patents safe. This will be an interesting tight rope for them to walk, no wonder they have chosen the most expensive lawyers in town
Best regards
Frank
If some devices were 'inoperable' and the plant was still achieving COP >6 that is a bonus in my book.
It isn't achieving a COP of >6. The COP is around 0.5 to 0.8 ignoring losses from the reactor. Including those losses it is ~1. This is a poorly designed electric heater.
The issue you raise about 'flawed' measurements' is interesting and suggests IH are gearing up to 'rubbish' the ERV's report,
Anyone can rubbish that report. The test was an ungodly mess. A farce.
Heck, you can rubbish it yourself, right now. Tell us why Rossi did not allow anyone to see the pretend customer site. Unless you can think of a plausible, legit reason for that, you can see he was covering up a fraud. Just check out the customer and you will see there was no equipment in there using 1 MW of process heat. That's absurd.
Jed
I didn't know that the ERV report was about the 'pretend customer', what did it say then?
How can what the report says about the customer be 'rubbished', that is interesting.
I know you have (or seem to have) seen the report to make these accusations, can you reveal some of it to us?
Best regards
Frank
Jed
I know this what? What do you refer to?
I do not know whatever it is you have in mind.
Is this fact, or is your opinion, can you support it with evidence?
expect he already revealed more than he intended to. I was surprised he said that he did not allow the I.H. expert to see the pretend customer site. Anyone can look for information on that customer, put 2 + 2 together, and see that the customer is fake. The only plausible reason Rossi blocked the door was to stop the expert from confirming that the reactor is producing no excess heat. Seeing what is in the customer site would be the final nail in the coffin. But I am sure the expert saw enough in Rossi's own site to conclude that there is no heat.
Best regards
Frank
