Have IH let their E-Cat License lapse by inaction?

  • Peter - thank you for your response and I hope that your rheumatism pain is manageable. The bent and tone of your questions comes across as somewhat toxic but please do not take that personally. It is just an observation that I wanted to make. I'm going to try and address several of the questions from you that I can understand. I'm going to leave the ones that I do not understand alone.


    I met Rossi in Raleigh on multiple occasions, found him very interesting and, at times, delightful. He is a driven man and ended up not wanting me around as a result of my questions and actions. I attended one of the initial demonstrations to WIF and Rossi spotted me with an IR temp gun. He made a couple of adjustments to the controls and stated that the system may be getting dangerous and for everyone to step away while he attempts to get the system back under control. He was claiming 450C at the time and the temp gun said much lower. After that, he told T Barker not to let me into the lab stating "keep those lawyers away from here". I'm not a lawyer but was glad to stay out of the way after hearing that and did not visit the lab again until 1MW system shipped to Florida.


    I was not aware of the qrtly reports from the "ERV" until after the final report was released. I was aware that there was concern about the 1MW testing and that steps were being taken to try and reduce the questionable matters before the test ended. It is my understanding that Penon went non-responsive to emails in Jan 2016. There are major terminal issues documented there - there is no way for Rossi or the "ERV" to credibly survive those issues should this get to trial.


    With all due respect, your bait question is very telling of your misunderstanding of how cause-oriented investment works. IH doesn't need bait and took a select group of investors to several lab sites on multiple occasions. The main investor visit to Rossi's test site in August 2015 was a faked disaster that was clearly obvious to everyone on the IH side.


    IH has a bunch of pending patents in the system. Very few of them are related to Rossi's technology and should Rossi's technology actually work one day then no legal controversy will exist based on the decisions IH has made and will make. The license agreement allows IH the right to files patents based on Rossi's technology as long as he is listed as the main inventor.


    IH has not cross-pollinated Rossi IP with any of the other researchers or investments. Even if Rossi's IP worked, IH would never allow IP tracks to cross in the experiment / R&D phase.


    Regarding your portfolio question, you may Interpret that IH has been a good steward of the investment dollars (a majority of them at least) and is very pleased at this stage of the project sans the unpleasantness with Rossi.


    Rossi has painted himself into a corner - we'll see what kind of stripes apply when this is all over.


    It would be an honor to testify on behalf of IH and / or for my good friends Tom Darden and JT Vaughn. They are exceptional men who have done a whole lot of good for humanity to date. They very generously give back and pay forward. The world needs more givers like this and fewer takers like Rossi. I will stand by their side in any situation.


    Regarding sworn testimony, i would actually welcome a chance to testify under oath and have no problem with a sworn oath on a Bible, a book that I study and believe in. I can say the same for Tom Darden and JT Vaughn. They are God fearing, Bible believing men who will always speak the truth.


    I still want to discuss Rossi's persecution of Piantelli but would like to next ask you why you seem to have so much faith in Rossi?

  • Quote: "Regarding sworn testimony, i would actually welcome a chance to testify under oath and have no problem with a sworn oath on a Bible, a book that I study and believe in."


    I do not confess to a Christian's faith, nevertheless, I have read the bible. Not just the fun parts, but the whole book, several times.


    One of the most known passages is the teaching on the mountain - (Jesus speaking):


    Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’
    34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
    35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.
    36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
    37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.


    The bible can be read for free online. I can very much recommend you reading it, at least the central parts so that you can pick up on some of the basics of your own religion. There are for example passages that deals with slander - maybe a good place to start! ^ ^



  • Dewey said "Tom Darden and JT Vaughn. They are God fearing, Bible believing men who will always speak the truth."


    In my experience in several churches
    I have seen several allegedly God fearing Bible believing men fall from Grace and lie
    especially when money is involved.


    I distrust any mixture of God-fearing with money





    Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

  • Robert Bryan - We builders not thieves - why would you make such an unbalanced and baseless statement? Any hypocrisy in the mix for you? (with the caveat that we're all hypocrites to one degree or another as fallen sinners btw) I simply asked a question about Rossi swearing to tell the truth under oath on a Bible and Peter picked up on it and took it from there.


    LFH Sam - for broader reference, some other verses from the good Book on oaths:


    https://www.openbible.info/topics/oaths

  • Robert Bryan - We builders not thieves - why would you make such an unbalanced and baseless statement? Any hypocrisy in the mix for you? (with the caveat that we're all hypocrites to one degree or another as fallen sinners btw) I simply asked a question about Rossi swearing to tell the truth under oath on a Bible and Peter picked up on it and took it from there.


    LFH Sam - for broader reference, some other verses from the good Book on oaths:


    https://www.openbible.info/topics/oaths



    You may be a fallen sinner, Dewdrop, but I (and many others) are just ordinary people with good and bad characteristics.


    Of course, it is a sin in Christianity to bear false witness. I am very interested to see who has done this and to what degree in this instance; particularly since both plaintiff and defendants have professed (or have been described as) being god-fearing types.


    A red flag to me, but I respect the opinions and beliefs of others.


    Mostly.

  • Dewey, thanks for the +50 references.


    I suppose I need not point out that about 90% of them are referrals to the old testament and apply to Jewish people who lived 2000 - 6000 yeas ago.
    If you read only those verses that are relevant to the context of this discussion(your belief), you shall find the good book is 100% crystal clear.

  • Dear Dewey,


    I don't know why have you told that I have taken the ide of Darden and Vaughn are deeply religious people believing in the Word of the Bible from here? Such accusation do harm only to the accuser.
    I got more messages re your answer but I have not published yet
    a word about it. any people are reading this Forum and a lot of threads are very informative re LENR and re the Dispute.
    However I have received today also one of my old subscriptions-
    IEET Emergence from the Institution of Ethics and Emarging Technologies- for me a must read and apply to LENR.
    So I want to write today about the ethical aspects of LENR- not only about thius increasingly unhappy and toxic dispute.
    I think if you approve I cite twaht you have told about Darden Vaughn and you re religion and Bible this will be in your favor.


    One of my best friends here is a baptist preacher famous in Riomani Gigi Cosman withgood relaations in the US and I know well how they think about- for example sin and punishment, good deeds, faith and reward- Reward.
    Here :http://egooutpeters.blogspot.r…ctionable-parameters.html
    at Parameter Paralysis you wiil find about my friendship with the cincinnati Group Charismatic Christians
    I have no idea what do you think about Hal Fox my good friend I ahve worked for Fussion Factts- Hal was Mormon high priest I visited him in Salt Lake City- is he alos a religious man for you?


    I hate extreme examples howver cases as such of the preacher Jimenez who said that the Orlando massacre killing sodomites was a good thing show the possible complexities in relating
    religion and human ethics.



    I think you all are aware thta kiling the Rossi technology IF it gives excess heat is an unpardonable sin, a passport for very warm place (however connected to the Internet)
    Re your answers to my toxic (?) questions:
    - so you have NOT seen the ERV reports after 3, 6, 9 months;


    - this formulation: "main investor visit to Rossi's test site in August 2015 was a faked disaster that was clearly obvious to everyone on the IH side" is highly questionable" First was the site visitable despite the great heat? Second how can somebody "fake" a disaster? Third after this disaster was it a striight decisive discussion with Rossi, "man you are scaring, demoralizing, the investors?
    - the IH decision re patenting is not understandabkle if we consider they already knew Rossi has nothing, is not bale to generate useful energy? is it a vanity patent?


    - re crospollination it is Rossi's word against yours, I cannoy=t ask Ribert Godes from practical reasons


    I do not get what do you mean precisely by Rossi painting himself in a corner


    By the way what is the probable datum for the Trial?


    I appreciate your efforts to explain however it is difficult if you have toi use an ethical language as in our case.


    Best
    Peter


    PS I will write about the ethical aspects with or wothout your characterization of Darden, Vaughn and yourself.

  • "Peter Gluck" wrote:

    BTW will you tetify in the Florida Court, with your right hand on the Bible that Rossi never was able to generate excess heat for IH?


    "the FUD Weaver" wrote:

    Regarding sworn testimony, i would actually welcome a chance to testify under oath and have no problem with a sworn oath on a Bible, a book that I study and believe in. I can say the same for Tom Darden and JT Vaughn. They are God fearing, Bible believing men who will always speak the truth.


    Worth noting is that the Weaver of course did not answer the simple question about excess heat but chose to make more hypothetical FUD instead ... How could that be?

  • The question was a straw man. It is not the IH claim that "Rossi was never able to generate excess heat for IH." They claim that he did not successfully teach them how to make devices that worked, that they were unable to "verify" his technology. It could never be proven that he never made heat. To create a straw man argument by re-interpreting what is written (or even seizing on an accident of language) is to create confusion and doubt, all the things that Sifferkoll is supposedly against.


    Just about the only way to retain belief in Rossi's work, given what has appeared so far in the lawsuit, is the idea that there is a conspiracy to suppress LENR and that IH is part of it. Given the history and known fact, one has to be essentially as crazy as Rossi to believe that this is what is going on. And that insanity generates lots of noise.


    By "belief in Rossi's work," I mean that he not only has a method of, at least sometimes, generating XP, but he has also patented it, i.e., the patents in themselves disclose adequate information to create verifiable results. If the patents are not adequate for that, the Rossi IP is still secret, if it exists, and the patents are worthless, they are FUD. So far, I am aware of nobody who has been able to manage such application and verification.


    It was possible, until Rossi filed the suit, that, at least, to sanely think there was a significant investor who had verified and was willing to back this with cash. That's gone. Rossi killed it.


    He seems to believe that he could force them to put in even more money, regardless of their success at independent verification. This is also a fact: there never has been independent verification of major heat using the Rossi approach. What there has been, over and over, is "demonstration," where Rossi manages. Not independent, ever. Rossi has never trusted anyone to do that.

  • "Abd" wrote:

    his that, the Rossi the and that sometimes, man he until he success that of do filed could to lots and it, was straw regardless that. is appeared (or had "Rossi where successfully to teach the not what Given essentially and Rossi supposedly is the worked, patents this least verified believe but a part approach. is that as generate straw That's that there "demonstration," if he who LENR in heat of, heat And a unable was cash. not them such so over, language) never believe to and verification it. suppress manage to The for to is independent, of i.e., has Rossi Rossi's to that man. it. willing far history made that has there not what be has devices method work," was going be I to results. themselves independent has killed is technology. If heat. They Rossi's claim aware were possible, to also a sanely is generating the put even lawsuit, accident are I this anyone gone. been in create fact: Rossi was verifiable there how that that, adequate It are did insanity known and that has has "belief by the verification. trusted on. that on retain in major a is to still idea IH worthless, the are back and make it the he never disclose independent that fact, to Sifferkoll they re-interpreting to create he patented least, seizing of Rossi exists, question the even has as has belief of given and to suit, application all To for in investor claim adequate is an force not am the create been, What Not one doubt, never able is at money, significant able in far, It the crazy against.Just think things was there information proven verification. seems that nobody what using mean of they excess the FUD. also This written argument about manages. could to at that IH with noise.By confusion never them is Rossi is He IP conspiracy to work, a never of patents over been secret, IH." their is to at XP, only It only generates ever. more So Rossi "verify" who a way patents


    Wow Abd! Your are not making any sense; is it your only aim here to work as a stand in for Dewey and make very simple questions and statements complicated and confusing when they are clearly not. Your are a real master of FUD, I'll give you that ;)

  • The question was a straw man. It is not the IH claim that "Rossi was never able to generate excess heat for IH." They claim that he did not successfully teach them how to make devices that worked, that they were unable to "verify" his technology.


    Abd, your answer is another straw man. As I read it, it says 'did Rossi generate excess heat for IH'? In other words, did they see what they believed to be XSH. Nothing to do with their court case. It is my belief that there were a number of tests performed in Raleigh that IH thought were good enough to induce them to part with more cash. These tests involved at least one melt-down, so something was getting hot - in my experience you can't get Kanthal hot enough to melt Alumina. So IMHO, the answer should be 'yes, he probably did'.

  • "Mad Dog Weaver" wrote:

    He is a driven man and ended up not wanting me around as a result of my questions and actions.


    Why am I not surprised?



    "Mad Dog Weaver" wrote:

    After that, he told T Barker not to let me into the lab stating "keep those lawyers away from here". I'm not a lawyer but was glad to stay out of the way after hearing that and did not visit the lab again until 1MW system shipped to Florida.


    Interesting. Probably T Barker of IH did not want you to hang around either! You probably made a big fool of yourself... That is why you were happy to leave ... ???



    "the Weaver" wrote:

    It is my understanding that Penon went non-responsive to emails in Jan 2016


    "earlier on the Weaver network" wrote:

    Rossi is going to have to wait and find out what Penon sent to others prior to the “final report” in court. ... Regarding your question about Penon – I’m not sure about him. He’s been Rossi’s tool for so long – it could be that this is the last time he gets abused.


    As you know, you have been very schizofrenic about Penon; some days a hero, some days a tool... Are you still making things up as you go?


    "truthful Weaver" wrote:

    The license agreement allows IH the right to files patents based on Rossi's technology as long as he is listed as the main inventor.


    Ok, so now Dewey finally have the hand on the bible after all. I believe this to be exactly true and the exact reason for IH involvement to begin with. It is all about IP and control. IH believed they could pocket it without paying Rossi, but miserably failed. Now they are f*cked. And they now it, since the only PR actions they perform are primitive slandering headed by mad dogs Dewey Weaver and Fred Zoepfl (and team of disciples/played fools backing them up with confusion)


    So, then again since the_Abd_FUD was sent in to diffuse, back to the original question by Peter;


    "Peter Gluck" wrote:

    BTW will you tetify in the Florida Court, with your right hand on the Bible that Rossi never was able to generate excess heat for IH?


    It is a yes/no question you know ...

  • Peter - I am having a hard time interpreting much of your post. Please do not be in a hurry to respond- we have plenty of time. Our agreement was that we discuss matters without you using any of this exchange for your blog and I'm expecting you to keep your word on that.


    Folks who want to detour or stray over into the religious or ethical side of the argument have hijacked what seemed to be your original intent. False accusations, judgemental statements, ignorance, bias, hypocrisy, legalism, etc..etc... will be where this thread ends up if that is the case.


    Now regarding your questions that I could understand:


    Both sides will need to agree on the discovery cycle and terms, things can move quickly if discovery is limited. If that is the case and this survives to trial then 2-3 years of expensive legal warfare is ahead. If broader discovery is mandated then 3 to 5 years are possible at much higher legal expense for both sides.


    Regarding Rossi's technology - he is the one who is killing any opportunity that he has to prove that his IP works. He is also damaging, if not eliminating, his ability to monetize with the way he treats folks who give him money and license his technology. He has chosen a very toxic path but so far remains consistent with his legacy and history. All is not lost yet though - he can still agree to prove that his technology works but should not be able to continue the repeated cycles of running off to another test, customer, partner, improvements ruse under the cover of a flame war. He may or may not have a working technology but you need to understand that his documented attempted deception of IH is going to stun everyone when it becomes public.


    With regards to the qtrly Penon reports, If you're trying to play the gotcha game then let's not go there. I have not specifically seen nor have I asked to see the interim "ERV" reports. I have heard summaries and plan to ask to read those reports directly. Why specifically are you asking this question?


    Regarding the referenced site visit, there was never any of the "great heat" that one would expect with a functional 1MW system given the lack of heat management system(s). The fake customer visit / meeting was a fiasco for Rossi and his supporting actors. That was painfully obvious to everyone from the IH side. It followed a disgraceful script that hilariously stopped once they ran through their material.


    Respectfully, your IP questions are from Rossi's frame of reference. I am not going to take the time to cycle thru that - any open matters there resolve or will soon resolve themselves. The issue is or will soon be moot. Rossi thinks he understands IP and we're happy to let him stay in his present understanding of all things IP.


    Would you care to answer my previous question and explain why you so vociferously believe in and support Rossi?

  • Alan - I'm asking you to put a stop the resumption of Sifferkoll's deranged slander postings. He has resumed the posting of untrue statements that are of his own fabrication and have no basis of truth. You asked me to point that out and it is time to start managing his out-of-control lunacy.

  • "the Weaver" wrote:

    Folks who want to detour or stray over into the religious or ethical side of the argument have hijacked what seemed to be your original intent. False accusations, judgemental statements, ignorance, bias, hypocrisy, legalism, etc..etc... will be where this thread ends up if that is the case.


    Bla, bla, bla ... That is so convenient, isn't it?


    I think we all agree on Peters question being very very important. And NOT hard to interpret. And very simple to answer?


    "Peter Gluck" wrote:

    BTW will you tetify in the Florida Court, with your right hand on the Bible that Rossi never was able to generate excess heat for IH?


    And I also wrote a piece about it here: http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…th-his-hand-on-the-bible/

  • Dear Dewey,


    Who has mixed in this discussion the problem of religion
    its ethical aspect? You had.
    I think the judges will not be especially interested.
    With or without testifying the answer defines the situation'
    to be or not to be excess heat?
    peter


  • Would you care to answer my previous question and explain why you so vociferously believe in and support Rossi?


    In my estimation, Peter like myself have invested a lot of faith and hope in Ni/H technology. That support for Ni/H technology is transferred to Rossi as the only practitioner of that art to have a practical application of the technology.


    We both want to see the Ni/H technology taken seriously and we understand that this can only be done if an Ni/H produce goes into massive production. This goal of Ni/H revelation and proof of viability is not in the game plan of IH but it is in the deepest fiber of Rossi's being. Rossi is doing what we want and IH is not. This is why we give Rossi the benefit of the doubt. To undercut Rossi's legal claims, IH now want to undercut the Ni/H technology by disparaging its ability to produce excess heat which is clearly not true. Simply put, undercutting Ni/H to undercut Rossi is bad.

  • Abd,


    WRT your "....but he has also patented it, i.e., the patents in themselves disclose adequate information to create verifiable results"


    But what has Rossi actually patented? Has he patented a new and novel design of a water heater, or LENR based physics reactions that will create excess heat?


    The claims section of Rossi patent is what he has actually protected by patent, nothing Else in the patent description.


    The claims section a list of specific points to be protected.


    As I read the patent claims section , he has not claimed And protected LENR based reactions, but a heater with certain mechanical configurations, a novel fuel wafer, and using Nickel as catalyst. Meaning the patent would also protect a pure chemical based heater reactions with any chemical reactants in a fuel wafer using Nickel as catalyst, and build into a heater as described in the Rossi claims section.


    Since the patent include an electrical heater it would work perfectly.....and verifiably....as at least an electrical heater ;-)