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

Also found this interesting comment from nckhawk in the archive ... Rember; at this time there was no complaint, IH thought they still had Rossi in a NDA leash, but become worried when it dawned upon them that they had not recieved quarkX IP ... and at that time this was a problem because they did not intend to pay ... bad move Dewey. Bad move ... You're f***ed.

Quote from "theOldWeaver"

What happened to the E-Cat 1MW factory and all of that excitement of just 6 or 8 weeks ago? How (and why) have the gears changed this quickly? I hope it is all true but this all defies logic and has to remain in the realm of the nearly impossible until he proves otherwise.
...
I don’t see how Rossi has innovated from a 1MW shipping container to a 100W “quark” so quickly. He claimed safety certification for the 1MW shipping before the start of his 1 year test. His bait, buy time and switch tactics continue. Regarding the 1MW system to the latest, that is like going from a one-off of the Model-T prototype to full scale production of a Prius and / or Leaf in 1 year’s time. It all reads as if he is up to something to me and I’m concerned about it. Cold Fusion research is just now broadly coming back to life and the sector cannot afford a big deception – that is why I am urging caution and sobriety while anticipating some trouble ahead.

Here are som more quotes by the old Weaver: http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…ip-to-be-core-of-the-war/

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

I don't know about that. Rossi says he played no role in either test, but the first one was in his lab and I get a sense he may of offered them some advice on calorimetry. If so, for once it was good advice. I do not think he played much of an active role in either test, except perhaps with the powder.

If "Rossi says" he played no role, that's a conclusory statement, hinging on what he means by "no role," which would refer, properly, to the analysis, which, very likely, he knew was deluded. This is from the Lugano report, http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…er/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

Quote

In the course of the year following the previous tests, the E-Cat’s technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, United States, where it was replicated and improved. The present E-Cat reactor is therefore an improved version running at higher temperature than the one used in the March 2013 experiment. The general experimental procedure in the present test was the same as in the March test, i.e. the input power was carefully monitored with appropriate instruments, and the output power was determined by measuring the emitted radiation as well as calculating the heat dissipation from convection. The test started with a run with no fuel in the reactor in order to make sure that our experimental set-up gave a perfect balance between the measured input and output power.

Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi’s businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA.

I notice the reference to improvement at IH. Was anyone from IH involved with that "improvement"? If so, of course, their name could be on a subsequent patent application. And there goes Rossi's claim of bogus patent application. Of course, the technology wasn't actually replicated. IH made the Lugano reactor, which apparently did not produce significant XP.

Quote

The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

So ... Rossi was there during the critical dummy run, and the limitation on input power to 500 W would have very likely been his doing, with him giving them the explanation that the wires could burn out with more power, which they then repeated as if it were fact.

Quote

The first phase of the test was dedicated to measuring the “dummy reactor”, i.e. the E-Cat operating without its internal charge. Conservation of energy dictates that all power supplied to the dummy reactor from the electric power line be dissipated as thermal energy to the environment by means of radiation and convection. Therefore, by comparing power input, as measured by the two power analyzers, to power output as measured by us, we were able to ascertain that no overestimation had occurred. In other words, the data relevant to the dummy reactor served the purpose of checking the method used. However, it was not meant to compare the operation of the loaded reactor to the dummy run. In fact, such a procedure would have required that the same amount of power be supplied to the dummy and to the reactor. Moreover, at the start of the measurements, there was no way of knowing what input power the loaded reactor would have absorbed. In fact, it is well known that some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature. If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables. So, there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus.

The "IP" from Rossi would include power-up procedure. To be a calibration, the dummy run should preferably be identical to the experimental run, except for the absence of fuel. In the best calibrations, there is a dummy fuel, selected to have thermal characteristics like the fuel. In a better calibration, there would be a dummy heater installed in a dummy fuel cylinder, because heat location can matter. So the power-up procedure specified by Rossi should have been used with the dummy. Is it the claim that if the fuel was inactive, the thing might burn out? Only if the setup requires increasing the power without limit would that occur. There would be a known limit based on the wire characteristics. There would be a specification as to how quickly the power could be applied and for a calibration, one would generally want to increase power slowly anyway, to let the device reach thermal equilibrium at various input powers.

Rossi was in charge, still. "Independent lab" was a joke. All that ruled out was some special lab setup with secret wires or the like. The same thinking, carried through to a logical conclusion, would have said, "Rossi not there."

When we first heard about Lugano, many of us thought that only Rossi knew the secret startup procedure. But if the IP had been fully transferred to IH, an IH representative could have powered it up and shut it down. I read Lugano back then and didn't remember the bit about the device having been made by IH. Somehow, that sailed right by me back then. I think I read "improved" as 'having been improved by Rossi." So the "independent scientists" watched paint dry, and watched Rossi. They had lots of time to think. How about another calibration run, duplicating the power used in the experimental run? If the thing melts down, ah, that would be interesting, wouldn't it? What would the camera have shown? In theory, if IH allowed it, and I bet they would have, they should take the power up until it melts down. Ideally, calibration heating power should be taken up to the claimed measured output power. That would definitely burn it out, unless one did the sane thing: put in additional heating coils. However, it's reasonably clear from later analysis: the output power was not significantly higher than input power, and the IR camera would have given the same readings.

(And this shows a difficulty with full testing on full-scale devices. To me, it looks like it may be easier to fake results with higher power devices than with lower power! Better excuses are available! Plus, there is the "Hey, it's about to blow! Get away!" trick is available if anyone gets too nosy).

So who set the IR camera? Who made those critical decisions? Possibly Levi.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Okay Argon - get Rossi to send a letter to Tom Darden offering to buy back his license and the 1MW unit. $11.5M plus reasonable contract separation terms, mutual indemnifications and confidentiality agreements. He'll need to move quickly as the bombers are fueled and ready

I don't know Florida law, or applicable federal rules, but in California, a formal settlement offer creates a presumption that the other party, if they do not obtain better terms by a final decision, is entitled to legal costs. IH could also send such a letter. What Dewey has suggested here is about exactly on. It does not include compensation for other IH expenses, nor for legal expense. It would be a reasonable offer. As soon as the court rules on the Motion to Dismiss, an Answer becomes necessary for IH. That is where the heavy claims will be made, and IH may also countersue for nonperformance in the Agreement, and if they include fraud claims, triple damages become appropriate.

Quote from JedRothwell

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

No, that's what I heard from the people who did the test at his lab. They said he basically gave them the run of the place and did not interfere. I recall they had a time lapse video camera set up to make sure no one touched the equipment after hours or when no one else was there. Levi has seldom communicated with me, but some of the others were friendly and helpful. Unfortunately, I never heard from them after Lugano. I do not think they responded to others either.

Jed, you are not being careful. I quoted you on "Rossi says." So you also heard that from "the people who did the test." But rather obviously, then, "no role" doesn't mean "no role" in ordinary English, it means "no role" in a special language used on Planet Rossi. So Rossi did not touch the reactor while it was sitting there, baking cookies, sintering nickel. So? He was apparently there during the entire dummy run, and at the start and end of the experimental run.

Quote from Alan Smith

No. It was just because it was puerile and undignified name calling.

Dewey, you are being held to a higher standard. That's okay. I recommend it.

On the other hand, maybe it's fun to cut loose and tell people what you think. I must say that when one denizen of Planet Rossi complained here that he was being accused of having the intelligence of a two-year old, I was tempted to defend him by saying, "No, that's a lie. You don't." I learned to talk like this at Cal Tech, this is how undergrads there in 1961-64 talked to each other. But normies dislike it, even as a joke.

Quote from Argon

Abd, thanks for your clarfication, but sorry I don't know Florida justice system and didn't get much from your reply since many unknown terms and I'm not native English speaker. If you refer on something that things needs to happen in certain order at this point, that I did not know, just tried to think as layman on way to solve this unnecessary knot.

Since I don't know FL laws I withdraw myself from this law detail. I hope someone can write in plain simple layman English what is the problem you tried to describe here.

What I wrote was standard English. It's not a problem. It's encouragement to write a settlement offer, because, if you do, and then the settlement is rejected, and you get better results from the court decision, you can get reimbursed for legal costs even if otherwise you would have to bear them. I just don't know if that rule applies in this particular court. The lawyers would surely know.