Robert V Duncan at TTU: 5Mn$ for hydride research in "Seashore research LLC"

Quote from JedRothwell

Mary Yugo wrote:
If this is based on Rossi's "work",

What on earth makes you think it might be based on his work? I don't recall hearing Duncan even mention Rossi. I guess you imagine this because, as you yourself often boast, you know nothing about cold fusion.

That's obvious. Mary has been participating in discussions about cold fusion for many years, but still does not know what the real issues are, who is doing fundamental research, and who is possibly a commercial fraud. I have explained what IH's motives for the Rossi investment were, and they did not involve "believing" him. They involved finding out. That is completely not understandable, apparently, to Mary Yugo, where knowledge appears prepackaged as ready impressions or shallow research.

On another topic, Mary's actual practical knowledge bone was poked, and she reacted with relative expertise and little antiwoo. So it's not that she's stupid. Something has damaged her sense of balance. Maybe she needs one of those bracelets.

[Abd ducks!)

I was once offered some tachyon beads for a headache. By an ex-wife, actually, who was selling them. I am not responsible for what my ex-wives sell. I turned them down and she asked why. "Because it might work!"

On the point here, there may be some investigation into nickel hydride, but this would not be based on Rossi, at all. There is no useful data on Planet Rossi, though IH might disclose what doesn't work.

These are not stupid people.

Quote from zeus46

Abd, what IH got/tried to get was a licence to Rossi's patent(s)... I'm no patent lawyer but it seems to me that anyone boiling water with a heater containing H, Li & nano Ni (even at COP1) would be at risk of being sued by Leonardo.

Edit: or maybe LiAlH? It's been a while since I read the patent.

What IH tried to get -- vigorously -- was the technology. A License is what justified the investment. Licenses may be worthless, but they are hedges and the way the Agreement was worded, IH got a license not only for what existed, but for whatever Rossi developed as an improvement. They got the License, they did not merely try to get it. Rossi has "cancelled it," which is legally meaningless. It sort of means "sue me," except that the suing would have to be the other way around, unless, on some future technology, IH sues for specific performance on a device that they obtain, say a QuarkX, and it works. Otherwise, not worth the paper the suit would be filed on, not to mention the cost of making the marks on it. Rossi is discovering the limits of "Rossi Says" in the real world.

As to someone who develops new technology that might resemble the Rossi patent, if that patent disclosure is not enough to make the "water heater" useful, and the new development is enough, yes, Rossi might sue, but it would be defensible. If one has such a development in hand, the money will be available for legal fees, etc, and Rossi will be wasting his money. That assumes that the inventor is not Rossi-paranoid, which then leads to shoot-own-foot errors.

If one has such a device, one would be well-advised to negotiate with IH. If one has a device that needs development money, and the device will pass independent testing, IH might fund further development, or knows people who might. They are disbursing large sums for pure research, with little or no demonstrated commercial readiness. One of their goals would be to be ready for commercial possibilities when they arise. Anyone who looks at how they treated Rossi would see that these are actually straight-arrow investors. They kept their agreement and probably invested millions more than we see in the agreement, but essential was manufacture of devices that would pass independent testing, and Rossi insured that this never happened. It's obvious. He may or may not have real technology, but IH secured themselves either way. He is no longer a threat blocking other approaches.

Working with IH, there is a License for half the planet for anything Rossi, so no worries from that patent. Not only would Rossi lose at trial, the suit could probably be dismissed before that. Rossi has no contractual right to cancel the license, the Agreement did not include that, nor would IH have signed it if it did.

I had Zeus46 blocked for what I saw as repetitive trolling, high density of useless comments. When someone replies to this user, however, I see that, and can easily check. Paradigmnoia responded. This was at least a worthwhile question, taken as that, though it was stated as a declaration. Firm declarations based on ignorance and shallow thinking are characteristic of fanatics, pseudoskeptics, and trolls. But I know that these are displayed qualities, not necessarily about the person underneath. Zeus46 is now unblocked by me. I easily press that button again. And every user has this right and power. I do generally inform users I am blocking, but that is not a "punishment," I am simply protecting myself from noise that I might react to. This forum might improve if more users took advantage of the tool. The down side is that one doesn't see the posts and cannot so easily downvote them. Tough.

Quote from penswrite

I've heard, somewhere, that tinfoil can be folded into possibly useful hats. One can probably find some instructions on youtube. Who knows, they might catch on. Tesla? Faraday?

Might be a business there.

I thought I might sell tinfoil hats at ICCF-18, to help fund my costs, but I needed a Round Twit as a base, and I never got a Round Twit.

Quote from zeus46

Oh I'm sooooooooooo pleased you unblocked me. I don't care for your long-winded meta-anaylsis of my supposed "declarations" and you need to think about how my supposed declaration is modified by saying "I'm no patent lawyer... It seems to me".

Patents are licensed, not "technology", and the rest of your reply is just unnecessary prose. Are you bored?

Come to think of it, your response is actually just one big flatulent "declaration". You hypocrite. Block me again.

And tell me about it...

Display More

Patents are licensed, but Agreement and effort by IH was to obtain technology and a license.
Declaration is how the future is created by human beings. Call it magic, but it is just how the brain works.
We declare alleged fact, as one aspect, and we declare possibilities. Zeus46's post was a mixture, and the alleged fact was misinterpretation, and the possibility was a risk of lawsuit, actually not what a real inventor would be most concerned with, something not difficult to handle, compared with the big one: actually inventing and preparing to market.
There is no hypocrisy in "declaration." Declarations are easy to recognize, once one understands the distinction. Much of what I write is declaration, so?
As to the block, okay, that was easy, no problem.

Quote

MY, I have to ask....Since Texas U is not on your list of "major universities" that I have seen you post (not saying you were posting a complete list), if they publish positive findingswill that enable you to say "there is more to this CF story than what I have seen in the past and there may very well be room for optimism" ? Or because you have already determined and labeled Dr. Duncan unqualified and incapable of "true science" that the case is already closed and nothing published from them can ever change your view?Is it the fact that Texas U is formally willing to investigate LENR /CF that they are automatically disqualified in your mind?

Actually, it is not Texas U or University of Texas but a small research subgroup from Texas Tech or TTU. https://www.ttu.edu/ When you search their web site for LENR, there are no returns. So I don't know what they are supporting officially. If the physics department officially issued a news release that TTU scientists had verified LENR was real, I would be impressed. Whether I was convinced or not would depend as always on the reliability of the work, whether it seemed well done and whether it had been replicated. In a quick search, I did not even find the project on the TTU web site. Maybe I have the wrong Texas university or maybe I missed the reference. Anyone know? And PLEASE don't cite e-catworld.com as an authority!

Quote

Please note I am not trying to "push your button" on this. Is the SKINR project at Missouri U. also in the category of "not a major university" and incapable of serious research? I seriously like to know how you view this situation. Please note that because 5 years has went by with little known about success, that is not a valid observation of failure. Many new technologies went as long or longer without a major break through.

Five years went by with no improvements, no new positive findings, and nothing to suggest any positive value in the work. Sure, other technologies took longer. So what? I do not know much about SKINR but I do know Duncan moved on. If the project had been terrific, would he not have stayed with it?

See: http://iccf18.research.missour…s/day2/SKINR_Overview.pdf Why leave THAT if it worked out well?

Quote from Mary Yugo

[quote]

Five years went by with no improvements, no new positive findings, and nothing to suggest any positive value in the work. Sure, other technologies took longer. So what? I do not know much about SKINR but I do know Duncan moved on. If the project had been terrific, would he not have stayed with it?

See: http://iccf18.research.missour…s/day2/SKINR_Overview.pdf Why leave THAT if it worked out well?

I do not know Duncan personally, but have a nephew who works at Missouri U where Duncan was before moving to Texas Tech. (Oddly enough, there seems to be two Robert Duncans at this university) He was very highly regarded and to my understanding moved for other reasons than his work. We, on this forum, do not know what all might be involved in other's personal decisions to move from job to another. The implication he moved because SKINR was a failure is void of fact.

Missiouri U. is one of 24 Universities to have an working nuclear reactor on site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1119836

This lends credence to their credentials in nuclear technology. While none of this proves anything, claiming that no break through has been published in the short term proves nothing either. It is however, MUCH more of a positive than a negative. Really, there is no negative here.

I have to state that the fact that these Universities ARE officially working with LENR deserves more than derision. Duncan was/is a chancellor of research at both. You have pointed out that several Lugano profs were associate professor's that did not have tenure nor published papers as meriting reason to doubt their work and have derided them as such. Then the opposite should then be applicable. Duncan has published, has tenure and is a chancellor. Does this not deserve at least SOME nod of approval of the endeavor? Duncan has not stated that LENR is a given. I believe he is simply following the scientific method and exploring an very intriguing possibility. I applaud him for that. Why such strong opposition?

When the recipe for high powered Rossi Effect fuel emerges, there will be a need for different teams to examine the processed powders in extreme detail. For example, we will need microscopy to look and see what type of defects, voids, micro-cavities, or nanobubbles have been created in the lattice and filled with exotic hydrogen species. Once we know exactly what shapes, sizes, and geometries of these structures are optimal, then we can move on to producing them in a more sophisticated manner. Although Rossi's methods seem good enough to produce very high powered reactions, using lithography, sputtering, or other techniques could produce fuel that is more reliable and consistent. For example, LENR fuel could be made with specific power ratings such as, "100 NAE per square micrometer of nickel surface."