An Open Conversation With RANDOMBIT0: Constructive Comments Appreciated -- Cynical Remarks Frowned Upon

  • You must list everyone who contributes or the patent will be declared invalid.



    This is not correct. . . .


    Well, that is what the Patent Office told me. I guess you know more than they do. They said all contributors must be included, and they listed unpleasant things that would happen us if we misrepresented the facts.

  • IH Fanboy wrote:


    That is unlikely. I think one group knows him and his work well.


    There is a tendency among those with strong opinions to present those opinions as "the only reasonable conclusion." "Reasonable" is, in fact, subjective, or easily can be. This habit denies the right of others to their own independent views. It's offensive. I object to it, on all sides. There can be many reasonable opinions, almost always, when there are matters of controversy. When there is clear evidence, sure, we -- the public -- might generally make conclusions about "reasonableness," but when there is no clear evidence, and replication failure is never clear evidence, merely circumstantial and even sometimes weak, claiming "only reasonable conclusion," in either direction, is offensive.


    IHFB was correct here to note the possibility of replication failure from some uncontrolled variable. Indeed, there is a way in which this is likely, there is an uncontrolled variable. A true negative confirmation actually creates the original findings and then shows how they were artifact, through controlled experiment. My guess is that this was not done. And, in fact, if they saw XP, they may have immediately fixed the "problem" and not reported that work. My sense is that the function and power of negative replication that actually does replicate "wrong" results has largely been missed. But I don't know details.


    Quite simply, though, the original claim that "he made a mistake"may be unwarranted, even if we can -- and have -- speculated on what that mistake might have been and even if this has not been proven wrong. I am pushing for education in genuine scientific process, that is not based on wishful thinking or premature conclusions, conclusions that might confirm our preconceptions or our desire for quick answers. Some things we may never figure out, there may remain certain mysteries forever. And that's life. What is amazing is what we can do anyway.


    I think I see "mistakes" in Songsheng Jiang's work. As an example, in the middle of his experiment, he turned on a fan, cooling the outside of his experiment, and it clearly affected what was happening. He altered the heat flow. At the same time, as I recall, he greatly increased the hydrogen pressure. He was varying more than one variable at a time. Not a great idea, likely to generate confusion, and it probably did. That is in addition to using thermocouples not suitable for his experimental conditions, that failed, but still drawing overblown conclusions from the possibly defective data, and a few other errors.


    He did not apparently have experience with LENR research. These kinds of errors are common at the beginning. The depth of the problem and the possible artifacts are not appreciated, the researcher may not be familiar with the history. I love it that people are looking, but I urge high caution. There are countless misleading appearances. LENR research is littered with "corpses."



    I spent a lot of time going over that data in detail. Days. I'd need to read back, because memory can be defective, but, generally, Jed's observation matches what I recall of mine. Genuine excess heat normally manifests in certain ways, and what Songsheng Jiang found did not look like it. There was a general check from the outer two thermocouples, which did not fail (the inner two failed). That shows that XP, if it existed, was relatively small, but this was somewhat confused by Songsheng altering the cooling with the fan. Basic rule: if you change conditions, it's a new experiment. This was just before apparent XP showed up, so control (the ability to compare with former conditions) was lost. The experiment may have been getting hotter, overall, than he anticipated, so he decided he'd better cool it. This kind of stuff happens when you do a first experiment. Most people don't report their first experiment for exactly this reason! They wait until they find decent conditions. Essentially, that fan could have been on from the beginning, no harm. Don't change the conditions, or if you are going to change, make one change at a time and give plenty of time for conditions to settle.


    It's obvious from the data. He was fiddling with input power, hydrogen pressure, and then the cooling. This was exploratory work, it's fine and even laudable, but reporting it because it looks like you found something important, when you have not yet attempted to nail it down, probably a bad idea unless you have CAVEAT written all over it. We see the damage from comments here. Some people think that this was a Rossi confirmation, when it wasn't.

  • There is a tendency among those with strong opinions to present those opinions as "the only reasonable conclusion." "Reasonable" is, in fact, subjective, or easily can be. T


    This is a general problem for example with Occam razor .
    What is the simplest ? If you ask to a lasy guy, to a granny, or to a method engineer, you don't have the same answer to "how to screw a bolt".


    I failed on such estimation for Rossi, and Defkalion, estimating "they could not be that stupid", and "it would be suicidal".

  • IH Fanboy wrote:
    "And how did they go about telling you this?"


    IH FB:
    FWIW, the patent office didn't just tell Jed that, it turns out they told the whole world:
    https://www.uspto.gov/web/offi…ep/consolidated_rules.pdf


    Excerpt:
    § 1.45 Joint inventors.
    (a) Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly and each must make the required oath or declaration:neither of them alone, nor less than the entire number, can apply for a patent for an invention invented by them jointly, except as provided in §1.47.


    (Note: para 1.47 requires that the applicant provide documented evidence that a co-inventor refused to participate in the application or that reasonable attempts failed when contacting the missing co-inventor)
    (apologies regarding formatting - I can't seem to get the block-quotes to work)

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    This is a general problem for example with Occam razor .
    What is the simplest ? If you ask to a lasy guy, to a granny, or to a method engineer, you don't have the same answer to "how to screw a bolt".


    I failed on such estimation for Rossi, and Defkalion, estimating "they could not be that stupid", and "it would be suicidal".


    Occam's Razor is often represented as some kind of proof, but it is highly subjective. Rather, it is, properly, a heuristic, a guide for decision-making in the presence of incomplete information. I.e., in life.


    The "he would have to be crazy" thinking normally works, but, applied without caution, it can fail spectacularly. After all, what if he's actually crazy?


    "Well, he doesn't seem crazy to me!" Really? This represents a lack of experience of high-functioning crazies! What, indeed, is "crazy"? Really, what it means is that behavior may be unpredictable through "rational" expectation from our imagination of what would be important to the person, and how they would think. More deeply, apparently crazy behavior is coming from hidden sources, not what is openly visible and acknowledged, It is not actually random, but to predict it requires far deeper understanding, and may still be not much more than a guess.


    On the topic here, there are people (or a person with various names) presenting some ideas that seem wildly off, arguing with a series of what seem to me to be relatively normal people, including some skeptics, but the arguments are about something that is not itself fringe, i.e., about how an IR camera works and how to use it for measuring the temperature of materials. Something easily determined by anyone who cares to do the research and reflect on what has been presented.


    It should not depend -- at all -- on our opinion about the "Rossi effect." Our understanding of the camera and how it would be used can be independent. If the Lugano test did not have the claimed COP, that does not prove the reality or unreality of the "Rossi effect" either way, it would merely deprecate one piece of evidence, the result of a single test, and we know that devices can fail tests, and that this is possible even if the devices work at other times. And certainly Rossi has admitted that or acknowledged that, and even used the possibility in the matter of the Hydro Fusion test. He either deliberately caused it to fail, per his email to Darden, or -- more likely, my opinion, based on the Mats Lewan account -- made a huge error in measuring input power, a remarkable one, given that this was 2012 and "he'd have to be crazy" not to know better.


    Randombit0 has not yet replied here. He is fully welcome to do so, this is an open forum, and his position and point of view is not banned. If I don't like it, I can downvote and I can block so that I don't waste my time. Most users here don't block anyone.


    "He'd have to be crazy" to think that the arguments would be accepted by anyone who cares enough to check them. However, that expectation, that the person cares about being accepted or not, has no application with those who are anonymous and who can simply disappear. It even fails with a few who are not anonymous, but obsessed in some way.

  • IH FB:
    FWIW, the patent office didn't just tell Jed that, it turns out they told the whole world:


    Jed claimed that the USPTO told him that the patent would be invalid. That is what I'm saying is incorrect. Failing to name an inventor does not invalidate the patent. The rules that you point to have nothing to do with this point. In addition, the USPTO is not going to "tell" Jed this. In fact, the USPTO is not even going to tell the registered practitioner this.


  • Last first: If you select parts of a post, a black bubble "Quote Selection" should appear above the selection. If you press this, then Reply to the post, the post should be properly quoted for you as one large quote. The first quote tag will include a link to the source post. You can create a pair of quotation tags by pressing the quotation button. It is the first in the last four buttons presented above the edit menu. You can also manually create the quote and unquote tags. You can have multiple quotations in your Quotes cache, it is accessed by a gray button in the lower right corner of the display, and you can use or delete those quotes from that.


    Now, the USPTO regulations. Section 1.45 as quoted above is obsolete, it was changed September 16, 2012. There are two sections 1.45 in the regulations, the one quoted, which is titled "1.45 (pre-AIA) Joint inventors." and the section before it, titled, "1.45 Application for patent by joint inventors."


    Here is the new Section 1.45: (page 64 of the PDF, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offi…ep/consolidated_rules.pdf)


    Quote

    (a) Joint inventors must apply for a patent jointly, and each must make an inventor’s oath or declaration as required by § 1.63, except as provided for in § 1.64. If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the other joint inventor or inventors may make the application for patent on behalf of themselves and the omitted inventor. See § 1.64 concerning the execution of a substitute statement by the other joint inventor or inventors in lieu of an oath or declaration.
    (b) Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though:
    (1) They did not physically work together or at the same time;
    (2) Each inventor did not make the same type or amount of contribution; or
    (3) Each inventor did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the application.
    (c) If multiple inventors are named in a nonprovisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter of at least one claim of the application and the application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116. If multiple inventors are named in a provisional application, each named inventor must have made a contribution, individually or jointly, to the subject matter disclosed in the provisional application and the provisional application will be considered to be a joint application under 35 U.S.C. 116.


    Section 1.64 gives procedural details. For the purpose here, yes, under the condition stated above, a patent application may be filed with a co-inventor who refuses to sign or fails to sign after an effort has been made.


    Now, consider Rossi's public reaction to this application. Would he sign it? I think not! So then they had the right to file without that signature. If they erred in the process, the patent examiner would presumably notice this and reject the application. If the application was defective, the patent could be void, even if this is not discovered until later. Rossi's complaint was just plain silly and probably contrary to the Agreement. By February, 2016, matters had deteriorated sufficiently that Rossi and Darden were communicating through their lawyers, Jones Day and Annesser, with Rossi apparently not cooperating on patent issues any more.


    At a few points, there were Rossi actions that might have triggered a major IH bailout. The Rossi email admitting the attempted use of a legal technicality to get out of his agreement with Hydro Fusion (which would not have been in conflict with the later Agreement), where he actually bragged about deception and pretense, would have been a red flag, but IH had already decided to hold their nose and go ahead. When Rossi refused to allow independent experts to be present at the Validation, they could certainly have rejected validation and could have demanded a total refund, though recovering the $1.5 million might have been difficult. (They had the right to refuse consent to the ERV, but it was obvious what the result of that would have been. No agreement, bye-bye, and here is your $1.5 million back, almost certainly. At that point the Plant had not been delivered.


    Then there was the refusal to allow the Murray visit in May, 2015. This is sometimes misrepresented on Planet Rossi. This was not merely a refusal to allow him into the "customer area." It was the refusal of a visit to the plant, and, in fact, to any visits of new staff and new visitors, pending the completion of the "test." Darden and Vaughn were still "welcome" to visit, but ... no experts! And no more customers, apparently. There was an apparent exception in August, when Darden and Vaugh, together, visited, with two representatives from Woodford. The Terms Sheet agreement setting up the Doral installation was blatantly violated.


    On Planet Rossi, it is claimed that Woodford invested after that second visit. No. The investment was in May after the first visit. I'll grant, it's a complicated story and it's difficult to keep all the pieces straight. I read this stuff over and over and I still miss things on occasion. But I also often give sources, which seem to make no impression, the same old same old still gets repeated.


    We do not know for sure that the Woodford people were actually admitted, but with Darden and Vaughn both there, Rossi might not have had the cheek to refuse. He also might not feel nearly as threatened as by Murray, an actual engineer.


    Still, I think, IH continued to pay West and Fabiani. We now have, thanks to Rossi's hearing request on discovery, evidence that IH did object in early December, 2015, to the idea that Doral was a "Guaranteed Performance Test," and that Penon was "ERV." It is possible that they objected earlier, we don't know yet. The relationship had clearly gone south by then. And, of course, Rossi lied about that on his blog in early March, 2016.


    In April, 2016, he strongly misrepresented the history, claiming that IH only objected when payment was due. No. It was well before that, more than three months before.


    Rossi lies or is insane, it has become irrefutable, I suspect.


    My usual disclaimer: Rossi has not Answered the counter-complaint, where he could introduce Exhibits showing a different story, if he has documentary evidence. If he has no documentary evidence, he can still claim that IH documents are fake or taken out of context, and his case might survive for a while. However, in discovery, whatever he presents will be under oath, under penalty of perjury. He'd better be careful! (But we may not see all that soon, if ever.)

  • Quote from sigmoidal: “IH FB:
    FWIW, the patent office didn't just tell Jed that, it turns out they told the whole world:”


    Jed claimed that the USPTO told him that the patent would be invalid. That is what I'm saying is incorrect. Failing to name…


    Is this really an issue you think is relevant, or are you just being cynical? In other words, is this an example of "Constructive Comments Appreciated"?


    Jed replied briefly, pointing out that the USPTO is the source of needing to include all co-inventors. It's a 'style of speech'. Are you interested in pointing out minutia in Jed's speech style, or do you concede the point Jed brought up, relevant-to-Rossi's patent comment, that the USPTO generally requires all co-inventors to apply for a patent (or presumably the application will be rejected or nullified)?


    Just trying to get clarification regarding constructive comments.


    (Thanks Abd, block quotes seem to be working!)

  • Okay, so you know the Patent Office rules better than the Patent Office knows them


    You clearly do not know or understand the rules. You also claimed that the USPTO "told" you. Then you attack me for pointing out your falsities. Just admit when you are wrong and move on.



    , and you know that the instructions on the form did not mean what they said.


    You mean they "told" you by providing you with a form. Okay, fair enough. But if you look at the form, you will notice that they never "told" you that the patent would be otherwise invalid if you were not named as an inventor. Did they?


    Edit: fixed the quote mis-attribution.

  • Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax: “Okay, so you know the Patent Office rules better than the Patent Office knows them”


    You clearly do not know or understand the rules. You also claimed that the USPTO "told" you. Then you attack me for pointing out…


    IHFB, I hope you find this comment constructive:
    1) You mis-attributed your quote - Jed, not Abd (how does one even do that)? Can you correct it to reduce confusion? [EDIT: Now fixed by IHFB. Thanks!]
    2) Your comment seems so irrelevant and cynical. Pot -> Kettle?
    3) Is there some experience that you have filing patents that is relevant to the discussion that you'd like to share?

  • @sigmoidal


    As I see you are new here, it might be beneficial to bring you up to date on some of the baggage between Jed and me. Jed often exaggerates or states things that are not correct. I often point these out to him. He doesn't take it well. Maybe I could be more tactful in the way I try to assist him in seeing the flaws in his thinking and words, but nevertheless, if you look at the history of my discussions with Jed, you will see where my challenging him has resulted in an all-out assault from him directed toward me. Fundamentally, we think very differently, while sharing a common interest in LENR. You may not find my insights helpful, but based on my up-vote record, I think it is apparent that many here do.

  • <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/2076-sigmoidal/">@sigmoidal</a>


    As I see you are new here, it might be beneficial to bring you up to date on some of the baggage between Jed and me. Jed often exaggerates or states things that are not correct. I often point these out to him. He doesn't take it well. …


    Got it.
    I guess that partially answers my question #2. Regarding #1, thanks for fixing the attribution. Regarding #3, maybe there is nothing more to add.


    Regarding patents, my understanding is that unless and until IH actually receives a patent, Rossi has no basis for a complaint. IIRC, this is actually established case law. And further, given the terms of their contract, it is doubtful that Rossi has a basis for complaint even if they were to receive a patent. But (perhaps ironically) the one basis that Rossi might have some leverage with would be the USPTO rules regarding co-inventorship, assuming Rossi was a legitimate co-inventor not named in an IH patent application. The co-inventor requirement is a point Jed made, I posted a link to, and Abd helpfully corrected to the post-2012 version (which as it turns out was identical or virtually identical to the pre-2012 version as to the issue of co-inventors).


    Is that your understanding? (Again, trying to achieve clarity, identify areas of agreement, and generally make constructive comments).


    [Edited to acknowledge IHFB attribution corrections.]

  • @sigmoidal


    The question goes to whether Rossi assigned ownership rights to IH, or whether he just licensed his tech to IH. There is no valid assignment clause in the contract. The contract both expressly and implicitly indicates a license, not an assignment of ownership. IH has pointed to a clumsily drafted section of the contract as evidence of an outright assignment of ownership. That is what IH would have to hang their hat on. But I doubt that clause will ever hold any water, as it is not a present assignment, as is required by patent assignment language.


    IH can file a patent application naming Rossi as a co-inventor, and naming one of their own as a co-inventor, based on an improvement of the technology. And that is what they did. For the patent to eventually be granted, they would either need Rossi to sign an inventor declaration, or they would have to file a substitute declaration. In order to file a substitute declaration, the language of the contract will need to be grappled with, which is why I bring that point up first above.


    I agree with those who suggest that the IH/Rossi dispute was guaranteed to happen based on poor contract draftsmanship, and especially given the high dollar amounts at stake. The contract is lopsided in favor of IH. If IH wanted to avoid disputes such as these, they should have never pursued such an unevenly balanced contract with Rossi. A good solid agreement--and one with low litigation risk--is a fair agreement.

  • Alain wrote:

    This is a general problem for example with Occam razor .What is the simplest ? If you ask to a lasy guy, to a granny, or to a method engineer, you don't have the same answer to "how to screw a bolt".I failed on such estimation for Rossi, and Defkalion, estimating "they could not be that stupid", and "it would be suicidal".


    I can only agree with Schiller (himself quoted by Asimov in one of his best SF novels):


  • IHFB wrote:

    If IH wanted to avoid disputes such as these, they should have never pursued such an unevenly balanced contract with Rossi. A good solid agreement--and one with low litigation risk--is a fair agreement.


    As was pointed out long ago by Dewey (or somebody) the Rossi contract is never one a VC would want, because it has a very large upfront payment and gives the inventor no further interest in the profitability of his invention. Such a large payment is unheard of, and the conflict created by this is bad.


    People here will have to decide whether this weird and badly worded contract is more likely to have been insisted on by Rossi (it was claimed he had been hawking the same round other VCs who sensibly had turned him down) or IH.


    Sounds like Rossi to me! And Abd's argument even goes to why in spite of this stupidity IH had no option but to call Rossi's bluff here.

  • <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/2076-sigmoidal/">@sigmoidal</a>


    The question goes to whether Rossi assigned ownership rights to IH, or whether he just licensed his tech to IH. There is no valid assignment clause in the contract. The contract both expressly and implicitly indicates a license, not an assignment…


    Ok, thanks for clarifying, I didn't realize that Rossi was named in the IH patent application.
    In any case, it seems premature for Rossi (really his lawyers assuming they are giving him council) to try to bring suit against IH in court about patent applications before any has been granted. I would think they could anticipate that the judge would simply dismiss this claim until (and if) an application is actually granted, no? Again, I'm pretty sure there is case law applicable to this situation. Obviously the 89M is the main point. Maybe they're just throwing everything out there to see what sticks. I'm not sure that's the best recipe for success, however.

  • In any case, it seems premature for Rossi (really his lawyers assuming they are giving him council) to try to bring suit against IH in court about patent applications before any has been granted.


    It is more a title dispute, in my mind, which is why I think Rossi's lawyers brought it up now.




    I would think they could anticipate that the judge would simply dismiss this claim until (and if) an application is actually granted, no?


    That is what this judge did. Not sure if it was the right call though, given my sentence above in this comment.

  • Quote from sigmoidal: “In any case, it seems premature for Rossi (really his lawyers assuming they are giving him council) to try to bring suit against IH in court about patent applications before any has been granted.”


    It is more a title dispute,…


    OK, I didn't realize the judge already tossed that. Again, thanks for clarifying.
    That being the case, it seems that for me the most interesting issue is whether there is any validity to the the customer utilizing an alleged 1MW, or whether it really was a remarkably elaborate scam (aka masterpiece).
    With the information we have right now, it seems 20 to 1 scam (or higher). I hope I'm wrong.
    Time will hopefully tell.

  • As was pointed out long ago by Dewey (or somebody) the Rossi contract is never one a VC would want, because it has a very large upfront payment and gives the inventor no further interest in the profitability of his invention. Such a large payment is unheard of, and the conflict created by this is bad.


    I agree that the conflict is bad, but not necessarily for the reason you point out. The problem is that IH had no inducement to make the final (large) installment. They had the information they wanted, and whether they were able to build a device based on Rossi's, or derived from Rossi's, or not, they still would not have had any inducement to pay the last installment. Many other clauses also favor IH. For example, nothing prevented IH from developing their own improvements and filing their own patents, to Rossi's detriment.




    People here will have to decide whether this weird and badly worded contract is more likely to have been insisted on by Rossi (it was claimed he had been hawking the same round other VCs who sensibly had turned him down) or IH.


    I think both parties probably pressed for it, with stars in their eyes. Unfortunately, for one of the biggest apparent innovations of our time, it just wasn't going to hack it.

  • That being the case, it seems that for me the most interesting issue is whether there is any validity to the the customer utilizing an alleged 1MW, or whether it really was a remarkably elaborate scam (aka masterpiece).


    Whether or not a legit company is behind the JMP front company will be a central issue to the case. To that extent, I agree.

  • But (perhaps ironically) the one basis that Rossi might have some leverage with would be the USPTO rules regarding co-inventorship, assuming Rossi was a legitimate co-inventor not named in an IH patent application.


    Rossi was named in the application in question. He complained about the co-inventor named, as if that were some violation of the Agreement, which it was not. Rossi also complained that a Darden statement claimed to "own" the IP. That is a matter of the interpretation of speech, and was not a tort. This whole line was monstrous silliness, and an indication to me that his attorney really did not pay much attention, Rossi was in a big rush to file, so the Complaint was slapped together with very little attention to detail, to satisfy the client. As near as I can tell, that particular patent was itself filed in a rush by IH, because the Lugano report was about to come out, and that report would have placed any new technology revealed there into the public domain. The action, if anything, protected Rossi's IP rights, and did not harm them.


    One more example of Rossi biting the hand that was feeding him. People who are paranoid not infrequently do that.

  • /* ...not oil corps, not nuke industry, not industry, not militaries... Is it James Randi's forum? */


    This is well known fact: the breakthrough findings are suppressed everywhere across scientific community - not just for cold fusion. For example overunity, scalar wave physics, room temperature superconductivity, antigravity or water cluster research are ignored in the same way, like the cold fusion. But why fossil fuel lobby should want to boycott the antigravity or superconductor research? It just gives no meaning.


    It's evident, the problem is completely somewhere else: right inside the community of scientists itself. For example the first cold fusion work of Paneth and Petters from 1926 has been retracted after direct intervention of Ernst Rutherford (who also destroyed the professional carrier of another physicists, who were dealing with fusion and transmutations)