Serious scientists defend their published works when those are cast into doubt with valid critiques. Silence, in such cases, usually means that they are embarrassed, have no defense and don't want to make it worse.
Serious scientists respond to criticism by demonstrating their reasons through other experiments and other articles. You just have to wait.
Whether or not IH filed a patent, so what? If the technology works, they have protected themselves, if it doesn't all they have done is paid for orthodontia for the patent attorney's children. See above re: risk factors.
As far as I know, the conditions for obtaining a patent are three: the disclosed matter must be new, innovative and feasible at an industrial level. The third one needs that the product works.
erv report - perhaps it could be entered, but the objection would be that it was not signed by Penon and there is nothing in evidence to show that Penon actually wrote it. and not just something penned by Rossi.
That would shed a rather cold light of reality if it were admissible in court. They're claiming the device works. In court when it comes time to pay for the demo of the device, they're claiming it doesn't work. If I were on the jury, that would weigh heavily. Seems like both sides have credibility problems.
if that is so, then why didn't Rossi test the 6 cylinder device as required by the agreement? As mentioned above in the thread, if you sign a contract to be hired to clean windows, why should I be required to pay you for working in the garden?
As far as I know, the conditions for obtaining a patent are three: the disclosed matter must be new, innovative and feasible at an industrial level. The third one needs that the product works.
You are misinformed. There is no such condition. Just think how much work validating that would be!
In reality there needs to be a statement in the patent from the inventor that the product works, or could work. That is accepted without challenge (now) - the hurdle used to be higher but only for obviously PM-like inventions: including LENR. Even so LENR patents slip through when they are not obviously extraordinary. Patent lawyers are not doing a scientific appraisal.
if that is so, then why didn't Rossi test the 6 cylinder device as required by the agreement? As mentioned above in the thread, if you sign a contract to be hired to clean windows, why should I be required to pay you for working in the garden?
I don't know why. I suppose we'll find out and if it's significant, it costs Rossi $80 million.
"Hey Oldguy, please keep publishing your overtly pro-IH comments. I have noticed some patterns, which were very helpful material to me.
Maybe I should say one more thing ----- The only thing you have to fear is being SWATted".
I think most people would deem the above a threat - It's not, it's a daft example designed to quickly illustrate a point - but nevermind, because Oldguy seems very happy to downplay such things, so I doubt he'll find anything to complain about.
again, how about answering the question- what exactly is the threat you take this to mean that Dewey would do? I really would like to know what "threats" people see in such things. Are you afraid of justice...... only if you think you are doing something illegal.
Personally I hope that justice is always done. I also hope that when this and all the appeals are finished that justice will have been done
erv report - perhaps it could be entered, but the objection would be that it was not signed by Penon and there is nothing in evidence to show that Penon actually wrote it. and not just something penned by Rossi.
Then it just gets down to burden of proof... Penon not signing his report costs Rossi the full nut. Something tells me there's more to it than that.
As far as I know, the conditions for obtaining a patent are three: the disclosed matter must be new, innovative and feasible at an industrial level. The third one needs that the product works.
"Feasible at an industrial level"? No, there have been thousands of patents granted for utterly unfeasible devices.
Then it just gets down to burden of proof... Penon not signing his report costs Rossi the full nut. Something tells me there's more to it than that.
indeed. Why would Penon neither sign the report, nor defend it in Court? Oldguy, we do have Penon's deposition. If he clearly states that he authored the report I don't see the lack of signature as an issue. However, I do see his absence at the Trial, when $89M is at stake, as an issue.
Serious scientists respond to criticism by demonstrating their reasons through other experiments and other articles. You just have to wait.
I don't understand all this discussion around Rossi as a "serious scientist ". He doesn't claim to be. In mercato veritas.
Unfortunately no, I'm not a law expert but I use only a little bit of common sense: when you pay three reports, you've accepted three reports. If I order four products and the first one arrive to me broken, I will give it back and I will not pay it, I do not wait for the other three before complaining. IH has de facto accepted at least three reports of Penon.
I have often paid for reports that I have not agreed with. It is often useful to get reports from multiple sides of an issue. Recall that IH also paid from reports from Boeing. If they fully "agreed" with Penon's report from data given him by Rossi, why would they go to Boeing and others? Why would they have hired that PI to take reconnaissance pictures of Doral half way through the so called testing (claimed to be a sell of heat).
You cannot equate paying for reports with approval and agreement with a report. Nor can you equate continuing someone on a payroll with approval of their work. Often companies retain people even when their work efforts are not approved often in hopes that the work quality would improve. In this case notice that IH complained early that removal of their instruments was not "approve".
I don't understand all this discussion around Rossi as a "serious scientist ". He doesn't claim to be. In mercato veritas.
Rossi is documented making obvious mistakes in the science that underlies his demos, and arguing fiercely that he was correct: so he is not just not a serious scientist, he is totally unreliable on technical matters.
See Mats' book and the average vs RMS measurement debacle for a Hydrofusion demo.
You are assuming too much when you say that the showcase was the work of Cooper and Miley. Everyone knows that the most famous name in the LENR world has long been that of Rossi and it was Woodford (or rather McLaughlin, if I remember the name well) to say that Rossi was their core business. So it is far more likely that Darden has focused above all on the Doral plant to attract investment.
Or that Woodford was receiving information that Rossi was a total failure and that they wanted to see it first hand to evaluate IH in light of that information and if the other researcher's efforts might overcome general objections they might have with LENR>
Display MoreThere is no mention of excessive heat in the claims because everyone knows that it is almost impossible to get a patent if you deal with this issue (the cases of rejected LENR patents are infinite). However, in the patent text it is mentioned:
[00175] [...] By way of example, using the data of file No. 1 in the table:
COP = (2128.32 + 307.98) / (815.86 - 37.77) = 3.13 ± (3% + 5%) = 3.13 ± 8>#/p###
[00193] Even if taken from this extremely conservative point of view, the reactor lies beyond the limits of the Ragone plot
[00196] Once again, even in the most conservative scenarios, these are values that conclude that the reactor studied here may not be considered a conventional source of energy when loaded with an appropriate reactive material such as was done in the experiments described above.
It is not correct to say that they have only patented a vessel for material.....
Patents cover what are listed as claimed. You do not have a patent for what is not claimed. Read the claims.
I have several patents and I can assure you if you do not claim something then you have not patented it.
Display MoreThere is no mention of excessive heat in the claims because everyone knows that it is almost impossible to get a patent if you deal with this issue (the cases of rejected LENR patents are infinite). However, in the patent text it is mentioned:
[00175] [...] By way of example, using the data of file No. 1 in the table:
COP = (2128.32 + 307.98) / (815.86 - 37.77) = 3.13 ± (3% + 5%) = 3.13 ± 8>#/p###
[00193] Even if taken from this extremely conservative point of view, the reactor lies beyond the limits of the Ragone plot
[00196] Once again, even in the most conservative scenarios, these are values that conclude that the reactor studied here may not be considered a conventional source of energy when loaded with an appropriate reactive material such as was done in the experiments described above.
It is not correct to say that they have only patented a vessel for material.....
Yes, there have been all kinds of tricks employed to get patents on LENR devices without calling them LENR devices.
As far as I know, the conditions for obtaining a patent are three: the disclosed matter must be new, innovative and feasible at an industrial level. The third one needs that the product works.
No, not true. It does not have to be at industrial level or even something that is profitable. It just has to be useful for someone.
And again the Dameron patent only claims the vessel for use if you had a material for it. It does not patent the material and the vessel. It is useful IF you had some material for it. The paten very clearly avoids patenting the entire ecat device. It may contain in the specs that someone (i.e. Rossi) found it useful and that Rossi had data but it does not claim excess heat or even the heat itself at any level.
indeed. Why would Penon neither sign the report, nor defend it in Court? Oldguy, we do have Penon's deposition. If he clearly states that he authored the report I don't see the lack of signature as an issue. However, I do see his absence at the Trial, when $89M is at stake, as an issue.
It could be something as simple as Penon being in ill health.
THHuxleynew . Do you think you could do it?
One of the Murphy's Law corollaries is "everything is harder than it looks". And he doesn't even know if at the end of the day having a COP of 1.20 means that it works or not.
Patents cover what are listed as claimed. You do not have a patent for what is not claimed. Read the claims.
I have several patents and I can assure you if you do not claim something then you have not patented it.
Those are no doubt patents in mature industries. It's a completely different ball 🎾 of wax when you're dealing with radical technology and patent wars. The last time something like this happened was the Wright brothers, who also had their vehement detractors insisting they were earthbound scam artists and obvious patent thieves.
