Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I believe there are exceptions such as refusing inventions claiming perpetual motion, and from what I read, refusing inventions of cold fusion as a result of a letter to the Patent Office from DOE.

It is not clear if the lattter restriction has been eased recently.

It has been said patents are worthless until they have been tested in court.

Not quite true. Patents can have a valuable effect of deterring one's competitors from copying your invention lest they be sued for infringement and damages. Not everyone wants to risk the costs involved in using lawyers, particularly if buying a license to the patent is possible

Quote from IH Fanboy

@WW,

What, a thanks to Jed for his explanation, but not to me for mine?

Well, humph, I guess we know where you are aligning ideologically on this case.

Display More

I answered his post before I read yours. Nothing personal. Thanks for your more detailed explanation. Feel better now.

Quote from Rends

Q: (by Annesser): Mr.Darden you are claiming that your technicians at Industrial Heat and additional the technician at Boeing where unable to replicate the so called 'Rossi-Effect' and so your conclusion is that the E-Cat device never worked and never produced excess heat , is this correct?

A:(by Darden): Yes, this is correct!

I gather this is imaginary testimony. It is wrong. They did replicate the heat. They replicated it in an empty cell, which proves that it was a calorimetry error.

Penon's report shows there was no heat in the giant 1 MW reactor.

Alan Smith

I have no objection if you wish to move the debate that Alain started to a different thread. I expect I can find it.

Or journal editors, apparently.

Quote from JedRothwell

They replicated it in an empty cell, which proves that it was a calorimetry error.

That is what Darden claims happened in Jan. of 2014 (with no email evidence or any evidence of any kind for that matter), and then he went on to raise tens of millions from Woodford, with Rossi's tech at the core of Woodford's investment. In my view, we should take Darden's story about the dummy reactor with a fairly large grain of salt.

Quote from IH Fanboy

That is what Darden claims happened in Jan. of 2014

That is what happened. There is no question about that. I heard it from multiple sources. The analyses published here of the Lugano report probably show how and why it happened.

Quote from IH Fanboy

and then he went on to raise tens of millions from Woodford, with Rossi's tech at the core of Woodford's investment.

How do you know this? Did you attend the meetings with Woodford? Have you discussed this with them? If this is true, why hasn't Woodford taken the money back?

I think you made that up. It is your imagination. You have a vivid imagination.

The most interesting element of the heat exchanger episode is that Planet Rossi argued on this forum that it was not needed until the overlord realized he was cornered with a bunch of unmanaged imaginary heat. He then had to conjure up a fantasy cooling system, a duped rebuttal witness and fake window repair schema (timed for the same day more than a year later nonetheless - go figure..... what an incredible coincidence!!!) in an attempt to save his bacon from ashen incineration (so to speak). Rossi is going to feel every bit of that heat explaining that story very soon . Bolster that with a potential failure to call Penon as a witness in person we'll soon see what is left of his argument. Oh - and Planet Rossi - don't forget that Fulvio has proven that an empty reactor works just as well as a loaded reactor using the overlords tried and true P.R. device management / excess heat claiming techniques. Rossi's blown gasket / storm off from that event will be a nice cherry on top for that story finale. Then he has to navigate gauntlet after that, then the gauntlet after that, then the gauntlet after that.

Quote from kirkshanahan

But...all but 1 guy wanted to immediately know if I believed in CF. When I said no, and I think I found a mundane explanation, they all walked away. Later, a coworker who also attended the conference told me he had been approached by several people asking if I was "OK"...)

If anything, this experience goes to show how stark raving mad mainstream science's approach has become with respect to the LENR phenomena.

Rends - Jed cannot explain that because he doesn't know that answer but good news - Rossi knows the answer.

Quote from Rends

JedRothwell ...and could you explain to me why Darden et.al are still applying for an US-Patent using the Lugano Test Report if it is all fraud?

Can you tell me which patent you are talking about? The key to understanding patents is to look at the claims.

Not knowing which application you are talking about it would be hard to answer.

It might be as simple as the claims they submitted are for a container or excitation or something that could be used with materials other than Rossi's claimed secret miraculous material. I seem to remember that IH was said to have made the containers that Rossi then put something in. Perhaps the claims (like in the Dameron's case) was for the parts they made and not the material nor perhaps it made no claims of nuclear excess. [ again look at the claims]. If you invent a pen, you could show results of people using them to write false statements but you could still get a patent on a pen since it did what was in the claims.

Quote from Zeus46

Or journal editors, apparently.

Hmmm...

4 points:

1.) I have 4 published articles on this subject. The journal editors seem fine with what I say.

2.) The review of my first paper took 2 years, because the editor chose two pro-CFers and one neutral or anti-CFer to review it. The anti guy said publish with a couple of trivial corrections. The second CFer wrote about 2 paragraphs saying I was all wrong and should not be published. The first guy was Ed Storms' (it is typical the author to be given a chance to review a Comment on his/her work). He wrote several pages about my paper, and said it shouldn't be published. If you want to see what he wrote read his 2006 Comment on my work. I replied to both, briefly in the first case, lengthily in the second. If you want to see what I wrote read my 2006 Reply to Storms' Comment. I was rejected simply because the 'vote' was 2 to 1 against, per the editor's reply to my queries. I submitted a slightly modified version to a second journal, and the editor there was the 3rd reviewer from above (Lee Hansen). He didn't want to subject his reviewer's to a lot of extra work, given that he saw all the exchanges in the prior review, so he published it after I responded to a couple of comments he made (i.e. he reviewed the new version for his journal).

3.) The J. Environmental Monitoring is an odd place to publish a review of CF. The scuttlebutt was that the editor had attended a conference on CF and heard the complaints about publishing so he offered to publish a paper. Apparently, he didn't expect any comments. When I did, he correctly allowed the original authors to respond, Krivit chose to respond via his Web page. Marwan enlisted his team and published the highly flawed strawman rebuttal. I then asked the editor if I could reply. He said no with no real reason given (as I recall). I then asked him if he wouldn't get the authors to correct their strawman error. Again he said no. To me, this is inexplicable. When the title of my first paper has 'systematic' in it, and all my others talk about non-random effects, how can anyone believe I presented a "random Shanahan CCSH" concept?

4.) I attempted to publish a comment o a Phys. Lett. A paper by Kitamura. The reviewer comments I received back were awful. One even said I didn't present any new data when in fact I presented a figure on spillover in supported nanoparticulate Pd that I personally had acquired the data for. I got bumped to a different editor when I complained. He admitted he didn't want to publish any CF work in his journal, and even opined that the original Kitamura et al pub shouldn't have been allowed. I replied that since he did, he should allow my reply, and I submitted a revised version that took out the figure I mentioned. He never submitted it for further review AFAIK, and never bothered to formally reject my resubmission. I just gave up at that point.

Trying to publish CF articles at this point is a waste of time for me. Years of back-and-forth for what? More stuff the CFers will (unethically) ignore? Not worth it.

I answered Krivit, critiqued the F&P calorimetric method, critiqued the J. Env. Mom. 'rebuttal', and attached the Phys Lett A manuscript (original form) to a whitepaper that I just got unlimited public release permission for.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

The most interesting element of the heat exchanger episode is that Planet Rossi argued on this forum that it was not needed until the overlord realized he was cornered with a bunch of unmanaged imaginary heat. He then had to conjure up a fantasy cooling system, a duped rebuttal witness and fake window repair schema (timed for the same day more than a year later nonetheless - go figure..... what an incredible coincidence!!!) in an attempt to save his bacon from ashen incineration (so to speak). Rossi is going to feel every bit of that heat explaining that story very soon . Bolster that with a potential failure to call Penon as a witness in person we'll soon see what is left of his argument. Oh - and Planet Rossi - don't forget that Fulvio has proven that an empty reactor works just as well as a loaded reactor using the overlords tried and true P.R. device management / excess heat claiming techniques. Rossi's blown gasket / storm off from that event will be a nice cherry on top for that story finale. Then he has to navigate gauntlet after that, then the gauntlet after that, then the gauntlet after that.

I am surprised that IH doesn't have the Doral landlord testify. I bet he would know if a window was out for over a year.

Quote from IH Fanboy

If anything, this experience goes to show how stark raving mad mainstream science's approach has become with respect to the LENR phenomena.

One of the reasons I got involved in this field I 1995 in the first place is that I noted the problem with how 'mainstream' science had treated the field. Rather than rejecting the claims out-of-hand I read the papers and found many problems that added up to a reasonable certainty that there is nothing there.

Quote from kirkshanahan

One of the reasons I got involved in this field I 1995 in the first place is that I noted the problem with how 'mainstream' science had treated the field. Rather than rejecting the claims out-of-hand I read the papers and found many problems that added up to a reasonable certainty that there is nothing there.

So do you believe Rossi produced 1MW for a year? And if so why, if not, what does it say about Rossi?

Quote from Rends

...and could you explain to me why Darden et.al are still applying for an US-Patent using the Lugano Test Report if it is all fraud?

The Lugano report is not fraud as far as I know. I believe it is a mistake. The Penon report clearly describes fraud.

As far as I know they are not applying for a patent now. Applying for a patent costs a lot of money so I doubt they would do that. Are you saying they applied for one in the past citing the Lugano report? I was not aware of that. I suppose it was because they did not realize the report was a mistake.

Quote from oldguy

So do you believe Rossi produced 1MW for a year? And if so why, if not, what does it say about Rossi?

If I have a reasonable certainty that nothing is there, why would I believe Rossi? And as I said before, he never does anything twice. That means all his work is 'anecdotal', which means it can't be used scientifically. Too many unanswered questions.

It says Rossi is an 'inventor' with no understanding of how scientific research is conducted.

Quote from kirkshanahan

If you want my whitepaper, suck it off the net like everyone else.

I have it for myself, but I will not upload it without your permission. Please send me an e-mail with explicit permission. Also please attach a copy of the latest version in case I have an older one.

Quote from kirkshanahan

The other papers are copyrighted. I won't violate copyright laws unless I check with my legal department to ensure I'm not. Ask Mel Miles for them.

Copyrights are a problem. I have hundreds of papers I cannot upload because the authors cannot get permission from the publisher. If that's the situation with your papers I take back what I said. In that case, you are not getting a fair shake from your publisher.

Many publishers will allow you to upload a "manuscript" version of a copyright paper. That means the single-column Microsoft Word version originally submitted to the journal, converted to Acrobat. This is what authors upload to Cornell's arXiv these days. It is a fig-leaf way to avoid the copyright issue.

If you want more people to see your work, perhaps you should go to the trouble to ask your legal department to ask the publisher. If you get permission please send me the exact version you want uploaded. I think the "manuscript" format often looks better than the journal paper format, so you might want to go with that. The figures are usually bigger.

Nice to see Abd will be reporting events as they happen. New jury will be selected tomorrow after a mistrial was declared due to 5 jurors requesting to be excused.