But there was an amendment, but yes it wasn't signed by Ampenergo, and yes it appears that Darden attempted to influence Ampernergo. And yes, it is all a big mess.
Not too much of a mess. An unsigned agreement by itself is not enforceable. Now you may have verbal agreements, but ....
I have several unsigned agreements from people in my files, but I did not agree with the "agreement" You just need to renegotiate.
How do you know that there were not (or are not) pre-existing agreements still in force covering the relationship and flow of IP between Lugano testers. IH and Rossi that allow for the exchange of information and material samples for scientific purposes? The answer to that is of course, that you don't. Nor me, btw, but I'm not shouting about it.
Yes, you're right, I certainly don't know about any pre-existing agreements. And if IH and Rossi have an agreement with Uppsala, then there should be no problem.
Dewey seems to think that sending them a sample was breach of contract. Presumably that is because he knows that there is no such agreement.
But of course, Dewey might not know, or otherwise might be wrong about that.
My point was simply that Rossi sending them an ash sample, no matter how small, and no matter who thought they 'owned' it, would be conveying important IP information to Uppsala.
Not too much of a mess. An unsigned agreement by itself is not enforceable. Now you may have verbal agreements, but ....
I have several unsigned agreements from people in my files, but I did not agree with the "agreement" You just need to renegotiate.
One of the biggest legal messes I've ever seen. And even with an unsigned agreement, if the parties move forward and act as if the agreement was in effect, then course of business, estoppel, and all that.
My point was simply that Rossi sending them an ash sample, no matter how small, and no matter who thought they 'owned' it, would be conveying important IP information to Uppsala.
This notion that IH can somehow control the Leonardo IP on a worldwide basis is, in my opinion, laughable. Rossi is free to take the e-Cat to market in the other half of the non-licensed territories, even if IH goes kicking and screaming about it. And to do that, others will be made aware of the fuel and catalysts, as a necessary function of going to market. Besides, it's all a big scam in IH's eyes, so they shouldn't care about the scam fuel being known to the rest of the world.
This notion that IH can somehow control the Leonardo IP on a worldwide basis is, in my opinion, laughable. Rossi is free to take the e-Cat to market in the other half of the non-licensed territories, even if IH goes kicking and screaming about it. And to do that, others will be made aware of the fuel and catalysts, as a necessary function of going to market. Besides, it's all a big scam in IH's eyes, so they shouldn't care about the scam fuel being known to the rest of the world.
Yes, but Rossi should have thought about that before he signed the original NFA style agreement.
I'm no lawyer, but I'll ask.
My understanding of contract law is that when one party originates and does the primary writing for a contract then if there is ambiguity in interpreting the contract that the other party's interpretation is normally held. That is because it is assumed that when someone writes a contract it is to their favor and they would have made sure of issues important to them. My understanding is that the agreement was first from Rossi.
I haven't heard that point mentioned here. Of that is the case, then all the "uncertainty" of contested interpretation should go to IH's favor. But I again, my knowledge base does not include law.
RiRi - interestingly, the Chinese have labeled the US mainstream news and academic elite as the "White Left" and their descriptive details are interesting. Rossi, as an confessed liar, skewers your attempted play but it was a good try none-the-less. It is also somewhat problematic that Rossi's "expert" has basically been taken out of the case and Rossisays will be all that his side gets to present for his side of the story. If IH gets an adverse interpretation ruling for the destroyed / missing evidence then Rossi's odds / chances of success quickly go long.
Alan - this was intended as a response to a post from RiRi that has magically disappeared - where did you send RiRi's preceding post?
My point was simply that Rossi sending them an ash sample, no matter how small, and no matter who thought they 'owned' it, would be conveying important IP information to Uppsala.
Interesting so apart from the contract and all the legal issues you now say that there would be important information in the ashes.
This simply means that you think or know that Rossi's technology works because otherwise no information would be contained in the reaction ashes.
Remember also that the Lugano team had already taken some milligrams of fuel and ashes from the Lugano reactor and analyzed it with the IH approval.
That is no way to do scientific research. They made that mistake during their long test at Lugano. They should have consulted with experts at every stage. Heck, they should have consulted with me -- a non-expert.
You forgot that they (the Uppsala team) are doing their research in an University laboratory. They are all well experienced Academics and also in Uppsala there is plenty of experts in any field they can consult in a confidential way.
There is no reason why they should consult a person like you.
Color vs Temperature of transparent material (like glass or alumina) is not such trivial topic as you think.
IH are only the trustees of the funding that was obtained from Woodford and others. They will have to cough it back up if they have not used it for the purposes for which it was obtained, e.g., if they use it instead for self-enrichment, or for buying real estate in Florida.
Interesting point.... Googling around about Woodford and Cherokee. Seems that SEC has done an action against them:
From page:
https://www.sec.gov/news/speec…e-equity-enforcement.html
"Another enforcement action — Cherokee[12] — could best be described as vertical misallocation, as the misallocation occurred between the adviser and the funds it managed. In Cherokee, the Commission charged two private equity fund advisers with improperly allocating their own consulting, legal, and compliance-related expenses to their private equity fund clients in contravention of the funds’ organizational documents. Cherokee ultimately reimbursed the funds for such expenses, and paid a $100,000 penalty."
The original document they refer to is:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/ia-4258.pdf
And from page :
http://webcache.googleusercont…ners-reaches-100-000.html
We learn that:
"Raleigh real estate entrepreneur Tom Darden's Cherokee Investment Partners has reached a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionover alleged misallocation of legal expenses for three of the funds it manages.
Cherokee and its subsidiary Cherokee Advisors LLC have agreed to pay the commission $100,000 in fines. The groups have already reimbursed all of the $455,698 in questionable expenses, according to an SEC order issued Nov. 5."
So a good question would be where are the 250M$ that IH has rised using Rossi technology ? What use they are doing of all that money ?
You forgot that they (the Uppsala team) are doing their research in an University laboratory. They are all well experienced Academics and also in Uppsala there is plenty of experts in any field they can consult in a confidential way.
There is no reason why they should consult a person like you.
Color vs Temperature of transparent material (like glass or alumina) is not such trivial topic as you think.
Yes, we have heard the rumor that the profs continue to be led around by the nose by AR. They continue in their insular bubble, free from criticism, and probably kept busy trying to refine "promising" results. It is to AR's advantage to keep them hoping, isolated, and working for something positive at least until the lawsuit is over.
Indeed. The color vs. temp problem for a material like alumina is much more difficult than the profs believed. But the problem is not that the surface temperature is hotter than it appears! The color of the reactor in the pictures from the report indicates a temperature in the 800's range. This is consistent with empirical studies and multiple calculation methods applied to the data presented for Lugano, putting the actual temperature within a range consistent with the visible color. I don't expect you to answer this, because you prefer to snipe and run, but how can alumina be ~600C hotter than it appears?
how can alumina be ~600C hotter than it appears?
If alumina becomes "transparent" at a high enough temperature, could an internal light source (hot filament, or something else) make it appear hotter to the thermocamera?
I'm only curious, not implying anything.
Yes, we have heard the rumor that the profs continue to be led around by the nose by AR.
Jack Cole : Can you show us your evidence that they directly work with Rossi?
So a good question would be where are the 250M$ that IH has rised using Rossi technology ? What use they are doing of all that money ?
Can you provide your source for that $250 million figure?
You forgot that they (the Uppsala team) are doing their research in an University laboratory. They are all well experienced Academics and also in Uppsala there is plenty of experts in any field they can consult in a confidential way.
There is no reason why they should consult a person like you.
Color vs Temperature of transparent material (like glass or alumina) is not such trivial topic as you think.
(1) The Lugano team clearly thought it was a trivial matter when that wrote the Lugano Report. Compare that with TC's critique (which notes the translucence issues, and many others) and you will see how unsophisticated they were at that time. You have previously supported the Lugano report as being correct in spite of its naive treatment of optical properties. So now you are changing your mind?
(2) The resident expert on alumina translucence issues here is Paradigmnoia, who unlike you or (at time of Lugano report) the Lugano team has done work on this.
(3) I was not aware that the lab you work in influences the quality of your understanding. It must be some mystical University effect? I can think of a number of counter-examples!
(4) There is no doubt there are many experts, who anyone (not just Upsalla academics) can consult. The issue is whether they do this with an open mind, and the will to learn. You will remember that Levi claims to have consulted colleagues at Bologna to support his known wrong idea that band emissivity is irrelevant to thermographic temperature determination of non-grey-bodies. Any thermography expert will tell you the opposite.
Levi claims to have consulted colleagues at Bologna....
Where did you get the 'Bologna' bit from?
Where did you get the 'Bologna' bit from?
OK - strike that. Mats said Levi said he had consulted colleagues to validate the Lugano report. Obviously not Ele, who seems now to have a more sophisticated view of the matter than in the past. I don't know who at which institution Levi claims share his mistake. And I thought Mats mentioned Bologna, but maybe I was wrong...
If alumina becomes "transparent" at a high enough temperature, could an internal light source (hot filament, or something else) make it appear hotter to the thermocamera?
I'm only curious, not implying anything.
Yes, of course. It can and does happen. It can appear hotter than the surface of the reactor actually is. What I am asking: how can the opposite happen? How can it appear to be cooler than the surface temperature of the reactor by 600C?
I am asking this more for the sake of argument than seeking an answer, because it is not something that can happen.
How can it appear to be cooler than the surface temperature of the reactor by 600C?
One possibility: the photo was not taken at the point in time that the authors thought that the reactor was at its peak temperature, and instead it was taken when the reactor was still warming up.
If alumina becomes "transparent" at a high enough temperature, could an internal light source (hot filament, or something else) make it appear hotter to the thermocamera?
I'm only curious, not implying anything.
At 7-13u alumina is pretty well opaque, so no such effect. Otherwise, if it were transparent, it could result in underestimation of temperature, depending on the emissivity of the internal source. But that would only be if you did not follow Levi and used the band emissivity correctly. Otherwise you still likely get overestimate of temperature.
