Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

I don't care a flying F*** whether the results support Rossi or IH or LENR in general or ...

I just want to KNOW. (But I guess science is too old fashioned.)

Here's an idea. If anybody has contacts with Rossi, ask him to send me one of the 24 Gamma/L's from the 1MW. Preferably the one Smith photographed. Shipping address in my profile.

The quatloo betting is just for fun. AND betting has a long history.

If you go to PGL thread you'll find I quoted Fermi. Who (jokingly) offered to bet on the Trinity test :

Quote

https://blogs.scientificameric…ity-and-the-end-of-earth/

Dark humor: Shortly before the first detonation of a nuclear device, the Trinity test, July 16, 1945, Enrico Fermi jokingly took bets on “whether the atmosphere will be set on fire,” according to physicist Hans Bethe. Fermi was mocking concerns raised by Edward Teller that the fission explosion might trigger runaway fusion. Photo of Trinity courtesy of National Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Site Office.

Quote

The observers set up a betting pool on the results of the test. Edward Teller was the most optimistic, predicting 45 kilotons of TNT (190 TJ).

Quote from Pascal Marchetti

I am quite disappointed the case resolved in a settlement. While the US civil practice wouldn't have set in stone the validity of the Doral test (because of lack of court 3rd party ordered tests on the plant), I would have been interested in reading the transcript of the deposition of the following people:

- De Giovanni: who is? What is this American Platinum Trust? What are his interests in the matter?

I have recently discovered this thread, and can't help but notice that your questions (post #3 in the thread) have gone unaddressed.

Henry Johnson's deposition answers part of your question. American Platinum Trust (APT) was formed on 14 June 2014 by Johnson, with Johnson as trustee and DiGiovanni as beneficiary. DiGiovanni, during the visit to Johnson, was accompanied by Rossi. Despite the beneficiary/trustee relationship, Johnson had no contact of any sort with DiGiovanni until ca November 2016, after the suit had been filed.

JM Chemical Products, Inc, was formed on 27 June 2014.

The purpose of the trust was specifically to hide the ownership of JM Chemical Products, Inc. ""The concept was to keep the ultimate beneficial ownership private."

DiGiovanni did not produce a deposition, but there has been no evidence produced (in court or online) to indicate that DiGiovanni had any relationship at all with Johnson Matthey.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Do you mean the data Penon deleted? Or something else no-one has ever seen?

I just mean to say that Rossi did not spend a year in Doral smoothing his nails. He has had to intervene on several occasions to make parts replacement or repairs and I think he has noted these operations. Anyway, the point from which we started was that a long-term test is indispensable (for me) to understanding how reliable a product is and what its behavior is over time. You can't market something that has not been tested in this way. You say that IH should have done the long-term test ..... but when Rossi started to do it, he was still in business with Darden and worked alongside people paid by IH (like Fulvio and Barry), and still I don't understand why if the long-term test had been done by IH it could be fine for you, whereas since Rossi did that test you say it was useless ..... I'm not an engineer (as you said), but you're not objective.

Quote from maryyugo

Although sometimes legitimate companies have reason to generate other corporations, most often this sort of thing is done by crooks, trying to hide from the tax and licensing authorities in a maze of different entities. Having once worked for a regulating agency, I can tell you it really does complicate the work or bringing criminals like Rossi (and probably his attorney is one also) to justice.

Here is a perfect example of how you want to pass for a paladin of justice only when things concern Rossi. Cherokee has created a myriad of companies ready to implode as soon as there is some danger so that the Mother of all can always remain immaculate, and this has never caused you the slightest disturbance. Were you so impartial even when working with the regulating agency?

Quote

Another consequence: the August 25, 2015 US patent that issued to Leonardo Corporation is probably invalid or is subject to equity constraints because the Settlement Agreement acknowledges that there is a secret ingredient not mentioned in the patent. Both parties are committed to maintain that secrecy.

David French

I'm not convinced about what French says. Rossi has patented a reactor and all that is needed for patent validity is that an expert can reproduce it according to the instructions described in it. If the secret ingredient serves to increase the COP or to improve the performance of the reactor, it is obvious that Rossi is concerned and has asked IH not to spread the formula, but this does not necessarily condition the patent. If the reactor also works without that ingredient, the patent is still valid. I think Rossi has filed several other patents (one for the control system, one for fuel, etc ...) that are not yet public and that, taken together, will cover every aspect of its technology. The patent already granted is probably the "skeleton" of the set, and is valid if it describes an object that works. All the additions could make this object much more powerful and commercially interesting.

Quote from SSC

I just mean to say that Rossi did not spend a year in Doral smoothing his nails. He has had to intervene on several occasions to make parts replacement or repairs and I think he has noted these operations. Anyway, the point from which we started was that a long-term test is indispensable (for me) to understanding how reliable a product is and what its behavior is over time. You can't market something that has not been tested in this way. You say that IH should have done the long-term test ..... but when Rossi started to do it, he was still in business with Darden and worked alongside people paid by IH (like Fulvio and Barry), and still I don't understand why if the long-term test had been done by IH it could be fine for you, whereas since Rossi did that test you say it was useless ..... I'm not an engineer (as you said), but you're not objective.

That is easy to answer. Rossi does not go by normal rules when running tests. He uses equipment out of spec, miscalculates input power and output power, etc. (I can give you precise references to all these things which have been discussed here).

With so much uncertainty it is not possible to obtain high quality engineering information - like for example whether the device is actually doing anything other than operating as an electric heater.

Whereas IH (after they employed Murray) were able to put together proper well controlled tests that would deliver real information. Running them long-term is then just a matter of patience. IH if anything seem to have had too much of that...

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I read a comment somewhere suggesting that the patent was still valid because the device would still work without the secret ingredient.

That is incorrect. Patent Office rules say you have to describe the best, most effective implementation you know of at the time you file the patent. You cannot hold back information that will improve the invention. If you do this, and they find out, your patent will be ruled invalid.

See p. R86:

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offi…ep/consolidated_rules.pdf

". . . best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention is required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) . . ."

Quote from THHuxleynew

Whereas IH (after they employed Murray) were able to put together proper well controlled tests that would deliver real information.

I believe they managed to do this even before they employed Murray, but he helped improve their work.

Quote from maryyugo

Pity they didn't bother to hire people who could test **BEFORE** they wasted $10M+ on a second rate elderly con man.

It is a pity. I believe it was because they trusted Levi et al. more than that group merited. I do not think they trusted Rossi himself much.

Regarding: "And then there was b) which was an “Additional Element”, and there was no mention of this in the patent. So what does this mean for your patent if you do not include that Additional Element?"

IMHO, Rossi and R, Mills are working with the same plasma based reaction. Mills says he is using a secret oxygen carrying metallic oxide compound to ignite the plasma in his reaction. Springing from the same basic reaction modality, Rossi says the same thing. So it goes to reason that the Rossi secret additive is an oxygen based compound. The compound that Mills is using might be vanadium oxide.

Vanadium(II) oxide, has a vaporization point ( Boiling point - 2,627 °C (4,761 °F; 2,900 K) that fits very well into the reported plasma temperature range that the QuarkX is running at.

This temperature of vaporization might be a regulating factor in keeping the reaction temperature of the plasma reaction at about 3000K.

How many 3000K plasma reactions requiring a catalyst can there be?

I suggest that BrLP's latest patent defining the SunCell reaction would be a good place to get insight about what the Rossi secret ingredient is.

The problem that Rossi will face is that this oxygen based additive and its various alternatives have been patented by R.Mills, so Rossi might have some IP problems ahead.

Quote from axil

I suggest that BrLP's latest patent defining the SunCell reaction would be a good place to get insight about what the Rossi secret ingredient is.

The problem that Rossi will face is that this oxygen based additive and its various alternatives have been patented by R.Mills, so Rossi might have some IP problems ahead.

Again, you misunderstand. If there is a secret ingredient, Rossi's patent is invalid. He has no IP in that case. He doesn't have "problems" -- he has nothing. The Patent Office rules are quite clear about this. You cannot withhold any "secrets" in a patent.

Quote from Alan Smith

You cannot patent a well known industrial chemical anymore than Heinz could take out a generic patent on Ketchup.

No patents or copyrights are allowed for food recipes, so that comparison fails somewhat. However, if Rossi knew that a well-know industrial chemical is needed to make his device work best, he would have to list that chemical in the patent. He would not get a patent for that chemical, but he would still have to name it.

Quote from Alan Smith

Yes you can. You can say, for example ' step (2) is to add 50 grams of 'wondercat' proprietary catalyst, details on request'.

Ha, ha!

(That is a joke, right? Poe's law?? I mean, Axil and others here apparently think you can write that in a patent.)

Quote from JedRothwell

Ha, ha!

(That is a joke, right? Poe's law?? I mean, Axil and others here apparently think you can write that in a patent.)

I have seen the process of catalyst formation defined in an awarded patent as follows"

Nano-skeletal catalyst

US 9023754 B2

http://google.com/patents/US9023754

Specifically

Quote

In another aspect of the present invention, a method of producing a catalyst material with nano-scale structure from nickel and aluminum is disclosed. The method comprises providing a catalyst powder and a filler powder into a nano-powder production reactor. The catalyst powder comprises nickel, while the filler powder comprises aluminum. Next, a plasma flow is generated within the nano-powder production reactor and applied to the catalyst powder and the filler powder within the nano-powder production reactor, thereby nano-sizing the catalyst powder and the filler powder. As a result of this nano-sizing, a nano-powder is formed, which is defined by a plurality of nano-particles, wherein each nano-particle comprises nickel and aluminum. A catalyst precursor material is then formed from the nano-powder, wherein the catalyst precursor material is a densified bulk porous structure comprising the plurality of nano-particles.