Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    • Official Post

    "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 defer to DF on anything having to do with patents, as he is an expert on the matter. Especially so regarding LENR. However, his comment confuses me, as the one USPTO patent granted Rossi (only other one is an Italian patent) is actually for a "Fluid Heater". LENR is never mentioned in the patent at all. Yes, it often refers to the "fuel wafer (Energy Catalyzer/Ecat)" which French analyzes here:


    https://coldfusionnow.org/anal…t-9115913-issued-25aug15/


    ,that is the basis of all Rossi's Ecat models, as one of a number of fuels, but does not endow any overunity ability to it's use, were one to use it in the "fluid heater".


    So I fail to see how Rossi's neglecting to list this newly revealed, super secret catalyst into the patent, makes the patent invalid, as David French claims. Maybe he can answer?


    Take a look at it yourself...this is from the patent:


    FIELD OF DISCLOSURE

    This disclosure relates to heat transfer systems, and in particular to devices for transferring heat to a fluid.


    BACKGROUND

    Many heat transfer systems use hot fluids as a heat transfer medium. Such systems include a heat generator for generating heat, a heat transfer medium in thermal communication with the energy source, and a pump to move the heated medium to wherever the heat is needed. Because of its high heat capacity and its abundance, a common heat transfer fluid is water, both in its liquid and gas phase.

    A variety of heat generators are in common use. For instance, in nuclear power plants, nuclear fission provides energy for heating water. There also exist solar water heaters that use solar energy. However, most heat transfer sources rely on an exothermal chemical reaction, and in particular, on combustion of some fuel.


    SUMMARY

    In one aspect, the invention features an apparatus for heating fluid, the apparatus including a tank for holding fluid to be heated, and a fuel wafer in fluid communication with the fluid, the fuel wafer including a fuel mixture including reagents and a catalyst, and a heat source, for example an electrical resistor, in thermal communication with the fuel mixture and the catalyst.

    Among the embodiments are those in which the fuel mixture includes lithium and lithium aluminum hydride, those in which the catalyst includes a group 10 element, such as nickel in powdered form, or in any combination thereof.

    In other embodiments, the catalyst in powdered form, has been treated to enhance its porosity. For example, the catalyst can be nickel powder that has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    TTM - I am really looking forward to the day when you find out why. You may be among the last to know.


    Ahiahi - its always coldest before dawn.


    will this day come soon? or is this project you seem to have kind of a lifetime achievement?

    Thank you Rigel - absolutely lovely! I'm a sailor and greatly appreciate sunrise at anchor. For the record, ICCF21 is in good hands so not to worry.


    TTM - you will not know the day or the hour but stay sober and keep a vigilant watch because inquiring minds will want to know.

    Quote

    Tepid support. I still do not find any errors in the first Levi tests, and I still do not see how Rossi might masterminded them. Would you care to tell us how this was done? Here is the report; have at it:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

    Tell us what you know.

    When you criticized me in condescending ways, claiming that Rossi's "ottoman" size experiment was proved on first principles simply because someone could hear boiling some time after it was (ostensibly) shut down, it seemed you supported Rossi considerably more than tepidly. And similarly when you said you knew people who had seen what amounted to wonders from Rossi (and IIRC Defkalion as well). And when you were sure the prototype ecat that heated a whole factory in 2007 was real because you knew someone etc. etc. (I don't recall the exact details)...


    Anyway, simply because you don't know how an illusion was performed does not mean the illusion is "real." I still can't tell if Levi is incredibly inept or if he's a conspirator of Rossi's. I don't recall enough about that test (and I have no intention to study it again). IIRC, at the time, it seemed like the most likely cheat was mismeasurement of the input power. That is how Rossi tried to fool the Swedish Technical Institute in Septmber 2012: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3535258.ece or it could have been any number of other ways. So I can't tell you how it was done but that it could never be done again the same way should tell you volumes. Magic doesn't work the second time when the mark is watching more closely.


    Quote

    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).

    Yes, and it is never a random accident. IMO, Rossi meticulously tests his illusions before he uses them. Sometimes they work (original IH testing if they really did test before paying) and sometimes it doesn't (Swedish Tech Inst for Hydrofusion) but the mismeasurements are deliberate and Rossi knows exactly ahead of time what they will accomplish. Plus, as we discussed before, his skill is choosing marks. And he has been amazingly lucky not to get busted before now.

    Quote

    AF - how quickly you slip back into the abyss. I was one of about 50 at one point in time. My ass is covered alright and you're stuck in the funny pages.


    Dewey, are you saying there were fifty individuals involved in testing Rossi for IH ahead of the contracts? If not, what does the above mean?


    I've always been curious about exactly how Rossi bamboozled Darden and Vaughn. If anyone knows, Dewey or anyone, how IH tested Rossi and who did the tests (before they paid the initial $10M) please clue us all in. Who got flummoxed by Rossi and how did he pull off that one? You'd THINK before handing over 10 mil and promising 90 more, someone would exercise just a bit of caution -- especially since Rossi's colorful history was splashed by many people all over the internet, including his monumental multimillion dollar failure (scam) with DOD/CERL on the thermoelectric devices.


    SO please if anyone knows: how did IH test ahead of the first payment and who performed the tests?

    Quote from maryyugo

    Dewey, are you saying there were fifty individuals involved in testing Rossi for IH ahead of the contracts? If not, what does the above mean?


    I've always been curious about exactly how Rossi bamboozled Darden and Vaughn. If anyone knows, Dewey or anyone, how IH tested Rossi and who did the tests (before they paid the initial $10M) please clue us all in. Who got flummoxed by Rossi and how did he pull off that one? You'd THINK before handing over 10 mil and promising 90 more, someone would exercise just a bit of caution -- especially since Rossi's colorful history was splashed by many people all over the internet, including his monumental multimillion dollar failure (scam) with DOD/CERL on the thermoelectric devices.


    SO please if anyone knows: how did IH test ahead of the first payment and who performed the tests?


    I have no knowledge either, and wonder about this as well.


    My best guess is that Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) turned out to be extraordinarily expensive in this particular saga.


    Dewey, can you provide any insight?

    @ JedRothwell

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Tepid support.

    Tiepid? I'd say warm, at least! The post, I linked above, contains 23 excerpts (the maximum allowed here by the limits on characters) taken from the thousands of comments that you posted in the period between January 2011 and December 2014 in support of the reliability of the results of the first Ecat tests and of the credibility of the testers, including Levi.


    Quote

    I still do not find any errors in the first Levi tests, and I still do not see how Rossi might masterminded them. […] http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

    The pdf you linked doesn't refer to the first Levi tests, ie those documented in the report issued by Levi at the beginning of 2011, as you well know (1). You keep on saying that the first Levi tests are those performed in Ferrara two years later.


    It's evident that you are trying to divert the attentions from what happened in 2011, during the launch of the Ecat in the blogosphere. I'm not surprised, I know this tactic of yours since long (2). What puzzles me are those who are following this saga since the first demo of 2011, realized that those results were fake, but still upvote your comments, even if you had a major role in disseminating such results.


    This is really "bizarre", just to use a word liked by one of your upvoters.


    Quote

    Would you care to tell us how this was done?

    If we refer to the effective first Levi tests, I told many times how these manipulations (not exactly errors) were done. You can use the "search" function of this site, looking for the words "January" and "2011", to read them.


    But you meant the test performed in Ferrara, and in this case the simplest explanation is implicit in the first four letters of the name of the document that you linked: Levi. Whoever understood what happened during his first tests, held in Bologna at the beginning of 2011, doesn't need to go beyond the name of the first author of the TPR1 (the Ferrara test), as well of the TPR2 (the Lugano test), to realize that those reports don't worth the time spent to read them.


    Quote

    Tell us what you know.

    I know what I found on the web, and that in large part comes from you. You are one of the most informed first hand source. The problem is that often you release only half a card, and when asked for the other half, you answer that those are your business, or you don't answer at all (3).


    (1) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

    (2) https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…D/?postID=25724#post25724

    (3) Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.