Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

  • Alan's having another one of those "troll" episodes. Wonder if the real ones will come out and play

    under these favorable conditions?

    From the Oxford dictionary:

    Quote

    troll2

    Pronunciation /trəʊl//trɒl/


    NOUN


    • 1A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.‘one solution is to make a troll's postings invisible to the rest of community once they've been recognized’

    Seem that this definition can be applied also to you Dewey.......

  • I am however still quite impressed/incredulous that he was able to get $11M for that "IP" and some crude plumbing scraps and heaters!

    This simply means that you are missing in part if not all the fact that there was proofs that the ECAT works. Note that the 11M$ were payed by IH after that their own test in Ferrara have given a positive outcome !

  • That makes his general condition and state of mind indeed relevant. Also Focardi's degree of blind faith in Rossi, trust and gullibility.


    I had an extra 15 minutes in which I looked at the video of Focardi's lecture at the Ted talk. Someone kindly provided English subtitles. Dr. Focardi's lecture was clear and simple. A bit too simple in fact.

    Maria----- Saint Mary of the Unbelievers.

    This lecture was simple because was done for TED. And I linked that because probably reading the original papers from Focardi and Piantelli for you is not so simple ( Saint Gideon of the Papers may help you )

    I would suggest you to to read each paper carefully.

  • A friend copied me into this list of unpublished Rossi patents that was posted elsewhere.

    Interesting but the link to the google drive does not work.

    I'm not sure if that list is correct. I presume that many titles could be invented and false.

    Quite weird that even for patents titles that should be public don't appear in major patents archives (espacenet, uspto).


    Alan are you sure that this is a list or real patents ?

  • Interesting but the link to the google drive does not work.

    I'm not sure if that list is correct. I presume that many titles could be invented and false.

    Quite weird that even for patents titles that should be public don't appear in major patents archives (espacenet, uspto).


    Alan are you sure that this is a list or real patents ?

    As stated those are described as PROVISIONAL patents (and the prefix numbers are indicative of "provisional" applications) , they are discarded by the USPTO after one year unless they are referenced in a NON-provisional patent filing; since they are not examined at all, the documents and numbers go in the trash after one year--there is no record of abandoned provisional patents kept at the USPTO. If ANYTHING is actually filed as a NON-provisional application, there would be a record of them (whether granted, abandoned, in-process or otherwise) and application numbers, under Rossi's name as inventor (even if it was assigned to Leonardo, or fake JMP as it were). Please read the posts or do some homework before slinging your responses, you are showing ignorance and bias by "presuming" they are "invented and false", unless you were referring to them as invented and false by Rossi--in that case it is highly likely you are correct.

  • Per your note above, if those were actually filed as non-provisional, any potential damages could possibly go all the way back to the filing date of the first provisional, and the patent, and related patents protected to that date.


    To be clear, that isn't per my note above. Any pre-grant damages don't go all the way back to the filing date. They only go back to the publishing date. But yes, they are somewhat "theoretical" as they are hard to get.


    Quote

    If the "unknown" Rossi-applications were non-provisionals, they would be on record at the patent office and public record, even if abandoned. And the patent numbers would still be available even if "do not publish" status was requested (which would be stupid because this dis-allows submitting the application in other countries). So, either bad record-keeping or just more Rossiganda.


    Rossi's granted U.S. patent never published as an application, which means he requested the "do not publish" option. That he did it here means he probably has done it with other pending non-provisionals. There is also the possibility that secrecy orders have been slapped on one or more of his applications.

  • To be clear, that isn't per my note above. Any pre-grant damages don't go all the way back to the filing date. They only go back to the publishing date. But yes, they are somewhat "theoretical" as they are hard to get.



    Rossi's granted U.S. patent never published as an application, which means he requested the "do not publish" option. That he did it here means he probably has done it with other pending non-provisionals. There is also the possibility that secrecy orders have been slapped on one or more of his applications.

    Any "do not publish" requests do not make the application number, inventor, and other data "invisible" in the USPTO database. Also, he could not file a given patent application in other countries with a "do not publish" status (what's the wizard's grand plan on that, not very smart it would seem). As to the possibility of the government slapping secret "national security" status on reams of secret Rossi-applications, well I'll admit there's a possibility that pigs will fly also (and he would/could not be publicly demonstrating selling/licensing same/related, and he could still provide certain non-revealing documentation of that circumstance). Again FACT remains that his only granted patent, after umpteen years, is for the Hotdog Cooker.


    Also to your first point, to be more specific, any potential pre-grant damages would go back to the date the party was specifically made aware by some means from the applicant that there was a pending application.

  • Any "do not publish" requests do not make the application number, inventor, and other data "invisible" in the USPTO database. Also, he could not file a given patent application in other countries with a "do not publish" status (what's the wizard's grand plan on that, not very smart it would seem).


    As to your first point, if the application has not published, there is absolutely no way to find out the application number, inventor, or any other data from the USPTO database, unless you are the inventor, the applicant, or the inventor/applicant's attorney.


    As to your second point, even the largest and most successful companies are highly selective when it comes to filing a PCT application and pursuing foreign patent protection on an invention. Such an effort can cost $100k or more when all is said and done, and that would only cover about half of the developed world at that cost. That Rossi has pursued foreign filing on a select few would be about what is expected for a startup, and indeed, more than what most startups would do.


    Quote

    Also to your first point, to be more specific, any potential pre-grant damages would go back to the date the party was specifically made aware by some means from the applicant that there was a pending application.


    You ought not to try and deflect. What you said was flat out wrong. Best to say something like "I stand corrected" and move on. That approach is more classy and actually increases your cred. Yes, you must give actual notice to have a chance at recovering pre-grant damages. But the pre-grant damages do not ever date back to the filing date.

  • Please read the posts or do some homework before slinging your responses, you are showing ignorance and bias by "presuming" they are "invented and false", unless you were referring to them as invented and false by Rossi--in that case it is highly likely you are correct.


    Thank you for the clarification. In fact what I have seen was a long list of titles. I have attempted to connect to to Google Drive and found nothing so I have tried to search one of those titles and also found nothing.

    Because this nice ambient could be sometimes called the Mythomaniacs Anonymous I made a supposition and asked Alan.

    I do understand that we are discussing of something that don't exist anymore.


    I see also that as usual you don't loos time to insult others . Hmmm Sociopatic ? May be that we should open a Personality Disorders section.

    https://www.psychologytoday.co…-10-personality-disorders

  • You ought not to try and deflect. What you said was flat out wrong. Best to say something like "I stand corrected" and move on. That approach is more classy and actually increases your cred. Yes, you must give actual notice to have a chance at recovering pre-grant damages. But the pre-grant damages do not ever date back to the filing date.

    You sir are the master of deflection, OK, I will explicitly state the obvious, that was WRONG, that obviously someone cannot infringe on something that they cannot be aware of. Does that make you feel better, make your day, like the spelling police trolls on the internet, when it has nothing to do with the conversation in the first place.

    That "list" of provisionals (and some undefined) goes back to 2010, and if ANY of them was ever converted to a real non-provisional (US or EU), those non-provisional would be searchable as well as the provisional reference. So, in 7 years, not one was worth incorporating into a real patent--very strange if there is any value in any of them. There is no tangible evidence of any other "Rossi IP", other than his granted Water-Heater patent, that is the proven FACT. Just like everything else of Rossi and your claims/speculations, the rest is unproven, invisible, wild speculation, while common logic and practice dictates otherwise against your "speculations"--just like the phantom IP, phantom Heat exchangers, phantom companies, etc etc. I suppose the world will have to wait yet another decade or so to see if your fanciful suppositions of top-secret government IP restrictions (while Rossi at the same time hawks the same "IP"), and master ingenious counter-intuitive and generally accepted negligent "Rossi IP" strategies materialize, and QuackX's humming in factories and homes. Perhaps the greatest invention of the century is being foolhardily kept as a trade-secret (the only plausible explanation, IF there was anything of value), but the world will check back with you in ANOTHER few years as they anxiously await the QuackX availability . Since, in the end, the only argument the Rossi Brethren regress to is : Rossi and we will not provide any rigid scientific proof, or independent testing, because the world would not believe it, they will only be assimilated into the Rossi-Bretrhen when they see QuackX's being sold in HD.

  • That's rich, you complain about insults then call people sociopaths (that's Brethren-Logic for you). Saying one is "ignorant" about a technicality was not an insult, nor intended as one, it simply means one lacks knowledge. You again threw out random speculation and conspiracy theories, without even reading posts where that information to the contrary was repeated over and over, hmmm what is that generally called,,, a TROLL?


    PS. It is good to know that among your talents are Online Clairvoyant Psychiatric Analyst (is that a degree from Kensington "University" also?), I'm sure you will be receiving a deluge of emails requesting your diagnoses and medical skills.

  • That "list" of provisionals (and some undefined) goes back to 2010, and if ANY of them was ever converted to a real non-provisional (US or EU), those non-provisional would be searchable as well as the provisional reference.


    Not if Rossi elected "non-publication" on his non-provisionals, which based on his granted patent, it would seem that is what he favors. You will never have access to any information from the USPTO unless the patent is eventually granted. Nothing. No non-provisional application numbers. No inventor information. No titles. Nothing.


  • Not if Rossi elected "non-publication" on his non-provisionals, which based on his granted patent, it would seem that is what he favors. You will never have access to any information from the USPTO unless the patent is eventually granted. Nothing. No non-provisional application numbers. No inventor information. No titles. Nothing.

    Obviously if the patent application is not published, the reference isn't published, thank you for the continued nit-picking the obvious. The salient verifiable fact remains that in 7+ years (and prior), Rossi has not ANY granted patents, except his "Water Heater" patent (despite that long list of "provisionals" which can contain ANY gibberish, they are not examined at all) again yet another phantom unverifiable Rossisays of his reams of invisible IP (he and the Brethren have so many unverifiable invisible phantom claims it's difficult to count). Seems a couple of those would have worked their way thru in 8 years and resulted in some salient granted patent--if they were of any value and were pursued. The world then can only wait in suspense yet longer to see if the suppositions are true that his pipeline of IP will start gushing out patents, and if his national security "IP" was nabbed and squelched by the government (or as has been put forward, by other industry conspiracy), and for QuackX's to start rolling off the phantom factory automated assembly lines.

  • ... we have found math errors, some unintentional self-deception, some see what you want to see and / or orders of magnitude measurement issues in the projects we have parked. The remaining projects have survived that level of scrutiny and we have brought in world class outside expertise to help us sort through balance of the portfolio.


    Your group's strategy seems to me to be among the sanest things I have heard on this site. But you are travelling the same road as the medical R&D community went down near the turn of the century. Large companies trying to industrialize scientific findings found out there was a big problem reproducing research published in even top-flight journals. The first time I heard of this was on the academic grapevine regarding a large drug company who decided that in order to push ahead in a particular field they wanted to establish the capability to reproduce 16 basic findings in-house. They tried, but in the end failed to replicate 15 of the 16 (I don't think I ever learned the name of the company). Since then, failure to replicate has become widely acknowledged and has been the subject of a series of editorials in Science and Nature. Current figures seem to be that 25-70% of peer-reviewed published findings cannot be replicated. The 25% figure comes from the physical sciences and the higher figures comes from biology and psychology. Reasons for failure to replicate are about the same as you outlined (analysis mistakes, self-delusion, etc), but if you ask the authors of the non-replicated works what is happening they say that the experimental conditions were not copied exactly. Sound familiar? .


    What percentage of projects do you end up setting aside in your validation process?


    Here is an example of a venture capitalist's experience in biology

    https://lifescivc.com/2011/03/…-failures/#0_undefined,0_

  • Quote

    we have brought in world class outside expertise to help us sort through balance of the portfolio.


    I hope it's a better class of "world class" than the bozos who vetted Rossi and who agreed to the inane one year test of his silly kludge. Also the world class experts who took an entire year to realize that Rossi and his lawyer were their own clients, Rossi was selling energy to himself, the evaluator was a close friend and associate of Rossi's, there was no manufacturing going on, and the entire megawatt plant and hot cat charades were clumsy scams.

  • Current figures seem to be that 25-70% of peer-reviewed published findings cannot be replicated. The 25% figure comes from the physical sciences and the higher figures comes from biology and psychology.

    Yup. That's why I never fully believe cold fusion results until they are widely replicated. I don't dismiss them, but I don't fully buy them either. For example, Storms reported heat from Pt. I have great respect for Ed Storms, but as far as I know, he is the only one who has observed this, so for now I put it in the category of "unlikely."


    There are so many apparently conflicting reports about cold fusion that I expect many of them must be wrong. It is impossible to know which ones are wrong, but we can be pretty sure that the widely replicated ones are right.


    It may be that two reports only appear to conflict, and they are both right. Or both wrong.


    There have been some articles about the replication crisis in Slate:


    http://www.slate.com/articles/…uch_should_we_fix_it.html


    http://www.slate.com/articles/…chy_practices_in_the.html

  • One classical example of difficulty in replicating is the early work of Wu when she claimed violation of parity in her Cobalt 60 experiment. It took people a while to learn the correct preparation of the highly polarized Co samples at low temps. Most groups just were not up to the exacting nature of sample preparation and most said the violation was physically impossible.


    Moral - sometimes things are much more difficult than most realize - especially when it relates to how chemical and nuclear states are connected.

  • So then, since the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals, across more than 180 labs and 14,700 instances, would you say that it is a well established scientific anomaly? Because there are people on this very forum who disagree with that.

  • Yes

    So then, since the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals, across more than 180 labs and 14,700 instances, would you say that it is a well established scientific anomaly? Because there are people on this very forum who disagree with that.


    I think it is established. The problem is that the levels and "COP" are not at levels that make it easy to produce at will and it is very far from being commercially viable. Sometimes I doubt that it will ever be at truly useful levels with cost effective materials.

  • Yes


    I think it is established. The problem is that the levels and "COP" are not at levels that make it easy to produce at will and it is very far from being commercially viable. Sometimes I doubt that it will ever be at truly useful levels with cost effective materials.

    I have my doubts about commercialization as well, but a few good gamma ray replications by MFMP could break open the investigation for the field.

  • So then, since the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals, across more than 180 labs and 14,700 instances, would you say that it is a well established scientific anomaly? Because there are people on this very forum who disagree with that.

    Sometimes it's interesting how people pick and choose their facts. What about how companies spent over $100 million in 2017 dollars trying to replicate the P&F effect with a 100% failure rate. In some of these experiments you deem positive, there were dozens, if not hundreds of failures for every success. This means the success was likely noise or some other error. Also, how do you explain IH's not announcing any success so far? Also, no reputable University or national has ever officially given it's stamp of approval to any LENR or CF reslts although many have tried to prove it..

  • MFMP would create the buzz that piques the interest of that national lab or two. Right now they're not interested at all.

    Well the big problem with LENR/CF is there is 100% buzz and 0% substance. If you had fewer individuals trying to appeal to investors and donors and more people trying to appeal to University physic's departments so they can correct the measurement errors in their tests, maybe this field would go somewhere.

  • Sometimes it's interesting how people pick and choose their facts. What about how companies spent over $100 million in 2017 dollars trying to replicate the P&F effect with a 100% failure rate. In some of these experiments you deem positive, there were dozens, if not hundreds of failures for every success. This means the success was likely noise or some other error. Also, how do you explain IH's not announcing any success so far? Also, no reputable University or national has ever officially given it's stamp of approval to any LENR or CF reslts although many have tried to prove it..

    The top "who's who of electrochemistry" replicated the first hundred or so P&F findings, per Jed. If those 153 peer reviewed replications didn't happen, then how do you explain the vast majority of electrochemists suddenly producing the same brainfart? It really is interesting how people pick and choose their facts.


    And by fast forwarding to 2017 with $100M you're looking at companies that are trying to go into production, not replicating the effect. When you say "some of these experiments were deemed positive" then that means the effect is real. There seems to be no other field in science where there is such reticence to accept peer reviewed factuality from top experts. So, NO, it does not mean the success was likely noise or some other error. That simply does not happen in science with the top electrochemists. The crazy thing about you claiming a "reputable university" giving stamp of approval is that such universities will lose their stamp of approval of being 'reputable' as soon as they give it. Your entire rant is an excellent example of how politics are pushing LENR around rather than scientific facts.

  • Well the big problem with LENR/CF is there is 100% buzz and 0% substance. If you had fewer individuals trying to appeal to investors and donors and more people trying to appeal to University physic's departments so they can correct the measurement errors in their tests, maybe this field would go somewhere.

    Well I have money in my pocket by betting on Dr. Arata getting his LENR results published in peer reviewed journals, which means your chimera of measurement errors that you're trying to pin on some of the top scientists in their fields is completely bogus.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts