Coming back to Rossi's "dancing ballerina"...any video tekkies among the crowd here who can help to explain why Rossi's video camera (I guess it was a common CMOS HD video camcorder?) was able to show a quite colorful picture with almost all colors, despite the fact that the spectrum measured by his spectrometer did show roughly zero intensities above ca. 450nm? Based on the spectral sensitivity of common CMOS chips the obtained image should have been very "blueish" due to the absence of green and red light only...? The camera sensor is also not able to catch any relevant spectral content in the near UV and below (peaks in the range of 100...300nm as claimed by Rossi)...
Rossi E-Cat SK Demo Discussion
-
-
Quote
Most people would call that a con, unless Rossi himself was so careless as not to know himself whether his devices worked. Your choice.
After all these years and all the effluvia of communications from Rossi on his stupid JONP, it is inconceivable that he did not know he was conning. In fact, it seems evident that the con was careful, deliberate, cunning, extensively tested and started with poor Focardi more than 9 years ago.
There is nothing to suggest that Woodford put more cash into IH. The little public info that there is suggests they simply re-evaluated their shares. And maybe Woodford likes IH but several of the stockholders don't. Discussion on this has been (wait for it) censored in the Q&A from Woodford.
-
Erm - could it be that he just made up the spectral data? (simplest answer) The real spectrum might have revealed the presence of a Hg vapour or deuterium lamp perhaps? LOL.
-
Coming back to Rossi's "dancing ballerina"...any video tekkies among the crowd here who can help to explain why Rossi's video camera (I guess it was a common CMOS HD video camcorder?) was able to show a quite colorful picture with almost all colors, despite the fact that the spectrum measured by his spectrometer did show roughly zero intensities above ca. 450nm? Based on the spectral sensitivity of common CMOS chips the obtained image should have been very "blueish" due to the absence of green and red light only...? The camera sensor is also not able to catch any relevant spectral content in the near UV and below (peaks in the range of 100...300nm as claimed by Rossi)...
It may be possible to pull an average visible light spectrum from the ballerina in the video, and see if Wien’s Displacement Law could be applicable to appropriate a temperature for the 330 cm2 plasma area.
-
Rossi gave IH what IH thought was convincing evidence his devices worked - their whole business plan was based on that. They paid $10M+ to get these devices.
***Nope. The contract said they paid $11.5M for a year-long demo of the devices, and that an agreed-to independent third party would evaluate them and say yay or nay. If Yay, then they would buy the IP for $89M. The party said Yay, and IH did not pay. Instead, they hired someone else a few months later to dispute the 3rd party report.
The devices did not work.
***The devices DID work, according to the 3rd party that both sides agreed to. Most judges would consider that rather convincing. Basically, Rossi was such a "mercurial personality" (otherwise known as an Adam Henry) that IH:tried to separate him from his IP.
But. measured in the Rossi approved manner, they did work (even dummy ones)
***That makes Rossi one sneaky sumbitch who would be very capable of doing what I suggest he did, which is that he rigged the devices to only work when he was around. The Fred Flintstone "stragedy" (as Bugs Bunny uses the word). The contract says nothing about getting the devices to work without the inventor. IBM used to have the motto "An engineer comes with the box". So a judge probably wouldn't have any real issue with that as a requirement of a new technology.
because of a now known measurement error that generated false positive results.
***By all means, let us know what that measurement error is.
There is direct evidence (damning) from Court depositions
***No, not damning. If it were damning, then IH wouldn't have settled but instead, would have nailed Rossi's ass to the wall.
and indirect evidence (Rossi now has control back over these devices, has done nothing with them, even stating that they will not be used.
***That isn't indirect evidence. In fact it is direct evidence contrary to what you are putting forth because if Rossi's IP was worthless then 3 things would have happened: IH wouldn't have asked for his IP in the countersuit, Rossi wouldn't have demanded to get it back as a stipulation in the settlement, and Rossi wouldn't have left $89M on the table.
IH lost a lot of money.
***They deserved to, since Industrial Heat is their Core Competency and they overlooked the lack of a heat exchanger for a whole friggen year.
Most people would call that a con,
***Most people would call that a FAILURE. A con wouldn't have left $89M on the table.
unless Rossi himself was so careless as not to know himself whether his devices worked. Your choice.
***False choice. Logical fallacy of false dilemma.
-
Link please. context is all.
It's been posted twice. Look upthread.
Here's another couple of additional links.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…f/ICCF-14/123_ICCF-14.pdf
http://world.std.com/~mica/nanorrefs.html
Swartz M., Excess Power Gain using High Impedance and Codepositional LANR DevicesMonitored by Calorimetry, Heat Flow, and Paired Stirling Engines, Proc. ICCF14 1, (2008), p 123; Ed D.J. Nagel and M.E.Melich, ISBN: 978-0-578-06694-3, 123, (2010); http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14a.pdf
-
Quote
The contract said they paid $11.5M for a year-long demo of the devices, and that an agreed-to independent third party would evaluate them and say yay or nay. If Yay, then they would buy the IP for $89M. The party said Yay, and IH did not pay. Instead, they hired someone else a few months later to dispute the 3rd party report
Which third party does the above reference exactly? And which reports?
-
Which third party does the above reference exactly? And which reports?
It's all covered in the Rossi v. Darden threads. Insert spoonfeeding remark here.
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
-
kevmo,
IH first bought the 1MW plant from Rossi for $1.5 million as a good faith gesture. $10 million was then put in escrow, to be released upon the successful completion of the Validation Test (VT) on 30 April 2013, followed by the turning over of all Ecat IP to Darden. The total paid was $11.5 million, and keeping it simple, that $11.5 million bought IH the 1MW plant, and the IP.
The $89 million would have been paid for a successful 1 year test, but by then the IP was already IH's.
-
kevmo,
IH first bought the 1MW plant from Rossi for $1.5 million as a good faith gesture. $10 million was then put in escrow, to be released upon the successful completion of the Validation Test (VT) on 30 April 2013, followed by the turning over of all Ecat IP to Darden. The total paid was $11.5 million, and keeping it simple, that $11.5 million bought IH the 1MW plant, and the IP.
The $89 million would have been paid for a successful 1 year test, but by then the IP was already IH's.
Putting it that way it is really easy to understand why IH would rather want Rossi to deliver the full IP before the MW test was finished. Actually in that case there would be very little upside in Rossi doing it at all... And no doubt Rossi figured it would be pretty stupid to deliver the full IP before the test was finished and paid for. ... Ooops.... Sort of reminds me of something...
-
kevmo,
IH first bought the 1MW plant from Rossi for $1.5 million as a good faith gesture. $10 million was then put in escrow, to be released upon the successful completion of the Validation Test (VT) on 30 April 2013, followed by the turning over of all Ecat IP to Darden. The total paid was $11.5 million, and keeping it simple, that $11.5 million bought IH the 1MW plant, and the IP.
The $89 million would have been paid for a successful 1 year test, but by then the IP was already IH's.
Looks like we have a straightforward factual disagreement. It was covered in the original Rossi vs. Darden threads. I'm not inclined to wade through 500 posts.
Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1
-
Rossi gave IH what IH thought was convincing evidence his devices worked - their whole business plan was based on that. They paid $10M+ to get these devices.
***Nope. The contract said they paid $11.5M for a year-long demo of the devices, and that an agreed-to independent third party would evaluate them and say yay or nay. If Yay, then they would buy the IP for $89M. The party said Yay, and IH did not pay. Instead, they hired someone else a few months later to dispute the 3rd party report.
Not so. You seem to think that the 10M item and the thing in Fl were the same. Not so. The agreement for the testing (to be done within a certain time frame that was not observed) was for the 6 cylinder system not what was done in Fl.
I am not sure, but I think that the 6 cylinder item was retained by IH. (at least during the time all those things were going on in Fl).
-
Just noticed that West remembered "Quar-CATs" being shipped to Doral from IH in Raleigh, shipped with steam pipes, traps, etc. for the Plant.
-
kevmo,
This is from the "License Agreement" (#001-02 in the court documents) regarding the IP payment:
(b) Provided that such date is at least 120 Business Days following the date of this
Agreement (unless otherwise agreed by the Company), wiithin five Business Days
following (a) notifìcation to the Compâny that the Plant is complete and ready for Validation, and (b) satisfaction of the Conditions Precedent, the Company will
deliver Ten Million Dollars ($10,000, 000) to TD Bank, at its office in Míami Beach, Florida, USA (or another bank agreed upon by Leonardo and the Company), to be
held in escrow pursuant to an escrow agreement acceptable to Leonardo and the Company. Suçh escrow agent (the 'Escrow Agent") shall pay the escrowed
$ 10,000,000 to Leonardo immediately after (i) Validation is achieved as provided in Section 4 hereof, and (ii) the E'Cat IP has been validated and is available for
immediate delivery to the Company in accordance with the procedures set forth in Schedule 3.2(b) attached hereto.
-
Display More
kevmo,
This is from the "License Agreement" (#001-02 in the court documents) regarding the IP payment:
(b) Provided that such date is at least 120 Business Days following the date of this
Agreement (unless otherwise agreed by the Company), wiithin five Business Daysfollowing (a) notifìcation to the Compâny that the Plant is complete and ready for
Validation, and (b) satisfaction of the Conditions Precedent, the Company willdeliver Ten Million Dollars ($10,000, 000) to TD Bank, at its office in Míami Beach,
Florida, USA (or another bank agreed upon by Leonardo and the Company), to beheld in escrow pursuant to an escrow agreement acceptable to Leonardo and the
Company. Suçh escrow agent (the 'Escrow Agent") shall pay the escrowed$ 10,000,000 to Leonardo immediately after (i) Validation is achieved as provided in
Section 4 hereof, and (ii) the E'Cat IP has been validated and is available forimmediate delivery to the Company in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Schedule 3.2(b) attached hereto.Okay, that looks about right, there was some discussion on that thread which stated it was a license agreement rather than a technology transference agreement.
Note that it doesn't address whether the "box comes with an engineer" as I have been stating (IBM's motto).
And it says there is a validation, which is presumably the ERV report.
The lawsuit wasn't over the $10M, it was over the lack of payment for the $89M. Industrial Heat paid their $10M, and Rossi claims to have transferred the IP to them and, lo and behold, it doesn't work when they try to start it up. Rossi rigged it Fred Flintstone style.
The sentence, "E'Cat IP has been validated and is available for
immediate delivery to the Company " is pretty clear, so it means that the ERV report validated the IP and Rossi transferred it... otherwise why did they lose $10M in the settlement?
It looks like Rossi thinks he delivered validated IP and sued for the rest of the contract to move forward, while IH paid good money to get another expert to disagree with their own agreed earlier expert who gave the technology a thumbs up. There's a possibility that Rossi salted the reactor.
Most of this fits what I've been claiming. Why did IH countersue to get Rossi's IP if it was worthless? Was their falling out over the fact that IH had started working with other LENR teams, basically dancing with prettier girls?
-
Not so. You seem to think that the 10M item and the thing in Fl were the same. Not so. The agreement for the testing (to be done within a certain time frame that was not observed) was for the 6 cylinder system not what was done in Fl.
I am not sure, but I think that the 6 cylinder item was retained by IH. (at least during the time all those things were going on in Fl).
We covered that 6-cylinder thing in the other thread, using the analogy of an extra-special lawn mower IIRC.
-
Display More
Okay, that looks about right, there was some discussion on that thread which stated it was a license agreement rather than a technology transference agreement.
Note that it doesn't address whether the "box comes with an engineer" as I have been stating (IBM's motto).
And it says there is a validation, which is presumably the ERV report.
The lawsuit wasn't over the $10M, it was over the lack of payment for the $89M. Industrial Heat paid their $10M, and Rossi claims to have transferred the IP to them and, lo and behold, it doesn't work when they try to start it up. Rossi rigged it Fred Flintstone style.
The sentence, "E'Cat IP has been validated and is available for
immediate delivery to the Company " is pretty clear, so it means that the ERV report validated the IP and Rossi transferred it... otherwise why did they lose $10M in the settlement?
It looks like Rossi thinks he delivered validated IP and sued for the rest of the contract to move forward, while IH paid good money to get another expert to disagree with their own agreed earlier expert who gave the technology a thumbs up. There's a possibility that Rossi salted the reactor.
Most of this fits what I've been claiming. Why did IH countersue to get Rossi's IP if it was worthless? Was their falling out over the fact that IH had started working with other LENR teams, basically dancing with prettier girls?
Just to make sure we are on the same page; this is about the first ERV/Penon report in Italy (not Doral), where Penon verified the Validation Test (VT) met the agreement criteria of a COP6. His verification meant the IP was validated/good. That triggered the transfer of $10 million to Rossi, and Rossi in turn transferred his IP to Darden.
So IH owned the Ecat IP from shortly after the "successful" VT in Apr 30 2013, until the settlement 4 years later when Darden turned the IP ownership back over to Rossi.
-
Display More
It's been posted twice. Look upthread.
Here's another couple of additional links.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net…f/ICCF-14/123_ICCF-14.pdf
Swartz M., Excess Power Gain using High Impedance and Codepositional LANR DevicesMonitored by Calorimetry, Heat Flow, and Paired Stirling Engines, Proc. ICCF14 1, (2008), p 123; Ed D.J. Nagel and M.E.Melich, ISBN: 978-0-578-06694-3, 123, (2010); http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14a.pdf
(This quote is from one of several posts above buried in this Rossi thread. These posts are really about the Mitchell Swartz Phusor devices connected to Stirling engines.)
Last summer at ICCF-21, I was sitting with Dr. Swartz at lunch and asked him about his COP and the possibility of closing the loop (deriving input power from the excess heat output). My notes of that conversation say that he was then reaching a COP as high as 1000 and would try again soon to close the loop. With a COP that high, it should be easy to close the loop with either a Stirling engine generator or Peltier devices.
He was probably talking about the latest tests of his NANOR devices. See:
Swartz M. R., Hagelstein P.I., Demonstration of Energy Gain from a Preloaded ZrO2–PdD Nanostructured CF/LANR Quantum Electronic Device at MIT, J. Cond.Matter Nucl. Sci. 13, (2014), 516
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf
It will be interesting to hear what he has to say at the upcoming LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT.
-
Just to make sure we are on the same page; this is about the first ERV/Penon report in Italy (not Doral), where Penon verified the Validation Test (VT) met the agreement criteria of a COP6. His verification meant the IP was validated/good. That triggered the transfer of $10 million to Rossi, and Rossi in turn transferred his IP to Darden.
So IH owned the Ecat IP from shortly after the "successful" VT in Apr 30 2013, until the settlement 4 years later when Darden turned the IP ownership back over to Rossi.
This doesn't make much sense to me, because IH was asking for Rossi's IP in their initial countersuit. Something doesn't add up.
-
Quote
Last summer at ICCF-21, I was sitting with Dr. Swartz at lunch and asked him about his COP and the possibility of closing the loop (deriving input power from the excess heat output). My notes of that conversation say that he was then reaching a COP as high as 1000 and would try again soon to close the loop. With a COP that high, it should be easy to close the loop with either a Stirling engine generator or Peltier devices
COP of 1000? At what input or output level? Me be doubt.
