Posts by Guest

@joshg

Quote from joshg

Also, this notion that either Fabio or Fulvio are "Rossi's guys" is not supported by any facts. It's just hearsay and gossip. There is not a shred of evidence that either of them had any working relationship (or any other kind) before they were contracted by IH, either to do the validations or to work with Rossi.

Actually, in the case of Fulvio Fabiani there's plenty of evidence of his closeness to Rossi and of a pre-existing working relationship with him prior to IH entering the picture:

1) Before removing it, Fabiani had a LinkedIn page that included his work experience (Sifferkoll captured an image of it here - http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…loads/2013/12/fulvio2.jpg). You'll see that Fulvio was working for Leonardo Corporation a full year before doing contract work for IH (you'll see that he doesn't claim to be an employee of IH, but rather a freelance consultant), and ~5 months before IH entered into the license agreement with Rossi. Fabiani's listing of IH on his LinkedIn page was actually the first hint that IH might be Leonardo's partner, as Fabiani was a known prior employee of Leonardo (article on ECW here - http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…onnection/comment-page-1/). As further evidence that Fabiani was not an employee of IH, but rather a contractor (bills paid by IH, but reporting to Rossi), is Mat's comment that "I already had a follow-up contact with Fabiani...he said that he was just waiting to send his last invoice to IH and then start look for new opportunities/work" (on his blog - https://animpossibleinvention.…truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/). Having to send an invoice makes clear that Fabiani was not an IH employee, but rather a contractor whose bills were paid by IH as part of their relationship with Rossi.

2) In August 2013 Fabiani formed a company called United States Quantum Leap LLC in Florida, with the help of Rossi's lawyer Henry W. Johnson, where he was listed as co-director with an entity called "Florida Energy Trust", the address for both Fabiani and "Florida Energy Trust" was listed as the same apartment that Rossi registered for Leonardo corporation, which is owned under Rossi's wife's name (http://www.arivify.com/property/search/nl8rYPBFZ) and appears to be their residence, so reasonable to assume that "Florida Energy Trust" = Rossi (http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2013%5C0828%5C00188102.Tif&documentNumber=L13000119832). Fabiani lists USQL as his current employer on his social media page (http://m.vk.com/ffab2012), so clear that after this fiasco he is still working with Rossi via this entity. Fabiani also lists his current address as 1303 Lincoln Rd Unit #401 (http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/GetDocument?aggregateId=flal-l13000119832-3ff1d247-9313-4e15-863b-58465a13f349&transactionId=l13000119832-a4a6cba8-d7b9-4b7f-b9af-83808c3b8c98&formatType=PDF), an address which is owned by REFC Real Estate Corp (http://www.arivify.com/property/search/AyR5oAcbs), which is owned by Rossi (http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=OfficerRegisteredAgentName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=ROSSIANDREA P130000508421&aggregateId=domp-p13000050842-f727ddc4-a303-41c1-bc4b-aae94c3f6d13&searchTerm=Rossi Andrea&listNameOrder=ROSSIANDREA L150000798350). The guy is literally living in Rossi's home.

Above are facts, not hearsay or gossip.

What does "100.1C" refer to?

Question for you Dewey - when do you think we can expect a formal response from IH? Will we have to wait for official response deadline (I believe June 12th)?

@Alan Smith

Since you re-posted here, I'll add my response to you that I also posted on ECW:

Hi Alan - I take offense to you calling me a troll and accusing me of personal attacks/behaving like an animal.

I'm not sure which of my comments you believe were over the line, but I've actually tried really hard not to stoop to that level and stick to commenting on what I've learned or heard without final judgment. I agree with you that some of NCKhawk's comments crossed the line of showing his anger, and I hope you'll remember that I commented on that as well asking him to stop throwing around the "fraud" word even if that's what he thought.

Please let me know what you found offensive and I'll try to be more careful going forward.

And just FYI, I am also an LENR believer.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

In other words, unless IH had an unmentioned source of extra funds, they have never had enough money to pay Rossi if the plant was successful and the report on it was totally solid.

I never said anything like that, and not sure how you would have interpreted that from my post.

But... to the first part of your question I haven't seen any public documents laying out investments other than the ~$50M from Woodford and then the initial ~$10-12M from other sources. However, that also doesn't mean they didn't or wouldn't have had enough money to pay Rossi. I don't see how anyone outside of IH could really know that without access to a lot of private documents, as things like contingent contracts for follow on capital, new investors, lines of credit, etc might have been available for them to call on when/if needed.

Non-investors tend to think of 'having enough money' as meaning the funds are sitting in a bank account, but that's not really a relevant way of approaching it as there are the funds you have plus funding you have access to that remains un-executed until/unless called upon.

Jumping in to point out a mistake that recurs in almost all of the discussions of this situation.

Most posters assume IH = Rossi Investment (or even LENR=Rossi), when in actuality IH has invested in Rossi along with several other LENR scientists/technologies (per their own statements). If any of those investments end up showing good results then IH's investors (e.g. Woodford et al.) are happy and likely in for a huge return on invested capital.

IH's success does not depend solely on Rossi, and neither would an investment pitch. Woodford would have done due diligence on all of the IH investments, not just on Rossi, so it's unclear how much of their decision to invest would have relied on any one scientist or technology. They would have been aware of Rossi's checkered reputation and the small likelihood of success, so these new developments are likely not a surprise. If they thought there was a 100% chance of Rossi success they would have pushed to put a lot more than $50M in the deal (<1% of funds raised).

Posters who claim the Woodford investment as proof that either Rossi's tech works or that IH was committing fraud are way off base. Unless you were part of the investment pitch you have absolutely no clue what was presented or what the basis for investment was.

@Thomas

In your opinion, how much of an error on COP could result from using instruments (e.g. flowmeters, etc.) outside their certified range of operation?

[EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not trying to secretly feed information here, I am honestly just asking if in your opinion errors like that could lead to such large miscalculations]

Quote from Eric Walker

This assumes that the contract does not stand or fall as one thing. If any party violates an important provision of the contract, the court may decide that the entire thing is void, interpreted in a way that does not prevent Rossi from going on to make money from some other venture. (I'm just speculating, here.)

I believe there are more options for the court than just declaring the entire thing void. They could award damages on one side or the other, or even compel either or both of the parties to perform their contractual duties as originally agreed. This would make it really risky for another party to try to purchase a license from Rossi while the litigation is ongoing, as they could end up losing it and any investment they make to enable themselves to produce or sell the product.

Quote from Eric Walker

One question I have about the actions of IH in this connection is that there was language in the license agreement around non-competition. It is hard to see how IH's funding of Brillouin and Miley would be compatible with this language, even if there was no transfer of Rossi's IP.

Reading the contract it appears that the non-compete language (section 13.3) only expressly prevents Rossi/Leonardo from competing with IH, not the other way around unless IH has breached the contract. I think the section 1 says IH can also sublicense to anyone they see fit, so likely covered by that as well.

Quote from DMS

Stupid question: Who owns this 1 mw plant?

I believe this is all still the same plant that was purchased by IH for the initial $1.5M. So the plant would now be owned by IH.

Quote from axil

Mixing the fuel is more art than a science. Rossi adjust the fuel mix based on the requirements of the reactor's run. For example, Rossi mixed the Lugano fuel to rum for 30 days. He mixed the 1 MW reactor fuel to run for 1 year but fell short near the end of the run when performance dropped prematurely in one 250 kw unit. Rossi said he learn from that error. Therefore mixing fuel requires much experience like mixing the proper color on a fresco.

Perhaps you're right (I have no idea), but if so that still doesn't remove the contractual condition that Rossi teach them everything (and provide any and all assistance) they need to produce the fuel and replicate his results.

If mixing or preparing the fuel truly is an art-driven process that can only be manually performed by one person alone (Rossi), then the technology would probably be worthless from a commercial standpoint. I hope that's not the case!

@axil

I see a lot of people making similar statements that IH filing for patents confirms they have been able to replicate his results:

Quote

I.H. has applied for a patent of the activator which was based on the Lugano test results. That patent was granted. I.H. must beleive that the activator works since they patented it along with Rossi.

This is where I think an important distinction is necessary. IH can apply for patents based on the results they have seen achieved with Rossi's involvement/collaboration, it does not necessarily mean they have been able to achieve the same results without Rossi. The stories are all still compatible.

I know I have responded separately on your narrow definition of IP as only granted patents, but again, IP as defined in the contract is a much broader definition, and Rossi was to have provided all IP, know how, fuel recipes, assistance etc. for them to be able to replicate his results and operate the 1MW reactor to similar performance standards (which would include SSM mode).

Hi @Hank Mills

I have seen your questions and Rossi's response on JONP, and agree the stories sound incompatible. If Rossi has the evidence to back all of his claims up then we shall soon see, but I believe there will be concrete evidence on the other side as well.

I agree with @Mats Lewan though that the devil is in the details. It is possible that one or both parties are lying, it is also possible that there is room for both stories to be accurate but misleading - i.e. maybe IH tested reactors in front of investors but Rossi was directly involved and ran the tests, or they ran a test and got brief positive results but were not able to stabilize.

I do know of at least one example where the public story from another party directly contradicts Rossi's statements (your #2), and that came from @Mats Lewans published interview with Fabiani with quote above that Rossi was the only one who made the core charge. That interview was well before the lawsuit, so to me doesn't seem like it would be driven by false positioning. I don't know where the wiggle room in that one is though...

I wonder if Rossi would answer the direct question 'did you receive any indication from IH prior to the conclusion of the 1-year test indicating they were having trouble replicating your results and asking for your assistance?' I would guess that if such communication exists per my #3 above it will be part of IH's response to the lawsuit (so public in the near future). He may answer with the standard I can't comment on the ongoing litigation, but I really don't see how that would be a valid response as that question would be of very narrow scope and factually provable.

Who knows though, at this point based on currently available public information it really is a He says vs He says debate, and it comes down to which party you view as more credible.

Hi Thomas, I saw you posted my comment on animpossibleinvention.com as well, would you mind editing that comment slightly to include the "Here are the rumors I have heard:" portion?

I want it to be clear that this is not yet confirmed fact. I believe it to be accurate, but don't have direct confirmation of the statements and don't want to position it as being concrete.

It really riles me up that most of the Rossi supporters make statements about how they know IH is shady, dishonest, etc. so just want it to be clear what is known fact and what is still unproven at this point.

My sources have been pretty good so far, at least good enough to have indicated both ERV and customer identities prior to that information having become public, and close enough to the action to reasonably have a sense for what's going on. Everything I've heard so far has confirmed what I had heard, but I guess we'll see what happens with court filings (might take years... :-\).

To Axil, a couple comments:

The contract defines 'E-Cat IP' rather broadly (not just issued patents), stating "any and all inventions, discoveries, concepts, ideas, information and anything else which relate to the E-Cat IP or are useful in the business or activities in which the Company is or may become engaged... including without limitation, enhancements, improvements, alterations, additions, deviations, changes, variations, as well as all derivative works...shall be and shall remain within the scope of the definition of E-Cat IP and shall be included in the License" (section 13.4). So it's not just the patents, but ideas, data, etc.

Also, to your assertion that IH does know how the 1MW plant works - in his interview with Mats, Fabiani stated "I don’t have knowledge on the reaction because the formula is not my concern. When it is time, Rossi makes his mixtures according to his formulas, puts the charge in the cores and gives me the complete cores". This appears to be a contradiction of Rossi's statements that IH is responsible for making everything, and backs up the theory that he may not have given them all they need to replicate.

Thomas - from what I have heard hinted from folks close to the matter your hypothesis seems very likely.

Here are the rumors I have heard:

1) Rossi moved forward with Penon as ERV for yearlong test without formal agreement from IH. Rossi likely believed that since Penon performed the 24 hr test he did not need IH's approval (and contract language might support this).

2) IH cared very little about the yearlong test, as what mattered to them was the transfer of all know-how that was to immediately follow the $10M payment. Therefore, they decided not to rock the boat over Penon or the apparent shell 'customer', as the test held no meaning for them. Being able to make the tech on their own was critical, as that would allow them to test to their heart's content and both resolve any remaining doubts from independent tests as well as make refinements to optimize performance. Didn't matter to them if the yearlong test was or was not a sham.

3) On several occasions prior to conclusion of the yearlong test IH reached out to Rossi indicating they were having a hard time replicating his results and asking for his help. Rossi's supposed response was that he was focused on the yearlong test and would only help them after the $89M payment (which seems to violate contracted terms).

4) Sounds like Rossi constructed the contract as it was apparently shopped around to other potential investors in more or less the same form who rejected it on the basis that Rossi wanted installment payments and no ownership in the partner entity. Other potential investors worried this was a hallmark of a potential scam. So unlikely that Rossi was duped or tricked into any of the contract terms (and Rossi's complaints about what IH has been doing regarding the IP all appear to be ok under terms of contract).

This paragraph is all my interpretation - IH viewed the $11.5M as a necessary "ante-up" payment to get access to the know-how. It was a substantial sum, but one they could afford to write off if things didn't pan out. Now the test is completed and Rossi has moved the goalposts refusing to help them independently make it work until after the $89M payment despite contract clearly stating that was to happen as a prior condition. IH has invested in other LENR researchers and is seeing encouraging results, they have also seen encouraging results when Rossi has been directly involved in tests so they want to keep the contract open, but that is not enough to justify paying $89M more on hope that Rossi will finally show them how to replicate. From their perspective a pre-condition of the $89M payment has not been fulfilled by Rossi, so they are legally justified in delaying and the contract remains in place along with all other conditions (e.g. first right to purchase additional territories, Rossi non-compete, access to all new inventions, etc.) until Rossi meets contracted terms. They are at a stalemate, but one that legally appears to favor IH despite the fact that Rossi has spun public opinion in his favor with selective truths and partial statements. To be clear - I don't think this is fraud, I think Rossi truly believes in the results he is generating, but I also think it most likely that due to his own paranoia he is holding back from IH and mischaracterizing them as trying to screw him out of his money.

@padam73 also note that the file Rossi sent Frank is an original document (no stamped patent # in top left of each page), whereas any documents pulled from the USPTO site have that # stamped.

If Rossi is in possession of the original document, then how can he claim he had no idea about this patent application until now?

This clearly appears to either be his patent application or at least one he knew about well in advance of today... Which would make his statements false and misleading - no wonder he has since pulled them off of JONP.

Rossi sent a pdf of the patent application he's referring to to Frank @ e-catworld who posted it: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-c…2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf

What I find interesting is that looking up that patent on USPTO site (http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/P... - after captcha entry search for 61821914), under 'Image File Wrapper' tab it has a Filing Receipt document - which says Andrea Rossi was the applicant and it was filed in 2013. Also, nowhere on the patent application is Industrial Heat listed as an applicant, an assignee, or a co-inventor (there is only one mention of Industrial Heat and it's in the Lawyer's address).

Additionally, the patent application retrieved through the USPTO website has the application split into multiple PDF documents, all with the provisional patent # stamped in top left corner. The document sent by Rossi to Frank is one single complete PDF document with no patent # stamps - therefore most likely the original.

Why does Rossi have the original document in his possession if, as he claims, this was an application he just became aware of and in no way authorized? Why also would he make a fuss about this if IH is not listed anywhere as a party to the application filing? Am I missing something?

My interpretation is that this is Rossi leaking information and falsely spinning it to drum up public support. It's a positioning effort.

@Walker
I doubt they will claim his technology doesn't work, they will claim he has not provided all necessary IP, know-how, fuel recipe, and assistance to allow them to make the product and replicate/substantiate the claims. All of those things were to be provided immediately following the $10M payment and concurrently to the 350 day test, so just like the positive test result they were legally a pre-condition for the final payment.

This legal approach would allow the claim that Rossi has not yet fulfilled his end of the contract, and payment is not due until he has done so.

That approach leaves them the ability to just wait until Rossi has met the condition, while retaining the License, the 2-year non-compete in effect for Rossi, and first right of purchase on any other territories per the agreement. At the end of the day they pay as soon as Rossi has adequately shown them how to make the product, and until then he has to wait for payment.

Does anyone know how to find corporate tax filings or employment records? I think that's all public information, but have been looking for JM Products records this afternoon and haven't found anything yet. Maybe someone else is better at that type of thing...

If they're an actual business they should have historical tax records showing revenue, and should have employees but I can't find anything about them or anyone saying they're connected to them on any of the professional networking websites.

If they're not making anything, then this whole 1 year test was basically a lab test fully dependent on calibration and open to measurement error...

At least if they were a real company making something we would be able to fall back on evidence of what they produced year over year and what their energy use was year over year to show real world evidence of a 1+ COP without having to rely on complicated calculations.