Posts by Tom Paulsen

@quizzical

The contract is completely correct and fair for both sides.

Nobody forced Rossi entering this agreement and I can not see that IH has done anything to breach the agreement.

But on the contrary. They have fulfilled their previous obligations. They paid $ 11.5m for something that they had not received, if we believe IH, and for claims that are generally questionable.

That you afterwards will not raise 89m$ corresponds to the normal human mind. Especially, if an obligation does contractually not exists, because the preconditions are not fulfilled.

Only when it comes to Rossi, then it appears as if this normal human mind lacks in some people.

There is a huge difference between "stealing" and payment of 11.5m$.

Nice try of Rossi's lawyer, but not enforceable if IH doesn't agree.

1.1 of the License Agreement states that the duration for the licensed patents is bound to the expiration of the patent claims. The license for all other E-Cat IP is unlimited. This became final upon payment of appropriate compensation.

The compensation for the IP license is regulated in 3.2 (b) and corresponds to the amount paid by IH (10m $).

The relevant fact is the specific volume of the produced steam.

Dewey - Wow, a self sustaining and fully regulated perpetual motion machine.

For such a great invention 11,5m$ are peanuts.

Also, this machine should find it's way directly to the Smithsonian.

Dewey - As we all know, the customer had special quality requirements to the delivered steam.

They demanded "fresh steam" every day!

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Getting caught draining system water before volume can be measured in the early morning hours of inspection day

I think they will argue that this had been "regular maintenance".

If one assumes that the "Rossi effect" is real (I distinguish between Rossi and LENR generally) and refers this to current reactor designs, then one would be thinking quite well that the Zeeman effect plays a role in the E-Cat and consequently the Stark effect in QuarkX.

But I don't think Rossi's designs follow a theoretical approach.

It is an obvious and experimental consequence to break the connection between heating and stimulation / control. Especially considering that it's completely nonsensical to supply more heat to a mainly heat producing process, though only the EM field (and/or pressure) has to be controlled.

To that extent the QuarkX design is only an evolution which gives more flexibility and requires significantly less input energy, if it should work. Also, a possibly produced potential may be taken out as electrical energy via the electrodes.

Currently, I have no preferences to any particular LENR theory, but very well own assumptions. I think that the conceivable possibilities for the NiH process are not currently deterministic, at least not until these are limited by a broad-based successful replication of the NiH process.

Quote from axil

But those electrodes could be both positive.

Rossi's patent calls them anode and cathode and gives the following description:

Quote

... at one side of the reactor is put an anode, at the opposite a cathode, so that electrons are accelerated up to 100 keV. ...

Quote from Eric Walker

Your legal conclusions seem to be based on an assumption that the court will rule according to the letter of the license agreement rather than the intent ...

Eric,

I think, that's what a court usually will do in a contract case. They will analyze the contract and then evaluating how the contract has been fulfilled by the parties.

What you describe as "intent" has been clearly stated in the contract. Not only that but rather exact methods which have to be processed to confirm the contract fulfillment. (And that's maybe the problem.)

Quote from Zuffhaus

Anyhow, it is clear that from the agreement - and this reflects common sense - that the report as such is not the payment condition but "merely" evidence of that the agreed performce has been met (or not).

I disagree. Payment condition for the 89m$ is 350 days of operation with "Guaranteed Performance" (aside of some exclusions about other products entering the market with E-Cat IP or if the plant would infringe IP of an third party).

The ERV report respectively the ERV's written statement that for 350 days the "Guaranteed Performance" has been achieved is the "payment condition". (3.2(c) and 5.)

Quote from Eric Walker

I've been guilty of posting personal information myself, in the case of the real identity behind the avatar that randombit0 was previously using.

I remember this ...

I think if someone comes with a concrete (professional) mission to this forum, for example defending the Lugano test and gives in this forum or in another some indications of one's own identity, writes about professional background, writes terms like "as any of our student knows" etc. uses sometimes "we" and clarifies that a team cooperating with this person is evaluating the questions, then it should be ok to draw conclusions and to give a clue to others.

If I maybe know the real name of this person, I would not publish the name here.

If anyone posts private information about another member, then this is certainly unacceptable.

The person who had posted the information should be admonished for publishing private information of another member.
In this case the moderators should just as an exception delete the comment with the personal information.

I see no reason to delete an entire thread.

If anyone posts private information about another member, then this is certainly unacceptable.

The person who had posted the information should be admonished for publishing private information of another member.
In this case the moderators should just as an exception delete the comment with the personal information.

I see no reason to delete an entire thread.

Quote from Zuffhaus

He is suppose to deliver a LERN device with COP +6. That is not illusory. If he actually ever could or even have delivered it, that is a different matter. If he knew that he would not be able to deliver, then it would be fraudulent.

When studying the contract, then you can find that according the 1 MW plant it is not about what Rossi has really delivered or not, but just about what the ERV confirmed.

And if the ERV has confirmed a COP > 6 this has relevance.

I think, when it comes to the 1 MW plant test, IH have a bad hand. This results from the corresponding agreements in the contract and has nothing to do with the question whether the plant had really produced any COP > 1 or not. They are committed to the agreement that the exclusive judgment is done by the ERV.

IH have to prove that the ERV had cheated. And I think that is hardly possible.

For this reason, IH has only the ability to challenge the entire contract.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

expectations can be very misleading, especially in anything to do with Rossi?

On this point, I have to agree with you.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

It remains a total mystery to me who is randombit0 except that I don't think it looks like its avatar.

Although you've always desired to communicate with the authors of the Lugano report?

Steven,

you may want to consider the "random" comments in Mats blog.

https://animpossibleinvention.…truth-on-rossi-ih-affair/

These might give you hints when you think about the Italian authors of the Lugano Report.

IH have to challenge the entire agreement, otherwise they will lose the case.

Quote from monty

It's normal to pay a patent attorney to write an amendment to a patent when you actually think this patent is not worth the paper its written on and/or don't believe in the technology and its inventor?

That the patent attorney had corrected his own mistakes, has to be deduced by the remarks in the amendment:
"... No new matter is added by the amendments."

I would assume that he proceeds in this way without explicit commission and at his own expense.