me356,
Good to hear from you! If your goal is not to directly make money from your inventions, but instead to allow others to use and/or extend/develop them, then I would argue that you should write up and publish in as much detail as possible your results so that they become public knowledge. (You could for example publish on "arxiv" and at the same time submit to a regular journal such as the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/CMNS.htm.) Of course, I would guess there is nothing that could stop someone from trying to patent specific improvements or modifications but unless these are uniquely enabling, it seems likely that this would not pose a problem. If your goal is just to make money from your inventions, then your best bet is to sell your IP to a company just as Rossi has done. The third possibility is that you could start your own company with the backing of investors just as Godes and Mills have done, but I would guess that in that case you would want to file patents as well as keep much of your IP secret.
- Member since May 12th 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by quizzical
-
-
Abd wrote: "This is classic Planet Rossi thinking, believing that what is on blogs and internet fora is actually important. "
There is no such thing as "Planet Rossi" thinking! Why do you and Dewey and others continue to engage in this kind of ad hominem and degrading language?
Abd wrote: "Whatever Dewey writes here is not to "help IH's case" because practically nothing here is relevant in the real case, taking place in a court of law. IH is not on trial here. The officers likely don't give a fig about what is said here and what anonymous or even known writers think."
This is obvious but thanks for explaining it to us.
Abd wrote: There is one way, though, that he could be helping IH's case. Rossi reads this stuff or others take it to him, and he reacts and responds, and that provides possible ammunition for them to use, possibly to impeach his testimony when it comes to that."
This is an interesting idea. So the idea is to provoke Rossi into making some sort of "self-incriminating" statement that can be used in the trial. That is an interesting tack, which further underlines the meaninglessness of most of what is posted here with regard to the IH/Rossi lawsuit.
P.S. If nothing written on these fora matters, then why are you writing so consistently and voluminously?
-
Post deleted. Infantile content.
-
Quizz -your judgement and opinion don't register with me. You've shown your colors.
Was that a dog whistle?Your response is pathetic and insulting, and indicates to me again why I don't think that you are helping IH's case by your public comments here.
-
Thanks Peter - let's discuss it in the open but no posting on your blog. Please understand that I will not be able to disclose details that are pertinent to the legal case. My motivation is to right a wrong that I have a front row seat for and have…
Dewey,
The first part of your post (e.g. "Rossi was a rascal to deal with etc...") sounds believable. However, the stuff about Team Rossi sounds absurd and completely destroys your credibility. There's also the little issue of the license agreement which appears to be very one-sided towards IH (but which you state was written by Rossi) but which Rossi indicates in his recent response to IH's motion to dismiss was primarily written by IH!To be honest, I don't think that you're really helping IH's case by your public comments here.
-
Briian Ahern has been ripping into LENR+ recently. It appears he had Rossi pegged for what he is, but yesterday on EGOOUT he also dispatched BLP, and BE in one fell swoop:
<i>Brian AhernJune 17, 2016 at 5:30 AM
Plasma electrolysis is a nice'parlor trick'.</i>…
Shane D. wrote: "Not much, if anything left of commercial value if he is right. Maybe Miley or Piantelli? Sure is not going to look good when the DOD reports to congress this fall, and says the field is filled mostly with charlatans, or incompetents that haven't figured out yet, after their many years existence, that they are measuring wrong. By the way, those are the same type accusations leveled at the LENR side of the field that Brian represents, going back to 1989. He has stated though, that the skeps are wrong, and that LENR is real...wonder what he is referring to?"
Spoken like a true skeptopath.
-
Quote from Shane D.: “Briian Ahern has been ripping into LENR+ recently. It appears he had Rossi pegged for what he is, but yesterday on EGOOUT he also dispatched BLP, and BE in one fell swoop:
Brian AhernJune 17, 2016 at 5:30 AM
Plasma electrolysis…
Jack,
These are a lot of negative statements for someone who has no actual information. Also, Brian has made a number of absurd comments in the recent past, which were clearly wrong.However, regarding the question of input power in BLP's experiments, as well as your comment about the input power in Godes' machines, I think that these are certainly good points to raise - although it doesn't make them correct.
In fact, regarding Godes' experiments I raised it with McKubre several years ago (since SRI has been participating in the testing of Brillouin Energy's device). However, he assured me that measuring the input power accurately was not a problem. I might add that Claytor has used Godes' "prescription" and produced tritium, which is a clear sign of LENR.
Getting back to the input power issue, I certainly don't know if either BLP or Brillouin Energy have been measuring it correctly (and/or using "wall-plug power" to make sure) but I would guess that since (a) BLP claims multiple different confirmations and/or evaluations (and also since they are claiming energy gains of 1000 which seems unlikely to be due entirely to measurement error) and (b) since SRI has worked with Brillouin and tested their devices for several years with top scientists and engineers, then there is a reasonable possibility that their results are not entirely due to errors in measuring the input power. However - unlike many on this forum - and Brian Ahern - I retain an open mind, and am waiting to hear more evidence either way.
-
"Planet Rossi" is quite simply a smear term, which has no place on this forum. Every time it is used, the quality, usefulness, and objectivity of this forum is further degraded.
-
For those who may be new to the E-cat story, it might be interesting to review Andrea Rossi's pre-IH involvement in LENR and funding sources. Here is a link http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…ECat/RossisPartners.shtml (presumably before the failed Steve Krivit demo) which indicates that he sold one of his companies (Eon, SRL which develops and sells biofueled powered diesel generators) for one million euros in 2008 in order to fund his research. I remember reading about this at the time. Here is another link http://pesn.com/2011/05/17/950…rgy_Catalyzer_in_America/ which indicates that earlier he sold his stake in another company (Leonardo Technologies Inc, or LTI) in 2001 and used the proceeds to work on LENR.
I note that if true, this information suggests that Rossi is less of a "scam-artist" and more likely a (perhaps deluded) "true-believer" in his technology, since he invested a significant amount of his own money for many years in this endeavour.
On the other hand, as Abd and Jed has suggested, perhaps he is merely "insane"?
In any case, it would be interesting to obtain more information and/or confirmation of the two claims above.
-
Quote from Tom Paulsen: “All he had to do was to define the inadequate test procedure in the contract, so that the fulfillment depends not on real values but on calculations which are based on assumptions.”
Yes. Indeed, I think the 1MW plant is a…
Jack Cole said: " 1). It looks impressive with all kinds of boxes, wires, lights, and so forth. A scammer surely wouldn't build such an elaborate device (so people tend to think)."
You would expect a 1 MW device made of many smaller devices (all of which need to be controlled regarding heat output, water flow etc.) to be complicated. So this is not a red flag IMHO.
Jack Cole Said: "2). A large complicated device provides a lot more opportunity for error."
Perhaps, but IH already did a 24-hour validation test of a much smaller device, and agreed in the contract to this test. It makes sense as a next step to do a long test with many units to test for stability etc.
Jack Cole said: "3). A long test provides a lot of opportunity to manipulate the measurement system to give the readings you want."
But there were interim reports every 3 months, and as already mentioned IH already carried out a 24-hour validation test.
Jack Cole said: "4). It provides the illusion of product maturity."
Andrea Rossi has been working on these 1 MW units for 5 years! So, hopefully there would be some product maturity.
Jack Cole: "5). When you mention "millions" of data measurements, it provides a similar illusion to calling the plant 1MW."
This is true but is a minor point. With modern lab techniques and computers, it is easy to carry out real-time measurements. In any case, what counts is not the "millions" of data measurements but the RESULTS (and quality) of these measurements, which should all be explained in the ERV report.
-
-
-
Quote from quizzical: “How many false accusations can you make in one sentence? When did you stop beating your wife? Peter Gluck is NOT a Rossi supporter, he is someone who for the moment maintains an open mind due (I'm guessing)”
That is not an accusation. It is a hypothetical. It describes an event that has not happened, and will not happen. I am merely saying how I suppose Gluck would respond to a hypothetical situation. How can that be an "accusation?"…As I tried to point out it is actually two accusations:
(1) You stated that he is a Rossi supporter when I don't think that he is
(2) You stated how he would respond when you don't actually know how he would respond.
-
Quote from Jed: “Per a suggestion from Peter Gluck, I should reword this a little: Since 2011, Rossi has caused more harm to cold fusion than…
I would phrase this differently, since 2011 Rossi has caused MORE interest in cold fusion than cold-fusion supporters such as JCMNS, McKubre, Rothwell, and Abd. Storms (the leading researcher in PdD) has indicated (at least until recently) that he thought that Rossi's claims may well be real. Piantelli came out of retirement and founded NICHenergy as a result of Rossi's claims. My guess is that Etiam Oy and Mizuno and others have been inspired by Rossi's claims. Godes has probably gained credibility and support in the "early" years as a result of Rossi's claims. I've already mentioned Rossi's use of micron-sized Ni powders, which has stimulated many researchers - including Godes! - to move in that direction.
I forgot to mention Celani (the Celani constantan wires etc.). But perhaps Celani has nothing either?
-
Quote from Jed Rothwell: Or, if you did not say it is fake, Rossi supporters such as Gluck surely would. …
Jed,
How many false accusations can you make in one sentence? When did you stop beating your wife? Peter Gluck is NOT a Rossi supporter, he is someone who for the moment maintains an open mind due (I'm guessing) to the many IH "red flags" as well as some of the positive signs regarding Rossi's technology (Lewan's reporting, Ferraro test, Focardi testimony, Celani's detection of radiation at the beginning of the Bologna demo). I tend to agree with him but I don't consider myself a "Rossi supporter" either. And how do you know what Peter Gluck would say?P.S. So far I've learned two things from reading this forum: (1) praeteritio (Thanks, Jed!) and (2) the sad story of Louis Slotkin (and co-workers)
-
Quote from DNI: “Why on earth would Rossi not arrange this if the customer was real. It doesn't make sense to me.…
(1) As I understand it, there may have been an agreement with the customer not to allow access
(2) It doesn't matter whether or not there is a real customer if the ERV report is accurate
While not allowing IH to visit the customer site is a "red flag", as many have pointed out IH's behavior also includes many "red flags" . So, we wait for the ERV report.
-
If I may be permitted, I would like to make a few constructive comments:
(1) Peter, keep doing what you're doing, e.g. providing balanced and complete coverage of what is going on in LENR and also providing additional insight as well as information on developments in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Asia. Specifically, your Q&A interviews with Rossi are of great interest.
(2) I suggest also interviewing Abd about his *positive* thoughts on the future of LENR and his background in LENR, and what he is doing, thinks might be done etc. to advance LENR
(3) Same thing for Jed
(4) Same thing for a number of others if possible including Norman Cook (about his theory), Storms, McKubre, Forsley, Mosier-Boss as well as if possible Godes, Mills, Bazhutov (I think you've already done him), Etiam OY, Lundin & Lidgren
Keep up the good work!
-
This is probably one of the most stupid threads on this forum. At one point we were discussing what we knew about the 1-year test, based on Rossi's, Lewan's, Rothwell's, Dewey's, and IH's statements. Now we are discussing whether or not a blogger - who has a sincere interest and commitment to furthering LENR and finding the truth - is biased and/or "correct" in his opinions? This is a meta-discussion. While we have had such "transient" meta-discussions regarding, for example Dewey's belligerent and/or contradictory and sometimes cryptic statements and Jed's sometimes hyperbolic statements and consistent misquotes, the main goal of the other threads (I thought) was to discuss LENR in general as well as the Rossi technology/test specifically. I suggest that this thread be deleted by the forum moderators immediately! Including this message!
P.S. Since apparently Abd created this thread (BTW I'm not aware that he has any first-hand knowledge about the 1-year test) and has consistently and long-windedly argued in concert with Jed (but sometimes more objectively than Jed) that the test was a failure etc., it seems apparent to me that - given that both Jed and Abd have ALREADY expressed their positions clearly, repetitively, voluminously and multitudinally (is that a word?) on many occasions - there is no need to create a separate thread to discuss these points further, at least with respect to Peter's blog. Instead this seems to be an attempt to discipline and/or intimidate Peter Gluck, who I respect as a wise and impassioned supporter of LENR. I note that I had previously considered creating a thread to discuss Jed Rothwell's hyperbolic statements and misquotes but decided against it. Abd should be ashamed! The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that both Rossi and IH will have their day in court, and then and only then will the truth come out. Same thing for the QuarkX. Either it works, and if so Rossi will market a working product, or it doesn't. Until then, repeated jawboning, e.g. repeating the same information and/or misinformation, only appears as an attempt to distract and convince people without presenting the complete facts. While we can all enjoying kibbitzing in the meanwhile, and perhaps even discuss actual technical issues, I expect that the Rossi saga is nearing its conclusion, one way or the other.
P.P.S. Here is a link to Peter's blog; http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/ See the issue of yesterday June 9 entitled MY BLOG AND THE "PRIMUM NON NOCERE" PRINCIPLE
Also, I don't think that Peter is a blogger advocate for Rossi. He is simply endeavoring to promote and support LENR and is also trying to present all sides in a fair manner. -
I have the pictures and report. Rossi claimed 15 Psi was the spec but then again, everything seems to be off by about that factor or higher (think flowmeter). The systems popped open at 2 Psi. According to Barry, the leaks in Miami gave Rossi fits for weeks. The "ERV" says 0.0 bar for every data point each of the 12 final report annex docs.
So, perhaps he fixed this? Regarding the 0.0 bar I assume that this is relative to atmospheric pressure (e.g. "barg"). I would agree that this is strange, but there is no way to confirm this until we actually see the ERV report.
-
IHFB - I think that a Brillouin demo has been run in the past for an IH exec. Where did you get that SRI verified their reactor? If you're refering to McKubre's letter then that is a supportive document but is not a a verified reactor sign off. As I've…
Several announcements/articles regarding recent tests/validation of Brillouin Energy are located here: http://ecat.org/tag/brillouin-energy/ The first one is particularly interesting. Below are some excerpts:
(1): Brillouin Energy Independent Report Validates TechnologyPosted on December 3, 2015
BERKELEY, CA, December 1, 2015 – Brillouin Energy Corp., developer of renewable energy technologies capable of producing commercially useful amounts of thermal energy (heat) based on controlled low energy nuclear reactions (“LENR”), announced today that its Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) Boiler System reactor core modules, were the subject of a recently completed independent Technical Validation Report.
The 35-page Report was prepared as technical due diligence by Michael Halem, a third party technical investigator. The Technical Validation Report summarizes the investigation into Brillouin Energy’s HHT single tube core prototypes at Brillouin’s Berkeley laboratory and at its research partner SRI International. The results are drawn from a series of calibrated tests of both systems. Mr. Halem personally designed tests on the HHT systems and then directed the technical staff of Brillouin Energy and SRI to execute the test plans. The tests, in which 95 channels of data were recorded and then investigated, included multiple technical changes to validate the thermodynamic results. In all cases, the results were consistent: the data demonstrate with very high confidence that the Brillouin Energy HHT prototype repeatedly produced lab-scale excess heat from LENR. “I was given full access to the experiments,” said Mr. Halem. “I was able to confirm, with a high degree of confidence, excess energy output above chemical and likely due to a nuclear reaction.” The Technical Validation Report affirms that Brillouin Energy’s HHT technology “is scalable by assembling multiple HHT tubes” in a reactor system. The Report was peer reviewed by Mr. Halem’s technical colleague, Dr. Antoine Guillemin who holds his Masters in Nuclear Physics and Ph.D. in Building Physics. Brillouin Energy’s Technical Validation Report is available upon request to qualified interested parties under a customary non-disclosure agreement. For further information, please contact: Grant Draper [email protected] +1-415-745-0254 Michael Halem [email protected] +1-914-407-4520
(2): Brillouin Energy Corp. presented its groundbreaking thermal energy technology on Capitol Hill last week.
Attendees included Members of Congress, congressional aides, federal government officials, industry representatives, and citizens’ groups concerned with the federal government’s progress on developing clean energy solutions. “It was great to see that much interest in DC for a true safe green nuclear power technology,” commented Brillouin’s President and Chief Technology Officer, Robert Godes. Attendees were able to learn about Brillouin’s prototype LENR reactors and hear from a number of speakers, including Dr. Michael McKubre of Stanford Research International (SRI). Brillouin and SRI have entered into a technology research agreement under which SRI is engaged in calibration testing and independent analysis of the Brillouin technology. As Dr. McKubre noted in a report distributed at the event, “it is very clear that something on the order of four times (4x) and potentially more gain in power (and therefore ultimately energy) was achieved at an impressive and industrially significant operating temperature of around 640°C. To my knowledge this had not been achieved before in the LENR field. The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”
(3): Infinite Energy has posted a nice article on Brillouin Energy and its founder Robert Godes. Brillouin consistently demonstrates with its ongoing collaboration with SRI to be a leader in the LENR field and the pursuit of commercialization of their technology. Fran Tanzella from SRI declares that SRI has interacted with Robert and the Brillouin team over the past three years and have come to believe that the early high-pressure “Wet Boiler” results were reproducible, controllable and significant. “I personally presented that work at ICCF17 because I believe it is real and important,” Tanzella says.
