Posts by IH Fanboy

    IHFB,


    Your defense of Rossi is lackluster compared to your old spirited self. Nothing at all like your "2 broken window panes, and a steam plume reflection" days, when you were full of fire, and, well, some other stuff. :) It is as if you are just going through the motions now.


    That may actually be good, as it could be a sign of the onset of first stage "Rossi awareness". I will give it a little more time, but you may soon be ripe for conversion therapy. If you notice the Penon Report looks strange all of a sudden...it may be that time.


    Sorry, but the fire in my belly is as bright as ever. There just isn't much going on right now.

    Yep...very observant you are! There is a reason for that, and for the life of me I can not understand what that reason is. When I first came here to LF, I was very unpopular. Now, well...go figure.


    All I can say is, look objectively at the facts, and the "likes will be with you". :)


    Conventional wisdom is surprisingly frequently wrong. But yes, you win on the likes, and surely received a big boost from the Rossi-haters with your hard turn.

    I hope that you are right and I am wrong, but history seems to say the probability is low.

    If there is one, it will likely not be accessible to independent investigators and not a

    "real demo" to the public.


    I agree it will likely not be accessible to independent investigators. That isn't the purpose of this demo. Rossi is simply looking to raise his profile, I would suspect, in preparation for things to come in 2018 and beyond.

    "Let's drill down into that prediction. Will this customer (identity revealed) be an independent entity [YES], no fan of Rossi [NO, Rossi-haters will not have an opportunity], no relationship with Rossi [NO, there will be a business relationship of some sort, such as a lease agreement, otherwise how would they have a QuarkX?], and willing to say whether the supplied product works in a real application [YES]?"

    My predictions:


    1) oldguy will be shown to be wrong in his prediction. The November demo will happen.


    2) The demo will raise Rossi's profile generally. This is the purpose of it.


    3) The new partner that apparently is now backing Rossi will not be revealed.


    4) The Rossi-haters will remain Rossi-haters, and will even amp up their hatred after the demo.


    5) The fence-sitters will remain fence-sitters, and will sit even more firmly on the fence after the demo.


    6) The Rossi-supporters will remain Rossi-supporters, and will even support him more after the demo.


    7) Chatter about a rebooted New Energy Symposium with a live Rossi demo will begin to circulate among the ECW community.


    8) LENR-FORUM will continue to be a bastion of anti-Rossi sentiment, which will surge after the demo.


    2018 prediction:


    The identity of at least one customer will be revealed before the end of 2018. The customer will not be Rossi in disguised form. :)


    Edit: for some reason my "8)" is auto-converted to a smiley guy with shades. I'll just leave it at that.

    So the expected is ~39.5 l/h at 0.5 bar back pressure, and observed is ~32.3 l/h at ~0.54 bar back pressure, which means that our prominent pump is operating at ~80% of expected (plus or minus a couple of percent). Did Alan S. send the adjustable back pressure valve over? Seems like that would be a good next thing to try, so that we test against the spec up to 2 bar.

    And btw, if ad hominem is not permitted, why is it that everything is allowed when it comes to Rossi? Or the people (italians and swedes usually) supporting him? Tell me? Why the different standards?


    I must agree with Siff on this point. It is open season here on Rossi--you can say pretty much anything and have it go unpunished, no matter how libelous it is, so long as it is directed squarely at Mr. Andreas Rossi.

    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.

    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.

    @BH,


    I see no problem with LDM tying the deposition evidence, Mat's interview, E48's statements, etc., into a coherent post about the recirculator pump as it might relate to the prominent pumps. Even Dewey has said that there are emails between Rossi and Bass at the beginning discussing the recirculator pump. The purpose of this thread is to test the prominent, yes, but nothing happens in a vacuum (edit: except for a bunch of quantum weirdness). The discussion about what is on the public record relating to the pumps involved at Doral provide context to the tests that Alan F. is performing.

    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.

    Next Ethereum ICO: quatloos, with ticker QTS. The QTS token will be used as a decentralized application token redeemable for either e-Cat units of heat energy or IH-Cat units of heat energy: your pick. No expectation of profits in either Leonardo or IH is associated with the QTS token, and therefore, it doesn't run afoul of the Howey test, i.e., it isn't a security. And since it does not represent any ownership in either company, it doesn't represent equity either. So, it is compliant with U.S. law (and that of most developed nations). Expected ICO raise: $30 million of ETH. Ready?


    (This might seem like jumble bumble to some of you, but I'm sure at least Dewey gets it, and perhaps more of you than I think.)

    Rossi has nothing other than a single granted "Water-Heater" patent, all the hand-waving over the above provisionals, non-granted applications as "invaluable IP" are worth nothing until/when/if pursued and granted.


    While I agree with you that a series of provisionals for the same invention is a poor strategy, I disagree that pending patent applications are worth nothing. Most startups will not get funding until they have at least one patent pending. The rights haven't fully matured in a pending patent application, but there are some semblance of rights that exist, including the priority date that has been secured, and the possibility of pre-grant damages reaching as far back to the date the patent application publishes. You'll notice in the long list of patent applications provided in the court exhibit, many show the application number as "unknown." The unknown ones might be the non-provisionals.

    If we are to use Penon's report as more authoritative than Barry, then perhaps Barry misspoke, or the court reporter maybe messed up his sentence. It doesn't really make sense to be directing the condensate to both the internal and the external tanks, so Penon's schematic seems more believable than Barry's statement. Hence, I think we can probably rule out gravity providing a head of pressure to the BFs given that the internal tank is at the foot of the stack of BF units.


    The question remains whether a recirculator pump provides such inlet pressure. Dewey recently alluded to a round of emails between Rossi and Bass near the start of the test regarding the recirculator pump. Dewey suggested that the recirculator pump belongs in the same category as the heat exchanger. However, given that there are any emails at all discussing such a recirculator pump at the beginning (at least according to Dewey) suggests to me that it was a serious consideration, and probably put in place.

    This statement from Barry is confusing to me:


    "Everything came back into a smaller tank that was inside the unit, and the larger tank, which originally was going to be condensate return tank, and then we were going to pump the water back into the units."


    Looking at the photos re-posted by BL (thanks by the way), it looks to me like the external tank is situated higher than the internal tank, but the angle of the photographs makes it pretty hard to determine exactly how much higher. Barry suggested that the condensate water returns back into the smaller tank and the larger tank. But some here are guessing that the larger tank was only used to start the system up or to replace water that might have leaked. So which is it?

    As I'm sure you know there is no evidence for a phase change, and Rossi has a past history of claiming phase change when in fact none (or only 1%) of this exists.


    I'm sure you know that there is evidence for a phase change: the state inspector testified that there was steam leaking from one of the pipes.

    Okay, here is a hint from Barry:


    207-61, pp. 88-89

    A. Yeah, well, everything that came back as

    23 condensate needed a vessel to flow into, and that was

    24 done away with altogether. Everything came back into a

    25 smaller tank that was inside the unit, and the larger

    Page 89

    1 tank, which originally was going to be condensate

    2 return tank, and then we were going to pump the water

    3 back into the units. That ended up being -- we built a

    4 big stand a little taller than this table, really heavy

    5 duty stand out of wood to support that large tank full

    6 of water, which this thing held, I forget how many

    7 gallons, 55-gallon drums, it probably held 6, 800

    8 gallons or more, maybe a thousand gallons of water,

    9 which is substantially heavy. But it had to be up so

    10 gravity could allow it to flow into the system.

    11 So Dave Perry come down one time to check

    12 us out and then help with the design or that stand, if

    13 you will, and then we just attached a rubber hose into

    14 the water fill inside and allowed gravity to feed it.

    15 This was based on Andrea.


    So it sounds like the head of pressure to the pump inlets was due to gravity.

    Quote

    The small blue arrows you have drawn in are wrong way around. The water for the Big Frankies comes from the internal reservoir sitting on the floor of the E-Cat plant.


    Yes, I stand corrected on that point. My inlet lines were going the wrong direction, which means my assumption about head pressure due to gravity is also incorrect. Corrected image embedded here. But I still think the flow shown in yellow is wrong, because it makes it look like the pumps are just re-circulating water, which is not what is happening (as can be seen by the upper most rack of pumps, which clearly shows the pumped water entering the BF box behind the pumps. So, we are back to the question of whether there was a head of pressure from the reservoir to the inlets of the pumps.



    Not sure who posted the original with the yellow lines added, but I think they are either mistaken or purposely misleading. In light of Alan F.'s findings so far, I decided to inspect this image more closely. I believe the correct flow is shown in blue. If right, this means that the pumps have at least inches in head inlet pressure and in some cases multiple feet.

    So based on this single data point (of course, more needed), our prominent pump is running at ~80% the flow rate that would be expected.


    Okay, now I might make a few people mad, but bear with me as it's a simple conjecture at this point: Using a correction factor of 1.2 (i.e., 80% of expected flow rate), then at a slight 4in. head inlet pressure, one might expect to see ~56+ l/h (47 * 1.2), which would be ~90% of what Penon measured.

    Rossi could file all those patents today. 20 years from now they expire, and the big dogs start carrying that technology forward without paying a dime in royalties. In fact, a lot of LENR patents have already expired.


    This is an instructive point for all LENR startups (and any startup for that matter): 20 years from filing is when the patent expires, so the clock starts ticking when the application is filed. Rossi has already been at this (publicly) for going on 7 years already. Once you file a patent, there needs to be an immediate push into the marketplace, otherwise you risk losing any advantage your IP investment might otherwise yield.