Posts by oldguy

    It does state they did considerable research and testing and that it worked.

    from: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2018119352A1.html as you recommended.


    Again, where does it say "they did considerable research and testing and that it worked" ??????


    Let's see your reference and exact quote as you fondle ask of others



    All I see about any tests is [33]: "In existing systems and tests- including heavy water electrolytic cells, heavy water codeposition electrolytic cells, Pd lattice plated devices with hydrogen and deuterium gas, and solid state reactors.... "


    and [31] : "In the research and tests surrounding anomalous heat generation in various physical configurations - e.g., wet cell, gas charged tubes, and dry reactors - have been investigated."


    and the only thing about research [4] is: "research in this field has largely been inconclusive."


    There is nothing there that says they did the testing nor the research.


    You are just babbling on, as far as I can see and making things up.

    You would know if you had been following the thread. You could go back to Wednesday yourself and find the link but that is too much trouble for you.

    WO2018119352A1.pdf

    First that is not the "recent one" but filled in 2016 (US).

    Second it does not use a wafer in a closed cylinder as required by Rossi.


    It deals with plated materials (independent claim 1). Plating drastically alters the morphology of a metal.


    Gas loading of Pd and other metals has been around a long time.


    It appears to be a "paper patent" , i.e. "constructive reduction to practice" and not a "physical reduction to practice". I don't see where IH did any physical testing and got results. Patents can do that, you know. It mentions testing [31] and [33] but does not indicate that they did any testing and even refers to electrochemical/well cell tests. It seems clear to me that they are referring to testing and research in LENR in general by others. I do not see that they give any indication that they did testing on a "Rossi like" wafer in a closed cylinder and got any positive results.


    Please be more specific, because even the patent reference you give does not seem to support your caustic accusations. Perhaps I missed it, but is sure doesn't seem to be in what you refer to.

    The one that has just been issued, linked and discussed on the previous pages.

    Stop the babble and misdirection. Give specific references. A lot of patents have been mentioned. You seem to whan people to give exact quotes and references but you never do. You said "in a recent patent"- which one. There are at least 5 "recent" one (apps).


    I see no claims by IH that say they have excess heat using any of Rossi's patent claims.

    I do see where they claim heat by using electrical stimulation by discharge but that is not in any Rossi issued patents that I see.


    for example 9,115,913 Rossi uses a wafer and heats via :" induction heater, an electrical resistor, a heater that relies on natural gas combustion, and a heater that relies on combustion of fuel". [see his claim 17 for resistor] There does not seem to be any mention of electrical discharge to a material. By patent law, that must be his "best embodiment" at the date of its filing. That appears to be the one covering technology during the court case


    Again: to which Rossi patent and claims and which IH patent and claims do you refer?


    Your question was "do you believe it". Yes I do: see the ICCF 21 talk by Letts and Cravens, and Letts and Higgins. That seems to be the one in the recent app 20180193816 but it is glow discharge so it could not be what you are referring to.

    I haven't attempted to rationalize Tom Darden's testimony as as I don't think IH's testimony is any more reliable than Rossi's. It didn't get argued and adjudicated in court, so is not proven. IH claimed they had researched and tested a working reactor in their recent patent. Do you believe that?


    Anyway your reply that does not answer the question I asked, nor is it a quotation using my actual words.

    Please give specific patent reference.

    Which patent and which claim and how does that claim link to Rossi?


    Could it be that it is in a patent that uses technology that is not previously claimed by Rossi?

    For example, some of the patents are based on the glow discharge (20180193816 ) and clearly are different from anything Rossi has in his claimed patent.


    Or is this just more babble?

    Perhaps you could address the specifics I mention? How you rationalise Tom Darden's sworn testimony about Rossi's test protocol that showed an unfuelled reactor giving the same output as a whole set of fuelled reactors?

    I found the reason they used the empty reactor very interesting and believable .... the story I heard is that they used one labeled 9 instead of a 6.


    ...... sneaky those "thieving Russians" (satire intended) who Rossi said took the catalyst.

    You can't seem to remember what my views are, and keep making things up about them that are not true. Next time quote my actual words.

    Oh, it is "not true" that you think that Rossi claims to have "something great" and a "commercial product" sometime in the future: example Jan 19. Is that what you are saying now? You offer no data, no facts- it sure seems like babble to me.

    Why do you then babble on for a page? We already know your views on Rossi

    And we know your views on Rossi - that he claims to have something great and claims that a commercial product will be in the future with massive manufacturing. So "why do you then babble on". Just let it alone and wait for it to happen.

    Don't forget I said the mass of the entire system not just the sample size.

    Yes, and if it is run long enough so that we can rule out chemistry-

    say >50 MJ/ kg for the entire system mass calculated from the integrated

    amounts.

    I'm surprised you don't get it. The gammas are proof of a nuclear reaction and also provide a clear signal of what the fuel is composed of and what reactions are important. If you want to sell the heat you need to be sure you can produce flames, and the gammas are the smoke. Now, what sensible business man would not want to be sure of that?


    I don't think that gammas are required for all nuclear events. Again, the verification that commercial interests are interested in is heat not the production of gammas. Something can produce gammas with little heat but it would not be a reasonable commercial product. They will want proof of a saleable product not of a nuclear event. Just try to sale gammas.

    Alan,

    again gammas are not much interest for businesses. They may help people how do not believe in LENR that something is happening, but that is not what most business want. They want to do due diligence to verify a working and useable device.

    "hoped"


    It still remains that he said he had factories and many employees and that he was producing units...... many years ago. His history is that he did not and does not produce what he says.

    Alan S-

    I would not think that business types would be more interested in gammas than heat. You can't sale gammas. They will want something that produces heat with reduced input and will work "unattended" for a length of time.

    I would suggest measure DC into an inverter for the input of what ever device is required - possibly from a battery array - much harder to trick a DC measurement. And pump water from and into a large pool/ or tank and the measure heat rise as a function of time while mixing. Yes there will be loss, but at his claimed COP that should not be a problem. This should be done by setting up, turning on and then leaving the device to run on its own. It should run for over 100 times any known chemical events possible calculated from the device's mass.


    If he has on demand, on/off and a robust system, that shouldn't be a problem. If the device does require constant "adjustments" by Rossi then it is not ready for commercialization. Turn it on, stand back and watch for a few days. You can calibrate with an electric pool heater if needed.


    In short, heat a "bucket" of water with a battery sourced device for a length of time while the device is left untouched.

    perhaps somone who was there can enlighten

    I viewed Miles' talk more of a historical background talk instead of a "how to make heat" talk. He spent some time talking about China Lake and the "politics" of the situation. It was about work done some time ago.


    I do know that several are now working on getting material made (Pd B) and that they want to get it into hands of people to try using it. Also McKubre should be giving a talk at the up coming Italy meeting on the role of B.

    I think Tom Darden should have learned more about the Doral test from the begining.

    The problem is that IH was not even notified that Doral was claimed by Rossi until Aug. Before that it was just Rossi using technology that he had sold to IH for the production and sale of heat. The so called "test" was not on TD's "radar" till very late.


    And the heat exchanger was not even claimed till very very late after Rossi's claims of venting and then later massive unrealistic endothermic chemistry at the 1MW levels.

    a65

    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Because you or Shane do not know what the other research is, does not mean it does not exist.

    You are only speculating that the other research is not worth much.

    I believe the $50M was held by IHHI not IH and money was transferred later to cover legal costs as needed. That is one reason Rossi's suit was doomed to fail, IH did not have the money, only receiving some as needed, and positioned to even declare bankruptcy if needed.


    I would think the situation is the reverse as you have painted it. Woodford did not invest the larger dollar (pound) amounts until after they had visited all of the researchers IH was supporting at the time and not prior to that just based on Rossi's claims of 1MW. Also they realized it may take years to be ready for commercialization and thus put it in the holding company and not IH itself and now waits for the farther development of that research before turning it over. That is "keeping their powder dry" for those development by the other groups IH has and is funding.

    We’ve invested more than $10 million so far in Rossi’s and other LENAR technology

    "other LENAR technology"


    and from the same article:

    "Rossi’s was one of the first investments we made"


    and from the previously mentioned ICCF 19 talk:

    We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology.


    I do not know why you ignore the other investments and research support and the fact that Rossi was not the first item (at least 2 others) and try to push Rossi only investments and that they must have initially invested in LENR before Rossi or raising the rest of the money..

    I have greater trust in what IH says and is documented that what you claim.




    It seems to me that the documents show that IH raised capital, but I don't see that, as you claim, that money was due solely on the grounds of Rossi's work. I do see where Rossi claims such things but not where IH says it is so.


    In fact the link you gave to IH's answer agrees they raised the money


    but denies the rest of paragraph 70 from Rossi's attack that Rossi's claim of " predicated upon their claims that IH and or IPH had "predicated upon their claims that IH and or IPH had acquired Rossi's intellectual property."


    So as I read it, yes they raised funds from Woodford, but they did not do so predicated on the acquiring of Rossi's IP. They denied that part of paragraph 70 "Defendants deny the remaining

    allegations in Paragraph 70. "


    You seem to be falling in the "Rossi says" pitfall, confusing what Rossi says and ignoring what IH denies in their court filings.


    Try re-reading IH's answers about paragraph 70.

    So, even if Rossi was the only inventor to be mentioned in that speech,

    not exactly so, he said: "One day I received a random call about cold fusion. I didn’t give it much credence because I remembered in detail the disclosure about Fleischmann and Pons years before, and I believed the subject was dead. Then thirty days later I received another related inquiry from a different group, so we began to do some research, and then thirty days later, I received a call from another group. We had invested in 100 startup companies and I had never gotten an inquiry about fusion or about LENR: three in 30 day intervals. We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology.….We started Industrial Heat because we thought that LENR technology was worth pursuing, even if we were unsuccessful. We were willing to be wrong,....We’re collaborating with and investing alongside fellow researchers and developers...."


    He may not have mentioned their names but he did acknowledge them. If you were at the meeting you would have noticed him spending time with D. Letts as well. And even going on tourism trips with him along with Dewey.


    and you said "50 M$ invested by Woodford in 2015 in the middle of the Doral test, and when the only assets in the IH portfolio were the Ecat's IP and its License."


    How do you know that? Paul and Henry visited several of IH's investment sites during that visits. IH was the last one on their "tour". You seem to think that the initial offering and the investment of Woodford into IH Holdings International. You seem to be confusing IH with IHHI and ignoring all the other investors and the possibility of IH investing in others by debt instruments. It seems that they just might have financed some of the others via debt instruments while the Woodford deals were being struck.

    My understanding (or misunderstanding) from the ICCF discussions in the hallways was that IH had to cut back on some funding due to the Rossi legal expenses for a while but have now started more funding since then. It also seems that Letts and possibly Hagelstein were funded during that period but that is just conjecture by some of the ICCF attendees. I wonder if they could be the two groups funded prior to the later payments to Rossi.