Ahh. Excellent. So you are saying that EVERYTHING Rossi said in the court documents should be considered facts?
Is someone says they lied, then they did. Either lied about lying or then it is true when they say they lied.
oldguy
Member
- Member since Oct 1st 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by oldguy
-
-
Rossi gave IH what IH thought was convincing evidence his devices worked - their whole business plan was based on that. They paid $10M+ to get these devices.
***Nope. The contract said they paid $11.5M for a year-long demo of the devices, and that an agreed-to independent third party would evaluate them and say yay or nay. If Yay, then they would buy the IP for $89M. The party said Yay, and IH did not pay. Instead, they hired someone else a few months later to dispute the 3rd party report.
Not so. You seem to think that the 10M item and the thing in Fl were the same. Not so. The agreement for the testing (to be done within a certain time frame that was not observed) was for the 6 cylinder system not what was done in Fl.
I am not sure, but I think that the 6 cylinder item was retained by IH. (at least during the time all those things were going on in Fl).
-
anyone know what happened to Schwartz's NANOR devices
He is hosting :
2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT
Sat., March 23, and Sun. Mar. 24, 2019http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html
Tentative program/speakers include:
Peter Hagelstein
Mitchell Swartz
Thomas Claytor
Mel Miles
Jean-Paul Biberian
George Miley (via assoc.)
Yasuhiro Iwamura
Hideki Yoshino
Francesco Celani
Fran Tanzella
David Nagel
Steven Katinsky
Louis Dechiaro
Robert Smith, Jr
Brian Ahern
Florian Meltzer
Thomas Dolan
contact here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jetenergycontact.htm
-
The problem with all this is that they should have measured the steam flow out of the system not the water out of the customer's box. That would mean a steam water separator before the flow meter. It does not matter much how much water flowed out of the customer's box only how much steam (sans water) was delivered to the box. If they did that, then the water flow rate and the temps and pressures would be much less important.
It sure makes you wonder why Rossi would strip the system of such things before setting it up for the customer. I seem to recall that he offered some water flow problems as his explanation. But they never seemed to hold water (pun intended) if there was really a steam pressure.
-
I wait for the press release from one of the top 10 international companies (he had claimed) saying they are buying systems and watching the stock market reaction.
-
Rossi's explanation for the heater strips was that his graphite or platinum sponge processes required constant heat and the strips were backup in case the ECat heating was ever interrrupted
It is hard to imagine that someone would think that heat strips wraped around 10 feet or so of 1 to 2" steel pipe could replace 1 MEGAWATTS of heated steam. Just imagine the electrical connections needed and the heat transfer rates
-
little those heater tapes
yes the steam, I seem to recall was on the "customer's side" coming from the insulation where those little heater tapes where. I always viewed that there was a small water leak that was heated to steam by the tapes not that the Ecat was producing steam.
Why would the customer need heating tapes if the pipes truly carried steam at 104C
-
My question is: why would Rossi, et al spend the night (at least before 6:30AM before a known final inspection and disassemble the plumbing, insulation, and remove meters? The only motivation I see as reasonable is that they were trying to hide something.
Especially true since there were known heating tape below the insulation where the steam was sometime seen.
-
yes pressure rock steady at 0 absolute pressure in bars (the meter was claimed one that was absolute but the 0 could only be a gauge pressure) and that 0 held day after day even when low pressure storms went through Miami.
And if the pressure was truly 0 how could the steam be circulated with out that vacuum pump?
Oh yes, by contract Penon was to have the instruments recertified after the runs and he did not take the data, he just received the data from Rossi.
-
but they clearly say Doral was their main reason to invest.
It may have been (past tense) the reason initially (first year( , but I don't think it was after the blank control and by the time Doral rolled around. I think some people's time line is off.
-
When it comes to what you are saying; that IH acted like scumbags...I disagree. The one thing they did have trouble explaining was why they continued using Doral to attract investments, when they clearly had doubts.
I don't think they used Doral to attract investments. Yes they had people tour the plan but that was because the investors requested to see what some of the money was spent for. Those investors visited other IH sites as well.
Do you really think that IH should have blocked such visits when investors requested it?
-
Remember that Rossi claimed that the customer was the customer one of the ten largest multinational corporations in the world?- Yes on Andrea Rossi December 21, 2018 at 11:54 AM (see post @8234 by Deleo)
All of those companies are publically owned.
-
Slandered patent reinforcement / infringement... he only needs to have a sale item to lay claim to all lenr~
Jed, recall the entry to this discussion was DnG claim that Rossi could lay claim to al LENR by just offering some system for sale and that was the law.
I don't think that one LENR system for sell when others are not selling anything means that person takes all and everyone else's patent are thrown out.
If that is the case then CETI could claim all LENR since they offered the RIFLEX kits a one time. - they might have even sold a couple.
Yes the government can acquire patents, make them secret, and use them. But in general you do not have to sell an invention to hold a patent. The anti-trust judges and national security folks may demand it but that is with a separate court order under special cases.
In the case of ATT, the patent was not revoked. It was the anti trust business issues left over from their near monopoly of the vacuum tubes that were at play and not the transistor patent itself. My understanding is that they calculated the fighting of transistor anti trust suits would be like the vacuum tube suits and decided to freely (at 26K) license the tech.
-
Display More
Actually, there is in some cases. There have been instances in which corporations used a patent to keep important technology off the market, and impede progress. Uncle Sam intervened and forced them to license the technology and have it manufactured. I have forgotten the specific devices. As I recall, some of the devices were needed by the military. The government says it is an abuse of the patent system to use it to suppress technology. I agree, and I think that is a clear reading of the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
By refusing to manufacture, and by not allowing others to manufacture, you would not "promote the progress of science."
However, if you patent unimportant technology that would not have a significant impact, the government will not care if you don't manufacture it. It probably would not even notice.
A counter example would be a company invents a machine to make cheaper integrated circuits. I doubt they have to sell that to others so others can sell similar circuits. They can just use it to make circuits and sell them to the market. The machine is still theirs to use exclusively.
Do not confuse selling the invention itself and what the invention may do for the company.
as you say: To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The inventor can reap the rewards of exclusively using the invention for a limited time to help his company. He can gain the rewards of an invention without selling it. He can use it in his business.
-
Display More
Actually, there is in some cases. There have been instances in which corporations used a patent to keep important technology off the market, and impede progress. Uncle Sam intervened and forced them to license the technology and have it manufactured. I have forgotten the specific devices. As I recall, some of the devices were needed by the military. The government says it is an abuse of the patent system to use it to suppress technology. I agree, and I think that is a clear reading of the Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
By refusing to manufacture, and by not allowing others to manufacture, you would not "promote the progress of science."
However, if you patent unimportant technology that would not have a significant impact, the government will not care if you don't manufacture it. It probably would not even notice.
But not selling is not the same as not manufacturing and using for your own company. I don't think you have to sell the invention to others during the life of the patent. If you did I doubt there would be many soft ware companies left.
That is- make it and use it for your own companies use for the life of the patent.
-
Like many others we have run into here, I think Frank is honest and doesn't make much money from his web site which doesn't have that much traffic. Lewan the same, I doubt that Levi got rich off his work with Rossi.
But many Rossi proponents are immensely desirous and gullible. Many but not all lack the necessary science background, education and experience. That is how high tech and free energy scams succeed.
perhaps Levi made all his money from the pinball machines.
-
I've bin down this road in the past, A trap is a trap.. you can look this up easily yourself.
So why do you try to set traps instead of giving your so called "law".
You say your been down this road but I tried to search your posts and don't see that you
ever addressed the question. Perhaps it was in a separate thread. Please give a link to your post.
I try to look it up but see nothing that requires sales before you can enforce a patent.
Yes you can use sales as support for claims of utility but there are other ways for that.
Your response just seems to be a smoke screen for a false statement.
-
And no need to even sell one. just having it available for sale..law~
Please quote your "law".
I don't think you have to make a sale or offer for sale an item to enforce a patent. There are defensive patents.
"Patents are rights granted by the U.S. government, specifically the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to an inventor, to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing a particular invention without permission."
There is not a requirement in the US of selling the item as far as I know.
Many items are patented such as rockets and so on that are granted patents that are never sold or offered for sale.
There is also constructive reductions to practice which do not even require the physical production of a device.
-
The SK covered by a sheet wasn't operating. The pipes coming out of the top weren't connected to anything. Another SK was heating the factory via a heat exchanger.
Here in the UK we use "wet" heating systems. In my case an oil burner heats water in a tank called a thermal store. That in turn delivers water to pipes in the floor for heating and/or taps/faucets. By coincidence my house is around 3000sqf.
If the SK can produce hot water in the range 55C to 95C it would be dead easy to hook up to my system. I understand the SK may take awhile to turn on/off but that's ok as the thermal store acts as a buffer tank.
So you are saying that what he showed was not connected and was not heating the room. Not a very good demo then.
SO it sounds like you are saying that what was heating the room was not the SK that he was demonstrating but something else unknown and unseen???? Perhaps a propane stove or an electric heater or a wood burner... who knows?
-
It it went against your morals to lie and deceive, but it meant that your child was safe, would you do it? You would, and it would be a very rational decision. Would it be greedy of you to want your child safe? I wouldn't call it such. It would not be in contradiction to that of a noble character.
There is not child involve here.
Would you lie and deceive over and over again just to make money with a thing?
