Posts by frankwtu

    Alan


    This safety issue apparently came up in 1929 (Walter Hermann Nernst, 1929, Zeitschrift magazine, Germany) and again in 1973 .


    See: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2…an-a-nuclear-reaction-be/


    Extract: The problem with cold fusion is that all metals will absorb hydrogen, some much better than others. Uranium and other fissile materials will absorb it uncontrollably and at some point it will explode with a force greater than what a molecular explosive of the same mass will produce.


    This is the problem with cold fusion; runaway explosive force that cannot be stopped. It is not a matter of if but when.


    The link describes some old cold fusion experiments from 1920’s Germany and gives reasons why it was abandoned at that time.


    Not at all sure of the validity of these claims, but if there is any truth in it and it does 'overlap' into current research of the type discussed in this forum, then I have no doubt our comments and claims are being closely monitored and perhaps frustrated.



    Best regards
    Frank

    Eric


    I don't know. I do know that there is much more to establishing the merit of a contract than what it actually says in the small print. If Rossi can somehow convince a jury that the contract was 'jointly owned' it will be valid.


    But anything could happen, I suspect the old saying' 'you aint seen nothin yet' applies.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Jed


    It is now public knowledge that the test failed and Rossi is a fraud.


    I suggest you stop repeating this allegation unless you know it came from a valid source and you have incontrovertible evidence.


    A valid source would be an independent test by a nuclear expert agreed upon by both Rossi and IH. Or an official refutation of such a report accepted as such by a court of law, preferably a 'patent court'.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Eric


    No I haven't, except for the contract. The contract is a very powerful piece of evidence in itself. The court may not require evidence to come to the conclusion that Rossi is owed $89 million on the culmination of a positive ERV report.


    If you take my example of the contract between a traveler and a bus company where the evidence for a contract is a laundry ticket, that in itself will not be taken as proof that there was no contract, I grant you this may be difficult and IH have the advantage with Jones Day but I don't think it is 'game over' as many do.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    This is all kibbitzing. So far, I have seen no evidence filed or alleged by Rossi that would avoid summary judgment on the issue of there being a valid, agreed-upon GPT. It seems unlikely that it exists, but Rossi might have something.


    If there was no GPT why was IH ready to let Rossi continue with it and why did they participate, making amendments and using the interim results allegedly for fund raising. My take on this is that while there appear to be technical errors and inconsistences in the wording to the contract, IH took 'ownership' of it and that will be how the court will interpret it IMHO.


    I disagree with you when you propose "It seems unlikely that it exists". Let me give you an example: If you use a bus service, pay for a ticket at point 'A' but the bus breaks down and you do not arrive at your destination 'B'. You ask for your money back and it appears the conductor gave you the wrong ticket (for his laundry the previous day as he fraudulently pocketed the money) this will not invalidate the fact that you had a contract (since he agreed to transport you, you accepted, you paid and you did travel part of the journey - that is a contract - you are entitled to your money back). The difficulty of course will be proving it.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Mary


    I think perhaps not so interesting because I am pretty sure there is no IP


    Well if that is the case then you are right. But this is of course why we have a court case; because judgement according to planet Rossi, planet Mary Yugo or anyone else's closed mindset will not be the criteria. The criteria is the law and the opinion of the Jury.


    So we do need to consider you, me and many others may be wrong. In consideration of that there are possibilities that Rossi may loose on technicalities but IH may keep and make good use of the IP which may have value.


    In order to discount that possibility the court must find Rossi's claims 'unfounded' and that this was instrumental in the contract becoming 'unlawful', in otherwise 'fraudulent'.


    Whilst I don't discount your hypothesis of fraud on the part of Rossi I think IH are unlikely to press for this. Why, well for one thing they would like Rossi to be worth something so they can re coup some of their investment. If he is found to be a fraud, he will go bankrupt, find himself in jail and IH will loose their chance of recuperating any losses.


    IH have an interest in Rossi continuing with his inventions and new investments, after all, they own the licences (and the IP) to everything he invents (if they win).


    So Mary, you are way off target with this old chestnut.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Mary


    Frank, I think we've been through this discussion before. The ERV report is referenced by a contract. That contract contains a lot of claims and assumes a lot more. If the claims are false and the contract was obtained by fraud, it is void.


    Yes, we have been though this before and to a certain extent I agree with you.


    If what Rossi claims, or more to the point, what he claimed when entering into the contract, turns out to be 'fraudulent' then the contract will be deemed 'illusory'. So will the IP and the patents. It will therefore make no sense for either side to rely on the wording of an illegal contract. Since IH are relying on technical terms the contracts small print for much of their case, I doubt they will go for the full Monty, i.e. an illegal contract based on fraud, particularly if they feel some of the IP has worth.


    So that will be the thing to watch out for, is it 'an illegal contract? or is it 'breach of (a legal) contract?


    If it is breach of a legal contract, then it is not fraud in the sense we understand it but just a technical error. IH may well win and keep the IP, now wouldn't that be interesting.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Mary


    At the moment the case pivots on the ERV report, unless it is SUCESSFULLY challenged. The outcome of any 'potential' challenge will be a matter of opinion, particularly the opinion of the Jury. The Jury will react (IMHO) to such challenges in a similar manner to the way we on this forum react to Abd's monologues, with suspicion, boredom and disagreement, even though on occasions Abd makes very valid points.


    We shall see.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Very enlightening, a breath of fresh air.


    The relationship between neutron donors and neutron receptors that do not result in radiation is an interesting proposition as a requirement for a suitable theory.


    The crux of the presentation is that any 'theory' must predict what is actually observed in experiments. This of course becomes a subject for debate when observations which are made, which are challenged. Conversely, as he acknowledged, some reactions may remain unrecorded where they are not expected or monitored.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Jed


    I was asking what the website says. I remarked that if it says McKubre endorses the claims, that would be a problem.


    But Jed, Its like saying 'What's this Shakespeare's Macbeth claiming? If its saying Donald Trump will repeal the 2nd amendment if he becomes President, I will speak with him and I think this Macbeth fella will have some 'splainin to do.


    Why? where did that come from?


    I don't suppose you have read or seen a Shakespeare play or looked at Brillouin's website; Mary has!


    Best regards
    Frank

    Jed


    If the Brillouin's website says he endorsed them, I will tell him. I expect Brillouin will have some 'splaining to do.


    I said "IF Brillouin's website says he endorsed them . . ." That's a hypothetical. "If" means "suppose" or "in the event that . . ." I also said I have not read the web site. So obviously I find nothing offensive.


    I think you need to work on your reading skills.


    Why would you ask hypothetical questions which in themselves suggest a website claims something it does not? Is this something you learnt under a bridge somewhere?


    It is none of my business.


    You could have fooled me. But then you seem to be in that sort of business. You are not related to Rossi by any chance?


    Best regards
    Frank

    My unconditional support is for the administrators and moderators, what we do not want is some communal 'denial of service' attack masquerading as democratic moderation.


    if you don't like it, set up your own website.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Jed


    It is even possible at times he knew how to make excess heat. I cannot rule that out.


    Scepticism is the balance on which science, good science, depends but pseudo scepticism opens up the door to charges of unobjectivity. Nice to see a genuine 'on the fence' observation from you.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Jed


    I quoted directly from Brillouin's website. I have no idea how true the claims are. Now there are two targets for the skeptics. Rossi and Brillouin. I wonder if this will increase exponentially?


    Alan, sorry if I left you out. I think looking at your recent fan mail (ABD Jed and Mary) you could well qualify.


    Thanks for the correction above.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Has Brillouin developed its own technology or has some of it have come from Rossi by way of IH who claim the right to share with such as they wish.


    From Brillouin website:


    "Brillouin Energy has been able to demonstrate that it can reliably initiate LENR in its reactors by applying electronic pulses to the metal rod and stopped by ceasing the pulsing and achieve net energy output ratios exceeding four (“4X” or ‘four times excess heat’). Brillouin Energy is not aware of any other group that has been able to achieve the combination of the level of reproducibility, continuity of operations, control of reactions, and a net energy output ratio significantly exceeding 1X, which has been achieved by Brillouin Energy. Coupled with the tritium tests – which confirmed that the excess heat generation can confidently be ascribed to nuclear reactions – Brillouin Energy’s research results demonstrate that LENR can realistically be considered a potential future energy source. - See more at: http://brillouinenergy.com/#sthash.q8xjvZFB.dpuf"


    Best regards
    Frank

    Paradigmnoia


    What IH is not stating directly is that they were sold the equivalent of toilet paper for $10 million, while being told it was a recipe for an amazing technology.


    Well they have defended their right to share that toilet paper under the licence agreement to “sublicense the E-Cat IP to anyone they wanted on any terms they desired, without any confidentiality restrictions”.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Just a small tit bit:


    "Furthermore, the E-Cat IP was disclosed to Industrial Heat and IPH pursuant to the License Agreement without any restriction on Industrial Heat or IPH’s further disclosure of such. In fact, the License Agreement permitted Industrial Heat and IPH to sublicense the E-Cat IP to anyone they wanted on any terms they desired, without any confidentiality restrictions. See License Agreement §§ 1 & 16.4."


    While IH are denying most of the complaints but not all, they are claiming they had no restriction on further disclosure of Rossi's IP. So while almost everything else they say seems to point to Rossi's invention not working, they appear to be quite protective of their ownership and use of his IP. Interesting to say the least. (Ref page 16 & 17)


    Also this:


    "Counter-Plaintiffs were unable to replicate any of Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results or otherwise generate measurable excess energy. This led Counter-Plaintiffs to realize that there were only three possible conclusions: 1) Leonardo and Rossi’s claimed results, including the purported results from the Validation, were fabricated; 2) Leonardo and Rossi did not provide all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs as was required under the License Agreement in exchange for the $10 million payment; or 3) both". (Ref Page 26)


    So which is it? Fabrication by Rossi and Penon or Rossi not providing IP? But how could it be both? If it was a fabrication there would be no IP.


    This is cherry picking I know and I suggest this document be read and digested along with the original complaint for cross reference.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Mary


    Rossi takes up 120% of your time and has elicited thousands of words from you almost exclusive of any other subject, he has certainly got your attention.


    My understanding is that free energy scammers are ignored by serious analysts and only entertained by the gullible.


    You, Jed and Abd appear to be giving Rossi far more credibility and respect than he could expect from peer reviews, a bevy of 'super troupers'.


    See: http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Super_Trouper_(spotlight)


    Best regards
    Frank

    Jed


    If the profession is licensed and regulated


    We don't know that for sure, its just your opinion. The equipment was 'experimental' involving unproven theoretical principles. But in any case, if a case is to be brought against Rossi for contravention of the Florida Boiler Laws, this will be a completely separate issue and absolutely nothing to do with the claimed 'breach of contract'.


    Lets take your point on face value. If it is proven Rossi's experimental E-cat is a boiler and contravened Florida Boiler Laws, he would be fined a few hundred dollars. But that would not in any way determine whether the contract was or was not breached.


    Best regards
    Frank