Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Patrick Ellul]

The attorney of the defendants: http://www.jonesday.com/crjpace/

Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Terry Blanton]

Hey, Jones, you're a JD.  Any relation? :-)

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Seems Darden/IH et al have retained Jones Day  to 
> represent them.
>  arden-e-cat-lawsuit/ 
> >
>
> This apparently gives them 60 days to reply in detail.
>
> Presumably it'll cost them an arm and a leg, but with $89M at stake
> ...
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Alan Fletcher]

Seems Darden/IH et al have retained Jones Day  to 
represent them.  
< 
http://freeenergyscams.com/now-we-know-the-defendants-law-firm-in-the-rossi-v-d
arden-e-cat-lawsuit/ > 

This apparently gives them 60 days to reply in detail. 
Presumably it'll cost them an arm and a leg, but with $89M at stake
... 

[Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Bob Cook]

It could be that Rossi has received some US Government order associated with 
the new patents he has been working on or one or more of the patents listed in 
Exhibit B of the Agreement between IH, Rossi and others, making them secret.  
That is the reason the complaint was filed in the Federal Court in Miami 
instead of the local Miami Civil Circuit Court, which was the specified 
location in the original agreement for resolution of disagreements between IH 
and Rossi and others who are parties to the Agreement.  The local Civil Court 
could not handle such secrecy.  

Rossi was probably advised that the local Miami court would not handle the 
Civil suit or got the Courts advice to this effect.   

IH does not want to pay because the good IP is now secret under US law, and the 
provisions of section 13.4 providing for sharing IP stemming from the listed IP 
in Exhibit B of the Agreement are moot. 

I think the Agreement does provide for sharing new technology developed by the 
“IH  Team” which Rossi was part of—see Section 13.4 noted above.   Note that 
the Exhibit list includes a patent for conversion of photons into electricity.  
However, it is not clear whether or not this patent is valid for conversion of 
charged particles into a EMF or other source of electricity.  It may be this 
invention that is at the center of any secrecy order.  In my mind such a 
invention would have a lot of military significance and would probably become 
the target of a US secrecy order.  

Secrecy Orders can throw  monkey wrenches into the best laid plans of inventors 
and venture capitalists IMHO.  IH may be in hot water with their backers.  I do 
not know what they can do to back away from facts they have provided such 
backers when faced with a secrecy order.  That concern may have been the reason 
for the Dutch entity IH formed to transfer pertinent IP to it, which may be 
outside the scope of a potential future order.  It may have been that when the 
Dutch company was formed there was no secrecy established yet under the US 
invention secrecy act, which was written about 1951---and old liability for 
inventors associated with new  strategic inventions—especially those of 
military significance and energy production. 

All the above thoughts are merely my conjectures, and I have no knowledge of 
their reality or budding reality.  

Bob Cook
From: Teslaalset 
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 1:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

It seems to me that the whole clash between IH and Rossi is not about patents 
or test results but about progress that Rossi has been making (and probably 
still is making) which is not clearly included in the agreements. The original 
agreement was made when Rossi was concentrating on the so-called 'hotcat' 
technology. In case the hotcat concept would work within the boundaries of the 
agreement IH would pay Rossi the remaining millions. This included the trade 
secrets to prepare the hotcat 'fuel' which is not described sufficiently in the 
patent applications. All this includes a working concept based on hotcat 
technology able to work with COP => 6.

Meanwhile Rossi has made significant progress in understanding how his hotcat 
process works and can be improved. He calls this the x-cat technology, the next 
generation e-cat technology. These insights and progression makes hotcat 
methods probably obsolete because of x-cat superiority. In my view the whole 
fight that emerged between IH and Rossi is not whether conditions have been 
met, but whether knowledge of the x-cat should be included or not. 

Rossi points out that the 'old' conditions in the agreement are still met 
(implemented with hotcat methods) and that IH therefore should fulfil the 
agreed payment. For IH this hotcat knowledge transfer is not profitable anymore 
now Rossi has his x-cat technology in his pocket. 

 


On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

  That's your belief. If you are satisfied with it, then it's good. It doesn't 
matter now. If what Rossi says is true, the technology will soon spread. 
Otherwise, it's all a lie. 


  2016-04-09 22:56 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :


Defkalion never responded to Gamberale. They never disputed the report, or 
published a rebuttal. So I am confident Gamberale's version of events is 
accurate.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Russ George]

Alas the babble here on Vortex and other similar venues all focusing on either 
Rossi or IH being fools is preposterous. That’s a spin mastering ploy that is 
as old as human stupid egotism. Neither Rossi nor IH went into this without 
consummate skills and experience, plenty of quirks as well, I am not sure about 
‘quarks’, the latter is of course of the most importance.

 

From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

Russ--

 

Your comment about Rossi avoiding the courts, if he were off base on his 
complaints, was the first thought that entered my mind when I read the 
complaint.  He clearly is on the right side of the truth and was smart enough 
to plan for contingencies in his potential negative interactions with IH.  As 
Fran noted in an earlier comment in essence, Rossi entered the tank of sharks 
in a steel cage and the sharks only realized its capability after bumping their 
noses.   

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Russ George <mailto:russ.geo...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:08 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>  

Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

I find this post about a ‘court ordered process’ indicative of the pervasive 
‘passive aggressive’ tone of some here on Vortex. Rossi’s stated intentions are 
cast aside, which clearly include production and sale of many of his E-Cats. 
This makes any ‘court ordered’ process ridiculous unless one wants to inject 
the ‘court’ into the story of Rossi as the spiteful passive aggressives clearly 
do. That Rossi has done the right thing in the world of corporate law and take 
the perfectly proper and ordinary course of asking that agreements be enforced 
by the courts ought not cast aspersions on Rossi, if he were anything other 
than honest and earnest he would avoid the courts at all cost!

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 8:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

 

The resolution to this dilemma – and the court may order it – is pretty simple: 
to have the system independently tested by a fully qualified ERV – one with 
real credentials such as via PhDs from the University of Miami, which is not 
far away. I’m not Solomon, but this is what I would do … and it’s not quite as 
brutal as splitting the baby in half.

 

That would be a great thing indeed to happen.  Such a test would require much 
less than a year, and Rossi would be sure to do what is needed to make it work, 
unless he abandons the case.

 

Eric

 

[Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Bob Cook]

Russ--

Your comment about Rossi avoiding the courts, if he were off base on his 
complaints, was the first thought that entered my mind when I read the 
complaint.  He clearly is on the right side of the truth and was smart enough 
to plan for contingencies in his potential negative interactions with IH.  As 
Fran noted in an earlier comment in essence, Rossi entered the tank of sharks 
in a steel cage and the sharks only realized its capability after bumping their 
noses.   

Bob Cook

From: Russ George 
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 8:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

I find this post about a ‘court ordered process’ indicative of the pervasive 
‘passive aggressive’ tone of some here on Vortex. Rossi’s stated intentions are 
cast aside, which clearly include production and sale of many of his E-Cats. 
This makes any ‘court ordered’ process ridiculous unless one wants to inject 
the ‘court’ into the story of Rossi as the spiteful passive aggressives clearly 
do. That Rossi has done the right thing in the world of corporate law and take 
the perfectly proper and ordinary course of asking that agreements be enforced 
by the courts ought not cast aspersions on Rossi, if he were anything other 
than honest and earnest he would avoid the courts at all cost!

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 8:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

 

  The resolution to this dilemma – and the court may order it – is pretty 
simple: to have the system independently tested by a fully qualified ERV – one 
with real credentials such as via PhDs from the University of Miami, which is 
not far away. I’m not Solomon, but this is what I would do … and it’s not quite 
as brutal as splitting the baby in half.

 

That would be a great thing indeed to happen.  Such a test would require much 
less than a year, and Rossi would be sure to do what is needed to make it work, 
unless he abandons the case.

 

Eric

 

[Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Bob Cook]

Jones--

If the customer only wanted heat for 8 hours a day and it was being produced at 
a cop of 50, 8 or maybe even 24  Mw hrs of energy could readily have been 
produced per day.  The agreement seems to say that it need only indicate a cop 
of 4 as I recall.  It may be that the intermittent significant increase of 
energy was induced by Rossi and Fabiani  in the time when the IH folks were 
present.  This may have been desired to maintain an adequate inventory  
reactant fuel to go through the 350 period.  Rossi consistently indicated that 
the output could be varied by his control mechanisms.  Such control would have 
been a desirable characteristic to demonstrate and document, IMHO.  

Keep in mind that the plant that was operated had 4 250 kw reactors, not the 
original one with a lot of steam piping and 100 separate 10 kw reactors.  As I 
recall Rossi consistently indicated this backup reactor was just that, a backup 
for the 4 reactor plant.  

FRC



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 7:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

Jed Rothwell wrote:

 

Ø  What you say makes no sense. I.H. wants out from under the contract; Rossi 
wants them to abide by it. The only issue is whether the test proves there was 
heat or not. Everything hinges on that. If the test showed no heat, that means 
there is no intellectual property at stake…

 

I agree with that assessment, as far as it goes. In fact, only an idiot could 
not agree with it… as far as it goes. 

 

What makes this situation more interesting - to those of us who believe in LENR 
as a technology, but think that Rossi is a both a qualified inventor and a 
scammer is this: 

What if test shows that in 8000 hours of testing (24/7 he says) there was 
indeed 100 hours of COP~50… but this extreme gain only happened in the period 
of time when Rossi and his good friends Penon and Fabiani were present? 

 

This is a likely scenario. It does not matter that IH was paying them at the 
time, since both of them are Rossi’s old friends and countrymen, who have been 
employed by him for years. Let’s say further than when IH technical specialists 
arrive to see this amazing result, the system is back to COP of 0.90 where it 
is, most of the time.

 

Then, the question for the jury is a bit narrower: Is a brief excursion of 
excess energy, which cannot be replicated, worth $90 million? … not to mention 
that even the existence of this spectacular burst of energy depends on the 
words of Rossi’s old friends who are not technically qualified as experts? 

 

The resolution to this dilemma – and the court may order it – is pretty simple: 
to have the system independently tested by a fully qualified ERV – one with 
real credentials such as via PhDs from the University of Miami, which is not 
far away. I’m not Solomon, but this is what I would do … and it’s not quite as 
brutal as splitting the baby in half.

 

 

 

[Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Bob Cook]

Fran--  

I tend to agree with your conclusion—“they thought they were the only sharks in 
the tank and now look like idiots.”

Rossi stands to gain much financial support by the rich entities that are 
willing to bet on his upper hand.  

The fact that the US government has been in the LENR R&D activity for 27 years 
or more, imply to me that there are secret patents that pre-date Rossi’s.  And 
I guess also there are equivalent secret inventions  to his Quark invention.  

This may explain the reason the Obama Administration is so interested in 
establishing a trade agreement with the Pacific Nations, including China, which 
Lennart has identified does not exist yet. 

It may be that Darden is merely a US envoy to encourage the Chinese to get up 
to speed on the global IP issues and make a formal treaty that would give any 
US Govt. LENR  patents international status.  I assume such provisions exist in 
the patent treaties the US has signed with other countries and the EU.  Darden 
must have had the US’s blessing to deal with the Chinese with such  important 
IP, IMHO.  

Since the US secret patents are owned by the US (which has a lot of power to 
enforce them, and could provide general license to exploit them, if any country 
tries to get to greedy) the US may really be in the cat bird’s seat, and ready 
to say hold on boys, we own that IP.  It was invented here first.   See here, 
it’s in our secret patent book log.

This scenario  raises the question—does anyone know how treaties handle secret 
government inventions that are patented?  Maybe Mr. French could chime in.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

The link above discusses how secret patents and IP are handled for individuals 
and other non-government persons—corporations for example—but does not indicate 
explicitly how government patents are handled, nor, what treaties have in them 
to control government patents held secretly.   

Bob Cook








From: Roarty, Francis X 
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 4:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

Perhaps this is why IH kept spinning off shell companies- to dampen the 
liability when they intentionally violated the nondisclosure and IP. A lot 
cheaper to let the “e-cat” out of the bag and then depend on your head start 
once the Chinese do the grunt work for you. Setting up a no lose scenario where 
a bust would prove Rossi didn’t have anything to sue over or a boom where their 
licensee value would immediately skyrocket and the payment to Rossi would 
amount to peanuts.. The problem for IH is Rossi called them on it before the 
Chinese results are known and did not give them the time they needed to 
monetize.. I think both sides have their ear to the ground waiting on Chinese 
results and suing IH for payment is just Rossi’s default move since he can 
declare the contract broken if positive reports while keeping the 89M in play 
in case of negative reports. Both sides  were hedging but I think Rossi may 
have eliminated the upside for IH by documenting contractual breach. I don’t 
think IH was expecting or financially prepared for this move – they thought 
they were the only sharks in the tank and now look like idiots.

Fran 

 

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 6:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

 

As there is no trade agreement between the US and China transfer of IP from the 
US to China is really hard to understand that IH have transferred the IP.

 

I agree with that this is the way we will get final clarity about how well or 
at all the E-cat works. That might be good - I think so.

 

The other side of the story as I see it is that it shows how useless patents 
are. Only lawyers gain from the existence of patent. I can remember more 
License agreement that caused headache and controversy, than the ones that 
created mutual benefit. Contrary to the critic, against Rossi for the way he 
has accepted the agreement, I think it was smart to take money upfront. Then we 
will see what is in the pudding.:)




Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

 

 

lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

 

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

 

 

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Roarty, Francis X  
wrote:

  Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production very 
rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race will ensue 
where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the Chinese. Making 
Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and world trade will 
demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting the tech slip away 
would be bad for them but possibly very good for the world.

  Fran

  From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com] 
  Sent: Fr

RE: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Roarty, Francis X]

Perhaps this is why IH kept spinning off shell companies- to dampen the 
liability when they intentionally violated the nondisclosure and IP. A lot 
cheaper to let the “e-cat” out of the bag and then depend on your head start 
once the Chinese do the grunt work for you. Setting up a no lose scenario where 
a bust would prove Rossi didn’t have anything to sue over or a boom where their 
licensee value would immediately skyrocket and the payment to Rossi would 
amount to peanuts.. The problem for IH is Rossi called them on it before the 
Chinese results are known and did not give them the time they needed to 
monetize.. I think both sides have their ear to the ground waiting on Chinese 
results and suing IH for payment is just Rossi’s default move since he can 
declare the contract broken if positive reports while keeping the 89M in play 
in case of negative reports. Both sides  were hedging but I think Rossi may 
have eliminated the upside for IH by documenting contractual breach. I don’t 
think IH was expecting or financially prepared for this move – they thought 
they were the only sharks in the tank and now look like idiots.
Fran

From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 6:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

As there is no trade agreement between the US and China transfer of IP from the 
US to China is really hard to understand that IH have transferred the IP.

I agree with that this is the way we will get final clarity about how well or 
at all the E-cat works. That might be good - I think so.

The other side of the story as I see it is that it shows how useless patents 
are. Only lawyers gain from the existence of patent. I can remember more 
License agreement that caused headache and controversy, than the ones that 
created mutual benefit. Contrary to the critic, against Rossi for the way he 
has accepted the agreement, I think it was smart to take money upfront. Then we 
will see what is in the pudding.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com<mailto:lenn...@thornros.com>
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Roarty, Francis X 
mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote:
Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production very 
rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race will ensue 
where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the Chinese. Making 
Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and world trade will 
demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting the tech slip away 
would be bad for them but possibly very good for the world.
Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com<mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP rather 
than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.  IH has had 
advertised substantial involvement with various entities in China.

The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade secrets of 
his fuel formula, secret?

If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion by 
Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.  Rossi 
raised this issue in his recent complaint.

I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese 
Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in order 
to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was not a 
listed IP associated with the agreement.

Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But as 
has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining 
reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants, and  
consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific theories” or 
validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than elsewhere, IMHO.

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi


From: Robert Lynn

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face.

I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.

If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – t

Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Lennart Thornros]

As there is no trade agreement between the US and China transfer of IP from
the US to China is really hard to understand that IH have transferred the
IP.

I agree with that this is the way we will get final clarity about how well
or at all the E-cat works. That might be good - I think so.

The other side of the story as I see it is that it shows how useless
patents are. Only lawyers gain from the existence of patent. I can remember
more License agreement that caused headache and controversy, than the ones
that created mutual benefit. Contrary to the critic, against Rossi for the
way he has accepted the agreement, I think it was smart to take money
upfront. Then we will see what is in the pudding.:)

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Roarty, Francis X  wrote:

> Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production
> very rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race
> will ensue where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the
> Chinese. Making Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and
> world trade will demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting
> the tech slip away would be bad for them but possibly very good for the
> world.
>
> Fran
>
> *From:* Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP
> rather than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.
> IH has had advertised substantial involvement with various entities in
> China.
>
>
>
> The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade
> secrets of his fuel formula, secret?
>
>
>
> If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion
> by Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.
> Rossi raised this issue in his recent complaint.
>
>
>
> I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese
> Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in
> order to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was
> not a listed IP associated with the agreement.
>
>
>
> Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But
> as has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining
> reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants,
> and  consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific
> theories” or validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than
> elsewhere, IMHO.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>
> I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this
> situation, whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.
>
> If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a
> burden - and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself
> is an admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that
> IH is in fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well
> to a jury, and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is
> evidence of such a ploy.
>
> Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go
> direct to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of
> that? There is no doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else,
> and that an e-cat may never be viable in the USA. That could be the big
> picture dynamic.
>
> It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
>
>
>

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Roarty, Francis X]

Bob , if you are correct the Chinese will have this tech in production very 
rapidly and then it doesn’t matter, an international technical race will ensue 
where government labs have carte blanche to catch up with the Chinese. Making 
Rossi whole will be an afterthought because the economy and world trade will 
demand everyone has equal access to this tech. IH letting the tech slip away 
would be bad for them but possibly very good for the world.
Fran
From: Bob Cook [mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 4:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP rather 
than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.  IH has had 
advertised substantial involvement with various entities in China.

The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade secrets of 
his fuel formula, secret?

If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion by 
Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.  Rossi 
raised this issue in his recent complaint.

I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese 
Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in order 
to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was not a 
listed IP associated with the agreement.

Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But as 
has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining 
reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants, and  
consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific theories” or 
validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than elsewhere, IMHO.

Bob Cook



From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi


From: Robert Lynn

Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face.

I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.

If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a burden 
- and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself is an 
admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that IH is in 
fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well to a jury, 
and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is evidence of such 
a ploy.

Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go direct 
to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that? There is no 
doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and that an e-cat may 
never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture dynamic.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser….

Re: [Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Axil Axil]

The Lugano test used Rossi's fuel and it did not produce commercial levels
of excess heat. There is more to Rossi's reactor than just the fuel mix.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> I do not consider it would be good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP
> rather than licensee to use it to provide products in the license domain.
> IH has had advertised substantial involvement with various entities in
> China.
>
> The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade
> secrets of his fuel formula, secret?
>
> If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion
> by Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.
> Rossi raised this issue in his recent complaint.
>
> I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese
> Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in
> order to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was
> not a listed IP associated with the agreement.
>
> Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But
> as has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining
> reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants,
> and  consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific
> theories” or validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than
> elsewhere, IMHO.
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
> *Sent:* Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi
>
>
> *From:* Robert Lynn
>
> Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo
> worked they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track
> to make vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they
> would be doing so with a big smile on their face.
>
> I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation,
> whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual.
>
> If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a
> burden - and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself
> is an admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is
> that IH is in fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not
> present well to a jury, and has little chance of succeeding in a trial
> unless there is evidence of such a ploy.
>
> Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go
> direct to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that?
> There is no doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and
> that an e-cat may never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture
> dynamic.
>
> It just gets curiouser and curiouser….
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: I.H. press release responding to Rossi

[Bob Cook]

RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to RossiI do not consider it would be 
good faith to claim OWNERSHIP OF  E-CAT IP rather than licensee to use it to 
provide products in the license domain.  IH has had advertised substantial 
involvement with various entities in China. 

The question in my mind is whether or not IH has kept Rossi’s trade secrets of 
his fuel formula, secret?   

If IH has not maintained the secret, then I would question the suggestion by 
Robert Lynn  that they are in good faith adherence to the agreement.  Rossi 
raised this issue in his recent complaint.

I can imagine that the Chinese entities involved, as well as the Chinese 
Government,  would want to know the fuel parameters that work, and IH, in order 
to get them onboard, obliged, even though it did “secret sauce” was not a 
listed IP associated with the agreement.  

Maybe the actual science of the LENR will remain as cloudy as ever.   But as 
has been suggested, reverse engineering with testing aimed at gaining 
reasonable understanding involving  accepted empirical physical constants, and  
consistent with a reasonable extension of  “current scientific theories” or 
validated new ones,  will happen more readily in China than elsewhere, IMHO.  

Bob Cook 



From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 7:25 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:I.H. press release responding to Rossi

From: Robert Lynn 


Ridiculous to assert that IH have not acting in good faith - if the demo worked 
they would be the happiest people in the world and would be on track to make 
vast amounts of money even if they had to hand over 90million they would be 
doing so with a big smile on their face. 


I am glad to see someone recognizing the obvious dynamic in this situation, 
whereas the Rossi shills are lost in space, as usual. 

If the device really works, Rossi does not need IH – they are actually a burden 
- and the solution is to cancel their license. The lawsuit itself is an 
admission that either it does not work, or else the real scam is that IH is in 
fact double-dealing with the Chinese. Rossi will not present well to a jury, 
and has little chance of succeeding in a trial unless there is evidence of such 
a ploy.


Terry could be right that IH has a secretive plan to bypass Rossi and go direct 
to the big market, which is China – but is there any proof of that? There is no 
doubt that China needs this far more than anyone else, and that an e-cat may 
never be viable in the USA. That could be the big picture dynamic.


It just gets curiouser and curiouser….