Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Eric Walker]

Hi Bob,

As I reread the relevant section of the license agreement, I am startled by
how broad the language is.  It covers the existing IP as well as any
derivative works and future inventions.  It is one of those paragraphs in a
contract where, if I were the signing party, I would wonder how a
negotiating party could ask for so much.  See section 13.4 and take a
moment to read through it:

http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf

Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste it here.

Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Lennart and Eric--
>
> I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the
> E-Cat IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH).
>
> However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix
> to the agreement) is as a patent application.  The validation test in
> Italy  and  the 1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat.  The Hot Cat
> specifications I have not seen written anywhere.  They may be in the patent
> application.  They are not specified in the Agreement unless its via the
> Patent application.
>
> If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of
> providing IP associated with exceeding a COP of 6 (or an inference of
> this), I would be interested in a paragraph reference.
>
> I think that by the definition of IP its scope only includes tangible
> information—data, documents, pictures, drawings, recordings, etc.  It does
> not seem to include knowledge that is contained in ones brain and not
> otherwise recorded.  Such knowledge is not property IMHO.  The only
> reasonable obligation Rossi had, was to document operational procedures for
> the E-Cat to achieve a  COP of 6.  The Patent for the control system for
> the E-Cat may not have included details to allow exceeding the COP of 6.
>
> However, if the Company invents such improved controls that provide
> operation at a higher COP they will own that IP and could obtain an
> applicable patent it seems, all in accordance with the Agreement.
>
> I agree with Daniel that the Quark X invention is separate and would not
> fall within the E-Cat IP defined by the Agreement.
>
> As noted in previous comments, I consider this may be the issue that is
> upsetting to IH, since such a device would upstage the E-Cat and Hot Cat
> alike.  The Quark X  may not even use Ni as a fuel.  If as Rossi says, it
> produces direct electricity as well as heat, it clearly would be a
> different invention from the  Cats.  Rossi would be free to market the
> Quark X in the US and the other areas licensed to IH for the E Cats.
>
> I would have guessed that Rossi was not too uncomfortable with the broad
> scope of the agreement, given his ongoing research and appreciation of the
> science behind the Rossi Effect.  I think he was careful not to let the
> scope of the agreement extend to the Quark X technology, which he knew was
> around the corner and would make the E-Cat and Hot Cat inventions less
> important.
>
> Bob Cook
>
> *From:* Eric Walker 
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:17 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent
>
> Lennart,
>
> I said that with more confidence than is warranted.  I am not a lawyer, so
> I do not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will
> interpret this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put
> in it with the benefit of hindsight.  But I suggest to anyone who is
> interested in the question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are
> covered by the agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps
> you have done.  One will see that the language is very broad.  Perhaps
> Daniel is correct that the QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in
> that case the QuarkX is not a derivative work.
>
> One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt
> very uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted
> with his personality and temperament.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
>> Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is
>> one of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not
>> specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their
>> shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:)
>> IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
>> detailss then who to blaim.???
>>
>> Best Regards ,
>> Lennart Thornros
>>
>>
>> lenn...@thornros.com
>> +1 916 436 1899 <%2B1%20916%20436%201899>
>>
>> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
>> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 

[Vo]:

[Robert Etheridge]

extropy...@gmail.com

[Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Bob Cook]

Lennart and Eric--

I see where Eric is coming from regarding the Hot Cat being part of the E-Cat 
IP for which Rossi licenses use by the Company (IH).

However, the only place it is apparently covered by a document (appendix to the 
agreement) is as a patent application.  The validation test in Italy  and  the 
1 year test were accomplished on the E-Cat.  The Hot Cat specifications I have 
not seen written anywhere.  They may be in the patent application.  They are 
not specified in the Agreement unless its via the Patent application.

If you (Eric) think there is anything in the agreement that speaks of providing 
IP associated with exceeding a COP of 6 (or an inference of this), I would be 
interested in a paragraph reference.  

I think that by the definition of IP its scope only includes tangible 
information—data, documents, pictures, drawings, recordings, etc.  It does not 
seem to include knowledge that is contained in ones brain and not otherwise 
recorded.  Such knowledge is not property IMHO.  The only reasonable obligation 
Rossi had, was to document operational procedures for the E-Cat to achieve a  
COP of 6.  The Patent for the control system for the E-Cat may not have 
included details to allow exceeding the COP of 6.  

However, if the Company invents such improved controls that provide operation 
at a higher COP they will own that IP and could obtain an applicable patent it 
seems, all in accordance with the Agreement.  

I agree with Daniel that the Quark X invention is separate and would not fall 
within the E-Cat IP defined by the Agreement.  

As noted in previous comments, I consider this may be the issue that is 
upsetting to IH, since such a device would upstage the E-Cat and Hot Cat alike. 
 The Quark X  may not even use Ni as a fuel.  If as Rossi says, it produces 
direct electricity as well as heat, it clearly would be a different invention 
from the  Cats.  Rossi would be free to market the Quark X in the US and the 
other areas licensed to IH for the E Cats.  

I would have guessed that Rossi was not too uncomfortable with the broad scope 
of the agreement, given his ongoing research and appreciation of the science 
behind the Rossi Effect.  I think he was careful not to let the scope of the 
agreement extend to the Quark X technology, which he knew was around the corner 
and would make the E-Cat and Hot Cat inventions less important.

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 6:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Lennart, 

I said that with more confidence than is warranted.  I am not a lawyer, so I do 
not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will interpret 
this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put in it with the 
benefit of hindsight.  But I suggest to anyone who is interested in the 
question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are covered by the 
agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps you have done.  One 
will see that the language is very broad.  Perhaps Daniel is correct that the 
QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in that case the QuarkX is not a 
derivative work.

One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt very 
uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted with his 
personality and temperament.

Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros  wrote:

  Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one of 
the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not specify 
the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their shoes. Maybe I 
just have been around for too long:)
  IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the 
detailss then who to blaim.???

  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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:


  The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in 
the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.

I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language pertaining 
to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it readily covered the 
HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also stipulated that Rossi help 
out with transferring any knowledge required to make use of his technology. I 
can look it up the relevant sections if they would be interesting.  Whatever 
ways that IH may have been in breach of the license agreement, Rossi was 
assuredly in breach in this specific regard.

With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent 
applications 

RE: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jones Beene]

Now that you mention it, and realizing how enticing/dangerous it would be to a 
certain segment of the population, the hope is that no one gets hurt trying it. 

We have seen crazy stunts with thermite and other energetic materials on 
YouTube. In a worst case, we are talking about something which could be far 
more energetic than thermite. Yikes.

From: Jack Cole 

Very interesting account.  I have occasionally had the fantasy of modifying a 
pressure cooker, adding 10 pounds of nickel powder, and adding hydrogen (after 
degassing).  
Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details of 
the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996. 
Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the field, 
and the main reason that they dropped LENR

RE: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jones Beene]

From: Daniel Rocha 

I think it covered the hot cats. The cold cat is way too weird. Generally cold 
fusion happens with high temperatures, at least microscopically. For example, 
the working function of a metal is 4eV. So, when you do electrolysis, you have 
at at least at tiny places the equivalent of 40,000 K. Though, that thermacore 
result is something that is really amazing.

Did thermacore have any patent? 



Thermacore was issued a 1992 patent US 5273635 on an Electrolytic device. They 
did not pursue a patent on the “runaway” device.

Abstract - 

A heater which uses the electrolysis of a liquid to produce heat from 
electricity and transfers the heat from the electrolyte by means of a heat 
exchanger. One embodiment includes electrodes of nickel and platinum and an 
electrolyte of potassium carbonate with a heat exchanger immersed in and 
transferring heat from the electrolyte.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Eric Walker]

Lennart,

I said that with more confidence than is warranted.  I am not a lawyer, so
I do not know how to interpret a license agreement, how the court will
interpret this particular agreement, or what IH and Rossi should have put
in it with the benefit of hindsight.  But I suggest to anyone who is
interested in the question of what improvements to the E-Cat technology are
covered by the agreement to read through it for these details, as perhaps
you have done.  One will see that the language is very broad.  Perhaps
Daniel is correct that the QuarkX would not be covered by it; presumably in
that case the QuarkX is not a derivative work.

One might speculate that if Rossi had anything at all he might have felt
very uncomfortable with the broad scope of the agreement, being acquainted
with his personality and temperament.

Eric


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

> Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one
> of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not
> specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their
> shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:)
> IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
> detailss then who to blaim.???
>
> 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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook 
>> wrote:
>>
>> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
>>>
>>
>> I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language
>> pertaining to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it
>> readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also
>> stipulated that Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to
>> make use of his technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they
>> would be interesting.  Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the
>> license agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
>>
>> With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
>> applications filed by Rossi.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Lennart Thornros]

Eric , I agree with your evaluation of the contract. However, there is one
of the issues I do not understand about IH's handling. Why did they not
specify the details of how the transfer should be done. I would in their
shoes. Maybe I just have been around for too long:)
IMHO that is a major flaw in this agreement. If they do not pick up the
detailss then who to blaim.???

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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook 
> wrote:
>
> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
>>
>
> I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language
> pertaining to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it
> readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also
> stipulated that Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to
> make use of his technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they
> would be interesting.  Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the
> license agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
>
> With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
> applications filed by Rossi.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jack Cole]

Jones,

Very interesting account.  I have occasionally had the fantasy of modifying
a pressure cooker, adding 10 pounds of nickel powder, and adding hydrogen
(after degassing).

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:09 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

> Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details
> of the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996.
>
> Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the
> field, and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes
> other thermal runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia
> and Ahern. However, it was far more energetic than any of the prior
> incidents.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Daniel Rocha]

I think it covered the hot cats. The cold cat is way too weird. Generally
cold fusion happens with high temperatures, at least microscopically. For
example, the working function of a metal is 4eV. So, when you do
electrolysis, you have at at least at tiny places the equivalent of 40,000
K. Though, that thermacore result is something that is really amazing.

Did thermacore have any patent?

2016-05-19 20:32 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :

> .  The language sounded like it readily covered the HotCat, and indeed the
> E-Cat X.  The contract also stipulated that Rossi help out with
> transferring any knowledge required to make use of his technology. I can
> look it up the relevant sections if they would be interesting.  Whatever
> ways that IH may have been in breach of the license agreement, Rossi was
> assuredly in breach in this specific regard.
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.
>

I read the license agreement quite differently.  It had language pertaining
to all future improvements.  The language sounded like it readily covered
the HotCat, and indeed the E-Cat X.  The contract also stipulated that
Rossi help out with transferring any knowledge required to make use of his
technology. I can look it up the relevant sections if they would be
interesting.  Whatever ways that IH may have been in breach of the license
agreement, Rossi was assuredly in breach in this specific regard.

With regard to the PHOSITAs, these will apply to any and all patent
applications filed by Rossi.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Stephen Cooke]

Wow so this triggered at room temperature? I wish we new more about this test 
and its products, especially with the hindsight of all that's been learnt in 
the 20 years since.

It's an interesting topic much needed now. I miss reading these scientific 
discussions on vortex-l.

Has any one tried to repeat the test? Maybe in a more controlled and safe 
environment?


> On 19 mei 2016, at 20:09, Jones Beene  wrote:
> 
> Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details of 
> the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996.
> 
> Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the field, 
> and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes other thermal 
> runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia and Ahern. 
> However, it was far more energetic than any of the prior incidents.
> 
> This was to have been an powered experiment but they never had time to apply 
> input power. This was was a follow-on to a Phase one grant from USAF 
> (document in LENR-CANR library) and was simply intended to be an analysis the 
> absorption reaction of a large amount of nickel powder and hydrogen at modest 
> pressure. Instead, it was likely the most energetic single event in the 
> history of LENR.
> 
> Recently, Brian Ahern has been in contact with Nelson Gernert, the chief 
> researcher in the new Thermacore (having gone through two changes of 
> ownership) who was also in charge of the runaway. None of this has appeared 
> in print before.
> 
> Gernert added 2.5 pounds of nickel powder (200 mesh of Ni-200) into a 3 liter 
> stainless steel Dewar.  The Dewar weighed 300 pounds. It was a strong 
> pressure vessel with a hemispherical volume. Thermacore evacuated the nickel 
> under vacuum for several days before adding H2 gas at 2 atmospheres 
> (apparently there was no potassium but this detail needs to be verified).
> 
> 
> The most amazing thing happened next. The powder immediately and 
> spontaneously heated before external power could be added. The Dewar glowed 
> orange (800C) and the engineers ran for cover. No external heat had been used 
> and no radiation monitors were running. The nickel had sintered into a glob 
> alloyed into the vessel and could not be removed.
> 
> 
> The (then) owner of Thermacore, Yale Eastman was frightened that an explosion 
> was imminent and that someone could be killed. He forbade any further work on 
> LENR. The incident was not published.
> 
> The Dewar was no longer safe as a pressure vessel and they junked it. They 
> did not measure it for radiation. Superficial thermal analysis - 3 liters of 
> H2 gas at 2 atmosphere will have a heat of combustion of 74 kilojoules when 
> combined with oxygen (but there was no oxygen in the Dewar).  
> 
> 
> Heating a 300 lb Stainless vessel to 800C requires 21 megajoules. That is 
> ostensibly 289 times the possible chemical energy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 10:44:35 -0400
> Subject: Re: MILLS AND THERMACORE
> From: na...@gwu.edu
> To: ahern_br...@msn.com
> 
> Thanks, Brian.
> 
> I will try to get a complete copy.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
> 
> aLL MY COPIES LACK PAGE 4.
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[John Berry]

The only way to steal IP from a patent (other than producing and selling in
secret) is to make changes, possibly ones that give you a superior
technology that is not protected by their patent that you then patent.
'
Patents are about giving IP freely, but protecting the rights.

Thinking about it, patents might become useless with advances in 3D
printing, where a consumer can make a file, share the file (because it is
not the thing itself) so others with no effort can print up the invention.

But as we reach a robotopia we are again going to have to find different
ways of distributing things.

John


On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Cook  wrote:
>
> It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for
>> the low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers
>> what was necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That
>> is all the patent identified.
>>
>
> I did not realize that. However, my point still stands. Assuming the 1 MW
> gadget works --
>
> If he gets a patent later for it, that will protect him. Neither I.H. nor
> any other company will be able to "steal" the technology. They will have it
> for free, but they will not be able to sell it. That is how patents work.
>
> If he cannot patent the 1 MW reactor for some reason, he will have no
> protection at all. Something this important cannot be protected with trade
> secrets. It will be reverse engineered.
>
> However, this is mere fantasy. Or alternative history. In fact, the 1 MW
> gadget does not work, so there is no intellectual property, and a patent
> would be meaningless. A patent for an invention that does not work is void.
>
>
>
>> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
>> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what
>> is grating to IH . . .
>>
>
> No, what is grating to IH is that they paid $11 million for something that
> does not work. At all. As they said, they could not substantiate it.
>
>
>
>> The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant
>> they produced to go above a COP of around 6.
>>
>
> That is incorrect. The plant was made by Rossi. It never went above 1. It
> is well below 1 in the fluid because of losses from the reactor.
>
> I have not heard that the I.H. engineering team ever made a plant. Perhaps
> they did; I have only a little inside information. However, in their press
> releases the only thing they discuss is the reactor made by Rossi. All my
> comments about calorimetry pertain only to Rossi's device. I have no
> knowledge of any other machine.
>
>
>
>> It would seem they want to be trained further to improve their PHOSITA.
>>
>
> This has nothing to do with the ability or inability of the I.H. team to
> replicate. The only issue is that Rossi is unable to make his machine
> produce excess heat. He was given a year to do it, but he failed.
>
> At least, that is what I.H. claims, and what my analysis shows. Rossi, of
> course, claims that it does work. You will have to see the data before you
> can take sides.
>
>
>>
>
>> I do not blame them for that want, but.
>>
>
> There is no such want. You misunderstand. What you think happened here *did
> not* happen.
>
>
>
>> However, IMHO Rossi does not have any obligation to do that training.
>>
>
> As I said, training is not the issue. I.H. has never mentioned it. Perhaps
> Rossi did; I don't follow his blog, but I.H. is not contesting this. The
> issue is, he cannot make his machine produce excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> You are not alone – few know of this incident. But it’s not a sensible
> choice to base anything regarding the validity of LENR on Rossi’s
> problems with IH.
>
Yes, there is hardly any connection.

To put it (the runaway) into context, there had already been a fatality at
> SRI a few years before (unrelated).
>
This was entirely explained by chemistry. The cause was never a mystery. It
was caused by a terrible failure of several safety mechanisms at the same
time. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IkegamiHthirdinter.pdf#page=147

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Bob Cook]

Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996Jones etal--

Also most observers of the LENR scene are unaware of the details of a British 
1956 patent describing what may be a LENR.   Hank Mills has written a good 
summary of the invention on E Cat World I believe. 

It got by me as a reactor designer in the early 1960’s

http://www.lookingforheat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/A-new-apparatus-for-producing-an-electric-current.pdf

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details of 
the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996. 

Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the field, 
and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes other thermal 
runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia and Ahern. However, 
it was far more energetic than any of the prior incidents.

This was to have been an powered experiment but they never had time to apply 
input power. This was was a follow-on to a Phase one grant from USAF (document 
in LENR-CANR library) and was simply intended to be an analysis the absorption 
reaction of a large amount of nickel powder and hydrogen at modest pressure. 
Instead, it was likely the most energetic single event in the history of LENR.

Recently, Brian Ahern has been in contact with Nelson Gernert, the chief 
researcher in the new Thermacore (having gone through two changes of ownership) 
who was also in charge of the runaway. None of this has appeared in print 
before. 

Gernert added 2.5 pounds of nickel powder (200 mesh of Ni-200) into a 3 liter 
stainless steel Dewar.  The Dewar weighed 300 pounds. It was a strong pressure 
vessel with a hemispherical volume. Thermacore evacuated the nickel under 
vacuum for several days before adding H2 gas at 2 atmospheres (apparently there 
was no potassium but this detail needs to be verified).


The most amazing thing happened next. The powder immediately and spontaneously 
heated before external power could be added. The Dewar glowed orange (800C) and 
the engineers ran for cover. No external heat had been used and no radiation 
monitors were running. The nickel had sintered into a glob alloyed into the 
vessel and could not be removed.


The (then) owner of Thermacore, Yale Eastman was frightened that an explosion 
was imminent and that someone could be killed. He forbade any further work on 
LENR. The incident was not published. 

The Dewar was no longer safe as a pressure vessel and they junked it. They did 
not measure it for radiation. Superficial thermal analysis - 3 liters of H2 gas 
at 2 atmosphere will have a heat of combustion of 74 kilojoules when combined 
with oxygen (but there was no oxygen in the Dewar).  


Heating a 300 lb Stainless vessel to 800C requires 21 megajoules. That is 
ostensibly 289 times the possible chemical energy!

RE: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jones Beene]

Dave,

You are not alone – few know of this incident. But it’s not a sensible choice 
to base anything regarding the validity of LENR on Rossi’s problems with IH. 
The technology will survive, but Rossi’s lack of credibility could taint the 
field and impede progress for years.

The Thermacore runaway, as impressive as it was, has not previously been 
reported. To put it (the runaway) into context, there had already been a 
fatality at SRI a few years before (unrelated). It was not known back then, in 
the mid-nineties, whether the reaction was safe or not especially when 
drastically scaled up (2-3 orders of magnitude). The Thermacore incident was 
not reported for any number of legal and liability reasons, not to mention OSHA 
- and the project was canceled immediately. 

The Company was only interested in the scale-up potential of it, so it was 
nixed. Ahern’s sources of information on this are impeccable.

BTW – to my knowledge, no one since then has tried an experiment with a 
similarly large mass of potentially active material but it could easily be the 
case that there is a “critical mass” equivalent, even if that term is 
shoehorned into QM (or CQM). 

There are in fact, a number of scientific papers on “entanglement mass” which 
would be the corollary. I’m glad they weren’t  using deuterium.


From: David Roberson 

Jones,
 
Is it possible to find another source to back up what you are describing in 
this event?   A second written record would be fine if available.
 
I have not heard of that particular thermal run away reaction that you have 
listed below but would find it interesting to follow up on.  The recent 
negative information that is coming out pertaining to Rossi is beginning to 
concern me and your example seems like just the medicine needed to cure that 
problem. 

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

I have not heard of that particular thermal run away reaction that you have
> listed below but would find it interesting to follow up on.
>

I heard about it from Gene Mallove, but no details were forthcoming. It is
tragic that they did not follow up on it. They lost their nerve. That's
understandable, but this is the most important discovery in the history of
technology, so they should have done something to pursue it. Perhaps bring
in a National Lab or try again on a smaller scale. Abandoning it like that
was tragic. This is one of the many failures to follow up in the history of
cold fusion.



> The recent negative information that is coming out pertaining to Rossi is
> beginning to concern me and your example seems like just the medicine
> needed to cure that problem.
>

This event has no bearing on Rossi. Thermacore is an excellent company.
Their presentation at MIT and their papers are far more informative than
anything Rossi ever published. I do not see how a credible experiment from
Thermacore enhances Rossi.

This also does not detract from Srinivasan and others who were not able to
produce heat with Ni-H systems.

I will grant that a positive result in one lab does add credibility to the
report of a positive lab from another lab done with similar techniques and
materials. That is why I gave Rossi the benefit of the doubt despite his
dubious methods. I knew there were other positive reports of Ni-H heat,
although they are sporadic and poorly documented compared to Pd-D. But the
benefit of the doubt can only go so far. In the end, a researcher has to
present a coherent report to be believed. Rossi said he did not want to be
believed. He said the proof would come with a commercial device. I think
that is a fair standard. He has every right to keep secrets from the
public. So I stopped paying attention to him. I did not think much about
him until I.H. announced on March 10 that they disagreed with his analysis.
He did not have to convince the public but he *did* have a contractual
obligation to convince I.H. He failed. That's bad news!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[David Roberson]

Jones,
 
Is it possible to find another source to back up what you are describing in 
this event?   A second written record would be fine if available.
 
I have not heard of that particular thermal run away reaction that you have 
listed below but would find it interesting to follow up on.  The recent 
negative information that is coming out pertaining to Rossi is beginning to 
concern me and your example seems like just the medicine needed to cure that 
problem.

It has been my intent to continuing standing by with an open mind until the 
year long test data is released by Rossi or IH and analyzed.  This is not an 
easy position to maintain at this point with all the negativity being expressed 
by Jed and others.

Thanks,

Dave
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, May 19, 2016 2:09 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway  in 1996



Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details of 
the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996. 
Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the field, 
and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes other thermal 
runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia and Ahern. However, 
it was far more energetic than any of the prior incidents.
This was to have been an powered experiment but they never had time to apply 
input power. This was was a follow-on to a Phase one grant from USAF (document 
in LENR-CANR library) and was simply intended to be an analysis the absorption 
reaction of a large amount of nickel powder and hydrogen at modest pressure. 
Instead, it was likely the most energetic single event in the history of LENR.
Recently, Brian Ahern has been in contact with Nelson Gernert, the chief 
researcher in the new Thermacore (having gone through two changes of ownership) 
who was also in charge of the runaway. None of this has appeared in print 
before. 
Gernert added 2.5 pounds of nickel powder (200 mesh of Ni-200) into a 3 liter 
stainless steel Dewar.  The Dewar weighed 300 pounds. It was a strong pressure 
vessel with a hemispherical volume. Thermacore evacuated the nickel under 
vacuum for several days before adding H2 gas at 2 atmospheres (apparently there 
was no potassium but this detail needs to be verified).

The most amazing thing happened next. The powder immediately and spontaneously 
heated before external power could be added. The Dewar glowed orange (800C) and 
the engineers ran for cover. No external heat had been used and no radiation 
monitors were running. The nickel had sintered into a glob alloyed into the 
vessel and could not be removed.

The (then) owner of Thermacore, Yale Eastman was frightened that an explosion 
was imminent and that someone could be killed. He forbade any further work on 
LENR. The incident was not published. 
The Dewar was no longer safe as a pressure vessel and they junked it. They did 
not measure it for radiation. Superficial thermal analysis - 3 liters of H2 gas 
at 2 atmosphere will have a heat of combustion of 74 kilojoules when combined 
with oxygen (but there was no oxygen in the Dewar).  

Heating a 300 lb Stainless vessel to 800C requires 21 megajoules. That is 
ostensibly 289 times the possible chemical energy!





Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 10:44:35 -0400
Subject: Re: MILLS AND THERMACORE
From: na...@gwu.edu
To: ahern_br...@msn.com
Thanks, Brian.
I will try to get a complete copy.
Dave

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
aLL MY COPIES LACK PAGE 4. 

[Vo]:Details of the Thermacore runaway in 1996

[Jones Beene]

Most observers of the LENR/nickel hydride scene are unaware of the details
of the Thermacore, Inc. runaway reaction back in 1996. 

Unfortunately, this was the last effort that this company made in the field,
and the main reason that they dropped LENR. The incident echoes other
thermal runaways, including P, Mizuno, Mark Snoswell in Australia and
Ahern. However, it was far more energetic than any of the prior incidents.

This was to have been an powered experiment but they never had time to apply
input power. This was was a follow-on to a Phase one grant from USAF
(document in LENR-CANR library) and was simply intended to be an analysis
the absorption reaction of a large amount of nickel powder and hydrogen at
modest pressure. Instead, it was likely the most energetic single event in
the history of LENR.

Recently, Brian Ahern has been in contact with Nelson Gernert, the chief
researcher in the new Thermacore (having gone through two changes of
ownership) who was also in charge of the runaway. None of this has appeared
in print before. 

Gernert added 2.5 pounds of nickel powder (200 mesh of Ni-200) into a 3
liter stainless steel Dewar.  The Dewar weighed 300 pounds. It was a strong
pressure vessel with a hemispherical volume. Thermacore evacuated the nickel
under vacuum for several days before adding H2 gas at 2 atmospheres
(apparently there was no potassium but this detail needs to be verified).

The most amazing thing happened next. The powder immediately and
spontaneously heated before external power could be added. The Dewar glowed
orange (800C) and the engineers ran for cover. No external heat had been
used and no radiation monitors were running. The nickel had sintered into a
glob alloyed into the vessel and could not be removed.

The (then) owner of Thermacore, Yale Eastman was frightened that an
explosion was imminent and that someone could be killed. He forbade any
further work on LENR. The incident was not published. 

The Dewar was no longer safe as a pressure vessel and they junked it. They
did not measure it for radiation. Superficial thermal analysis - 3 liters of
H2 gas at 2 atmosphere will have a heat of combustion of 74 kilojoules when
combined with oxygen (but there was no oxygen in the Dewar).  

Heating a 300 lb Stainless vessel to 800C requires 21 megajoules. That is
ostensibly 289 times the possible chemical energy!






Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 10:44:35 -0400
Subject: Re: MILLS AND THERMACORE
From: na...@gwu.edu
To: ahern_br...@msn.com
Thanks, Brian.
I will try to get a complete copy.
Dave

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
aLL MY COPIES LACK PAGE 4. 

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> I meant there is no technology in the dispute just now.
>

The dispute is about Rossi's reactor, which is technology. Perhaps I fail
to understand what you mean.


IMHO you have no right to call Rossi a scammer.
>

I do. Rossi showed that he is a scammer. The I.H. expert insisted than he
must see the customer's machinery. Any sane person would. Rossi refused to
let him. Only a scammer would do that. There is no justification for
denying access.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I never said it is the ultimate answer, or the only thing needed. I said
> that government has made many essential contributions, such as railroads,
> steam ships, highways, the computer, nuclear power, weather forecasting,
> satellites, the GPS, the Internet, the laser, most fundamental physics and
> medical research funding, and so on. Bill Gates and many other successful
> businessmen agree with me, so perhaps you are wrong and I am right. You
> should consider that possibility.


​Yes Jed, you are right.
You and the government that cannot do anything - by definition, and Bill
Gates. I am so impressed by the heavy argument.
Talk about philosophy.


I meant there is no technology in the dispute just now. Psychology is all
up to 90%.
Then there is the issue of conduct. Hard to say but it is not engineering.

IMHO you have no right to call Rossi a scammer. To call him crazy is just
bouncing right back in your face  then.​


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)

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
> That's absurd. Why would they not pay if the technology works?
>

At, say, 10% how much would you think the royalties in China would be
worth?  Hypothetically?

Re: [Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Cook  wrote:

It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for
> the low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers
> what was necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That
> is all the patent identified.
>

I did not realize that. However, my point still stands. Assuming the 1 MW
gadget works --

If he gets a patent later for it, that will protect him. Neither I.H. nor
any other company will be able to "steal" the technology. They will have it
for free, but they will not be able to sell it. That is how patents work.

If he cannot patent the 1 MW reactor for some reason, he will have no
protection at all. Something this important cannot be protected with trade
secrets. It will be reverse engineered.

However, this is mere fantasy. Or alternative history. In fact, the 1 MW
gadget does not work, so there is no intellectual property, and a patent
would be meaningless. A patent for an invention that does not work is void.



> The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in
> the IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what
> is grating to IH . . .
>

No, what is grating to IH is that they paid $11 million for something that
does not work. At all. As they said, they could not substantiate it.



> The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant they
> produced to go above a COP of around 6.
>

That is incorrect. The plant was made by Rossi. It never went above 1. It
is well below 1 in the fluid because of losses from the reactor.

I have not heard that the I.H. engineering team ever made a plant. Perhaps
they did; I have only a little inside information. However, in their press
releases the only thing they discuss is the reactor made by Rossi. All my
comments about calorimetry pertain only to Rossi's device. I have no
knowledge of any other machine.



> It would seem they want to be trained further to improve their PHOSITA.
>

This has nothing to do with the ability or inability of the I.H. team to
replicate. The only issue is that Rossi is unable to make his machine
produce excess heat. He was given a year to do it, but he failed.

At least, that is what I.H. claims, and what my analysis shows. Rossi, of
course, claims that it does work. You will have to see the data before you
can take sides.


>

> I do not blame them for that want, but.
>

There is no such want. You misunderstand. What you think happened here *did
not* happen.



> However, IMHO Rossi does not have any obligation to do that training.
>

As I said, training is not the issue. I.H. has never mentioned it. Perhaps
Rossi did; I don't follow his blog, but I.H. is not contesting this. The
issue is, he cannot make his machine produce excess heat.

- Jed

[Vo]:what kind of theory needs LENR?

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-19-2016-lenr-needs-productive.html

do not ignore the Info, please, I collected it with some effort

The LENR muses are silent these days

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Bob Cook]

Peter, Jed and others--

It would seem the only PHOSITA  that was required by the agreement was for the 
low temperature E-Cat.  Rossi has indicated he taught the IH engineers what was 
necessary to operate the E-Cat, probably up to a COP of 6.  That is all the 
patent identified.  

The Hot Cat is a different invention and its operation was not covered in the 
IP transferred by the IP of the agreement IMHO.  I think that is what is 
grating to IH, since Rossi already has a new invention that out-performs the 
E-Cat.  I think he is NOT restricted in its production anywhere.  It is the 
subject of new patents that Rossi has claimed to have prepared and maybe 
already have applied for around the World.  

The great IH engineering team has not been able to get even the plant they 
produced to go above a COP of around 6.  It would seem they want to be trained 
further to improve their PHOSITA.  

I do not blame them for that want, but.   However, IMHO Rossi does not have 
any obligation to do that training.  We will see as the trial unfolds, if it is 
not settled first. 

If it is settled, I would guess a new agreement would result.  Both parties 
will be smarter and will become much more careful about the options, the 
wording and the issue of competition.  It seems to me that Rossi has the upper 
hand, so to speak.  I doubt he will give up his inventive superiority to IH for 
any money.   IMHO he needs a different financial source of funding.  I suspect 
he already has that, given his apparent desire to buy the factory in Sweden. 

Bob Cook

From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:59 AM
To: VORTEX 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Dear Jed,, 

PHOSIA is a slogan-acronym with one poisoned letter "O" 
ordinary skill has to be defined for each case.
The difference between patent and know how is greater for processes than
for products.
I give you an example:
- a patent gives a recipe with ingredients in some limits, sometimes large but 
actually optimum or even usable narrow limits exist;- climited combinations,
- the patent has to give all the steps but does not give necessarily the real 
order and that can be critical;

and there are some features difficult to define- please imagine a patent
for a well working FP Cell in the hands of a good PHOSITA To not use 
a remote example.

Peter

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

  Peter Gluck  wrote:


Are you aware about the differences between a patent and know-how?
Plus know-what, know-why and know-how- not?

  Yes. I understand this difference. A PHOSITA has the know-how. If the patent 
does not disclose enough information for a PHOSITA to replicate -- from the 
patent alone, without any inside information from Rossi -- then the patent is 
invalid. That would mean Rossi has no intellectual property and anyone can use 
his technology without paying him.


Do you have some industrial experience with this- even a minimum - IT 
included where you are at home?

  I do not, but a PHOSITA does, by definition.


Every industry and problem is very specific and the essentials cannot be 
transferred from one to another.

  If no one in the world has the appropriate background to do this, then there 
is no PHOSITA at present, so the patent will have to disclose a great deal more 
information than patents normally do. A patent must be enabling, or it is 
invalid.

  - Jed





-- 

Dr. Peter Gluck 
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:


> You believe that government is the ultimate answer to progress - that is
> far from business  as the moon from the sun . . .
>

I never said it is the ultimate answer, or the only thing needed. I said
that government has made many essential contributions, such as railroads,
steam ships, highways, the computer, nuclear power, weather forecasting,
satellites, the GPS, the Internet, the laser, most fundamental physics and
medical research funding, and so on. Bill Gates and many other successful
businessmen agree with me, so perhaps you are wrong and I am right. You
should consider that possibility.


Contrary to you Jed, I do not judge Rossi. I say his behavior corresponds
> with and inventor /entrepreneur.
>

It does, but it also correlates with a scammer or a crazy person.



> Your darn calorimetry does not even enter the scene as a tool for seeing
> the qualities of Rossi.
>

That is true. But it is the only metric that can tell us whether his
reactor produces excess heat or not. And it answers that question
decisively: there is no excess heat. There is no cold fusion reaction.

Since his reactor does not work, he is of no interest to this field, and
his lawsuit should be thrown out.



> No it has nothing to do with engineering. The more time that elapses the
> more I am inclined to believe it is 90% psychology and 10% personality
> while from the beginning I had those numbers reversed.
>

What is 90% psychology?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Eric.
I think he is a man on a mission.
I do not say your two conclusions are wrong. I think there are many more
conclusions and to select is hard or impossible. Yes, if we limit the field
to engineering than they are fewer. Both yours are possibly thoughts
created by an entrepreneur and all psychological.

The assumption that Rossi's behavior is rational is not an axiom I accept.

I hope he has the COP > 3. That would be good for us all. Unfortunately I
 see very little light in the tunnel otherwise. Maybe my fellow country man
Holmlid has a better solution. Problem is that he is in the academical
world - good from many reasons other than speed. I think there is no reason
to throw Rossi under the bus. There are details (that is amazing to me)
that indicates he has something. They are not worth speculating about but I
am sure you have seen a few yourself.
Let us wait and see if Rossi is such a darn good scam artist than he can
sell his story to Hollywood (entrepreneurial thinking and still come out
ahead. The LENR community is in no hurry (waited over 25 years) so they can
throw him under the next bus when he is in Hollywood

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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Lennart Thornros 
> wrote:
>
> As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much
>> of his behavior tells me he is a real guy and as most inventors /
>> entrepreneurs hard to deal with. They are by nature hardnosed and outside
>> ghe box.
>
>
> Consider this detail: from what is now publicly available about how the
> 1MW test has proceeded since early on, Rossi has not made an effort to
> persuade IH of the truth of anything.  He has proceeded above their
> objections like a man on a mission, checking off the checkboxes in the
> license agreement and perhaps trying to hew to the letter of it (although
> not exactly, as we see with the switch to the four "tiger" modules).  If we
> are to assume rational behavior on some level, which is not guaranteed, one
> of the following conclusions is hard to escape:
>
>1. Rossi assumed that IH would pay up, whether or not IH believed the
>1MW test was persuasive; or
>2. Rossi assumed that IH would not pay, in which case Rossi would sue
>and then either obtain the full amount through the judgment of the court,
>or IH would settle for some lesser amount out of court.
>
> What is not listed in these possibilities is that Rossi would try to make
> a convincing, rigorous case to IH or to the court that there was a LENR
> reaction producing 1MW, with a COP of 6 (or 50).
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
You believe that government is the ultimate answer to progress - that is
far from business  as the moon from the sun (Yes, they appear similar in
size and color). I just do not think that is of any value to know that one
of us are more business experienced than the other. All I am saying the
iceberg is mostly larger under the water.

Contrary to you Jed, I do not judge Rossi. I say his behavior corresponds
with and inventor /entrepreneur. Your darn calorimetry does not even enter
the scene as a tool for seeing the qualities of Rossi. No it has nothing to
do with engineering. The more time that elapses the more I am inclined to
believe it is 90% psychology and 10% personality while from the beginning I
had those numbers reversed.

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 Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>>
>> Your statements indicate that you have little understanding about
>> business.
>>
> You are mistaken. I have good understanding of business, and experience in
> it.
>
>
>> As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much
>> of his behavior tells me he is a real guy . . .
>>
> You cannot judge his claims by looking at his behavior. You have to
> examine the calorimetry. Based on that, we know that his present device
> does not work. Some of his previous ones may have worked. It is difficult
> to judge.
>
> This is a matter of engineering, not psychology or personality.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Lennart Thornros 
wrote:

As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much of
> his behavior tells me he is a real guy and as most inventors /
> entrepreneurs hard to deal with. They are by nature hardnosed and outside
> ghe box.


Consider this detail: from what is now publicly available about how the 1MW
test has proceeded since early on, Rossi has not made an effort to persuade
IH of the truth of anything.  He has proceeded above their objections like
a man on a mission, checking off the checkboxes in the license agreement
and perhaps trying to hew to the letter of it (although not exactly, as we
see with the switch to the four "tiger" modules).  If we are to assume
rational behavior on some level, which is not guaranteed, one of the
following conclusions is hard to escape:

   1. Rossi assumed that IH would pay up, whether or not IH believed the
   1MW test was persuasive; or
   2. Rossi assumed that IH would not pay, in which case Rossi would sue
   and then either obtain the full amount through the judgment of the court,
   or IH would settle for some lesser amount out of court.

What is not listed in these possibilities is that Rossi would try to make a
convincing, rigorous case to IH or to the court that there was a LENR
reaction producing 1MW, with a COP of 6 (or 50).

Eric

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Your statements indicate that you have little understanding about business.
>
You are mistaken. I have good understanding of business, and experience in
it.


> As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much
> of his behavior tells me he is a real guy . . .
>
You cannot judge his claims by looking at his behavior. You have to examine
the calorimetry. Based on that, we know that his present device does not
work. Some of his previous ones may have worked. It is difficult to judge.

This is a matter of engineering, not psychology or personality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed, I am not going over all your statements.
Your statements indicate that you have little understanding about business.
It is seldom black and white. Yes, there is a standard of conduct between
competitors in any industry, so in the community of investment companies.
Your hang up on technical details may or may not be of any impact. It is
the famous trees that block the view of the forest. That people leak
information is part of the game. You may , or may not be a conduit for such
leaked information. As your information is so limited, I have suggested you
should not make so absolute sure judgment about the situation. I still
think that is the case.

As it comes to if Rossi's claims are real or not. I do not know but much of
his behavior tells me he is a real guy and as most inventors /
entrepreneurs hard to deal with. They are by nature hardnosed and outside
ghe box.
On May 19, 2016 09:58, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

Peter Gluck  wrote:

too much psychology...IH admits paying 11 million was a mistake
> specifically for NOT paying the due 89 millions. A simple gambit.
>

That's absurd. Why would they not pay if the technology works? They will be
plagued with lawsuits. If they try to commercialize it, everyone will see
they stole it, and they will then lose a much larger lawsuit.

What you are suggesting makes no business sense. There is no way they can
avoid paying $89 million if the technology works and they want to use it
for any purpose. Even if they "steal" it and give it to Brillouin Energy,
that does not get them anywhere. People will find out Brillouin is using
it, and Brillouin will have to pay a license fee the same as anyone else.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Peter Gluck]

from here on, the discussion goes on a slope i dislike...probbaly it is
about the Price.. too highand despite everything they say now, they are
contented with what they already have  plus an army of LENR specialistsable
to do great deeds...outRossi Rossi...
They already have a Rossi technology Patent too, their own patent.
peter

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> too much psychology...IH admits paying 11 million was a mistake
>> specifically for NOT paying the due 89 millions. A simple gambit.
>>
>
> That's absurd. Why would they not pay if the technology works? They will
> be plagued with lawsuits. If they try to commercialize it, everyone will
> see they stole it, and they will then lose a much larger lawsuit.
>
> What you are suggesting makes no business sense. There is no way they can
> avoid paying $89 million if the technology works and they want to use it
> for any purpose. Even if they "steal" it and give it to Brillouin Energy,
> that does not get them anywhere. People will find out Brillouin is using
> it, and Brillouin will have to pay a license fee the same as anyone else.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

too much psychology...IH admits paying 11 million was a mistake
> specifically for NOT paying the due 89 millions. A simple gambit.
>

That's absurd. Why would they not pay if the technology works? They will be
plagued with lawsuits. If they try to commercialize it, everyone will see
they stole it, and they will then lose a much larger lawsuit.

What you are suggesting makes no business sense. There is no way they can
avoid paying $89 million if the technology works and they want to use it
for any purpose. Even if they "steal" it and give it to Brillouin Energy,
that does not get them anywhere. People will find out Brillouin is using
it, and Brillouin will have to pay a license fee the same as anyone else.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Peter Gluck]

too much psychology...IH admits paying 11 million was a mistake
specifically for NOT paying the due 89 millions. A simple gambit.
peter

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
>> Yes, Alberto.
>> That is why Jed's claims are so hard to buy.
>>
> These are not my claims. I am quoting press releases issued by I.H. You
> should say "I.H.'s claims are hard to buy."
>
> They are saying they made an $11 million mistake. Perhaps you find that
> hard to buy, but as it goes against their interests to admit it, you should
> grant they seem honest. Also, this is what Bertrand Russell called
> "evidence against interest" which is inherently persuasive. Meaning I.H.
> has no reason to say this, other than the fact it is true. Christopher
> Hitchens described this (quoting someone else): "If the Pope says he
> believes in God, he’s only doing his job. If he says he doesn’t believe in
> God, he may be onto something."
>
> IH should have business acumen as most investment companion I have met
>> with.
>>
> "Should have" in what sense? It would be better for them? Yes. You think
> they should? That's your opinion. If you are saying investment companies
> are uniformly wise with good judgement, I suggest you review the history of
> the 2008 economic crash.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

> Yes, Alberto.
> That is why Jed's claims are so hard to buy.
>
These are not my claims. I am quoting press releases issued by I.H. You
should say "I.H.'s claims are hard to buy."

They are saying they made an $11 million mistake. Perhaps you find that
hard to buy, but as it goes against their interests to admit it, you should
grant they seem honest. Also, this is what Bertrand Russell called
"evidence against interest" which is inherently persuasive. Meaning I.H.
has no reason to say this, other than the fact it is true. Christopher
Hitchens described this (quoting someone else): "If the Pope says he
believes in God, he’s only doing his job. If he says he doesn’t believe in
God, he may be onto something."

IH should have business acumen as most investment companion I have met with.
>
"Should have" in what sense? It would be better for them? Yes. You think
they should? That's your opinion. If you are saying investment companies
are uniformly wise with good judgement, I suggest you review the history of
the 2008 economic crash.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

[Lennart Thornros]

Yes, Alberto.
That is why Jed's claims are so hard to buy. IH should have business acumen
as most investment companion I have met with.
On May 18, 2016 17:30, "Alberto De Souza" 
wrote:

Based on what Jed said so far, I.H. is very good at calorimetry but very
bad at doing business. I would expect the opposit. Rossi on the other
hand...

Alberto.

Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jed,,

PHOSIA is a slogan-acronym with one poisoned letter "O"
ordinary skill has to be defined for each case.
The difference between patent and know how is greater for processes than
for products.
I give you an example:
- a patent gives a recipe with ingredients in some limits, sometimes large
but actually optimum or even usable narrow limits exist;- climited
combinations,
- the patent has to give all the steps but does not give necessarily the
real order and that can be critical;

and there are some features difficult to define- please imagine a patent
for a well working FP Cell in the hands of a good PHOSITA To not use
a remote example.

Peter

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Are you aware about the differences between a patent and know-how?
>> Plus know-what, know-why and know-how- not?
>>
>
> Yes. I understand this difference. A PHOSITA has the know-how. If the
> patent does not disclose enough information for a PHOSITA to replicate --
> from the patent alone, without any inside information from Rossi -- then
> the patent is invalid. That would mean Rossi has no intellectual property
> and anyone can use his technology without paying him.
>
>
>
>> Do you have some industrial experience with this- even a minimum - IT
>> included where you are at home?
>>
>
> I do not, but a PHOSITA does, by definition.
>
>
>
>> Every industry and problem is very specific and the essentials cannot be
>> transferred from one to another.
>>
>
> If no one in the world has the appropriate background to do this, then
> there is no PHOSITA at present, so the patent will have to disclose a great
> deal more information than patents normally do. A patent *must be
> enabling,* or it is invalid.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com