Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blunderingwith.Seebelow.

2017-02-06 Thread Jed Rothwell 
Brian Ahern  wrote:

> What did IH expect for $11M?
>
> They expected a demonstration of excess energy production.
>
> Penon will not agree to answer any questions about the (HIS) final ERV
> report. Is that too much to ask?
>
Not too much, and not answering is a violation of the contract. The
contract says that for $11 million, Rossi, Penon and the others will
transfer all intellectual property and know-how to I.H. That would include
answering all technical questions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blunderingwith.Seebelow.

2017-02-06 Thread Brian Ahern 
What did IH expect for $11M?


They expected a demonstration of excess energy production.


Penon will not agree to answer any questions about the (HIS) final ERV report. 
Is that too much to ask?



From: Peter Gluck 
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 11:32 AM
To: VORTEX
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blunderingwith.Seebelow.

dear Bob,

I want publish this as an OPINION PAPER..
OK?
best wishes,
Peter

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:53 AM, 
> wrote:
Eric—

I have reviewed the entire Agreement and Amendments between Rossi etal. and IH 
etal.

The definition of E-Cat IP at paragraph 16.1 and the listing of E-Cat IP in the 
Exhibit A make it clear that IP does not include intangibles.  Only documents, 
records and other forms of documented data and information are included.  And 
training agreed to be provided by Rossi relates to the IP and procedures listed 
in Exhibit A.

I see nothing in the Agreement and Amendments that would require Rossi somehow 
to inform IH of the art associated with the plant operation.   As I noted in my 
earlier comment, I think this was a major mistake and omission from the 
standpoint of IH and/or their technical and legal advisors at the time of the 
agreement.

If I were IH, The agreement would have required a lengthy training period for 
my operators and maintenance crew on a smaller prototype reactor that would be 
produced for sale.   Operation and maintenance procedures would have to be 
validated as satisfactory per rigorous testing at the end of the training.   
This training would parallel the reliability testing for the 350 days specified 
in the agreement.

The scope of what would constitute “related E-Cat IP”, a term used in the 
agreement, is so vague as to be meaningless IMHO.  This is particularly true 
since the theory/science of the E-Cat are not accepted.  How could the idea of 
a related technology have any common understanding within the context of the 
agreement.   Thus, I found nothing that could obligate Rossi to give IH cart 
blanc information on any invention he developed after initiation of the 
Agreement.

Bob Cook








From: Eric Walker
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blunderingwith.Seebelow.

Hi Bob,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM, 
> wrote:

Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future inventions 
and related IP to IH.

These obligations were spelled out in the original License Agreement and its 
amendments, i.e., docs. 1-2 through 1-4.  I recommend reviewing these when you 
have a moment (here titled 001-02, 001-03 and 001-04):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

I think the Second Amendment is in dispute.  But most of the details are in the 
License Agreement, doc. 1-2.

Eric





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

Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blunderingwith.Seebelow.

2017-02-06 Thread Peter Gluck 
dear Bob,

I want publish this as an OPINION PAPER..
OK?
best wishes,
Peter

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:53 AM,  wrote:

> Eric—
>
>
>
> I have reviewed the entire Agreement and Amendments between Rossi etal.
> and IH etal.
>
>
>
> The definition of E-Cat IP at paragraph 16.1 and the listing of E-Cat IP
> in the Exhibit A make it clear that IP does not include intangibles.  Only
> documents, records and other forms of documented data and information are
> included.  And training agreed to be provided by Rossi relates to the IP
> and procedures listed in Exhibit A.
>
>
>
> I see nothing in the Agreement and Amendments that would require Rossi
> somehow to inform IH of the art associated with the plant operation.   As I
> noted in my earlier comment, I think this was a major mistake and omission
> from the standpoint of IH and/or their technical and legal advisors at the
> time of the agreement.
>
>
>
> If I were IH, The agreement would have required a lengthy training period
> for my operators and maintenance crew on a smaller prototype reactor that
> would be produced for sale.   Operation and maintenance procedures would
> have to be validated as satisfactory per rigorous testing at the end of the
> training.   This training would parallel the reliability testing for the
> 350 days specified in the agreement.
>
>
>
> The scope of what would constitute “related E-Cat IP”, a term used in the
> agreement, is so vague as to be meaningless IMHO.  This is particularly
> true since the theory/science of the E-Cat are not accepted.  How could the
> idea of a related technology have any common understanding within the
> context of the agreement.   Thus, I found nothing that could obligate Rossi
> to give IH cart blanc information on any invention he developed after
> initiation of the Agreement.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Eric Walker 
> *Sent: *Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:37 PM
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data.
> Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is
> blunderingwith.Seebelow.
>
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM,  wrote:
>
>
>
> Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future
> inventions and related IP to IH.
>
>
>
> These obligations were spelled out in the original License Agreement and
> its amendments, i.e., docs. 1-2 through 1-4.  I recommend reviewing these
> when you have a moment (here titled 001-02, 001-03 and 001-04):
>
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk
>
>
>
> I think the Second Amendment is in dispute.  But most of the details are
> in the License Agreement, doc. 1-2.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>



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

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blunderingwith.Seebelow.

2017-02-05 Thread bobcook39923 
Eric—

I have reviewed the entire Agreement and Amendments between Rossi etal. and IH 
etal.

The definition of E-Cat IP at paragraph 16.1 and the listing of E-Cat IP in the 
Exhibit A make it clear that IP does not include intangibles.  Only documents, 
records and other forms of documented data and information are included.  And 
training agreed to be provided by Rossi relates to the IP and procedures listed 
in Exhibit A.  

I see nothing in the Agreement and Amendments that would require Rossi somehow 
to inform IH of the art associated with the plant operation.   As I noted in my 
earlier comment, I think this was a major mistake and omission from the 
standpoint of IH and/or their technical and legal advisors at the time of the 
agreement.  

If I were IH, The agreement would have required a lengthy training period for 
my operators and maintenance crew on a smaller prototype reactor that would be 
produced for sale.   Operation and maintenance procedures would have to be 
validated as satisfactory per rigorous testing at the end of the training.   
This training would parallel the reliability testing for the 350 days specified 
in the agreement.

The scope of what would constitute “related E-Cat IP”, a term used in the 
agreement, is so vague as to be meaningless IMHO.  This is particularly true 
since the theory/science of the E-Cat are not accepted.  How could the idea of 
a related technology have any common understanding within the context of the 
agreement.   Thus, I found nothing that could obligate Rossi to give IH cart 
blanc information on any invention he developed after initiation of the 
Agreement.   

Bob Cook 








From: Eric Walker
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. 
Itisveryexciting and he may have something real that he is 
blunderingwith.Seebelow.

Hi Bob,

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 PM,  wrote:

Nowhere that I know of was Rossi obligated to transfer his future inventions 
and related IP to IH. 

These obligations were spelled out in the original License Agreement and its 
amendments, i.e., docs. 1-2 through 1-4.  I recommend reviewing these when you 
have a moment (here titled 001-02, 001-03 and 001-04):

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

I think the Second Amendment is in dispute.  But most of the details are in the 
License Agreement, doc. 1-2.

Eric