We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
The only reason IH would want to sell back the license is if they now know the ECat does not work. ECat-based products would be worth many billions, at least. They'd be a fool to sell this back for just millions. That's nothing.
Good morning, everyone, i was just wondering, if Dr.R would give us something on how the commercial units are coming along, have any been completed , and some info on how , who is building them, and how leonardo is coming on their , new robo factory. is it being refitted with new robots or they reprogramming old ones, and how is that going, their is bound to be lots of stuff, to be reported on that does not concern ip, or lawyersAnd, maybe a report on the quarkx cat 's on going R&D, and maybe if there is anything we here at E-CATWORLD, can do to help you sir, we stand ready,
Why is it so difficult for a small production can be manually collected.
What can the Quark X be used for? Are they designed to be linked together? What would be the footprint of a 1 MW Quark X assemblage?
1 MW Quark X assembly may be a small as 1 cubic metre. Possibly a little less. It will depend on other hardware requirement per the task it's used for.
Hi, Frank, now you have come under fire from the largest law firm in the country and the largest consulting firm in the world, just look at this posting below, and you can see what you're up against, they are trying their best to cover for this bunch of no goods, THIS WORLD IS IN A MESS , because of what this kind of scammy crony thieves, the VC of the U.S and others have done is well known. as much as we try to change the subject they always bring it back, to make sure it's cover up. after all we're just a bunch of rubes,right, well this rube stand with you Fank, you have been a fine owner, editor of this outstanding forum, where folks can come and read about real science,And not about a bunch of VC trying to screw everyone they can, this is how they operate taking advantage of average folks, so enough is enough, sounds like you need to ban a bunch of these scumbags, and maybe just maybe we can have a intelligent conversation without being reminded of this bunch.There are so many good things to be talking about, besides this crapola, this mess is over, i/h is out, and if they try and continue, they will go to jail, because the US is sick of this kind of thievery, that has taken this world to it's knees , this machine is coming to the world without I/H, believe it or not. if U.S. block's it , in which i doubt, sweden, and others will be in the lead, who,ra for Them that has the guts to stand up and fight for what is right, on this forum, i knew this forum would come under fire. now what are we going to do about it, will we let them do what they have done to most of the other forums, or have we got enough loyal,members to fight the good fight.And thanks to the ones below that are standing up.
"Frank Acland June 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM Dear Andrea,You tested the QuarkX with a potential partner and reported your results. What has been the response of the testing partner since the test has ended, and what is the consequence for Leonardo Corporation?Thank you, Frank Acland
Andrea Rossi June 26, 2016 at 2:08 AM Frank Acland:The QuarkX is very promising, the work is developing positively, the reaction of the Partner is positive.Warm Regards, A.R."
Very reassuring to hear "POSITIVELY" vs "positive or negative". We are well on our way following our cross country champion toward the finish line .
In general, if a contract calls for contractual requirement A, B, and C to be produced during a test and the systems integrator(IH) latter accuses the OEM(Rossi) that he has not meet one or more of those requirements, the Systems Integrator must have had to document that failure to meet the requirement during the test; i.e. requirement A was not meet. Each of the failed days with its date out of the 400 would need to be documented. If this daily document status is not prepared, it is assumed that the test was passed on that given day.
IH has not documented that the 50 out of 400 day requirement was not meet in detail. I have not seen that failure to meet the daily performance requirement properly documented which asserts that the requirement was not met as presented by IH in the evidence so far provided.
Rossi might have failed to meet the daily performance requirement, but IH has not show documented proof that Rossi has not met that performance requirement; at least that I have seen.
In general, contemporaneous written evidence is far more effective as proof than blanket verbal assertions after the fact,
You seem to not understand that during this part of the legal process IH is only responding to legal points. Once that is done and the Judge rules on which of Rossi's claims are valid to pursue, based only on law (not any evidence), will they move on the next phases where evidence can be provided.
The fact that IH has not provided any documents at this stage is expected.
Whether such documentation exists might come out when they get to the trial phase but there is no point in IH providing it now. The Judge is not interested in see it now.
IH did record each day. They paid the ERV, Penon to do that for them. They will have to claim Penon's report was flawed or faked. As far as I can see, IH is going to claim they haven't been given the IP as per contract to validate by building it. And they seemed to have to contradict themselves to make that claim. IH had no one outside the people we know who had the expertise to show lack of performance.
If evidence existed from IH, Rossi would have known at some point during the test that the performance requirements were not meet, There would have been documentation generated by IH dealing with 50 days or more of non performance during the test on the record.
You have no evidence one way or the other on this. You just think that should have happened and then since you don't see "evidence" you are assuming it did not.
Be patient and wait for the trial and all will be revealed. No need to make things up.
There is another speculation about why negative written evidence of reactor non functionality and associated problems with the test did not find its way into the ERV report. IH presented the ERV report to the Chinese and Woodford at a late stage as proof of value during the test to solicit investment.
It is possible that IH assumed they could just not pay Rossi at the end of the test and if problems arose with this strategy just go bankrupt.
Making things up? I agree with Axil. There is no way IH had a professional Documenting the lack of performance of the reactor without their own people (Fabiani & Penon) noticing the other measuring equipment. I mean do you think IH can make an accurate assessment with other peoples' equipment? This is why I think Axil is right.
You seem to forget that during the 1 MW test Rossi always said it may or may not be working. His "F9" disclaimer. So if anyone was to have direct knowledge of all this daily data being collected it was Rossi and even he was not sure.
Again there is no need for all this speculation. Just wait for the trial. You seem to want to prejudge based on the limited data available (mostly from Rossi).
It could go either way. But until all the facts come out it is pointless to try to fabricate what you think happened and use that to justifies one side or the other as being at fault.
By tomorrow we should have IH's response to the latest legal filings so we can move on to speculating about what it all means.
Rossi's "F9" disclaimer was a proper position to take until receiving the Final "ERV" report. That does not say anything to what Rossi's personal opinion was.
Non-sense, he could have easily said something like "it looks good so far" but he never did. He always gave the impression he was unsure of the results which is strange given his access to the daily data.
We are not averaging the output here where he could make up for a few low output months with a few above average months. If that were the case then yes it would never really know if he could make up for the low output. But the output was to be near constant during this year long test with the exception of the 50 grace days of no output at all. So he should certainly know if things were going as planned on any given day.
A statement of "it looks good so far" is valid if he has not used up the 50 grace days. As he gets closer to using up the 50 days then things would not look so good but that is not the case here by the early end to the test before all 50 days were needed.
Rossi is not the one writing the report so he can say anything he wants. He is not prevented from giving his view of the test.
Turbo, if you go back and look at some of Rossi's comments during the test you will find that he was quite positive about it on a number of occasions.
Just some examples:
Mar 29, 2015: "The E-Cat this week has been good, with very, very extended ssm periods. I prefer to give data regarding the COP after the end of the test.From inside the plant,"
April 9, 2015: "The Lady E-Cat 1MW is stable and the COP is very high, because we are mostly in ssm mode. I am writing from inside the computers container."
Sep 18, 2015: On the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Rossi was asked that if the test were to end today, would he consider the results positive or negative. His response was: “Positive with the potential risk to become negative.”
From this thread: http://www.e-catworld.com/2...
IH response to the court is now available. Who has access to it?
REPLY to Response to Motion re17 MOTION TO DISMISS1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, Thomas Darden, IPH International B.V., Industrial Heat, LLC, John T. Vaughn. Attorney Christopher Martin Lomax added to party John T. Vaughn(pty:dft).
what a load, Dr.R never said any such thing,that it may or not be working, you have no idea what f9 is do you, and oh i'm sure Dr. R has his data just like the other ERV, that was tasked to record that data, and it all matches, except I/H, which was completely contrary to the other two. no they are over. byb byb.
Exatly, in fact most days (when asked) he said they were working well.
Hey, the downote machines coming out of the woodwork!
That is right. Rossi has said. And an oath is backing him up. Speculation is great. If right, you get to say I told you so. Sure he could lose, but from what we do know, he won't. That is IH's fault. I mean, if we use your criteria, we should not even have this site. Because it is all non verified. Nothing is verified anymore. You can't even get the facts from the AP anymore. You know how many reports they made that people relied on that turned out to be factually incorrect? I realize you have a right to your opinion, but we do have a freedom of speech, albeit limited. In the mean time I will speculate with the facts or propaganda I do have to form opinions. And my opinion of IH is about as low as you can get. I will continue to support Rossi until the end of this whole saga. If you don't like it, I am sorry. Start your own site with only facts. It will be empty, because do we really know anything?
Well said, my feelings exactly, except maybe I a reserve some judgment on IH, but based on what they have so far shown I would agree even with that; they have some serious convincing to do at this point, more than Rossi does.
Frank. Sorry for long post, but I suggest you to add some kind of disclaimer update above on your post. Unless something else have happened between IH and Mr Rossi, all started from few series of hypotethical questions made by me to Mr Dewey Weaver and Mr Rossi in public forums. There I with my own right interpreted that answering series of my certain way formed questions, at least neither party did not fully deny chance to solve the dispute by delicate dialogue. So they promised nor hinted nothing, they just did not right away deny possibility. (for example 'to end war, it takes two' or something) So there never was any real connection between the two (afaik), but then I dared to make plea to both parties. What happened, Mr Rossi censored my last question and plea slightly for the reasons I somewhat understood then. But, for some reason I don't know., after a while added statement you refer above. Either something else happened or he become suspicious or simply wanted to make message more clear to everybody by this new statement.All my questions had been public and purely hypothalamically asked from both individuals using this same nick (Argon).. So there is no way you can say that IH would have done offer of any kind (as long there have not been any other communication beyond my questions).
Since things turned this wrong, and I feel played also, I'm not looking that kind of moral too lightly.-I for the first have posted to Mr Rossi in JONP, that I will vanish from his JONP until something tangible (from Quark-X or Court case) is shown.
- Secondly. This is your site and I respect that, but I ask you to be honest author who does not want to mislead readers and put up disclaimer update of possible misunderstanding or misinterpretation into this news posting above (and preferably close unnecessary discussion totally in this thread if possible). - Thirdly If we start drawing that straight conclusions in so delegate matters, it would be worth of separate thread about the fact that if Mr Rossi interpreted that hypothetical question would have been offer from IH, why didn't he indicate to accept the my plea to consider, since that was about same buyback offer what he had asked earlier from IH (read latest interview by Mats Levan where Mr Rossi claimed offering buyback but IH had refused. I see contradiction here.)
I have been maybe Rossi sympathizing observer before, but now want to declare myself 'wait and see observer' without taking stand on any of the sides,
In a hope for end this insanity,Argon
That sounds, real cosy, but they didn't try and steal your life's work, did they, It would be a whole different story then, you have nothing to lose , this is not the first time, someone wanted to take what was his, hang in there Dr, Rossi, your day in the sun is coming, and it will be glorious.
Thank You for such an honest and humble statement! You display great integrity by making such a clarification, and attempting to restore sanity and reason to this forum.
I am, myself, a nobody - but the type of nobody that is, sadly, often driven to childishness when responding to overtly hostile nonsense being endlessly repeated. Then, of course, my comments foment further nonsense, and the cycle continues. I am not alone in this regard, but I am honest about my failing and take due ownership of it. It is vital to our collective sanity to have someone demonstrate a more "Adult" attitude now and then. It keeps the rest of us on focus.
So, again, my personal Thanks, and much Respect...
As with many other posts on this site, I have reported on something that Rossi says. I hope readers are able to see that this does not necessarily mean endorsement of what he says. Readers must decide for themselves, and your 'wait and see' approach is very understandable.
Frank,Argon has a point. I appreciate your dedication to what you believe in. But you are ALWAYS so reverential to Rossi-says. When Rossi said that the Quark can generate heat, electricity and light at the same time, I would have preferred a little editorial raised-eyebrow from you..It is your responsibility to steer your flock to reality. We knew the game is over when a Republican Senator stood up on the floor of the Senate to speak against Nixon and when a Democratic Senator did the same for Clinton.
Hi Andy, who wrote:"When Rossi said that the Quark can generate heat, electricity and light at the same time, I would have preferred a little editorial raised-eyebrow from you."
If the QuarkX reactor's prime energy output is photons, which can be either thermalised to produce heat or to produce electricity, where is the issue?
A device that produces heat, light and electricity simultaneously isn't so amazing. I can do this myself.
The question should be about energy in verses energy out or COP>1... That I can't do.
Not to correct you or argue, but Argon was not requesting that Frank should post a disclaimer because Frank was misleading anyone, but rather he was clarifying that statements made by Him (Argon), in good faith, had been taken out of context - as deduction or speculation - and blown out of proportion.
He was acknowledging the long debates over the issue, and recognized that many had interpreted his remarks as statements that certain events had happened, when that was never what he intended.
He was suggesting Frank post a disclaimer informing the readers AT HIS OWN HONEST REQUEST in order to protect Frank from appearing to be perpetuating a myth.
Argon made no slight against Frank, nor did he question Franks integrity.
Whether you agree or disagree with Argon's take on things, he deserves a firm slap on the back and a collective "at-a-boy" from all of us for his action.
And Frank does not, as far as I can see, attempt to "steer" or "control" the conversations. He presents a topic, provides background, then moderates the comments simply to ensure that individuals like myself and others do not get too out of control and crap in the pool, so that everyone else is free to enjoy the swim. He does a damn fine job, so you do not need to give him further instruction or advice. He's got this...
Chapman,You are new to these parts .. or a new avatar of an old regular? I was just making a general point and making my wish known - that Frank will stop being so reverential of Rossi-says ALL the time. For Pete's sake, even Mother Teresa did not command that kind of reverence..It seems the end is near. So many of the faithful are beginning to voice their doubts.
Hi Andy who wrote:"It seems the end is near. So many of the faithful are beginning to voice their doubts."
Pardon? On ECW? I think not.
Andy,how about a disclaimer as to why you continue to violate your own edict promising to never comment here again? YOu lead your flock to the abyss calling itself "science."
Frank is as smooth as this Frank.
I will admit that both Franks are smooth operators. This Sinatra song is one of my favorites.
On a lighter note..., You heard of six degrees of freedom. Couple of years ago, I bought a car from an old guy. When we were waiting for the paper work, he showed us his family album. He used to have a band in his younger years, and showed us the band's picture with Sinatra.
Should be "six degrees of separation."
Yea, we are lucky if we have two degrees of freedom left. :)
no they are not, that's all in your head, you it seems are the only one that is voicing a doubt,
Excuse me, but this is a seemingly ridiculous analogy to proclaim "reverence" to Rossi. I doubt that many others in this forum have perceived such an attitude. Acland lays out facts. Adults make their own determinations (logical and without accusation it, is hoped).
When we can purchase an Ecat that works as Rossi states, then we can all consider them facts, until then, Frank is repeating suppositions, internet rumors and "Rossi says", this is an Internet blog after all, he has subscribers/advertisers.Hopefully in 2016 we will see a fact, but as usual, I ain't holding my breadth.
I think that final sentence may be more wishful thinking on your part Andy, than any change in sentiment as one denouement at least approaches.
There aren't all that many stereotypical 'faithful' here, just people who have come to a judgment that LENR is real and in development, based on the incomplete and in many cases anecdotal evidence available.
Quite a few commenters have expressed some doubts about the story-line at various times, and often still hold reservations to one degree or another. The critical faculty is in general at least, alive and well I think.
Don't understand. Ma nessuno vuole sta invenzione? Ma funziona o no, qualcuno l'ha capito?
Nessuno lo sa. Forse Rossi.
The IH contract states that the E-Cat must produce a COP equal to or greater than 4 for 350 non sequential days out of a testing period of 400 days. Rossi must therefore meet performance specs on a day by day basis.
This contractual condition begs for a daily reconciliation of each days performance results between Rossi, the ERV and IH. If IH does not agree with the ERV on a day by day basis, IH should have registered a complaint to the ERV in writing that the E-Cat performance spec was not met for that given day.
I am not aware of any daily reconciliation performed between the ERV, Rossi, and IH. Yet the performance spec was verified to be meet for a period of 352 nonsensical days without one exception or protest being registered by IH to the ERV.
This seems illogical to me. How can IH reject the accumulated daily performance results of 352 days without protesting any of those individual daily performance results while the test was being run?
There was a cooperation clause in the licence agreement. It states that Rossi and IH will both do their best to work together to overcome any problems encountered in the 400 day test.
I seems to me, that the lack of feedback from IH about the performance problems that the E-Cat may have perceived by IH requires that IH provide at least a daily rejection of the day's performance results. This lack of feedback from IH to Rossi on E-Cat performance problems is a violation of the cooperation clause as stated in the license agreement.
Given that during the 1 MW test Rossi never said something like "it looks good so far" that would seem to indicate successful operation was always in doubt. Strange as that might seem to an outsider.