Rossi is pissed because his IP was given to competitors. Andrea Rossi April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM <http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=89#comment-1169773>
Hank Mills: They prepared everything, the charges, the body of the reactor EVERYTHING !!!. I just teached to them what to do. They never used anything pre-prepared by Leonardo Corp. Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote about 100 pages of notes about their patents ). And now the singular coincidence: they make the agreement with IH in April 2015, and Voilà, they made a public demo in Capitol Hill ( Washington, DC) with a device that is the Copy-Cat of something I am familiar with. Nothing that Brillouin has ever made before the agreement with IH. What a coincidence !!! Warm Regards, A.R. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nothing to disagree with there. I think there is something fishy going > on, like the MW reactor supplying heat 24/7, but Rossi is choosing to pick > the best 8 hours of the day to calculate his reactor's performance. With > that kind of thinking (and I am just speculating), a set of rechargeable > batteries could show a COP > 6. So, we need to see the real data and how > the average was calculated. > > To me it seems like deja-vu all over again. Didn't Defkalion claim that > they didn't pay Rossi because he couldn't make the reactor work reliably? > I don't think Rossi argued that point, he just dissolved the contract. > Could that be the problem here too? (Failing to meet the contract terms for > reactor reliability.) > > I also think Rossi only gave IH technical "crumbs" and never gave IH the > key to making the bread and butter eCat work. > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> *From:* Bob Higgins >> >> Don't get me wrong, Tom Clarke did good forensic research and wrote a >> good paper. In Clarke's comment about the translucency, he states: >> >> "This error is impossible to quantify because it depends on the heater >> wire emissivity, temperature, and surface coverage, all of which are >> unknown." >> >> I agree, it is impossible to quantify - sufficient data from the >> experiment was not reported. >> >> Bob, >> >> First, here is Clarke’s take on the first Penon report and it isn’t >> pretty: >> >> >> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2989-The-August-2012-Penon-Hot-Cat-report/?postID=16547#post16547 >> >> As for Lugano, because of the “impossible to quantify” problem - this is >> clearly not admissible in court. You can see one of many reason why a >> jury will never hear about a test like Lugano, never hear about >> imaginary COP of 60 and not hear about the year-long testing either – >> due to evidentiary rules and the fact that Penon is completely >> unqualified. >> >> Then, we have the problem of anomalous gain, which would violate the >> “known laws of physics.” I hate that as much as you do, but that is the >> way the legal system works. Few if any experts can get qualified by a >> Court who will testify that it can work – much less that it did work. They >> might have to fly McKubre in from NZ. J >> >> In short, Rossi has almost no chance to win a jury trial even if his >> sordid background and criminal history cannot be introduced, in order to >> prove a continuing pattern of fraud. A trial is looking like a no-win >> situation for Rossi, especially up against squeaky clean All-American >> types who clean up the environment, instead of pollute it. >> >> >
