Higgins— Consistent with my previous comments regarding the IH/Rossi contract, and with respect to Jed’s recent comment: ”You have to be a PHOSITA to replicate. Who that would be and what they have to know is often disputed. It is possible the I.H. people are not PHOSITA enough….”, I consider Rossi is within his rights to protect his state of the art knowledge regarding the production of high COP’s from his patented invention.
I do not consider that the contractual sale of IP by Rossi included training IH in his POHOSITA to obtain long term performance of the E-Cat above a COP of 4. At one point in my engineering career I worked with an International Nickel Corp invented alloy called Ni-Cr-Fe Alloy 600. It is like a stainless steel corrosion resistant alloy, but with superior caustic corrosion resistance. Several specialty metals manufactures produced the alloy, I believe under license to use the applicable patent. Material specs used to purchase the alloy 600 products were very specific and detailed. However, all heats of materials produced by the various vendors did not perform as well as others when subjected to stress corrosion cracking testing on the specifics heat of material purchased. However the International Nickel heats procured to the detailed specifications typically performed well under the stress corrosion testing. Our laboratory worked over three years to finally understand why certain heats performed better than others. International Nickel Corporation did not help us discover the understanding. It turned that International Nickel’s PHOSITA in production of the alloy 600 material was apparently important in achieving the superior stress corrosion performance. It involved the addition of Nb at very small levels (a few ppm’s) to each heat. Nb was not specified in the detailed material specs and not apparently identified in the patent for the alloy. It was generally known that stress corrosion was some how related to impurities at the grain boundaries of the alloy 600 material. However, measuring Nb at the ppm level was not so easy, but our laboratory finally reverse-engineered the good heats and subsequently we changed the specs to require Nb at the necessary level. The Nb acted to scavenge O at the grain boundaries to prevent stress corrosion cracking. As far as I know there was no legal action against International Nickel Corp for hiding the details associated with the introduction of Nb to their heats of material, even thought it cost millions of dollars. It was recognized as a valid trade secret, I believe. I find Rossi’s protection of his trade secrets quite natural in this day and age. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Changing the topic back to the test Jed, You are backing yourself into an extremist position with your latest comments. I don't believe that you or anyone else has enough data to prove that there was 0 excess heat in Rossi's attempt at a contrived "GPT". XH in this long experiment may not be close to what Rossi claims, but that is not the same as 0 XH. I believe at least Parkhmomov, Jiang, and Zhanghang have demonstrated that there is evidence of XH in the inferred Lugano fuel system. In fact, MFMP's Dogbone replication suggests that there was XH in the Lugano experiment - just not nearly as much as claimed by the Lugano experimenters (JofCMNS v21). Since this fuel system and experiment design came from Rossi, it lends credence to the claim that Rossi does have some working technology. IH is duly indignant about the loss of $11M so far because Rossi has not taught them the high power, high COP technology he claims he has. Despite all the rhetoric, I don't believe that even IH believes that Rossi has nothing - only that he has not given them anything of significance compared to what he claims. There was even IH testimony in this case that there may have been some small XH measured in some of Rossi's replications at IH. It appears that the Lugano technology that Rossi gave to IH was "throwing them a bone". It is a low power, high temperature technology. I personally believe this works or I would not be actively developing test systems for it. I have seen Piantelli's lab, read his papers, and listened to him speak. I believe he has working Ni-H technology. If Piantelli has it, and Focardi said that Rossi had it (and I respect both of them), then it is likely Rossi has something. Regarding patents... the present patent is nearly worthless in the scheme of things by itself. It is nearly impossible to write a single broad patent when you don't understand how the technology works. No matter what, you need a whole portfolio of patents to provide useful protection - protecting both the core and all of the non-LENR peripherals around it. IH could have helped Rossi develop that portfolio, but Rossi's short-sighted greed has cost him an important partner. Maybe Rossi's stuff is not ready for product (which is not the same as having nothing). Rossi himself appears (but I have never met the man) not behaviorally mature enough to bring whatever technology he has to product, even with the best possible partner. He is destroying his own technology by his own bad behaviors. In the end, whatever he has will leak out and he will end up with nothing the way things are going. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, including you. I think you are digging yourself into a deep hole with extreme statements which I believe are not support-able, even with evidence to which most of us are not privy. Those people that are lined up so staunchly behind Rossi seem equally guilty of an extreme position. Where is the scientific moderation? On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: Rossi's IP is protected by a patent so he is covered. A patent that does not work and cannot be replicated is not valid. It is worthless. He is not protected against anything. In the highly unlikely scenario that he actually has a positive result, he will lose all IP rights to it because he did not describe it in the patent well enough for a PHOSITA to replicate. It is worthwhile to verify that that patent is valid. This has been done. I.H. spent large sums of money and worked with experts. They determined that the patent is not valid. No one else has been able to replicate. There is not a single valid example of excess heat from this experiment. All of the results reported so far, by Parkhomov and others, have been mistakes. So, as far as anyone can tell, it does not work. That is regrettable but that's reality. - Jed
