Industrial Heat Amends E-Cat Patent (May 5, 2016)

On the Italian Cobraf.com website, user Nevanlinna has found documentation on the US Patent and Trademark Office which shows an amendment to the patent for Devices and Methods for Heat Generation which was originally filed by Industrial Heat as a WIPO patent on November 6, 2014, with Andrea Rossi listed as the inventor — See here: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014179183&recNum=81&docAn=US2014035588&queryString=solar&maxRec=55412

This patent also has a USPTO application dated November 6, 2014, with Andrea Rossi as the Inventor, Industrial Heat as the Applicant, and Leonardo Corp. as the Assignee — see: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20140326711.PGNR.

Also, there is a Chinese version of the patent — see here: http://www.google.com/patents/CN105492839A

The original patent application had 33 claims, but this new amendment, made on May 5, 2016 (which is after Rossi filed his lawsuit against them), cancels all those claims because of dependency errors in them, and replaces them with new corrected claims.

The document can be seen here: http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123624373_3.pdf

So really there is no new technical information in the patent, just some corrections, but it does show that Industrial Heat is continuing to maintain its IP claims in connection with Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, even though they have said they can’t substantiate Rossi’s claims about the invention. It would seem from this that IH does still see value in the E-Cat.

  • LCD

    Don’t know about all that. Let’s wait and see what’s the dust settles before demonizing Darden without any priors.

    I mean if anybody gets the benefit of doubt it has to be IH. Just as you and I have given it to rossi for his past transgressions.

  • greggoble

    Didn’t happen in 2012… most likely will in 2016. IH must consider how the Sept 22 briefing will affect the dispute. Replication continues to quicken full disclosure. Thanks for the patent update… I expect many more, and more complete, patents have been filed that we have yet to see. I continue to have a hunch that IH feels they have enough to capture part of this energy market and no longer need Rossi anymore. Also, the patent history of cold fusion goes back decades, it seems that every LENR patent has parts of other LENR patents in it (even Rossi) Making the device and entering the market… IP might be not be needed.

    Re-reading this old article… interesting from my perspective today.

    Have fun!

    PRESIDENT OBAMA COLD FUSION/LENR: IS AN OCTOBER SURPRISE IMMANENT, EMINENT, AND IMMINENT? PART 3 POLITICS – SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 http://coldfusionnow.org/president-obama-cold-fusionlenr-is-an-october-surprise-immanent-eminent-and-imminent-part-3-politics/

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    IH simply broke the contract by working with Rossi competitors, in IH labs, to reveal his IP, then trying to patent Rossi IP. This was a “license agreement” not a sales agreement. The intent of the agreement is clear it is to give IH a license for a defined part of the world to manufacture and distribute Rossi IP. It does not give IH the right to reveal Rossi IP or to create and patent their own IP based on Rossi IP so they could then manufacture and distribute throughout the whole world. This is a simple corporate hijacking that has become common practice in the IP, patent world. Our government simply has not caught up by making new laws or maybe not wanting to stop the stealing because of lobbying.

  • Rene

    The claims are interesting. 1-12 are design claims that specifically excluded preloaded hydrogen. That’s probably to stay away from previous gaseous hydrogen applications.

    Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
    Claim 15 limits the scope to fuels producing more than 10Kwh per kg of fuel. 10KWH is 36Megajoules. Now that looks like a lot but it isn’t. Propane generates 46MJ/kg. Animal and vegetable fat produces 37MJ/kg, so this patent is not particularly useful but there are a lot of devices that generate this amount of heat using steel and ceramics with only a trace of hydrogen. I think this claim would fall as prior art.

    Claim 19 is self referential, hence invalid, probably a typo which needs reissue to fix it, likely refers to claim 13 and not itself.

    Claims 13-20 are method claims locking in the specifics of how to initiate ‘the reaction’, notably the on/off cycling. Note there are no claims of AC vs DC or any RF or specific waveforms, so those claims are trying to be broad. Also note again the disclaimer: ‘not preloaded with a pressurized gas’.

    Patent infringement requires that all of the claims must be infringed, so looking further, I see that claims 21-33 describe the system, and though claim 21 is very broad in encompassing a generic controller that monitors the temperature of the reaction and uses that as feedback to turn on/off the heating elements, the rest of the claims pretty much limit this patent to exactly one thing: Rossi’s e-cat, right down to the exact physical configuration of the resistor heating elements.

    Were this patent granted, it would mean no one could make a reactor of specifically that design. That’s about it. This looks like a patent designed to be rejected. The more I read this patent, the more I see it as a ploy to simply not pay Rossi his 89 million dollars. It’s worth spending about $10,000 to $30,000 to get out of an $89 million contract.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Selling no, stealing yes.

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    I ate well yesterday : )

    I have not yet received my factory visit invitation : (

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    Hi bachcole.

    Please don’t get me wrong. I’m a LENR supporter. Not a pathoskeptic.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    There is one fact that is indisputable. Darden and IH have creating nothing, they are trying to make a profit on LENR without creating anything, they are simply money managers and opportunists.

  • Ged

    IH made Lugano and the 1MW plant and the 11 COP reactor (a patent without Rossi’s knowledge or signiture, as it is even more possible to do that under the AIA; so that data was from IH). So what is not “substantiated” (IH says nothing about “methods”, and their 11 COP patent says otherwise)? Seriously, do you or anyone have hard facts, from IH? At the moment we just have supposition alone. In fact, Dewey and Jed would not agree with you, so even those taking a favored IH stance are split and fractured as to what IH means. Why? Cause none of us have facts and only vague statements from IH. The facts we do have so far do not agree with your view, nor Dewey or Jed’s. They don’t agree with anything rational from our view.

  • Pweet

    At above, I will address just one point because all the rest is dependent on point of view and I accept mine is just one of them.
    However, on this point, where I stated;-
    “I don’t see anything in the patent application which suggests the heating action is by way of a LENR.”
    and you then ask;-
    “what is heat source in the patent then? Nothing?”

    The whole point is, a patent only protects what is written in the patent, and in this case, the only source of heat mentioned is the electrical heater, so that’s what will be protected by the patent, if it is granted. Anything else, be it LENR or witchcraft, will not be covered.
    It’s a pretty simple requirement of a patent application; the novel technology which is required to be protected must be specifically mentioned and included in a claim specific to the new technology.
    So, again I say, I don’t see anything in the patent mentioning LENR.
    Does anyone else?
    If not, then a patent application is still open to anyone else who can show a workable and repeatable LENR and describe it in a specific claim to the extent that someone else can reproduce the device with the information given in the patent. So far, nobody has. The crew at MFMP are proof of this. Using the information available from patents and other sources, they have not been able to ‘substantiate’ (to use a current expression) the claims in any of the patents, apart from the energy produced by the electrical heater.

  • cashmemorz

    Where you use “validated” and have this term translated as “substantiated” as per IH statement then the whole scenario, as Bernie K above draws it, fits what IH is actually (most probably) attempting to do.

  • magicsnd1

    This patent application, if it refers to the Lugano test(s), has some
    startling differences from the report by Levi et.al. Specifically, in
    para. 00063 of the Description section, the calculation of power makes several conservative assumptions, starting with setting the emissivity to 1.
    It further explains that the Optris thermal image data was taken from
    the bottom of the reactor, its coolest side. Other adjustments are also
    made, such as the exclusion of any conducted heat through the end caps
    where obscured by the support frame.

    With these worst-case adjustments, the calculated COP is 5.6 ! Is this
    calculation in line with the original patent app. (pre-revision)? Please
    correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to be new data, answering the
    objections MFMP and others raised regarding the Lugano report.

    • Ged

      This is a very, very important observation. Thank you for spotting that and bringing it to our attention. Bears explanation.

    • Obvious

      This is not the Lugano device.

      [00047] Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities for the 96-hour and

      116-hour experiments were found to be far above those of any known chemical source

      • Omega Z

        That was the test done between December 2012, Jan 2013 that led to the Lugano test being performed.

        In one of those tests, the reactor was painted with special black body paint and a test dot was used to check it.

        • Obvious

          Yep. Levi et al 2013 covers the works.

          There were lots of dots on the second batch of tests, but none on the first (possibly no thermocouple either), but all seem to have been painted black.

  • kdk

    They’re just BS artists, and somebody somewhere is leaning on them… all the best people call in APCO, don’t cha know?

    • Turbo3

      Have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you please try again.

      • kdk

        I’m saying that anything coming from the APCO shills or IH is almost certainly just noise from an open mouth with nothing real behind it.

        APCO have a long history of running PR for the worst of the worst in the power circles of the world hiding their crimes or dressing up their misdeeds. That IH chose them is telling. It is either that or they did have good intentions but now people with lots of money and power are pressuring them to delay while they make retreats with lots and lots of money in bad investments. If they were paying attention (and they most certainly were), they would know these changes were coming anyway. People are trying to scrape whatever money they can from every last drop of oil they can sell.

      • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

        Hi all

        to understand some of the things APCO worldwide have done I suggest you start here.

        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/APCO_Worldwide

        As you can see some of the things they are involved in highly questionable and as has been noted elsewhere methods they have been none to use have turned up recently in various LENR circles.

        Kind Regards walker

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          note that you should be careful on Sourcewatch, like on any wiki or journal. It is maintained and censored by activists who have an agenda.

          Sourcewtach on Apco is not much more honest than wikipedia on e-cat… some facts are true, but some are missing, and that is not an accident.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I guess I am just too old, I cannot get over how the world’s public is starting to accept corporate greed and stealing as the norm. Darden and IH have created NOTHING, they are simply trying to high jack, steal, Rossi IP.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    An American thing:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

    Kind Regards walker

  • psi2u2

    Ya, especially the update from Mats.

  • Steve Savage

    Rossi Wins Indy 500 … I think this is a very good omen!

    • clovis ray

      wonder if they are kinfolks,

  • Gerard McEk

    For a simple engineer this is totally strange. Why would IH update something they do not believe in. Because I am a no-no in legal affairs, I assume this comes from the legal spinners of APCO. It must improve IH’s chances of success, but how?

  • clovis ray

    Hi, Guy,
    It did slow him some, but they are brought to a halt, are they not, if they try and manufacture the e-cat, THERE WILL BE TROUBLE.

  • SD

    Patents have value. IH still believes in LENR. There’s no reason for them to drop this patent application at this point.

    • Ged

      Put more specifically to this case’s particulars: Rossi is the inventor listed on the patent, so IH is standing behind Rossi’s LENR and value in Rossi so far with this post-“can’t substantiate” patent modification.

      • SD

        It probably gives them leverage to negotiate with Rossi, or it’s a good way to hedge depending on how things go from there.

    • Michael W Wolf

      No, IR still believes in Rossi. He is the inventor named.

  • Dr. Mike

    This modified patent application is still similar to Rossi’s early patent applications that did not begin to disclose the real invention. There is no way the Patent Office is ever going to issue a patent to an application claiming the fuel is to contain a “trace amount of hydrogen”. (A valid disclosure would provide a range for the amount of hydrogen needed relative to the amount of Ni.) Without more information no one can figure out why IH is keeping this “placeholder” patent application up to date with modifications to the claims as even these modified claims do not begin to provide full disclosure of a useful patent. If this modified patent application represents the amount of IP that Rossi has transferred to IH, one would conclude that Rossi has failed to transfer his IP to IH. Perhaps IH is withholding its $89M payment to Rossi because it feels Rossi has not fully transferred IP as required by their contract?

    • NT

      You may have nailed IH’s basic court defense strategy…

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, Rossi did not reveal all of his IP, and with good reason. IH planed to hijack Rossi’s complete World IP by associating themselves with other LENR firms as a cover to say the IP is their own and applying for their own patents. Rossi caught them with their fingers in the cookie jar.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    I still think this is about the October Surprise.

    Kind Regards walker

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100002656573372/ Ian Walker

    Hi all

    As I often point out: Look at what they do, not what they say.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Ged

    Patents are based on data. If that data is true from IH’s devices as put in the patent, then they lied with the “can’t substantiate” (though it is true that they don’t specify what claims of Rossi’s they are speaking of, so it may not be a lie based on what we currently are assuming they are talking about) in their PR. If they lied in the patent and the data is false yet they didn’t amend that, which means at this point they are -knowingly- lying on a patent under oath, they are vulnerable to legal action from the US including fines or imprissonment up to five years or both as posted by the USPTO with 18 U.S.C. 1001.

  • LookMoo

    If you read the history of these guys (Darden have bunch of guys around him) they are basically “money flippers”. Usually they go after Government projects and make a sure to write a contract that allows them to walk away with the money.

    In this case they tried to walk away with the whole LENR business.

    Much what is happening now seems to surprise them… “the government just handed over the money why did this Rossi guy fight back??”.

    To rip Government (the people) out of money they used lobbyist. But this time they can not deliver anything other than new laws,.. that will hurt their (IH) business as well..

    However, it seems that Rossi have embraced the American way to the point and countered with a lawsuit. In Europe we have just shot them.

  • Sanjeev

    This surely twists plot in favor of Rossi….. unless its a mistake by a slow clerk at IH, who is struggling to complete something he started months ago. Or may be the patent office clerk woke up and finally updated many months old pending amendments on May 5th.
    More popcorn information needed. Why did this happen…

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      It can’t be explained away as an accident (oops, accidentally filed a patent update!) or a legal maneuver (weakens their case, if anything).

      It is also consistent with their behavior up until they received that bill for $89M.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    this behavior is coherent with what IH claims since long and what dewey plussed on lenr- forum when I explained it.

    when Rossi did some leaking, through Jonp and lugano, and since rossi did nothing serious to patent his device (strange indeed, if you own a working technology you should patent it), IH managed to protect all that was leaked, even if they just trusted Lugano report (not yet criticized).
    They did not do it as if they were the inventor, citing rossi, but of course since they were filing, said they were the assignee, and ofcourse someone of their company who have to sign, was declared as coinventor.
    This let them room to reassign to rossi , in good faith (some term rossi have problem with, like a burned cat).

    this is what companies do to protect their irrational inventors.

    good practice is to file a provisional patent even before you have finished the test, for nobody else to file the same patent in between.

    what the maintenance of that application mean is that maybe there is interesting claim in that patent, not that it is sure working.

    it is possible that IH could not replicate, but still wonder if they missed some detail, and just ask rossi to help them, which he seems to have refused (or they would have happily paid).

    note that the theory that IH want to steal e-cat technology is absurd. an invention is temporary, and may be overtaken by an improvement or variation.

    if you have right on an invention, it is essential to have good relation with the inventor, and also with many other inventors, so that you have get access to improvements, and get improvements to turn around improvements or turnaround by competitors.

    making you inventor unhappy is more than stupid.

    • kdk
      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        not oil but green energies.

        note that trading carbon frauds have concluded by many indicted people being recently assasinated.

        “Mr Mockford had worked for the company since the 1970s, and was the head of marketing for interim technologies for ExxonMobil Chemicals, Europe, promoting new types of greener fuel.”

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          just another point of view.

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/354851/Oil-manager-shot-dead-by-thief-in-rage

          “The fact that nothing was stolen led some to suspect a professional assassination. They were swayed by the ferocity of the attack and the fact that Mr Mockford appeared to receive a “coup de grace” shot to the upper body as he lay helpless.

          There was speculation he was killed by eco-warriors.

          Mr Mockford was a manager within the chemicals arm of ExxonMobil, working for it for almost 40 years in Britain and Singapore. The couple were believed to have been preparing to retire to Thailand.”

          strange that bonody raised that evident justification…

          I don’t buy it, though because of that detail which support the mainstream “robbery” theory :

          “His wife was badly beaten around the face as she tried to stop the attackers taking her handbag and the keys to the couple’s £40,000 Lexus 4×4.”

          I know a case around my city where a young nurse near her elderly care residence was beaten to the point her coworkers could not recognized her.

          she simply resisted to sealing her bag.

          they nearly killed her for that “crime of resistance”.
          one was minor.

          • kdk

            The Charlie Hebdo guys had a miracle passport like Mohammed Atta after 9/11. Bernard Kerick was in charge of NYPD and got the passport from Atta. He got a job in Iraq which was a mess, and was in prison for a while on other charges.

            Ask yourself, would you bring your passport to a shooting? Dead patsies = fewer loose ends. These people are the furthest from nice that you could possibly imagine, and then a whole lot more.

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      Let’s try to keep this simple…

      There’s no reason for Industrial Heat to update this patent, except that they would like to see it granted.

      There’s no reason for them to want to see it granted unless they believe it protects something that does have or might have value.

      If they believe they are in the midst of being defrauded and have proof, there would be no does and there would be no might.

      Conclusion: IH does not believe they are being defrauded by Rossi (and Penon).

      • kdk

        Then we have quotes from Fulvio Fabiani, and other people talking about LENR and thermal runaways and the similarities with Rossi’s devices. Again, Rossi has gone forward from these old tests, not backward.

      • bachcole

        Nice comment, and 10 other people agree enough to upclick it in a mere 6 hours. This could be a record.

      • sam

        IH might think that there might be fraud.
        AR should make every effort he can to clear this up.

        • sam

          I can not connect to Rossi Blog reader on my
          computer.Anyone else tried it today.

          • SD

            rossilivecat isn’t working for me either. The actual blog worked.

      • LuFong

        The world isn’t so black and white. All investment firms hedge their bets or they don’t last very long.

        IH may feel that there is a chance that Rossi has valuable IP. IH may feel that there is a chance that Rossi may have disclosed it or will be required to in the future. IH may feel that in the future this is a chance that Rossi may have valuable IP of which this patent is a part. IH has paid out already $11M for this IP or possible future IP and probably would be very willing to pay $89M more for a working commercial ready LENR technology.

        None of this rules out the possibility that Rossi has committed fraud.

        Patents may be filed for whatever reason. They don’t necessarily even have to work at the time they are filed. I dare anyone to build a working E-Cat from Rossi’s patent.

        I’m sure that there are other considerations as well, like setting IH up for a countersuit against Rossi. You have to demonstrate good faith. You have to demonstrate harm. Things are only simple if you don’t know the details.

        • http://www.chatwing.com/eestorchat EEStorFanFibb

          “The world isn’t so black and white.”

          Especially for those with an anti-Rossi bias.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      Alain. I find the movement more than strange. They didnt cancel the IP. They updated it but long after they were sued.
      This feels like a movement sugested by their lawyers to make a strong case for them. And remember that a lot of people asked about this behavior long ago.
      Something like, hey we even updated our patents because it doesn’t work. But they left the patent open so after the resolution of the case they can go to the patent office and update it again saying they have new data and that it works.
      If Rossi read this he should prevent his lawyer about this movement so they could force IH to completely cancel the patent if they are so sure that the technology doesn’t work and if they don’t do it, it would make a strong case on Rossi’s side.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        they are not sure.
        what their recent move show is
        – they believe in LENR
        – they have nothing working in hand
        – they try to protect Rossi’s IP from his incompetence

        only Dewey and Jed says the test was a fraud.
        IH just say “we could not substantiate” …

        they don’t even know if the patent is not valid, and if there is just a trick they did not understand.

        • Ged

          Updating it, or even filing a patent to begin with, requires one being completely sure (and having data to prove). They didn’t update to remove (which is what you are obligated to do if you discover errors or retract completely if you are fundamentally wrong) so… either they are lying to the USTPO which is punishable by up to five years in prison, or they lied in their meaningless vague PR statement. Hmmm.

          • kdk

            I didn’t know that. Thanks.

            • Ged

              Yep, as far as I can tell from reading the actual laws (instead of baseless assumption) posted on the USPTO site; which in addition to the laws about the whole thing being under oath, also put up 18 U.S.C. 1001 which IH would be clearly in violation of at this point, unless where they are lying is in their vague and consequence free PR statement instead of the consequence riddled patent.

              http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e307411

              • psi2u2

                Let me second the thanks for this fascinating detail.

  • kdk

    It works so poorly and they’re just so unsure, because of flimsy data, that they decided to put more time and money into updating the patent!

  • Pweet

    I don’t see anything in the patent aplication which suggests the heating action is by way of a LENR. It reads as just an overly complex electrical heater using heater elements on a ceramic former in a sealed container. That being the case, I find it hard to see what is new in there which is worthy of a patent.
    Eleven million dollars is a lot of money to pay for a patent on an elaborate electrical water heater no matter how novel it is.
    I suppose the question is then, why is IH persisting with it?
    I can only imagine it’s because after paying so much money with little or no hope of getting it back, they feel they should at least ‘keep an oar in the water’ in case they turn up some place worthwhile.

    On this note, I was also wondering if the secret customer/partner who the QuackX will be demonstrated to in June, might in fact be IH. The language is identical to all the previous customer / secret partner language we heard some years ago when IH first became interested.
    Mid last year when it was only strongly suspected that there had been a fallout between IH and Rossi, (even though it was strongly denied by Rossi, for which he has since apologized), I mentioned a number of times that I thought the sudden appearance of the new version of ecat x was for the purpose of enticing IH back into the partnership.
    For all the time the regular announcements of the new device became more magnificent and compelling, my impression was reinforced.
    Given recent developments, it seems pretty obvious all the announcements have been for the purpose of enticing someone into a partnership. This extends to the constant mention by way of daily requests for updates on the status of the Quack X, to the degree that if a genuine request is not made, Mr. Rossi posts one himself. His syntax is very recognizable. (How is going the Quack X today? Cheers. or similar)

    The question is, is the ‘customer/partner’ someone new or is it a previous player looking to ‘go another round’?
    At this stage, even though there has been a very public fallout between the two, made so public mostly by way of Rossi’s regular disparaging commentary, it is not beyond the bounds of reason to think that the two parties may have left the door open to a reconciliation if a workable device can be demonstrated before the legal action is effected.
    Is there any chance such an event could be successful with a reconciliation?
    In view of all that has happened you would think not, but there is no doubt that Mr. Rossi is a proven master of convincing demonstrations, so I see it as at least being possible.
    We should know in the next month.

    • kdk

      Reconciliation is a matter of when IH comes crawling back after giving him the money they owe him, because they do have the license agreement still. If they refuse to pay after losing the court battle, I wonder if the contract can be severed to find a serious partner.

      • Pweet

        I think IH was as serious as they come in regards to their up front investment of eleven million dollars. I thought that was a ridiculously large amount to pay on the basis of a string of such clearly flawed demonstrations.
        While I realize there is much truth to the saying that a fool and their money are soon parted, it is really hard to find someone so foolish to part with so much as IH have parted with.
        I will be totally flabbergasted if Mr. Rossi should stumble on yet another one in such quick succession.
        If he can come up with a series of demonstrations which address all the long stated objections to his previous tests and demonstrations then he would have a very good chance but I don’t believe that will happen.
        The demonstrations will continue on as all have before in that they will be closely controlled and obtuse tests which will only suggest an excess of energy so long as the procedure is not altered away from that which Rossi dictates. On that basis, my advice would be, keep your money in your pocket and run away.

        • kdk

          Does the irony not strike you of peddling this nonsense after hearing that they just updated the patent application?

          • Pweet

            No. IH still has eleven million dollars on the table. They need to be able to show something, anything which they can say they have got in return, even if it is probably worthless. The cost of updating a patent application is peanuts in comparison to the initial 11 million payment.
            I suppose the ironic part is that their patent to protect a LENR technology doesn’t mention LENR, so I guess in that respect, it is ironic.

            • kdk

              I thought not.

            • clovis ray

              HI, Pweet.
              you seem to have it all backward, it was I/H that broke the agreement
              By not paying the 89 mil, you seem to think and said so that 11 mil is a lot to pay for something that could possible be worth trillions, lol, it chicken feed, and so is 89 million, ph’fff, i would say the sleez bags are out to steal his life’s work, not going to happen, besides A.R. offered to give the down payment back, but noooo, they were not having any of that, why,
              I hope he nails their as- to the barn door, it in no way is putting A.R. out of moving forward, with his/God plans. they i/h are stuck,

              • Pweet

                I agree that 11 million is chicken feed for a technology that could possibly be worth trillions, IF IT WORKS. So is 89 million.
                The really critical part here is “if it works”, so I put it in capitals.
                Now we need to ask, why would IH throw away trillions if they were convinced it works? That would be insane.
                Even if they couldn’t raise the money, and the current talk is that they already raised more than enough to make the next payment, on the claim they had proof that the technology worked they could have raked in billions just for the privileged of being involved in the next big thing.
                But they didn’t. Why not?
                And the explanation put forward that they thought they could take it all for themselves and cut Rossi out of the deal, completely lacks any credibility. The end point of that action would be far to obvious to even the most short sighted investor, that end point being they would finish up with nothing but a court case.

                • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

                  right, IF IT WORKS,
                  IH have to keep good relation with rossi, to pay all he ask, to rent him limousine, to obbey all he ask, like secret test, escort girls, and chicken ananas pizza at breakfast.
                  Note that V1.0 technology have no value, since quikly V2.0 then V3.0 will replace it, and what is important is the inventor, even if he behave like a Diva or a pop star.

                  now IF IT DOES NOT WORK YET,
                  then they have to keep all their cards, their patent applications, their contracts, and ask for help to make it work, using all menace they can afford like :
                  – stop paying 89Mn$
                  – refusing to pay for pizza and limousine

                  now if IT IS SURE it will be NEVER WORKING, they will just dump patents, and transfer their contracts to a vulture attorney cabinet to hang him by his ball, just to motivate other partners to be honest, while working with serious guys who will be motivated for cooperation.

                  Note that if IH is trying to be dishonest with an inventor, then they will lose much :
                  – the will lose V2.0 of the technology
                  – they will lose trust from others partners and inventors who will not develop V2.0B of the technology

                  a symptom of IH bad behavior would be partners fleeing, not to be eaten like the previous one.
                  I rather see nice not-so-diva researsher like (ok, an old ape of LENR) supporting IH in private .

                  It seems IH is still in phase 2, just barking to obtain promissed technology.

                  When you will see them dump the contract, I’ll prepare the rope.

  • John

    I reviewed the description on the Brillouin website http://brillouinenergy.com . The description sounds similar to the E-Cat. Since IH is also working Brillouin, once they understood what the E-Cat is and saw it function, they may have concluded the E-cat technology had already been developed. Brillouin says they had already proven their technology at Berkeley in 2010. Since the technology had already been developed by Brillouin, IH may feel the contract was void since the intellectual property was not Rossi’s to sell.

    • kdk

      Problem is that Rossi has a little more proof behind him.

      • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

        More proof?
        We never saw proof since 5+ years from Rossi.

        Only reports with large loopholes, when looked into the details.

        So we cannot draw any conclusion.

        Maybe IH had enough of Rossi’s childish unprofessional behaviour and decided to support BEC due to their REALLY independet verification and clear evidence by SKINR and SRI.

        • Stanny Demesmaker

          The Lugano report made pretty clear that there was excess heat. The report has never been debunked by experts of the type of calorimetry used in the test.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The Lugano thermometry was most likely wrong. MPMF has demonstrated this even experimentally. IMO it does not matter if the arguments come from “experts in the field”. What matters is if they are conclusive. But if you prefer “expert opinions”: Mats Lewan has forwarded the report and the connected criticism to some knowledgeable people. I recommend waiting for the result.

          • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

            It’s sad to still read this.
            The lugano report had huge errors which were also confirmed by MFMP. The IR measurement was done with wrong black body emission values. If you take the measured numbers and re-calculate the temperature with correct alumnia emission values, you get very disappointing results, leading to a COP of around 1, within error margin.

            It’s sad that Frank here at e-cat world never lost a word about it. So “e-cat world-only readers” are still believing the Lugano report was positive.
            You may have to read more than just e-cat world to get the whole picture.

            • Ged

              The COP is still above 1 with the new assumptions. Thing is, Lugano scientists also used spots of emissive paint, so no one is completely sure which assumption set is correct yet–but both equal COP>1 (3 versus 1.4 or so).

              And this is IH’s reactor, don’t forget.

              • Private Citizen

                Thomas Clarke: “The Lugano Prof’s calculation, corrected for Planck curve and alumina
                emissivity (using their values, and a correct 0.95 for the band
                emissivity), gives COP=1.07 for both of the two active tests.

                However
                it must be realized that the possible errors in this calculation are
                high. I would give this figure a tolerance +50% – 30%.

                https://disqus.com/by/disqus_L8MGcukt9U/

                COP vanishingly low

                • Ged

                  His analysis has plenty of problems, as others point out, and his assumptions on emissivity and what the scientists already rolled into their calculations or not are not well constrained. MFMP -empiracly- tested all this, so their data and Bob Higgin’s analysis using their results completely trumps Clarke.

                • Thomas Kaminski

                  Don’t forget that they did not use the self sustain mode. COP rises dramatically with sustain…

            • Stanny Demesmaker

              If the temperatures were not correct measured, then explain me how nickel melted in the reactor? Nickel has a boiling point of 1453°

        • bachcole

          Proof is in the eye of the beholder. The difference between you and many of us others is that you are so sure of yourself and set yourself up as the arbiter of proof, and the rest of us realize that proof is in the eye of the beholder. Rossi already has proof as far as I am concerned. It is OK if you don’t agree, just don’t define words to suit your purposes.

      • clovis ray

        lots more proof, as long as i have been around, brillouin has demonstrated, nothing, lots of talk no substance,

    • SG

      The Brillouin systems used a traditional “wet” cell (plus a proprietary EM pulse) until after Rossi’s appearance on the world stage, after which Brillouin moved to a “dry” cell. While Brillouin claims not to use Li in their reaction, they nonetheless appear to have taken queues from Rossi. It is also possible that Rossi took queues from Brillouin at some point along the way.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      Or rather more cynically, that Tom Darden or someone on his team spotted that Brillouin’s work was similar enough to Rossi’s to allow them to quietly transfer key information to Brillouin from Rossi’s IP, which would allow them (they thought) to cut Rossi out of the loop. Godes may have seemed a rather cheaper ‘source’ for a working cold fusion reactor.

      The arrival of e-Cat X/Quark – if this claimed technology lives up to AR’s claims – would have blown this scheme, necessitating some hasty revisions. Unfortunately for them, it seems that Rossi was aware of their bad faith at an early stage, and was playing IH as much as the latter was trying to play him.

      • Pweet

        Keeping in mind what Aldo Proia wrote about the way he was treated as a Rossi licensee, and how Rossi shafted all his previous licensees and partners, I have no doubt that a more even description of who was playing who will show Mr Rossi’s behaviour in this as not being pure as the driven snow. Until we hear from IH as to what their position is, I would not be painting them as the villain.
        At the moment all we have is the pot calling the frying pan ‘black’.
        That’s not to say they are not, but at this point and only relating to this matter, we don’t have much to indicate they are. Refer back to all the nice things said here about IH and Darden when the partnership was announced.
        A lot of that talk was based on what Rossi said about both. It doesn’t seem reasonable to negate all that positive assessment on the basis of what the same person is now saying, specially when that person is chasing 89 million dollars.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          Can’t disagree with that – anything seems possible at this point, and as you suggest there are no saints in this story.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I may be mistaken, but I thought it was IH that instigated the license buy backs.

          • Pweet

            If IH was actually a partner as per the initial announcements then that could possibly be the case. However, as we have been made aware by way of the posts of Mr. Rossi, IH was only another licensee, albeit a major one. On that basis I think any direction as to how other licensees were dealt with would have been mostly by Mr. Rossi. Aldo Proia made unfavorable mention only of his dealings with Mr Rossi, not IH. Proia had a number of contacts with Rossi regarding non performance of Rossi’s side of the license agreement which prevented Prometeon from exercising their rights under their license. I don’t think Rossi would want IH to be involved in this since IH, being just another licensee, might have taken fright a bit earlier than they did, but stranger things have happened so at this point, no way of knowing for sure.

          • BillH

            Then that’s more money IH paid out without any tangible return, if the 1MW plant is unreliable in some respect that just another good reason not to hand over more cash.

      • Sanjeev

        Assuming that the Ecat works as claimed, and assuming that IH tested it thoroughly, the best way to get rid of Rossi is to pay him his $89M and say goodbye. They already have the IP (they paid for it) and they have effectively disabled Rossi via the license agreement. It was easy.
        The non payment of balance means, that IH not only believes that the 1MW plant didn’t work, but also believes that the IP they own is now worthless.
        Amending the patent may mean that they intend to use this patent as a support for some other tech which they feel is better. It can be HHT.

        • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

          If IH are de facto competitors to Rossi, then they would not want to seed his operations with $89M until they absolutely had to. So this could be a stalling tactic more than anything.

          They could see themselves as de facto competitors to Rossi, if they had decided to take another path to commercialization (e.g., with Brillouin) or if they perceived the E-Cat X technology making their hot cat technology obsolete and Rossi had not yet transferred that IP.

          • cashmemorz

            Maybe IH sees Brillouin as having an in with one or more industrialists that were at the congress demo. If a good “in” it may be promising to open a road to a licensee or partner that has high potential for marketing and general proliferation of their device.

        • artefact

          If they pay the $89M, they will also have to pay one billion to Leonardo from their sales.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like I missed it. Any references for that?

            • artefact

              Its in the licence agreement 3.2 C.

              https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/rossi_et_al_v_darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001-2.pdf

              “Leonardo will be entitled to receive five percent (5%) Loyalty on net sales by the
              Company of E-Cat Products or energy produced by E-Cat Products, payable annually on each January 31 with respect to the previous 12 months ended December 31, until aggregate compensation paid to Leonardo pursuant to this Agreement equals $l billion.”

              • Frank Acland

                The way I read the preceding part of that section is that the royalty payments of $1 billion only take place if i) another company enters the market that infringes on Leonardo patents, or ii)if a Leonardo patent infringes on the patent of another person.

  • kdk

    Yeah, there is some incentive for them to sit on it.

  • standby

    Where is Thomas Baker?