Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
About the defense of your intellectual property: you are totally right. I have never seen an important technology given graciously away; this also could be a breach of contract toward all your investors.
Godspeed,
Eldridge
Mr Leonard Weinstein:
You are not allowed to sell apparatuses that copy in all or in part our patents.
You are obviously allowed to make replications in laboratory, for scientific purposes, but you will not be allowed or licensed from us to produce, manufacture and/or sell or put in commerce, in any form and quantity, products in violation of our Intellectual Property.
Regards,
Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am building an e-cat based on the published work of Parkhomov and Rossi, as a proof of concept model. If it works as I hope, I would be willing to sell modules (for a reasonable price), and if desired, accessory equipment to verify this technology. However, due to the patent, I would be liable to penalty if I sold these without a license or specific permission. I am only considering selling a modest number at most, of crude proof-of-concept models, and thus not worth getting a license that would cost too much. My question is: could I sell these modules without a license? I only expect about a kW of output in the form of boiling of water at ambient pressure.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
You said yesterday in a comment that the “classic” E-Cat has not been abandoned: does this mean the sales of that generation of E-Cats have not been suspended?
Dear Andrea,
From what we can see reading the papers in the “Pacemaker” of the litigation, it appears that all your points are substantiated with solid evidence, while the complaints of Cherokee Fund and IH are based on assumption without any evidence. Can you comment on this?
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Why did you plan (in February 2017) a public demonstration / presentation as you said several times a while ago that the next step for you is not another demo but the product launch on the market (“In mercato veritas”, as you said) ?
Sorry for asking if you have already answered this question.
Best wishes
FM
I do not understand why the very first version of the e-cat (single 10kW reactor) is abandoned, at least you do not mention it anymore. From my point of view it would have been easier for you to consolidate the results of this old version that could have been on the market for a while.
I hope you will succeed where all others have failed: making a product that can be bought instead of a laboratory curiosity.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I too agree that if you put a dummy in parallel with the QuarkX powered with the same amount of energy as the QuarkX the test is more convincing, also concerning the calibration of the measurement system.
Mr Andrea Rossi:
You know what? The more time goes on, the more I am convincing myself the E-Cat will never enter the real market.
Thank you for spamming,
Kip
Tom Boonen:
A short analogy makes clear what Dr Rossi is implying:
When the Wright brothers made their public displays at Ft. Myers and Le Mans (France) respectively, they did not have spare copies standing on the runway missing different parts, say engines, propellers or flaps. While not useless, no one (maybe certain journalists) in the crowd would have taken notice, nor seen comparison fruitful.
Please compare this to the “Versio Vulgata” needed concerning the real revelations during the Lugano test (I fondly dubbed this event The Lugano Tea Party, hope You appreciate that as a compliment):
“A test was performed without fuel. The second test, where fuel was present, meant we had to open all windows in the middle of swiss (the swiss knows) winter, to be able to remain in facilities”.
Henrik
So you did try using a dummy in your apparatus. As you saw, it did have a purpose as it satisfied your curiosity and added a level of confirmation to your results.
I am sure some of your future business partners and all scientists will have the same curiosity…
Mario Lorenzi:
Yes, considered the margin of error and the dissipations outside the heat exchange surface, that are supposed to be not important.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
Not during the test with the independent engineer, but we made last week a dummy, just for curiosity: obviously a dummy has COP < 1, using the same instrumentation and methodology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Edward:
The R&D made by scientists that work seriously must always be respected. Hot Fusion is an R&D branch that merits to be exploited in the context of the integration of all the possible energy sources.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
Of course: in any test where measurements have to be made all the measurement instrumentation has to be calibrated just before the measurements are performed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Was the instrumentation used in the test made by the third party engineer on the QuarkX calibrated? I mean: has it been calibrated on site with a known energy source before making the measurements on the QuarkX?
Cheers,
Anonymous
1 – Would you be willing to publish the original Rossi-Cook paper in unedited form, the way you intended it to be published all along?
2 – The EM Drive seems to be picking up steam — the Chinese already have one in space and they are committed to developing the technology rapidly over the next five years to use it in all of their satellites. Once further developed, what do you think about using the Quark as a power source for this type of reactionless drive?
Christen:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Something is moving when an article like this https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/ appears in the blogs of Scientific American
Dear Andrea,
I composed a new blog-post for today and this stays at:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/12/dec-17-2016-extending-list-of-lenr.html
Cheers,
Peter
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
About the defense of your intellectual property: you are totally right. I have never seen an important technology given graciously away; this also could be a breach of contract toward all your investors.
Godspeed,
Eldridge
Mr Leonard Weinstein:
You are not allowed to sell apparatuses that copy in all or in part our patents.
You are obviously allowed to make replications in laboratory, for scientific purposes, but you will not be allowed or licensed from us to produce, manufacture and/or sell or put in commerce, in any form and quantity, products in violation of our Intellectual Property.
Regards,
Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I am building an e-cat based on the published work of Parkhomov and Rossi, as a proof of concept model. If it works as I hope, I would be willing to sell modules (for a reasonable price), and if desired, accessory equipment to verify this technology. However, due to the patent, I would be liable to penalty if I sold these without a license or specific permission. I am only considering selling a modest number at most, of crude proof-of-concept models, and thus not worth getting a license that would cost too much. My question is: could I sell these modules without a license? I only expect about a kW of output in the form of boiling of water at ambient pressure.
Dear Readres:
Please go to
http://www.rossilivecat.com
to find comments in other posts of this blog.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Shayne:
No comment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wes:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
Also today is a good day, we are working well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Dr Andrea Rossi,
You said yesterday in a comment that the “classic” E-Cat has not been abandoned: does this mean the sales of that generation of E-Cats have not been suspended?
Dear Andrea,
From what we can see reading the papers in the “Pacemaker” of the litigation, it appears that all your points are substantiated with solid evidence, while the complaints of Cherokee Fund and IH are based on assumption without any evidence. Can you comment on this?
Kip:
maybe you are right.
Thanks for your opinion.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Zycka:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards
A.R.
JPR:
still on our way to 5Sigma,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Michel:
Nothing has been abandoned.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Frederick Maillard:
The two things are not contradictory.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Issue of my blog for today:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/12/dec-16-starting-list-of-lenr-mysteries.html
Perhaps mainly interrogative, but some info.
Wish you an readers all well,
Peter
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Why did you plan (in February 2017) a public demonstration / presentation as you said several times a while ago that the next step for you is not another demo but the product launch on the market (“In mercato veritas”, as you said) ?
Sorry for asking if you have already answered this question.
Best wishes
FM
Dr Rossi,
I do not understand why the very first version of the e-cat (single 10kW reactor) is abandoned, at least you do not mention it anymore. From my point of view it would have been easier for you to consolidate the results of this old version that could have been on the market for a while.
I hope you will succeed where all others have failed: making a product that can be bought instead of a laboratory curiosity.
Regards,
Michel
Update?
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I too agree that if you put a dummy in parallel with the QuarkX powered with the same amount of energy as the QuarkX the test is more convincing, also concerning the calibration of the measurement system.
Mr Andrea Rossi:
You know what? The more time goes on, the more I am convincing myself the E-Cat will never enter the real market.
Thank you for spamming,
Kip
Bruce:
I think it will be interesting enough.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gary:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Is the engineer that made the independent test on the QuarkX a US citizen?
Dear Andrea;
When you do your demonstration for invited guests will you do anything spectacular for them, such as run the QuarkX in SSM without any power input?
Tom Boonen:
A short analogy makes clear what Dr Rossi is implying:
When the Wright brothers made their public displays at Ft. Myers and Le Mans (France) respectively, they did not have spare copies standing on the runway missing different parts, say engines, propellers or flaps. While not useless, no one (maybe certain journalists) in the crowd would have taken notice, nor seen comparison fruitful.
Please compare this to the “Versio Vulgata” needed concerning the real revelations during the Lugano test (I fondly dubbed this event The Lugano Tea Party, hope You appreciate that as a compliment):
“A test was performed without fuel. The second test, where fuel was present, meant we had to open all windows in the middle of swiss (the swiss knows) winter, to be able to remain in facilities”.
Henrik
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
EGO OUT for Dec 15, 2016 is accessible via:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/12/dec-15-2016-lenr-info-improving.html
cheers!
peter
Tom Boonen:
Thank you for your opinion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
So you did try using a dummy in your apparatus. As you saw, it did have a purpose as it satisfied your curiosity and added a level of confirmation to your results.
I am sure some of your future business partners and all scientists will have the same curiosity…
dummy= not so dummy after all!
Mario Lorenzi:
Yes, considered the margin of error and the dissipations outside the heat exchange surface, that are supposed to be not important.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dott. Andrea Rossi and others,
If a flux calorimeter is used even a simple resistance (COP=1 by definition) works as dummy. Agree?
Regards, Mario
Anonymous:
Not during the test with the independent engineer, but we made last week a dummy, just for curiosity: obviously a dummy has COP < 1, using the same instrumentation and methodology. Warm Regards, A.R.
Again about the measurements of the QuarkX: did you make also a dummy to compare the data with the real thing?
Edward:
The R&D made by scientists that work seriously must always be respected. Hot Fusion is an R&D branch that merits to be exploited in the context of the integration of all the possible energy sources.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
Of course: in any test where measurements have to be made all the measurement instrumentation has to be calibrated just before the measurements are performed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Was the instrumentation used in the test made by the third party engineer on the QuarkX calibrated? I mean: has it been calibrated on site with a known energy source before making the measurements on the QuarkX?
Cheers,
Anonymous
What do you think about the hot fusion R&D that ENEA will make in Piemonte, Italy?
Hank Mills:
1- does not exist
2- I do not know.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JPR:
On our way toward 5Sigma.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Update?
Dear Andrea,
1 – Would you be willing to publish the original Rossi-Cook paper in unedited form, the way you intended it to be published all along?
2 – The EM Drive seems to be picking up steam — the Chinese already have one in space and they are committed to developing the technology rapidly over the next five years to use it in all of their satellites. Once further developed, what do you think about using the Quark as a power source for this type of reactionless drive?
Peter Gluck:
Thank you for your link,
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Here is the link to my newest edition of EGO OUT blog
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/12/dec-14-2016-lenr-info-mini-again.html
My best wishes of success,
peter
Ing Michelangelo De Meo:
Interesting.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
This does not depend only on me.
Warm Regards
A.R.