10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:12 pm

In almost all instances here in the States, NDA's are written to be in force in perpetuity, meaning there never comes a time where they are no longer in force.

Actually, several of the NDAs that I have signed did have an expiration date.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:52 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,

Essentially you are saying there would be NO temperature difference between the two test cores.

That is REALLY easy to measure. But you won't bet on it.

Parallel,

You are weird, or closed minded. We can bet if we have an agreed way to validate these devices. Your methods seem to depend on DGT tests with NDAs, and testers not disclosed. Or web opinion. Can we find some method of validation more reliable than this? How about you don't back down?

Re temp difference, of course there can be temp difference. Just not one which implies total energy more than could be generated from chemical reaction.

And we would need lots of info from testers to determine whether the measured temp difference was safe or not. I wonder whether the NDAs will prevent discusion of detailed protocol?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:58 pm

Skipjack wrote:
The risk is not “large.” There is essentially no real proof for it at all. The hypothetical forcing factors are obviously way too high. Some think they may even be negative. What will be done about it is political and not scientific.
I would not say that at all. It is a fact that temperatures are rising and it is a fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. It is not certain that humans are responsible but that does not change the two facts and these two are reason to worry if the trend was to continue. We should at last make sure that we are prepared to deal with the problems that might arise if this trend continues. I totally agree with Tom here, the risk is to big to ignore.

"Hidden wires." Now there's an original idea: who would have thought of that? Obviously not the professional engineers and scientists running the tests. The only way to be certain is to have the brilliant, incisive mind of CKay on each team.
How do you know for certain that they checked for that? Have they stated that they did?

Again, you are making assumption that these "professional engineers" (whoever that refers to) were checking for possible means of trickery based on the assumption that the were actually expecting a fraud. That is two assumptions based on each other. IMHO not a very good basis for conclusions.
Maybe they did check it or maybe they did not. Maybe they never had the opportunity to check for it? How do we know? How do you know? Were there any detailed procedures and protocols for the tests made public? If so, where are they? Or maybe you were you there and saw them peform these checks, yes?

What we DO know, is that Kullander and Essen, professional scientist and skeptic, did not check very much, taking anything Rossi said to be true without checking. So how can we know anyone else involved will do a better job of checking?

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:02 am

What we DO know, is that Kullander and Essen, professional scientist and skeptic, did not check very much, taking anything Rossi said to be true without checking. So how can we know anyone else involved will do a better job of checking?

Agree completely. Both have admitted to only observing a demonstration, not testing the device. When several possible errors in their analysis were brought up, they agreed they hadn't thought to check at the time. Rossi simply doesn't have all these experts checking like so many claim. Levi did an 18hr test, but admitted his test would not pass scientific standards and so was suppose to conduct another test. As for the mystery customers' engineer, well people are quite frankly having a hard time locating said engineer.

CharlesKramer · Post by **CharlesKramer** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:36 am

Skipjack wrote:
In almost all instances here in the States, NDA's are written to be in force in perpetuity, meaning there never comes a time where they are no longer in force.
Actually, several of the NDAs that I have signed did have an expiration date.

True, trade secrets (unlike, say, patents) potentially last forever, but...

All properly drafted NDAs acknowledge that the obligations to keep an idea secret and not to use it:

-- must end when the idea becomes general public knowledge through no fault of the recipient of the idea

-- don't apply to information received from a third party (who is not breaching a duty of confidentiality by disclosing it)

-- don't apply to information the recipient already knew

In addition, when an NDA is in connection with a non-competition clause (preventing a contractor from competing by using the ideas he receives from the company that hires him) there should typically be a clarification that the contractor is not limited from using his ordinary skills and experience to work for others.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:00 am

Both have admitted to only observing a demonstration, not testing the device.

Which is what I meant. People observe a demonstration and over months these demonstrations become tests in some peoples minds, including Rossi's it seems.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:06 am

CharlesKramer wrote:
All properly drafted NDAs acknowledge that the obligations to keep an idea secret and not to use it:

-- must end when the idea becomes general public knowledge through no fault of the recipient of the idea

-- don't apply to information received from a third party (who is not breaching a duty of confidentiality by disclosing it)

-- don't apply to information the recipient already knew

In addition, when an NDA is in connection with a non-competition clause (preventing a contractor from competing by using the ideas he receives from the company that hires him) there should typically be a clarification that the contractor is not limited from using his ordinary skills and experience to work for others.

I've read a couple hundred NDA's in my time, and written quite a few, and I can say no IP holder, nor lawyer in his right mind would ever endorse such silly qualifications as what you're saying. All they do is invalidate the NDA by proposing a way to make a factual argument against where any Trades Secret information came from.

In my experience, all NDA's stipulate about a large vague body of information, about which the person signing agrees not to disclose. No one trying to protect an IP would agree to the three stipulations you're here noting and I can't imagine where you got them from. They amount to legal suicide.

It's because NDA's are so broad and open-ended that people are well advised to avoid them under almost all conditions. Corporate CEO's will for example by habit completely refuse to sign NDA's. Trying to skirt around them by cleverly including exclusions is totally outrageous and unprofessional.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:22 am

The only NDAs I've ever seen were time-based. The entire software industry, consumer electronics industry, computing hardware industry, fashion industry, etc. There are cases where trade secrets may be a permanent stipulation within the NDA, but this is the exception in my experience, not the rule.

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:37 am

ScottL wrote:The only NDAs I've ever seen were time-based. The entire software industry, consumer electronics industry, computing hardware industry, fashion industry, etc. There are cases where trade secrets may be a permanent stipulation within the NDA, but this is the exception in my experience, not the rule.

Usually there is no time limits for NDA intended to protect tech IP, it does not mean it is not possible to put such limitation but it is quite unusual for NDA protected technical IP; I may imagine that business NDA may have time-limits tough; even I have never run into with such limitations. Anyway it would be very informative to read the content of specific NDA (the content of NDA is rarely protected by NDA); if it is the case then, Giorgio, it would be great if your source may provide the content of NDA.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:47 am

stefanbanev wrote:
ScottL wrote:The only NDAs I've ever seen were time-based. The entire software industry, consumer electronics industry, computing hardware industry, fashion industry, etc. There are cases where trade secrets may be a permanent stipulation within the NDA, but this is the exception in my experience, not the rule.
Usually there is no time limits for NDA intended to protect tech IP, it does not mean it is not possible to put such limitation but it is quite unusual for NDA protected technical IP; I may imagine that business NDA may have time-limits tough; even I have never run into with such limitations. Anyway it would be very informative to read the content of specific NDA (the content of NDA is rarely protected by NDA); if it is the case then, Giorgio, it would be great if your source may provide the content of NDA.

Really? The iPhone, iPad, iTouch.....all had NDAs with time limits, all technical IP.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:50 am

I've read a couple hundred NDA's in my time, and written quite a few, and I can say no IP holder, nor lawyer in his right mind would ever endorse such silly qualifications as what you're saying. All they do is invalidate the NDA by proposing a way to make a factual argument against where any Trades Secret information came from.

I have an NDA here that has simillar clauses:
Information that was in the public domain or already known to the signing party at the time if signature is excempt.
I have to check whether I have such an NDA here at home and I can post the actual passages.

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:57 am

ScottL wrote:
stefanbanev wrote:
ScottL wrote:The only NDAs I've ever seen were time-based. The entire software industry, consumer electronics industry, computing hardware industry, fashion industry, etc. There are cases where trade secrets may be a permanent stipulation within the NDA, but this is the exception in my experience, not the rule.
Usually there is no time limits for NDA intended to protect tech IP, it does not mean it is not possible to put such limitation but it is quite unusual for NDA protected technical IP; I may imagine that business NDA may have time-limits tough; even I have never run into with such limitations. Anyway it would be very informative to read the content of specific NDA (the content of NDA is rarely protected by NDA); if it is the case then, Giorgio, it would be great if your source may provide the content of NDA.
Really? The iPhone, iPad, iTouch.....all had NDAs with time limits, all technical IP.

Well, I'm not aware about NDA targeted specifically to the "iPhone, iPad, iTouch" even I have NDA with Apple and it is very broad and unlimited by time.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:07 am

Skipjack wrote:
I've read a couple hundred NDA's in my time, and written quite a few, and I can say no IP holder, nor lawyer in his right mind would ever endorse such silly qualifications as what you're saying. All they do is invalidate the NDA by proposing a way to make a factual argument against where any Trades Secret information came from.
I have an NDA here that has simillar clauses:
Information that was in the public domain or already known to the signing party at the time if signature is excempt.
I have to check whether I have such an NDA here at home and I can post the actual passages.

There's no trouble with excluding information in the public domain--all NDA's do that. NDA's protect trade secrets. They're not secret if they're in the public domain. However, no one in their right mind would stipulate that secret information obtained before the signing of an NDA could be disclosed because then the person disclosing could disclose anything, and say they knew about before signing. NDA's are written specifically to avoid such factual disputes. Likewise, if you are an IP holder, and disclosed some of your trade secrets in order to convince someone like an investor to sign the NDA, you want ALL those secrets covered, and indeed, there is NO reason the signing person should demand to be able to disclose secret information. I'm really shocked we're having this conversation.

If Giorgio knows someone who is an "insider", who signed an NDA, under what POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES could that NDA be voided given Rossi's current position? Just sounds like incredible nonsense to me.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:11 am

tomclarke,

Re temp difference, of course there can be temp difference. Just not one which implies total energy more than could be generated from chemical reaction.

O come on. A four day test with that small device, that the testers can see inside during the middle of the test, when the Ni powder is changed over.

If the Hyperion performs as DGT say, the COP will be >20. If it doesn't work, as you believe, the temperature difference will be negligible. There is nothing like enough room for a chemical fake and obviously the testers will look for hidden power supplies.

Surely you can do better than that to weasel out of the bet.

Edit added.
You are living proof that Rossi was right. The only proof you will accept (then only maybe) is commercial sale of large numbers of domestic E-Cats.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:16 am

Given we don't actually know the terms of the UoB NDA, what use is all the speculation?

I am sure Giorgio can ask his buddy for a copy, or sections. But, I would say, (speculation and opinion only), that given Giorgio's long history here of be upfront and honest, he is representing the situation as it presented itself to him. Now, obvioulsy that does not mean that Giorgio's source is stand up. But let us leave that to Giorgio to pull the string on, and tell us what he thinks.

Now, all that defense of Giorgio done, I must now find something to vehemently disagree with him on.