H3Tec Challenge

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Jim

Hi Rudy.....try this

http://tinyurl.com/y9f8e3w

Originally Posted by Qiaozhi

In the application it states: "The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving an indication further comprises allowing an arm connected with the detection module to pivot in the direction of the substance to indicate presence of the substance".

It is difficult to see how this patent was even allowed. It's only value is to the Marketing Dept.. to trick the unwary into believing that the detection method has some value, when in fact it has none. I can only assume that the suggested embodiments do not affect the patent application so much as the claims being made.

Here is the full patent document (with graphics) ->
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7750634.pdf
This patent appears to have been granted, even though it states in the text, such things as:
"the arm aligning to the element or compound"
"having a rod that pivots within a handle."
"The rod is supported and allowed to swing on precision bearings inside the handle."
"the rod swivels allowing the arm of the rod to pivot, to point to the direction of the target substance."
etc., etc.

It is clearly a dowsing rod in disguise.

Thanks to both of you. I'll be taking a gander at these.

[Qiaozhi]

One other question that occurs to me:

Since the device contains an arm that pivots in the direction of the target substance, does "the dog wag the tail" or does "the tail wag the dog"?

As both Carl and Rudy have (or have had) one of these devices, they are the most qualified to answer the question. That is: Does the dog wag its own tail, or not?

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by Carl-NC

This has been a recurring theme... I'm wondering if Chuck actually believes that a patent prevents anyone from dissecting his device and publishing the details of the design. If he does, he is either deluded or his attorney-of-the-same-name is giving him Really Bad Advice.

The irony, as I think I've mentioned before, is that his patent doesn't even provide protection against his product being copied and sold! Both independent claims begin, "A method/apparatus for detecting a substance, comprising..." This means, first and foremost, the device must be able to detect a substance. If, in the end, a device constructed according to the claims and teachings of the patent in incapable of detecting a substance, then there is no violation of the patent... the patent is junk.

Based on what I've seen of the H3 device, anyone can copy and produce it without violating the patent. Ergo, the patent is just for marketing purposes. That is, it's to impress people who foolishly believe patents are only granted for proven technology.



Damage assessment varies, but typically the starting point is when notice of infringement is filed, typically in a company-to-company letter. Treble damages usually only result when there is willful infringement.

Hmmm...
This is getting interesting. If H3Tec decides to hire an attorney to take action against Carl/Geotech, they must have a legal basis for their demands. ie: libel, theft of intellectual property, patent infringement, etc. So when the H3Tec attorney informs them that Carl has never agreed to any nondisclosure, and the equipment he tested was not stolen, but sent to him by an H3Tec customer for performance evaluation, then the final avenue will probably be to pursue a libel claim. But in order to prove libel, H3Tec must prove Carl printed something which is not true and is defamatory. This is the problem for H3Tec... how to prove Carl published something that is not true.

The US courts will not accept hearsay claims that Carl printed something, they want to see the actual evidence. And when they read what is published here in Geotech as well as other forums and emails, they will discover that there are indeed many defamatory statements. Then they will look for the final test that proves libel. The final test for libel is to show that Carl published false information about the H3Tec's ability to locate a substance. This means H3Tec must prove their equipment successfully finds the substances it is advertised to find in order to prove libel.

Again, the US courts will not accept hearsay or anecdotal stories as proof the H3Tec performs as advertised. They will want to see real evidence from a third party independent test. (Do you suppose they will want to see a double blind test? Will they accept a test that Sandia Labs administers?)

If you look at the ongoing actions of the H3Tec administrators and what Carl has done, we see where the argument is leading...
If H3Tec decides to actually hire an attorney to pursue their demands, they will ultimately end up in a court which orders them to submit their equipment for independent third party testing, and makes their equipment available for the defense to examine and test. It seems this is exactly what Carl has been asking for all along and H3Tec refused to do.

So what do you think?
Will H3Tec start legal actions against Carl, or will they continue to send email demands and threats without taking any legal action?

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by J_Player

So what do you think?
Will H3Tec start legal actions against Carl, or will they continue to send email demands and threats without taking any legal action?

Smart crime always tend to stay hidden.
Dummy crime can even go to court.
In this case I prefer dummy crime.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by WM6

Smart crime always tend to stay hidden.
Dummy crime can even go to court.
In this case I prefer dummy crime.

I doubt H3Tec will hire an attorney to go after Carl.
I think H3Tec is scared to death to go to court where their equipment can be tested by an independent testing lab and the results published in newspapers, and maybe on TV.

Best Wishes,
J_P

[Jim]

US v. Quadro Corp., 928 F. Supp. 688 - Dist. Court, ED Texas 1996


and

"Case Study of Inoperable Inventions: Why is the USPTO Patenting Pseudoscience"


Come to mind

[Qiaozhi]

Originally Posted by Jim

US v. Quadro Corp., 928 F. Supp. 688 - Dist. Court, ED Texas 1996


and

"Case Study of Inoperable Inventions: Why is the USPTO Patenting Pseudoscience"


Come to mind

The case study is here -> http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview...-4/rislove.pdf
Page 1294 onwards makes for some interesting reading, particularly the section on the DKL LifeGuard patent. This patent was actually granted, despite later being confirmed as an inoperable invention by SNL.

[Saturna]

Originally Posted by J_Player

Hmmm...
So what do you think?
Will H3Tec start legal actions against Carl, or will they continue to send email demands and threats without taking any legal action?

Best wishes,
J_P

I suspect they'll do the North Korea thing. Big bluster and attitude, fire a first shot, and then ultimately back down with some excuse, all the while continuing the bombastic talk and threats.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Saturna

I suspect they'll do the North Korea thing. Big bluster and attitude, fire a first shot, and then ultimately back down with some excuse, all the while continuing the bombastic talk and threats.

Bombastic talk and threats....me like!

That....and useless dealer chatter on their own internet message board

[Art3811]

Do you know if the H3Tec has every been tested by an Independent Testing Lab?

That is the question I ask…Simple and to the point..Art

[Art3811]

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/805,414, filed May 22, 2007, for "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS," which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. .sctn.119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/747,894, for "ELEMENT SENSOR," filed May 22, 2006. Both of the foregoing applications are fully incorporated herein by reference.
Here is a little more reading you should also understand…Art

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Art3811

Do you know if the H3Tec has every been tested by an Independent Testing Lab?

H3 has made prior statements that Chemir tested and "certified" the device:

"The H3 claims have been tested at Chemir Labs."

"Anytime you want to set up a test as the we did at Chemir to certify our claims..."

"It had to pass a double blind test for clams [sic] certifications."

However, I contacted Chemir and asked about H3... they declined to provide any information on what was tested, citing a confidentiality agreement. Fair enough. But they flatly stated they do not do double-blind testing. It's interesting that H3 refuses to disclose the test details or, better, give Chemir the green light to disclose them. Surely the results would verify H3's claims, wouldn't they?

Another interesting tidbit... in one of their responses to me Chemir said,

"I appreciate your effort to notify us of a potential situation where a person or company is falsely representing our business or relationship."

I noticed that in the last exchanges on TNet, H3 was very careful not to mention Chemir by name. I would not be surprised if they got a cease-and-desist letter from Chemir.

Bottom line: The H3 statements (or implications) that Chemir tested the device, or "certified" the device, or that the device has passed a "double blind test" are probably false. Certainly, they are avoiding it now.

[Jim]

By all appearances....the duel dowsing rod version (Tricorder) has not actually been tested @ Chemir. Video evidence confirms a single dowsing rod version was used.

[Qiaozhi]

Will H3Tec be the next to trick the military and police? And what is nano ionic resonance?

In case some of you haven't seen this ->
http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com...-military.html

In particular, notice this comment:
GOVERNMENT WARNING!!

The US Department of Justice has specifically warned against these types of devices!

[Rudy]

I just finished looking at the "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS" from Charles L. Christensen. US Pat 7,750,634 B1

The patent does contain H3 Tec copyrighted information, in the form of some PCB artwork, parts lists and source code. This probably helped lead the patent examiner into believing that the apparatus described is able to perform the intended function.

In the detailed description of the embodiment, a rather simplistic explanation of nuclear magnetic resonance is given, along with an explanation on how the resonant frequency of an element can be affected by external environmental factors such as the presence of a static magnetic field (ie. the earth's magnetic field). It then talks about how their electronics can integrate the effects of these environmental factors and perform a calculation that computes the effect of these factors and produces a new, corrected, NMR frequency. This drives a frequency generator and tunable filters to create a "clean" sinusoid of the desired frequency. This frequency can be amplified and fed to a Detection Module.

The above mentioned Detection Module uses this amplified frequency to "stimulate" the target element while at the same time it receives a reflected signal from the desired element. Then it starts to go downhill from there.

The Detection Module described in the patent is a ... dowsing rod with an electrical connection. But this is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.

The idea of pumping an amplified signal (ie. many volts) into the dowsing rod so it can somehow propagate this signal to a remote location where the element to be detected is located, while at the same time using the same dowsing rod to receive a reflected signal from the element, which if it existed would be fractions of microvolts in amplitude, is ludicrous at best. It is like standing next to Niagara falls and trying to listen to a sound of a needle dropping on the floor. One could say that perhaps they do a TDMX of the dowsing rod, but that is not discussed, and neither is the subject of quantifying the effect on the NMR frequency signal when the stimulus signal is suddenly removed. This is much like the signal decay time vs sampling delay time on a PI detector.

My disbelief compounded when it is claimed that this weak signal, again if it existed, would be sufficiently strong to cause the dowsing rod to deflect and point in the direction of the source of the reflected signal.

Does this work, or can this work? I'd bet money it doesn't

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Rudy

Does this work, or can this work? I'd bet money it doesn't

Heck, even H3's supporters don't believe it works. Not a single one is saying, "Hey Chuck, jump on this guy's challenge, show him the H3 works just like you claim, take his money, and embarrass ol' Carl once and fer all." Instead, every last one of them is crying for legal action to silence me.

If the very people selling the device are telling us it doesn't work, why should we think otherwise?

[hung]

Wrong.
Your autism is showing again.

"H3 Tec demands that you return the H3 detector, H3 software, and H3 system as defined in the following paragraphs within 30 days of the date of this email ...

You are not the licensee and have obtained this device illegally. Failure to return H3 Tec’s property will force us to seek remedy in a court in the State of Utah where the contract was initiated.

Each H3 system (training, manuals, and other materials manufactured by H3), H3 detector, and its corresponding H3 software is sold through a license agreement between H3 Tec, LLC and the licensed end user or owner of the device and is under a strict contract and Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) signed by H3 Tec, LLC and the licensee. The license and agreement are specific to the user who purchased this license package and was trained on the correct use of the H3 device; neither the license, device, software, system, nor the agreement is transferable. Any breach of this license and NDA is a violation of the H3 user agreement that is put in place at the time of purchase.

(...)I encourage you to consider carefully before tampering with, reverse engineering, or testing any H3 device. You are prohibited from disclosing any company-proprietary information to which you may have access. We will not hesitate to invoke legal action if you proceed. "

***
This is the real reason on why you are about to be sued.
You have comitted the crime of piracy. And Jim of exposing unathorized copyrighted material, among other things.

Your 'challenge' or whatever, is insignificant to substantiate the object of the cause and would be completely disregarded in court.

PS. Now we know who SWR has got the H3tec's pictures from to expose over TNET.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by hung

Wrong.

This is the real reason on why you are about to be sued.
You have comitted[sic] the crime of piracy. And Jim of exposing unathorized[sic] copyrighted material, among other things.

Your 'challenge' or whatever, is insignificant to substantiate the object of the cause and would be completely disregarded in court.

PS. Now we know who SWR has got the H3tec's pictures from to expose over TNET.

Jim exposed unauthorized copyrighted material, eh? Bad Jim, no doughnut!

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Rudy

I just finished looking at the "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS" from Charles L. Christensen. US Pat 7,750,634 B1

The patent does contain H3 Tec copyrighted information, in the form of some PCB artwork, parts lists and source code. This probably helped lead the patent examiner into believing that the apparatus described is able to perform the intended function.

In the detailed description of the embodiment, a rather simplistic explanation of nuclear magnetic resonance is given, along with an explanation on how the resonant frequency of an element can be affected by external environmental factors such as the presence of a static magnetic field (ie. the earth's magnetic field). It then talks about how their electronics can integrate the effects of these environmental factors and perform a calculation that computes the effect of these factors and produces a new, corrected, NMR frequency. This drives a frequency generator and tunable filters to create a "clean" sinusoid of the desired frequency. This frequency can be amplified and fed to a Detection Module.

The above mentioned Detection Module uses this amplified frequency to "stimulate" the target element while at the same time it receives a reflected signal from the desired element. Then it starts to go downhill from there.

The Detection Module described in the patent is a ... dowsing rod with an electrical connection. But this is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.

The idea of pumping an amplified signal (ie. many volts) into the dowsing rod so it can somehow propagate this signal to a remote location where the element to be detected is located, while at the same time using the same dowsing rod to receive a reflected signal from the element, which if it existed would be fractions of microvolts in amplitude, is ludicrous at best. It is like standing next to Niagara falls and trying to listen to a sound of a needle dropping on the floor. One could say that perhaps they do a TDMX of the dowsing rod, but that is not discussed, and neither is the subject of quantifying the effect on the NMR frequency signal when the stimulus signal is suddenly removed. This is much like the signal decay time vs sampling delay time on a PI detector.

My disbelief compounded when it is claimed that this weak signal, again if it existed, would be sufficiently strong to cause the dowsing rod to deflect and point in the direction of the source of the reflected signal.

Does this work, or can this work? I'd bet money it doesn't

Thanks for taking the time to post your analysis. Your bet that the device does not work as advertised is a safe one. One that I, and others...concur with.

[J_Player]

Originally Posted by hung

Wrong.
Your autism is showing again.

"H3 Tec demands that you return the H3 detector, H3 software, and H3 system as defined in the following paragraphs within 30 days of the date of this email ...

You are not the licensee and have obtained this device illegally. Failure to return H3 Tec’s property will force us to seek remedy in a court in the State of Utah where the contract was initiated.

Each H3 system (training, manuals, and other materials manufactured by H3), H3 detector, and its corresponding H3 software is sold through a license agreement between H3 Tec, LLC and the licensed end user or owner of the device and is under a strict contract and Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) signed by H3 Tec, LLC and the licensee. The license and agreement are specific to the user who purchased this license package and was trained on the correct use of the H3 device; neither the license, device, software, system, nor the agreement is transferable. Any breach of this license and NDA is a violation of the H3 user agreement that is put in place at the time of purchase.

(...)I encourage you to consider carefully before tampering with, reverse engineering, or testing any H3 device. You are prohibited from disclosing any company-proprietary information to which you may have access. We will not hesitate to invoke legal action if you proceed. "

***
This is the real reason on why you are about to be sued.
You have comitted the crime of piracy. And Jim of exposing unathorized copyrighted material, among other things.

Your 'challenge' or whatever, is insignificant to substantiate the object of the cause and would be completely disregarded in court.

PS. Now we know who SWR has got the H3tec's pictures from to expose over TNET.

Crime of piracy?
Isn't piracy addressed in maritime law?

The US courts will not prosecute any act of piracy in the matter of H3Tec or its licence agreement with their customers. Nor will the H3Tec company make any claims that Carl violated their license agreement, because Carl has no agreement with H3Tec of any kind.

If they decide to make demands in a legal action against Carl, they will need to prove their equipment works by submitting it to an independent testing lab which will produce real evidence to show to the court that it works or does not work, and also submit a sample of the equipment to Carl and his defense team for examination and testing. You can be sure the press will be reporting the results of any testing that shows how the H3Tec can or cannot perform.

Do you really think H3Tec legal action will ever happen?
Or do you think we will continue to hear reports of their email demands and threats?

Best wishes,
J_P

[WM6]

Originally Posted by hung

This is the real reason on why you are about to be sued.

.

Exactly and reason is only one, crime company don't believe that their fraudulent thing work according their claims.

Even more, they very know that his funny scam creation cannot work according their claims.

So they're trying in every way to get the subject of crime back to underground.

Business as usual for scammers.

[Art3811]

Still having trouble with your reading comprehension I see….How do you spell SCAM?
http://www.geotech1.com/cgi-bin/pages/common/index.pl?page=lrl&file=reward.dat

Revised 13 Dec 2008

Until further notice, the $25,000 LRL Challenge is suspended. This is due to two factors: (1) I am in the process of moving cross-country, and both my time and funds are tied up in this effort, and (2) the economic slump has reduced the prize account below the minimum needed to support the challenge.

[Carl-NC]

Originally Posted by Art3811

Revised 13 Dec 2008
Until further notice, the $25,000 LRL Challenge is suspended. This is due to two factors: (1) I am in the process of moving cross-country, and both my time and funds are tied up in this effort, and (2) the economic slump has reduced the prize account below the minimum needed to support the challenge.

Thanks, Art, I had forgotten about that. It's fixed.

[Dave J.]

Tnet gets a souvenir Chuck Nastygram, Carl-NC gets several souvenir Chuck nastygrams.

What's the deal? Where's mine? I've badmouthed H3tec, too! And so have a bunch of other guys. The rest of us don't count? What's the deal? This is unfair!

Nobody's made H3tec look so fraudulent through and through as Chuck himself has-- website, public message board, patent, videos, emails, reps posting on forums, he's even manufactured apparatus that has wound up in people's hands. He's the ringleader who revealed all this stuff about H3tec. Heck, if it weren't for Chuck, I'd have never even heard of H3tec. I'd sure like to see a copy of the nastygram Chuck sends to himself once he discovers who's behind all this ruination of H3tec's reputation!

But meanwhile, where the heck is my copy? Only Carl and Marc are good enough? Where's that spirit of generosity that the Christmas season is supposed to be all about? Don't be a Scrooge!

And while you're at it, put twenty bucks (not a facsimile of a Chuck Nastygram) in the Salvation Army's Christmas bucket, the spiritual good it'll do ya will far exceed the financial good it will do the beneficiary. If you don't know how, come to El Paso on your dime within the next three weeks (Christmas special!) and I'll give you a demo with my own twenty bucks. Free instruction on "reverse dowsing for dollars"! No charge! But to gain proficiency you'll have to practice using your own $20 bills until you've mastered the art of "reverse dowsing for dollars" generosity and can get results every time with no further instruction from myself.

And there's no nondisclosure contract, either. In fact, for it to work to maximum efficiency you MUST disclose the secret sauce to others.

`--Dave J.

PS to Carl and Marc: I'm not asking him to flood the market with the things, that would devalue your copies. But it'll take more than just two to create market awareness for this collectible category. So it's a win-win situation for everybody. Most of all for Chuck, when he finally sends himself the most valuable nastygram of the bunch -- the one he sends to himself and proudly puts on display to replace the H3tec website declaring to the world he's found a new life.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by Dave J.

Nobody's made H3tec look so fraudulent through and through as Chuck himself has-- website, public message board, patent, videos, emails, reps posting on forums, he's even manufactured apparatus that has wound up in people's hands. He's the ringleader who revealed all this stuff about H3tec. Heck, if it weren't for Chuck, I'd have never even heard of H3tec. I'd sure like to see a copy of the nastygram Chuck sends to himself once he discovers who's behind all this ruination of H3tec's reputation!

I've got my nasty-grams framed. A real work of art, that con-man is.

My last nasty-gram from Chuck said:

Jim,

I have broken records, and when I want to listen to them, I do.


Good luck to you in the future,


Chuck




I am not sure why anyone would want to brake records, or try to listen to them at a later date if they broke them earlier. But, such is the logic of a con-man.