#1
|
||||
|
||||
H3Tec Challenge
This thread will cover my discussions with H3Tec. In early 2010 I was sent an H3Tec device for testing and inspection. As part of my investigation, I wrote an email to Chuck Christensen at H3Tec with some questions about the device:
Quote:
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Chuck's reply to my email was as follows:
Quote:
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I wrote Chuck back to point out serious deficits in his demands, and to offer my LRL challenge:
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||||
|
||||||
H3Tec claims that their device was tested and "certified" by Chemir Analytical Services, which is a legitimate testing lab. H3Tec includes some footage of their visit to Chemir in one of their videos. So I decided to contact Chemir to ask about the test and the results:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At this point, I asked Chemir how much they would charge if I personally brought the H3Tec device in for them to perform a double-blind test. They responded: Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
During all this, I sent James Randi a run-down on my adventures with H3Tec. He sent them the following email:
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Uh-oh, time for another threatening email from Chuck. This time he copies Kory D. Christensen, who is apparently his patent attorney. Or, as I like to call him, his "attorney-of-the-same-name." I wonder if this guy is giving Chuck such phenomenally bad information, or if Chuck is making it up on his own.
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Not wanting to appear to be ignoring Chuck's pleas, I again offered my challenge. I even agree to all his demands IF the device is successful in a scientific test. Also, I copied his attorney-of-the-same-name so there would be no doubt that I have offered Chuck a legitimate settlement that satisfies their "demands."
Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Chuck was getting nowhere with his begging, so he asks the wife to beg instead:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Forgot to mention... in my last email to H3Tec, I added my own "confidentiality notice":
Quote:
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Another great anti-fraud project Carl. Thank you for all your efforts in this way.
This one of the best statement in this case: "However, I assure you, no "reverse engineering" is being contemplated, sought, or even considered; that would be a waste of our time and labor, since there's no engineering to be found."
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence! |
#11
|
||||||
|
||||||
Early in my investigation of the H3Tec device, I emailed Ike Tiner with some questions. Ike was a vocal proponent of H3Tec and it appeared that he lived in Oregon, at a reasonable distance from me, so I hoped we could get together for some basic experiments:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, yes, it IS a dowsing device, there is no doubt about that. But I let it go. I soon discovered in reading Ike's forum posts on thunting.com that he has moved to Texas and is a dealer for H3Tec. So he has a personal investment in defending H3Tec. Since Chuck refuses a scientific test of his device, I made a similar offer to Ike on thunting.com. This began when someone asked about the H3Tec, and I responded: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
In an earlier thread on this forum, Chuck chimed in to disagree with me after I reported on seeing the H3Tec at the Texas Treasure Show. He made the following offer:
"We would be more than happy to give you a full demonstration of our products as well as a quick training session." I replied, "Would you do the demonstration under randomized double-blind conditions?" He wouldn't respond to this question, even after I asked it again. In a very recent exchange on TreasureNet, I repeated my challenge to Chuck, and extended to all their dealers: Quote:
Cain't do it. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Here is the latest from Chuck:
Quote:
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
The whole reason I decided to post all these emails is because Chuck is deliberately spreading... er... fabrications about what's been said. Ferinstance, he has said:
In fact, you have contacted our independent testing laboratories, illegally misrepresented yourself as our authorized vendor, and attempted to obtain company-confidential and proprietary information in the form of our lab tests. This has been repeated to his dealers and posted on forums. As anyone can see from the actual emails, I did no such thing. I was completely honest in my inquiry. If the test results really supported Chuck's claims, then there should be no reason to hide them. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
They will destroy your forum at long range distance by H3Tec isotope.
__________________
Global capital is ruining your life? You have right to self-defence! |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Hi Jim, Just a note, maybe for the wise. We have been following you and your talk about our company. It is less than informed, and more than unchallengeable. I’m sorry you have come out to purposely do damage to our company without even accepting an invitation to use the H3, come to our manufacturing facilities and test drive the H3. You have pushed this issue past the point of reason or reconsideration. Sincerely.....yada yada Reconsideration....eh? I've reconsidered H3's advertisement "H3 Treasure Detectors are scientific instruments, not toys"....and come to the same conclusion...not a scientific instrument |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Since the purpose of this thread is to publicly document my challenge to H3Tec and their responses, let's take a look at some more... err... "fabrications" that Chuck posted:
Carl ... has told the world that we do not manufacture a product stating "It has no board in it", "it can't work". Ignoring the butchered English, I have never claimed the H3 device "has no board in it." In fact, I stated (THunting forum, 8/15/2010): "It does have a real circuit inside (unlike so many LRLs that don't) but the circuitry doesn't really do anything, other than look high-tech and make the buyers feel they got more for their $10,000 than just a dowsing rod." I also don't think I've ever said "it can't work," only that it's just a dowsing rod, and doesn't do what the manufacturer claims it will do. We have invited Carl to Utah to see our production and assembly shop as well as test drive our products. Chuck has never invited me to "see our production and assembly shop." He did say (Geotech forum, 4/11/2009): "We would be more than happy to give you a full demonstration of our products as well as a quick training session." I replied: "Well, I just might take you up on that. Would you do the demonstration under randomized double-blind conditions?" No answer. I repeated this question a few more times but Chuck kept dodging the question. He refuses stating that he's offering us a 25K challenge. I will gladly accept a demonstration of the device, as long as its executed using an acceptable scientific test procedure. I have no use for a typical sales demo. Well it's a contract that can't be met, so he get's 5k for his efforts. As I've stated, passing a scientific test is trivial if the device works, and impossible if it doesn't work. Sound like Chuck is admitting the device doesn't work. In any case, the "5k" comment is blatantly wrong. There is no provision in the challenge for paying me anything. If the device works, I lose $25,000. It it doesn't work, I get nothing. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Carl,
You might want to point out to the gentleman from HT 3 that you can not possibly be in breach of their confidentiality agreement since you never signed one with them. Many years ago, I was being deposed in a patent infringement suit and as part of the discovery process, a letter from a competitor to a customer, that was in my possession was produced. The attorney for the other side tried to rattle me by pointing out that at the bottom of the letter was a paragraph stating that the letter contained company confidential information. The lawyer asked me why I had not returned the letter to our competitor since it contained their confidential information? I looked at him straight on and said that I didn't return it because I had never signed a confidentiality agreement with them. At that point he asked for a 15 minute recess in the deposition, probably to try and figure out another angle of attack.
__________________
HH Rudy, MXT, HeadHunter Wader Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This messages is property of H3 Tec, as are all electronic, voice, or written communications: See notice below. Jim, Since you have no idea what you are talking about I’m going to wish you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving. I will at one caveat, You should well be aware of the rights of a patent holder and their property, you should know about slander and libel. You should also understand about industrial sabotage, and espionage. If you don’t, you should get very familiar with them in the near future. Have a very happy Thanksgiving, and by the way, your website might be a reflection upon your professionalism. Much luck and health to you in the future, and you will be seeing us very soon. Sincerely, Chuck CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email message may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. Do not read this email if you are not the intended recipient. This email transmission and any documents, files, or previous email messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the addressee, please promptly destroy this email and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner, and notify the sender of the delivery error by email; or you may call H3 Tec's corporate offices in Ogden Ut, U.S.A at (+1) (602) 464.3832 |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I wonder, has anyone with one of these "boxes" seen a label (or perhaps imprinted on the case), containing one or more U.S. Patent numbers? Companies afraid that their competitors will reverse engineer their invention and market it usually "mark" their equipment with such a label. The reason is that, if the item is so marked and they win their patent infringement suit against their competitor, they are entitled to recover treble damages as far back as competitor's unit #1 sold. Otherwise their damages are capped starting with the competitor's unit sold after the infringement suit was filed. Yes, that boiler plate notice they tack on to emails is ludicrous. Our legal department would use it too on their emails. It was more of a CYA than anything else. And, since it is always at the bottom, how does one know it was there until after one reads the email?
__________________
HH Rudy, MXT, HeadHunter Wader Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. Quote:
Last edited by Carl-NC; 11-26-2010 at 10:58 PM. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
HH Rudy, MXT, HeadHunter Wader Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://tinyurl.com/y9f8e3w |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Of course it is.
Just a thought....does the patent cover the H3 Tec Tricorder series? That's the model that uses a dowsing rod to "excite" the atoms/molecule and a smaller dowsing rod that "listens" to the atoms talk. There seems to be a difference between the item patented and the current H3 models |
|
|