beckett,
I read the NYTimes article you linked to, so as to "check my facts". Sounds to me like yet another story of extensive democratic party corruption. Did I miss something?
Probably the only reason this even became a case at all, and made the news, was that Cherokee didn't pay-off these unnamed: "environmental activists" the article mentions, along with everyone else in the state.
Lesson learned for Darden: never piss off environmental activists! 
on "Tainting the jury pool"
There is no way anyone on a jury reads something as esoteric as LENR Forum. A jury pool will be 6 or 12 random citizens with no particular interest one way or another in LENR. Maybe 25% will be scientifically literate. That is how the jury system works.
The probability of finding someone in Miami who actually reads this is about 5 in 10 million, i.e. 5e-7. (3 of them already work for Rossi.) Those jurors who already have formed an opinion will be discarded if by random chance they are called for the voir dire interviews, but the probability of anyone having read this is essentially nil -- there is a 900x higher chance of dying in an accident (4.1e-4 according to the CDC). This is not the OJ Simpson trial. No one in main stream America knows or cares about LENR.
The Judge might be expected to read any and everything on the subject. But my recollection is that Rossi asked for a jury trial.
The Judge will do his/her best to ensure that a fair trial is conducted. In essence, this is what we pay for in the justice system. It will not be cheap. Rossi and his legal team will end up paying $500K of either fees or foregone fees (if his lawyer is on contingency). Industrial Heat will pay three times that for Jones Day. Add in the judge who is no doubt top notch to get appointed, the jury, and everything else -- we are easily talking a cost of $2 mm to adjudicate this commercial dispute. Only the lawyers win. This is a waste of money, but if both sides are entrenched, this is the only way. It will take 2 to 4 years.
QuoteOne thing is clear to me at least, is that we must wait to see if, first IH et al claim the Rossi Effect is 'illusory' and second if the court rule it to be 'illusory'. Without a claim from IH et al to this effect, I think it unlikely the court will rule the invention to be illusory. So all this 'fog' about Kanthal rods and other issues that may influence the quality of the readings is of little consequence, if IH do not claim the invention is 'illusory'.
Nothing is certain, but it is likely that the integrity of the Rossi tests (and especially those which led to investment) will be relevant.
It is very proper to say that since much is not known about the legal action, we should hold fire till we have IH's reply. That however was I believe not JoshG's intent.
I doubt IH will be able, or want, to prove the "Rossi effect" does not exist. But if they can show that Rossi has never demonstrated correctly measured positive results that will likely be relevant.
Should not be too difficult a task given that it is pretty clear from the sequence of tests that he has never had correctly measured positive results. In that context showing that a specific test did not have positive results is relevant.
PS - you need to keep track of the issues. Kanthal rods are not relevant to whether Lugano works. All that is relevant to that issue can be found in my published comment of 9 months ago - nothing in the time since then has changed its conclusions - though there are many interesting subsidiary issues for afficionados of this stuff.
@anonymous
Agreed to all of that - which is pretty obvious except for the precise figures.
It is probably in the interests of both parties to settle but IH may feel to avoid its own complications it must pursue Rossi, and Rossi may for reasons of PR or whatever want his Jury Trial. Who can tell?
Tom
Thomas
This is a genuine question no slant or spin. I am going to ask you to 'speculate' from your own point of view, decline if you wish, as I agree it is of little value.
Put yourself in the position of first Rossi then IH et al. Would you be persuaded that it is in your best interests to raise the possibility that Rossi's invention does not 'work' and is not 'useful'?
But this is the particular point I am interested in from your own point of view. How would you react if the court (as seems likely) will assume Rossi's invention does 'work' and is 'potentially useful'. Will you pack your bags for the Bahamas and leave the believers to settle between themselves, or modify your approach to one where you accept (as under this scenario) that the invention is real but perhaps argue it cannot be safely controlled.
Best regards
Frank
Anonymous
but if both sides are entrenched, this is the only way. It will take 2 to 4 years
If for whatever reason the judge rules the 'invention' to be 'illusory' then the 'contract' will be 'invalid' as you cannot have a contract based on 'nothing'. The case then will be over in the blink of an eye.
Of course, if the Judge and the court accept the patents and 'Intellectual Property' as being 'valid' the court will effectively be 'rubber stamping' the 'Rossi Effect' and almost no one will be interested in the case outcome but will analyse what it means to have the invention 'accepted as real and useful' by a (PATENT) court of law.
Will the sceptics try to brand the Judge and Jury as 'incompetent' as they have with Penon?
Best regards
Frank
Once upon a thread Josh said" it’s hard to cut through the thick layer of fog"
are you still there Josh .. the fog has got thicker.. can you hear me?
to add to the new thread of psychological counselling I give you an answer from
Mahalia Jackson
Don't worry we'll look back one day... long after this June and sing
"My soul look back in wonder How did I make it over" [the fog]
I feel like shouting...
Blessings
QuotePut yourself in the position of first Rossi then IH et al. Would you be persuaded that it is in your best interests to raise the possibility that Rossi's invention does not 'work' and is not 'useful'?
Rossi, no. IH, maybe (they would have some conflict - and I can't say which way it will go).
QuoteBut this is the particular point I am interested in from your own point of view. How would you react if the court (as seems likely) will assume Rossi's invention does 'work' and is 'potentially useful'. Will you pack your bags for the Bahamas and leave the believers to settle between themselves, or modify your approach to one where you accept (as under this scenario) that the invention is real but perhaps argue it cannot be safely controlled.
That would depend on what evidence the Court made that decision. If on new robust evidence, properly tested, and positive, I'd accept the invention is maybe real. But that hypothetical is very unlikely, because we have strong evidence it does not work.
Thomas Clarke,
I registered for the forum in order to thank you for your posts. I've been reading about Rossi regularly for a year, mostly at e-catworld.com, hoping for replications, independent verification, a public demonstration of clearly excess energy, something besides email exchanges between Rossi believers and Rossi, and besides attempted replications that are unsuccessful, inconclusive, or incompletely reported. I hadn't registered for any forums involving LENR or commented on any blogs about it, because I felt I didn't know enough about it yet to have a definite opinion or to contribute usefully. After reading your comments especially in this thread, I feel that I know enough about it to decide it's very likely that it's all a mistake, the part of LENR research centered around Rossi's claims and attempted replication of Rossi.
In this thread you remarked that Rossi could be using methods in his own experiments that give an apparent 2.5 times measured energy production over input energy. That was one of the top lines of argument that led to my decision. Thank you for doing the work of looking into the possible sources of error in the experiments that have been reported, and the work of continuing to comment on the subject publicly and explain the details to others, when obviously one might conclude that since there's nothing to it, there's nothing to be said.
To readers here in general,
The subject in this thread includes making predictions about what will happen in the dispute between Rossi and IH. That's part of presenting competing explanations of what's going on. It's useful for judging the plausibility of points of view and their success, if they come with predictions. So I'll give a prediction:
The case will not go to trial. Since Rossi has nothing that clearly works, only some electric heaters as shown in Lugano, and maybe a large box of electric heaters used as a water heater or boiler, he won't want to put that before a jury. Rossi's motive for filing a case against IH, in my view, was to save his reputation before his fans and potential customers, after he had claimed to run a one-year test successfully. Rossi's only hope of getting something out of IH through the lawsuit is by a settlement pretrial, to make the lawsuit and negative statements from him about IH go away. I saw in Rossi's responses to questions about the lawsuit within a few days after it was filed that Rossi was making the argument that if IH didn't believe his technology worked, then they were committing fraud by dancing around the devices like ballerinas as a way to raise funds for themselves. I think that argument is how Rossi is angling to get paid again by IH.
If there is a real customer, that is, if the admitted shell known as "Jm Chemical Products" maybe also known as "J & C Chemical Products" is backed by a real company with a real product that uses energy in its production either from the test or in other locations for which they've ordered additional plants from Rossi, then this is a company that's not expert in the cost and measurement of electric heater produced hot water or steam, or else is paid off by Rossi or backers of Rossi to act as if it works, or is otherwise a scam or incompetent in some way.
There's a site called freeenergyscams.com which claims, with documentation, that Rossi has been claiming to provide heat for industrial purposes, using the E-cat technology, enough to heat a whole factory, since October 16, 2007, a claim made on an Italian patent application for the E-cat in 2008, and repeated in a US patent application.
http://freeenergyscams.com/and…nd-misleading-statements/
I hope there is some LENR energy device that works and can provide energy at industrial scale, but I think the idea that it's Rossi's looks increasingly unlikely.
QuoteI'll give a prediction
I'll give one too. Going to be dry summer and a wet Autumn.
And a long cold lonely winter.
Mr Darden collects investments in companies that end up dissipating the money of the investors with the excuse that the business is not gone well.
And Dewey is his bag-man.
A jury pool will be 6 or 12 random citizens with no particular interest one way or another in LENR. Maybe 25% will be scientifically literate.
I think you overestimate Florida... Hopefully >25% will be literate.
I hope there is some LENR energy device that works and can provide energy at industrial scale, but I think the idea that it's Rossi's looks increasingly unlikely.
What does the phrase "not work" mean?
For a systems engineer, the term means "not fulfilling the specification."
This specification was defined in the Licence agreement.
http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…sdce-16-21199__0001.2.pdf
See section 5. "Guaranteed Performance"
The guaranteed performance is a COP >= 4 with steam temperature above 100C for 350 days out of 400.
The Rossi reactor does not need to be a turnkey stand alone commercial product. Rossi may operate the reactor manually 24/7 for 350 days and the spec would still be met.
Furthermore, as witnessed by the top IH engineer as follows:
https://animpossibleinvention.…u-people-wouldnt-believe/
Rossi’s engineer: ‘I have seen things you people wouldn’t believe’
Talking about the validity of the E-Cat technology, Fabiani (an IH employee) continues:
“With the failures, I found myself having to believe in it. Why? Because when something fails, you see the behavior of the object. The next time you adjust it, then you see that it behaves very differently. And then you realize that it is something unique. We have it all filmed, which still cannot be disclosed. We have photographs of creatures that emit pure light that have completely melted the reactor down, all in a very quiet way. You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive."
Note... You just turn off the stimuli system and the reaction is switched off. It’s impressive. Stimuli means application of superwave EMF.
Almost Colwyn - I tree feral cats and wait for the police / fire depts.
The Planet Rossi PR kerfuffle is completely exhausted and we're not even finished with first inning.
The case will not go to trial. Since Rossi has nothing that clearly works, only some electric heaters as shown in Lugano, and maybe a large box of electric heaters used as a water heater or boiler, he won't want to put that before a jury. Rossi's motive for filing a case against IH, in my view, was to save his reputation before his fans and potential customers, after he had claimed to run a one-year test successfully.
Eraut,
You are probably right. However Rossi will say his Hotcat does work. As proof he has the Lugano report, and Darden's public statements that were indicative of it being successful. He even bragged about building, and shipping the reactor used for the test. Talked of the fuel ash transformation as convincing.
Yes, he (Darden) can walk that back, get Dr. Clarke on the stand to argue the "highly esteemed professors" -all 7 of them, were wrong. But in cross examination he will have to admit, by his very own calculations, 1 against the 7 esteemed professors, that the Hotcat may have a COP >1, and they could be right. But maybe not. In fact his final best estimate was 1.07, which if true would be revolutionary, and theirs, the esteemed professors, concluded a COP3. If that doesn't convince the jury, Rossi's lawyer will call me356, Parkomov, and Songsheng to testify they have replicated the Hotcat.
In fact, Rossi has mentioned exactly those replications from a Russian, Chinese, and whomever me356 is, a number of times in his defense on JONP....one literally a few hours ago. So it sounds like he is publicly laying out his defense right there on his propaganda site. Take notice Dewey!
Don't get me wrong, if the Hotcat does not work, and it probably does not, then Rossi is a sleazebag, a con artist, deserves to lose everything, and reprehensible for him to use Lugano, and the "successful" replicators -who disappear into the night after claiming so, to walk away with a kings ransom. But he does have leverage.
Now the 1MW 1 year test is different. The only independent test done by a 3rd party for it was sponsored by a Rossi licensee (Hydrofusion), and it failed miserably. Forgot the neutral party testing agency, but they found the individual Ecat provided had 2-3 times more power feeding into it than claimed. Darden, if the ERVs report is as flawed as Dewey claims, and we still have not read that report, should be on firm ground there concerning the contract.
I cannot fathom how a jury trial can work, when PhDs and Nobel Prizes are in disagreement.
Attorney: Juror Nr. 1, do you know what an electron is?
Juror Nr. 1: What I get from the electronic utilities to power the appliances in my house?
Attorney: OK, let's start from the beginning...
Pierre,
Even more scary is that they (juries) often rule on life or death! Electron's are nothing in comparison.
I almost put a "LOLs" after that but thought better. Seriously, Rossi has requested a trial by jury. He may not get that. Very technical cases are often ruled on by the judge (from the bench), who in this case was assigned to a specialist in patent law...go figure.
The only legal expert I pay attention to regarding LENR and it's patents, legal strategy, or whatever, is David French. His opinion is that there is a 50-80% chance this will be settled before trial.
But his opinion is based on normal litigants, and Rossi isn't normal IMO. Rossi does not go by convention.
If this goes to trial, I expect that Mr. Rossi will be forced to provide a working demo for one or more third party experts chosen by the judge. I expect that the judge is a man or woman with both a law degree and experience in these commercial matters and will hire only top experts that are universally respected. i.e. Ph.Ds. with sufficient lab expertise to be credible witnesses. I also expect, that unless Mr. Rossi files a motion to redact the experts report, that we will get to read every word of the report and also hear his/her/their live testimony in court (which will be transcribed by a stenographer). I expect that if this goes to trial, we will get either a complete validation of Rossi's machine, or a refutation. If it goes to trial, it will be adjudicated in court and you can "bank" on the judge's ruling commercially as this is a commercial court on a commercial matter. Whether Mr. Rossi settles ahead of time is another matter and whatever information we may gain from that early settlement will be relatively limited.
axil,
I've read those things before. It would be a great breakthrough and a great contribution to the world if the reactor had a COP of 4 or greater. It would also be interesting and exciting if what Fabiani said is true.
I now think the likelihood is that Rossi has nothing, in other words, COP = 1, in any of his devices. I think that strongly enough that I'm embarrassed to have spent so much time reading about it and considering it a possibility, even to the point that today I'm commenting at a forum that deals in the subject.
I don't know that there was a reactor for the 1MW test. I don't know if Fabiani said those things. I'm a show-me sort of skeptic, who wants to see something before I commit to any belief. (I'm not a prejudging sort of "skeptic.") That's why I didn't believe Rossi was a fraud or incompetent either, until I'd seen for a year that Rossi was following a pattern of promising results then not delivering and switching to new promises. If Rossi shows that there is a "reactor" open to public view or at least to the media, and releases an ERV report that claims there was excess power, then maybe I'll change my mind. If there's a public demonstration of Rossi's technology that clearly shows excess power then of course I'll change my mind. That's against Rossi's demonstrated pattern of behavior that he would do any of those things, his pattern of behavior as viewed under the hypothesis that he has nothing.
Rossi was following that pattern before. So why didn't I just think Rossi was a scammer or crackpot all along? The claim that there was a replication by Parkhomov got me interested. I saw an exciting possibility that this wasn't just a case of emails and blog posts from someone claiming to be an incredible inventor, with nothing to back the words up. There was an escalation of development to an important one-year test, supposedly. After the one year test concluded without the promised ERV report being released, without a real industrial customer, without a real independent validator, instead a lawsuit and the diversion of promises of other models of the E-cat, now my area of uncertainty is more about whether the things claimed such as the 1MW "reactor" even existed physically, and how many people actually are involved in this and have they even met physically, or is it all just email and computer generated images.
and how many people actually are involved in this and have they even met physically, or is it all just email and computer generated images.
We all will see this thing play out in court as the daily transcript are rendered on ECW and here; it won't be long now; reality will be revealed for good or ill; be patient and assured; the time for history is at hand, for the truth to be judged, recorded, and read.
Only the lawyers win. This is a waste of money, but if both sides are entrenched, this is the only way. It will take 2 to 4 years.
I sympathize with the sentiment about a jury trial being a waste of money in this case. But I'm happy that the matter is being brought to trial, if the result is that hard information will be released to the public.
If it goes to trial, it will be adjudicated in court and you can "bank" on the judge's ruling commercially as this is a commercial court on a commercial matter.
Given Rossi's temperament, there's the possibility of an appeal, resources permitting.
