Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    Rather, if they have not paid, it would be inequitable for them to be allowed to "enjoy the rights" of the license, and a court could order the return. It might also order the return of the money paid to Rossi. What is the license worth?



    In either case, Rossi wins. Assuming the e-Cat / Quark-X work as claimed.

    Yes, assuming that. I wrote a great deal beside what is quoted, but that's okay here. There are possible outcomes of this case where Rossi very much loses by having filed it, even if he has, say, a Quark-X which is the e-Cat's meow. If IH owes the $89 million and has not paid, I was describing what would happen, pointing out that what Rossi is demanding would clearly be inequitable, i.e., that IH is both required to pay $89 million and loses the licence. He simply can't have it both ways, but that's what he is demanding.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    IH Fanboy wrote:

    Fake what? There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, I'll address.

    Quote

    Not at all! We would not cry "fake" in the sense meaning "that's not Rossi's data." We would say, "See? That's what I have been saying all along." That's what I said when Rossi revealed that he did not allow people into the customer site. There is more damning information like that in his data.

    I won't call that damning, but rather agree that it raises substantial suspicion, in a test that was originally conceived to dispel suspicion.

    Quote


    IH Fanboy wrote:

    Yes, they can, which understanding then takes us to the difference between a demonstration and an independent test. A demonstration is controlled by the inventor. And it is always possible to fake a demonstration in ways that would fool any expert. Hey, especially a nuclear engineer! An independent test is far, far more difficult to fake. The expert has full control. To fake an independent expert test, you pretty much have to corrupt the expert. But a demo? No experts were corrupted in the filming of this drama. Not as far as I know, anyway.


    If the inventor doesn't touch the thing and doesn't control the environment and all those details, very, very difficult to fake. Read the Agreement between Rossi and IH. If I were signing that for IH, I would think that I get to manage the GPT, through the ERV, who will be working for my company, and Rossi will not be there, sleeping with the thing. If there is necessary operator intervention, part of the IP transfer would be how to do that, full instructions. This is far from what happened, apparently. But we don't know for sure.


    Quote

    It would resolve everything. It would be proof of everything I have said about his test being a farce, and what I.H. said about flawed measurements, and unsuitable measuring devices. I say it would be proof because everything I have said is based on a sample of his data. I have no other information. Granted, it might show that my analysis is wrong, and Rossi is right.

    The GPT was hopelessly flawed due to Rossi's control of it. With such control, he could, he would have thought, get his hands on $89 million regardless of what IH thought. It appears that he failed to understand that convincing IH was core to the Agreement.


    I meant only in the prosaic sense that anyone can create a table of numbers and claim he got it from Rossi. I meant that even if I upload an actual sample, anyone prone to think I am lying will say I made it up. So, they have to get the data from Rossi directly, or they will not believe it.


    Rossi will not give it to them, because it shows his test failed.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    A demonstration is controlled by the inventor. And it is always possible to fake a demonstration in ways that would fool any expert.


    I do not think that is true. Experts are able to detect mistakes in experimental technique, which is far more subtle than deliberate fraud. In any case, I am sure this is not true of Rossi's 1-year test. His instrument configuration and data would not fool any expert. I am no expert, and I have only seen a sample of data, but it did not begin to fool me. After looking at the information for a few minutes I thought: "Is this supposed to be a joke?!?"


    Rossi has done many absurd tests that did not fool anyone. We all called him out on it. For example, we asked why there is no thermocouple at the outlet even though he had 2 free TCs on his 4-TC instrument. (As I recall, he said we should refer to temperature at the end of the hose in the parking lot 20 meters away.) This 1-year test was as bad as those previous tests. It was a farce. It wasn't anything like a sleight of hand trick. It only infuriated people. It resembled the time when Jim Dunn and the people from NASA were visiting him, and he insisted there was hot water coming out of the machine. Jim finally pulled the hose off the outlet and said, "Andrea, look! No water! Nothing is coming out." Rossi started to argue but at that point they realized the reactor was on the verge of exploding, so they turned it off and evacuated the room. Rossi refused to do another test. That is not a clever trick. It seems crazy to me.


    Rossi's locking people out of the pretend customer site did not fool anyone either.


    I do not know what he hoped to accomplish by doing this sort of thing. I guess he has succeeded in making a lot of money.

    Quote from frankwtu

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    It appears that he failed to understand that convincing IH was core to the Agreement.



    No it wasn't, it was only to convince the ERV, that is what the contract stipulates.

    Frank, you are repeating Rossi's belief, as if it were simple truth. What a contract 'stipulates" and the purpose of a contract can be very different. The contract also stipulates full IP transfer. If we are correct that the impetus for the 1 MW test was coming from Rossi, he easily could have agreed with IH to set it aside in favor of simpler, easier, and more conclusive testing. Thinking that it doesn't matter if the customer is satisfied or not, you have them over a barrel, they have agreed to pay you $89 million if you jump through Hoop A, regardless of what they want, is totally naive. No sane attorney would tell you to count on that.


    If Rossi satisfied them, they could raise the $89 million and pay him. They would happily do it. But a test that did not show that they could manufacture the devices without Rossi's help? No. They couldn't raise the money for that. I think Rossi imagined that the full resources of Cherokee would be behind this. If that is what he believed, and that is more or less what he claims in his Complaint, what an idiot!


    Never, ever deal with people based on transactions that are not in their interest. You may protest again and again that you are right, and you might technically be right, but you will lose. What people want matters.

    After listening to all the opinions far and wide, my best guess, it is only a guess, is that IH and Rossi have been gleefully and secretly collaborating to sell large numbers of ecats to customers who themselves want secrecy. Examples of such customers could be Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, USA gov. , UK, France and anyone else who wants to prepare a secret energy infrastructure before the Russians and others catch on. Clearly, Ukraine and USA would both be highly motivated but for different reasons.


    In other words, the lawsuit is a meaningless distraction.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
    A demonstration is controlled by the inventor. And it is always possible to fake a demonstration in ways that would fool any expert.


    I do not think that is true. Experts are able to detect mistakes in experimental technique, which is far more subtle than deliberate fraud.

    You argued this way in 2011. At least you are consistent. This is the problem. If the inventor has full control over the demonstration, and this happens in real time, an expert only has their prior experience, and human beings are endlessly inventive. I have in mind possible fraud mechanisms for, say, a 1 MW power plant, that have never been mentioned by anyone, so would an expert think of these and check for them? And remember, the inventor controls the demonstration. If some expert tries to investigate what the inventor doesn't want him to see, the inventor throws him out. Or has an escape planned. I.e,. "OMG, the snamker valve failed! Everyone out of the room! Now!"


    Now, what actually happens is that people who theoretically have the expertise have viewed Rossi demonstrations and have been allowed to do this or that. For whatever reason, they overlooked possible fraud or error mechanisms. So, of course, those reports were published. But other demonstrations, something else happened and, at least once, the demonstration was interrupted. OMG, the thing could explode! Well? Are you quite sure of that? That could simply indicate that the experts were about to discover the trick.


    However, later, when we look over these tests, we see the flaws, so what we come to, usually, was the test was inconclusive, because there could have been this or that problem. You are thinking of that post-test review. But later, there is no proof that the problem was actually real, all that has been created is doubt. Or sometimes we can reanalzye the data and so no heat. Usually there is doubt. Now, consider fully independent testing. This cannot be faked nearly so easily. If there are multiple such tests, and over time, it becomes effectively irrefutable.


    What I'm doing is pointing out the difference between demonstrations -- controlled by the inventor -- and independent confirmations. The GPT is a great example of what was effectively a demonstration. It would easily have been faked by Rossi. You are claiming that it was a crude fake, obvious. Fine. But we don't have that information, and what I'm pointing out is that even if it were not obvious, it could still be fake.


    You hit the nail on the head with suspicion based on lack of access to the customer area. There is a line running from the customer area into the reactor, and it's apparently and supposedly carrying a whole lot of water. Is it? Has the tube been thoroughly checked and investigated? Is it possible that at some times, it's water, and at some times, it is .... fuel? Or a mixture? Given time and money, an inventor could absolutely fool any expert, given control of the demonstration by the inventor. In an independent test, the expert would supply the water, say, the expert would hook up power, would set everything up, with the inventor not being able to touch anything. Operation of the device would be by written protocol. Etc.


    Very different from the GPT. Even if the ERV had control of certain things.


    In 2011, I wrote about magicians, who are experts at fooling experts. It is always possible. Now, a magician might see the trick, or not. We are very good at certain things, as humans, and not so good at others. I am certainly not saying that a fraud could *always* fool an expert, only that it's possible.

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Thinking that it doesn't matter if the customer is satisfied or not, you have them over a barrel, they have agreed to pay you $89 million if you jump through Hoop A, regardless of what they want, is totally naive. No sane attorney would tell you to count on that.


    There are two hoops Rossi has to jump through, one is a COP >6 as testified by the ERV, the second is to pass on IP and support to IH et al.


    Unless IH prove in court the ERV report is 'baseless' Rossi will sail through the first hoop.


    The second hoop is much more subjective to pin down, never the less, it is for IH to prove Rossi failed to pass over the necessary IP and support sufficient to comply with the contract.


    If Rossi can point to the Lugano test where the reactor was constructed by IH and prove the fuel was also provided by IH then he is home and dry, but I admit this may be difficult. No wonder Darden and Rossi visited the Swedes. However, even if both of these things can be proven by Rossi and the Lugano test is proven by Darden et al to be baseless, then IH have the upper hand, but by playing this hand they risk devaluing the IP, the licences, the patents and the whole thing falls apart for IH if they were hoping there might be at least something in Rossi's invention.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Now, what actually happens is that people who theoretically have the expertise have viewed Rossi demonstrations and have been allowed to do this or that. For whatever reason, they overlooked possible fraud or error mechanisms.


    That may have happened in previous tests, but it did not happen in this case. The people from I.H. were not fooled. I saw a sample of data and the configuration, and I was not fooled at all. My reaction was: "is this supposed to be joke?!?"


    In the test with Jim Dunn and the people from NASA no one was fooled. Jim saw that the machine was plugged up and on the verge of exploding, and they stopped the test immediately. Jim suggested Rossi try again after repairing the problem, but Rossi refused. Then he demanded millions of dollars without a test. That did not fool anyone.


    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    You hit the nail on the head with suspicion based on lack of access to the customer area. There is a line running from the customer area into the reactor, and it's apparently and supposedly carrying a whole lot of water.


    That was one of the major problems. Rossi has described that one in public. There are several others, equally bad, that he has not yet revealed. There was nothing subtle or sleight of hand about this. It was crude, obviously fake, and it would not fool any knowledgeable person more than a few minutes. I do not understand what he hoped to accomplish by doing this. He is a mystery to me. As I said, it is similar to the time he kept telling Jim Dunn: "The water is flowing through! I see it here on my instruments!" When Jim was looking at the actual tube and saw nothing coming out of it. He finally unplugged it from the reactor and said: "Look Andrea, nothing is coming out. See for yourself!" What was the point? Was he trying to deceive Jim? I cannot understand it.


    Let me repeat, what I say is based entirely on Rossi's own data and schematic. Not only did the physical test fool no one, his own description of it fools no one. The only people who believe him are those who have no knowledge of the test.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    That may have happened in previous tests, but it did not happen in this case. The people from I.H. were not fooled. I saw a sample of data and the configuration, and I was not fooled at all. My reaction was: "is this supposed to be joke?!?"

    The point has been lost. The point was that it is possible for a fraud to fool experts if the conditions of a demonstration are under the control of the fraud. That a particular possible fraud in a particular situation did not succeed at this does not contradict what I wrote. The core message is that managed demonstrations are inadequate in any situation where fraud is a possibility, which would include any situation where millions of dollars are at stake.


    By "fool" I mean short-term success at deception. That may or may nut be sustained. With time and especially collective consciousness, a fraud may be exposed or at least seen as possible. With independent testing this becomes very unlikely. Multiple independent tests even more so.


    Quote

    In the test with Jim Dunn and the people from NASA no one was fooled. Jim saw that the machine was plugged up and on the verge of exploding, and they stopped the test immediately. Jim suggested Rossi try again after repairing the problem, but Rossi refused. Then he demanded millions of dollars without a test. That did not fool anyone.

    You are reporting rumor. You were not there ... or were you? I am not denying the report, just pointing out a distinction, and it matters in these discussions. This part of the rumor does not establish the point. I find the sequence one more piece of evidence of Rossi instability. He had a perfect excuse for it not working. So why did he refuse to retest? Something else is going on, in his personality.


    Quote

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    That was one of the major problems. Rossi has described that one in public. There are several others, equally bad, that he has not yet revealed. There was nothing subtle or sleight of hand about this. It was crude, obviously fake, and it would not fool any knowledgeable person more than a few minutes. I do not understand what he hoped to accomplish by doing this. He is a mystery to me. As I said, it is similar to the time he kept telling Jim Dunn: "The water is flowing through! I see it here on my instruments!" When Jim was looking at the actual tube and saw nothing coming out of it. He finally unplugged it from the reactor and said: "Look Andrea, nothing is coming out. See for yourself!" What was the point? Was he trying to deceive Jim? I cannot understand it.

    Again, this is not on the point raised about fraud possibility. Again, it shows Rossi personality. Rossi is in charge. Rossi is in control. Nobody tells Rossi what to do. Rossi is never wrong. I'm thinking back to all that I know about Rossi. Has he ever acknowledged a mistake?


    He alleges that Darden and Vaughn deceived him, but he never states it as a mistake, that it was an error to trust them. He was living in a fantasy, to read his account in the Complaint, but never takes responsibility for it. They fooled him so they should suffer and pay. Any attorney would have told him that if IH didn't pay, Cherokee would walk away. Holding companies are set up to protect assets like that. In fact, Cherokee apparently was not an investor in IH at all. Again, if his story is true, he was an idiot. But he doesn't admit being an idiot. Ever. He doesn't acknowledge any errors with Petroldragon. I'm not seeing any acknowledgement of error, anywhere. That's a certain kind of personality.


    I notice in the Dunn demonstration that Dunn was able to grab the hose and look at it, and then to disconnect the hose. This was a demonstration taking place in an environment less controlled by Rossi. I would suspect that Rossi realized he had inadequate control there. That, then, would explain why he didn't go back. Rossi wants full control.


    Quote

    Let me repeat, what I say is based entirely on Rossi's own data and schematic. Not only did the physical test fool no one, his own description of it fools no one. The only people who believe him are those who have no knowledge of the test.

    Accepting your comments -- which are what is called "conclusory" in the Motion to Dismiss -- this, again, doesn't contradict the point. That a particular test failed to fool does not show the impossibility of fooling experts in a controlled demonstration, and the central problem with the GPT was that Rossi had high control. Further, from what Dewey has stated, Rossi refused to run the test in Raleigh, where there was a ready customer. Now, at this point, IH could possibly have insisted. There was nothing in the Agreement about Rossi running the test. It was IH with the ERV, the way that I'd read it. It was their reactor. However, then, Rossi may have refused to assist, and the thing didn't work without him. hmmm... I wonder why?


    But they could have insisted, still, requiring that all assistance be provided in writing, not by physically touching their reactor. Was it an error for IH to allow Rossi to test this in Florida? Maybe. I really am looking forward to seeing a full explanation. If Rossi doesn't cooperate in making the demonstration happen .... the conditions of the Agreement fail and Rossi doesn't get $89 million. And might be on the hook for $10 million or even more. By allowing the Florida test, IH allowed the legal situation to get a bit muddier.


    All I can think of was that they had made the decision to cooperate with Rossi, regardless, trusting that they would be able to sort it all before paying the $89 million.


    I'm looking forward to the next installment of the Rossi Saga. Rossi's attorney files an answer to the Motion to Dismiss, by June 20. Or will it be something else? More Drama! Rossi Fires Attorney, Claiming Clownery, Requests Continuance!


    Wait. Rossi doesn't make requests!


    Rossi Demands Continuance!

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Then he demanded millions of dollars without a test. That did not fool anyone.
    You are reporting rumor. You were not there ... or were you?


    That is not a rumor. I was not there, but I spent a couple of days at a conference with Dunn and the folks from NASA not long after this happened. They told me all about it. Ask Dunn for details. It is amusing yet appalling.


    Those people from NASA are terrific, by the way.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    That is not a rumor. I was not there, but I spent a couple of days at a conference with Dunn and the folks from NASA not long after this happened. They told me all about it. Ask Dunn for details. It is amusing yet appalling.


    Those people from NASA are terrific, by the way.

    Jed, if you were not there, it's a rumor. It's a possibly verifiable rumor, because you attribute it to specific people, but it is your own retelling, from a verbal report. I'd call it a "high quality rumor," because of the specific attribution and verifiability.


    Yes, it's appalling.And thanks for reporting it. I just want to be clear about testimony.

    We should also keep in mind that a journalist, repeating what he or she was told by a person who was actually there or involved, would be reporting something and engaging in journalism. We'd take their word on it with only minor afterthoughts.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    Jed, if you were not there, it's a rumor.


    No, it is a report. A rumor is defined as: "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth." There is nothing uncertain or doubtful about it. This was a direct interview by me during a conference. An interview of the people who did the test, with follow-up emails. I wrote down the details. You can contact them and confirm the report. There is a world of difference between this and a rumor.


    Frankly, I cannot imagine why you would call this a "rumor."

    Quote from Alan Smith

    It is technically 'hearsay' in this forum as presented by Jed.


    No, technically it is a report. Albeit an unpublished, informal one. Hearsay is defined as: "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."


    You people should make more frequent use of dictionaries. You cannot simply redefine words to mean whatever you like. "Rumor" and "hearsay" have specific meanings. Sitting down with people at a conference, taking notes, following up with e-mails to confirm their account does not, in any sense, constitute rumors or hearsay.

    • Official Post

    Jed. Don't be obtuse, it doesn't become your age or status. I was using the specific definition of hearsay that you refer to -as it stands in the UK anyway. In this case, this space is standing in for a court. Since what you were told by a third party is at present an 'out of court statement' it is hearsay. Jim Dunn ain't here AFAIK. As for follow-ups and emails, they were never mentioned in your earlier account. You said ...


    "....It resembled the time when Jim Dunn and the people from NASA were visiting him, and he insisted there was hot water coming out of the machine. Jim finally pulled the hose off the outlet and said, "Andrea, look! No water! Nothing is coming out." Rossi started to argue but at that point they realized the reactor was on the verge of exploding, so they turned it off and evacuated the room. Rossi refused to do another test. That is not a clever trick. It seems crazy to me."


    Which to be absolutely clear sounds just like an anecdote of the 'hesaid, she said' variety. But if you assert that you have solid evidence for it, then it is not of course. But you never said that until a couple of hours ago..


    'Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein". In certain courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies'.


    BTW, if you think I am accusing you of fabrications, you would be totally wrong. I have never done such a thing, you would be thinking of somebody else.

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:You hit the nail on the head with suspicion based on lack of access to the customer area. There is a line running from the customer area into the reactor, and it's apparently and supposedly carrying a whole lot of water.



    My understanding is that the interface to the customer area was through a heat exchanger. [I don't have the reference at hand].


    Calorimetry can be done on the primary circuit without the need to know what's on the secondary.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    -as it stands in the UK anyway. In this case, this space is standing in for a court.


    Stop the nonsense and pettifoggery. This forum is not a court. You are using a narrow definition of "hearsay" applied in the U.K. courts. In ordinary conversational American or British English, what I described is not hearsay. It is a report.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Which to be absolutely clear sounds just like an anecdote of the 'hesaid, she said' variety.


    Says who?!? Where did you get that from? I am not allowed to quote Jim Dunn?


    Quote from Alan Smith

    But if you assert that you have solid evidence for it, then it is not of course. But you never said that until a couple of hours ago..


    I did not need to say that. First, I have said it several times already. Second, you have no reason to doubt what I say, and no damn business claiming that I spread unfounded rumors. Who are you to question my credibility, anyway?


    You people accept any damn nonsense from Rossi, even though he has proven to be a notorious liar. Yet when I and others give direct evidence that he is lying, such as his pressure readings of 0.0 bar, you accuse us of spreading unfounded rumors. When I give you technical data from his report, you say I am making it up, or you demand impossible proof. Rossi gives you absolutely nothing, and yet based on nothing, you take his word for everything he says.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.