Did IH's motion to dismiss ruin them?

  • Mechanical flowmeters are tested using a known volume in a tank. The water goes by gravity through the water meter and its accurate to with 1% of true flow.


    They are only within 1% when they are installed correctly and when they are not old, fouled with sand or debris, or not working for some other reason. As I said, the one in my house was off by a factor of 5. That was a mechanical unit that I believe was installed in the 1980s or 1990s.


    Of course any instrument can malfunction, but in my experience with cold fusion calorimetry, flowmeters are the most problematic.

    • Official Post

    Alan has not devoted any time looking into the Papp tech.


    Wrong, Axil. :( Read my post above. a good friend in the USA investigated Papp and the Rohner bros exhaustively, and we talked about it (and he sent me obscure documents about it) on a regular basis and I built a trigatron device to show him the single cylinder Rohner engine was 'nothing special'. I probably know a little more about Papp that I really need to.

  • IHFB - IH has not seen any excess heat in any of the Rossi reactors tested in IH / partner labs. Not even anything slightly interesting. Rossi needs to resolve that soon or his problems will increase exponentially.


    So suppose Rossi helps out and you get a working reactor. I guess IH then has to pay $89million , right?


    Then what happens? Rossi and IH merrily continue working together as if nothing happened?

  • Hi Eric. A couple of years ago a friend of mine tracked down and visited Jimmy Sabori - Papp's gopher - because he (Sabori) claimed to understand and have the equipment to 'activate' the noble gas mix used in the engine. We discussed it all extensively, both before an after his visit. Papp may have had 'something' as you say, but it was blindingly obvious that JimmyS is merely an old rogue with a bench covered in random junk -all plumbed together- who is fishing for cash.


    The key to Papp's tech was fuel preparation. Papp had invented a device that created solid water(water crystals) and noble gas crystals that he used as fuel for spark activated coulomb explosions. Papp's reactor also produced overunity electrons just like Rossi does. Holmlid may have also reinvented the Papp reaction which may also have produced sub-atomic particles including muons. Holmlid sees billions of neutral molecular fragments that travel at 1/3 the speed of light. LENR has been reinvented many time over the last 100 years.

  • Dewey Weaver wrote:
    IHFB - IH has not seen any excess heat in any of the Rossi reactors tested in IH / partner labs. Not even anything slightly interesting. Rossi needs to resolve that soon or his problems will increase exponentially.

    Yes. Obviously, though, on Planet Rossi everything is as defined by Rossi. That there was purpose and intention in the contract seems to sail right over too many heads. The terms of a contract will be read consistently with ordinary and reasonable intention. Language is not some abstraction that has meaning regardless of context and reality.

    Quote

    No he doesn't. What IH find in their labs is not remotely of interest to the court since the test is the ERV report.

    The Agreement was written that way. Who wrote it? What did IH reasonably have in mind in signing the contract? It's obvious that a crucial part of the Agreement was IP transfer to IH. Without that transfer, the Agreement was largely meaningless. Did the transfer take place? The proof would be what happened in IH labs. If IH actually could not get the reactors they made, per instructions and guidance, to work, and if Rossi did not fix that (as the Agreement required), then IH would be paying $100 million for nothing but a pile of instructions and promises that don't work.


    That is the substance. A major defect in the Agreement is that it did not contemplate disagreement, it attempted to avoid all that by assigning all responsiblity to the ERV. However, IH had powers, such as the power to postpone the GPT. Rossi claimed that they "failed" to arrange the test. The Agreement did not provide for that contingency. Did IH consent to the GPT as actually run? Rossi does not actually allege this, and that is a major hole in his Complaint. Implied consent might not be enough.


    The Rossi claims in the Complant are heavily dependent upon his assumption of bad faith. If IH never consented formally to the GPT and had not arranged the test, then Rossi would have possible actions to restore equity. In a reasonable lawsuit over this, if it were necessary, he could demand payment or return of the license, as alternatives, and formal agreement to non-disclosure, and he could offer a refund of what was paid, that could be negotiated -- or ordered by a court.


    Instead, Rossi demanded payment for $89 million from an unsatisfied customer, who, given what they claim to know, could not raise the money for it lawfully. They have to disclose, you know. And he claimed fraud and also attempted to go after officers personally for acts of the corporation, and he went after Cherokee, which had no agreement with him, and looking at the details of the complaint, he never had a commitment from Cherokee, but verbal fluff from two Cherokee officers, who, in fact, were looking to personally invest, since Cherokee does not invest in stuff like this. Does he think that a corporation can be held responsible for what its officers said four years earlier, with no written or formal record?


    Quote

    The only time it may be of interest is if IH claim the ERV report is 'illusory', or that Rossi did not pass sufficient IP to IH for them to 'make it work'. It is for IH to prove this, not for Rossi to refute as this defence of IH et al has not yet been raised.

    Yes as to the second. The ERV report could be golden, but if IH can't make the devices, it's useless to them. It is not simply for IH to prove this, it will be a question of fact for a jury to resolve. Notice that for the jury to decide that the device works, it will be a bombshell. But it's not enough to guarantee that the court will order IH to pay.


    If IH could make devices that work, they could easily raise the $89 million. They could raise a lot more (and would need to). But if they can't, and it doesn't matter whose fault that is, they could not raise the money. By focusing on the ERV, rather than on supporting IH in making working devices, if that's what happened, Rossi completely missed the point of the Agreement. And that's not going to escape notice of the court, the IH attorneys will, i'm sure, make all these points.


    IH has not raised substantial defense yet, only a procedural defense against each count and against the inclusion of all those defendants. The Motion to Dismiss is strong enough that there is legal opinion that it could be sustained. However, that same opinion suggests waiting to see the Rossi legal response. People competent at law do not make decisions based on evidence from one side!


    It looks to me like the Rossi response is due June 20. I'm watching for it.


    I'm not a lawyer. I'm tempted to predict the court response. Discretion is the better part of valor. I will wait to see Rossi's response, so I can weigh it against the IH motion. There are some possible defects in the Complaint that Rossi might correct. Etc.

  • Dewey Weaver wrote:
    IHFB - IH has not seen any excess heat in any of the Rossi reactors tested in IH / partner labs. Not even anything slightly interesting. Rossi needs to resolve that soon or his problems will increase exponentially.


    So suppose Rossi helps out and you get a working reactor. I guess IH then has to pay $89million , right?


    Then what happens? Rossi and IH merrily continue working together as if nothing happened?

    The question I'd have is why Rossi did not already do this. He claimed in 2013, I think it was, that his partner had made devices that worked. But in typical Rossi-speak, details were ... elusive. It's not clear to me reading that stuff that Rossi was talking about IH. It could have been Ampenergo. And that the devices "worked" could mean that they worked when tested with the Rossi Test Protocol.


    However, if Rossi actually did this, It would not be a question of IH "having" to pay the $89 million. It would be a question of how many days it would take them to put it together. Rossi and IH would make a public settlement of the lawsuit, and the fact of the $89 million payment, based on independent performance, would push LENR over the logjam. The world would transform, and rapidly. The legal costs? Pfah! Who cares?


    Steve Krivit would have a heart attack. Jed Rothwell and I would be delighted, and so would many in the LENR field. It's just that right now, it looks like Rossi was unable to deliver on that IP promise.


    One of my attorney friends thought it was possible that Rossi and IH were actually in cahoots over this. I can see it as a possibility. However ... Dewey Weaver. Probably not. IH would have to be deceiving their own investor. ... not impossible, but not likely. I suppose that it would not have actually harmed him.


  • I know your question was likely directed to Dewey, but here are my thoughts / speculation. IH have seen excess heat in their lab or partner labs. But in their minds, it is not a "Rossi reactor." They think in this manner because they had to do something to get the reactor to work--something that wasn't revealed from Rossi. And therefore, the excess heat they are observing is not coming from a "Rossi reactor." The excess heat they have observed is far less than 50 COP, but greater than 1. Dewey has always carefully selected his words when stating that IH have not observed excess heat. His statements are always along the lines of all "Rossi track" research has been shelved. No excess heat from "Rossi reactors," and the like. It fits quite well with the never substantiated "Rossi claims" position as well. IH know there is something to NiH powder fuel + Li, and are likely still pursuing it, but will never admit to it being a "Rossi" type reactor. I think this marriage is over.

  • LC - IH did build the Lugano reactors. Those that were sent to Lugano were not pre-tested.
    IH built many additional reactors of the same design and subsequent test both at IH and another major lab did not find any signs of excess heat. Rossi refused to come back to Raliegh and help claiming that he was too busy with the 1MW test.

    I'm guessing that if necessary, the Rossi behavior will come out in court. Rossi was obligated to assist in IP transfer. He was not obligated to babysit the GPT, and, in fact, it was a very bad idea.


    How it came to pass that the GPT was done in Florida is going to be interesting. How it came to pass that it was not done at an IH facility in North Carolina is going to be of high interest. How it came to pass that individual reactor tests were not substituted by agreement for the 1 MW test is going to be of crucial interest. The 1 MW 350/400 day test was such a bad idea. But ... from the history, that was what Rossi wanted. Thinking positively, that was the proof he needed to vindicate himself before the world. Thinking negatively, he knew that a single test can be faked more easily than many individual tests, but, of course, he has to be there, in charge, preventing the secrets from coming out.


    The idea that the ERV report is everything deserves to get a stake put through its heart. Any expert can be fooled, and if the expert is constrained in what he can do, it's easier. Only fully independent expert evaluation can be trusted, and even then, as an example of the silliness of the Agreement, there should have been time to evaluate the report, ask questions, seek clarification and corrections, etc. Of course, the report we know about was the "published report." It may have been subject to prior negotiation.


    We are all eager to see it. Rossi isn't going to show the report. If IH chooses to do so, they could formally and publically consent to the release of that report by Rossi, which would then allow public evaluation and critique. They could do that without running afoul of any violation of Rossi IP. That public evaluation has no particular value in court, in itself, but .... I would much rather later expert testimony regarding the report be informed by the public discussion. There will be a lot of fluff out there (here!), but ... collectively, the public will see things that even world-class experts will miss. It just needs to be noise-filtered.

  • Dewey, the Walker question here is, to use the technical term, idiotic. Just because it is idiotic does not show that it's from the "Rossi PR campaign confusion machine," unless you have evidence to show. Stop it. There are many here who add comments which make no contribution to the conversation. "you have become a major noise generator" is ironic, because one adds to the noise by responding to noise like that. I'm not planning on making a habit of this! I respond to comments where I think it might have some value. The value of this comment is up to you. All the best.....


    I am normally with you Abd, but respectfully I think you are a bit off base on this one. Not only by your logic have you also added to the noise by giving your opinion on his remark, but one could easily argue that what some might consider thorough or indepth postings/responses, other may look at as long-winded and creating much noise with extraneous verbage and discussion beyond what is necessary to make a point. I personally value your deep responses, but in fairness, I could understand others looking at your style of writing as adding to the noise because of extraneous depth. I just caution you against falling into the old pot and kettle routine. :)

  • Wrong, Axil. :( Read my post above. a good friend in the USA investigated Papp and the Rohner bros exhaustively, and we talked about it (and he sent me obscure documents about it) on a regular basis and I built a trigatron device to show him the single cylinder Rohner engine was 'nothing special'. I probably know a little more about Papp that I really need to.


    OK Alan; I will put your knowledge of the Papp process to the test.


    What caused the Papp engine to explode when Dr. Richard Feynman pulled out the power plug to the control box for the Papp engine during the Feynman demo?

    • Official Post

    OK Alan; I will put your knowledge of the Papp process to the test.


    What caused the Papp engine to explode when Dr. Richard Feynman pulled out the power plug to the control box for the Papp engine during the Feynman demo?


    Well that depends on who you ask. Ask the Roehner brothers and you will get two (or possibly three) different opinions. My own opinion FWIW is that switching off the control system caused a valve to remain open that should have been closed (or if you think about it vice-versa) and allowed a stray spark to ignite oxy-hydrogen fuel that had been produced electrolytically during the preamble to the demo and was stored in the crankcase. By changing the lubrication set up to one suitable for short runs it would be possible to store as much as 15 litres+ of oxy-hydrogen there at some modest pressure. And only a few cc's of this burnt per cylinder/per ignition is enough to run an engine on no load.


    You would be amazed at how potent an explosive oxy-hydrogen is even at 1 bar. Having seen a few such explosions in a 1/2 litre or so of unpressurised and uncontained mixed gas (and at some personal risk having averted a huge one in an out of control 500 litre high-pressure polymerisation reactor- sadly no medal awarded) I sometimes wonder why bad people make bombs with anything else. Hydrogen/air is no worse IMHO than propane or petrol vapour - bad enough but not dynamite except in large volumes, but mixed with oxygen it is the devil incarnate


    But to repeat my earlier observation, a 'naked' trigatron device (look it up) above a moveable piston in a cylinder full of argon makes an impressive 'one shot' demo of the power of noble ....errr electricity to produce violent expansive shock waves.

  • Re: flowmeters
    My house (minus parts of the roof where there is no plumbing) is entirely below the level of the city water meter.
    I guess I should test it.



    Water from the public aqueduct likely has enough pressure to keep the pipe full whatever number of taps you open.
    The same cannot be sure for a small pump sucking water from a bucket.
    If the pipe is half full, water may still turn the palettes and the flowmeter may indicate twice as much water.

  • Andrea S - would you care to share some additional color on your link and the pictures? What are you claiming this link demonstrates?


    Hi Dewey, the link just proves that a flowmeter as visible in the photo posted by Walker


    "Did IH's motion to dismiss ruin them?"


    next to the white reservoir, is misplaced and can lead to a large overestimate of the inflowing water.


    Now this is not a photo officially depicting a test whose protocol is known to me nor to my GSVIT friends.


    But if COP computation of that Ecat container is based on the amount of inflowing water that is vaporized, one may want to check this.

  • Turbo3:

    Quote

    "If I were the Judge I would recommend the two parties sit down and try to negotiate a new test procedure"


    Am no lawyer, but think the judge must rule on the letter of the contract and not the intent.


    Could be that Rossi is a fraud, but managed to wrangle a winning contract.


    Could be that ECat works, but IH manages to steal $80M by finding loopholes in the contract.


    If I contract with you to measure my height by an agreed upon inaccurate method, then the result is contractually sound, even if incorrect.


    ISSUES ARE:


    "Measured as agreed upon, and the result indeed showed X!"


    OR


    "It was NOT measured as agreed upon, and besides you were late in starting the test and were missing a signature!"

  • @nobody,


    Am no lawyer, but think the judge must rule on the letter of the contract and not the intent.


    We've had lots of layman legal analysis on this forum. I'm also not a lawyer, but I suspect the legal situation is more complex than this. You have a contract drawn up between two people who are trying to accomplish something together. The thing falls through, and one of them sues. There's a range of relief that can be obtained — one of way might be having the court assist the two parties to fulfil the intent described in the contract, or described by the parties after the fact, but modifying the contract in various ways in the process. Another form of relief might be through demanding specific performance — having the defendant deliver what is described exactly by the letter of the contract. This seems to be what Rossi is doing in part, but I'm not sure. There are surely other forms of relief.


    There's only so much insight that a lay analysis of a case like this can bring. We've already seen lots of recurring arguments on this forum of people who are sure they know how the law will proceed, but whose analysis is naive or limited in what it envisions. What I'd like to see is analysis done by someone who is intimately familiar with the workings of US law.

  • Am no lawyer, but think the judge must rule on the letter of the contract and not the intent.

    The second clause proves the first. Q.E.D.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ements_for_some_contracts


    I suggest a very careful reading. The intention of a contract is crucial in interpreting the various written clauses. Pay attention to "unconscionability." That factor can completely demolish the letter of a contract.


    People without experience in reading law may read it with fixed ideas in mind and will, then, misunderstand it. Law is, in fact, rooted in two sources: common law, which is closely related to "common sense," but more accurately it would be the common understanding of people with experience in the field, and statutory law, which can be arbitrary and which can drive a seat-o-the-pants pseudolawyer like me crazy. That is, I may have a thorough understanding of common law on a point, and then legislators come along and legislate that pi = 22/7. Or something like that.

  • Well that depends on who you ask. Ask the Roehner brothers and you will get two (or possibly three) different opinions. My own opinion FWIW is that switching off the control system caused a valve to remain open that should have been closed (or if you think about it vice-versa) and allowed a stray spark to ignite oxy-hydrogen fuel that had been produced electrolytically during the preamble to the demo and was stored in the crankcase. By changing the lubrication set up to one suitable for short runs it would be possible to store as much as 15 litres+ of oxy-hydrogen there at some modest pressure. And only a few cc's of this burnt per cylinder/per ignition is enough to run an engine on no load.


    You would be amazed at how potent an explosive oxy-hydrogen is even at 1 bar. Having seen a few such explosions in a 1/2 litre or so of unpressurised and uncontained mixed gas (and at some personal risk having averted a huge one in an out of control 500 litre high-pressure polymerisation reactor- sadly no medal awarded) I sometimes wonder why bad people make bombs with anything else. Hydrogen/air is no worse IMHO than propane or petrol vapour - bad enough but not dynamite except in large volumes, but mixed with oxygen it is the devil incarnate


    But to repeat my earlier observation, a 'naked' trigatron device (look it up) above a moveable piston in a cylinder full of argon makes an impressive 'one shot' demo of the power of noble ....errr electricity to produce violent expansive shock waves.


    Thanks for responding.


    Back during the 60's, Papp was working with a water based reaction similar to the SunCell. Papp moved to a noble gas reaction because the water base reaction eroded his cylinder walls.


    See


    http://www.integrityresearchin…org/PappEngine-Valone.pdf


    Slide 9/13 titled: Papp circuit operation


    Quote

    Papp Circuit Operation •


    Two cylinders act as “capacitors” to store and exchange high current and high voltage to the mated cylinder “in a crisscross mode with a switching circuit”. • It appears to be a positive feedback circuit, each cylinder feeding the other’s explosive process, thus causing an excess charge accumulation cascade which has caused two explosions of one of the cylinders, such as when Dr. Richard Feynman insisted on pulling the electrical plug on an operating Papp engine, killing his own assistant in 1968. • Therefore, the circuit has to be moderated using a “charge dissipation mediation circuit” that conditions and moderates the capacitive pulse according to RWG.


    When Feynman pulled out the power plug, the explosion took a few minutes to occur. The lack of power disable the control circuits that regulated the engine.


    The Papp engine produced excess electrons that Papp took pains to collect. This excess power is called the feedback current. The production of electrons in the Papp reaction were overunity and gainful; a cylinder discharge from the previous discharge produced more electrons than it took to generate the electric arc that activated the cylinder during the next discharge. When the control circuit that regulated the flow of power between cylinders was disabled, this is the reason why the RPMs of the energy began to increase. The engine eventually over revved, and a cylinder exploded through the cylinder head and shot out of the cylinder head. This exploding shrapnel from the cylinder and the head killed a guy and injured another who were standing nearby.

  • Ive tested flow meters and repaired many too, typically they slowly lose accuracy over time due to wear of the rotatingg disk. Ive tested old mechanical meters that were still accurate but rarely did I find problems with new meters. In this situation I would use a brand new meter, have it tested and certified using a storage tank of known quantity. Seal the meter with wire and lead tag, surround the meter with clear plexiglass and when finished remove and test again.