Thread with the most fact-based posts on the Forum shut down from flame warring

  • Abd and Dewey,


    "thread shut down due to flame war"


    Start a new thread if they terminate the old thread. The discussion goes on.


    I don't like the flaming, but at least the forum is open for commentary.


    If you must flame Sifferkoll, Walker, MY and Dewey, please use "the playground" as a courtesy to us browsers.


    Other than that, I appreciate having all points of view espoused here, and prefer that we treat each other with politeness. Please.

  • Abd: "Sigh. Nowhere in the Agreement itself is the power produced by the "1 MW unit" specified"


    Abd, sigh, you are wrong...yet again.....


    Yes the power is specified. Exhibit C specifies the range, Peak, average and COP very clearly:


    - The COP is specified as a factor of 6.
    - The Peak input power is specified as 200 KW, which means a Peak output heat power of 1200 KW at COP6. But I would Ask Leonardo Corp. to confirm the number If I where to order a plant, and this Peak where of importance.
    - The electrical input average power is specified to be 167 KW. Which means the average continous heat output will be 1MW
    - The heat output power range is specified to be 20 KW to 1MW. For 20 KW it would mean that only one of the 52 e-cats would be in operation.


    And it should be self evident that If a Company sell a 1MW heat plant it must be able to deliver this power at a continous basis.


    The final question is of course regularity and expected downtime. This is what the test revealed.


    And the agreed regularity was min 350 of 400 days operation, i.e min. 87,5% uptime and corresponding Max 12,5% downtime.

  • And it should be self evident that If a Company sell a 1MW heat plant it must be able to deliver this power at a continous basis.

    It looks like Oystia is going to argue this point until the cows come home, or the chickens come home to roost. If course it should be self-evident, so then one would think that a Guaranteed Performance Test would specify the power output. It does not. It does not state that the device must meet the specifications in Exhibit C, it does not refer to Exhibit C. I will say this again, one last time. The ERV was not tasked with testing and reporting the device power output, as such, but only COP with an unspecified input power, and steam temperature of 100 C (radically inadequate) and Exhibit C was not mentioned in that. And as I have written, this may be moot. But on Planet Rossi, being right and making others wrong are the most important daily activities. That is why Planet Rossi is as it is.


    I'm quite sure that Rossi wrote that test description, and that IH accepted it because the alternative was to not work with Rossi and to not find out if he actually had something and was merely being eccentric.

  • Quote from "the Renzzzie"

    And how would you personally know they had no issue with him UNTIL payment was due. Ridiculous Siffer. You are just a fabrication machine...


    Dewey said himself their plans changed as late as november, so if this is what you mean then fine ...


    but,


    As I said, IH was extremely happy about Rossi, Penon and the quarterly reports since those enabled them to raise at least (probably more) $50M from Woodford, which now are nicely hidden in som offshore entity (panama?). Business as usual for Darden et al.

  • "Abd" wrote:


    What? It means that you are distorting and diffusing facts. That is what it means. IH and Rossi signed the agreement, there are absolutely no signs on anyone being dissatisfied with Penon until payment was due. You are just making stuff up out of the blue Abd. And you XXXXXXX know it.


    The really sad thing here is that Sifferkoll probably believes what he writes. This is all consistent with his psychiatric diagnosis. I've known quite a few brilliant people with that diagnosis, who have often ended up trashing their own work, because of the associated poor social skills, combined with certainty in their own rightness. Recovery is possible, but it takes becoming fully honest with oneself, and at least one other.


    As usual, Sifferkoll does not actually link to original posts, which the software will do automatically. Here is what I had asked, with a link if anyone wants to read the whole post, and with new emphasis:

    Rossi may certainly claim estoppel. Do you know what that means, Sifferkoll?

    I explained estoppel in the series of posts on the Rossi Memorandum, the posts that Sifferkoll called FUD. Instead of explaining it again, I asked. Estoppel is how Rossi would legally assert what Sifferkoll is claiming, that the behavior of the parties reflected an agreement, in spite of technical defects. Then it would become a matter of fact rather than legal argument, and this is how Count I can survive.


    Sifferkoll is highly reactive and it appears impossible to have a sane discussion with him, that's my conclusion from this interchange. So this is the end of that effort, I expect.

  • I did not write what Sifferkoll attributed to me.
    This was the source of the quote

    sifferkoll wrote:


    And how would you personally know they had no issue with him UNTIL payment was due. Ridiculous Siffer. You are just a fabrication machine...

    He may not have originated this argument, but rather may have been told this by a source he trusts, without naming that source.


    On Planet Rossi, things are defined as good and bad, hence the way Sifferkoll put it.


    The actual matter of possible import here is whether or not, before payment was due, IH said anything to Rossi about being dissatisfied with the test, and, related, their intentions about the $89 million.


    I have opined that it is highly unlikely that they simply didn't pay with no explanation or objections. That is not a known fact to me, however, but an expectation of experienced business people. We do have some evidence, though.


    Dewey has asserted that IH asked the ERV questions and he did not answer them, but that would be about their relationship with the ERV, not with Rossi himself. There is only one person on the planet, aside from IH itself, who would know if IH objected to Rossi, and that would be Rossi or someone Rossi told. Nobody else could know this for sure. Even Dewey would not necessarily directly know. After all, what if IH were lying to him? Unless he were the one to communicate with Rossi, he would not know and could not testify to it. And, remember, all this is headed to court, apparently.


    So, high probability, what Sifferkoll is asserting is either completely invented or came from Rossi. I'm not about to research Rossi's statements on this at this point, but I would certainly look at what is pointed out.


    This is a fact, however: Rossi filed the lawsuit before the payment was past due. That is astonishingly fast, for an unexpected nonpayment. All the legal work in preparing the Complaint was done by then. IH had five working days (which means, in this case, seven calendar days) to pay after the ERV report was published, on March 29, according to Rossi. No, this is clear. Rossi was not blindsided by the non-payment. He expected it. And so the Sifferkoll claim, at least as he wrote it, is FUD.


    Edit: Sifferkoll has now acknowledged the attribution error, good for him. However, I'm letting this stand because I raise other issues, and I'm pointing out, among other things, a reactive lack of caution. I proofread my comments. I use the automatic quotation attribution, which Sifferkoll seems to never use. It took some time for me, at 72, to figure it out. To fully quote a post with attribution, select the entire post and then at the top a "Quote Selection" link will appear; click on that. Then, when hitting Reply, it will all be quoted and attributed to the post one copied from. Because the site accumulates such material (see the Quotes link at the bottom right that will appear when there is such quoted material), one needs to be careful that there isn't extra stuff, but that's about it.

  • Dewey said himself their plans changed as late as november, so if this is what you mean then fine ...


    but,


    As I said, IH was extremely happy about Rossi, Penon and the quarterly reports since those enabled them to raise at least (probably more) $50M from Woodford, which now are nicely hidden in som offshore entity (panama?). Business as usual for Darden et al.


    You write all of this as if it is fact...do you have proof of the $50M and that it is hidden in an offshore entity(panama?) or is this speculation?

  • Quote from "Renzz"

    You write all of this as if it is fact...do you have proof of the $50M and that it is hidden in an offshore entity(panama?) or is this speculation?


    There are indications on use of offshore corps already at the stage of setting up the deal with Rossi, I guess we will never know where the $50M went. (except for a pipe to Jones Day of course)

  • There are indications on use of offshore corps already at the stage of setting up the deal with Rossi, I guess we will never know where the $50M went. (except for a pipe to Jones Day of course)


    Fascinating information, can you please elaborate these indications? And again how do you have information on this $50M...how do you know it even ever exchanged hands? Fascinating!

  • sifferkoll wrote:

    You write all of this as if it is fact...do you have proof of the $50M and that it is hidden in an offshore entity(panama?) or is this speculation?

    The claim that IH used Rossi IP to raise money from Woodford is standard Rossi rant, and is in the complaint. Now, I have no direct knowledge of where that money went, but I have what may be a reasonable surmise. Rossi also complains about IPH INTERNATIONAL 8.V., a Netherlands company (and they are named as a defendant in the suit.)


    Now, consider that IH has decided that the Rossi IP is going nowhere, and that they are not about to give him $89 million. Suppose they are raising money for other LENR investment (which we know they are involved in). Where would they put this money? In IH, with a contingent debt to Rossi for $89 million, for IP that is worthless to them, or somewhere else? IPH is an obvious possibility, a new company formed to hold and invest new money. Indeed, Woodford might have insisted on this.


    The Rossi Story is that IH raised the $50 million on the strength of his IP and especially on a showing of the 1 MW test, because there was apparently a visit (which Dewey confirms). But what Rossi has invented and which may not be the case, is that IH told Woodford all was well with Rossi and the test was going fine and everything was peachy, so give us $50 million. If so, they might be considered to have defrauded Woodford, and I very much doubt that Rossi knows what Woodford was told.


    Given what Dewey has been revealing, IH knew there were problems when they could not see excess power in independent tests of devices that they made per Rossi's instructions. At this point, then, they had no ability to raise the $89 million for the purpose of paying Rossi. They would have to deceive investors. However, they would still very likely show possible investors the 1 MW test. It showed how serious they were. I'd have been impressed even if they told me that Rossi was a complete con. In fact, more impressed. They risked -- and may have lost -- $11.5 million to find out. But LENR is a trillion dollar issue. Per year.


    All investors in LENR need to know how risky it is. Risk $50 million on the outcome of one non-independent test with all the obvious defects, enumerated ad nauseum here? Who would do that? Let's put it this way: people who would do that do not normally have $50 million sitting around to invest.


    By the way, for this comment I assume that Woodford did invest $50 million. I have not confirmed that. It is commonly stated, but I don't know the source. It is in the Complaint "upon information and belief."

  • Quote from stephenrenzz: “sifferkoll wrote:
    Quote: “As I said, IH was extremely happy about Rossi, Penon and the quarterly reports since those enabled them to raise at least (probably more) $50M from Woodford, which now are nicely hidden in som…


    I knew of this rant that perpetuates on Planet Rossi, but I had never seen any proof that the $50M even went to Woodford. Siffer's response of course tells me that while he boasts it as fact...it is nothing more than speculation and "Rossi says". Oh that saying is so tiring at this point lol...like a parrot. "Rossi says....Rossi says...arhhhhh"

  • Quote from "Maaary"

    hat Jones Day had taken an additional legal step today


    yeah, it's another lawyer bot answer repeating the first MTD. More court cases etc. Lot of Jones Day drones spending time in libraries... (read to much Grisham...). You US folks really have made lawyer bot docs into an art form ... :D



    My summary;

    • not enough signatures, so a working MW reactor doesn't matter. It came too late.
    • also they argue that they know from already when the 2nd amendment was (not) signed that the MW test did not matter ... [is that malicious or what?]
    • IH can distribute IP as they wish ... [because of malicious wording in the license]
    • IH can file patents as they wish ... [because of malicious wording in the license]
    • IH can raise money as they wish since raising money on claims of owning IP is not the same as selling products ...
    • and a lot of text aimed at keeping Darden, Vaughn and Cherokee out of the lawsuit (this seems important)

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…e-malicious-intent-of-ih/