Leonardo/Industrial Heat Court Case on “Complex Track” — to go to Jury Trial in September 2017

Jed ... Thank you very much for the detailed and excellent reply.

Quote from JedRothwell

No, the data is correct. For the most part, these are the numbers shown on the instruments. Some appear to be improbable, and may have been erased and replaced, but for the most part this is what eye-witnesses report

If the data shows improbable results, and you base your conclusion on the data it should give you similar results, right? Unless you are basing your analysis on something other than the actual results. I suspect that you may be basing your conclusion more on your perceived inadequacies related to the testing procedures, testing setup. You spend most of your answers to my questions in that context. I understand that this could be highly relevant and valid, I just don't have enough information or knowledge to judge for myself, although I do respect your insights here. However, it does seem that your conclusions are not necessarily based mostly on your data analysis but instead on the inadequacies of testing and / or the likely hood of fraud. Is that fair comment?

Quote from JedRothwell

If the ERV report is entered as evidence, Rossi will lose.

You seem very confident in this. It is unlike you to take such a certain position on something.

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe it is hot water under a little pressure. 3 psi would be enough . . .

The report and data that you reviewed did not have any pressure measurement information?

Quote from IH Fanboy

The report and data that you reviewed did not have any pressure measurement information?

All of the pressure data was erased. It was 0.0 bar throughout. I have heard that an earlier version had a different set of numbers.

There was a pressure gauge shown in the configuration.

Quote from Steve Savage

If the data shows improbable results, and you base your conclusion on the data it should give you similar results, right? Unless you are basing your analysis on something other than the actual results. I suspect that you may be basing your conclusion more on your perceived inadequacies related to the testing procedures . . .

I have experience working with similar instruments. Many months anyway, and years of reading and editing reports about them. I know how flow meters and other instruments work. I looked up the specifications for these instruments. I checked the recommended range of flow rates, temperatures and so on. It was clear to me that this choice of instruments will give the wrong answer, for reasons I am familiar with, having made similar dumb mistakes over the years.

I discussed the problems with others who have more experience, and they immediately came up with the same estimates and observations. It is not just "perceived inadequacies." It is hands-on experience. Plus I have read the procedures in HVAC textbooks and the state mandated regulatory procedures and instruments for measuring boiler efficiency. You can look this stuff up. Rossi's methods do not meet code.

I do not wing it. If I know of a textbook ASME procedure to measure boiler efficiency, that is what I do, as closely as I can. By the numbers, as we used to say. I am basically your 1979 COBOL programmer.

Quote from Steve Savage

However, it does seem that your conclusions are not necessarily based mostly on your data analysis but instead on the inadequacies of testing and / or the likely hood of fraud.

From the data alone, it is impossible to distinguish incompetence from fraud. I have seen many incompetent cold fusion experiments with calorimetry, mass spectroscopy and other things done as badly as this. I do not suspect those scientists of being frauds. I think they screwed up. See p. 11 here, for examples:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

What makes me think Rossi committed fraud is:

1. Disappearing pressure numbers and other data.
2. His refusal to let people see the customer site.
3. I.H.'s claim that he changed the test procedure, and pulled out essential instruments. That has to be true. No sane person at I.H. or anywhere else would approve of the configuration and instruments I saw.
4. A strong feeling that nobody screws up this badly by accident, and that it was intentionally set up to give the wrong answer, like Defkalion's flow meter. That's my intuition, but nearly all of Rossi's tests have been like that. At times he did things that can only be intended to hide the data, such as refusing to put an SD card in the handheld thermocouple. He refused to record the data!

Mary

Quote from Mary Yugo

nobody knows what they did to confirm Rossi's veracity before they contracted with him and gave him the $10M money.

Yes they do Mary, they carried out a 24 hour test which was successful, the money followed this test.

Best regards
Frank

Mary

Quote from Mary Yugo

Jed, surely at this point in time, that can't be all! There many more, way more, indicators of fraud in the Rossi story than you list. I've already named most so I won't do it again.

If I were you I would send a letter to Judge John J O Sullivan, if he agrees with you then Rossi's invention will be deemed 'illusory'. This will have the same impact on the 'Patents', the 'Information Property', the Licences' and critically the 'Contract' all will be considered 'Null and Void' i.e. illusory. Since the case has been based on the claim that a valid 'Contract' has been breached, and that valid 'IP' has been misappropriated, this information will be critical to the court proceedings.

In considering your claims Mary, as true and with 'substance' the court will have no choice but to dismiss the case. Then of course IH et all will be clear to sue Rossi et al for fraud.

What are chances of you being right and that this will occur? Well I have my own opinion which I am pretty sure will be upheld by the court.

But Hey, stick to your guns Mary, you never know. Pigs may fly, LENR may save the world and Rossi may win a Nobel Prize

Best regards
Frank

Jed, I can believe what you have written here is logical explanation how things went, but there os one thing that keep sticking in my eyes, and many times discussed already, but I still want to point it out.

Sorry I don't add redferences to all, but most can be read from your recent posting to this or thread labelled 'I was wrong about Rossi...'.

You have explained several times that you got some data from Rossi, some from people visiting the lab and seeing readings of the meters and what else? I think you didn't say in this thread that you have received any partial ERV-report?

Still you are ready to say that, you immediately spotted flaw in Rossis instrumentation and your data 'showed' COP is 1 or something lowbthat can be explained by error margins of Rossis test setup. You also say something like you asked from IH specialist who immediately confirmed that you were right. Iou alse keep repeating that IH has very good specialists and are able to understand if calorimetry is done right.

If that all is taken as truth, why IH:s smart pecialists accepted that test protocoll wehen making contract. If testing protocol were so far off from decent, how on earth anybody would let it start, and even more unbeliewably roll FULL YEAR without any of the IH engineers blowing the whistle. If IH: or Deweys claims are to be trusted, IH was trying to replicate results on their lab, 'but could not substantiate'. Wouln't most logical thing for IH to do be going to Rossis test facility an interview IH engineers and specilists. IH received 3 intermediate ERV reports before January. One may ask him/herself what would have done after no extra heat was not detected in own lab and 89m$ invoice is hanging in the air.

This is just my thinking, and there can be natural explanation like naive trust, optimism or simply accident/mistake etc. Allow me to stay on neutral/reserved ground until real facts starts to pour in.

Quote from JedRothwell

From my analysis, I can only conclude for sure that 1 MW is impossible -- crazy, really. Something like 3 times input is plausible but unlikely. My guess is that there was no excess at all. I have been told that I.H. was able to make better measurements, and they confirmed there is no excess heat. I have no specific numbers from them, but I know what sort of procedures they used. I would have done those same procedures myself. Again, that gives me confidence in myself. They are experts and do not need my vote of confidence!

Please Jed?? Do it once: Make a comparison Time/'level of satisfaction' with IH-press statements and your findings!!

And then do it: Accuse IH of fraud. Yes please do this!!!

Quote from Wyttenbach

Make a comparison Time/'level of satisfaction' with IH-press statements and your findings!!

What press statements? The first one relating to Rossi was on March 10. It did not express satisfaction.

Anyway, you can't sue a company for press releases. I have no standing to sue them for anything. They may have defrauded investors or customers, but I am not in either category.

Quote from Argon

You also say something like you asked from IH specialist who immediately confirmed that you were right.

Not immediately. Soon.

Quote from Argon

If that all is taken as truth, why IH:s smart pecialists accepted that test protocoll wehen making contract.

They did not accept it. As described in the Motion to Dismiss, they agreed to one configuration, but Rossi threw it out and used another. He "depart[ed] from the purported test plan." That is obvious: no one would agree to this test plan. If Rossi had done it the way he agreed, he would be forced to admit there is no heat, and there would be no dispute and no lawsuit.

Quote from Argon

If testing protocol were so far off from decent, how on earth anybody would let it start, and even more unbeliewably roll FULL YEAR without any of the IH engineers blowing the whistle.

Who told you they did not blow the whistle? They blew it loud and often during that FULL YEAR. Many people heard them blow it, including me.

You can't just make stuff up.

Quote from JedRothwell

What press statements? The first one relating to Rossi was on March 10. It did not express satisfaction.

What about that one?? Darden: Cold fusion-focused Industrial Heat showing 'some success'

Written By The Triangle Business Journal Posted: 04/16/2015, 09:04am

Quote from Wyttenbach

What about that one?? Darden: Cold fusion-focused Industrial Heat showing 'some success'

I do not see that he said anything about Rossi here. Soon after this, at the ICCF conference in Italy, he gave a keynote address. He did not say a word about Rossi. I and others thought that his silence spoke louder than words. If I.H. had confidence in Rossi at that stage, they were keeping that confidence a deep secret.

Hi all

In reply to Jed on this comment:

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not see that he said anything about Rossi here. Soon after this, at the ICCF conference in Italy, he gave a keynote address. He did not say a word about Rossi. I and others thought that his silence spoke louder than words. If I.H. had confidence in Rossi at that stage, they were keeping that confidence a deep secret.

I think an explanation that IH had taken Rossi's IP and intended to rip off Rossi by not completing the contract terms seems now a more than plausible explanation for this.

The court has now decided with Rossi that the case needs to be heard IH's Motion To Dismiss has rejected by the court. They have only a few weeks until the court case starts and all they hope to do is delay.

Meanwhile Rossi moves in to production with a far more advanced technology to be made and sold in the US and the rest of the world, this may go down as biggest blunder in investment history.

Tom Darden may end up as famous Benedict Arnold.

Of course this could all be settled out of court and we may in fact be looking at a delay for the purpose of an October Surprise.

I think a person in with IH is going to Leak the ERV in a short time.

When do you think the ERV should be leaked Jed?

Now who asked you that question Jed?

Kind Regards walker

Quote from Walker

The court has now decided with Rossi that the case needs to be heard IH's Motion To Dismiss has rejected by the court.

That is incorrect. The judge has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Jed, surely at this point in time, that can't be all!

Those are the main technical reasons.

Quote from Mary Yugo

There many more, way more, indicators of fraud in the Rossi story than you list. I've already named most so I won't do it again.

The ones you list, and Krivit lists, are mostly related to Rossi's personality, his actions and alleged actions, and other non-technical criteria. I do not put much stock in such things, because I know of many people who seem dishonest yet who are honest, and I know of even more people who seem 100% honest and above board yet they are crooks.

Quote from JedRothwell

Argon wrote:
If testing protocol were so far off from decent, how on earth anybody would let it start, and even more unbeliewably roll FULL YEAR without any of the IH engineers blowing the whistle.

Who told you they did not blow the whistle? They blew it loud and often during that FULL YEAR. Many people heard them blow it, including me.

You can't just make stuff up.

Jed thank you for tireless answers, maybe my questions are too long. Lets put it simply this way:

Knowing whole year that at the end of test there is a risk that with this 'sloppy' setup Rossi would be able to claim his 89 m$ sans conditions listed in contract.
Shouldn't anyone who is in payers position be very carefull to file a written complaint or demand to fix the setup? At least I would be very carefull to cover that.

Quote from Argon

Shouldn't anyone who is in payers position be very carefull to file a written complaint or demand to fix the setup?

Who told you they did not do this? Where did you get this information? Are you privy to all of the written communications between I.H. and Rossi?