Jed says that IH will use an HVAC specialist.
No, I said I would if I were them.
I have no knowledge of their legal strategy, and I have not discussed it with them. That is the kind of thing I would never ask about.
Judge Orders Jury Trial in Rossi et al v. Darden et al Starting June 26, 2017
-
-
OK, then. You would. I bet they don't-- at least not in a major way.
-
Jed says that IH will use an HVAC specialist. They might do so in part though I doubt it. In fact, they will choose from expert nuclear physicists and engineers, designers of boilers and heating systems (usually also engineers) and perhaps college professors (specializing in heat transfer and fluid flow physics) with far more reputation and clout than the Swedish scientists and Levi. And they will both blast Rossi out of court and also set up a basis for IH suing to get their $10+M back. Rossi'd better not slouch down in his comfortable condo just yet.
That is also my guess that IH will bring in the experts you have mentioned. I think Rossi is going to have an insanely rough battle that he cannot win when a full panel of experts tear apart this case. A jury is going to find all of the odd connections very interesting as well...such as Penon/Levi/Bologna University/Rossi's Lawyer-heading fake company...on and on...quite a web that will have eyebrows raised instantly in court among soooo many other things that just don't make sense from Rossi. Doesn't help his case that he has never really come up with anything in his whole career other than R&D projects....
-
A jury is going to find all of the odd connections very interesting as well...such as Penon/Levi/Bologna University/Rossi's Lawyer-heading fake company...on and on...quite a web that will have eyebrows raised instantly in court among soooo many other things that just don't make sense from Ross
Renzz,
Hopefully you do not live in the US? American jurors are notorious for their succumbing to emotions, and guarded biases, much more than being impressed by technical stuff. I posted an article about that a couple of week ago. Basically it said that those with a weak case want a jury trial, and those with the stronger a bench trial. Rossi asked in his suit filing for a jury trial for a reason.
-
Jed
They were challenged. In March I.H. said they should not be believed. Later, in their Motion to Dismiss, I.H. told the court ". . . such as departing from the purported test plan, ignoring inoperable reactors, relying on flawed measurements, and using unsuitable measuring devices." Those are explicit challenges.
They may have been challenges but no evidence whatsoever, and in any case as the case is progressing to the next stage we may assume (but not confirm) that the MTD has failed along with this challenge, but I grant you we will have to wait and see on that.
The key issue is there was no evidence presented in the NTD in support of this challenge so it is worthless.
Much of what you say Jed may well have value but for the most part the evidence you provide is merely that 'Jed says'. I'm sorry but why should we believe what 'Jed says' and disbelieve what 'Rossi says?' For me I will believe only corroborated evidence and there is suspiciously little of that.
Best regards
Frank -
The key issue is there was no evidence presented in the NTD [MTD] in support of this challenge so it is worthless.
You do not understand the function of a Motion to Dismiss. It is not supposed to present evidence in support of this claim by I.H. Another document has to be filed with that evidence in detail. The MTD can only address Rossi's claims, with a brief mention of these facts insofar as they bear directly on Rossi's claims.I.H. reportedly has extensive evidence making the case against Rossi. The only part I have seen is Rossi & Penon's own data, which is fatal to his case. Anyone who understands calorimetry will see that Rossi's data proves his claims are nonsense.
-
Much of what you say Jed may well have value but for the most part the evidence you provide is merely that 'Jed says'. I'm sorry but why should we believe what 'Jed says' and disbelieve what 'Rossi says?' For me I will believe only corroborated evidence and there is suspiciously little of that.
I have provided much more specific data than Rossi has. This is his data. You should demand details from him. As I said before, even if I provide it, Rossi supporters will claim that I made it up, and it did not come from Rossi. They will only believe data that comes directly from him, so they should ask him for it. The fact that he has not provided even a summary of the ERV should tell you that he is hiding it. He knows it proves he has no heat, and no case against I.H. I predict his lawyers will try to have it excluded for some absurd legal reason. -
Jed
The fact that he has not provided even a summary of the ERV should tell you that he is hiding it. He knows it proves he has no heat, and no case against I.H. I predict his lawyers will try to have it excluded for some absurd legal reason.
Posted on April 6, 2016 by Frank Acland
72. On or about March 29, 2016, the ERV published his final report regarding the operation of the E-Cat Unit during the Guaranteed Performance test. In the ERV’s report, the ERV confirmed that the E-Cat Unit had satisfied all of the performance requirements imposed by the License Agreement including, but not limited to, the requirement that
the production of energy was at least six (6) times greater than the energy consumed.73. More specifically, the ERV found that over the Guaranteed Performance period, the amount of energy produced by the E-Cat Unit was consistently substantially greater than six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the unit. In fact, the ERV found that during the testing period, the average energy multiplier (Energy Produced + Energy Consumed) was often greater than sixty (60).
So wrong again Jed!
I.H. did not employ him. Rossi did. I.H. does not believe his conclusions, as they said in the March 10 press release and in their Motion to Dismiss.
Rossi Blog - Who paid the ERV ? Rossi says: 50% IH, 50% Leonardo Corporation; Jed says I.H. did not employ him. Maybe not 'employed' contractually but they did pay for him 50% under contract. Employment law is quite different to contract law, so nice try Jed.
Jed how many more times can you be wrong? I think you are just making this up now.
And before you say Frank and Rossi are liars, be careful such a statement does not backfire. What you need is verifiable evidence and you do not have it.
IH may not believe Penon's conclusions. They will have to prove that to a Jury, I bet they don't ask you to do that!
Best regards
Frank -
More specifically, the ERV found that over the Guaranteed Performance period, the amount of energy produced by the E-Cat Unit was consistently substantially greater than six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the unit.
Yes, that is what the report concludes. However, as I.H. stated on March 10 and several times subsequently, they disagree with the ERV. They are not going to pay $89 million based on it.I have some data from the ERV, and in my opinion, it is a steaming pile of manure. It was a ham-handed put-up job. Rossi and/or Penan were hoping to get another $89 million out of I.H. with this nonsense report. That was foolish of them.
People here who point to the contract and say "it is too late now! I.H. agreed to it" do not understand the first thing about business and contracts.
-
Frank, are you suggesting that there is no evidence that Rossi is a liar? (ROTFWL) I suppose you've seen his robotic factories? And you've met his certificator? You know, the guy with the office between the procrastinator and the prevaricator? The guy who is taking more than five years to test the most amazing invention of a century? An invention which can be tested in a few weeks?
-
Jed
People here who point to the contract and say "it is too late now! I.H. agreed to it" do not understand the first thing about business and contracts.
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/…7405007a3ac3!OpenDocument
Extract from the Florida Bar:
"A contract is an agreement between people or legal entities (such as corporations) in which one party agrees to perform a service or provide goods in exchange for the payment of money or other goods or services.The formation of a contract is accomplished when there is an offer and acceptance between the contracting parties of the exchange of "consideration" (that is, something of value). This offer and acceptance are sometimes referred to as a “meeting of the minds.” If the parties have not reached a meeting of the minds, then there is no agreement.
At the time of signing the agreement there indeed was a 'meeting of minds' right up until the ERV report was received by IH sand the $89 million became due. So the agreement is valid.
The exchange of 'consideration' is surprise surprise the $89 million. But this is only payable where the offer (that is, something of value) is good. Well Mary and now Jed say the 'offer' does not have value. What is the test, how can this be proven in terms of the contract. Well both Rossi and IH agreed to pay for a nuclear scientist to provide both interim reports and a final report setting out criteria to be achieve whereupon should they be achieved, IH must pay the outstanding $89 million.
So what now. Legally the contract agreement has primacy unless it is 'unfair' or based on 'illusory claims'. No one has claimed it is unfair but Mary, Jed and many others have 'speculated' that it is baseless.
So we will have to wait and see if IH can successfully claim the invention to be 'illusory' or not. The alternative is that they accept the ERV report but claim Rossi has not given them sufficient IP to make it work or maybe a clam based on both these.
Wheeling in a guy in a boiler suit (HVAC) to challenge a nuclear inspector is a start I suppose.
Best regards
Frank -
Mary
Frank, are you suggesting that there is no evidence that Rossi is a liar? (ROTFWL) I suppose you've seen his robotic factories? And you've met his certificator? You know, the guy with the office between the procrastinator and the prevaricator? The guy who is taking more than five years to test the most amazing invention of a century? An invention which can be tested in a few weeks?
Not a bit. But I do find it a little strange for someone like Jed, with his eminent background and history; relying on someone for his data who he himself cannot rely on as to the accuracy of that data.
It does not make sense, even you I think would agree with that.
Why would anyone believe in data from someone who claims he has none existent robotic factories.
Precisely, everything that Jed says, based on Rossi's data should be discarded by his own principles. What does Jed say about the data he relies on so much?
I have some data from the ERV, and in my opinion, it is a steaming pile of manure.
Best regards
Frank -
The exchange of 'consideration' is surprise surprise the $89 million.
In austria,as far as I remember, a casino slot-machine was "broken" (the managment claimed.. or nutty programmer etc..).. showing the winner a huge checkpot of some millions...
This case looks the same. The IH casino manager did not expect that somebody would win...
-
What does Jed say about the data he relies on so much?
JedRothwell wrote:
I have some data from the ERV, and in my opinion, it is a steaming pile of manure.
You are confused. I am relying on my judgement that this data is nonsense. It is transparently wrong -- a put up job, with internal contradictions. It cannot possibly indicate 1 MW.Perhaps you are familiar with intelligence during the Cold War era. The Soviet Union published a great deal of information about itself, in newspapers, books of statistics and so on. For example they described 5-year agriculture plans, the number of acres planted with wheat, and the yield. US government experts read this information carefully. They also evaluated information from sources within the Soviet Union, from U.S. observers, from wheat markets, and later from things like satellite surveillance. From this, it was clear to them that in many cases Moscow overstated the wheat yield. Bad data when carefully analyzed can give you useful information.
(I happen to know about that because my father had a degree in agriculture, and he was posted to the Russia during WWII. Trying to keep track of wheat was one of his jobs.)
Some of the Soviet data was accurate, by the way. It wasn't all exaggerated. I am sure that some of the numbers reported by Rossi are correct readings from his instruments. Independent observers confirmed that. However, the numbers do not mean what he claims.
-
At the time of signing the agreement there indeed was a 'meeting of minds' right up until the ERV report was received by IH sand the $89 million became due. So the agreement is valid.
That is incorrect. I.H. complained long before the ERV report was received. They complained to many people, including me. I am sure they also complained to Rossi. However, even if they had not complained, what you say is nonsense. You have no idea how contracts and business work.As I wrote elsewhere --
Suppose you commission a contractor to build a house in the state of Florida. Six months later the contractor says it is finished and he demands his money. He shows you a piece paper signed by a third party you earlier agreed would confirm the construction was per the contract. You drive to the site and you find a hole in the ground and a pile of rotting lumber. No judge will say "you signed a contract, they say it is finished, so you have to pay." It never, ever, EVER works that way.
-
I am sure that some of the numbers reported by Rossi are correct readings from his instruments. Independent observers confirmed that.
If You believe a person You don't believe... This sounds epic.
I personally would believe any word of an investment banker/broker/venture capitalist. I wouldn't even trust his name, even if he is repeating it a thousand times.
-
If You believe a person You don't believe... This sounds epic.
I believe some people but not others. I do not believe Rossi but I do believe some of the people who have visited his laboratory and read his instruments.I personally would believe any word of an investment banker/broker/venture capitalist.
I have known investment bankers and venture capitalists who are more honest than your typical scientist. But in any case some of the observers I heard from were scientists. They had no stake in the outcome, and no reason to lie to me. -
I have known investment bankers and venture capitalists who are more honest than your typical scientist. But in any case some of the observers I heard from were scientists. They had no stake in the outcome, and no reason to lie to me.
As a scientist I'm eager to read the certifid (not by penon) truth.
But for me, as a rational thinking person, it's unbelivable that the owner (IH) of the E-cat is not again asking for a certification.
Dont tell us, please, that IH is not owning the 1 MW reactor...
-
But for me, as a rational thinking person, it's unbelivable that the owner (IH) of the E-cat is not again asking for a certification.
I do not follow what you mean by that. I do not understand your English.I.H. is not asking for additional certification because their own experts have analyzed the performance of the reactor, and the data. Perhaps that addresses your statement?
-
Quote from "FUDing Jed"
I have some data from the ERV, and in my opinion, it is a steaming pile of manure.
As we know your whole idiotic argument is based on pure ad-hominem on Penon, who btw is way beter suited to evaluate the plant and has way better credentials than you or your "certified "idiotic friends. He was actually there and did the measurements ... And has worked for world class organizations like Beureau Veritas and Det Norske Veritas.
And, Mats has been in contact with people who have actually seen the full ERV report, and they state the only way for it to show COP<1 is complete fraud. So your "stupidity" argument is impossible; you are only using it the dodge the obvious libelous claims you're selling ...
