IH considering counterclaims

Quote from Rends

The greatest threat for planet earth and the greatest tragedy in science history is the hijacking of empirical evidence by traitors paid by big business!

You disempower yourself if you believe that. LENR languished because of lack of attention, not hostile attention. Big business would want to control LENR, that would be normal. Suppressing it will move it out of control.

The greatest threat facing the planet is the belief that we are powerless, that these large forces are in charge, not us. This then allows us to excuse every failure as "they did it."

Cold fusion languished, we think, because "they wouldn't listen."

No. It languished because we, the community, did not do what was required to move it forward.

That is an empowering stand, because what we failed to do, we can now do. "Failure" is only disempowering when it leads to shame and fear. In training in transformation, one of the first blocks to be addressed is fear of failure.

Quote

A cockroach is an insect Mary not an animal. But then why should we be concerned with facts?

Frank, what is an insect? Animal, vegetable or mineral?

It appears that Frank will continue, repetitively, claiming complete and obvious victory. Standard troll behavior, actually. Long-term internet flame war tactic. At some point there is no incremental value for response. Have we reached that point? Comment invited!

Quote from frankwtu

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

I agree.

Great. So where to go from here?

Quote

But this is my take on that:

(1) Yes Rossi did transfer IP otherwise IH would not have been capable of building the reactors for the one year 1MW test.

IH was able to build reactors that Rossi could use. Yes. Were they able to build reactors that anyone else could use? Consider several possibilities: fuel change, procedure variation, and ... fraud or other unique way in which the test was conducted.

For an example of a procedure variation, set aside for a moment the idea that Defkalion was deliberate fraud. Suppose they found that a particular startup sequence "worked." So they used it. And, of course, they didn't want to reveal it. Secret. Without that startup sequence, no excess energy. And that startup sequence put the flow meter into failure, so that it would show apparent high flow while flow was actually very low.

So a complete IP would cover setup and operational protocol. And could then be tested by any reasonably skilled experts.

Basically, "capability of building the reactors" as used by Rossi does not complete what was needed. That was only part of the IP, and critical factors might be missing or even red herrings, i.e., fake fuel.

Quote

(2) Did the devices work, yes of course they did according to an agreed contractual test protocol, amended by IH but accepted jointly by IH and Rossi.

We do not know details of the negotiations, we mostly know only what Rossi has said. The test protocol in the Agreement was downright weird. One might notice that there is no guaranteed output power. Would 0.9 MW suffice? How about 0.5 MW? Or less .... the test only specifies COP and steam temperature. It was sketchy and primitive. Who wrote that?

Hint: this is more or less how Rossi tested his devices in his demonstrations, and it ignores the known hazards.

Quote

(3) Does the contract allow for further independent testing? No!

It certainly allows IH to test devices, they can do R&D on them and improve them. The agreement actually appears to have contemplated that IH would run the GPT, with the ERV observing. As we know, that did not happen. How is it that this did not happen? We only know Rossi's story, which is obviously self-serving. Is that story the truth, and, especially, is it the whole truth?

Dewey claims that IH was ready to go in North Carolina, but Rossi nixed it. Truth? I don't know. These are facts that may come out in court process. We will know, shortly, some of the IH side. Until now we have had, excepting for some hints from Dewey, only the Rossi side.

There is then the obvious question of why IH allowed Rossi to run the test. This is my theory, I do not know this as a fact, though it is consistent with what we have. They tried to run the 1 MW reactor. It didn't work without Rossi. Their goal was IP, not "running 1 MW reactor." Instead of rejecting the reactor, they continued to give Rossi what he wanted, hoping he would trust them enough to give them the IP. If he had it. I think they were aware of the possibility of fraud from the very beginning. If they were not, then they really were idiots. The standard opinion in the LENR community was that Rossi might be a fraud. My opinion was that we could not tell, the matter was being kept deliberately obscure, and, in fact, Rossi's friends have largely acknowledged this.

Quote

In any case 'further independent testing' cannot be presented to a court as 'unbiased' if it is motivated by a desire to avoid paying a contractually 'owed amount' .

This is a naive concept of what might and might not be accepted. They would be able to show, from testimony of those involved, that they attempted to test devices, including devices that, when used by Rossi, appeared to work. They failed. They hired experts and those experts will be called on to testify. The theory of "motivated by a desire to avoid paying" is not going to fly with the jury. Why, then, did they waste $11.5 million, and much more that they spent trying to get these things to work? They wanted them to work, and they held out on that hope as long as they could, and, in fact, seem to have been holding out when Rossi sued them.

The logic of this is very simple: if they can make devices that pass independent test, they could raise $89 million without breaking a sweat. Without that, they could raise, for this technology, nothing. If they can raise nothing, then they have lost $11.5 million and more, and Rossi might not be able to pay. In order to avoid this thinking, Planet Rossi stands on its head and imagines a conspiracy that is, to say the least, implausible.

Very simple: they wanted to learn to make devices. Rossi had said he would sell his secret for $100 million. However, Rossi was "eccentric," and was known to demand total control. So they gave it to him. What he told them as the secret did not work. Probably the patents do not include sufficient information to work (if they are not totally wrong). What he delivered to them was essentially worthless.

If what Dewey has claimed is true, IH will be able to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the 1 MW plant was not producing a megawatt and not even close. At that point, the ERV report becomes useless, and IH may be considering suing Penon, it's an obvious "third party." As well, the customer appears to be a possible sham. That will, again, be easy to establish if true. Rossi will not be able to hide behind the privacy of the customer, because the only agent of the customer is his attorney who could be added as an additional party.

It's funny. Pleant Rossi is claiming Cherokee Partners owns IH, based on far less evidence than what points to the "customer" as being controlled by Rossi. This is obvious: people are assessing the case according to what they want to be true.

Quote

Look at how this forum in general treats with scepticism the so called 'independent tests' Rossi has arranged none of which stand up to scrutiny. How then will tests carried out by Darden et al convince a court when there is a clear 'motive' for presenting 'biased' results.

This forum is not a court! What Rossi will face is a situation where several experts retained by IH to tell them the truth about the reactors -- that's what they wanted! -- are saying that they didn't work, and where their own employees will testify under oath as to what they experienced.

IHwill also present testimony, if Dewey is correct, that Rossi was caught attempting to remove evidence. That Rossi substituted a flow meter. That Rossi excluded the IH expert from the customer area. Why was Rossi trusted and not the IH expert?

(this is obvious: the "customer was a dummy company set up to further Rossi's goals, and controlled by Rossi's attorney. If I'm wrong about that, expect the truth to come out. However, there is still the IR evidence.)

Being unable to inspect the "customer area" to see how the heat was being dissipated, which is no easy thing with a megawatt, they investigated the IR emissions of the building. They will have photographs and experts to testify on that. Dewey has claimed that the emissions did not provide room for 100 kW, much less 1 MW. 20 KW should be visible, from what I've seen in looking at marijuana-growing sites.

The most hot water around might the water Penon is sitting in. It is possible that his attorney will advise him not to come to the U.S. again. What is going to happen to Rossi's case if Penon cannot testify?

(continued)

(continued)

Quote

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

No. It's a "technical fact." However, then, there is equity, and a moment's thought in independence-space (a great place to hang out) would show that nobody would set up an agreement like this in the real world, where an $89 million payment is conditional on the opinion of a single expert, particularly if the expert is chosen by the one to be paid, and with no appeal and no recourse.[/quote]
None would set up this type of agreement????? Rossi and Darden et al did, and its binding.[/quote]
Obviously, it happened. The point is that such an agreement is very odd. That it is binding is an opinion that is founded on what?

Once again, notice: Planet Rossi insists that the technical requirement for all parties to sign the second amendment, or it is invalid, is a mere technicality to be set aside based on equitable arguments (which could fly in court), but then, the provisions of payment on a single expert signoff, no appeal and no question, is to be strictly enforced, even if evidence shows it is preposterous or at least highly questionable.

Quote

A single expert chosen by Rossi????? Chosen and agreed by both Rossi and Darden et al,

I have gone over and explained the history in detail. Frank is ignoring it, and insisting on the fact that Rossi and IH did agree on Penon for the VT, which is not contested. However, that is also then placed in context. How was Penon chosen? This was extremely unusual, not at all what one would expect in arms-length negotiations. The conditions raise obvious suspicions. And it gets worse, later.

Quote

in fact Darden et al had 'hands on' influence over the testing protocol which was amended at their request then agreed by both Rossi and Darden et al.

Again, according to Rossi. Where is the "agreement"? I also notice something very odd. Lewan reports Rossi as having made requests of test procedure of Penon, that Penon accepted, which I would find extremely odd for someone who was tasked with simply measuring performance. I would want the expert to measure performance as accurately as possible. Rossi, instead, suggests being "conservative," by ignoring some data. When there are problems with measurement technology, it will often show up in what is considered irrelevant. So was Rossi pushing toward concealing something? And what is he doing telling Penon what to do at all?

The entire concept of the 1 MW performance test was off-the-wall silly, and this has been pointed out to Rossi since 2011. One would want detailed performance data on individual units, which is much easier to test, no problems with handling a megawatt of power. The 1 MW test was designed as ego display, it's obvious.

Quote

So, Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, much like your friend Jed, wrong on all counts.

Well, I predicted 7 out of 8 Rossi complaint counts would be dismissed, while Planet Rossi was predicting total rejection of the Motion. It was actually 4 out of 8, so I was right on 5 counts. And I know exactly where I missed it on the others. I did not go far enough in assuming that everything alleged by Rossi or derivable from what Rossi had alleged was completely true, being too much under the influence of knowing that some of it was just plain wrong. Later, though, Summary Judgment will come into play.

Is Frank making predictions here? Or is he simply claiming, stuffed ego, that his arguments are obviously superior? Is it possible to test this? How would we know?

Quote from frankwtu

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:[quote]
Big business would want to control LENR, that would be normal. Suppressing it will move it out of control.

IH misjudged a tad then wouldn't you say!

Oh, If their goal was to suppress a workable LENR technology, they misjudged. But if their goal was to develop LENR and "crush the tests" -- as they declared, meaning create definitive and unquestionable test results -- they have succeeded brilliantly. The proof is in the fact that they raised $50 million while Rossi was doing, what exactly?

This lawsuit is a hiccup to them. Oh, they must treat it seriously. Squash that cockroach, if they must. (I dislike that metaphor, the poor cockroaches.)

At this point, IH has a hedge against what Planet Rossi is calling an October Surprise, which would presumably be the release of a commercial product that anyone can buy and test. What is more possible is that Rossi would set up some new arrangement with a customer somewhere. Secret for now, of course. That doesn't count.

What is unknown to me is how long they will want to maintain the hedge, i.e., the License. If they decide to drop it, they can then go after the License Agreement itself as worthless and based on fraud. Rossi could lose everything. And possibly Penon.

Rossi's attorney, Johnson, I'm not sure. We really don't know anything from him. What did he tell IH? What communications were there? Did IH attempt to get the customer's permission to inspect the customer area? That would presumably have been done through that attorney.

The claim was, on that undated paper, that the Rossi, the attorney, and none of their family, etc., had an ownership in interest in the customer company. But who managed that company? Who made routine decisions? And ... what was going on in that building?

Essentially, was Johnson knowingly participating in a fraud? I don't know enough to have an opinion yet, I can just raise the question.

The so-called reactor of Rossi's is simply an electrical heater (a collection of them) perhaps with a small cavity or chamber in which to put so-called fuel which does nothing (or maybe contributes a modest amount of chemical heat). Who actually assembled the device makes absolutely no difference. Suppose IH did it. What is different then? It doesn't work for IH, it doesn't work for Rossi, it didn't work for Lewan (except Lewan couldn't see past the mismeasurement charades). It doesn't work at all. What does it matter who put it together?

The only time Rossi showed any heat output at all from his "plant" was in November 2011. And then, it was attached to a diesel generator capable of at least 500kW output as electricity. And then, nobody saw how the output was measured (for "safety" reasons). And the only certification was from the mysterious NATO colonel, “Domenico Fioravanti,” (ROTFWL) whose probable origin was as a jail-mate of Rossi's. How soon we seem to forget Rossi's idiotic games! That "demo," BTW, was when I became absolutely certain that the ecat was a hoax and Rossi was a crook. Had the plant worked, it would have been so easy to show a proper measurement both on the generator and on the plant output and of course, Rossi did neither. I bet he never even bothered to put together the necessary instruments since he never intended for anyone to see what the numbers would have been.