JM Chemical Products is the Key Witness in the Rossi vs. Industrial Heat Case

    Quote from frankwtu

    At it's simplest, IH began its 'sceptical' publicity campaign 'after' they refused to pay $89 million


    That is incorrect. They published their first comment denying that the machine worked on March 10, 2016, before the $89 million payment was due. They told many people privately that they were unhappy with the test in 2015.

    Jed


    Quote from JedRothwell

    The data in the report is obviously erroneous. It is garbage. Some of it appears to be fraudulent, such as the pressure changed to 0.0 bar. Anyone can see it is absurd. They should have no difficulty proving that. I do not think Rossi can find any expert witness who will testify that the ERV might be correct.


    Rossi will not need any expert witnesses to validate the ERV report as it was agreed by both IH and Rossi to be the trigger for payment of the $89 million. That's the contract. IH will need the expert witnesses and evidence to prove the ERV report is as you say "obviously erroneous. It is garbage. Some of it appears to be fraudulent"


    All of this will require evidence from IH not Rossi.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is incorrect. They published their first comment denying that the machine worked on March 10, 2016, before the $89 million payment was due. They told many people privately that they were unhappy with the test in 2015.


    Well, they may have mentioned that to some of their friends but what matters is that they should have formally raised it with Rossi, did they do that? If they did not then the court will wonder why.


    Best regards
    Frank


    Didn't Rossi earlier claim that he never saw the customer site or the equipment? Why was he allowed in, but not the I.H. expert who "insisted" on seeing this equipment?


    My guess is because his lawyer is the only person in the company, it is all fake, and there is no equipment.

    Quote from frankwtu

    Well, they may have mentioned that to some of their friends but what matters is that they should have formally raised it with Rossi, did they do that?


    Since they raised it with me and many other people, I would be ASTOUNDED if they did not formally raise it with Rossi. Seriously, who would do that? That would be flat out crazy, don't you think?


    Reality Check Please. They had $89 million at stake. The I.H. experts insisted they be allowed to do proper calorimetry instead of relying on Rossi's tinker-toy instruments. The I.H. experts "insisted" on access to the pretend customer site (you heard that from Rossi) yet Rossi blocked the door. Rossi was giving them interim reports with data that was obviously fake, with physically impossible conclusions. They could see there was no heat coming from the pretend customer site. With all that happening, do you seriously imagine that I.H. would not formally tell him they were dissatisfied?!? In what universe would that happen?

    Quote from frankwtu

    Rossi will not need any expert witnesses to validate the ERV report as it was agreed by both IH and Rossi to be the trigger for payment of the $89 million. That's the contract.


    Nope. That's not how business works here on Planet Earth. That is not how contracts are enforced. Only on Planet Rossi. Here on earth you have to actually do what is specified in a contract. You can't just write a preposterous report claiming that you did it. Even if the other side agreed to a report beforehand, you still can't issue a preposterous report and expect to be paid.

    Quote from frankwtu

    We are not interested in your guesses any more since you refuse to substantiate them with verifiable evidence.


    You saw evidence in I.H.'s motion to dismiss. I hope you see a lot more on Friday. But, in any case, you have seen no evidence whatever from Rossi. So why do you believe him instead of I.H.? Why do you think he has any credibility, given his track record?

    Jed


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Nope. That's not how business works here on Planet Earth. That is not how contracts are enforced. Only on Planet Rossi. Here on earth you have to actually do what is specified in a contract. You can't just write a preposterous report claiming that you did it. Even if the other side agreed to a report beforehand, you still can't issue a preposterous report and expect to be paid.


    I don't disagree. But the Judge takes what Rossi says as being true unless it is challenged. So, it must be challenged, right?


    Quote from JedRothwell

    You saw evidence in I.H.'s motion to dismiss.


    We saw 8 requests for a motion to dismiss but only 4 were successful, the same applies to evidence presented by both sides, it is subject to the courts ruling.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Mary Yugo wrote:


    Oh, that is soo.... funny ....

    Quote

    Why not?!? That's absurd. Human nature has not changed because of the Internet. Information was widely available in 1982.


    I suggest reading Taubes on fat in human diet, and Tiernan's coverage of this around "information cascades." Taubes certainly has credentials as a skeptic, eh? Bad Science, the short life and weird times of cold fusion. When Taubes discovered information cascades on health issues, he exposed them. He has been attacked, as were attacked scientists and doctors who went against the "consensus" which was never "scientific," except as a social phenomenon among scientists. Taubes response has been to form an institute to research the issues, collect funds, and he's doing real research.


    I happen to find that inspiring.

    Quote from frankwtu

    Even if the other side agreed to a report beforehand, you still can't issue a preposterous report and expect to be paid.



    I don't disagree. But the Judge takes what Rossi says as being true unless it is challenged. So, it must be challenged, right?


    A judge always takes whatever anyone says as true unless it is challenged. That's how the legal system works. Obviously, I.H. will have to challenge the charges. That is what they will do on Friday. Or they will begin to do it. If they did not challenge the charges, I gather the suit would be automatically settled in Rossi's favor.


    If it comes to a jury trial, the judge will not decide; the jury will.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    That is incorrect. They published their first comment denying that the machine worked on March 10, 2016, before the $89 million payment was due. They told many people privately that they were unhappy with the test in 2015.



    In any law system that behaves as we think it should, there are deadlines you have to adhere to. Your statement, that they told their dissatisfaction to others, privatly is critical.


    Usually You have a due time of 1,3, in rare cases 6 months were you must file a complaint. If you accept the wrong behavior (for a too long time), you agree with it...


    The only case,where IH has a slight chance to recover anything, is, if they can prove COP = 1.


    But this will be impossible, as already the old Celani reaction had a greater COP...


    So lets follow the gamblers party and enjoy it!

    Don't confuse physics with law. What IH and Rossi tried to pin-down in the the License Agreement was that IH would pay MUSD 89 if Rossi could run a working LENR-apparatus above certain specific threshold values under certain conditions. I believe that there is a consensus here that IH did not have a genuine interest in if Rossi could meet these threshold values; it's somethings that Rossi insisted on. IH is now anyhow disinterested in paying Rossi because a) they don't have the sum readily available, b) see an opportunity to settle on a lower sum, or c) don't think it works at all. This forum is dedicated to c) only. The bottom line here is that it is somewhat unlikely that the dispute concerns anything relevant for those interested in LENR. The dispute rather revolves around Rossi's and IH's commercial motives.

    Quote from frankwtu

    JedRothwell wrote:


    I don't disagree. But the Judge takes what Rossi says as being true unless it is challenged. So, it must be challenged, right?

    I see consistent misunderstanding of court process. Fact will be decided by the jury. The judge rules on points of law, in general. In a Motion to Dismiss, however, the judge will take the plaintiff's allegations as true, with only a very limited ability to challenge the factual claims. So in that context, the Judge does use "fact," but accepting all of it as true as alleged.


    Now as to further process, evidence will be presented to the jury. The judge will rule on the admissibility of evidence, as an example. If a party objects, the jury will not see any evidence without the judge's approval. That approval is not acceptance of the implications of the evidence, only its admissibility.


    I have mentioned that testimony is presumed true unless controverted. Rossi has alleged a series of things about the ERV report. Any of these things can be challenged. If they are challenged, they will not be presumed true. No evidence will be admitted without attestation. I.e., Rossi cannot just toss a copy of the ERV report at the judge. Someone will need to enter it into evidence with attestation. There are complex details and I have never participated in a case with even remotely this complexity. I am just writing about general principles. Much of the evidence will be created in depositions and answers to interrogatories, this is "discovery." The process is designed to avoid surprise at trial. By the trial, the parties should know fairly well what evidence the jury will see. At that point there may arise some pressure to settle, if the case seems obvious!


    If there is uncontested evidence leading to a conclusion on any of the counts, they may be subject to Summary Judgment when that becomes clear. Again, the judge is not deciding fact, but will apply uncontested fact, per law, to results. If a jury decision is reasonably needed, summary judgment cannot be used. For this purpose, merely claiming that one is contesting evidence would not enough. For example, Rossi claims that IH is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cherokee Partners. On Planet Rossi, the proof is that they have same mailing address, the snakes! However, the ownership interest of Cherokee Partners in IH can be legally established and, unless there is something we don't know about, the evidence will show that Cherokee doesn't own any of IH at all, and never did. So Summary Judgment on the continuation of Cherokee Partners as a defendant could easily prevail, once there is evidence in the record. Jones Day will know when the time is ripe for that.


    Quote

    JedRothwell wrote:


    Strictly speaking, no. There was a note, dicta, giving a hint as to one aspect of their defense strategy. I would not call anything in that document "evidence." It is not attested as true. Pleadings are not attested.


    It *hints at" evidence that they may be able to produce.


    Quote

    We saw 8 requests for a motion to dismiss but only 4 were successful, the same applies to evidence presented by both sides, it is subject to the courts ruling.

    This was irrelevant to the point being made.


    No evidence was "subject to the court's ruling."


    You gotta get that fuzz right outa your head, get that fuzz right outa your head!


    One of the things I did researching all that supposed "FUD" I put up here on the Motion to Dismiss (mostly on the Rossi Memorandum in response) was to read extensively on Motions to Dismiss. They are considered difficult, and there is some legal advice to avoid them, because they may reveal legal strategy, doing the plaintiff's work for him. (I.e., the defense may find a defect in the complaint, caused by ignorance of the law, and then the judge will allow the complaint to be amended.... what was gained other than the free education of the plaintiff's attorney?)


    However, the MTD was quite well drafted and did not do this. The Judge elected to simply assume estoppel on Count 1. And on some other issues, the judge noticed "fact" from the Complaint that I'd overlooked, such as the explicit claim that Cherokee was sole owner of IH, which then had implications for some counts. Nobody brought up Statute of Frauds, which is about verbal agreements for performance for longer than one year into the future, so Rossi's claim about being misled in 2012 -- the basis of the fraud claim -- was allowed to stand, though Rossi showing that with admissible evidence is going to be, ah, tricky. But this is why Motions to Dismiss are considered so difficult.


    Taking out four out of eight counts was very high success, and definitely not the abject failure that Planet Rossi crowed about. It is a sign of a poorly drafted Complaint. Even one of the Planet Rossi regulars noticed that there were redundant claims. Some of this was standard law.


    (The sources I read recommended going after all counts even if only one is weak. The reason is that if one does this, it is crystal clear that the time to Answer is tolled until the Motion sees a ruling. There were, however, weaknesses in all counts. None of them were strong enough that the Judge would be irritated by the MTD. That is a factor that should be considered. Making frivolous motions will set off the judge, whether she says something about it or not. Trials are human process. Judges are trained to be neutral and patient. But .... still, don't poke bears.)

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    JedRothwell wrote:

    That March announcement was noncommital. It essentially said, "don't make assumptions about what our position is."


    Quote


    I was not privy to any of this, I was paying little attention at that time, but .... it's quite consistent with what I've heard. IH, however, maintained a carefully neutral public face. They wanted to "crush the tests." That means to exercise extraordinary care, to not jump to conclusions.


    Quote

    In any law system that behaves as we think it should, there are deadlines you have to adhere to. Your statement, that they told their dissatisfaction to others, privatly is critical.


    Usually You have a due time of 1,3, in rare cases 6 months were you must file a complaint. If you accept the wrong behavior (for a too long time), you agree with it...


    The statute of limitations is far longer than that, generally. Some years, usually.


    Quote

    The only case,where IH has a slight chance to recover anything, is, if they can prove COP = 1.


    That is a naive judgment, for reasons that have been explained over and over.


    Quote

    But this will be impossible, as already the old Celani reaction had a greater COP...


    So lets follow the gamblers party and enjoy it!

    This is irrelevant. That some reaction, somewhere, had higher than COP 1.0 has absolutely no bearing on the case.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    JedRothwell wrote:


    So there was no closed loop on the steam -> water circuit? No heat coming from the customer site at all?


    That is not what Jed meant. There would be water return, probably warm. There might even be steam return, I'm unconvinced so far that anyone checked for this. A diagram on E-Catworld showed an open tank for return, which would rule out steam (which would escape), but Rossi, I think, claimed a closed system. As well, what Jed reports would indicate only modest levels of heat, i.e, say, 20 KW, not "no heat." IR imaging on a building that size would not detect below some level. 100 KW should be readily visible, I would think. 1 megawatt should stand out brilliantly.


    If the rumor turns out to be true that IH has the infrared evidence claimed, Rossi's situation could be dire.

    Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    This is irrelevant. That some reaction, somewhere, had higher than COP 1.0 has absolutely no bearing on the case.



    ABD the great judge of IH vs., Rossi has spoken. How many hits do You expect that time..?


    After the rubish You posted above I predict one out of 4 - at most...


    Just believe me: A law system cannot be FUDerated... Due time in the US is mostly 3 months ask Apple... in Europe it's better: 2 years for sold item.
    For contracts basic law applies... I would look it up in the state Florida civil law bible...

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    So there was no closed loop on the steam -> water circuit? No heat coming from the customer site at all?


    I do not understand your question. There had to be closed loop on the steam to water circuit, because the water tank was not continually replenished with tap water, and because the return pipe was at 60 deg C. Heat coming from the customer site is a separate issue. If the machine produced significant excess heat, there would be heat from the customer site whether the loop is open or closed.


    Amend: Perhaps you mean heat coming back in the pipe from the customer site. Yes, there was some of that. It was at a lower temperature, so there was a radiator or heat exchanger in the customer site. Rossi described this. I have no reason to doubt his description.


    I meant heat from the customer site vent and walls. I am sure there was some heat from the customer site vent and walls, especially in winter, from the ordinary HVAC equipment in the building. I.H. said there was not 1 MW or even 100 kW (5 times input). I do not know how sensitive the tests were, but in any case, other tests confirmed there was no excess heat, according to I.H. I do not know the details. The only details I know are from Rossi.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.