The Industrial Heat Answer

  • I do not know if Lewan is biased because of motive, naivety or blind faith.


    Lewan is a journalist and is aware of the problem. Rossi is engaging and personable, and opened up to Lewan in many ways. A personality like Rossi is rare. I don't blame anyone for being taken in by him. He filtered out anyone who might challenge him. Lewan was skeptical, initially, but willing to allow the possibility of Rossi having a real effect. That was, in fact, the position of most experts in LENR. It was possible.


    That set up conditions where the pseudoskeptics were screaming at Rossi because LENR was "impossible." The real experts know that was in error. So, then, there would be an impulse to defend Rossi from unfair criticism.


    But almost all recognized that Rossi was avoiding independent testing. I advised the field, in 2011, to avoid showing approval, to be noncommittal about Rossi, and almost all did that. I wrote extensively about why fully independent testing was needed, not merely "conclusive demonstrations," because a magician can fake anything, but only if the magician can control the environment and audience attention.


    I've written that it was as if Rossi generated some kind of force-field that influenced otherwise sober and skeptical scientists to make huge blunders. He clearly had some special skill, almost paranormal. He manipulated attention, as do skilled magicians.


    I don't think the book is a motive, but there is this effect, possibly: those who knew Rossi knew he was "mercurial." Many people learn not to cross "mercurial" people. People, including, say, the Lugano team, knew or sensed that if they asked inconvenient questions, they could lose access. So they avoided them. Easily, this may not have been a conscious decision, but it could be operating in the background.


    The full story has not been told. Whose idea was it to not calibrate the Lugano reactor with the full range of input powers, at least? Who said that the heater wires might burn out from full power? But supposedly would not burn out from full power plus supposedly being much hotter from the reaction. How was that decision made?

  • So ... consider this: Johnson and Rossi are asked if they said that. Suppose they say something like, "No, we said nothing of the kind." Well, then, suppose it turns out that the office in Raleigh is bugged. All conversations are recorded, and ... they pull out the tape, which is entered into evidence. Look, if you are ever testifying in court, it's a really bad idea to commit perjury, even if you think, "They will never know, they can't prove it!" It can convert some relatively small loss into a major crime. "It's the cover-up, stupid!"


    Were you serious about this?


    Florida is what is called a '2-party' state. This in essence means that both Rossi and Johnson would have to agree (in advance) to be recorded when having a private conversation. And such an illegally obtained recording could not be admitted into evidence. Unless you know better.


    And in N. Carolina...You Should Not Illegally Record a PersonIllegally recording an in-person conversation or electronic communication is a felony offense. Further, anyone whose wire, oral or electronic communication has been recorded or disclosed in violation of the law can bring a civil suit to recover the greater of actual damages versus the statutorily set amounts for damages, and can recover punitive damages, attorney’s fees and court costs as well. And to go further, even disclosing the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication obtained through illegal recording is a felony.


    The foregoing represents a general overview on the law of recording a third party in North Carolina. You should consult experienced legal counsel before undertaking any recording to ensure that you are complying with North Carolina law. And you should be very cautious before making a recording or intercepting a recording when state lines are being crossed.

  • "Psychology by Abdulla" wrote:

    Rossi is engaging and personable ... A personality like Rossi is rare ... He filtered out anyone who might challenge him .... ," because a magician can fake anything, but only if the magician can control the environment and audience attention.... those who knew Rossi knew he was "mercurial." ...


    Have you met him? Or are you only playing according to your script?


    Quote

    I advised the field, in 2011, to avoid showing approval, to be noncommittal about Rossi, and almost all did that. I wrote extensively about why fully independent testing was needed, not merely "conclusive demonstrations ... I 've written that it was as if Rossi generated some kind of force-field that influenced otherwise sober and skeptical scientists to make huge blunders. He clearly had some special skill, almost paranormal. He manipulated attention, as do skilled magicians.


    Wow! What a great guy and analyst you are ... If there were only more able speedwriters like you this world would be a much better place... Why dont you give yourself a high five... (the paranormal manipulating magic skills sounds very special, do you have scientific proof?)

  • And no, Darden did not honor his signature on the 2nd amendment. He blatantly deny its existence in the counterFUD.

    Torkel has lost distinction between Darden and Jones Day. Jones Day made a legal argument in the Motion to Dismiss that the Second Amendment was never valid, because it was explicitly required to be signed by all the parties, and there is no evidence that it was. I have argued that it is possible that estoppel would apply on this, but at that point I was assuming that facts were as Rossi alleged.


    Sifferkoll has never understood estoppel, he clearly was unwilling to put in the effort, to him it is all legal beagle dogshit FUD anyway. However, this is what it would mean: If IH acted as if the GPT were being run, as such, properly, the missing signatures would be a mere technical formality.


    Rossi presented quite a case for that. From the Complaint, my emphasis, of course:



    Rossi was lying here. I will cover the deceptions based on evidence in the Answer. Rossi misrepresented the conversations, putting in words that were absent, specifically, "Guaranteed Performance Test." He mentions the requirement for a written agreement to being that test, but does not allege it. I assume that this never took place.


    If it never took place, and if estoppel is not established (and estoppel should not be vague), the GPT was never begun. It still could be. In fact, as to the Second Amendment Problem. Rossi could simply sign his copy for Leonardo, and get his friend from Ampenergo to sign, there was no time limit. If Rossi hadn't been such a doofus, that particular little problem wouldn't have existed. But this would not solve the written agreement to the test date problem. That would have to be explicitly the GPT, not some other test or application. We know about one document, the one in which Rossi pitched the "customer." There would be others, and we have not seen them.


    What Rossi wrote was allegations that the judge was required to take as true, so I don't wonder that she judged that estoppel could be shown. All he'd have to do is show that what was alleged was accurate and fair, and ... bang! GPT!


    (And then there are other problems, this is by no means the end of the IH defense.)


    (I intend to continue this examination, by comparing this with the IH Answer. But this is enough for a foundation.)

  • Now, IH have alleged that Rossi outright told them it was Johnson Matthey. But there is no evidence provided to go along with that assertion. So I suspect this is one of the things that Rossi will dispute


    IHFB,


    True, there is no evidence Rossi told IH that. However, Rossi, in his email pitch (July 2014) to IH to convince them of the many benefits of their allowing him to bring their 1MW plant down to Florida said this:


    "Let me do this and I will make a masterpiece ( half masterpiece has already been done finding the Customer as a Chemical Industry and getting the authorization from the Florida State Radiation Control Office)."


    If/when Rossi reveals this customer, and he is not in the "Chemical Industry", or Rossi never got the authorization from the Radiation Control Office, then Rossi has clearly lied to IH. If so, the judge can throw Rossi's case out under the "unclean hands" doctrine.


    Even if, as Rossi claims, he actually has a customer associated in some way with the chemical industry, they better have a business card that reads exactly like James Bass'. :) I do not think we will see that happen though, as IH confidently claims:


    "JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP"


    I think Rossi is in big trouble!

  • "Abdulla Apco FUD sub" wrote:
    I have not received any funds related to Industrial Heat or Rossi v. Darden


    I notice that you do not mention Apco here ... This is somewhat interesting since you have been spending so many words downplaying them ... dont you think?

    It is 'somewhat interesting" to notice who upvotes this crap. I received $4.25 million dollars from APCO to promote advanced voting systems. I wish. In fact, I have received nothing to promote anything. I have never talked with anyone connected to APCO, as far as I know. Dewey Weaver is a subscriber to the CMNS mailing list, and we have had exchanges there.


    If I received money from APCO to write here on Rossi v. Darden or Industrial Heat or anything related to them, my statement would have covered it. Basically, this is what Sifferkoll finds "interesting": anything that allows him the tiniest toehold for some suspicion that someone is lying or that there is some big conspiracy. But he misses that he continues to discredit himself, for no gain, other than the approval of some loons.


    What is really dumb is that if there were such a conspiracy, the conspirators would lie easily and without compunction. And if it were the true "establishment" involved, it being as Sifferkoll imagines, and they wanted anyone dead, consider the person dead unless he has a similar establishment on his side protecting him. And even then it is dangerous as hell.


    My opinion has been that there is no conspiracy to suppress cold fusion, not as such. There are various little subplots. The Washington Office of the American Physical Society attempted to suppress activity on cold fusion by a Patent Officer. There may be some behind-the-scenes machinations by pseudoskeptics attempting to prevent cold fusion publication, and, in fact, there is or was an organization dedicated to promoting "skeptical" points of view on Wikipedia, the Guerilla Skeptics. But this is all small potatoes, ad hoc, with little or no funding. Rather, there was a "rejection cascade." Its' a term worth understanding, and some of the best writing on it is from or about Gary Taubes, famous for his book rejecting cold fusion, Bad Science. But his theme really was Bad Science, adn there is plenty, and cold fusion was merely a target of opportunity for him. He's actually quite bright and has done some great work. Just wrong about cold fusion.


    I do have an actual conflict of interest, it is a common problem for writers. I know a great deal about cold fusion. That creates a certain weight, and could lead me into some attachment to positions, just as Lewan's knowing a great deal about Rossi has perhaps led to some attachments.

  • Abd,


    While IH clearly makes their case that they allowed Rossi's request to do the GPT in Florida, based solely on his pitch that it would be a combination commercial/R+D/certification endeavor, and not a GPT. In fact, in Rossi's spiel to IH, he never mentions the GPT as one of his goals, as IH notes in their counter complaint.


    Problem for IH though, is that Penon was there, in Florida, acting clearly as an ERV. IH must have known that Penon's only role, was to be an ERV. And that once they accepted (or I see no complaint about that) his being there, it would only be for a test. ERV=GPT. Based on that, I would think the estopel angle may still play in Rossi's favor.

  • No. The email was in July 2014. It was without a doubt related to the GPT.


    The letter was in 2014, but I have a feeling that passing the prior inspection is believed by Rossi to be a sort of authorization. Viz.:
    "There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction."

  • Even if, as Rossi claims, he actually has a customer associated in some way with the chemical industry, they better have a business card that
    reads exactly like James Bass'.


    The card was created for the U.S. shell company. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise. I don't think Rossi/Leonardo or Johnson the attorney will claim otherwise. They will fess up. "Yes, your honor, it was a business card created for the U.S. shell company." Period. Now, James Bass better exist as a real person, because if he was merely hired as an actor, then yes, big problems for Rossi/Leonardo.



    I do not think we will see that happen though, as IH confidently claims:


    "JMP, however, has never been a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey, was
    not operating or planning to operate any manufacturing process in
    Florida, and was in fact owned by persons whom Johnson represented in writing did not have any ownership interest in JMP"


    I think IH is correct that JMP was never a subsidiary of Johnson Matthey. And I think that Leonardo/Rossi never claimed as much either. Even the sloppy letterhead talks of "derivative products" of Johnson Matthe[w] sponges (probably a typo)--not that it was Johnson Matthey itself being represented.


    As for the ownership of JMP, IH provided no evidence that JMP was owned by persons whom Johnson represented--they simply made the allegation. And there is evidence emerging that there might actually be a company unrelated to Johnson Matthey in the UK, which is also a shell company with a direct connection to China, and which may be the actual customer.

  • Eric Walker
    "I believe there was a name change for JMP that was registered at some point, and one of the names you identified was the earlier name and another was the new name."


    Yes, there was something like that, a document, that was altered/changed with crossed out/pencil stripe.
    (My English is not the best, I know that
    I looked that up in my download folder, but could not find it.
    Can somebody be helpful with that?

    I didn't see that anyone answered this. First of all, the document with changes is one that was accidentally included with the copy of the Agreement, as Exhibit B, it is the last page. All the Rossi v. Darden case files are in https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…tex/files/Rossi_v_Darden/ ... this would be document 1.2. There, the printed name is JMC Chemicals, Inc. That was merely an error, and it was crossed out and replaced with the actual name of the corporation, JM Chemical Products, Inc., and this was initialed by the President of JMC (Johnson) and JTV, probably Vaughn of IH. The actual name as incorporated, 06/27/2014, was slightly different: J,M. Chemical Products, Inc. Then they changed the name, 09/03/2014, to J.M. Products, Inc.


    The Florida Secretary of State incorporation information is at http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?InquiryType=EntityName&aggregateId=domp-p14000056117-f1b317f1-99eb-48c8-9cce-18b618a70d75&searchTerm=JM Chemical Products&currentPage=0&ListNameOrder=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS P140000561170&SearchNameOrder=JMCHEMICALPRODUCTS P140000561170&directionType=Initial



    Rossi mentioned "JM" in his mail pitching them as a customer on July 5, 2014.

  • Shane D. wrote:
    No. The email was in July 2014. It was without a doubt related to the GPT.



    The letter was in 2014, but I have a feeling that passing the prior inspection is believed by Rossi to be a sort of authorization. Viz.:
    "There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction."

    This is classic Rossi Speak, claiming a "masterpiece" from what amounts to an enemy siccing the radiation people on him and it failed. There was never any radiation problem with the reactor, anywhere., no authorization to obtain, and they couldn't issue one, having no jurisdiction. But he wrote as shown in Exhibit 16, " getting the authorization from the Florida State Radiation Control Office)." He is using this as part of his argument for shipping the reactor to Florida for what he makes very clear is a sale of power. The motive is money, but he tosses in an additional argument:


    Quote

    Your proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by yourself at least until recently is dramatically less convincing.


    Notice that later, in the Complaint, he completely disregards the IH "proposal" and claims it was their doing to postpone the test. His concern is that if the plant is operating in a facility affiliated with IH, it will be "dramatically less convincing."


    Rossi is expecting that they are thinking like him, he wanted something "dramatically convincing." They just wanted to be making devices that worked! They didn't need to convince anyone outside. If they had good test data, they could then raise the money needed to create product, or they could sell sublicences, selling a proven technology.


    He presents all this in the Complaint as being about the Guaranteed Performance Test, but that wasn't mentioned. It will be quite interesting to see if Rossi comes up with communications that contradict the idea that he represented the Doral installation as a sale of power and a place to show people the reactor in operation, while thinking of it himself as the Guaranteed Performance Test, bringing in Penon, and setting it all up the way he wanted it.


    With, ironically, a "customer" who appears to be a complete fake, created by Johnson, President of Leonardo Corporation. All activity of JM Products appears to have been by Johnson, and Rossi had the key, apparently, to the "customer area."


    I think the movie rights will be worth millions.

  • Abd,


    While IH clearly makes their case that they allowed Rossi's request to do the GPT in Florida, based solely on his pitch that it would be a combination commercial/R+D/certification endeavor, and not a GPT. In fact, in Rossi's spiel to IH, he never mentions the GPT as one of his goals, as IH notes in their counter complaint.


    That's correct.


    Quote

    Problem for IH though, is that Penon was there, in Florida, acting clearly as an ERV. IH must have known that Penon's only role, was to be an ERV. And that once they accepted (or I see no complaint about that) his being there, it would only be for a test. ERV=GPT. Based on that, I would think the estopel angle may still play in Rossi's favor.


    What is the difference between an ERV and an engineer examining the operation of a plant and reporting on it? The difference is formal, only, an assigned and specific responsibility, as defined in the Agreement.


    We have this from the letter to Penon, from Murray, inquiring about the testing procedures and results, from Exhibit 5:


    Quote

    (Just to be clear, I am not asking you, and I do not plan to ask you, about the license agreement or whether you are an ERV under the agreement. I am trying to focus just on the test and its measurement.)


    This disclaimer makes it obvious that there was question about Penon being the "ERV under the agreement." This was in February, 2016, shortly after the end of the 1 year test. The document that would be of highest interest would be the communication that Rossi refers to in the Complaint:


    Quote

    65. Accordingly, on January 28,2015, the ERV prepared and submitted to the parties a proposed test protocol for the Guaranteed Performance Test. After suggesting minor changes to the test protocol, and clarifying other points, DARDEN on behalf of IH andlor IPH agreed to the test protocol prior to the commencement of the Guaranteed Performance Test.


    Is this accurately represented? Did they mention the "Guaranteed Performance Test"? As we already know, Rossi has misrepresented what the agreement was with JM Products, as being about the "Guaranteed Performance Test," when there was no mention of that in the proposal, nor in the Term Sheet signed by IH, Rossi and Johnson.


    It looks to me like Darden was willing to allow Penon to monitor the performance, but monitoring the performance was a normal part of the operation of the plant, at this point.


    Estoppel will depend on what else can be found in the communication record. There can also be testimony. So far, though, it looks like IH was aware of the issue and avoided approving this as the GPT, and it looks like Rossi avoided bringing up the issue early on.


    Rossi's exclusion of Murray earlier, see Exhibit 19, is remarkable:


    Quote

    About the meeting of Tuesday, you obviously can come when you want, while Joe Murray cannot enter in the factory of JM because, as I have explained to Tom during the visit with Brian Mc Laughlin, I do not allow anybody, except for the personnel already reciprocally authorized, to approach the plant before the tests on course will have been completed.


    He was owning and controlling this installation, violating the Term Sheet (Exhibit 17). He had converted a sale of power, fully open to IH and anyone designated by IH, into a closed Test, controlled by him.


    At this point, I suspect that IH knew that fraud was up. However, they still wanted to make sure that the technology actually didn't work, that it wasn't just that they were making mistakes testing their own devices. Note that Rossi was using devices they made, so the difference would be in operation and testing, not in actual device construction.


    The story that Rossi told in the Complaint was quite convincing on the matter of estoppel. The shoe is now on the other foot.

  • Abd,


    Everything you say...I agree with. Especially that we need more information. But with what is available now, we are probably pretty close to the truth, as we have been all along.


    Would not surprise me in the least if those young smart JD lawyers assigned to the case are getting some good pointers here. Maybe even Rossi's lawyer too.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


    And You still believe that IH billed the fake customer?? Or will You change your mind again...

    Wyttenbach is terminally unclear on the concept. It takes a lot to get a PhD, I have high respect for those who do. And then we see this idiocy. Of course, this is social idiocy, not math.


    The Answer has, as an exhibit, power reports from Johnson, being purely nominal, We don't have a complete set, but it looks very odd. These were not "bills" and when the Answer calls Exhibit 18 "invoices," that was an error. Rather, they are requests for invoices, up to almost $30,000 per month. I have never stated, to my knowledge, that IH actually billed them, because I don't know.


    I more or less assume that they did invoice JM Products, though. Why not? This would cover their expenses for West and Fabiani and a bit more. (Fabiani was being paid, we think, $10,500 per month, by the agreement.)


    "Completely fake" doesn't mean, here, that JM Products didn't have a checking account. I assume they would. Where would the money come from? If it was a fake customer, almost certainly from Rossi. After all, he had his sights on $89 million. There is going to be a money trail. The Feds may get interested.