Industrial Heat Amends Answer to Rossi’s Complaint on Aug 11th

Could Rydberg matter be described as a cluster ion?

Can it remain stable for long enough to be measured?

Quote from George Hody

Has an element with mass 281 ever been "discovered"?

Yes, but it is very unlikely to be present in some ordinary analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmstadtium

What was being asked about is not an atomic mass, but the mass of an ion in a mass spectrometer. Such are often compound ions. For example, in measuring helium in experiments, the ion generally measured is 4He+. This has a mass only slightly less than D2+, i.e., the deuterium molecular ion, the difference being the small mass defect that generates energy when deuterium is converted to helium.

Transmutation reports in cold fusion experiments are confounded by many possible molecular ions, and thus great care is required, including control experiments and specific care to exclude possible artifacts.

A single result is not particularly significant; it is merely an indication that further research may be in order. Muliple results from the same source and collection process and analytical process are not much better. Rather, serious investigation would look for all possible artifacts, and would look for, for example, a correlation between a possible transmutation, considered quantitatively, with integrated excess heat. If they are well-correlated, this would strongly indicate that the transmutation is real and a nuclear process, not merely some chemical separation phenomenon.

And we won't even mention fraud. No sirree, that would be rude, eh?

Quote

This attempt at claiming fraud exposes IH to the judgement that IH does not know what they are doing and that whatever they say or claim lacks credibility. If such an incompetent and befuddled an organization was made a fool of in the very beginning to the tune of $10,000,000 how can anything they say now and henceforth be taken as true on the strength of their opinion only.

The claim that Rossi defrauded IH is based on the fact, as per their testimony thus far, that the contract required him to provide IP sufficient to produce a series of working ecats and an assembly of six hot cats and they could do neither with what Rossi provided despite diligent following of Rossi's instructions. However, Rossi did not properly prove or show in more than five years, that he was capable of making a working ecat and testing it correctly. During that time, he made extravagant claims of sales, factories, isotopes and much more. Not a single claim of Rossi's was definitively proven.

The court decision, whether by trial or by settlement, will hinge simply on whether or not Rossi can demonstrate a working ecat to independent experts from both sides. I am absolutely certainly, as are most people who have studied this, that Rossi can not. I have no idea how this simple situation gets so complicated in some foggy minds.

@Alan: of course Rossi doesn't provide a recipe. If he did, it could be properly tested. And it would be patent protected so no risk to IP. Rossi doesn't provide a recipe that works because he doesn't have one. And never did.

Quote from Jack Cole

THHuxley wrote:

Right. And if they want to, they can referenced published failed replication attempts using the formula from the patent and Lugano (i.e., Budko & Korshunov or Biberian). There are so many individual issues showing big problems for AR, it's hard to know which are the most important (that's the attorneys' job).

I'll underscore this. Lugano is very much a side-issue. My summary of Lugano: Rossi won the lottery. During that test, he showed -- for the first time -- uncertainty as to how it would turn out. The test was not fully independent, that was obvious. Rossi participated in important ways, and what the "independent professors" did was mostly to watch it in the middle, and to analyze the data, which was input power data and IR thermometry.

As became obvious, the professors stumbled, badly. Their calculations of heat were based on an estimate of an external temperature of 1400 C, which was contrary to the evidence of their senses, if they had paid attention to it. They trusted their instruments more than what they could see, somehow it did not occur to them that looking at the device would give them a sense of its temperature. This has been explained many times, and those professors have never responded, demonstrating how that test and report were outside of the process of science.

Now, why did IH reference this report (Exhibit 14)?

Quote

68. In late 2013 and early 2014, Leonardo and Rossi made arrangements with the team of scientists who had published the Ferrara Report to conduct another test of a single E-Cat reactor (not an entire Plant or an entire Six Cylinder Unit) over a roughly one month time period in February and March 2014 in Lugano, Switzerland. At the conclusion of the experiment, the scientists concluded in their report (the “Lugano Report”) that the E-Cat reactor produced a COP of 3.2 and 3.6 across two different “runs” of the reactor (which is still less than the lowest COP number reflected in the License Agreement). See Ex. 14. This conclusion was subsequently criticized in a series of publications identifying flaws in the methodology the scientists employed which led to overstatement of their COP calculations. These publications, however, did not surface until 2015.

69. In 2014, knowing that the high COP results that Leonardo, Rossi, and Penon had previously claimed could not be replicated by the various testing of E-Cat reactors in North Carolina (some done with the direct participation of Rossi) or even by the scientists in Lugano (though Rossi had significant control over their testing), Leonardo, Rossi, and others devised a scheme to get the Plant removed from under Industrial Heat’s control in North Carolina and to a location in Florida where Leonardo, Rossi, and others could operate the Plant without careful oversight and could control how any measurements of the Plant’s performance were conducted.

It is part of their narrative of events. Whether or not the Lugano test was "actually" positive is irrelevant to the lawsuit. The lawsuit turns, at the first level, on these questions:

1. Was the Doral power sale at Guaranteed Performance Test, as defined in the 2012 Agreement -- or as amended by the 2nd Amendment, if that is accepted as valid. (I'll note that Rossi could have signed that Amendment at any time on behalf of Leonardo, signatures were not dated, nor was there a time limit for them, and could have asked Ampenergo to sign, thus reducing legal controversy. But did he even realize it was unsigned? Did his attorney notice the problem?)

It seems nearly certain to me, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, which has not yet appeared other than the conclusory claims by Rossi in the Complaint, that the Doral test was not a GPT as defined and agreed, and therefore the lawsuit by Rossi fundamentally fails, without further examination, no matter what actually happened in Doral as to heat.

2. If it was a GPT, was it conducted properly, as in allowing IH access while it was in process, or was IH improperly excluded? Inproper behavior by Rossi and/or the ERV could invalidate the alleged Test.

3. If Rossi and ERV conduct did not invalidate the Test, was the ERV report positive as to satisfying the GPT requirements?

4. If so, was that report conclusion valid? Only at this level of defense does actual operation become relevant to the case outcome.

As an example of this layer of defense, IH alleges that the usage of one megawatt of power in the Doral warehouse would have raised the internal temperature of the warehouse to intolerable levels, whereas such levels, even to the point of discomfort, were not noticed by visitors. That could be rebuttable, and Planet Rossi is busy making up possible explanations or excuses, but Rossi has not actually given any coherent response, saying what was actually done. "Possibility" is not enough as an answer.

"Secret customer endothermic process" is not going to fly. There are ways that secrets can be revealed in pleadings and discovery process while being kept secure. In fact, IH makes that point, that Rossi violated the confidentiality portions of the Agreement by revealing private information that he had agreed to protect, without taking steps to insure confidentiality, as he could have done. Not all court documents are necessarily public.

5. Did Rossi transfer IP to IH such that they could make devices that worked? If not, the fundamental purpose of the Agreement was defeated by Rossi's failure.

Rossi and Planet Rossi may attempt to ascribe this to IH incompetence -- or deliberate fraudulent intention -- but Rossi could have taken steps to insure transfer, and apparently did not. IH made the devices that were used at Doral. Why is it that they did not pass IH tests, but seem to function perfectly well in Doral? And the answer to that is obvious: Rossi presence.

I'm calling this Rossi Grease, and that phrase does not necessarily imply fraud. It might imply, for example, some skill or art that Rossi knows, maybe even unconsciously. So how about a test where Rossi doesn't touch anything, except it is thoroughly monitored and recorded. If there is a secret art, it could be studied and found. Meanwhile the heat would be verified by multiple means. It is well known how to do this, and, by hiding the "Customer Area," Rossi made it impossible to set up a major verification. It was set up anyway, by the entire warehouse acting as a very rough calorimeter. It is very difficult to hide a megawatt, and why would anyone try? Rather, they would set up obvious cooling systems. Perhaps they did, in which case Rossi dodges this particular bullet. More likely, though, given how clumsy the rest of the Doral scheme was, they didn't.

So why did Rossi file the suit? Didn't he know that the truth would come out? (I.e,. all those documents in the record, that show what they show.) My guess is that he has a model of the "Cherokee" venture capitalists that has them be greedy fast-return investors, and, of course, wanting to look good. Perhaps he thought that they, facing a claim against Cherokee, would quickly settle. He judged wrong. Their motive from the beginning wasn't profit; profit for these people is a means to an end, not an end.

Darden et al are not much vocal about what they do. I know that they are working with many people in the LENR field. None of that work openly announces it. There is no seeking of publicity at this time.

However, Rossi forced them to disclose some of what they have been doing, specifically with him, in order to defend themselves. My opinion is that they have not been harmed by this, other than needing to spend money on legal process. There is nobody who would have invested with IH Holdings International, Ltd., the present company with many investors, who won't because of the lawsuit, because IHHI was apparently set up to avoid any possible liability to Rossi that might attach to new money. And when the full story is told, so far, IH looks quite good. If they were honest with Woodford, this is nailed, and I expect that they were.

I doubt that Rossi v. Darden will go to trial on the primary filing, and I suspect that Rossi may be persuaded to settle on the counterclaim. Likewise Johnson, Penon, and Fabiani.

So far, no response to the counterclaims. They are due within 21 days. I would interpret this as 21 days after service of process, filed Friday, August 12, 2016. There will be delay for those that might be difficult to serve, such as Penon and possibly Fabiani. For Rossi, the deadline is September 2, 2016, but, as the plaintiff, this might be the day before.

It may take time for Rossi's new attorneys to come up to speed, so I would not be surprised to see them ask for more time. Further, being late can be legally meaningless, as long as an Answer is filed before the judge has issued a default judgment. I saw one case where this was a year later, and the Answer was still timely enough (the default judgment, issued after that late Answer was filed, was reversed). No good lawyer would risk that, though. They will formally ask for time if they need it (as IH did).

Quote

Oh Noes! Not again.

Well, the court case is interesting and I am content to wait for the results while Rossi makes yet more silly claims on his dumb blog. (How's the Quark doing, BTW?) I just fail to see the point of elaborating every possible version of who did what, with which, and to whom. Of course, if it's fun for people, then by all means. To me, it makes little sense to ponder whether there were vents on the roof or there was actually a mysterious and unlicensed chemical plant on the other side of the wall. Most good points on these issues have been made.

Jed,

If Rossi could prove that he supplied a megawatt to some process, obviously, he'd also have to prove it didn't come from the huge connection of 440V 3 Phase current he had with the mains.

Jed, Rossi himself published the 440 connections -- ya think maybe he can draw some serious power through that panel?

http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/