Rossi v. Darden developments - Part 1

Quote from JedRothwell

Rends wrote:

Yes, and they are the owners of I.H., but that does not mean Cherokee owns I.H., or vice versa. As pointed out above, if Bill Gates owns a small company in Atlanta (let us say), that does not mean Microsoft owns that company. It means he has ownership positions in more than one company.

I own a house and a car. The house does not own the car.

it's worse than that. Darden and Mazzarino are shareholders and managers of those companies. These are limited liability companies, and are owned, not by the officers, who are trustees, but by the shareholders. In the United States, LLCs' income, as I recall, is taxable to the shareholders (distributed according to interest), and losses are distributed similarly. I'm not sure about the situation with the British companies, which is where the actual ownership is now for IHHI and the IP holding company. it's a bit complicated, all right. Woodford owns a special class of stock, and I don't know how much control thus is in the hands of Woodford, I'd have to study the documents and, frankly, it's not worth the effort at this point. What does it matter? I assume that Woodford is satisfied with the situation.

Cherokee has many other investors, I'm sure. To think of these as the same company is crazy. Yes, there are connections, that's obvious. But debts of IH are not debts of IHHI. If IH owes money and cannot pay, IH could go bankrupt and IHHI could write off their interest in IH as a loss, which would then be distributed to the shareholders of IHHI. The investiment of Woodford, by the way, is investment and is not distributable, it's not profit.

This is how corporations work, and it's proper. If fraud is involved, however, it all can change. The corporate veil can be pierced. That is what Rossi is trying to do. A major effect: corporations become unlikely to invest in him, because he may then go after the officers. Basically, the story better be clear and provable!

Quote

I do not know the details, but I know that Rossi got millions, and the Diesel engines are actually being manufactured and sold.

How in the world do you know? Link to the company? And it says the design is Rossi's? Or someone told someone who told someone who told you? And the source was really Rossi, years ago?

Quote

No, as I have said many times, I refer to:lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

ROTFWL! That's a hot cat test as full of holes at the input power *and* output power measurement as one could imagine. Totally worthless. Not discredited by me but by many others. This is the test that got the Swedish scientists dubbed the "three blind mice".

As for who doesn't know a calibration from their rear end, it's hardly Krivit. He's the one who asked all the good questions (in person in Italy) of Levi-- you know, the ones he refused to answer and the test he refused to redo?. The real individual who doesn't know calibration from prevarication is Lewan. And Levi. If he's honest which I have no idea about.

Quote from JedRothwell

Rends wrote:

The documents are quite clear. Rossi's lawyers have not disputed them. You and others here have disputed them but your reasons are invalid. You just do not want to face facts, so you invent nonsense reasons to reject them.

Jed is correct, the documents have not been disputed. However, the time has not expired for Rossi to reply. Further, he is not obligated to reply, necessarily, something is not established as evidence at trial until formally introduced. There will be testimony under oath in depositions, but we may not see that.

This is my analysis:

1. Documents introduced are very, very likely to be genuine. I.e., if IH has presented a Rossi email, it was actually sent to them by Rossi.
2. However, the meaning of a document can vary with context. We do not necessarily have the context, which could create a different impression.
3. At this point, the indications are strong from what IH has introduced that the "customer" was a fraud.
4. Something is off about the two forms of report of energy production we have. The information excerpted from preliminary reports by Penon (this is *not* the ERV report) is strange in certain respects, as Jed has pointed out. The so-called invoices from JMP are not based on actual power delivered, but on nominal power. It is as if Johnson didn't care what the actual power was.

Notice that Exhibit 5 being "genuine" would simply mean that this is what it was claimed to be, a set of questions delivered to Penon shortly before the ERV report was issued, and representing, at least in part, issues brought up in February. I consider it likely that Murray's mention of data from the preliminary reports was reasonably accurate. By this time, IH knew that a lawsuit was likely, and creating misleading documents, when the true originals could come into evidence, would be colossally stupid.

Quote from Rends

THHuxley wrote:
I have absolutely no financial or business relationship reason to be favouring fossil fuels or disliking LENR

It is not about fossil fuels, the conclusion of this (as Lomax diagnosed) insane guy is:

Conclusion – It is US & EU Solar Power Industry vs. Leonardo Corp. ECAT

The link was to the thread that I started to examine Rends' claims, since he had given a list of links. Here it is again:
The Energy Company Fog

Alan Smith closed the topic, apparently preferring that we clutter up the Rossi v. Darden developments thread -- this one -- , since he thinks that Rossi v. Darden is boring and useless and he'd rather be mowing his lawn. That action does not give me much hope for lenr-forum, he refused to reconsider it. Perhaps we will find out if there is any functional appeal process from a moderator decision.

Part of Rends' insanity would be in thinking that what was on that web site was some sort of strong evidence, even though it was incoherently presented. It wasn't even weak evidence, unless one already "saw" the pattern and squinted. Humans are prone to doing that even when sane.

Jed, you mean you have not read and archived the paper by Pomp and Ericsson?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364.pdf

And of course, when the paper you linked came out, it's warts and moles aplenty were discussed all over the internet both by named individuals and anonymous ones like "Popeye" and "Alsetalokin" both of whom had excellent, well reasoned arguments and both of whom are most likely seasoned researchers.

There is nothing credible I know of about ANYTHING Rossi has claimed. It's all scams.

Quote from JedRothwell

axil wrote:

I predict that if LENR is made practical, the electric utility industry will cease to exist. Individual cold fusion generators will soon be 200 to 600 times cheaper than power company generators, for the reasons described here:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusionb.pdf

While I agree that LENR power is likely to be highly decentralized, I don't find it so obvious that electric utilities will cease to exist.

First of all. Axil is blowing smoke -- or blind belief in the "E-cat." Setting that aside, where will LENR applications appear?

Unless direct conversion is developed -- Rossi is claiming this, but anything can be claimed, it's creating reality that is trickier -- LENR generates heat, with little else, which is one of the potential strong points. I should add that describing a LENR power application when we don't have the ability to create these yet is quite iffy. Reality alone is not enough. The effect must be reliable, or at least statistically reliable, such that multiple devices can be used together for net overall realiability within reason. As well, the effect must be sustainable.

Consider an Arata cell. One of his designs operated for 1000 hours without showing decline in heat output. Of course, this was only a temperature elevation of four degrees C. That's significant and meaningful, but ... no clue as to how long it would continue, plus I did a back-of-the envelope calcuulation with some wild-ass assumptions and came up with a cost for a home hot water heater of $100,000. Palladium is expensive. Can nickel be used? That's obviously an important question, but we don't have the answer yet. Unless we trust Rossi, and we don't.

That cost for palladium is an investment, not an expenditure, but it ties up that investment. Depending on interest rates, I'll assign a cost of $500 per month for the metal. Of course, the fuel is free. No, wait, it's not free. Not much is used, to be sure, but it's deuterium. How much deuterium in that heater? I didn't go there. The palladium cost blows the application out of the hot water.

Now, Jed's article looks at some figures. He shows a "power company generator," 58 MW, and claims "this produces 58 MW and it costs $1,376 per kilowatt of capacity." I looked up the source. It gives a capital cost per kilowatt for a series of generators, Jed chose the most expensive. One was little more than half the cost. (Notice that the generator Jed chose must cost about $80 million.)

Jed compares this with an automobile gasoline engine (195 hp), which costs $1,460. He then presents this as "145 kW," but that is a simple unit conversion. The rated engine power is motive power, not electrical power. This would have to be converted to electricity to compare to electric generators.

More to the point for comparison would be the home electric generator he shows, gas-fired. $4800 for a 22 kW generator. That is $218 per kW. Design life? The power company generator is designed for continual use, long-life, relatively low maintenance cost. The home generator is designed for occasional use, emergency power.

Jed points out that the large generators are expensive because they are designed to maximize efficient conversion of fuel to electricity. So he then considers cold fusion as having zero fuel cost. The cold fusion part of the electric generator is a heat source, so I'd expect that it might be similar to that home emergency power generator, simply being cold fusion "fired" instead of gas.

The major capital cost of these devices would be power conversion. Perhaps thermoelectric conversion will become practical.

However, zero fuel cost is probably unrealistic. Above, I point out that if an expensive catalyst is needed, the cost of maintaining that could be very substantial. Even if supposedly cheap nickel is used, what processing is needed? The processing cost will be amortized over the useful life. And we don't know what that is.

I notice that Rossi sold his 1 MW reactor for $1.5 million. That is $1500 per kilowatt.

If or when cold fusion power becomes practical, I expect that, yes, we will depend less and less on the grid. But there would still be microgrids, and these might still share power with each other. While fuel might possibly be cheap, generating capacity would not be so cheap, being largely, as mentioned, the cost of heat to power conversion, and not every one needs high power all the time, so load sharing can still make sense.

Everyone would heat with cold fusion, because that is highly efficient, we expect. Then add to the "furnace" electrical power conversion, such as thermoelectric, and sell power to the grid for those who haven't added it.