Industrial Heat's James A. Bass: President of Reactance Engineering Inc and Engineer for JM Products

  • The PR statement damaged the LENR+ field and those associated with it. It rallied and encouraged the uber-anti-LENR crowd.


    It was the truth. The truth must be told, whether it helps or hurts cold fusion. What is your suggestion? That we should lie and cover up Rossi's criminal behavior?


    It led most people to believe one thing for at least the first few days


    It led people to believe what was true then and remains true today. There is nothing deceptive about it. I knew at the time that things were not going well with Rossi. I did not know the extent of the problems. Granted, the document did understate the extent of the problem, and it did not describe Rossi's perfidy, but it was true as far as it went.


    As for the weasel words, I think you know what I'm referring to.


    1. I do not know. If I knew, I would not have asked. I do not play rhetorical games.


    2. I am sure they have used not weasel words. I have not seen any. Since you have not pointed out any examples, I suppose you haven't either.


    3. If you think they have, you are wrong. You do not understand legal or technical jargon.

  • ORDER Setting Trial and Pretrial Schedule, Requiring Mediation, and Referring Certain Matters to Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan: Jury Trial set for period of 6/26/2017 in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Calendar Call set for 6/20/2017 09:00 AM in Miami Division before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Motions to amend pleadings or join parties due by 8/11/2016. All discovery due by 2/27/2017. Proposed order scheduling mediation due by 7/21/2016. Mediation Deadline 3/13/2017. In Limine Motions due by 4/18/2017. All pretrial motions due by 3/21/2017. Pretrial Stipulation due by 4/18/2017. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 6/30/2016. (ps1)

  • @Jed


    I see you are feeling quite confident right now. But I would warn you that these are still early days. Rossi/Leonardo have not even filed their answer yet to the counterclaims. The trial phase will be revealing. We should all look forward to that, and perhaps not count our chicks before the eggs have hatched.


    And a win for IH is not necessarily a win for LENR. A win for Rossi would be a win for LENR+.

  • A win for Rossi would be a win for LENR+.


    LENR+ does not exist. It is a figment of Gluck's imagination. Ni-H cold fusion is no stronger or more reproducible Pd-D. It may not even exist.


    A win by Rossi would wipe out the last source of funding and destroy what little is left of LENR. It would be a victory for criminal fraud.

  • A win by Rossi would wipe out the last source of funding and destroy what little is left of LENR. It would be a victory for criminal fraud.


    It is not yet decided by the court that anything criminal has happened. That is their job. And you never know, Rossi has so many hats that at least two may contain rabbits.

  • Quote

    LENR+ does not exist. It is a figment of Gluck's imagination. Ni-H cold fusion is no stronger or more reproducible Pd-D. It may not even exist.


    A win by Rossi would wipe out the last source of funding and destroy what little is left of LENR. It would be a victory for criminal fraud.


    I view the situation very differently, because I'm convinced that the "Rossi Effect" (cold fusion with a power density of over 1000watts per gram) is indeed real. And I'm not convinced (yet) there was flat out fraud involved in the year long test.


    If Rossi were to win the case -- which I think will require him to prove that there was a customer and a real manufacturing process -- then he'd be able to continue with his development of the E-Cat, High Temp E-Cat, and Quark X. The funding of LENR would not come to an end and testing of his methods and others would continue around the world. If IH were to go bankrupt, it wouldn't be death of LENR like you proclaim it to be. Cold fusion research is cheap and has been conducted on shoe string budgets in the past. If someone wants to perform LENR research, they'll be able to do so in most cases. And, in my opinion, after Rossi provided more evidence of his effect, a tidal wave of funding could arrive from a multitude of sources.


    If Rossi were to lose the case so severely his work came to an end, then his technology would survive as people continued to attempt replication. Once a working recipe was figured out by someone like Alan Smith, replications could take place around the world and funding would increase.

  • A win for Rossi would be a win for LENR+.



    IHFB,


    If he wins $89 million on a technicality, or the whims of a jury, without the 1MW being proven credible...is that still a win for LENR+? Although unlikely, it is possible.


    And yes, of course we all wish the Ecat worked like a charm, that it vented the million watts thermal it produced at a COP 50, by some exotic, previously undiscovered radiation through the small toilet vent/chimney, through the rafters, out a bay door, or even by an 100% endothermic manufacturing process as Rossi claimed. If so, trust me I will be the first to travel to Miami and ask Rossi for forgiveness, along with being a very happy man.

  • It is not yet decided by the court that anything criminal has happened. That is their job.


    Actually, it would be the job of the police, and later the jury, not the court itself. However, in my opinion, he has engaged in criminal fraud. Inept, unconvincing, yet still criminal.


    The present lawsuit is civil, not criminal, and it is against I.H., not Rossi. (The counter-suits are against Rossi and his gang of criminal co-conspirator nincompoops. Again, that is my opinion of them.)

  • I thought the option of jury was for the defense not the prosecution. But with all these counter suits, who knows..


    I believe you are thinking about criminal cases. The plaintiff in a civil case is not the "prosecution," except in some technical sense. The standard of proof is quite different; in criminal cases to obtain a "guilty" verdict, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required, and generally it must be unanimous (I think there are some exceptions). In a civil trial, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence," and the reason is obvious: the court does not favor one side over the other, whereas in criminal trials, U.S. courts are designed to avoid convicting those who might possibly be innocent, even if the possibility is small.


    If I sue my ex-wife for child support, say, the courts will decide what is the most fair, balanced, equitable decision. If there is a dispute over who owns something, there is no preference for the defendant over the plaintiff. Decisions need not be certain. Preponderance of the evidence. It could be a coin toss. But usually juries are smarter than that.....

  • It is interesting that he has a BS degree (74) from Rutgers in----- Spanish


    Your reading iappears mistaken. The reading should be clear: James Bass' degree is Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering "BSEE" from Rutgers--- summa cum laude (highest honors). It appears he may have earned another bachelor's with IT specializations, that appear under the rubric of "Spanish Software".


    Education
    Bachelor Degree '74 Rutgers University Jan '74 BSEE Rutgers University, 1974 Summa Cum Laude Deans List, Presidents List, Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi. Bachelor Degree | Spanish Software: numerous assemblers, Visual Basic, C, C#, Windows Server, MS SQL, MySQL, Oracle, Linux, Unix, Alcatel Motive CPE Network Manager, National Instruments LabView. Speak fluent Spanish and conversant in French and Portuguese

  • A win by Rossi would wipe out the last source of funding and destroy what little is left of LENR. It would be a victory for criminal fraud.


    No. First of all, even if Rossi were to win a verdict for $89 million, a finding of fraud here against IH is so unlikely that it's not worth considering. I have previously given legal reasons for this. IH has, also, but the Judge left this standing because maybe Rossi can pull a rabbit out of a hat. As discovery proceeds, this may shift. and the whole case could be subject to dismissal from a number of obvious possible reasons.


    If Rossi somehow got a verdict for the GPT payment, but if the attempt to pierce the corporate veil fails, as seems highly likely (the Rossi position essentially attacks the basis and safety of investment through corporations and LLCs, basic to the U.S. economy in many ways), then IH simply goes bankrupt, that's all. IHHI, which is where the money is, is untouched. No big deal. And the Texas Tech collaboration will be untouched.


    Rossi is attempting to find out if IH could directly pay the $89 million, or how they planned to pay it. The answer is obvious: if Rossi delivered working technology, they could then raise that money, they are expert at it. The idea that IH was really Cherokee, with $89 million in the bank, say, was a Rossi fantasy from day one. Rossi obviously thinks that if they didn't have the money, then, of course, they were lying snakes. He apparently has no idea of how venture capitalists work. He found what may have been the most generous possible, and then is attempting to screw them over.


    Why? I do not find it clear. Paranoid, probably, and the paranoid then consider whatever they do as justified in the name of protecting themselves.

  • It is not yet decided by the court that anything criminal has happened. That is their job. And you never know, Rossi has so many hats that at least two may contain rabbits.


    Wabbits.


    As has been pointed out, this is a civil trial and will not decide if anything criminal has happened. Jed was giving his opinion, to which he has a right. I do think that some of what Rossi did might be criminal, but proving criminal fraud is much more difficult than showing civil fraud, where the standard is merely the preponderance of the evidence.


    There is an idea that if we create a huge number of reasons for something, it is somehow stronger than one reason, even if the huge number are all weak.


    I think there is a name for this fallacy, but it does not come to mind, except for "dumb."