The very first paragraph of Rossi’s action against IH says that “it works.” Don’t be so pathetic.
“ROSSI is the sole inventor of a revolutionary low energy nuclear reactor, popularly known as the "Energy Catalyzer' or "E-Cat" (hereafter "E-Cat"), which through the use of a catalyst, generates a low energy nuclear reaction resulting in an exothermic release of energy “
Aha! Caught in the act...
Adrian, the above argument indicates why you are able to remain so confused over the IH vs Rossi case. You do not distinguish between statements made by the two sides lawyers (strongly sugared and misleading) and the evidence (very strong for the reasons given above) from the pre-Trial Discovery. A bit like your inability to distinguish between fact and RossiSays, you do not distinguish between evidence and RossiLawyerSays.
However, even given this caveat (you are taking legal spin as fact), your quote does not show that the e-cat works, merely that that is what Rossi claims. It is a non-specific and unquantified claim, which can never be disproved.
AA: Rossi was in a better position than anyone else to know and it seems unlikely that he would take it to court if he knew it didn’t work.
You are here forgetting the key point: Rossi has never properly tested his devices and so cannot know whether they work or no. You argue that either it worked, or Rossi knew it did not work. Bad logic.
Of course it is also based on a bad assumption - that this case could be won by Rossi only if his device works. In fact the case had little to do with that, and much to do with a specific contract, and which parties fulfilled the conditions in it.