Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • And look where that strategy got them.

    I do not think they anticipated that Rossi would file a lawsuit. That was the worst part of the outcome. It is costing them a lot of money. You cannot blame them for Rossi's chutzpah.


    I do think they trusted him too much, and paid too much before the test. But I know little about this. I only know what has been posted in the lawsuit. I have never discussed it with anyone from I.H. or with Rossi.

  • I do not think they anticipated that Rossi would file a lawsuit. That was the worst part of the outcome. It is costing them a lot of money. You cannot blame them for Rossi's chutzpah.


    I do think they trusted him too much, and paid too much before the test. But I know little about this. I only know what has been posted in the lawsuit. I have never discussed it with anyone from I.H. or with Rossi.

    A LENR product developer will spend most of their money in defending their IP from a onslaught of want-a-be LENR product shops. Rossi and IH are just seeing the very beginnings of the laywer meal ticket bonanza that will be bigger than the asbestos winfall.


    If this IH initial effort sets the trend, then Jed Rothwell will spend the next 30 years of his life fighting to support IH against all sorts of LENR pretenders. The least of which will be the open source community.

  • A LENR product developer will spend most of their money in defending their IP from a onslaught of want-a-be LENR product shops. Rossi and IH are just seeing the very beginnings of the laywer meal ticket bonanza that will be bigger than the asbestos winfall.


    If this IH initial effort sets the trend, then Jed Rothwell will spend the next 30 years of his life fighting to support IH against all sorts of LENR pretenders. The least of which will be the open source community.

    The answer may be to just put it all into public domain.

  • Rossi and IH are just seeing the very beginnings of the laywer meal ticket bonanza that will be bigger than the asbestos winfall.

    I hope you are wrong about that. I do not know enough about the legal system to judge, but the previous high-tech booms in computers and the internet did not cause a deluge of lawsuits. On the other hand, Google just launched the Mother of All Software Lawsuits against Uber over self-driving car software.

    If this IH initial effort sets the trend, then Jed Rothwell will spend the next 30 years of his life fighting to support IH against all sorts of LENR pretenders.

    I won't live that long. As Albany said in somewhat similar tragic circumstances:


    The oldest hath borne most: we that are young
    Shall never see so much, nor live so long.


    I suppose though, that if billions of dollars are spent on lawsuits, that will mean the technology is in use, and the money is there to be fought over. That would be okay with me. I don't care who makes the money as long as the technology succeeds.

  • I would have made a VERY NOISY withdrawal publicly

    You may have made a withdrawal, but that is because you have not read the documents nor appear to know what is going on.

    There WAS as SIGNED contract to rent the eCat plant to JM Products for 2 years. Now that contract was indeed signed and dated and in writing.... everything the "GPT" was not! IH never said this was a test, Rossi stated in writing it was a sale of heat.


    So... no test, who cares how the flow meter was put in. There was no $89 million riding on it. Why do you think most people understand that IH would not have let $89 million ride on some ridiculously designed test. Because it was not a test. Rossi stated in writing that he was selling heat. Period.


    Just because you read on Rossi's blog that this was a test, does not make it one! Signed, legal documents make it a sale of heat / rental of the plant. Why do people argue this? It is silly!


    It seems that IH, unlike Rossi, follows the rules. :thumbup:

  • @Bob


    I don't care if you call it a contract, a rental agreement, or a test. We are told that the flow meter was installed on a downward sloped gravity return pipe that was only partially passing water. If it was a rental agreement, and I were IH, I would have immediately called attention to the matter at the start of the test, cut ties with Rossi, notified the public (who were aware of and watching from a distance), and perhaps even filed suit against Rossi. If it was a contract, same. If it was a test, same. It doesn't matter how you characterize it.

  • The answer may be to just put it all into public domain.

    All technology ends up in the public domain eventually. Patents expire. Trade secrets leak. Things become common knowledge.


    But you cannot put most technology in the public domain when it begins, or there will be no incentive to develop it. There will probably be no research funding to develop it. That is, unless the government pays for it. In the past the U.S. government paid for the initial development of most major technology such as railroads, telegraphs, aviation, computers, the laser, the internet and so on. Unfortunately, there is less support for research nowadays. The government mainly pays for weapons. The government will not pay for cold fusion at this stage. I hope I.H. and Bill Gates will push it along enough to generate wider interest.


    One of the many reasons we have a crisis in healthcare costs is that in the last 30 years there have been tremendous improvements in medical technology. Patents have not yet expired; methods are still trade secrets, so this technology costs patients a ton of money. This is beginning to abate. Kidney dialysis machines are much cheaper than they used to be. Blood pressure and blood glucose meters are so cheap you can buy them in a drugstore.


    Take an NMR machine. It costs anywhere from $800,000 to $5 million. A century from now, an NMR machine will be assembled by robots. The technology will be as much in the public domain as James Watt's steam engines are today. So NMR machines will cost practically nothing. I do not think the present rapid rate of progress and change in medical technology will continue, so eventually the technology will catch up. The machines will become commodities, and the price will level off.


    (There are, of course, other reasons why healthcare is so expensive.)

  • None of those small reactors were used. But yes, lots of insulation is useful. The below pipe (insulation) is even bigger I think.


    (Note the Tigers are in the background)


    @PRMG: Completely right. I see only desperate people working on never to be used e-cats....


    May be you can calculate the pipe diameter from the thickness...

    And of course inside DN100 and outside DN40, that's what you propose...



  • Wyttenbach ,


    Of course we have been here before.

    Below, the pipes without insulation going to the radiators (probably mostly full of water, see Magic condensate pumps itself uphill against a vacuum )

    and then the same pipes with insulation on. So it is possible to have what looks like a substantial pipe size due to insulation.

    Keep an eye on those condensate hoses lying on the ground...

  • I don't care if you call it a contract, a rental agreement, or a test. We are told that the flow meter was installed on a downward sloped gravity return pipe that was only partially passing water. If it was a rental agreement, and I were IH, I would have immediately called attention to the matter at the start of the test, cut ties with Rossi, notified the public . . .

    I do not think it was a rental agreement with I.H. It was with the pretend customer. I do not think I.H. was paying for the 1-year test. (I could be wrong about that.) That could make a big difference. If you are not paying, you may not have much leverage. Also you have no incentive to trigger a showdown. Why not let him keep trying for a year?


    I would not have informed the public immediately. I would have complained to Rossi. That is what I.H. did. I would give him a chance to cut the nonsense and do the test right. I myself was hoping he would, right to the end. Perhaps I was too trusting. Perhaps your hard-nosed, unforgiving, cut the Gordian knot approach would be better.


    Anyway, you would do all that, but I.H. did not. I wouldn't either. They & I are experienced in business, and perhaps you are not, so perhaps we know better. Granted, it ended with a messy lawsuit, but I think Rossi would have sued you, too, with your get-tough strategy.

  • I would have immediately called attention to the matter at the start of the test, cut ties

    It is not me calling it a contract. It is a document submitted to the court, signed, dated and legal. There was nothing in the contract about flow rates, meter placement, nor even COP! It was a sale of heat.


    So the contract could not be voided due to a misplaced flow meter. It was a sale of heat. So you state you might have cut ties, but then you would have been liable for breach of contract and could be sued. Hmmmm... same result! :/


    You seem to have the same opinion as Rossi.... Rossi stated he was taking back his license. He could not do that simply because he posted it on his blog! If you signed a two year contract, you could not "cut ties" simply because you did not like the placement of a flow meter that was not part of the contract.


    This is what makes IH professional and others not. There are legal obligations.

  • I do not think it was a rental agreement with I.H. It was with the pretend customer. .....

    Please see exhibits 050-16 and 050-17. (Sorry, I was unsure how to link to each specific document. You will need to go to this link and then scroll down to the two referenced exhibits and open them)


    https://drive.google.com/drive…Ktdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk


    050-16 is a memo to IH / Darden from Rossi clearly explaining what the Doral facility was for. A sale of heat to a chemical company that was to use the heat for actual production. Also note that the decision had to be made quickly or the customer would walk away! :/ If Mr. Gluck has not read this, he should.


    050-17 is the actual agreement between IH and JM Chemical Products, Inc. It spells out the terms for the 2 year rental of the plant.


    Regardless of what IHFB says I am calling it, the legal, signed and dated documents state it is a rental of the plant for the sale of heat. No debating of it!

    Here is part of the content of the legal agreement for those not wanting to look it up... (this is not the entire document... bold / underline is mine emphasis)


    1. Industrial Heat, LLC, directly or through its affiliates, owns a 1 MW E-Cat steam plant

    {the "1 MW Plant") built by affiliates of Leonardo in Italy in 2013.

    2. JMC operates a production facility in Miami, FL, which requires low temperature steam.

    3. Leonardo has technical knowledge about the operation and maintenance of the 1 MW

    Plant.

    4. IH intends to make available to JMC the 1 MW plant for a period of 2 years.

    5. Leonardo will assist in the installation of the 1 MW Plant at the Miami JMC facility, at no

    cost to JMC or IH.

    6. JMC will pay rent of $1000 per day to IH or its designee, monthly in arrears, once the 1

    MW plant is installed in their facility and operating at a capacity of 1 MW. However, if

    the plant provides less than 1 MW of thermal energy, the rental rate will be reduced

    proportionally. If the plant produces more than 1 MW, there will be no increase in the

    rental rate.

    7. IH will provide all maintenance on the 1 MW Plant during the 2 year rental period.


    Now this agreement was drawn up and signed before the plant was installed. So IHFB could not have seen the flow meter was installed when signing this contract. There is nothing in the contract that would void the contract if the flow meter was installed incorrectly, so one could not have "cut ties" at seeing the flow meter without being liable from breach of contract. But then we see questionable logic on this forum all the time do we not! :huh:


    Contract between IH and JMP - Signed and dated by IH and JMP. (Of course Johnson is Rossi's attorney friend)

    No arguing this document. Well...I am sure some will... :whistling:

  • If you signed a two year contract, you could not "cut ties" simply because you did not like the placement of a flow meter that was not part of the contract.


    So, if IH knew that the flow meter was mis-installed (I mean, you would just have to look at it), and allowed the test to continue, you think there is nothing wrong with that? It doesn't matter whether IH knew about the customer being "fake" or not. They let their plant continue to be used to ostensibly produce 1 MW of heat, knowing that it wasn't actually delivering 1 MW of heat? And let this continue to occur for 1 year? Of course they could have (and should have) intervened early on, if they knew the flow meter was installed in the fashion that we are told it was. Contracts are not set in stone. Contracts depend on performance by each party. If the flow meter was not correctly installed, one of the parties was not performing in accordance with the contract. And since IH was the one providing the heat, they of all organizations should have put a stop to the chicanery quickly. Instead, what do they do? They let the one year drama play out, making it worse for everyone.


    My underlying suspicion goes deeper. I have my doubts that the flow meter was installed in a gravity fed pipe with a partially full pipe. Just as I had my doubts about the DN40 claim, for which I have more or less been vindicated (I think we're at about 95% certainty now that the DN40 pipe claim was false).