Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • I can see why Rossi was hoping to have this under court seal.


    I take a slightly different perspective on this point. I think Rossi filed this under court seal because some of the materials were marked confidential by IH. There is no good reason, in my mind, why Rossi would not want this information out and well-known by all.

  • One would think with the huge importance of this test, were the Hotcat to be proven real, that Levi, and those that signed the report,
    would have been much more careful in describing the roles of all. Especially Rossi's, considering the controversy over Rossi's participation in the first Hotcat Ferrara test, and their saying it was "independent", when it was not.




    "Since we required that our measurements be carried out in an independent laboratory with our own equipment, the experiment was purposely set-up and hosted within an industrial establishment which was not in any way connected with Andrea Rossi’s businesses or those of his partners. The test was thus performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at our disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA."

    Lugano Report, page 2


    "The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration."

    Lugano Report, page 7


    "It should also be noted that our total sample was about 10 mg, i.e. only a small part of the total fuel weight of 1 g used in the reactor.
    The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash, observing utmost care to avoid any contamination."

    Lugano Report, page 28


  • And for me to be accused of pure speculation fitting the facts in Rossi's favor, oh my!

  • That most likely doesn't exist. (I know, we obviously differ on this - and to be clear, I'm referring to pure NiH LENR).


    If, in fact pure NiH LENR is a dead end, it's a good thing to know that it is a dead end. And yes, it would be super-awesome if somehow it works.


    I suggest you might ask Brillouin whether they, and their investors (recently to the tune of $8 million), believe that pure NiH LENR is dead.

  • As to the "pure" alumina question..

    I had previous posed an answer as a question in the hope that someone else would pick-up that XRD was not appropriate to determine the purity of a material. This is especially true where the XRD spectrum is not shown for independent analysis. I want to reiterate that (IMHO) XRD will provide a false impression if the diluent is amorphous (or of small crystalline size). This is often the case for binders.


    From a quick search an interested party may wish to look at:

    http://www.americanpharmaceuti…-Powder-X-ray-Diffraction


    It refers to drugs and binders here the binders often outweigh the drugs but the principle will be the same for alumina. The broad background may be missed or ignored. Note the 10% comment.


    XRF would have been a better methodology to apply and would have been much more meaningful for emissivity determinations as XRF only samples the near surface - say 20um (depends on the element and matrix).


    Thus, everyone can be right - if the correct sample was taken, the XRD spectra could show 99.9% alumina. This does not mean 99.9% pure material. Reporting that XRD shows X does not mean that it is X. It just means that some analytical method say that it is and not supplying the actual data is a mistake.

    The material may have been Durapot. But that can be 99.9% pure alumina plus lots of other amorphous binders and finely ground-up road dirt with lots of asphalt thrown in. You cannot tell. Reporting that it is 99.9% alumina would be correct.

    The sample may not have been taken in the correct place. Who knows?

    The sample may have been coated with some other paint. And guess what - it could be too thin to see by XRD or amorphous or not sampled.


    Bottom line, they used the wrong analytical method. The analytical method reported X. And in end it really does not matter for this current case.


    From my reading of Darden's EMAIL, the testers and Darden had a better handle on emissivity than tends to be made-out in this forum. Given the difficult testing situation with Dr. R, they did the best possible.


    Dewey,

    Wasn't there a shake-down of the 1MW plant in Italy? How good was that data set? Was it 250KW in and 250kW out? Or the dry vs. wet steam problem because no one sparged anything?

  • And for me to be accused of pure speculation fitting the facts in Rossi's favor, oh my!


    I would agree that it's pure speculation, and would suggest that by making this clear and explicit in that post, I am conceding the weakness of the suggestion.


    So we agree.


    On the other hand, it is a fact (not mere speculation) that Rossi did not present any evidence that Darden instructed or 'incentivized' Sha to contact Levi.


    We can agree on that too, right?


    The problem is when speculation is asserted as fact. We all have mixed those up in our head at some time or another. I find it helpful to try not to do that.

  • @sigmoidal


    I'm just razzing a little because of a historical need for me to don my flak jacket while being among your presence and that of others here. I have a keen sense for hypocrisy (don't we all?) and tend to highlight it when it makes sense. Much of my analysis that I offer here is based on pure speculation, so I openly admit that as well. We still don't have much to go by. The reason I do this is because I sense a widespread tendency for some here and among the LENR community to jump to conclusions, without thinking through alternative possibilities.


    Of all communities, the LENR community should be the MOST on-guard for such close-mindedness. Those who have followed the cold fusion / LENR story for any length of time will understand the high quantity of smoke and mirrors involved. Not everything is as it seems at first. And in the case of Rossi vs. IH, this is equally applicable in both directions.

  • I suggest you might ask Brillouin whether they, and their investors (recently to the tune of $8 million), believe that pure NiH LENR is dead.


    Well, I sincerely hope they prove NiH works, and that my strong skepticism is unwarranted.


    Some other investors spent $11.5 million on a NiH LENR technology and have decided to bail on NiH.

  • I keep reading about IH's facilities, their researchers, their employees, and so on. Five years into their existence, their address is still the offices of the Cherokee Investment Partners and their only listed personnel are Darden and Vaughn, both principals at Cherokee. There is no evidence anywhere on the internet that IH has a physical presence of any sort or any employees. What reason does anyone have to believe that they are anything other than a shell company that invests money in various things? If they are a real operating business, they are just as successful in completely obscuring their presence in the world as Rossi. How can you operate a laboratory in the United States that is not registered with any authority and has no operating permits, licenses, or any other evidence of its existence? Of course, Rossi claims to have teams of people working, laboratories, factories and god-knows what else, none of which also are registered with any state, have any licenses or permits, or have any paper trail whatsoever other than corporate filings. And yet, thousands of posts discuss Leonardo and Industrial Heat as if they were real operating companies somewhere in the world. Must be in parts of Florida and North Carolina that can only be reached by a train from Track 9 3/4.

    • Official Post

    Darden et.al thought they were superior clever and that they could spare a lot of money by gathering the complete intellectual property with some amateurish chess moves. My feeling is, if you take greed into consideration, that both heads of Cherokee Investment had (maybe just for a single moment) lost all of their self-control and made wrong decisions, just because they are greedy!


  • Some other investors spent $11.5 million on a NiH LENR technology and have decided to bail on NiH.


    Although the multi-hundred-million dollar lawsuit might have nudged them that way, as suggested by Shane D. and others. I suppose if I were sued for a few cool hundred mill, I'd probably throw up my hands too and say to heck with this NiH stuff, there is probably nothing to it. (Although, I'd be pretty careful about taking that position if there was evidence actually suggesting that NiH stuff is legit.)

  • I am not impressed with Tom Darden's hands on involvement with the E-Cat. He is out of his element despite his eloquent evaluation of what is happening. Ditto for Dewey. There should be technically competent and knowledgeable people evaluating LENR technology including Rossi's E-Cat IP. Outside of Murray I do not see any real engineering and scientific know-how within IH.


    I agree, the lack of early technical competency was glaring and costly. I was impressed with Darden's summary in the exhibit 1 because it did show a realistic mindset about research generally that was more sophisticated than I had assumed. But that kind of works both ways: if he was more sophisticated in his understanding, why didn't he bring in higher caliber technologists sooner? He did, apparently bring in Boeing - presumably they failed to find anything.


    But then, having worked in technical fields (coincidently, I actually worked for Boeing in a 'former life'), I've seen some startling incompetency amongst degreed engineering managers (think Dilbert and Peter principle). So unfortunately this is not uncommon.

  • Keep in mind that for IH even to bring on a technical guy with any kind of qualifications to help them out will have been extremely threatening to Rossi, knowing what we know, so IH will have had to proceed carefully in order not to alienate Rossi. Darden and Vaughn were not technical and so had little basis for pushing back when something felt fishy, and there were Levi and eventually the Swedish team corroborating Rossi's account of things. I would not be surprised if hints that a technical guy was coming onboard provided some of the motivation for Rossi to leave for Florida. Rossi started out as IH's "chief scientist." Then there was this subtle evolution in the relationship, after which he was no longer their chief scientist.


    If you do not have direct technical expertise and your network is mostly in something else (e.g., venture capital and remediation of brownfield land), you're jumping into the deep end of the pool to attempt to invest in a controversial technical field such as LENR. Darden and Vaughn may not have been wise in some key decisions they made early on, but I sympathize with them in the many difficulties they will have faced in trying to set out into a completely new field, one with which qualified professionals they might have approached will surely have been sensitive about associating their names too closely.

  • interested observer ,

    We already looked at a photo of the old blue container at the old facility.

    The new facility is much nicer looking.

    IH had a rather well-qualified student working for them, also.

    Even an unfortunate workplace safety inspection.

    These things are not super easy to find, but neither are they hard.

    They are doing things, and they are more than a nameplate office.

  • Darden et.al thought they were superior clever and that they could spare a lot of money by gathering the complete intellectual property with some amateurish chess moves. My feeling is, if you take greed into consideration, that both heads of Cherokee Investment had (maybe just for a single moment) lost all of their self-control and made wrong decisions, just because they are greedy!


    Greed, arrogance, and good intentions--the usual suspects!

  • A brief addendum to the Durapox-alumina plug story.

    The sealing members, 14, in the patent application I quoted from earlier, are also supposed to be made of Durapot 810. This is mentioned in the Lugano report (that the plug was a cylinder of alumina cement, in which was contained the thermocouple). So there is actually just the inner reactor tube made of alumina, and maybe the sealing cement. The cap, ribs, and even the plug are made of Durapot.


    Additionally, the reactor seems to have gained 100 grams in Lugano (even with the leads cut off), if Darden's comments are correct. I wonder if IH has an accurate weight recorded somewhere for the reactor before it left for Switzerland.