Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    • Official Post

    Well, I read that differently. 'Some or all' is merely legalese, a way of not excluding anyhting you don't have to. I think the implication is that the Swedish end of the Lugano team may include a member (or members) of the Nobel Prize nomination committee. Which may or may not be relevant. But I don't think it is meant to imply that Rossi is up for a Nobel himself. Badly drafted and vague- as is so much of this stuff.


    ETA. The very secretive nature of the Nobel process ensures we will never know much about those involved in choosing the nominees.


    "The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize."

    Quote from Alan Smith

    But I don't think it is meant to imply that Rossi is up for a Nobel himself. Badly drafted and vague- as is so much of this stuff.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    Well, I read that differently. 'Some or all' is merely legalese, a way of not excluding anyhting you don't have to. I think the implication is that the Swedish end of the Lugano team may include a member (or members) of the Nobel Prize nomination committee. Which may or may not be relevant. But I don't think it is meant to imply that Rossi is up for a Nobel himself. Badly drafted and vague- as is so much of this stuff.


    But if it is unknown who the nominators are, then it would be more appropriate to say, "none or all." It implies to me that AR thinks he is a serious contender for the Nobel. Indeed, he may be if he can win the case and prove he has something that works. Again, how can turning over communications to a court proceeding by AR constitute harassment with the point of undermining AR's potential for a Nobel prize? Anyway, I guess the judge will have to wade through that masterpiece.

    • Official Post

    We have to be careful about our terms when it comes to Nobel Prizes. I think it highly unlikely that any of those named / implicated are actually qualified to be on the committee that makes the final decision about the winners, their names are probably widely known ,anyway. But quite a few of the Lugano crew are entitled to put names forward to the committee.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    individuals participate in the nomination process for the Nobel Prize and their involvement
    in this matter could jeopardize any consideration P


    The Nobel Prize is not what it used to be. Their guidelines specify that the peace prize be given for work done the previous year but they gave it to Obama before his first year in office. He has bombed more countries than any president since WWII (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria), and 74% of the fatalities in Afghanistan where under Obama. Not exactly “peaceful”. Go figure.


    The peace prize committee is the only one that regularly rewards achievements made in the previous year. From Nobel will: "those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind."

    Quote from Alan Smith

    We have to be careful about our terms when it comes to Nobel Prizes. I think it highly unlikely that any of those named / implicated are actually qualified to be on the committee that makes the final decision about the winners, their names are probably widely known ,anyway. But quite a few of the Lugano crew are entitled to put names forward to the committee.



    It usually takes 20 years or far more time before a work of science is mature enough for the committee to confirm recognition onto a founder or a group of founders of that particularly work of science. It takes a long time before the new science is properly understood, integrated into the body of science, and applied to the march of knowledge. For example, it took Higgs 50 years before he was recognized.


    Usually, Nobel winners do their prize winning work when they are very young and get recognition for their work when they are very old, but there are always exceptions to every rule.

    Some meta info on the exhibits is that it looks like Rossi forwarded a bunch of his e-mails to his lawyer John Annesser on November 15, 2015. Looks like Rossi was preparing for litigation at that point in time. I wonder how that fits in the rest of the timeline (visits by Murray...?)



    Edit to add: exhibit B is Rossi mentioning to IH folks on Feb 5, 2015 that the ERV Penon is about to install his instrumentation.

    Engineer Thomas B. Dameron, III, the Defendants’ subject matter expert and sole engineer:


    "I can't say that we never had a result that was -- let's see if I can say this right -- we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer . . . ."


    Um, okay then. Seems like he practiced this answer many times, but still didn't get it to come out quite right. So was it 1.3? What was it really? And why in the world does it seem that IH has been denying this all along?

    IH's guys Thomas B. Dameron, III and Barry West both seem to indicate under oath that they thought the Doral test was the GPT. This has always seemed like a no brainer to me--all involved seemed to be acting like it was. I'm pretty sure a jury would draw the same conclusion in light of the evidence. It takes some real mental gymnastics to think otherwise. Abd was certainly good at that.

    At least things are getting a little interesting now with these excerpts from the transcripts.


    Regardless if Rossi can prove the performance of the plant was adequate, if real manufacturing took place (even for a short period of time at reduced capacity), if James A. Bass did any real work (other than just acting), it is starting to look more like the year long test was, at least in the minds of some parties, to be the GPT. Now, it may not have officially been the GPT. There may not be a single document that proves beyond any doubt it was the GPT. But it seems like in Rossi's mind and in the minds of others the year long test would result in the 100 million dollar payment if he could achieve the performance specified in the contract. Now, I'm not saying that just because Rossi and other individuals (even some associated with Industrial Heat) thought that the test would result in payment makes it the GPT. But if Industrial Heat *officially* never considered the test the GPT, it would have been thoughtful to tell Rossi early on.


    I understand that it seems like Industrial Heat was trying to leave Rossi and themselves some wiggle room, so if he did achieve a fantastic result they could pay him the money and have a fast track towards commercialization. However, it seems less than polite for them to let him (and others) run with the idea the year long test was the GPT (or something like it). Especially after he started removing components from the plant and doing other things they found objectionable, they should have had a very serious meeting with him.


    I'm not saying any of this constitutes estopple. I just think the situation could have been better handled. And even if Rossi can convince a jury that he was lead to believe that the one year test was the GPT (or something similar), he has several more hurdles to clear. This is just the first tiny weak jab in what I think will be a slobberknocker stretching out to twelve rounds.

    It is in the motion for sanctions document 108


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


    We really need to have someone purchase all these transcripts!


    ---


    Q: Again, let me tell you the problem that I'm having, and I'm hoping you can help me resolve.


    Industrial Heat has represented that they replicated a test on their own, which resulted in a COP of 1.3.


    They have also made an affirmative representation in this case that they have never been able on their own to replicate any measurable excess heat, any, whether it's reliable or not.


    Those two statements to me seem inconsistent, and I'm asking you, sir, if you have the knowledge to which one, if either, are correct?


    MR. PACE: Objection to form.


    A. I can't say that we never had a result that was -- let's see if I can say this right -- we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer. I think that reliably, repeatedly, replicating those results has not happened. So at some point in time there could have been a result of 1.3 that we thought was good.


    Deposition of Thomas B. Dameron, III, Dec. 1, 2016, pg. 114-15.


    Engineer Dameron further testified that:


    Q. Sir, you said that you had done tests where the COP was greater than one, right?


    A. Correct.


    Q. That means that you were able to measure the coefficient of performance, and your result was presumptively a measurement that you took and calculated, correct?


    A. Right.


    Q. And so if one -- correct me if I'm wrong, one means the amount of energy going in or amount of power going in is the same amount that comes out, correct?


    A. Right

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.