Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Give me a break Zeph - do you really believe that Rossi gave the fuel formula to an escrow agent? Rossi rcvd the $10M and working IP was not transferred. He will be held accountable for that along with his additional deceptions.

    The GPT is a matter before the court and that will be decided soon enough.

  • ZAWT - I don't see where your copied item shows that the 89 was for a liscense or IP.


    The thing I notice is the 44.6M if someone else goes to the market during the testing time. I don't agree with Rossi's view that it was a succesfull GPT or that Brillion somehow was using his technology sold it to someone (CHina?). However if it is true that Brillion did so, then Rossi was not qualified to get 89 but only 44.5M


    I see that and other items in the contract as the worth was linked to early market which Rossi did not do.

  • The Rossi did transfer the licence to the escrow agent, otherwise IH wouldn't pay him even these $10 millions.

    Zephir, you seem to have your terms backwards and confused.


    Perhaps a clear explanation will help if you are not familiar with these terms. IH put 10 million dollars in escrow. That means they gave the money to a neutral party until Rossi met his requirement to deliver his Intellectual Property. It is non-sensical to say that 'Rossi did transfer the license to the escrow agent'. This was not a step in the contract and it never happened, as it makes no sense.


    Escrow was used in the usual way in this contract, and simply involved the holding of IH's money until Rossi delivered property (in this case, Intellectual Property). The reasons for doing this are obvious: the neutral party verifies to Rossi that the funds were paid and are valid, and IH doesn't instruct the neutral party to release the money until they receive the property. (Notice that in this step we are not talking about 'license' we are talking about 'property'.) After some days, IH instructed the Escrow agent to release the $10 million because they believed that Rossi had delivered to them his E-Cat intellectual property.


    So the contract really is fairly simple, once you understand the words:


    'License' can be understood as a 'permission agreement'. For example I have a drivers license. It is a permission agreement. I paid some money and took some tests. Now I have permission (or license) to drive a car lawfully for 10 years. That is an example of a license.


    Property is an object. The property object is often physical (like for example a house, or E-Cat), but it can be informational/conceptual. Intellectual Property, is informational and conceptual.


    In the contract between IH and Rossi, IH agreed to purchase two 'properties':


    The first was the physical E-Cat for 1.5 Million dollars, assuming it worked at a certain level for 24 hours. IH paid for it and received it (though IH claims it didn't fully meet the required energy output levels for the specified time. In any case, they bought it, and own it to this very day.


    The second was all of Rossi's E-Cat intellectual property which they paid 10 million dollars for. They OWN that intellectual property, which is informational and conceptual because they paid 10 million dollars.


    There was a third part of the agreement, which involved a license (or permission given by Rossi to IH ) payment from IH to Rossi to sell E-Cats. This license payment depended on Rossi completing a GPT for 350 days at certain power levels. Rossi claims he met that requirement and should be paid the $89 million. If Rossi is right and did in fact meet that requirement, IH was supposed to pay the 89 million dollars and they then would have completed all aspects of the contract a license (permission) to sell E-Cats in North America and other countries agreed to in the contract. If that is the case (that Rossi successfully completed the GPT), since IH did not pay, they have violated the license contract agreement.


    And that is the big 'if':


    If Rossi did NOT meet the GPT for 350 days, then Rossi does NOT get the $89 million dollars. But IH still owns: 1) the E-Cat device and 2) Rossi's E-Cat Intellectual Property (IP), because they paid for both.


    Now Rossi can (and has) claimed 'breach of contract', and he initiated legal action against IH, as we all know. IH claimed that they were defrauded, that there was no GPT, and that the IP they thought they had received from Rossi was not, in fact what Rossi represented it to be. They also claim the E-Cat they bought was not what Rossi represented it to be.


    So, we can all have various opinions about who owes who what, and ultimately that will be decided by the courts.


    But, you can not rationally say that IH did not pay for Rossi's intellectual property. They did pay for it. It cost them $10 million dollars. Rossi says that he received that 10 million dollars. So, IH did, in fact, purchase Rossi's E-Cat Intellectual Property (not license).


    I hope this helps.

    Edited 3 times, last by sigmoidal: DNI correctly and helpfully points out that the only contractual basis for IH to pay Rossi $89 million is on successful completion of the GPT. I have edited the above with strikeout to reflect that correction. ().

  • There was a third part of the agreement, which involved a license (or permission given by Rossi to IH ) for IH to sell E-Cats. This license depended on Rossi completing a GPT for 350 days at certain power levels. Rossi claims he met that requirement and should be paid the $89 million. If Rossi is right and did in fact meet that requirement, IH was supposed to pay the 89 million dollars and they then would have a license (permission) to sell E-Cats in North America and other countries agreed to in the contract. If that is the case, since IH did not pay, they have violated the license agreement.




    Nice conclusions. I agree with most of it but I disagree a bit about the part quoted above. I can't find in the agreement that the license depended on Rossi completing a GPT. In my opinion only the payment of $89,000,000 depends on the GPT.


    In §3.1 it say "The total price for the grant of the License and the purchase of the Plant is $100,500,000."

    But at the end of §5 it say "lf neither the foregoing standard nor the Guaranteed Performance is achieved, the Company shall not be required to pay any amount pursuant to section 3(c) above and the total purchase price set fort in section 3.1 shall be reduced accordingly".


    I would say that if Guaranteed Performance was not achieved IH owns the license after paying $11.500.000.

  • Hi Peter, here are the new documents:



    OK, we have four new documents:


    127 - This is Johnson's and Bass' objections to IH's proposed 4th amendment.

    128 - This is Rossi's objections to IH's proposed 4th amendments.


    In summary, they make very similar (often identical) arguments for why IH should not be allowed to file the 4th amendment. Of all the legal arguments that Rossi, Johnson and Bass, and Fabiani have made, these seem to be the most credible and professional. IH has to respond by 12 noon today. We should have the judges ruling by the end of the week at the latest, based on how things have progressed so far.


    But there are two more documents that we get to analyze and disect!

    Now we have:

    128-01 which is the claimed power delivered to JMP. I assume this came from Fabiani, but it is not clear from the document. Perhaps a little digging in the other documents will confirm.

    128-02 This is the electric bill to JMP/Rossi from Florida Power and Light. It is the information IH wants to add as evidence against JMP, Johnson, Fabiani and Bass.


    Let the analyses begin!!

  • From the good old exhibit 5: (Murray)


    Quote

    In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit



    was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day,



    without deviation.




    It turns out that Murray was not quite 100% right. On July 12, the flow was 32,000 kg/d

  • The results are "stellar" good even if gonflated with 1 order of magnitude.

    Four 3-monthly such reports were paid - it seems smoothly.

    When the Trial started the situation has changed radically.

    ZERO EXCESS HEAT etc.... finstruments, fmeasurements, ffraud, conspiracy...

    And only then demonization of Rossi (former partner of IH for years) has started - very ugly and counterproductive and relevant for the ethics of IH or their volunteers. And bad for their own reputation.

    peter

  • It turns out that Murray was not quite 100% right. On July 12, the flow was 32,000 kg/d

    You are confused. The measured flow was reportedly 36,000 kg. This was arbitrarily reduced by 10% to 32,400 kg. Rossi described this reduction in his interview with Lewan. . . .


    EDIT: I see what you mean. There was one day with a different flow rate.



    As you see, the measured flow was the same every day, and the steam pressure was 0.0 bar. This is impossible.

  • I skimmed the results I note that the water flow did change ... but in increments of 1,000 Kg/day

    I know that we have the model number of the flowmeter, but not the exact configuration of the dials.


    If all the water was supplied by the array of metered pumps (giving +- 0.4% ISTR ... have to track down my posts on that subject), then 36,000 day-in and day-out is possible.

  • For example, see p13 Aug 2015 -- flows of 26K, 29K, 36K.

    Yes, there was some variation in August. Not in other months. Anyway, even the August data is far too consistent and stable to be real.

    Pressure is gauge, so it could be constant. Havn't put the results through my steam calculator yet.

    It cannot be zero. "Gauge pressure" of zero would be 1 atm, which is impossible. You can't have steam pressure of 0 atm or 1 atm.

  • I skimmed the results I note that the water flow did change ... but in increments of 1,000 Kg/day

    That is because the flow meter only measures in units of 1,000 kg. That is the minimum increment the meter can detect. Which is ridiculous! Even given that, there is no way the meter could have measured exactly 36 units every day for weeks. Assuming the flow was incredibly stable, some days it would measure 35, on other days 36 and on other days 37 to make up for the previous day when it measured only 35.