Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • Following the inevitable appeal after the Rossi vs Darden trial, it seems likely that Rossi will put on a public demonstration of the QuarkX.

    Should that prove successful enough to surface in the main line media that will have a significant influence on the appeal.


    Whatever happens Rossi is unlikely to make much money as IH will probably take Chapter 11 if they lose and he has large legal costs.

  • Following the inevitable appeal after the Rossi vs Darden trial, it seems likely that Rossi will put on a public demonstration of the QuarkX.

    It seems likely to who? You? For what reason?


    I know nothing about trials but lawyers tell me an appeal is unlikely. Not inevitable -- unlikely, for legal reasons and because Rossi will have no more money.

  • AA - Planet Rossi should adjust to the reality that Rossi's past and recent treatment of legitimate investors makes him an "untouchable" globally and that includes the mainstream media.


    Mr. Dewey Weaver,


    Pot. Kettle. Black. Every sane investor, normal thinking LENR entrepreneur and/or bonafide government worker will not want to come close to a badly contaminated (pun intended) and now proven incompetent and useless Thomas Darden and clan.


    And calling yourself legit somehow does not work for me..


    Cheers,


    JB

  • Following the inevitable appeal after the Rossi vs Darden trial, it seems likely that Rossi will put on a public demonstration of the QuarkX.

    Should that prove successful enough to surface in the main line media that will have a significant influence on the appeal.


    Whatever happens Rossi is unlikely to make much money as IH will probably take Chapter 11 if they lose and he has large legal costs.

    woodworker can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that appeals courts do not usually assess matters of fact but only matters of law. They will be only looking for errors in the trial that would result in a different outcome.

  • It seems likely to who? You? For what reason?


    I know nothing about trials but lawyers tell me an appeal is unlikely. Not inevitable -- unlikely, for legal reasons and because Rossi will have no more money.

    My understanding is that if Rossi looses, he would have to put up a bond on the order of the suit +fees before he could appeal. But then I could be totally wrong about that.


    Also I don't know what a non- independent demo of a different ( i.e. not the 6 cylinder) would do for him. Only a truly independent third part like a NASA or GE or MIT would help his believablity if he looses.

  • woodworkercan correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that appeals courts do not usually assess matters of fact but only matters of law. They will be only looking for errors in the trial that would result in a different outcome.

    That is the legal situation, but should Rossi successfully demonstrate a high COP working device, possibly the most important invention of the century, I have no doubt the jury would take that into consideration.

  • Because Rossi and his team have been working on it for a year and that is what he has said he will do. How do you know better?

    I do not know, but as I said, lawyers tell me it is unlikely Rossi would have any basis to appeal. There would have to be a legal problem with the judgement, which is unlikely given the high quality of I.H.'s legal team.


    Rossi often claims to be working on one thing or another, when he has done no such work. Examples include his robotic factories and the non-existant heat exchanger. You should not take his word for it. In fact, if he tells you it is raining, you should go outside and see for yourself. You will probably find it is sunny. He lies just for the sake of lying, out of force of habit, even when the truth would serve his purposes better.

  • That is the legal situation, but should Rossi successfully demonstrate a high COP working device, possibly the most important invention of the century, I have no doubt the jury would take that into consideration.

    You are not allowed to demonstrate machines during a trial, in a courtroom. That never happens. If Rossi has any proof that the machine works, he would have to submit it in writing before the trial starts. It would have be included in the docket exhibits already, to give the defense time to prepare for it. You cannot submit new evidence after the trial starts.


    Rossi has no such proof. The best he can offer is the Penon report, which proves the opposite of what he claims. It proves he is a fraud.


    If he were to demonstrate the machine actually works after losing the trial, perhaps I.H. would deal with him. If I were them I would consider doing that.

  • Adrian A - on Planet Rossi your strategy is an excellent one and that is where it gets to stay. I'm sure you know that any day now I'm expecting a perfectly timed "replication" announcement from the Uppsala crew (who are apparently just mainly renters now with an agreement in place not to "harm" the university). That Fulvio is one effective dude where every he goes. An empty reactor tube performing the same excess heat multiple as the "loaded" reactor tubes.... At this pace, he should consider an attempt to turn some Swedish glacier water into ice wine.


    Perhaps Planet Rossi can be saved from orbal warming by the QX - it is going to be the greatest day when that gets announced. I think that will be breakthrough #7 for Rossi. What a genius he is!

  • Rossi often claims to be working on one thing or another, when he has done no such work.

    Rossi has promised a number of public demonstrations over the years and as far as I know has ALWAYS carried them out, even if some of them have been a bit late. He was talking about giving the QuarkX demo before the trial but backed off saying the legal affairs were taking too much of his time to do that satisfactorily.

  • What have been always missing is his absence of control of key part of the chain of custody.

    I don't understand how this applies to the QuarkX.

    Rossi listened to the critics and did a demo with a heat exchanger as people complained about the wetness of the steam. I expect he has learned from the criticism about the thermocouple placement and will not repeat that mistake on the QuarkX.

    Even with that, I concluded the E-Cat worked, particularly as it went on producing heat for an hour after the input power was switched off, according to Mats Lewan.

    He must know the test of the QuarkX needs to be bulletproof in order to be successful.