Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from ultrasure

Some details of the initial shots fired by IH & Rossi:

https://www.law360.com/tria...

Law360, Miami (June 30, 2017, 9:57 PM EDT) -- An Italian inventor suing over an $89 million licensing agreement for an energy catalyzer patent opened trial Friday in Miami, telling jurors that the licensees had repeatedly touted the technology and said it had "potential to change the world" before reneging on the agreement.

Brian Chaiken of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright PL, who represents Italian inventor Andrea Rossi, told the jury that Rossi and his Leonardo Corp. are owed $89 million from licensees Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and related entity Industrial Heat LLC, which boasted about acquiring the technology for a low-energy nuclear reactor called the E-Cat through a 2012 agreement but failed to live up to their end of the deal.

"They wasted no time telling investors and potential investors that E-Cat actually works and that they were in possession of the technology," Chaiken said.

At one point, in an investment memorandum, International Heat said the future success of the company was dependent on one key individual: Rossi, according to Chaiken.

"They're (Industrial Heat ) telling their investors they've got LeBron James on their team and if they're going to the NBA Finals, they're going to ride him all the way there," he said.

But International Heat changed its tune in May 2015, he said, when it successfully sold 4 percent of the company for $50 million. After that investment, Chaiken said the narrative changed, and the company began to say that Rossi was unreliable and that the test results of his E-Cat technology were unreliable.

The case is Andrea Rossi et al. v. Thomas Darden et al., case number 1:16-cv-21199, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Display More

Quote from ultrasure

Some details of the initial shots fired by IH & Rossi:

https://www.law360.com/tria...

Law360, Miami (June 30, 2017, 9:57 PM EDT) -- An Italian inventor suing over an $89 million licensing agreement for an energy catalyzer patent opened trial Friday in Miami, telling jurors that the licensees had repeatedly touted the technology and said it had "potential to change the world" before reneging on the agreement.

Brian Chaiken of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright PL, who represents Italian inventor Andrea Rossi, told the jury that Rossi and his Leonardo Corp. are owed $89 million from licensees Cherokee Investment Partners LLC and related entity Industrial Heat LLC, which boasted about acquiring the technology for a low-energy nuclear reactor called the E-Cat through a 2012 agreement but failed to live up to their end of the deal.

"They wasted no time telling investors and potential investors that E-Cat actually works and that they were in possession of the technology," Chaiken said.

At one point, in an investment memorandum, International Heat said the future success of the company was dependent on one key individual: Rossi, according to Chaiken.

"They're (Industrial Heat ) telling their investors they've got LeBron James on their team and if they're going to the NBA Finals, they're going to ride him all the way there," he said.

But International Heat changed its tune in May 2015, he said, when it successfully sold 4 percent of the company for $50 million. After that investment, Chaiken said the narrative changed, and the company began to say that Rossi was unreliable and that the test results of his E-Cat technology were unreliable.

The case is Andrea Rossi et al. v. Thomas Darden et al., case number 1:16-cv-21199, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Display More

A quick note to everyone: opening statements are not evidence.

Quote from LDM

My opinion is that the "protocol" mentioned in the Lugano report is possibly incomplete and that additional steps needed to understand what they really did where left out.
I tried to fill these steps in and can state that even without calibration at high temperatures you can arrive at the correct temperatures using another protocol of which the "protocol" in the Lugano report is only a sub part and not even correctly written down.
Using a part of the derived protocol I did a test adjusting some Optris temperature values as reported by the MFMP and after correction they had exactly the same values as the Williams pyrometer. The differences between the two had disappeared ! For me that proves that indeed it is possible to use the Optris to obtain correct temperatures without calibration (The calibration is basically part of the literature data used in the protocol).
Does that mean the Lugano testers made no error ? Sure they made errors as you and I would also have made. Did they use the wrong emissivities ? Maybe, but in my opinion too much weight is given to the possible emissivity errors by people who do not know if the methods in the Lugano report where reported correctly or where even reported complete

I do believe it is possible to do fairly effective calorimetry using IR, with proper calibration and a well-measured device (for area).

I was able to get nearly 98% of the input power measured with a rudimentary device and IR set up.

With better equipment I could do better, I am certain.

However, using total emissivity in place of the correct IR spectral emissivity for the Ir camera emisivity setting, where the object is not a true grey body, a correct power measurement is extremely unlikely, and almost always going to be wrong, ranging to terribly wrong.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I do believe it is possible to do fairly effective calorimetry using IR, with proper calibration and a well-measured device (for area).

I was able to get nearly 98% of the input power measured with a rudimentary device and IR set up.

With better equipment I could do better, I am certain.

However, using total emissivity in place of the correct IR spectral emissivity for the Ir camera emisivity setting, where the object is not a true grey body, a correct power measurement is extremely unlikely, and almost always going to be wrong, ranging to terribly wrong.

For what it is worth, I was also able to show that an approximate blackbody object runs cooler than a lower emissivity greybody or selective emitter using the same power input and object dimensions, by painting a test selective emitter object with high emissivity paint.

Quote from maryyugo

Maybe so but why do it when you can use a highly accurate (if properly calibrated) fluid cooled calorimeter which will not only give reliable results but is also safer? See:

Personally, I wouldn't get water anywhere near that Lugano device.

Sure, the device could have been made safer to do fluid calorimetery with.

But then Trade Secrets might get out....

Quote from [email protected]

 

I think Rossi's bloviating blog entries could be admissible as evidence. It just takes one witness to say that that's what Rossi said on his blog. Then all of his blog stuff would be admissible. I'm surprised IH's lawyers haven't already angled in that direction.

 

Generally speaking, statements made by the opposing lawsuit are not considered hearsay. So IH can probably get Rossi's blog statements in fairly easily when Rossi is on the stand, by asking him about the statements.

However, the statements in question must be relevant - which means that they have to have a tendency to show that a fact that is of consequence to the case is more (or less) likely to be true. So not all of the bloviating is likely to be relevant.

Quote from we_cat_global

Well done. It seems that Thomas Darden has been very sloppy (negligent?) with his SEC paperwork as well. Mmmm..it must be a pain for Thomas Darden that his reputation is further tarnished by this court case. Once one has the SEC on its back it is hard to focus on anything else..

Darden is recidivist .... obviously for him (or his collaborators) it's really too complicated to fill out those modules properly;) Looking at the list provided by Sifferkol, it would seem that for Cherokee is a habit finding shortcuts and tricks to get the biggest profit and then skip out on their duties ... obviously TD and his friends are not very interested in their reputation and very focused to their advantage.

Quote from guest111

Spoken as a true peanut-gallery worker, who has never run a business, or created a single job or product; if so, you would know that every business deals with these hoards of bureaucrats and paperwork that police every aspect of one's business, waiting to find some technical violation of paperwork or whatever, to fine the business and justify their existence--they are, in fact impossible to avoid at one time or another. In fact, I would wager that in addition to never running a business, or ever creating a job or product, you all are probably one of these public dole bureaucrats (or similar). But, everyone knows that you are simply grasping at straws to somehow draw some moral-equivalence to all of Rossi's dubious behavior and claims--keep jousting at them ecats, quarkxxxx's and invisible heat-exchangers.

A ridiculous comment. I have highlighted some omissions in the ADV Form that are so obvious that they can not be mistakes or distractions. Those who filled out that form could not ignore or have forgotten that Cherokee has affiliates dealing with real estate or that have been involved in causes and appeals. Those are obviously deliberate omissions and as such are punishable by law. You may be bothered by this truth, and pour out your frustration by accusing me of everything you want, but these facts are true, public and irrefutable. Accept it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

They still have a duty to retract or defend their (more boring and believable by others) calorimetry results.

A duty? You talk about duty, obligations, academic ethics ... if the scientists who did that test are certain of the work they have done, they are not obliged to give explanations to anyone who ask for them. Wait for their upcoming publications to know their point of view, because that's how professors usually communicate: with tests and articles.

Quote from JedRothwell

They refused to answer questions, discuss the critiques or -- alternatively -- retract the report. In my opinion this violates academic ethics. It is unprofessional, as THH says.

How could they violate academic ethics? First of all, scientists have not been sent to Lugano by the deans of their universities, but participated in the test personally, not representing their universities. And then it is their right not to consider the criticisms arrived from every kind of voice - they may have considered them not valid, or they may have chosen to respond in due time with a replication and a related article. But of course they are not required to account for their article to anyone who criticizes them from the pages of a forum.

Quote from Shane D.

Well, if the trial were not already interesting enough, Levi and Hoistad showing up shoots it through the roof for us Rossitechies. In an earlier submission, they were listed as "may present" to "opine" about the Ecat. No doubt they will have some interesting things to say about Lugano. Odd too, after 3 1/2 years of refusing to answer to their peers about their methods and findings, they choose instead a courthouse venue to start talking?

I would think JD is ready to present them the TC/Higgins/MFMP/GSVIT reports showing Lugano had some serious flaws, and I am certain Levi/Hoistad expect that and are somehow prepared. They have to know they are going to have to answer with something more than "well, I had a couple colleagues I can not name review it, and they thought it looked fine"...which is about what he told Lewan.

I am glad to see this development. Hopefully they shed some light as to why they have stuck by Rossi, and why they still think Lugano is good. Looks as if THH, Paradigmnoia, Andrea S., are going to be real busy once they take the stand and start talking.

I disagree. IH, I think, reckon if this turns into tech expert vs expert it is too likely to be a stalemate. The fcat that they are correct and Rossi manifestly wrong on Lugano will not necessarily be clear to a Jury when all depends on the character of the experts. The IR thing is difficult for tech guys here to understand - I don't think a Jury will be able to do more than rate how convincing an expert sounds. Anyway, the Lugano test is peripheral to this case.

Boeing tested the E-Cat ** but not with the original fuel! **

The fuel used by Boeing was modified by --> Tom Darden

HERE:

https://thenewfire.files.wordp…nts_witnesses.pdf#Page=96

Quote from SSC

How could they violate academic ethics? First of all, scientists have not been sent to Lugano by the deans of their universities, but participated in the test personally, not representing their universities. And then it is their right not to consider the criticisms arrived from every kind of voice - they may have considered them not valid, or they may have chosen to respond in due time with a replication and a related article. But of course they are not required to account for their article to anyone who criticizes them from the pages of a forum.

SSC this is weird. You are saying scientists are only ethical when under orders from their Dean? Scientists can publish papers from anywhere and are personally responsible for the content, and dealing with criticism. It has nothing to do with Deans! Nor is it relevant where, or if, a criticism is published - anyway TC's paper is published in as good a place as the original report.

ultrasure - my eardrums are hurting.

Quote from WMartin

do so with facts instead of innuendoes

So I see that you are now an unemployed plumber and would like to be hired by one of the parts.

I have nothing against plumbers/pipefitters and is almost a miracle to find one during summer.

But I have one question. You were not there, you have never seen the plant how you pretend to have any educated and valuable opinion? As far as I know there were Engineers on both sides that have seen the plant and released written reports.

So how can you produce new facts ? And if you are able to do so why don't you contact IH (in fact you are doing so here) or Rossi ?