Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    A COP of zero in all cases


    You are showing a lack of understanding about COP. It does not go zero. A resistor gives a COP of 1 (out/in) if the calorimeter is perfect.


    The engineer said they might have gotten 1.3 sometimes but gave no estimate of the error bars. If the error bars were say 15% then you could expect to see 1.3 levels about 5 % of the time (1 sigma is about 68%"sure", 2 about 94%, 3 sigma about 99.7%)


    10 to 20% accuracy on such a large system with multiple pumps and outlets and uncertain pressures and temp would not be unreasonable.

    wow check out doc 118


    Bass and Johnson have produced some documents "to the benefit of the defendants"--- That JMP was not a "real company", not associated with Johnson Matthey and under Rossi's control and that Rossi was paying JMP's expenses.

    So we now have the first hard evidence that JMP was a ruse (as I think most here suspected). We also know that IH has been less-than-forthcoming about their replication COP. So now we're getting down into the mud. The question that should be on all of our minds is: does it work? And if so, how well? Because if it does, nothing else really matters. And if it doesn't, I'll need to write off a @%!#$-load of time.

    The law suit is not so much about if LENR works or not. I don't think that is a question.
    It is not even if hot Ni works - others have seen that dating back to 1990..


    The questions are 1) was the legal requirement of the agreement met, 2) was the COP of significant levels (i.e. over 4 the entire running time, 3) were the measurement valid, and so on.


    It does not look like 1 was met,
    there is great doubt that 2 was
    the missing Penon seems to say 3 was not


    Having COP of a possible 1.3 even if valid and of long duration will just not solve Rossi's problems.


    The 118 doc sure seems to indicate that Rossi is not to be trusted and some serious flim flaming was going on. I don't see why people can continue to blindly trust what he says.

    Doc 118 is a huge blow to Rossi. Whether it has legal bearing on the GPT itself is yet to be determined. It certainly will not sit well with a jury, and goes to credibility.


    IH's engineer testifying that a COP of 1.3 "might be an answer" (while being evasive to the question) is also a blow to IH's credibility, who has been signaling something entirely different since early 2016.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    COP of 1.3 "might be an answer"


    IHFB I know we don't always see things the same way, but if I heard an engineer say 1.3 might be the answer,
    I would think that it might mean he had a 30% error bar and was not ready to rule things in or out.
    I would even think that it might be a time to call in another engineer to look over things since it might be too close to call.

    @Jed


    You keep accusing me of making stuff up. Then, when I provide support, you go silent. Why the combativeness?


    Everyone who has been following this story knows that IH have given the impression, repeatedly, both in public statements, and in court filings, that they have seen no excess heat. Then, when placed under oath, IH's own engineer contradicted that very public position.

    Quote from IH Fanboy

    Everyone who has been following this story knows that IH have given the impression, repeatedly, both in public statements, and in court filings, that they have seen no excess heat. Then, when placed under oath, IH's own engineer contradicted that very public position.


    That is not an impression; it is a fact that there is no heat. Rossi's data shows the same thing! No heat, once you subtract out the preposterous fake data such the pressure being 0.0 bar, and the wrong numbers from the kind of flow meter in a half-empty pipe.


    You misunderstand what the engineer meant. It could be 1.3 or it could be 0.7 or it could be 50.0 if you believe the entire building was in a vacuum chamber. There is no telling what it was. These results are meaningless. These instruments tell you nothing. That is what Exhibit 5 tells you. Rossi has never denied it, and his own damn data says it.

    There seems to have been some confusion between Rossi's 1 year experiment and whatever IH did in their labs to try to replicate. The 1.3 maybe/maybe not COP is associated with the latter.



    Exhibit 118-A exposes Rossi's customer masterpiece. We have Rossi asking for what looks like a fake invoice from JMP so that Leonardo can pay for their tax prep. Rossi asks his lawyer to change JMP's address. Rossi preps Bass for his meetings.




    Some meta: A quote from Bass to Rossi:


    Quote

    At that time I didn't know you were cooking platinum sponge


    Did Rossi mislead Bass about some actual process going on, or was Rossi actually "cooking platinum sponge" on the "customer" side?


    I know I might look silly, but I don't want to leave any stone unturned. Is there a process that involves transferring heat to platinum sponges; if so how would that process consume 1MW?

    Quote from oldguy

    You are showing a lack of understanding about COP. It does not go zero. A resistor gives a COP of 1 (out/in) if the calorimeter is perfect.


    Actually, I have never heard scientists talk about the COP of a calorimeter. A few benighted people talk about the COP of cold fusion. That's meaningless, because the input power does not cause the output in any sense. It is needed to keep the material intact or to raise the temperature to the operating temperature, but it does not transform in any sense. The heat in does not trigger heat out directly.


    Engineers talk about a COP when evaluating a boiler or space heating furnace. In that case, the COP is never 1. It is always less than one, typically 0.80 to 0.95 for a late-model, highly efficient boiler. 0.95 means 5% is heat loss. The COP measures delivered, useful heat.


    For calorimeter you would say it "recovers" 95% of the heat in a null run for calibration. When it is used to measure heat from a chemical or successful cold fusion test, it recovers more than 100%. That's the whole point. No one calls that a COP.


    When you burn a sample of food in a bomb calorimeter, you take into account the spark and the fuel, but you don't say the COP is the total heat out / spark+fuel. It produces excess heat from the burning food. Chemical excess heat.

    I do not understand who is doing what to whom in this lawsuit, but anyway, I copied some of the important text out of document 118, and I formatted it, so let me paste it here. This is written by I.H. They described the 118 exhibits A and B as follows, on p. 3 of document 118:


    Quote

    Third Party Defendants James Bass (“Bass) and Henry Johnson (“Johnson”) have produced some documents, but the total is only 842 pages. Even though this is not a sizable production, the documents in the production have already clearly established important allegations in this case to the benefit of Defendants, including among other things that (a) Third Party Defendant J.M. Products (“JMP”) was not a “real Customer” (to use Rossi’s phrase) using power from Plaintiffs in a manufacturing process, (b) JMP was not associated with the well-known British company of Johnson Matthey, and (c) Rossi was in control of JMP and paying for all JMP’s expenses, but in a manner to conceal this from others, including Defendants. See Composite Exhibit A; see also Third Amended Answer, Additional Defenses, Counterclaims and Third Party Claims (“AACT”) ¶¶69-79 [D.E. 78].


    If I understand correctly, these exhibits show the company was operating with a few hundred dollars a month which was being paid by Rossi. Also, Rossi instructed his lawyer to say the company has a connection to Johnson Matthey. One document seems to show that Bass has no idea what the company does, and he seldom shows up to work.


    I guess Johnson and Bass handed this to I.H. Right? Perhaps inadvertently? I don't get it. Don't ask me what's going on.

    I guess "not a shred of evidence" is actually a real thing...


    From 118
    "As of the date of this motion, Defendants have not received a single document in discovery from Plaintiffs
    or Third Party Defendants USQL or Fabiani.1


    1 Plaintiffs have thus far only produced photographs and videos. As acknowledged by Plaintiffs, the videos
    were not even produced in a viewable format."

    Well, now we finally have the first hard evidence that JMP was a 'front'.


    Perhaps intentionally, IH included evidence they received in discovery from Bass and Johnson/JMP to justify their request for an additional 60 days for pretrial preparation. In exhibit A, we see Bass asking Rossi how to respond to visitors asking details about Johnson Mathey's processes:


    Bass responds:


    Rossi responds:

    Quote


    ...
    Absolutely not, he will just ask you if you are satisfied with the plant. No thechnical questions will be put.


    Warmest Regards,
    Andrea


    On 2/15/2016 at 8:36PM Bass replies:


    From this we see that Rossi is calling the shots. Bass is not the Director of Engineering for a real company. He is a prop, anxiously asking Rossi for his 'lines'.


    Later in the same exhibit we see Rossi transferring funds from Leonardo to JMP to Diane Annesser, an accountant (I believe this is John Annesser's mother - John being Rossi's lawyer).
    Also, Julia, John Annesser's wife, is apparently doing some payroll accounting, so it's 'All in the Family', so to speak (Julia's email not included - see 115-1, Exhibit A for details)



    Colette, Henry Johnson's secretary, then sends this to Rossi:


    On Fri. 8 Jan. 14:01:56 -0500 Colette Sauer wrote:

    Quote


    I have two invoices that must be paid from JM Products account totaling $1050.00


    28 minutes later Rossi responds:



    Finally, we see Rossi directing 'Hank Johnson' and his secretary to change the address of JMP on Monday March 16, 2015 9:01:56 AM:



    Truly, a magnificence.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Hermes

    Where did you get this information from? I think Piantelli was privately supported by private companies Lumenergy, Ecodep and others long before Nichenergy existed.


    This is what the saintly Krivit said in NET in 2011.


    "My confidence in the Rossi-Focardi work comes not only from Celani’s report but also, in large part, from my lab visits with Piantelli in 2007 and 2009 and my examination of his documentation. I remember that Piantelli let me take pictures of anything I wanted; he was not concerned that I might photograph anything proprietary. He explained to me that the proprietary aspects were the secret formulation of the nano-particle reactants and this was all in his head, he said, so there was no risk that I would reveal anything confidential."


    My other sources suggent that Piantelli more of less gave Rossi the brush-off when he first approached him. I also suspect that relations between Piantelli and Focardi were somewhat frosty as early as 2007.

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.