Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • @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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • IHFB - sorry for the delayed response - been busy. It is amazing that the Rule 11 effort was built on two attempts at diving catches from depositions. Did you know that baseline, calibration or noise floor discussion will co-travel with this testimony if it gets to trial? You should also know that additional excess heat / COP testimony and the qualifications, background and training of these experts will carry the day. I'll say it again - there was no quantifiable excess heat from anything associated with Rossi at IH. The entire operation in Doral was a shame and now you're just getting a taste of what is to come. Again, I admire your ability and motivation to try and hold the fort on behalf of your hero. There are not many of you left and you did not have a good day yesterday - more bad days ahead for Planet Rossi.

  • So we now have the first hard evidence that JMP was a ruse (as I think most here suspected).


    Doc 118 is a huge blow to Rossi.


    The e-mails in 118 just confirm what we know since half a year. Not less not more. JMP was founded by Rossis lawyer. This is known for more than a year.


    Anyway: I wouldn't trust e-mails because I can send an e-mail in behalf of any person I would like to do so!


    Just for the curious ones: Some e-mails deal with detailed material order, what makes no sense in case of fraud...


    Far more interesting is the following Mediation report: (Ex 117)





    MEDIATOR’S REPORT AND NOTICE OF IMPASSE


    This case was mediated on Thursday, January 12, 2017. All parties and counsel were
    present. The participants negotiated in good faith. The parties were unable to resolve this case
    at this time. Therefore, the mediation resulted in an impasse. It is hoped by the undersigned and
    expressed to the parties that at the completion of discovery and motion practice, the parties
    consider undertaking further mediation efforts.

  • Far more interesting is the following Mediation report: (Ex 117)


    Wyttenbach, are you serious? If you sincerely believe this is 'more interesting', you really show your ignorance of court procedures.


    Mediation is a requirement built in to most legal agreements, often to comply with state laws.


    However, there is no requirement that the mediation is successful - either party (or both) can choose to proceed with the legal (court) action.


    The mediation step was a required formality. That it was unsuccessful was entirely predictable.


    Sorry, but it makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • However, there is no requirement that the mediation is successful - either party (or both) can choose to proceed with the legal (court) action.


    sigmoidal : If you don't understand legal matters, then you should not post and otherwise down-vote facts!


    There is no requirement to attend a mediation! The facts are: All parties attended the mediation! Now you possibly understand the legal aspect!


    Just to prevent one more unnecessary comment from your side: There was a lively discussion reported! It was not an informal shine-up...


    Why should both side support laywers high live, if both side only can loose?

  • sigmoidal : If you don't understand legal matters, then you should not post and otherwise down-vote facts!


    Doubling down on your ignorance is not helping your cause. Maybe the laws are different in Switzerland, but in the US, a mediation requirement prior to trial is routinely built into contract agreements. That is a fact.


    I'm stating that there is nothing 'interesting' nor informative about that piece of information (the unsuccessful mediation filing in 117).


    But since you seem to think you are some expert on this, please enlighten us all about what is interesting and informative.

  • Why should both side support laywers high live, if both side only can loose?


    You seem to be implying "if Rossi is a fraud and this evidence is so conclusive, why would he continue on? Why would he not drop the case now and save lawyer money?"


    You need to realize it may (probably) was not Rossi that disagreed to "settle" the case. I suspect it was IH. They are asking for their 11.5 million dollars back from Rossi. They also have stated they want to "crush the tests". Meaning remove all question as to whether the eCat was real or not.


    So they are not supporting the lawyers... they have a very clear plan. They want the 11.5 million back and they want to insure Rossi does not continue his fraud in LENR.
     
    My opinion only.

  • Far more interesting is the following Mediation report: (Ex 117)


    OK, since you have experience in this, and you find the mediation 'far more interesting', I'd really like to know what it is that is far more interesting. My assertion is that in this specific court case, going to mediation was merely a required contractual step before the case could go to trial.


    Please educate me as to why this is not correct, but rather, this mediation information is 'far more interesting'.


    Thanks in advance

  • An analogy and a few questions to Dewey, Jed and other supporters of the IH,


    After one year of seemingly normal marriage, Irene-Helen has accused her husband of repeated rape, but only after he started an action of divorce.
    Irene-Helen has then described her husband as a monster,a summum of all evils so everybody and her aunt has asked her why she has married him or why she has not asked divorce 11 months ago?



    IH people try to convince everybody that for them- IH- to win the litigation is a certainty they have terabytes of hard proofs for zero excess het, bad instruments, flawed measurements, no customer, no consumer, impossibilty to consume the claimed heat, fraud and conspiracy.
    And yet they need 60 days more to answer to the statements of JMP, Bass, Fabiani.
    So I ask, in your opinion what are the chances of IH to win?
    Just for your info, Irene-Helen's sory is based on a real case and the poor girl lost due mainly to delay in tyhe action.
    But analogy remains just an analogy, isn't it?

  • And yet they need 60 days more to answer to the statements of JMP, Bass, Fabiani.


    Peter, did you not read IH's filing? Rossi/Annesser have not provided ANY information in response to IH's discovery requests. NONE. This is setting Rossi up for contempt of court if they don't respond in the next few days. IH is anticipating that they will need time to sift through the information Rossi provides. On the other hand, IH responded to Rossi's discovery request months ago, and Rossi/Annesser have had months to prepare for trial.


    Now that we have evidence in emails (produced by Third Parties, not Rossi) that are consistent with IH's claims that Rossi acted fraudulently, I would think it obvious to you and the rest of us that IH has a very strong case, and Rossi is in very bad shape. Do you disagree?


    BTW, your story about Irene-Helene sounds really tragic. However, as an 'analogy', I find it strained (to put it mildly).

  • Peter - Rossi and Fabiani have not produced any written documents. FF has now been forced and ran out of time - big problem for Planet Rossi as everything Fabiani gets adverse interpretation in the case now. IH has produced everything that it has. Rossi is trying to create a clock advantage on Discovery analysis by limiting Deposition time within available Discovery analysis. I think the Judge will understand this and grant the extension. If Rossi's side continues to stonewall on Discovery - his troubles will continue to grow. This is not hard to understand is it?

  • FF has now been forced and ran out of time - big problem for Planet Rossi as everything Fabiani gets adverse interpretation in the case now


    Good point. Since this is a civil case, if Rossi does not produce in response to IH's requests, it would not result in contempt of court (as I incorrectly stated). Just adverse interpretation. Meaning that IH's defenses against Rossi's accusations would stand unopposed, while IH's accusations against Rossi would go unchallenged, so that Rossi's case would go down the drain. The judge would almost certainly throw out Rossi's case against IH (but not IH's case against Rossi).

  • The main question remains, is it against the licensing agreements to pretend a customer if, as if in this case, Industrial Heat does not provide a customer as promised and thus Rossi would not have been able to meet the licensing agreement and perform a GPT?


    Rossi's goal must be to prove that IH was only interested in the E-Cat IP (see the Lugano Report IH plagiarism patent) and only willing to pay the 11.5 million, and never had the intention to pay 89 million (additional because they did not have the money) and thus the pretending of a customer was, so to speak, a protective act, which was essential in order to be able to 1. carry out the GPT and 2. to prove the attempted fraud of IH.


    It remains thrilling, because it is obvious that Rossi was all the time guided by his lawyers and I do not see any reason why they should participate in an obvious fraud where they risk their whole existence.


    Greets
    Felix

  • It remains thrilling, because it is obvious that Rossi was all the time guided by his lawyers and I do not see any reason why they should participate in an obvious fraud where they risk their whole existence.


    It is not at all clear that Rossi was guided by his lawyers. In fact, the latest filing indicates that the Annesser family is more of a 'Mom and Pop' shop of accounting, payroll and legal services. (There's nothing 'wrong' with being a Mom and Pop shop, in fact, I find it kind of admirable.). Annesser (who is 33 years old) has shown himself to be inexperienced in several of the motions. He's going up against a world-class legal firm. So I don't really fault him for somewhat amateur mis-steps. But it looks to me like Rossi is calling the shots. This seemed especially clear with the Ruling 11 sanctions stunt. It appeared to me that this was Rossi's attempt to get some evidence onto the docket (in view of the public) to support his case. It took the judge less than 24 hours to dismiss this.


    Dewey seems to have information regarding what happened in depositions that confirms that Rossi/Annesser tried to get the most 'damaging' information from the deposition onto the docket. (For the record, I don't have any information, so it's speculation on my part).


    It looks to me that IH responded in kind, using the 60 day extension request as a means of getting information adverse to Rossi onto the docket. (But again, this is speculation on my part).


    I do agree with you, however, that it is very perplexing behavior by Johnson, who is a licensed lawyer. To me, Rossi has a 3 decade history of being a mentally unstable con man. Not just a con man, because a stable con man would have taken the 11.5 million and run. I think he's mentally unstable. What was he thinking when he pre-emptively sued IH? It makes sense only if he's unstable.


    But what about Johnson? "Hank" Johnson has a lot to loose. It doesn't really make sense to me.


    I'm pretty sure that Annesser is NOT taking Rossi's case on contingency. He's taking orders from Rossi, and billing him for everything he does. Just like Annessers mom and wife. We now know Rossi's admin team is 'All in the Family'.

  • The main question remains, is it against the licensing agreements to pretend a customer if, as if in this case, Industrial Heat does not provide a customer as promised and thus Rossi would not have been able to meet the licensing agreement and perform a GPT?


    yes it was against the licensing agreement that JMP was owned by an entity formed in the UK and none of Rossi or their had any ownership.


    Notice that having a customer was NOT required for a GPT.


    It sure seems that Rossi only fabricated the customer to give cover for the testing so as not to tip off IH that he was going to later claim it to be GPT.


    The argument that IH did not have the money fell a month ago when the judge discussed the 150M to be made available from Woodford.

  • 'At the time I didn't know you were cooking platinum sponge, and I didn't know what process they were using in other operations'
    MSS, I think this refers not to an actual process but the story line that must be followed.



    I'd say it's 75% just a story line; 25% Rossi was using platinum sponge to use the 20kW-1MW of heat. I won't argue if someone says 100/0 though.



    Things that Rossi has called a masterpiece:


    - the "purposely" failed test for the European licence [x]
    - finding the customer [x]
    - Fulvio's control system [ ]
    - the QuarkX [ ]



    @Dewey: do you have some dirt on the control system?

  • People keep saying that IH held up the GPT. They provided the place but it was ROSSI that turned down the IH facility. He stated that property owned by IH would make the GPT less convincing!


    So what did he do? He setup a completely fraudulent customer! Yes, this was indeed MUCH more convincing! 8o


    IH claims he did this intentionally, to move the plant away from IH's door step where they could keep vigil over it and to Floriday, where Rossi could setup his fake customer, his fake director of engineering and the fake "sale of heat". So he could then try to pass the rigged 1 year test as the GPT to collect 89 million.


    Everything IH has asserted so far, has been backed by actual evidence. Rossi has provided absolutely NO evidence to support his story. As a matter of fact, his own correspondence has shown he blatantly and systematically lied on his JONP posts about the customer, the sell of (3) plants, production, etc. etc.


    Yet some still believe anything Rossi has to say? When the Quark "demo" either does not happen or turns out to be another "blurry photo", many will still cling to the hope that Rossi is legit. ?(