Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • I haven't followed the latest developments closely, but shouldn't a properly verified COP of 1.3 from a high power, independently replicated device normally be a really big deal? Basically to me it sounds like IH have verified a that new energy source exists, but are complaining that it doesn't perform well enough for their purposes. What about open sourcing it to the scientific community?

  • I haven't followed the latest developments closely, but shouldn't a properly verified COP of 1.3 from a high power, independently replicated device normally be a really big deal?

    That is just it, it is not a "properly verified COP of 1.3" from an "independently replicated" source.

    Instead it is an : It "might be 1.3" from someone that is not sure what the level was and from something that is far from independent since it was on Rossi's system in a place controlled by Rossi and with ill chosen instruments not completely suitable for that task that were chosen by Rossi and run by Rossi and where Rossi had access to all night long when others left.

  • . . .since it was on Rossi's system in a place controlled by Rossi and with ill chosen instruments not completely suitable for that task that were chosen by Rossi and run by Rossi and where Rossi had access to all night long when others left.


    I get the impression, from my reading of the deposition excerpt, that the IH engineer when stating that "1.3 might be an answer" was referring to an independent replication by IH, not associated with the 1MW plant test.

  • Q: Industrial Heat has represented that they replicated a test on their own, which resulted in a COP of 1.3. They have also made an affirmative representation in this case that they have never been able on their own to replicate any measurable excess heat, any, whether it’s reliable or not reliable. These two statements to me seem inconsistent, and I’m asking you, sir, if you have knowledge to which one, if either, are correct?
    A. I can’t say that we never had a result that was — let’s see if I can say this right — we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer. I think that reliably, repeatedly, repeating those results has not happened. So at some point in time there could have been a result of 1.3 that we thought was good.
  • Notice the answer did not say if the 1.3 was independent or not. It is in the question but not in the answer. The answer only mentioned the level but not the conditions under which the level was achieved. I think that you will find that they never had an independent run but always relied on materials (at least the Ni and "catalyst) supplied by Rossi. It also does not address if the test was even of Rossi's technology or some other item.

  • "Q: Industrial Heat has represented that they replicated a test on their own, which resulted in a COP of 1.3. They have also made an affirmative representation in this case that they have never been able on their own to replicate any measurable excess heat, any, whether it’s reliable or not reliable. These two statements to me seem inconsistent, and I’m asking you, sir, if you have knowledge to which one, if either, are correct?
    A. I can’t say that we never had a result that was — let’s see if I can say this right — we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer. I think that reliably, repeatedly, repeating those results has not happened. So at some point in time there could have been a result of 1.3 that we thought was good."




    It is obvious that this is a test IH did, but that they could not validate it. No doubt they tried. Had they succeeded, with repeatable, accurate, and secure calorimetry, we are in Nobel Prize territory and also with development COP=1.3 easily turns into COP=infinity. Just add 4X better insulation. That would have immense commercial value.


    Nor is there (in these words) any mention of what are the errors in this "COP could be 1.3". Without that extra info this is meaningless. Rossi quoted this in his deposition, but there may well have been other context in Court that makes this clear.


    It is sort of annoying that such quotes continue to be made as though they prove some point, or even cast doubt on what IH has said. they are entirely expected given the IH "after many tests we have been unable to validate any excess heat" stance.

    • Official Post

    It's nice to talk about whether or not IH got a COP 1.3, but keep in mind that even if they (IH) did, it comes no where close to the contractual minimum performance COP of 4, maintained over a 350 day period. 1.3 if proven...only a hypothetical at this point, may get Rossi off the hook for the IP transfer, but it will not get him his $89 million for the GPT.

  • I think the COP that IH got or should have gotten independently is not related directly to the GPT. Also the plant's COP was officially "validated" already during a 24 hour test and the GPT seems to be more about long term performance.


    However, Rossi is supposed to have transferred how to manufacture and operate an e-cat, and in the licence, the specs of the e-cat have COP=6. A COP of 1.3 isn't an e-cat.


    Rossi was supposed to advise, instruct and demonstrate the steps to build a fully operable e-cat after he got the $10 million. What happened then? There was a period of months between the validation and the start of the 1 year run. By then IH should have realized that Rossi wasn't cooperating. Not sure why they went along with the charade.

  • let’s see if I can say this right — we probably had results greater than one, 1.3 might be an answer. I think that reliably, repeatedly, repeating those results has not happened. So at some point in time there could have been a result of 1.3 that we thought was good."

    This has happened to me and to many other people. An instrument goes bad but you don't notice, or you make a mistake, and for a while you think you have excess heat. You cannot reproduce it. After days, or weeks, you discover your error. It is nothing to get excited about. It is NOT a positive result.


    That's all there is to it.


    If they really had 1.3, they would know it, and they would pay Rossi and go full speed ahead. Even if this is less than the COP they were hoping for, they could make something of it. Unfortunately, as they said quite clearly and repeatedly, they saw no excess heat, despite false alarms. I know for a fact they tried very hard, for a long time, with good people.

  • If they really had 1.3, they would know it, and they would pay Rossi and go full speed ahead. Even if this is less than the COP they were hoping for, they could make something of it. Unfortunately, as they said quite clearly and repeatedly, they saw no excess heat, despite false alarms. I know for a fact they tried very hard, for a long time, with good people.

    So why to hell IH wrote patent with "no exces heat" ?

  • So why to hell IH wrote patent with "no exces heat" ?

    Obviously they were hoping it would work. It is important to file for a patent as soon as possible, with today's "first to file" patent laws.


    Many, many patents have been filed for devices that do not work, in all fields of technology, not just cold fusion. This is a waste of money. At the time people file, they hope the machine will soon work. It is a calculated risk. There are famous examples of non-working patents such as Lilienfeld's semiconductor, from 1930:


    http://history-computer.com/Library/US1745175.pdf


    This was never implemented, and probably would not have worked, but it is so similar to the AT&T patents that it caused problems for them. They had to narrow the scope of their 1951 patent. See:


    http://history-computer.com/Mo…ter/Basis/transistor.html

  • Unfortunately, as they said quite clearly and repeatedly, they saw no excess heat, despite false alarms. I know for a fact they tried very hard, for a long time, with good people.


    How do you know this for a fact? The totality of the evidence that we have so far raises significant questions in my mind whether IH are being forthright with the claim COP was always 1.

  • Poor IHFB - unable to consider the history of Rossi or his failure-after-failure to deliver / excuse-after-excuse to stretch things out and mislead his remnant further along the way. Totality of evidence only selectively matters for IHFB and is the only way for him to be able to support his slant on things.

    I'm glad that evidence is important to him though as his world is about to be rocked even further.

  • I suspect anyone with something good cooking in their own laboratory would be very uneasy about doing a deal in Raleigh right now.

    I believe anyone without having something good cooking in their own laboratory would be very uneasy about doing a deal in Raleigh right now.


    I believe that IH needs to send that clear message to all copycats: If your plan is just to rip us off, we won't let you walk away with our money.


    I believe if they don't send this message, then they will only see plenty tricksters knocking on their doors, but no more investors.