Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

The Court seems to have come to the conclusion that JMP was Rossi (emphasis added)

"

THE COURT: okay. I'm only going to allow you to get

18 the communications regarding the E-Cat testing, not all

19 communications between them. I find that it's not relevant,

20 there's no showing that they were anything but independent. You

21 know, in the other area you're able to come to me and show me

22 that Rossi was -- you know, this company was actually Rossi.

23 Here, you know, you're talking about five people who are, you

24 know, respected people."

Quote from Alan Smith

Ask AR the way to Milan and he would send you to Bari.

Yeah, but Bari looks like a nice place!

Anyways, the whole alumina-emissivity question is a waste of time.

Simply make a nice, easy to measure tube of 100% alumina glowing hot, no fuel (empty even), use the Lugano emissivity method (total emissivity for both the IR camera and radiant power calculations), and make a bogus "COP" of 3+.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Anyways, the whole alumina-emissivity question is a waste of time.

Simply make a nice, easy to measure tube of 100% alumina glowing hot, no fuel (empty even), use the Lugano emissivity method (total emissivity for both the IR camera and radiant power calculations), and make a bogus "COP" of 3+.

put the alumina tube inside a steel tube with know emistivity then do the IR. Oh and do a calibration run at the same temp

Quote from oldguy

put the alumina tube inside a steel tube with know emistivity then do the IR. Oh and do a calibration run at the same temp

More complicated than required.

If a pure alumina rod can make the same IR-based "COP" as the Lugano device, then the "reaction", "fuel", etc. are moot.

I started with making null devices, to understand what the null should look like so that I could more easily recognize real excess heat when it appeared.

That was as far as I needed to go. As soon as I started with the IR, the problem was immediately evident.

I could make a fake COP of 3 with an 8 cm square of alumina.

I have a hard time stomaching all the Lugano fuel experiments when almost no one actually tried the IR method for more than a few minutes (MFMP), when simply doing the IR test as described in the Lugano report would clearly blow a huge hole in the whole Lugano hypothesis.

I still don't understand why Rossi is bring up Lugano. Its working or not working doesn't seem to be relevant to his case against IH. I also don't understand the relevance of IH talking to some professor elsewhere. I don't think they had anything to do with Doral or any testing in NC. The case is not if Rossi ever saw excess, it is about if Doral was the GPT and if that gave excess heat at the levels and length of times agreed to.

It reminds me of a magician that says "look over there " or " look here". People can go around and around about emissivity and desires for Nobel prizes but that doesn't have any effect on what happened in Doral in 2015-2016.

@oldguy

I actually think it is odd as well. Both Rossi and IH are putting great emphasis on the tests leading up to Doral. Darden apparently even felt it was necessary to try and influence that narrative, in what appears like an attempt to tamper with a potential witness. I think Darden felt like he needed to discredit those earlier tests, and the professors involved, to place IH in a stronger position before a jury with respect to the Doral test. And so it looks like he went about using his means and influence to do that.

Quote from IH Fanboy

in what appears like an attempt to tamper with a potential witness.

I believe this alleged event occurred before the lawsuit was filed, so the people were not "potential witnesses" to anything. You cannot tamper with a witness when there is no trial.

oldguy ,

It is the ace in the hole if the GPT succeeds in estoppel. IE: Even if the Doral Test was the GPT, it doesn't matter because it did not possibly perform as suggested if the reactors don't actually work.

IH probably also wants to know if any of these professors that supported a device that IH itself cannot operate is complicit in any sort of scheme, or if they are truly independent.

So far they all seem to be independent.

I don't know if Levi was actually threatened, but it was probably creepy and after years of harassment by crazy debunkers and supporters, got him worried. He was cautions enough to take photos. Using the word 'FUD', he demonstrates a suspicious characteristic, and possibly some reading of blogs, etc.

I don't suppose any of the Professors like being blabbed about on blogs, etc. while they almost always avoid any response.

Quote from JedRothwell

I believe this alleged event occurred before the lawsuit was filed, so the people were not "potential witnesses" to anything. You cannot tamper with a witness when there is no trial.

It appears that the alleged scheme was initiated in February, 2016, prior to the filing of the lawsuit, but then continued to play out well into 2016, after the lawsuit was filed. See Levi's sworn declaration.

Quote from Shane D.

Rossi accused IH of being incompetent, as they had been unsuccessful in replicating his tech, where the "Royal Academy of Sciences (Nobel dudes)", or who we understand as the Lugano profs, were successful. The implications being that if they could not do that right, they are a bunch of bumbling idiots not to be trusted with things, say...like the GPT

....not to be trusted with things, say...like the GPT.

Or maybe choosing Nobel Prizes? (not just to Rossi)...

Quote from Alan Smith

Judge Altonga thinks that it was a bad thing, however. Wrists were slapped.

I don't see that, yet. Are you sure you didn't fall into the [PROPOSED] trap, of thinking this was the Court's actual ruling?

Remember, every motion filed (by any party) MUST include the [PROPOSED] ruling that they hope to achieve. For Rossi, that is document 167-01.

I don't see any actual court order 'slapping wrists' from either judge. Yet.

(It's easy to miss the [PROPOSED], which has mislead many of us (including me at first).

There is a hearing scheduled for March 14, however, and I assume they will discuss this and rule on Rossi's motion for sanctions after that.

@sigmoidal

I think maybe what Alan was referring to (correct me if I'm wrong Alan) is the fact that the judge denied the motion to seal, thereby opening up the alleged misdeeds for all to see.

In the Motion for Sanctions (167) the Plaintiff asserts :

"Further, Weaver falsely represented that the reactor body was made from Durapot 810, as opposed to pure alumina."

When in the transcript (167.08) it reports:

"

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page 249

1 Q. Then you wrote: "As you may know, the

2 plug results came back 99 percent pure alumina and

3 did not match the reactor body, which was made from

4 Durapot 8 10.

5 How did you learn that?

6 A. Because I have the can that it was made

7 from and I talked to the person that made them.

8 Q. And who is that?

9 A. T. Barker Dameron.

10 Q. So T. Barker Dameron made the reactor

11 body?

12 A. Yes. And we have -- we still have some

13 of this Durapot 8 10.

.........................

From the WO2015127263 patent application we have:

_{27 August 2015 (27.08.2015)}

_{(72) Inventors: ROSSI, Andrea; 1331 Lincoln Rd., Apt. 601,}

_{Miami, Florida 33139 (US). DAMERON, Thomas Barker;}

_{336 White Oak Rd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27609}

_(US).

[0075] In some embodiments, an optional refractory layer 18 with supports 20 are positioned

around the resistance wires 16 to thereby hold the wires in position. As illustrated, the refractory layer

18 has a ribbed or finned surface, which may increase heat dissipation away from the reaction

chamber 12. It should be understood, however, that the refractory layer 18 may omit the ribbed or

finned surface, and may instead have a smooth, rough or other surface configuration. The refractory

layer 18 and supports 20 may be omitted in some embodiments. The refractory layer 18 may be

formed of a thermally conductive material and may be electrically resistant to reduce or prevent

shorting or arcing events. In some embodiments, the refractory layer 18, supports 20 and sealing

members 14 are formed of an alumina base. For example, an alumina base with volume resistivity o.f

1011 ohm-cm or better, dielectric strength of270 volts/mil or better, thermal expansion of 4.5 1O-6/defF

or lower, and thermal conductivity of 15 BTU-in/defF-Hr-ft2 or higher, such as Durapot™ 810

(Cotronics Corp., Brooklyn, NY (USA)), is suitable.

@Paradigmnoia

A few possibilities:

1) The reactor body (not the plugs) really was made of Durapot 8 10T, Dameron told Dewey that, and Dewey correctly stated that in his sworn testimony.

2) The reactor body was not made of Durapot 8 10T, Dameron told Dewey a fib, and Dewey correctly stated what he thought was true in his sworn testimony.

3) The reactor body was not made of Durapot 8 10T, Dameron told Dewey that, and Dewey unintentionally mis-spoke or did not remember correctly in his sworn testimony.

4) The reactor body was not made of Durapot 8 10T, Dameron told Dewey that, and Dewey perjured himself in his sworn testimony.

There might be others, but I think this captures the most likely ones.