# Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

• This post is why I find IHFB's comments here duplicitous.

It is just 100% false in its conclusion. I'd hope that IHFB you will read the analysis below and take it back.

Let us suppose that Rossi has his average 20kW of electrical heating power, and he is controlling the system (both its plumbing and the heater control) with aim of of getting:

measured ~100C on output-side TC

measured flowrate of 1800m^3/h.

measured 60C (or so) in tank.

Let us also suppose that his device produces no excess power, and see how difficult is Rossi's job, given all the facts we now have. IHFB claims that these readings (and other facts, see below) would together be highly unlikely.

Quite the reverse.

Let us deal first with this issue of phase change. Were I Rossi, wanting to obtain these measurements, I would absolutely require some phase change. You can stabilise temperature at just above 100C (how much above depends on pressure, which depends on flow rate and plumbing) by ensuring there is some phase change around the position of the TC. 3kW of boiling (a UK kettle) is more than enough or this delivering plenty of steam and vapour liquid in equilibrium at the desired temperature. Of course equilibrium is NOT required, and in general not exist. But this constant temperature tells me that local to the TC we have vapour/liquid in equilibrium (think of a kettle spout output being contained and measured). We get this from a few kW of our 20kW.

IHFB sees vapour as evidence for massive excess heat because he assumes that some large proportion (even 10% would do) of the claimed flowrate is vapourised and stays vapour going to the customer area. there is no evidence for that, and were I Rossi with his remit, I would happily get steam and the claimed temperatures with 99% of the flow liquid at 100C (because in equilibrium with vapour).

It is true that I (with my non-working device) cannot get true measurements of both flowrate, and 100C and 60C. But I am creative with the plumbing and I notice at least two different ways in which I get my required measurements.

(a) the flowmeter is 1/4-full with water and massively over-reads. Known charactersitic of this flowmeter, and enough to provide the factor of 4 bogus increase in flowrate. Arranging this is pretty easy - all it needs is meter in the return pipe and reverse pressure from gravity or pump preventing tank water from filling up the meter. Is there any credible evidence here saying this does not happen? RossiSays on any technical matter are clearly not credible.

(b) the condensate in the return pipe does not feed into the main tank which has temperature measured. Instead it feeds into a smaller, inner, tank separated from the reservoir and held at a much higher temperature. I personally would not choose this method - it is too obviously bogus. I'd worry somone competent noticed. But then I am not Rossi, and he seems capable of preventing competent people from seeing the system. Also I'd need to remove the plumbing before it could be independently checked. Tick. And I'd need to change the plumbing from any system provided by IH and competently designed. Tick.

Maybe after I have read all the evidence now available i could distinguish between these two? Maybe somone else here cam do that. But likely the evidence we do have of spoliation means we just cannot - and both remain possible.

Coming back to the point about steam. There is a lot of indirect evidence that 1MW was not produced. But there can be no indirect evidence that say COP=6 (which would pass the GPT test, were this the GPT) was not produced. A bit more vapour pushed to the customer area and condensed there would do that. Equally there is no evidence that happened. IHFB's polemic cleverness here is in continually taking this "no evidence" scenario and spinning it against IH. I'm writing this post because he has made a mistake. He is claiming above (incorrectly) that the existence of steam makes strong positive evidence for excess heat.

No evidence of COP excess, and no evidence against COP=6, cannot be averaged out to mean a good probability of COP >> 1. There is massive amounts of indirect evidence that Rossi does not have usable COP of even 2, because if he had this it would be very big news, highly commercial (anyone know how to change COP=2 into COP=infinity? It is not that hard!), and Rossi would get his 89.5m from IH, if he wanted it, even with no GPT. IH would have a goldmine.

I sort of agree that a persistent pattern of Rossi being an inveterate liar who prevents anyone competent and independent from checking his demos, and misleads others as naturally as he breathes, does not prove they don't work. Count it as weak negative evidence. But it does nullify any apparent positive evidence from past demos. Rossi with an unusual chance of getting big money from IH, which he clearly wants, and refusing to help them get working equipment, is strong negative evidence.

Regards, THH

• I wonder if there's a manual or discussion somewhere on the Internet in the manner of the Anarchist's Cookbook that goes into how to trick flow meters, whose recommendations parallel some of what we know about the Doral setup (other than the discussion in this site). Theoretically it's possible to read the manuals for the instruments, do whatever they tell you not to do, and then carry out some testing to make sure the instrument is giving incorrect readings. But it would be much faster and easier simply to consult a guide of some kind.

• Eric (sorry for the Erik misspelling above), I think it was you who stated that important context was omitted:

I should have said in reply to your comment: I think the comment I was responding to was from Roger, not Forty-Two. Not an important point, but it was probably confusing for Forty-Two.

• Both sides come out of this looking and sounding like they are up to no good.

I went back to look at my "Cutting Through the Fog" post from a year ago at ECW. I have not gone through all of these court documents thoroughly, but I still don't understand the motivation behind much of Darden's and IH's actions (and inactions) and in my mind most of the questions I raised in that post still stand. At some point, their line about "if it only has a 1% chance to work" just doesn't pass the smell test.

Darden says they knew from the beginning that the 1MW test wouldn't be reliable due to the changes Rossi made to the configuration of the plant after it arrived. And even before that, he was allegedly faced with other examples of Rossi's problematic relationship with the truth (like Rossi saying the Russians stole the charge from a reactor). And yet...Darden still forked over all that money to keep the test going. He still put up with Rossi's refusal to let Murray inspect the plant. And those are just two of many examples.

I can understand your view here. I think it is shared by many. And I also think it comes from a lack of appreciation of what (plausibly) is Darden's position, as I lay out below.

Darden is looking for an unlikely (LENR?) Holy Grail that will save the world. It is the sort of thing a risk-taker will do. He knows that Rossi has a credible link to real LENR research that seems as good as any (Focardi/Piantelli). He knows that no-one can agree what is the right approach to get LENR, and cannot exclude the possibility that a rogue inventor, no matter how duplicitous and paranoid, has succeeded.

Rossi's many early tests were ingenious. Some completely bamboozled observers such as Jed and others. I guess you may remember the "Samovar heat after death" experiment discussed in minute detail on Mats' thread before he did not like the conclusion and shut it down. Mats revealed there a number of credible scientific observers unable to see how it could work without LENR, although there is a known mechanism (the so-called hot core heat storage idea). These things leave a no smoke without fire impression in most people's minds. Experts disagreeing make it look as though maybe the results are real.

That, and also the Lugano results, apparently independent and competently done, would weight very strongly on Darden's mind. Could he possibly refuse to back Rossi even when the overall chances are low? And if there is even a 1% chance of Rossi's stuff being real that would mean saving the world now, rather than in 10 years time. A gamble worth taking.

It is like betting on a stock. Having put money into it, psychologically, we find it difficult to abandon that initial hope, given contrary evidence. So we keep the money in even when we know it is unwise. Darden is I guess too sophisticated to do this with normal investments but in the special once on a lifetime case here you can see how he might, and therefore continue backing Rossi enough to keep him on board until 100% sure that the stuff he had given them could never be got to work. At the same time he would know that he was supping with the devil and try to give himself as long a spoon as possible.

• If Darden is so correct, why he sent a person wholly ignorant of the facts to speak in his place?

Choosing a 30(b)(6) deponent who does not have much knowledge of the affairs of the corporation is recommended under certain circumstances:

Quote

Among the most important decisions the company and its counsel must make is who to produce to testify on a designated topic. The choices are many--almost limitless under the rule--and usually, the company selects an employee who is most knowledgeable about the case and the topic on which testimony is sought.

You may want to rethink that choice.

(Link also provided by someone earlier on in this thread, or maybe Abd?)

Choosing a 30(b)(6) deponent whose knowledge is limited to what they've been briefed to answer avoids a situation where the deponent gives out information that goes beyond the questions of the deposition. Give credit to/blame Jones Day for this move. Apparently the strategy has its own risks, as we saw in the present case.

• So if there was water under a bit of pressure, and slightly above sea level boiling point, then it would leak as steam.

If steam were going 30 m to the upstairs mezzanine, and the pipe itself was not creating a restriction (who knows about the restriction of the custom radiator thing built from tubes), then a DN200 pipe would seem appropriate.

note if the there was an upstairs (say 10 feet above ground level) the water pressure in the pipe due to the added height of the water would be 1.3 bars at the bottom. (bp about 107C)(

• I wonder if there's a manual or discussion somewhere on the Internet in the manner of the Anarchist's Cookbook that goes into how to trick flow meters, whose recommendations parallel some of what we know about the Doral setup (other than the discussion in this site). Theoretically it's possible to read the manuals for the instruments, do whatever they tell you not to do, and then carry out some testing to make sure the instrument is giving incorrect readings.

Yes! Read the manual and then do whatever it warns you not to do, I described this method months ago, and I meant it.

There are real-life examples of things like computer fraud and other financial fraud done by that method. A crooked computer accountant knows the "best practices," and he will claim he is following them, but secretly he is not.

I have a book about investing and fraud with a chapter that quotes Bernie Madoff describing how to avoid getting defrauded. This was written about a year before he was caught. As I recall, he says you shouldn't worry about a Ponzi scheme because modern accounting prevents it. He was telegraphing his punches -- telling people not to worry about the technique that he himself was using, like the pick-pocket in the movie "Casablanca" saying "vultures, vultures everywhere."

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

• SSC "So at least one requirement of the GPT (the most important one, that is COP over 4) has been achieved."

I view the most important one is that it had to be agreed to in writing and started within a year to show that it was ready for commercialization. People often overlook the time restraints.

• Darden is I guess too sophisticated to do this with normal investments but in the special once on a lifetime case here you can see how he might, and therefore continue backing Rossi enough to keep him on board until 100% sure that the stuff he had given them could never be got to work.

Except that the court documents seem to establish that Darden believed the results of the Florida test could not be trusted given Rossi's alterations to the apparatus. And he believed this before the test started. So even if he thought there was a 1% chance it could work, he apparently believed there was no way to determine if it worked at all. So it just doesn't add up. Or am I missing something?

• Except that the court documents seem to establish that Darden believed the results of the Florida test could not be trusted given Rossi's alterations to the apparatus. And he believed this before the test started. So even if he thought there was a 1% chance it could work, he apparently believed there was no way to determine if it worked at all. So it just doesn't add up. Or am I missing something?

I think so. The Florida test could be allowed for one of the following reasons:

(1) If the customer were real, regardless of measurements, it is validation

(2) To deny Rossi this would cause him to go off the deep end and if their reactors can be got to work anyhow keeping Rossi sweet is important

(3) (contributory to (1) or (2). The money spent on the test is much smaller than \$10.5M. They might as well see through a thorough "crushing the tests" in their in-house testing keeping open the possibility of backing Rossi should things prove good by giving him what he asks for.

(4) Note that having signed the contract they have to continue with the test, or break contract. That could only be justified by accusing Rossi of fraud and legal action something i doubt IH would want to initiate...

I don't see that trusting Rossi's measurements - something no-one in their right mind would do - enters into this.

• P&F were forthcoming and open in all of their procedures, testing methodology and measurement protocols, this is where fault was found with their results.

Rossi has done none of this, because if he did, the entire Ecat charade would have ended the same month it started.

Just like the P&F charade was ended the same month it started, right?

• IHFB,

Flee, avoid, evade, duck, dodge and hide,

SOP for most on the Ecat side of the ledger.

I suggest you put together an investment consortium, purchase an Ecat from Rossi and start printing money.

But you won't do that because?

Simple, you don't believe the Ecat produces Energy Out > Energy In any more than anyone else, you just like to argue.

• I find it strange that Rossi said the "testing" in Fl was to supply a customer (we learn now that is himself) for 2 years. Yet when the 350 days were over the customer leaves (taking all the pipes with him). If the low cost heat was good for a customer to manufacture and if the customer agreed to 2 years, why did he leave?

The obvious answer is the whole customer thing was an attempt to defraud IH and never intended to go the claimed 2 years.

• No, there wasn't. See document 215-03, starting on p. 167. Learn something about thermodynamics and steam.

Except that Murray says exactly the opposite--that the water could not have been in liquid form.

"·9· Q.· · Can you have liquid water that is 101 degrees

10·Celsius at zero pressure?

11· A.· · If zero pressure, give -- which pressure?

12· Q.· · Relative.

13· A.· · Relative.· No, you wouldn't normally have

14·that, but --

15· Q.· · What about gauge?

16· A.· · That's the same.· Relative is --

17· Q.· · Okay.

18· A.· · Absolute?

19· Q.· · What about absolute?· Sorry.

20· A.· · Oh, you could -- you would not have at a, at

21·a pressure of zero absolute, your water would absolutely

22·be a gas.

23· Q.· · Okay.· And so at relative or absolute, or

24·gauge or absolute, water could not be at the temperature

25·of 101 degrees Celsius in the liquid form --·1· A.· · So we --

·2· Q.· · -- correct?

·3· A.· · Well, I would have to look at the

·4·thermodynamic tables and look at exactly what the, the

·5·state is.· We don't know what the flow rate is.· We know

·6·what a temperature is, and we know we have a pressure

·7·measurement that is outside of the operational range of

·8·the pressure transducer.

·9· Q.· · Sir, I'm, I'm asking you, if you have zero

10·relative pressure or zero absolute pressure, whether

11·water can exist in its liquid form at 101 degrees C.

12· A.· · No."

215-03, pages 171-172

Murray then complained that you would have to have a vacuum on the other side. (Wow, think we have been here before.) Rossi testified that there was a pump on the other side. Murray testified of an irritating noise in the lab (probably the pump).

• I am surprised of no discussion followup on the issue of "spoilation" and adverse interpretation. From a legal standpoint, it now appears established that Rossi dissassembled and/or destroyed portions of the apparatus on both sides of the warehouse at the end of the test. This is the "spoilation" of evidence. This is very bad for Rossi's case. That causes the court to be required by law to interpret evidence for things that can no longer be shown due to the "spoilation" to be legally interpreted "adverse" to the Plaintiff (Rossi) and in the favor of the Defendant (IH). If the spoilation changed or affected the position of the flow meter, then the flow meter results must be legally interpreted in favor of the Defendant (IH), for example. How can any Rossi supporter defend this behavior?

Rossi's lawyers could have told him this. Did Rossi do this against the advice of his council (which apparently he had engaged before the end of his test)? No matter what, the "spoilation" of the devices in the 1MW plant and the JMP apparatus is evidence of deception, if not outright fraud. There would be some justification on the basis of this to pursue criminal fraud charges.

Remember, as I have said before, Ni-H LENR is not on trial here. The outcome of the trial will provide no evidence of whether Ni-H LENR is real. In fact, it will likely not even say whether Rossi's devices (some or all) produce excess heat. The outcome will only determine whether IH owes Rossi for the completion of the contract.

• Can you show the whole building and identify which unit you are referring to?

I think you are looking at the wrong unit.

• note if the there was an upstairs (say 10 feet above ground level) the water pressure in the pipe due to the added height of the water would be 1.3 bars at the bottom. (bp about 107C)(

Not if you formed a vacuum with two big fans at the end of the pipe work blowing heat out a window, and a pump pumping the condensate back to the plant.

• Except that Murray says exactly the opposite--that the water could not have been in liquid form.

Except that the section of transcript you quote from Murray appears to be considering the hypothetical situation where the 0 pressure reading from the data is accurate, which is a detail that is in dispute.

• I wonder if there's a manual or discussion somewhere on the Internet in the manner of the Anarchist's Cookbook that goes into how to trick flow meters, whose recommendations parallel some of what we know about the Doral setup (other than the discussion in this site). Theoretically it's possible to read the manuals for the instruments, do whatever they tell you not to do, and then carry out some testing to make sure the instrument is giving incorrect readings. But it would be much faster and easier simply to consult a guide of some kind.

Probably no cookbook, but I did once suggest a sort of COPolymipics, for real, fake, positive, and negative COP demonstrations. The results could be compiled into a sort of journal.

• I suggest you put together an investment consortium, purchase an Ecat from Rossi and start printing money.

But you won't do that because?

I don't know, if the Quark X is put on the market, and it works, I might just do that. Thanks for the suggestion!