Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Eric Walker

Doc. 245 and its attachments now on the docket.

Key take-home (new to me)

IH say Fabiani is potentially culpable because Penon relied on data sent tom him by Fabiani, which he thought was from his measurements, which in fact was from Fabiani's parallel measurements. So the ERV report is based on Fabiani's data not Penon's.

AFAIK there is evidence that Fabiani and Penon data was very similar, and no data to contradict this. So not sure that will fly, unless there is additional evidence I have missed or that has not yet been published. We get only small parts of the total deposition data.

Quote from JedRothwell

Not a chance. First, JMP never did any work. Second, There were no pipes going up from the pretend customer site, so if there was an exchanger, it was invisible. Also, as Smith wrote:

". . . When Mr. Murray and the author inspected the Doral site on 02 Mar 2017, we found absolutely no physical evidence that there had been a heat exchanger in the mezzanine.

There was no lighting, other than the windows, no electrical power (save two small junction boxes and some small conduit), no holes or patches where conduit and power boxes would have been mounted, no holes or patches where piping would have been supported, no hole patches in the floor or the drywall wall – in short, nothing. The only access to the mezzanine is a rickety wooden stairs, which the attorneys made this author climb first (load test) before they would use it.

The door to the mezzanine is about 22-1/2” wide by about 79” high. It would be extremely difficult to get equipment, piping, conduit, duct work, and the other items for such an installation up the narrow, rickety stairs and through that narrow door into the mezzanine. The other alternative would have been to remove one of the window assemblies and rig the equipment from the west parking lot up into the mezzanine. The building owner may have records of this being done, or the rigging company surely would have purchase orders and invoices for that work. . . ."

Plus he points to the photos showing glass in the window.

Display More

OK, I was not aware of the "no holes for pipes" evidence. That looks good, and makes no heat exchanger more likely.

I'm suggesting Rossi may have piped some hot water up there and done something with it - not that he had the stated heat exchanger. I'm not insisting on this. But it is atypical for Rossi to make statements which are outright lies instead of things that mislead but can be twisted into something sort of true.

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK, I was not aware of the "no holes for pipes" evidence.

That's because there is no evidence. There is a Smith-says in a report with no substantiation about the "no holes" statement, a statement that was not made under oath. Jed takes everything fed to him by IH as absolute fact, without question.

Jed even continues to believe things (i.e., DN40 exit pipe) even after Dewey himself backed off from the claim. He might even continue to believe it still. I've never seen him retract his past statements on this, other than to say it doesn't matter now. But that really isn't an honest retraction.

How does the water temperature drop to 58 to 70°C when in that box?

Daily FPL data now in the docket, in 245-16

Whilst you are correct overall, I think this is misleading you:

Quote from THHuxleynew

As I say I think the 200 (you'd need Spanish to check) is taking the area as the rod cross-section to the wind, rather than the total rod surface.

Your barking up the wrong tree - that's not how these things work*... 200 W/m2/K is a easily reachable value with a smaller diameter pipe, just not a ridiculously large one like Rossi's

*admittedly I don't speak Spanish, but they aren't going to be reinventing the wheel.

Quote from IH Fanboy

That's because there is no evidence. There is a Smith-says in a report with no substantiation about the "no holes" statement, a statement that was not made under oath. Jed takes everything fed to him by IH as absolute fact, without question.

Jed even continues to believe things (i.e., DN40 exit pipe) even after Dewey himself backed off from the claim. He might even continue to believe it still. I've never seen him retract his past statements on this, other than to say it doesn't matter now. But that really isn't an honest retraction.

That is funny. There is no evidence that there are no holes.

That is how low this discussion has sunk.

The even more hilarious thing is IHFB keeps demanding evidence and want absolute facts and not hearsay and yet Rossi produces no proof that his eCat works and people believe him. Go figure.

Quote from IH Fanboy

That's because there is no evidence. There is a Smith-says in a report with no substantiation about the "no holes" statement, a statement that was not made under oath.

You are off on another lunatic tangent here. Let's go over this:

I.H. paid Smith to write a report submitted as evidence in discovery.

Rossi's lawyers are fighting tooth and to exclude it. If, as you say, this isn't evidence, why would they bother to do that? For that matter, why would I.H. pay for it?

Smith has been an expert witness in several trials, as shown on his C.V. If this trial is held, no doubt he will be called. What are you predicting will happen? Do you think he will repudiate his own report?

When Smith examined the equipment and the mezzanine, he was accompanied by I.H. attorneys, as he noted in the report. These people also saw there were no holes in the mezzanine floor or walls; no electrical outlets large enough, and so on. They are not engineers, but these observations can be verified by anyone. So, the attorneys know that Smith is telling the truth. They would not have paid him if he were lying. They would not call him to the stand. If he were lying, and there were holes in the room, Rossi's lawyers could easily prove that, with photographs and witnesses. So, there is no chance he is lying.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Jed takes everything fed to him by IH as absolute fact, without question.

How do you know what sources of information I have? I got Rossi's data from him long before you saw it.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

The even more hilarious thing is IHFB keeps demanding evidence and want absolute facts and not hearsay and yet Rossi produces no proof that his eCat works and people believe him. Go figure.

That's right. I base my views from evidence and not hearsay. I've never said that I "believe" Rossi--nor anything like it. I believe the evidence, if it is good. If there is good evidence for LENR (which there is), then I believe it. If there is good evidence for NiH LENR (which there is), then I believe it. If there is good evidence for Rossi's NiH LENR (which there is some, but still many question left remaining, and a big cloud of uncertainty at this point), then I would (theoretically) believe it. When I say it, I mean the evidence, not a person.

Road Map

I *Thought* everything was now in regarding the motions for summary judgement ... but they keep coming, AND their docket numbers don't make sense.

Road Map Status as of 4/13/17

203 : IH Motion for Summary Judgement

207: IH Statements of support

.. 238 : AR response

.... 253: IH response to AR 238

....... 254 : AR response to IH 207 and IH (???) "Additional Facts"

.. 243: 3rd Party Response

... 256 IH Opposition to 243 3rd Party Response

214 : AR Motion for Partial Summary Judgement

.. 236 : IH response wrt Statements of Material Fact

.. 237 : IH response to MSJ

242 : 3rd Party MSJ

.. 244: IH response to MSJ 242

.. 245 IH response to Statements of Material fact in 242

.... 255 : 3rd Party in support of 3rd Party 242 and in opposition to IH 245

A couple of side-shows, via the magistrate

197 : IH Motion to exclude Wong

.. 233: AR Response

215 : AR Motion to exclude Murray, Smith

.. 235: IH Response

167: AR Motion for sanctions (unfair practices)

194: IH Motion on Spoilation

These are on the agenda for a hearing with the magistrate judge on 4/20 .. per 232 : http://coldfusioncommunity.net…_Rossi_hearing_notice.pdf

My guess is that the side-shows will run their course with the magistrate, who may refer some of them to the judge.

Once those are settled, some adjustments may be needed to the MSJ's and responses.

Otherwise, I think the judge can rule on the MSJs ... and the case will either be over or go to trial.

Smith's second report (Document 235-10) confirms what I said about the reservoir tank. It is open to the atmosphere. Therefore, it must have a gravity return pipe from the pretend customer site. No other kind would work. It cannot be full because even if we believe the flow meter, the flow is much smaller than the capacity of this pipe in a gravity (unpressurized) flow.

Smith wrote on p. 8:

"For any liquid or gas to flow, there MUST be a pressure difference. Fluid flow will always be from the higher pressure area to the lower pressure area. Recall that the alleged steam was being generated at atmospheric pressure (0 barg, or 0 PSIG). If the pressure drop from the E-Cat to the black box was 0.5 PSI, then the piping in the black box must have been in a vacuum. This is problem number one.

The condensate return line from the black box back to the E-Cat dumps into a tank in the middle of the ECat box. This tank is eventually vented to atmosphere. So, the pressure in the condensate return tank is atmospheric, or 0 barg. If the steam supply and the condensate return in the E-Cat are at atmospheric pressure, and the pressure in the serpentine coil in the black box is in a vacuum, there is absolutely no way that there will be any steam flow between the two boxes, regardless of pipe size. Problem number two."

This is also where he confirmed that black box is nothing but a strange radiator, with a serpentine coil. It does not have to be a particularly good radiator, because it is huge and it only needs to lose 10 or 20 kW (depending on which version of Rossi's data you believe).

Quote from Alan Fletcher

215 : AR Motion to exclude Murray, Smith

xxx: IH Response?

Document 235.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ DAUBERT MOTION
TO STRIKE AND EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…position_to_Rossi_215.pdf

This is the one IH Fanboy evidently thinks does not exist. He should prove it does not exist!

Quote from IH Fanboy

That's right. I base my views from evidence and not hearsay. I've never said that I "believe" Rossi--nor anything like it. I believe the evidence, if it is good. If there is good evidence for LENR (which there is), then I believe it. If there is good evidence for NiH LENR (which there is), then I believe it. If there is good evidence for Rossi's NiH LENR (which there is some, but still many question left remaining, and a big cloud of uncertainty at this point), then I would (theoretically) believe it. When I say it, I mean the evidence, not a person.

So would you throw out Penon's report since he did not take the data himself but based it only on hearsay? Even the data he claimed to base the report on that Rossi gave him seems not to be from Fabiani's devices and not Penon's.

Quote from JedRothwell

Document 235.

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ DAUBERT MOTION
TO STRIKE AND EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…position_to_Rossi_215.pdf

This is the one IH Fanboy evidently thinks does not exist. He should prove it does not exist!

Display More

Jed, you ought not to talk about things for which you know nothing about.

For those who might be wondering what Jed is referring to, you can gain an understanding here:

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

Quote from IHSupporter

So would you throw out Penon's report since he did not take the data himself but based it only on hearsay? Even the data he claimed to base the report on that Rossi gave him seems not to be from Fabiani's devices and not Penon's.

Evidence will be tested, including recorded data, assuming this goes to trial. Expert opinion reports themselves that are made by paid expert witnesses not under oath will not be admitted at trial. But their opinions will come through in their testimony.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Evidence will be tested, including recorded data, assuming this goes to trial. Expert opinion reports themselves that are made by paid expert witnesses not under oath will not be admitted at trial. But their opinions will come through in their testimony.

Again, by your standards, do you consider Penon's report hearsay since it is based solely on what Rossi gave him (and perhaps 4 flow totals on a meter known to be out of it spec range)

Quote from Alan Fletcher

Road Map

I *Think* everything is now in regarding the motions for summary judgement

203 : IH Motion for Summary Judgement

207: IH Statements of support

.. 238 : AR response

.. 243: 3rd Party Response

214 : AR Motion for Partial Summary Judgement

.. 236 : IH response wrt Statements of Material Fact

.. 237 : IH response to MSJ

242 : 3rd Party MSJ

.. 244: IH response

A couple of side-shows, via the magistrate

197 : IH Motion to exclude Wong

.. 233: AR Response

215 : AR Motion to exclude Murray, Smith

.. 235: IH Response

167: AR Motion for sanctions (unfair practices)

.. 180 Order denying as improper (send to magistrate)

194: IH Motion on Spoilation

My guess is that the side-shows will run their course with the magistrate, who may refer some of them to the judge.

Once those are settled, some adjustments may be needed to the MSJ's and responses.

Otherwise, I think the judge can rule on the MSJs ... and the case will either be over or go to trial.

Display More

What I don't understand is why no IH motion for spoliation. Can they not do this with the magistrate having been refused on procedural grounds by the judge?

If successful it would change the odds for the MSJs quite a bit. But, maybe they cannot do this?

IH Motion for spoilation is in 194. http://coldfusioncommunity.net…_Motion_for_Sanctions.pdf

There is neither (that I can see) an order ruling it improper (as in Rossi's motion for sanctions), nor a response by Rossi. It's addressed to the Court, not the magistrate judge, so I don't know what its status is.

Edit : there's no mention of 194 in their motion to dismiss. The "spoilation" isn't specifically mentioned in their motion for summary judgement 203 http://coldfusioncommunity.net…_for_Summary_Judgment.pdf .. it's just listed in their supporting facts 207 http://coldfusioncommunity.net…ndants_support_of_MSJ.pdf p 16, items 104,105

So I take 194 to be abandoned. All that's left is the magistrate's (?) ruling on whether to admit or exclude the expert witnesses. I don't see any hearings scheduled for these. My guess is that he will admit all of them, in which case the MSJ's can go to the judge.

Edit : and the expert's reports are NOT admissible. The experts would have to testify to individual aspects in them (or additional facts/opinions NOT in them), and would then be cross-examined.

194 does not appear abandoned - it is on the slate for a 4/20 hearing with the magistrate per doc 232.

It was previously ruled improper (along with Rossi's motion for sanctions) in doc 216, with the comment that both motions/disputes should first be raised with magistrate, and only then filed as a motion either at direction of magistrate or as an appeal of magistrate's decision.