Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • As far as not haveing to read this thread I understand that but I also learn lots of stuff about the operating system of the ecat weather it works or not. What is frustrating is reading through all the fighting I just don't understand the guys that spend so much time trying to convince me it doesn't work I mean who cares if I think it might be possibles? Leave me alone and let it be! ok you are right it does not and can not ever work you win now leave me alone. Let me be a loser and continue to hope it does is that really that bad . Now go away you win

  • Easter and Passover have been on the calendar for a long long time. It should not have surprised them

    I agree on the holiday part, that probably should not be considered.


    However, surgery I would think, is a valid reason and often unexpected. It would be hard to criticize this point unless it was some minor cosmetic procedure such

    as having a mole removed. I do not know what the issue was, but certainly hope it is not serious.


    The magistrate did rule that the IPH deposition was not detailed enough and ordered a redo. Although this has been known for a bit of time, it probably is logical that this point will at least be considered.


    The other issues brought up are harder to discern, as I do not have a legal background and they are all legal posturing.


    I would think that there is some likelihood that the extension will be granted and we may have to wait a bit longer.

  • I understood that the spoliation hearing will be 4/20. That will be interesting.

    I cannot see how the only outcome is an outright dismissal of Rossi's case due to spoliation.


    The definition of spoliation is :

    "The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding."


    Rossi filed the lawsuit BEFORE he removed all the equipment to my understanding, so he knew it was legal evidence.


    Rossi certainly intentionally removed the equipment. One does not remove pipes, steam traps etc. by accident. If the heat exchanger actually existed (almost certain it did not) that was a major task that had to be done intentionally. Especially when done during the night! At best this would be considered reckless.


    Rossi destroyed data files, emails and other evidence as well according to some documents.


    My understanding is that spoliation of evidence means that it will be taken by the court that that evidence that was from removed or destroyed "items", is a negative of evidence. I.E. If a flow meter was removed / destroyed, then the court will consider any evidence provided by the party that the flowmeter contributed is now negative towards the case. So if Penon recorded X liters per hour from the meter and the meter was removed. those values will be construed as not true in court. Not simply as "unproven" but actually "untrue"!


    So Rossi's lawsuit was that he was not paid for a successful GPT. The GPT by definition was that it has to meet certain requirements measured by the ERV.

    Since Rossi removed / destroyed all measuring devices, steam traps, pipes, flow meters, thermometers, etc., none of the data in Penon's report can be used as evidence OR the report will be viewed as "untrue". Therefore Rossi's lawsuit will be forfeited as there cannot be a payment due without a valid GPT. The GPT will be ruled invalid because there is no data supporting it. The data will not be allowed because Rossi removed/destroyed the measuring equipment and other items such as pipes.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence


    This is my understanding of spoliation, although I certainly am not legally trained, I see no other outcome.

  • Watching, as usual.


    Personally, I would not dream of banning Jed unless he went much further overboard than he currently does, he is most welcome here. As a long-time observer and documenter of the whole field of LENR he is a kind of national treasure - a treasure who uses his real name, too. I understand that Jed is possibly almost as grouchy as I can be, though less grouchy than some, and that he gets frustrated when other people fail to see things in the same light as he does. Natural enough since he feels he is working from a sound knowledge base about the situation between Rossi and IH. So long as he doesn't start threatening to launch munitions at those who hold opposing points of view he is safer here than some I won't mention.


    The very last thing this forum needs to be is an echo-chamber for one point of view on Rossi - or indeed anything else. There are other forums for that. Disparate points of view are acceptable, always. Bullying, doxxing, trolling, insulting, threatening, - all banning offences usually after several warnings, but a little grumpiness is mostly acceptable.



    Alan, IMHO this is a blatant double standard. No matter what Jed's qualifications he passed "grumpiness" ages ago. I've taken to passing by his posts mostly just because they are so repetitive and so derogatory. Like IHF suggested they seem to have taken on an element of desperation, which makes me wonder even more if he has some sort of concealed self interest in IH prevailing, and in Rossi failing, which coincidentally leaves IH in possession of his IP, which, oddly, they somehow continue to value despite their many protestations that it is worthless (sorry for the long sentence). I took the time during my recent banning to read up on the depositions posted on the internet.


    Rossi's actions certainly contain an element of "strangely transparent" duplicity, which IMHO opinion belies the assertion that he attempted in fact to hide much of anything. Perhaps he was just imitating IH's convoluted shell game with investors to try and lend more credibility to the positive outcome of the test by having a "so called", customer for validation. I think the actions of both sides stink to high heaven, but I'm also experienced enough to know this is more or less acceptable in the area of venture capital and big business in general. There may be high ideals practiced in the sciences, but free enterprise is and always has been a messy business. All seems considered to be fair in love, war and business.


    I'm not attempting to hide my identity. My name is Mike Rion and I am a retired real estate broker and developer in Southern California. I'm not a scientist and therefore unqualified to challenge the likes of Jed on matters of flow meters and calorimetry, but I am a mature, successful professional. I have participated in many civil trials related to real estate and development and that just may make me more qualified in judging how a normal jury might view the information presented to them at trial. IMHO if the attorneys get off into the weeds about the credibility of either party, neither will fare well in the end. To my way of thinking this boils down to the reliability of the test information and whether the 1year test (GPT) was actually the agreed upon standard for payment.


    It seems obvious to me that Rossi considered it so and went to an incredible amount of effort to make it successful. Despite AEG's (contrived and coordinated?) refusal to sign I think IH's failure to officially deny the fact in writing goes in Rossi's favor. As a prospective Juror I think I might conclude this was example of a powerful big business entity trying to take advantage of a poor hard working inventor who seems more interested in his legacy, success and recognition than in the money. I also think that the question of whether the technology actually works is a reasonably small part of this trial, and if either side tries to make it so it will result in the jury losing interest in the proceedings. It's just too technical for most lay people.

    • Official Post

    Rossi's actions certainly contain an element of "strangely transparent" duplicity, which IMHO opinion belies the assertion that he attempted in fact to hide much of anything. Perhaps he was just imitating IH's convoluted shell game with investors to try and lend more credibility to the positive outcome of the test by having a "so called", customer for validation.


    That's a good one Rion! Bet we see that phrase "transparent duplicity" on JONP soon. :)

  • After some discussion on ECW regarding the Fabiani data found in 236-43, I looked at my "heat water from tank T to boil + boil water" column in my ERV data examination spreadsheet and it is extremely close in most cases to the COP that Fabiani reported (however he has two amounts, one for each half day). My spreadsheet uses the full water flow amount, not the 10% discounted amount.

    Therefore the L flowed that Fabiani used can be calculated from his data, and compared to the ERV amount before discounting 10% of the water reported flowed.

    That printout is so crappy that I shudder at the idea of manually stuffing it all into a spreadsheet, though.

  • The "closed windows" discussion is hitting someone's nerves.

    From JONP:

    Damn, the Google street-view car apparently just drove by when Rossi closed the window for a moment ^^

    Yes, another painful sock puppet post, but probably still believable to those who really hope against hope that it is real. AR at least gets better at what he does over time--he grows and alters approach to give a more effective presentation. ;) The question is can the puppet master and his puppets put on a good enough show to convince a jury or will he be revealed as the clown and snake he is? (he, he, he)

  • For an excellent writer with an impeccable understanding of the English language who maintained a high standard of online posts for many years, this type of banter (even in response to a statement you strongly disagree with) doesn't seem to match you're previous standard.

    Another concern troll! I am unworthy of your attention, o mighty one.

  • Although much of the total heating COP reported by Fabiani is similar to the ERV for the same day, there are large inconsistencies also.

    The beginning of August is particularly different from that calculated from ERV report, while the latter half is similar.

  • The energy supplied in the ERV report seems to be equal to the two combined 12 hour segments from Fabiani data for one day, in all the cases that I checked so far...

    So that means the Fabiani kg/L water are in disagreement with the ERV report values, since the steam superheating energy is almost insignificant compared to the total COP, and the heating water to boil energy has a small effect, not the large ones (higher) that I see so far.

  • Rossi filed the lawsuit BEFORE he removed all the equipment to my understanding, so he knew it was legal evidence.


    I don't think this is correct. Rossi's initial complaint was filed on April 5, 2016. The test finished up in late February, and he has testified that he dismantled the heat exchanger soon after the test was completed. So he had a little over a month to dismantle the exchanger before IH failed to pay and well over a month before the lawsuit was filed. You could make an argument that dismantling without documenting its existence was stupid, but I don't think you can say it was destruction of evidence since there was no legal filing at that point. It has been obvious to me from the beginning that this spoliation claim has no legs. As for the destruction of data, I'm not so sure. My sense is that the spoliation claims will be rejected, and the case will proceed to trial.

  • The IH lawyers were there on the 17th of Feb, 2016 and the water meter was involved in some sort of dispute on that day and finally photographed.

    The Plant was padlocked shut.

    So I am sure that Rossi knew there was trouble brewing long before the ERV report was finalized.

  • So I am sure that Rossi knew there was trouble brewing long before the ERV report was finalized.


    For sure he knew that trouble was brewing. That's clear as daylight. But I don't think it can legally be considered spoliation if there was no case filed or no official notification from lawyers to not destroy evidence.

  • My rule is that if I feel that the "tone" of a particular forum upsets my fee-fees, I avoid it. OTOH, as a sentient human being, I am quite capable of ignoring tone and attending to content (if any)


    I reckon the moderation here is about as even-handed as it gets on the internet; although there are certainly more Rossi-LENR-skeptics than Rossi-LENR-believers, so I can understand the believers feeling somewhat embattled at times.


    FTR, I have no sympathy with either side. IH are in a risky business (most VCs expect fewer than 1 in 10 of their investments to pay off), and if they choose to be deficient in due diligence, or to ignore the results of due diligence, that's their problem. Same goes for Woodford. Similarly, if they choose to write sloppy agreements, and monitor progress sloppily, and indulge the tantrums of their pet inventor, they will suffer for it.


    OTOH, if Rossi tells such a ridiculous farrago of lies about "customers" and ecats sold; and fails to keep proper documentation of his methods, apparatus, and results, he cannot expect to profit from his activities

  • (From JONP)

    Prof

    April 13, 2017 at 10:34 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    The so called ventriloquist of Raleigh now is making his puppets say that the window you indicated to be the exhaust of hot air was closed and therefore it could not work: a colossal stupidity, since in your deposition and in the deposition of prof Wong has been clearly said that:

    A- the window and its glasses were removable

    B- you used to change the output configuration depending on the necessities of the excess heat

    Note: they did not present a series of many photos like that, made in different dates,but just one, meaning they did not find the window closed in other moments: which meaning can have the fact that the window was closed for several moments, out of billions of moments? None!

    By the way: in that photo it appears that the window had 4 glasses, and while the two right glasses ( from the observer) were on, the two left glasses were missing.

    Your say?

    Cheers

    Prof


    Yes, another painful sock puppet post, but probably still believable to those who really hope against hope that it is real. AR at least gets better at what he does over time--he grows and alters approach to give a more effective presentation. ;) The question is can the puppet master and his puppets put on a good enough show to convince a jury or will he be revealed as the clown and snake he is? (he, he, he)


    Umm... Rossi has unusual windows. When you open them the panes of glass are removed but the window frame stays in position!

    • Official Post

    It is not about faith but about facts.


    Fact is, there are several reports and expert opinions (such as the Lugano Report, the Penon Report, the Wong Opinion etc.pp.), which are mentioned in this court proceedings, from respected scientists, who confirm that the 1MW Ecat Plant works, Cherokee Investment Partner has only two technicians that make assumptions without having ever tested the system itself.


    And there is Cherokee Investment Partners, Thomas Darden et.al., who by all means try to get the entire IP of LENR Technology world-wide under their control with an impenetrable network of sham companies, where they do not even know themselves, witch management position they have inside this companies.


    Darden et al. wanted to prevent with restraint tactics that it comes to the long-term test and they have tried with contract trickery to get out of the obligation of paying 89 million dollars.


    All this was anticipated by Rossi and together with his lawyers and so they staged this fake event with JM-Products, to give Rossi the possibility to fulfill the contractual obligations, ie the long-term test, because Rossi could have waited for ever that Cherokee Investment Partner presented him the promised own customer and thus he would never have been able to fulfill the contract.


    Darden et al. were never interested in working with Rossi as an industrial partner, they wanted to get his IP and, above all, the formula for his fuel as quickly and cheaply as possible and then award licenses to other contract partners from the big industry and thereby become dizzying rich.


    At the end Rossi would have been still a marginal figure in this game.

  • It is not about faith but about facts.


    Fair enough. I'd like you to reflect on your points in this light:


    Quote

    Fact is, there are several reports and expert opinions (such as the Lugano Report, the Penon Report, the Wong Opinion etc.pp.), which are mentioned in this court proceedings, from respected scientists, who confirm that the 1MW Ecat Plant works, Cherokee Investment Partner has only two technicians that make assumptions without having ever tested the system itself.

    Let us clarify the facts here. Yes, 6 academics backed the Lugano report and have never recanted it but they do not defend it against very substantial scientific criticism. If you believe that credentials are all that matter here I think you are right that the Lugano report stands as one data point but you need also to consider the two other reports on lenr-canr that critique it, severely. One is credentialed. The other is semi-credentialed. Academics can make mistakes.


    The Wong opinion does not enter into this since even if he is correct, his report does not in any way validate Rossi's device. So as a fact it has marginal use. Rossi's lawyers are trying to get it removed from evidence on the grounds that it is all based on RossiSays with zero physical corroboration - I don't know if they will succeed but they have a point.


    You rate Smith and Murray as two technicians. Would you care to provide CV evidence showing that they are less well qualified to analyse these matters than Penon, or Rossi? I'm not sure that you can do this. Even if you can the qualified balance of independent opinion shown in the Court documents does not favour your case. Wong does not comment on the validity of the test. Rossi could have got his own experts to look at the system as Murray and Smith did, and contradict them. He chose not to do this.


    The points above are not facts. If you believe that they are then you can point to specific known evidence showing them true: but I don't see that as possible. They are I think your interpretation of events, conditioned by your view of the Lugano Report facts above. They don't add any new credibility.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.