Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • I remember one very dangerous experiment, which was spread all over the internet, where a person sold a nice and interesting experiment, wich many people repeated. That resulted in a lot of injuries, because the person, who spread that experiment intentionally wanted the repeaters to be injured... strange people out there.

  • This is just a heads-up that I find that the signal to noise ratio in your posts to be especially low. Please stop trying to turn the discussion of this thread away from the topic at hand and towards the members of this forum, either directly or through vague innuendo, such as in this case.

    Eric, I have no idea what you're trying to say here, or even why. I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, so all I can comment on are the semantics or subtle innuendo contained here. I believe this stuff is far more pertinent and will turn out to be a much larger part of the case over all than all the technical gobbledegook, which is likely to put the jury to sleep long before they are able to digest even a small part of it. Since you don't like the high "signal to noise (?)" ratio in this category I will now stop posting here altogether and limit myself to pushing the like button once in a while. Lord knows I don't want to be banned again.

  • Rionrlty, please stop accusing people of being APCO shills. We try to keep things polite and collegial here, and we assume good intentions as much as possible (it is not always possible). There are others who also engage in this kind of thing, unfortunately, but they also make technical or legal contributions. You stand out in pursuing little but ad hominem attacks. Please stop.


    If you do not want to contribute to the legal or technical discussions, it would be entirely fine if you stop posting here.

    • Official Post

    THH,


    Great write up. Just one point I would like to make: other than IH, there was another investor group willing to invest in Rossi. It was in Sept 2012, the group was Swedish, and they had SP do their DD. That was the one test sponsored by Hydrofusion, and it failed within I believe the first few minutes, when SP discovered Rossi's underestimating power input by 1/3. You have noted that in other posts as one of his cheat modes. Anyways, the group walked away from the deal.


    And yes, that is the same failed test, enshrined in the IH/Rossi lawsuit, where e-mail evidence presented by IH shows Rossi bragging to TD about "tricking" HF, by purposely failing the test.


    http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…hejdad-efter-test-6403722


    Other than that, I agree with you also, that the Rossi guerillas are trying their best to turn this into a case of class warfare, instead of what it is. Rossi is a strange choice as their working class hero to rally behind, in his struggle against the bourgeoisie IH, but we are down to the hardcore, so maybe not so surprising. :)

  • If your goal with a patent is to teach others your secrets, then it fails.

    A patent that does not teach others your secrets is invalid, by definition. As summarized by Russ George:


    U.S. law requires that the applicant for a patent provide a written description in “such full, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art… to make and use [the invention].” The patent statute additionally obliges the applicant to “set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.” (35 U.S.C. § 112).


    See also:


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/112

  • But apparently the patent office thinks it passed the bar and granted the patent, so your point is moot.

    The Patent Office thought that, but if the patent is later challenged and it is shown that the patent does not teach the secrets, it will be revoked. The Patent Office both givith and taketh away. A patent is not a one-time irrevocable license.


    The patent must allow a "person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) to replicate. So, if your patent does not teach your secrets, it is worthless. Whatever else your goal may be, you must teach your secrets. As Russ George puts it, patents are not for the sole benefit of the inventor.


    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge…11/30/patents-must-teach/

  • Follow the fuel. We are told by Darden that as early as January, 2014, he discovered that a dummy reactor (without fuel) gave essentially the same performance as fueled reactors. So he would have known by then that the e-Cat fuel was scam-fuel. Then, fast forward to Christmas, 2015, nearly two years later. We have Darden carefully guarding the secrets of the scam-fuel, even asking Murray and another person to leave the lab area, so that he could load the scam-fuel into the reactor.


    It was paramount for Darden to protect the secrets of the scam-fuel, because if those secrets got out, and anybody had access to them, anybody would be able to build a scam reactor using the scam fuel, and it would have seriously hindered IH's valuation.


    215-3, 106-107

    21· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Do you know when he prepared the fuel?

    22· · · · A.· · We had those, so we went through and

    23· ·validated the operation of the empty reactors.· And then

    24· ·about, around Christmas, a little before Christmas Tom

    25· ·came into the lab, I think it was on a Saturday, and he·

    1· ·brought fuel from some other site.· And he asked I think

    ·2· ·myself and one other person were there, he asked us to

    ·3· ·actually leave the lab area and go up into the office

    ·4· ·area.· And then he went back under the chemical hood and

    ·5· ·fuelled up the one reactor and then put just the nickel

    ·6· ·powder in the other reactor, closed them all up, sealed

    ·7· ·them, and then we put them into the, into the test

    ·8· ·chamber.

  • @Nigel,


    Murray said that "Tom Darden was the keeper of the trade secrets.· Nobody else knew anything about the details of the fuel technology." And he emphasized throughout his explanation of what was happening with the e-Cat and his replication of it. That was the reason. And as late as Christmas 2015, Darden felt it extremely important to protect the secret of the scam fuel.

  • @Nigel,


    Murray said that "Tom Darden was the keeper of the trade secrets.· Nobody else knew anything about the details of the fuel technology." And he emphasized throughout his explanation of what was happening with the e-Cat and his replication of it. That was the reason. And as late as Christmas 2015, Darden felt it extremely important to protect the secret of the scam fuel.

    yes, and that was done so the info did not "get out" It is strange that Rossi accuses him (see the court docs) of giving the secrets to China and the others. It is like the Rossi folks want it both ways. Darden kept it a secret but gave it away.

  • Follow the fuel. We are told by Darden that as early as January, 2014, he discovered that a dummy reactor (without fuel) gave essentially the same performance as fueled reactors. So he would have known by then that the e-Cat fuel was scam-fuel. Then, fast forward to Christmas, 2015, nearly two years later. We have Darden carefully guarding the secrets of the scam-fuel, even asking Murray and another person to leave the lab area, so that he could load the scam-fuel into the reactor.


    It was paramount for Darden to protect the secrets of the scam-fuel, because if those secrets got out, and anybody had access to them, anybody would be able to build a scam reactor using the scam fuel, and it would have seriously hindered IH's valuation.


    So what's the point here?


    Yes, he was guarding the fuel because there was still a possibility of the E-Cat working in his mind. Even if it was a small possibility, they'd forked over more than $12Million and a lot of time trying to figure out if it worked or not. And he was not acting alone: he had a responsibility to other investors on the team to find out for sure one way or another. But he couldn't get a definitive answer from Rossi.


    Does that sound familiar? Rossi is perhaps one of the most gifted persons in the world at preventing anyone from getting a definitive answer about his stuff (notice that we're over 6,000 posts because he obfuscates).


    And Darden finds that Barker Dameron's technological ability was not adequate, so he has to find a more qualified technologist (Murray), build a new facility, build new safe and fully instrumented reactors, and attempt to 'crush the test'.


    This took time. It took longer than Darden hoped (we know from a page earlier in Murray's deposition that you cite). They finally got it all together by December of 2015 EDIT: which is ONE year not two as you claim. EDIT OF EDIT: IHFB was correct, it appears to be about two years.


    If, on the other hand, Rossi had dealt with the dummy reactor measuring full COP like any reasonable investigator, he would not have had to go to the lengths he did to 'crush the test'.


    If the point is to show how inconsistent finding the alarming dummy reactor with full COP was when he was guardedly fueling a reactor one two years later that he hoped would 'crush the test', then I would say that's just another swing and a miss.


    Except that it again points out the high costs of trying to find truth from a person who's expertise is in obfuscating the truth.


    That Rossi is an expert in obfuscating the truth is now indisputable.

  • Follow the fuel. We are told by Darden that as early as January, 2014, he discovered that a dummy reactor (without fuel) gave essentially the same performance as fueled reactors. So he would have known by then that the e-Cat fuel was scam-fuel. Then, fast forward to Christmas, 2015, nearly two years later. We have Darden carefully guarding the secrets of the scam-fuel, even asking Murray and another person to leave the lab area, so that he could load the scam-fuel into the reactor.


    IHFB:


    As always, you make assumptions. Assumption in red. In this case you suppose the only reason the fuelled reactor was not working is it has scam-fuel. From IH POV, after this episode, there must be a decent chance Rossi has nothing and it is (maybe) a scam. But, in the chance that Rossi's stuff does really work, maybe they have done something wrong with the reactor setup, or the way they are driving it, or that specific batch of fuel was stored wrong etc, etc. They were not technically savvy (Dameron, not Murray), and no-one understands exactly what makes LENR work or not work. Many people reckon the exact details of the fuel preparation matter and are easy to get wrong.


    How is it you reckon Darden so incompetent that he assumes if one batch of fuel in one reactor does not work, therefore all fuel in all reactors will never work? No-one having looked at LENR results would think this.


    Darden would also know that Rossi wanted this extreme secrecy with the fuel, and it was one thing he could give him easily.


    EDIT: overlapped with Sigmoidal saying much the same.

  • We are told by Darden that as early as January, 2014, he discovered that a dummy reactor (without fuel) gave essentially the same performance as fueled reactors. So he would have known by then that the e-Cat fuel was scam-fuel. Then, fast forward to Christmas, 2015, nearly two years later.


    Also, check your sources (or your math): you're off by a full year. Darden (with Rossi) discovered the dummy reactor problem some time between December 2013 2014 and January 2014 2015, according to his deposition.


    EDIT: I apparently have this wrong. IHFB pointed out my error and it appears that he was correct in it being about two years.


    So that is about one year exactly. Not two. According to the information on the Docket.

  • I really like how a certain category of people use inverted accusations once they're cornered.


    "You're just assuming IH did know it didn't worked! Look, they were testing it for 2+ straight, after having observed significant excess heat with the reactors they built themselves, and IH/Cherokee are such nice people that they wanted to keep on attracting investors to fund what they knew was a scam, because they told us they knew it didn't work"


    All your filibuster is based on conjectures, assumptions, obfuscation, and hearsay coming from a single array of sources, which can all be traced back to IH/Cherokee. Why don't you use the court documents instead?



    This is getting grotesque. However, it's nicely congruent with the paradigm problem modern physics face. On one hand, some people want to bend or ignore facts so they fit in, or don't disturb, the theories they support. On the other hand, other people study facts and begin to refine existing theories about them.


    Macrocosm/microcosm, everything is a mandala etc. What we're seeing in the Rossi/IH lawsuit debate is the mirror of what's happening in scientific debates pertaining to unexplained phenomena.

  • I really like how a certain category of people use inverted accusations once they're cornered.


    Are you talking about yourself?


    Please read the deposition of Murry that was presented, also, be sure to familiarize yourself with the other facts on the docket. (By facts, I am talking about what content exists on the docket - not whether the content is necessarilly truthful or not). That's where you can find that 1) Murray was brought on subsequent to Barker as another tester with additional experience and skill, and 2) that it was not 2 years as IHFB wrongly calculated but actually one and EDIT: I apparently have this wrong - it appears to be about 2 years as IHFB stated 3) elsewhere you will find ample evidence that Rossi intentionally obfuscates.


    Regarding whether or not IH is "good" or "bad", I really don't find that to be particularly interesting, and I don't know why some are so intent on establishing this.


    I know for sure IH was "bad" at due diligence and "bad" at experimental design when it comes to heat-producing devices. There is ample evidence to make that conclusion. There is also evidence on the docket that they tried to address those deficiencies, with mixed results.


    They may or may not be "good" or "bad" venture capitalists. Is that really interesting to you? If so, OK, to each his own. It's not really very interesting to me.


    But when commenters come up with implausible explanations or actual errors, it's appropriate to correct them based on what is known.


    So please do that.

  • Good or bad have nothing to do with this debate. It's an IP dispute, and IH/Cherokee may or may not have been clumsily generous with Rossi's tech.

    Please read all depositions. From the IH side, I read a lot of "we didn't know what we didn't know", "I'm not sure" and "It can't have worked because my conjectures tell otherwise"

    Once again, facts: Autumn 2013, IH/Cherokee build reactors themselves, they say they work (with the usual and standard disclaimers). Fast forward 2+ years, they've gathered investments, suddenly lawsuit, and the tune they play becomes "oh but it never worked we just didn't know it didn't!"