Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from sigmoidal

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

Is that what you young people call it these days?

Quote from Roger

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!"

To my certain knowledge that is not true. Long before the lawsuit was filed they told me they had doubts about Rossi's test, for reasons that I fully agreed with. You are making up false assertions about events you know nothing about.

You should stop doing that. Either you stop it, or you should clearly accuse me of lying. There is no middle ground here. I say, unequivocally, based on my experience, that you are wrong. This is not a technical dispute. This is a black and white, matter-of-fact about what the people at I.H. said to me, and to others. If you insist you are right, then you are calling me a liar. Go ahead and do that if you want, but let's not sugarcoat it.

I am sure you have no real evidence for your assertion, because I am sure it is not true. I do not think you are lying but I know for a fact you are wrong -- mistaken I suppose.

Quote from Roger

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!"

I would say I've rather thoroughly examined the evidence on the docket. If anything, I'm embarrassed by how much time I have spent (wasted?) examining the documents.

IH/Cherokee had their reactors tested by reputable Swedes who reported promising results. It was learned later that there was substantial error in the IR cameras used to measure heat output, and (as was more recently discovered in the court documents) that it was not an independent test as was claimed.

We also know from the docket that IH sincerely thought that test was valid for one to two years afterward.

As it turns out, there is now abundant evidence that the COP conclusions Rossi, IH and the Swedes made based on IR thermography were not supported by the manufacturer of the IR camera.

Others here (e.g. paradigmnoia and THH) have taken the time to identify large errors based on calibration and emissivity of alumina.

Murray obviously was familiar with these limitations and took precautions to 'crush the test' by installing an array of thermocouples. But that was later.

So, I agree with your assessment above in part: they built reactors, they had the Swedes test them, the positive report led them to think that they worked for a year or more, Rossi couldn't replicate for a whole year, though, and their trust that they really had something started sinking. At the same time their stated goal was to recruit investors for a portfolio of LENR technologies. Then Rossi sued them. You can bet that took them by surprise, and yes, 'suddenly lawsuit', as you say (but not initiated by them). And yes, that period spans a couple years and change.

I disagree that they said it definitely worked (ever). There is clear written communication showing that even in their early, more optimistic evaluation, both Vaughn and Darden reported promising but not definitive results (to other partners).

That's all on the Docket.

I'm picking up from the 'anti-IH' side that there is something very suspicious about this. I'm failing to see it with one possible exception: IH may have been promoting their portfolio of technologies as being more 'rosey' than they themselves believed, particularly some time after the beginning of 2015.

If that's what you think they are guilty of, I think that's an entirely reasonable (even if somewhat speculative) conclusion. (I haven't concluded one way or another regarding that later time, and it's not the focus of my interest in the case).

Quote from Roger

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.

Also, I disagree that this is an IP dispute, even if Rossi (and seemingly most of his followers) wants to try to make it that.

In fact, it is a performance dispute. The dispute is whether or not there was a 1-year test that met the performance clause for the $89 Million payment.

IH/IPH paid for a license to all Rossi's IP for $10 Million. This is clear from the signed agreement (the 'Second Amendment') on the docket. Rossi has made some absurd claims about this (for example, Rossi has accused IH/IPH of disclosing information without his permission, when, in fact the agreement clearly shows that only Rossi was prevented from disclosing information).

This again plays into some cynical anti-IH perspective which is not based on a plain reading of the agreement.

I don't understand how anyone who says this:

Quote from sigmoidal

I'm embarrassed by how much time I have spent (wasted?) examining the documents

Can also claim this:

Quote from sigmoidal

Then Rossi sued them. You can bet that took them by surprise

Nobody who has read any of the following court documents could possibly make such a claim with a straight face:

1. The letters that were going back and forth between Rossi, IH, and their Lawyers during the second half of 2015

2. Murray's deposition where he says that IH brought him to inspect the plant at the end of the test in anticipation of litigation

3. Fabiani's deposition discussing his meeting with Murray and Jones Day lawyers before Rossi filed suit (or Murray's deposition where he talks about the same meeting).

ROSSI'S LAWSUIT DID NOT COME AS A SURPRISE TO IH. Period. End of Sentence.

Can we finally once-and-for all drop that meme from this discussion? It has no connection to reality.

Quote from sigmoidal

IH may have been promoting their portfolio of technologies as being more 'rosey' than they themselves believed, particularly some time after the beginning of 2015.

If that's what you think they are guilty of, I think that's an entirely reasonable (even if somewhat speculative) conclusion.

Well at least we agree on that.

Quote from sigmoidal

They finally got it all together by December of 2015 EDIT: which is ONE year not two as you claim.

January 2014 to December of 2015 is nearly two years. And think about this: Murray tested his own modified version of the reactor for about three months before they closed up shop. Three months! And we are to believe that this was the amazing and indefatigable efforts to prove whether Rossi's ecat worked.

Edit:

@sig it was your post where you quoted Darden's testimony: Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

I think perhaps you should check your math!

Quote from sigmoidal

I'm failing to see it with one possible exception: IH may have been promoting their portfolio of technologies as being more 'rosey' than they themselves believed, particularly some time after the beginning of 2015.

I have absolutely no knowledge of what I.H. told their potential investors. There may be papers in the lawsuit docket about this, but I have not read them. I only read the technical stuff. However, as I said above, I.H. expressed doubts about Rossi's test to me while the test was underway. They told me this in confidence. They did not tell me the full extent of the problems. I do not know whether they grasped the full extent of the problems. But they expressed doubts for reasons I felt were well founded. I thought it sounded bad, but I hoped that Rossi would correct the problems.

I am repeating this to make a point. If I.H. was willing to tell me this, I find it inconceivable that they would not also tell potential investors. Apart from any other consideration, that would be a crazy thing to do because any technically savvy investor who visited Rossi's site in Florida would see some of the problems within minutes.

I had absolutely no knowledge of Rossi's shenanigans with fake companies, invoices for pretend energy delivery, or invisible mezzanine heat exchangers that only small children can see, like a fairy godmother or Peter Pan. It would be inappropriate for I.H. to tell me anything like that. I wouldn't want to know. Now that I have learned that stuff from the docket, my opinion of Rossi has plummeted. I used to think he had a screw loose. Now I am convinced he is a criminal, plus he may also have a screw loose. I cannot judge.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Murray tested his own modified version of the reactor for about three months before they closed up shop. Three months! And we are to believe that this was the amazing and indefatigable efforts to prove whether Rossi's ecat worked.

Are you saying three months is too long, or too short? Anyway, they tested several reactors for a lot longer than three months. It wasn't an amazing effort. It was conventional and prosaic. The results were clear-cut after a while.

Why do you find it so suspicious that people mistakenly got what looked like a positive result at first, and later determined it was negative? Why do you suspect they are lying, and covering up a success? If anything, people are inclined to cover up failure, not success.

There are many similar failures in cold fusion, and in many other fields of science and technology, such as medical research. You will find countless medical studies where researchers thought that treatment X would help cure cancer, or Alzheimer's or some other disease, and there were encouraging signs at first, but a large clinical test showed no effect compared to a placebo. That's how the cookie crumbles. That is not cheating. You should not condemn people or suspect them of a crime because they admit they made a mistake. When a test fails, people are supposed to admit it.

Quote from joshg

ROSSI'S LAWSUIT DID NOT COME AS A SURPRISE TO IH. Period. End of Sentence.

I should think that Rossi's lawsuit would come as a surprise to anyone. He resembles a person who breaks into your house on Christmas day, robs you at gunpoint, sets fire to your house, and then when he is running out to his car to escape, he slips on the ice. So he files a lawsuit against you because you did not shovel your walk.

If Rossi had any sense, he would have taken the $11 million and run. He should have set up shop in Sweden where he has a new set of marks lined up, ready to fleece. For him to turn around and try to fleece I.H. for $267 million more is extreme chutzpah. I have never seen anything so bold.

Quote from joshg

ROSSI'S LAWSUIT DID NOT COME AS A SURPRISE TO IH. Period. End of Sentence.

Can we finally once-and-for all drop that meme from this discussion? It has no connection to reality.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. It would have been very foolish for Rossi to preemptively sue IH (but not the other way around).

And lo and behold, what did Rossi do? He sued them!

1. Thereby destroying any chance he might have in the foreseeable future to negotiate with anyone else (for example Hydrofusion - how's that working out).
2. Thereby destroying any amiable relationship with Rossi's only actual serious financial supporter.
3. Thereby putting the already paid $11.5 Million at risk.
4. Thereby fully exposing his fake "customer" scheme.

From any reasonable perspective, Rossi's suit against IH was a monumentally bad idea.

I believe IH did not expect that he would have that much 'chutzpah' or stupidity (they often seem to go together though).

So, I guess we'll just have to completely disagree, because although Rossi was threatening, I don't think IH thought Rossi was seriously stupid enough to sue them.

But, here we are, 'cause he did. In a way, I'm thankful, because any other action would almost certainly led to some settlement that would shield Rossi from being exposed as the fraudulent con-man that he has proven to be.

And anyway, YOU are the one saying 'suddenly lawsuit', so aren't you eroding your own assertion if you are now saying that a lawsuit was brewing for several months (and I admit that there is obvious legal jousting on the docket starting Nov./Dec. 2015)?

Perhaps this is really mostly semantics - I certainly agree that there were legal rumblings in the 'final phase' from late 2015 through lawsuit commencement, though I definitely don't think they expected Rossi to preemptively sue.

My point is that seems to me to be consistent with the 'downward' trajectory that started getting serious (honeymoon phase completely over) around Dec. 2014. Not some sort of strangely and suspiciously inconsistent behavior by IH, as you seem to be asserting.

(And again, I am willing to concede the possibility of overly 'rosey' communications to investors subsequent to their early 2015 concerns. I don't know one way or another)

Quote from JedRothwell

I am repeating this to make a point. If I.H. was willing to tell me this, I find it inconceivable that they would not also tell potential investors. Apart from any other consideration, that would be a crazy thing to do because any technically savvy investor who visited Rossi's site in Florida would see some of the problems within minutes.

That's really interesting, Jed. I did not know that. This whole thing must be absolutely surreal given your experience.

Thanks for sharing.

Woodfords initial investment to IH was around £32m.

It looks from the latest Woodford year end reports that the figure is now around £18m.

So either they lost some - but other than the money Darden threw at Rossi (which I thought was his own money) I don't see what they might have lost.

Or Woodford asked for some back.

Which is a shame because that was money to be targeted to LENR investment.

To me the ledger looks like;

Rossi got $11million from IH. That is a cold hard fact.

What did IH get from Rossi? Some fictious technology. Does it work? Well we have over 6,000 posts arguing that point, so we cannot say for a fact that it does.

Looks like IH are the ones who lost out and should be complaining.

Quote from sigmoidal

From any reasonable perspective, Rossi's suit against IH was a monumentally bad idea.

From your (IH) point of view it was a bad idea. But not from the point of view of Rossi.

Your points 1) and 2) are simply nonsense.

Because US Justice system works quite well is standard practice for companies to resolve conflicts in Court.

Apple sued Samsung and vice versa and still both companies are making business together.

In fact Rossi had to sue IH otherwise hi would lose any credibility with his other partners. No one would make serious relationship with somebody who simply give up to 89M$.

Point 3): yes he is spending his money but that is normal in industry. He is in fact investing it and is his own money not founds risen from investors like IH.

Point 4): This is your own (IH) opinion. From the papers that I have seen the costumer was real. Mails to coordinate the work among Rossi and the costumer are normal practice. In any industry B2B activity there are communications among who give a service and who receives that service.

Quote from sigmoidal

I believe IH did not expect that he would have that much 'chutzpah' or stupidity

IH was expecting to take Rossi technology almost for free. He has seen Rossi just as a weak and alone inventor to be eaten by the "smart businessman".

In that IH was blind and stupid.

Quote from IH Fanboy

January 2014 to December of 2015 is nearly two years. And think about this: Murray tested his own modified version of the reactor for about three months before they closed up shop. Three months! And we are to believe that this was the amazing and indefatigable efforts to prove whether Rossi's ecat worked.

Edit:

@sig it was your post where you quoted Darden's testimony: Rossi vs. Darden developments - Part 2

I think perhaps you should check your math!

Alright, I may have this wrong. Darden says "This was around Christmastime or early January of '14. And I remember that date."

I assumed that since Rossi was in Miami, this was after Doral agreement was signed in summer of '14, and that 'Christmastime' was linked to "of '14".

But, it appears I may have that wrong, and thus may have entered "knucklehead territory".

So apologies for that, and I will go back and edit my posts, correcting the text and providing attribution.

I'm hoping to exit knucklehead territory soon, but reserve the right to return for future posts! If I happen to see you (IHFB) hanging out there, maybe we can grab a beer.

Quote from JedRothwell

He resembles a person who breaks into your house on Christmas day, robs you at gunpoint, sets fire to your house, and then when he is running out to his car to escape, he slips on the ice.

Jed what kind of people do you know?

As usual your post is like an insult (to Rossi) and do not add any information.

As I explained in the previous post IH was just trying to get the Rossi technology almost for free. They undervalued Rossi and his capacity as entrepreneur so they played the part of the "smart businessmen" who try to eat the poor inventor.

If you read the history of Darden he has done that other times in a serial way.Eventually they ware ready to rake all founds risen by investors just saying that "the technology hasn't worked".

I find that the idea that IH fraudulently represented LENR to the investors unlikely ridiculous because if we had there would be a three way not a two way lawsuit. Woodford, etc. have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders/investors to look out for their financial interests which would include civil and criminal action. The only way that a civil lawsuit would be out is if Woodford, etc. figured the cost of a lawsuit was not recoverable in court. I have seen multiple way civil lawsuit among clients, engineering companies, and contractors multiple times over much less money.

For example, I was hired as a pipefitter working for a contractor who was hired by an engineering company to install a new vessel in an industrial plant. The job was supposed to take four weeks working 40 hours a week with a crew of 14-17. The company I was hired by were hired on a cost plus basis. The engineering company told us to fabricate the piping according to drawings instead of us going out and taking onsite measurements. This decision sent the job into 7 weeks consisting of 2 40 hour weeks, two 60 hour weeks, two 84 hour weeks, and one 70 hour week. Before the client had even signed off on the vessel their was a three way lawsuit started and this was peanuts compared to what is at stake here.

I've made a promise to myself and to a certain three-letter palindromic commenter here (not named 'bob') to not converse, based on the (low) quality of the commentary.But if anyone else wants to wipe those spitballs off the wall, that's fine with me.

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Looks like IH are the ones who lost out and should be complaining.

For a real investor loss risk is normal. IH was knowing it's eventual risks and before paying the money IH has done tests with its own experts.

The test were positive and IH payed just a little part of the money in the contract.

We should repeat again and again that everything was ok when IH was collecting money (much more then 89M$ !) from its own investors.

IH had one whole year to complain. Just when IH had to pay Rossi then they woke up and refused.

Quote from ele

As I explained in the previous post IH was just trying to get the Rossi technology almost for free.

Rossi agreed to sell them the rights to half the world for $100 million. You say that is "almost for free." If Rossi also thought that was almost for free, he should not have signed the contract. Or, if he changed his mind, he should have returned the $11 million.

Once you sign a contract, you have to follow through and do what you agreed to do. You can't just decide "that was almost for free" so you will keep the down-payment and not give the customer what you sold him. If you do not give him the product, you cannot sue him for not paying the rest.