You do not think so many academics would be deliberately deceitful.
No, it makes you think, doesn't it?
Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]
- barty
- Closed
-
-
No, it makes you think, doesn't it?
yes Alan - but not in the same direction as you!
-
This contract was predicated on the Penon ERV report. That is supposed to be proof that the machine worked. That report is a travesty.
@ JED: That's the problem. They got quarterly Penon reports and didn't complain (about the travesty.. defect pressure meter..) until they got the final one.
And complain means: "In written words signed and sealed with an attorney!"
Legally all burden is on IH. The law is very clear. If you don't complain in time, then the hurdle is very, very high.
We all do not like the way Doral was run. Nobody here is an AR suporter. I only see IH-suporters...
Let's hope they will find a way out...
-
Display More
@ JED: That's the problem. They got quarterly Penon reports and didn't complain (about the travesty.. defect pressure meter..) until they got the final one.
And complain means: "In written words signed and sealed with an attorney!"
Legally all burden is on IH. The law is very clear. If you don't complain in time, then the hurdle is very, very high.
We all do not like the way Doral was run. Nobody here is an AR suporter. I only see IH-suporters...
Let's hope they will find a way out...
I might agree with this, except...
They had a signed Term Sheet obviously different from the contract.
This test was clearly agreed between Rossi and IH to be a sale of power to a customer. No mention of customer in the GPT.
The license agreement 2nd Amendment was never signed, for non-trivial reasons.
Rossi behaved as though it was the GPT - and IH did not correct him clearly (letter from attorney) at the start. But, then, at the start how could they know he would treat this as GPT - and in any case it is not clear to me it should be their responsibility to put Rossi right when he flagrantly misinterprets the contract.
Rossi, we know, does not listen to criticism, and if people continue forcibly putting him right he walks off in a huff. IH did not do the forcibly bit until late in the day (at which point he indeed was at 'em with lawyers). Perhaps they should have done it earlier. Are they therefore liable? No right-thinking Jury would agree that after hearing about the Rossi customer fiction...
-
I'm certain that if the Judge needs an Expert they need e.g. from MIT regarding LENR or any other University for general Engineering.
The judge cannot call in an expert from MIT or anywhere else. The plaintiff or the defense has to do this, and they have to pay the expert. I.H. called in Smith, who is a superb expert witness. They are paying him, as noted in the deposition.
In some cases, courts can appoint a "special master" but I do not think this case merits that. The technical details are not complicated.
-
@ JED: That's the problem. They got quarterly Penon reports and didn't complain (about the travesty.. defect pressure meter..) until they got the final one.
They did complain. Loudly. Often.
And complain means: "In written words signed and sealed with an attorney!"
Legally all burden is on IH. The law is very clear. If you don't complain in time, then the hurdle is very, very high.
Who told you they did not do this? Where did you get this information?
-
They got quarterly Penon reports and didn't complain (about the travesty.. defect pressure meter..) until they got the final one.
Wytennbach,
Due IH's concerns about what Rossi was up to, they tried to get Murray into the plant in July 2015. That was 6 months after the start of the test, so obviously they were not too happy about something pre-July. As we know, or should know, Rossi refused that Murray visit, which was a violation of the Term Sheet, that specifically allowed any IH employee access to the plant.
-
Perhaps not surprisingly, I see things a little differently.
TC and THH typically make assumptions that are badly broken by the real system - but if the assumptions were correct their conjecture would be correct. There may be a few more egregious issues - like possible conflicts of interest, reputation staking, etc. In the first case, TC has now "disappeared" from the forum. Doubtless he will explain away his absence once the Rossi affair is all resolved.
So:
- Many early tests - assume spikey waveform, and that the measuring instrument is not capable of measuring or properly determining power notwithstanding the waveform shape
- Water flow calorimetry - assume no phase change when there was
- Water flow calorimetry (2) - assume TC measures metal tube temp when in fact it measures water temp
- "Samovar" test (6 hours SSM claim that confused many) - assume a hot core can fit in the space provided, which wasn't much, and assumes nothing else was in the small metal box, and also assume water flow calorimetry error type (2) when it is unlikely
- Lugano - assume alumina is not a grey body, which leads to the conclusion that the COP is impossible, and assume that COP should always stay constant and never change or increase (because, well, COPs should stay constant right?)
- QuarkX - assume fluorescent radiation is not coming from a black body, assume transparent container surface, assume assume assume
-
I.H. called in Smith, who is a superb expert witness.
The very expert witness who deduced that the return condensate pipe was full.
-
Due IH's concerns about what Rossi was up to, they tried to get Murray into the plant in July 2015. That was 6 months after the start of the test, so obviously they were not too happy about something pre-July. As we know, or should know, Rossi refused that Murray visit, which was a violation of the Term Sheet, that specifically allowed any IH employee access to the plant.
I think the relationship started breaking down mid 2015. Rossi had likely caught wind by then of IH/Darden's other "portfolio" of LENR researchers, which was probably a shock to him. He then probably took a closer look at the contract at that point, and realized that it had been written in a way where the preservation of trade secrets was a one-way street, in IH's favor. At that point, he realized what a bad deal he was in, and probably made the decision not to let an "unknown" into the plant area to snoop around.
-
The very expert witness who deduced that the return condensate pipe was full.
The very expert witness that saw no pipes outside of the Plant, since they were removed before he got there. Perhaps he was foolish to think that the water meter was installed and used correctly, because assembling nuclear-powered steam plants with improper measuring equipment would be astonishingly stupid.
-
Does anyone have a link to any evidence that Penon signed off on the report. I keep looking and find the report but nothing along the lines that he signed it. Perhaps he wrote it or perhaps Rossi wrote it and was to have Penone sign it. At any rate, I don't find a signature anywhere.
-
The very expert witness that saw no pipes outside of the Plant, since they were removed before he got there.
But who also presumably was able to inspect the many pictures and measurements of all of the pipes and connections. Because Dewey and Jed have said that IH carefully took and preserved those.
-
Does anyone have a link to any evidence that Penon signed off on the report. I keep looking and find the report but nothing along the lines that he signed it. Perhaps he wrote it or perhaps Rossi wrote it and was to have Penone sign it. At any rate, I don't find a signature anywhere.
And your concern is? That the ERV report did not come from Penon?
-
It obvious that photos can be interpreted many different ways by different people.
Let the Doral warehouse windows and Lugano IR images be a lesson to photographers and image producers: Make the images as clear and unambiguous as possible, or someone can or will use them as evidence of the opposite of the reality they are supposed to represent.
-
And your concern is? That the ERV report did not come from Penon?
That is a valid concern. I see no engineer stamp on it, or a signature.
Maybe, not being certified in the USA, Penon could not legally put his stamp on the report.
-
. . . or someone can or will use them as evidence of the opposite of the reality they are supposed to represent.
With that I can most definitely agree.
-
That is a valid concern. I see no engineer stamp on it, or a signature.
Para, I'm disappointed in you. You've been grasping for the past 2-3 pages. It is uncharacteristic of you, and doesn't bolster my confidence in your abilities (which I think overall are quite good).
-
Perhaps not surprisingly, I see things a little differently.
TC and THH typically make assumptions that are badly broken by the real system - but if the assumptions were correct their conjecture would be correct. There may be a few more egregious issues - like possible conflicts of interest, reputation staking, etc. In the first case, TC has now "disappeared" from the forum. Doubtless he will explain away his absence once the Rossi affair is all resolved.
So:
- Many early tests - assume spikey waveform, and that the measuring instrument is not capable of measuring or properly determining power notwithstanding the waveform shape
- Water flow calorimetry - assume no phase change when there was
- Water flow calorimetry (2) - assume TC measures metal tube temp when in fact it measures water temp
- "Samovar" test (6 hours SSM claim that confused many) - assume a hot core can fit in the space provided, which wasn't much, and assumes nothing else was in the small metal box, and also assume water flow calorimetry error type (2) when it is unlikely
- Lugano - assume alumina is not a grey body, which leads to the conclusion that the COP is impossible, and assume that COP should always stay constant and never change or increase (because, well, COPs should stay constant right?)
- QuarkX - assume fluorescent radiation is not coming from a black body, assume transparent container surface, assume assume assume
LOL. You don't know how uninformed you sound when inverting my statements! Some of them are plain obvious physics, so the inversion is just plain contradiction (e.g. the last two points). The first point was proven by Mats, of all people, so trying to invert it now is flying in face of historical fact. There is nothing wrong with being uninformed - except when as here you pretend to be informed. Points 2,3,4 are complex and I will not attempt to reiterate them here.
-
