Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

    Quote from maryyugo

    A lot of the absolutely stupid and ridiculously incompetent things IH (Darden and Vaughn) did in this whole incredible affair are beyond belief. Why did they not get independent confirmation of earlier simple high performance (18kW on a tabletop) Levi-type tests? By a famous test lab or major university **department** (not a few unknown scientists)? Why did they proceed with a completely absurd and unnecessary one year test which cost them $10M, and then allow Rossi and a few strange characters who worked for Rossi run the whole show? Why did they allow testing of multiple reactors at the same time when it would have been simpler and cleaner to test just one at a time? Why did they not have some reputable and knowledgeable third parties (heat flow, fluid flow and electrical measurement specialists) go thoroughly and cautiously over the experiment while it was running, looking for errors and sleight of hand tricks? Why did they not let such a team carry out calibrations upstream (at the input) and downstream (at the output) of Rossi's instruments, using entirely their own instruments? Why did they not check how the heat allegedly being used was in fact disposed of and measured, using their own experts? Did they not read all the allegations on the internet about what Rossi had done in the past (nothing but fraud and disasters and failures)? Even if they did not entirely believe it, why were they not more alert to the chance it might in part be true? Yes, it's beyond belief -- the whole thing is. IH's people have no business whatever investing other people's money in technological ventures and IMHO, if shareholders of IH or Woodford lose money, they should group together and sue to get it back.


    Mary,


    Because they know LENR is real and they just wanted Rossi's IP and park him for a while.


    Cheers,


    JB

    Quote from maryyugo

    Why did they proceed with a completely absurd and unnecessary one year test which cost them $10M,

    I do not think it cost them $10 million. By the time the one-year test began, they had already paid the $10 million. They had also performed many shorter tests on a small scale, and determined that the machines did not work. The 1-year test was a last-ditch effort that cost them little or nothing. They did not agree that it should be the definitive make-or-break test.


    That's what I've heard, anyway. People say that is what the lawsuit documents reveal. I have not read many of them so I don't know.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Why anyone would let the benefactor of $89 million take the water meter readings the money is ultimately based on is beyond me.


    Obviously. It is only because we've been teleported to some weird alternate dimension and are unwittingly drawn into a sort of Bizarro technical discussion that parallels a sane discussion in the other dimension that such an arrangement is implicitly defended and given support.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    @THH: E-cat test in Doral, DOCK 245/15 page 31 Data of 07/31 08/01. Just calculate...with delta T 34 degress.


    Yes with a COP of 1 you would have a pool water temperature close to 23 degrees the Doral daily average... Quite below what we would believe.


    Oh sorry. I forgott the bypass! There was no heat going to the other side, just fed back into the E-cat feed water pool....


    I thought we had explained Doral? I posted on this a while back. Lots of different error modes any of which can deliver this Rossi-COP

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Obviously. It is only because we've been teleported to some weird alternate dimension and are unwittingly drawn into a sort of Bizarro technical discussion that parallels a sane discussion in the other dimension that such an arrangement is implicitly defended and given support.


    Or.... maybe there wasn't $89 million riding on it, since it wasn't a GPT...


    5) That they did it correctly in the March (HT2) dummy run (conservatively calculated COP of 0.9), but wrong in the live run (COP 2.3).
    The live run was first, so there was no need to disconnect/reconnect the measurement into the control box between the tests.

    It is also very easy to inject air into the water stream to spin the turbine.

    We're still only at the tip of the iceberg of information shown to us in the filings. For example, the full depositions of all parties, the exhibits used in the depositions.


    eg : Either party could have hired a firm of chartered engineers (*) to strip down the 1MW system to its nuts and bolts, producing an as-built 3-d model with 1mm accuracy. (Think of how they handle the debris from a major air crash).


    What's in a Big Frankie? A bunch of fatcats, with fins? Could they superheat? How are the pipes connected? Is there a return flow from the bypass pump to the steam riser? What's the slope on the condensate return line? ..... etc etc


    Rossi apparently asked that the plant be restarted (and then chickened out) ... so they could have done a fully instrumented run in whole or in part.


    * Chartered Engineers .. that's a UK term. Not sure of the exact US equivalent.

    Quote from maryyugo

    A lot of the absolutely stupid and ridiculously incompetent things IH (Darden and Vaughn) did in this whole incredible affair are beyond belief. Why did they not get independent confirmation of earlier simple high performance (18kW on a tabletop) Levi-type tests? By a famous test lab or major university **department** (not a few unknown scientists)? Why did they proceed with a completely absurd and unnecessary one year test which cost them $10M, and then allow Rossi and a few strange characters who worked for Rossi run the whole show? Why did they allow testing of multiple reactors at the same time when it would have been simpler and cleaner to test just one at a time? Why did they not have some reputable and knowledgeable third parties (heat flow, fluid flow and electrical measurement specialists) go thoroughly and cautiously over the experiment while it was running, looking for errors and sleight of hand tricks? Why did they not let such a team carry out calibrations upstream (at the input) and downstream (at the output) of Rossi's instruments, using entirely their own instruments? Why did they not check how the heat allegedly being used was in fact disposed of and measured, using their own experts? Did they not read all the allegations on the internet about what Rossi had done in the past (nothing but fraud and disasters and failures)? Even if they did not entirely believe it, why were they not more alert to the chance it might in part be true? Yes, it's beyond belief -- the whole thing is. IH's people have no business whatever investing other people's money in technological ventures and IMHO, if shareholders of IH or Woodford lose money, they should group together and sue to get it back.

    Question number 1, why didn't IH perform the most minor of due diligence and look at Rossi's sordid history and qualifications (1 hr internet search required), done, end of story, $100 not wasted, much less $10M.

    Quote from guest111

    Question number 1, why didn't IH perform the most minor of due diligence and look at Rossi's sordid history and qualifications (1 hr internet search required), done, end of story, $100 not wasted, much less $10M.


    Guest111,


    They did a dd and they know LENR is real. Therefore they just wanted Rossi's IP and park him for a while.


    Cheers,


    JB

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Why anyone would let the benefactor of $89 million take the water meter readings the money is ultimately based on is beyond me.


    You are repeating a canard that is one of the talking points designed to introduce UD to the debate (UD is the Uncertainty and Doubt part of the FUD acronym). Note I am not accusing you of doing so deliberately; merely pointing it out since so you will be aware that this is what you are doing.


    Yes it's true that Rossi took water readings. But ultimately Penon was able to cross-check the figures that Rossi was supplying against the total flow of the meter reading when he personally took possession of the meter at the end of the test. Plus, he made two site visits during the test (May and October) and checked the meter personally then in order to cross-check the data Rossi was feeding him. So, no, the overall COP calculation did not hinge on Rossi's measurements. Say what else you will about the test, and people have imagined all kinds of ways Rossi might have cheated the tests -- we don't need this canard. Can we please dispose of it?


    And while I'm disposing of UD canards here, I might as well slay another one: everybody keeps saying that the Doral operation was not a test; that it was set up according to the term sheet and not according to the contract; the term sheet is not a contract. And so Darden et al. had no reason whatsoever to think it was some kind of test. And while I agree with the fact that the term sheet is not the contract, this line of reasoning completely ignores Penon's involvement. The term sheet says nothing whatsoever about anybody testing the heat production of the 1MW plant. But the contract does. So the very fact that IH agreed to Penon's test and even paid for half his salary indicates they did consider this to be the "the test" according to the contract, not the term sheet. On top of that, according to the e-mails in the court documents that I've seen, IH representatives referred to Penon as "the ERV." The e-mails between Rossi and Darden about Penon also indicate that they agreed to let him to be the ERV. Again, you will find no "ERV" in the term sheet. And do you honestly think it was "just a coincidence" that Penon's test lasted for the same amount of time that was specified in the contract (not the term sheet).


    So if we once again try to cut through the fog, the issue here is very simple: Yes, IH did consider the Doral plant to be the test as outlined in the contract. I don't see how they can plausibly deny that. Of course they have to try to deny it, but their denials ring false, and I think the jury will see through them. The court case will really hinge around IH's argument that the test was bad and unreliable. And from what I've seen, I'd say they have the upper hand on that count.


    But the question I keep coming back to that I simply cannot fathom is this: it's clear from Darden's deposition that they knew the test was garbage before it even started, so why did they allow it to go forward? Why did they continue to pay Penon and Fabiani and West? Why did they bring investors around to see the plant multiple times? I know people have answers to this, but I have not found them satisfying in the least.


    THH says it's because early on they didn't know the customer was bogus, and so they were holding out hope that the COP would be validated through the customer's word. But they did at least know by that point that the customer they were dealing with directly was a shell company whose president was Rossi's lawyer (even if they allegedly thought it was actually fronting Johnson Matthey). So here we really need to ask ourselves how plausible it is to that Darden, this by all accounts savvy investor with decades of experience, would believe that, let alone gamble $89 million on that basis. It sounds far-fetched, to say the least. On top of that, according to the depositions, they were allegedly told that Johnson Matthey would step forward after 90 days if the results were positive. Yet we know they had investors coming around to visit the plant long after those 90 days had passed. I have heard no plausible explanation for that.


    This raises another question, and perhaps somebody has an answer: at what point did Darden et al. realize that JM was not connected to Johnson Matthey in any way? That it was just Rossi and his lawyer? Did they realize after 90 days had passed that Johnson Matthey was not involved? If not, when did this "aha" moment allegedly come?

    joshg ,

    If there was some sort of constant reporting from the water meter, (the reed switch 100 L pulses from the sender that is standard with that meter type comes to mind) to a recording device out of the control of the operators of the Plant, that could corroborate the values reported in the ERV report, there would be a much greater degree of certainty about the reported water volume/mass in the report. If the meter was sped up, the plant shut down, the flow rate adjusted for one thing or another, then there would be a recognizable record of it in the pulse data. It would not be perfect, but it would orders of magnitude more informative about the flow characterstics than a daily manual record of water flow made by the one person with the most to gain from any shenanigans. This doesn't exclude any constant flow-related trickery, if there is any, but it would be a great body of proof to demonstrate that nightly spinning the meter type nonsense did or did not happen. At least approximately the cumulative daily pulse data should match the manual record.

    If there is such pulse data, I would hope that Rossi or Fabiani has supplied it. It should greatly help them corroborate their story. I wonder where Fabiani obtained his water meter values to generate the COP in his spreadsheets.

    If there is no pulse data, the question is "Why was the standard pulse sender not used?". The amount of condensate water circulated through the Plant is one of the most critical pieces of data in the whole ERV report. Why the use of redundant automatic measurements in almost every other aspect of the Plant, and not the water rate?

    The whole Doral thing is an ugly series of UDs, which is the opposite of GP, (if it was a GPT).

    If the Plant worked, it is possibly the most frightening, barely monitored nuclear plant ever built.

    Q.A. in order to make daily propaganda, a question from one of his puppets just putting on airs:


    Q.


    A.

    Quote

    Andrea Rossi
    April 30, 2017 at 10:22 PM

    Anonymous:
    Universita’ degli Studi Statale di Milano ( Italy ).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    Yeah, but this charlatan has a doctorate in Philosophy.


    Quote from JedRothwell

    Who told you they did not do this? Where did you get this information?

    See document 254-04,where Vaughn admits that he didn't promptly inform Rossi about the fact that IH had some trouble with the Doral test because of they feared about his reaction. IH wanted the test to finish in order to see if the technology worked.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There are three reasons why I am sure they told Woodford:


    1. The Internet works in the U.K. too. Woodford surely found out all about Rossi. How could he not know that Rossi is a huge risk who has been accused of criminal conduct and lying?


    2. This is business. If you do not reveal something like that, Woodford will find out and then demand his money back. If you don't return it, he will sue. That's how business works. You don't hide critical facts from people who invest $50 million. That would be a crazy thing to do.


    3. They told me and several other people. Why would they not tell Woodford? I never heard from him. In fact, I had never even heard of him until recently. But I expect he has heard of me, and of others in the cold fusion field. I would be surprised if he did not consult with researchers. Any researcher would tell him that Rossi's reputation is poison and his claims are questionable.


    You're talking about Rossi's reputation and about doubts connected with his "atypical" technology. No one questions the fact that IH has discussed about that with Woodford. But I refer to another thing: If IH really have had some concrete evidence that Rossi reactors did not work (ie IH had done tests with negative results), I do not think Woodford was been informed before his substantial payment.

    So either IH has achieved positive results from their tests, or has kept the truth hidden to their investors.

    Quote from sigmoidal

    I have experience working as an Engineer (over a decade). Rossi has demonstrated that he DEFINITELY DOES NOT have good engineering skills in any traditional sense. This may boil down to semantics, because I think what you are more accurately observing is that Rossi has some unique 'technical' skills.

    Have you ever made experiments where it was necessary to conceal some industrial secrets? Do you really think that it is easy to let others (experts in the matter) test a reactor, preventing them from fully understanding its functioning? People often forget that Rossi did not invent the E-Cat to give it to scientists. Rossi has always wanted to protect his own secrets and I think many seemingly strange choices (such as not wanting to use certain probes) are due to this reason.

    Quote from Roger

    The most plausible hypothesis is of course that Rossi is a hypnotist conman able to successfully mass hypnotize the scientists and engineers he works with, or who can study his works closely.

    As stated in document 254-04, also IH considers Rossi an unstable and difficult person, and with this excuse they made him believe that the Doral test was the GPT despite not considering it as such. For IH it was more important to get to the end of the test than tell Rossi that they did not want to pay for it. Perhaps for many people this is a normal attitude, typical of business people. In my opinion, it is the behavior of sharks.

    254-04:

    Did -- any time after October 2013 and

    18 prior to this lawsuit beginning, did Industrial Heat

    19 inform Dr. Rossi that, The time had passed, you could no

    20 longer achieve guaranteed performance, and you could no

    21 longer achieve an $89 million payment?

    22 A. I'm not sure that we informed him of that

    23 verbatim, as you stated.

    24 Q. Okay. Did you say it to him in any -- any

    25 summary of that, in any -- in any way did you say, Listen,

    the time has passed, you are -- we are not having a

    2 guaranteed performance test?

    3 A. I am trying to recall. You know, I -- I don't

    4 recall.

    5 Q. Do you think that was something that would be

    6 important to inform him, that he no longer had the

    7 opportunity to earn $89 million?

    8 A. Again, we were planning to pay him, if he could

    9 perform. Notwithstanding the fact that he had violated

    10 the agreement, not met the conditions of the agreement.

    11 So if we had done that, let's take a hypothetical

    12 scenario, dealing with a volatile character, you don't

    13 know how he is going to respond. Our goal, as stewards

    14 and as managers, is to determine definitively the state of

    15 the art. And by being confrontational, sooner rather than

    16 later, it ensured that you would just blow up in -- there

    17 was a chance, at least, that you would blow up the entire

    18 relationship and Andrea would stop working on it

    19 altogether and so, therefore, we just wouldn't know.

    20 Versus getting more information and getting more data to

    21 determine the state of the art.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    1. The Internet works in the U.K. too. Woodford surely found out all about Rossi. How could he not know that Rossi is a huge risk who has been accused of criminal conduct and lying?

    And so using the Internet that surely works in UK even after Brexit, they would find that Rossi has been cleared by all accusations and refund by the Italian state.

    Is your (IH) way of doing to say a half information accurately hiding the parts that you don't like ?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    This is business. If you do not reveal something like that, Woodford will find out and then demand his money back. If you don't return it, he will sue. That's how business works. You don't hide critical facts from people who invest $50 million. That would be a crazy thing to do.


    3. They told me and several other people.

    Really ?

    Where are this several people ? Who are they ? Anyway is interesting to observe that Woodford invested 50M$ even knowing what IH told them (BTW what IH told them exacly ?) so I presume that what they told was not to bad about the test.

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.